Responding to the allegation that Hafs is accused of lying
Before explaining Hafs’s leadership in the recitation,
I would like to explain to you that Hafs is one of the narrators of the recitation of Asim, and Asim has many narrators,
students of Asim who recited the Qur’an to him, very many, and a group of them recited to each one of them, and some of the narrations of Asim that are additional to the narrations of Shu’bah and Hafs, their chains of transmission remained connected to the recitation and teaching of them until the time of Imam Ibn al-Jazari in the ninth century AH, and until now, permission is given to some of the reciters
who recite with these narrations
, students of Asim who recited to him. Imam Ibn al-Jazari counted among them in Ghayat al-Nihaya fi Tabaqat al-Qurra’ twenty-three narrators who narrated the entire Qur’an from him, then he said, “And countless people,” then he mentioned after that some of those who recited to him some of the letters [i.e. the words that are disputed among the reciters] ] Only, he said:
Asim bin Bahdalah Abi Al-Najoud with the opening of the letter “nun”... Al-Kufi Al-Hannat with the silent letter and the letter “nun”, the Sheikh of recitation in Kufa and one of the seven reciters... The recitation was narrated from him by Aban bin Taghlib, Aban bin Yazid Al-Attar, Ismail bin Mukhallad, Al-Hasan bin Saleh, Hafs bin Sulayman, Al-Hakam bin Dhahir, Hammad bin Salamah in one opinion, Hammad bin Zaid, Hammad bin Abi Ziyad, Hammad bin Amr, Sulayman bin Mihran Al-A’mash, Salam bin Sulayman Abu Al-Mundhir, Sahl bin Shu’ayb, Abu Bakr Shu’bah bin Ayyash, Shaiban bin Mu’awiyah, Al-Dahhak bin Maymun, Asmah bin Urwah, Amr bin Khalid, Al-Mufaddal bin Muhammad, Al-Mufaddal bin Sadaqah according to what Al-Ahwazi mentioned, Muhammad bin Raziq, Na’im bin Maysarah, Na’im bin Yahya, and countless others.
And Abu Amr bin Al-Ala, Al-Khalil bin Ahmed, Al-Harith bin Nabhan, Hamza Al-Zayyat, Al-Hamadan, Al-Mughirah Al-Dhabi, Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Azrami, and Harun bin Musa narrated letters from him from the Qur’an. (Ghayat Al-Nihaya 1/275, 276)
If we assume that Asim made a mistake in any image, verse, or word from a verse, even the smallest seeker of knowledge will respond to him,
because we have proven the frequency of the recitation and the large number of narrators, so it was not limited to him alone
. Returning to our topic, we say that the Qur’an is not transmitted with individual chains of transmission, as the common Muslims know, let alone seekers of knowledge.
The discussion remains about the chains of transmission, and they were recorded to preserve the unbroken chain of transmission, nothing more. When you say the recitation of Asim, you mean the recitation of the people of Kufa or a large group of them, who could not have colluded to lie in that era. It was attributed to him because of his mastery of recitation and his long life, and the long life that God blessed him with.
Nafi’ was 90 years old,
Ibn Kathir was 75 years old,
Abu Amr was 86 years old,
Ibn Amir was 100 years old,
Hamza was 76 years old,
Al-Kisa’i was 70 years old.
As for Asim, he lived a long life and died in the year 127 AH. He was the Sheikh of the reciters of Kufa after Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sammali
. =============
A lot of talk took place between Imam Ibn al-Jazari and the Imam who reached the level of absolute ijtihad, Abd al-Wahhab Ibn al-Subki al-Shafi’i, may God be pleased with him, on the subject of recitations. Ibn al-Jazari addressed him with a question and said:
What do the honorable scholars, the imams of religion, say about the Quran and the ten readings that are recited today? Are they mutawatir or not? And is everything that one of the ten recites alone with a letter mutawatir or not? And if it is mutawatir, what is required of me to deny it or a letter of it?
He answered, and this is the text:
Praise be to Allah. The readings that Ash-Shatibi limited himself to and the three, which are the reading of Abu Ja`far, the reading of Ya`qub, and the reading of Khalaf, are mutawatir and known in the religion by necessity, and every letter that one of the ten recites alone is known in the religion by necessity that it was revealed to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace. No one would deny any of that except an ignorant person. And the mutawatir of any of them is not limited to those who recite according to the narrations, rather they are mutawatir with every Muslim who says, “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,” even if he is also a common, coarse person who does not memorize a single letter of the Quran.
This is a long report and a broad proof that this paper cannot explain. It is the right and fortune of every Muslim to believe in Allah the Almighty and to be certain that what we have mentioned is mutawatir and known with certainty, and nothing of it is subject to suspicion or doubt, and Allah knows best.
Look at Al-Munjid Al-Muqri’in by Ibn Al-Jazari, and you will find evidence of the mutawatir recitation of each of the seven and the traces indicating that, and how if someone isolated a letter from the people of that country from the reciters, how they would deny that to him even if his chain of transmission was authentic. Because the Qur’an is defined as the word of Allah written between two covers, transmitted to us by mutawatir, miraculous recitation.
As for accusing Hafs of weakness and lying
, know that it is not necessary for a person to be trustworthy in the science of recitations that he be trustworthy in the science of hadith. This is something that is self-evident to the imams of hadith and recitations. In any case, I will convey to you what Imam Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi said about Hafs. I chose to convey to you the words of Imam al-Dhahabi rather than any other imam, because he was an imam in the sciences of hadith and recitations. He said - may Allah have mercy on him - when he wrote a biography of Hafs ibn Sulayman in his book Ma'rifat al-Qurra' al-Kibar (1/140-141):
((The reciter, the imam, the companion of Asim)) then he said after citing the words of those who spoke against him in hadith: ((As for recitation, he is trustworthy, established, and precise, unlike his situation in hadith... The first ones considered him to be above Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash in memorization, and they described him as having precise letters that he recited to Asim. He recited to people for an age.))
And he said in al-Seer (8/497): ((An authority in recitation, weak in hadith.))
He also said in Al-Seer (5/260): ((He was steadfast in recitation, but weak in hadith)).
And he said in Al-Tadhkira (p. 1031): ((He was an imam in recitation, but weak in hadith)).
So it is clear to you from this - you malicious Rafidi - that precision in hadith is one thing, and in recitation is another.
As for accusing him of lying,
The correct view is that lying here is reporting something that is contrary to reality by mistake or inadvertence, not intentionally. Likewise, their saying that he is not believed is interpreted as meaning that he reports something that is contrary to reality by mistake or inadvertence due to a lack of control over the hadith, not that he deliberately lies. Note that whoever the imams of criticism and authentication describe as lying does not necessarily mean that he fabricates texts of his own composition and attributes them to the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace. Rather, what is sometimes meant by this is that he removes the suspended hadiths or vice versa, and attributes the mursal hadiths or vice versa, and constructs the chains of transmission of hadiths on the texts of other hadiths, and so on. The scholars of criticism and authentication have cited these reasons, and such matters may occur due to a lack of control and lack of care for the hadith, not due to a deliberate lie. This is what the case of Hafs is interpreted as. With this, we reconcile the praise of the imams of recitation for Hafs’s religion, character, mastery of recitation, and spending his life learning and teaching the Qur’an, with the description of whoever the imams of hadith describe as a liar.
So if the accusation was based on a lie, i.e. a deliberate lie about the Messenger, and this is impossible due to the lack of evidence, why
did you rule on it based on the statement of Ibn Ma’in and Abu Ahmad al-Hakim, may God Almighty have mercy on them, and the statement of Ibn Kharash, and leave the statement of the majority, and their statements are scattered in Tahdhib al-Kamal in the same place, or is the ruling subject to whims? Do you have evidence
? I only say that
when betting, the racetrack is known and the winner and loser are known
. I will continue my words.
* We have a difference between someone who was abandoned by the people of hadith (indeed, I say someone who was abandoned by the people of hadith) and someone who was accused of lying. Abandonment is related to the accuracy of the narrator, and lying is related to justice. So if the narrator is accurate in his hadith and does not care except rarely, then this is the trustworthy one. If his delusions increase, then he is closer to the truth. If you see him is more unique in what the trustworthy ones do not follow him in, and he contradicts, then he is weak. If you see him persist in making mistakes and delusions, and inverting the chains of transmission, and raising the suspended hadiths and suspending the elevated hadiths, and he came with what contradicts the trustworthy and established ones, and you do not find him almost agreeing with the trustworthy one except rarely, then this is the one who was abandoned, and God Almighty knows best.
*If you know that the hadith is abandoned due to his lack of memorization, then know that the source of his weak memorization is his excessive interest in the Qur’an at the expense of hadith. This is of course a normal, innate matter that is in accordance with sound reason. Denying it is denial and stubbornness, as it is rare to find an imam who is pointed out with the finger in a certain science except that he is close to weakness in the science of another. There is no shortcoming in him in this, praise be to Allah. If he looked into the branches of medicine, for example, he would find that non-specialist doctors are always the weakest because they do not encompass the entire science of medicine or a complete part of it, unlike specialists.
The response to what Ibn Kharash said about Hafs
* The statement of Ibn Kharash that he is a liar, abandoned, and fabricates hadith is biased, and bias is a characteristic of Ibn Kharash. Ibn Kharash is originally someone who is spoken of, and he hesitates in his statement if he is alone, so how about if he contradicts it? Ibn Adi, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Al-Kamil 1/518: I heard Abdan attribute weakness to him. I heard Abdan say: Khalid bin Yusuf Al-Samni told us: Abu Awanah told us, on the authority of Asim, on the authority of Al-Sha’bi, on the authority of Al-Nu’man bin Bashir, who said: The lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear... the hadith. Abdun told us: Ibn Kharash narrated it on the authority of Khalid ibn Yusuf, with a chain of transmission traceable to the Prophet. Abdun mentioned to me that Ibn Kharash narrated mursal hadiths that he connected and mawquf hadiths that he connected to the Prophet, which he did not mention here.
Abu Ahmad ibn Adi, may God have mercy on him, said: I heard Abdun say: I said to Ibn Kharash: The hadith: We do not inherit what we leave as charity. He said: It is false. I said: Who do you accuse in this chain of transmission? It was narrated by al-Zuhri, Abu al-Zubayr, and Ikrimah ibn Khalid on the authority of Malik ibn Aws ibn al-Hadathan. Did you accuse these people? He said: No. Rather, Malik ibn Aws is accused.
Abu Ahmad said: I heard Abdun say: Ibn Kharash brought to Bandar two parts that he had composed about the faults of the two sheikhs, and he granted him two thousand dirhams, so he built a room in Baghdad for him to narrate in, but he did not enjoy it and died when he finished it.
Abu Ahmad said: I heard Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa`id, known as Ibn `Uqdah, say: Whenever Ibn Kharash was in Kufa, he would write something about Shi`ism, he would say to me: This will not be spent except with me and with you, O Abu al-`Abbas.
Abu Ahmad said: I heard Abd al-Malik ibn Muhammad Abu Nu`aym praising this Ibn Kharash and saying: I have not seen anyone with a better memory than him. No sheikh or chapter is mentioned of his without him passing through it.
Abu Ahmad ibn `Adi, may God have mercy on him, said: This Ibn Kharash is one of the memorizers of hadith in Iraq who is mentioned for his memorization of hadith, and he had a separate discussion session for himself, but something about Shi`ism is mentioned about him, as Abdun mentioned, but as for the hadith, I hope that he does not deliberately lie.
Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Mizan al-I'tidal 5014: Abu Zur'ah Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Hafiz said: He had exposed the faults of the two sheikhs and was a Rafidi. Al-Dhahabi mentioned Abdun's question to him about the hadith of Malik ibn Aws, then he (i.e. al-Dhahabi) said: Perhaps he started this when he was young, for I saw him mention Malik ibn Aws ibn al-Hadathan in his history and said: He is trustworthy. Then al-Dhahabi mentioned the story of the two parts with Bandar, then he said: By Allah, this is the stumbling sheikh whose efforts were lost, for he was the hafiz of his time and had a wide journey, great knowledge and understanding. After this, no one benefited from his knowledge, so there is no blame on the donkeys of the Rafidis and the scum of Jazin and Mashghar.
Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned him in al-Du'afa' wa al-Matrukin 1912, so he is weak and abandoned in his view.
What indicates the correctness of what I say about Ibn Kharash's bias is that I brought you a biography of Ahmad ibn al-Furat Abu Mas'ud al-Razi, one of the trustworthy hafidhs, Ibn Kharash called him a liar. Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: He hurt himself by that.
In conclusion, Ibn Kharash is fundamentally flawed and it is not permissible to use him as evidence. He is very excessive in speaking about the companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace. It is appropriate that the words of someone like him should not be relied upon.
The response to the statement of al-Hakim
: The statement of Abu Ahmad al-Hakim, may God have mercy on him, that his hadith is invalid does not mean that he is a liar, rather it means that his hadith is not to be paid attention to, in the sense of our saying that he is abandoned. We have explained previously that abandonment is one thing and lying is another.
The hadith is a severe criticism that sometimes oscillates between abandonment and denial, even with a single imam, but most often it indicates that his hadith is gone, i.e. his hadith is nothing, i.e. it indicates abandonment. If you know this, then here is an important issue, which is that when looking into the state of the narrator, we must take into account the words of the imams and compare some of them to others and remove the contradiction between them as much as possible. So if we see the narrator of the majority being greatly weakened and abandoned, and no one has accused him, and we see one of them say about him that the hadith is gone, is it reasonable to oppose his words with their words and say that they abandoned him and so-and-so lied about him, or is it better to interpret his saying that the hadith is gone as abandonment, and this is in agreement with their words, and the language does not reject it in terms of meaning.
Benefit and digression:
And such a matter is if you find two conflicting sayings from a great imam, the first in agreement with the saying of the majority and the second in opposition to it, then it is better to attribute to this imam what is appropriate for him from the saying that is in agreement with others and to make his second saying subject to errors in transmission or copying and other than that, and Allah knows best.
And what indicates that their saying that the hadith is gone is a criticism of accuracy, not a criticism of justice:
1- Abu Eisa Al-Tirmidhi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Al-Jumu'ah in the chapter on facing the Imam when he delivers the sermon after citing the hadith: We do not know the hadith of Mansur except from the hadith of Muhammad bin Al-Fadl bin Atiyah, and Muhammad bin Al-Fadl bin Atiyah is weak and his hadith is invalid according to our companions.
2- He also said in Al-Talaq and Li'an in the chapter on the divorce of the insane person after citing the hadith: This hadith is not known to be traced back to the Prophet (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) except from the hadith of Ata bin Ajlan, and Ata bin Ajlan is weak and his hadith is invalid. 3- He also said in Al-Isti'than and Al-Adab on the authority of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in the chapter on what was said about greeting before speaking: I heard Muhammad say: Anbasa bin Abd Al-Rahman is weak and invalid in hadith.
For more information, refer to the biographies of these people in Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta'dil:
Jarrah bin Al-Munhal, Khalid bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-Makhzumi, Dawud bin Al-Zubayr, Dawud bin Al-Muhabbir, Rabi' bin Badr,
Sulayman bin Arqam, Umar bin Abi Bakr Al-Adawi, Musa bin Mutair, Nafi' Abu Hormuz. And many others, it would take too long to mention them.
I say that it is better here to interpret this construction as being abandoned rather than fabricated, because it agrees with the statement of other imams, may God have mercy on them
. What indicates to you that the statement of Abu Ahmad al-Hakim, may God have mercy on him, that the hadith is lost is equivalent to the statement of others that are mostly abandoned, is your reading of the biographies of these:
Abdullah ibn Shabib al-Rab’i, refer to Mizan al-I’tidal, and the work is on his weakness.
Habib ibn Abi al-Ashras, refer to Lisan al-Mizan, and the work is on his abandonment.
Furat ibn al-Sa’ib, refer to Lisan al-Mizan,
and the work is on his abandonment. Juwaybir ibn Sa’id al-Azdi, refer to al-
Tahdheeb, and the work is on his abandonment. Abdullah ibn Sa’id ibn Abi Sa’id al-Maqburi, refer
to al-Tahdheeb, and the work is on his abandonment. Abdul-Hakim ibn Mansur al-Khuza’i, refer to al-Tahdheeb, and the work is on his abandonment, and Ibn Ma’in called him a liar.
However, Abu Ahmad al-Hakim, may God have mercy on him, sometimes uses this construction (lost hadith) to mean fabrication, and among them is
Abdullah ibn Ziyad al-Makhzumi, refer to al-Tahdheeb, and the work is on his abandonment and denial.
Abdul Rahman bin Qais Al-Dhabi, refer to Al-Tahdheeb, and work on abandoning it and denouncing it.
The conclusion is that their saying that the hadith is lost is a conflict between abandonment and denial, as I mentioned to you previously, and the most common interpretation is to abandon it, and I have mentioned to you sufficient examples, God willing, and the first here is to interpret it as abandoning it, not as denial, because it agrees with the generality of what the Imams, may God have mercy on them, said, and we have previously indicated this.
8* Ibn Ma’een, may God have mercy on him, said: Hafs bin Sulayman and Abu Bakr bin Ayyash were among the most knowledgeable people about the recitation of Asim, and Hafs was a better reciter than Abu Bakr, and he was a liar, and Abu Bakr was truthful.
The correct view is that the statement of Ibn Ma’in, may God have mercy on him, must be interpreted as an error, and this is clear and apparent to anyone who ponders his words and is fair. Ibn Ma’in, may God have mercy on him, spoke about their situation in recitation and in hadith. First, he established that he and Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash had much knowledge of the recitation of ‘Aasim, so he said, “He is the most knowledgeable of people,” and this is a comparative form. Second, he established that he was superior to Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash in recitation, so he said, “He recites better than Abu Bakr,” and this is a comparative form like the previous one. Then Ibn Ma’in, may God have mercy on him, differentiated between them in hadith, so he said about Hafs, “He was a liar,” and he said about Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash, “He was truthful.”
I said Abu Bakr bin Abdul Wahhab: Whoever Allah has given an understanding of the speech of the Imams, may Allah have mercy on them, should not think that his saying (liar) means slander and fabrication against the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, because how can we reconcile the two opposites together, making him a liar in hadith and a truthful Imam in recitation? This is impossible, because sound reason says that whoever considers lying against the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is not deterred from lying against Allah, the Blessed and Exalted. The opponent may bring up to us that Ibn Ma’in’s, may Allah have mercy on him, denouncing him in hadith is evidence of his lying in general, so his lying extends to the Qur’an. The answer is simple, we say: You can do that if Ibn Ma’in had lied about the hadith only, then his lying about the Qur’an would be more appropriate. But this did not happen, because the one who lied about him in hadith is the same one who believed him and presented him in recitation (i.e. Ibn Ma’in). This means one of two things, no third: Either Ibn Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him, does not understand what he is saying, so he denies him and believes him at the same time - and this is nonsense to say about an Imam. From the Imams of the Sunnis, such as Ibn Ma’in - and the second is to correct his statement, may God Almighty have mercy on him, and remove the contradiction between the two meanings. Then we will find that what is meant by his denial is his error, and this is the appropriate meaning that is correct to attribute to this Imam, may God Almighty have mercy on him, and of course our language does not reject it, praise be to God. Ibn Manzur, may God Almighty have mercy on him, said in Lisan al-Arab 1/709: In the hadith of the Witr prayer, Abu Muhammad (may God Almighty be pleased with him) lied, meaning he made a mistake. He called it a lie because it is similar to it in that it is the opposite of correctness, just as lying is the opposite of truthfulness, even though they differ in terms of intention and purpose, because the liar knows that what he says is a lie, and the one who makes a mistake does not know. This man is not an informant, but rather he said it with an effort that led him to the conclusion that Witr is obligatory, and an effort does not include lying, but rather it includes error. Abu Muhammad (may God Almighty be pleased with him) was a companion and his name was Mas’ud ibn Zayd.
The Arabs used the word “lie” in place of a mistake. Al-Akhtal recited the following verse:
“Did your eye lie to you, or did you see in Wasit?”
Dhu al-Rummah said:
“And there is no lie in his hearing .”
In the hadith of Urwah, it was said to him: Ibn Abbas (may
Allah be pleased with him) says that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stayed in Mecca for a dozen years. He said: “He lied,” meaning he made a mistake.And from this is the saying of Imran to Samra (may Allah be pleased with them both) when he said: “The one who has fainted prays a prayer with every prayer until he completes it.” He said: “You lied, but he prays them together,” meaning you made a mistake. End of Lisan al-Arab.
I said Abu Bakr bin Abdul Wahhab: Not everyone who says about a narrator (a liar) means that he fabricates a hadith on the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) - even though the basic principle in their saying a liar is that he fabricates a hadith - so who is the one who says that Ibn Ishaq (may Allah have mercy on him), the imam of the battles, fabricates a hadith on the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), no one says this, then we find Malik bin Anas (may Allah have mercy on him), the imam of the people of Medina, and Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qattan (may Allah have mercy on him) calling him a liar, so is he one of those who consider it permissible to call a hadith on the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Allah forbid that someone like him would do this, so how do we explain their statement that he is a liar? The answer is that by lying they meant his concealment, and this is what the imams (may Allah have mercy on them) used when they said concealment is the brother of lying, so there is no problem with their statement, but the problem and difficulty lies in our understanding of the words of the imams (may Allah have mercy on them).
Another example, Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) said in the introduction to Sahih, p. 19: Qutaybah bin Saeed told us, Jarir told us, on the authority of Mughirah, on the authority of Al-Sha’bi, who said: Al-Harith Al-A’war Al-Hamdani told me, and he was a liar.
Al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala' 4/153: As for al-Sha'bi's statement that al-Harith is a liar, it is based on the fact that he meant by lying an error, not a deliberate one. Otherwise, why would anyone narrate from him and believe that he deliberately lied in religion? His words (may Allah have mercy on him) ended.
I said: Abu Bakr ibn Abd al-Wahhab: It was said that they lied about his opinion, and it was said that they lied about his stories, and what al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said is more correct.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds.
The Christian:
We say to the colleague what was said to him before: You will find written on every copy of the Qur’an; "This Noble Qur’an was written and recorded in accordance with the narration of Hafs bin Sulayman bin Al-Mughira Al-Asadi Al-Kufi." Now let us see what the scholars of criticism and authentication said about this "Hafs" whom you worship with the Qur’an, who is not approached by falsehood, with his narration:
Abu Qudamah Al-Sarkhasi and Uthman bin Saeed Al-Darimi said on the authority of Yahya bin Ma'in: He is not trustworthy.
Ali bin Al-Madini said: He is weak in hadith, and I left him out intentionally.
Ibrahim bin Ya'qub Al-Jawzjani said: He finished with him a long time ago.
Al-Bukhari said: They left him out.
Muslim said: He is abandoned.
Al-Nasa'i said: He is not trustworthy, and his hadith should not be written.
He said in another place: He is abandoned.
Salih bin Muhammad Al-Baghdadi said: His hadith should not be written, and all of his hadiths are munkar.
Asim said: They are false hadiths.
Abu Zur'ah said: He is weak in hadith.
Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Hatim said: I asked my father about him, and he said: His hadith should not be written, he is weak in hadith, he is not trustworthy, his hadith is abandoned. I said: What is his status with regard to letters? He said: Abu Bakr bin Ayyash is more reliable than him.
Abdur-Rahman bin Yusuf bin Kharash said: He is a liar, abandoned, and fabricates hadith.
Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: His hadith is lost.
Yahya bin Saeed said, on the authority of Shu'bah: Hafs bin Sulayman took a book from me and did not return it, and he used to take people's books and copy them.
Abu Ahmad bin Adi said, on the authority of Al-Saji, on the authority of Ahmad bin Muhammad Al-Baghdadi, on the authority of Yahya bin Ma'in: Hafs bin Sulayman and Abu Bakr bin Ayyash were among the most knowledgeable people about the recitation of Asim, and Hafs was better at reciting than Abu Bakr, and he was a liar, and Abu Bakr was truthful.
This is the case of "Hafs bin Sulayman", whose narration of the Quran is worshipped by Muslims:
he is not trustworthy, he was deliberately abandoned, time has finished with him, his hadiths are not written down, all his hadiths are objectionable, his hadiths are false, he is not believed, he is a liar, he fabricates hadith, he takes people's books and copies them. If we were to apply to him what our colleague applied to Papias, the result would be that the Quran is a false book, completely unreliable, false, and definitely rejected!!!!!
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
The Dean:
*********
I will quote what I said in response to one of my colleagues who had raised the same doubt, and this is the text of the statement with some modification:
(((Hafs bin Sulayman is weak in hadith but not in recitation, as he is an imam, a memorizer, and a master of the Qur’an, who is recognized by the consensus of scholars, but your Excellency has mixed things up, and you thought that his weakness in hadith necessitates his weakness in the Qur’an, and this is, by my life, heinous, as how many memorize the Qur’an with its various recitations and master it with complete mastery, and you see that they are not good at memorizing hadiths and controlling them, how many memorize hadiths and control them and know all the wording of the hadith and its paths and narrators and do not master memorizing the Qur’an with its recitations, as each one is skilled in his field of knowledge and specialization.
Ibn Hajar said in Al-Taqreeb: ( His hadith is abandoned despite his leadership in recitation ).
Imam Al-Dhahabi said in Al-Kashf: ( He is steadfast in recitation and weak in hadith ).
And he said in Al-Seer: ( And Ad-Daraqutni said: In his memorization - meaning Asim - Something - meaning for the hadith, not for the letters - and at all times the scholar was an imam in one art and deficient in other arts. And likewise his companion Hafs ibn Sulayman was steadfast in recitation, weak in hadith, and Al-A’mash was the opposite of him; he was steadfast in hadith, weak in letters . What is meant by letters is the readings of the Qur’an.
Al-Dhahabi said in the biography of Abu Omar al-Duri: ( And the statement of al-Daraqutni: Weak, he means in the control of the narrations, but as for the readings, he is an established imam. And likewise a group of the readers are established in the reading but not in the hadith, such as Nafi’, al-Kisa’i and Hafs, for they undertook the burdens of the letters and cleared them, and they did not do that in the hadith, just as a group of the hafiz mastered the hadith, but did not master the reading, and this is the case with everyone who excelled in an art, but did not care about what was other than it )...))).
I add that his weakness in the hadith lies in his lack of precision in it - because he did not take care of it as he would in reading - and not in his justice.
The narrator of the hadith may be weakened in terms of precision or justice, or both. Hafs was not weakened in terms of his justice in the hadith, but rather in terms of his precision, so we see that the imams weakened him in terms of precision only and did not criticize his justice.
However, someone may say: But as we see in the words quoted from Tahdhib al-Kamal above, Ibn Ma'in and Ibn Kharash accused him of lying and fabricating, so how can you say that he is criticized in terms of precision and not justice?
In response, we say, and we support God Almighty:
As for the narrator from Ibn Kharash , she is not to be relied upon, because Ibn Kharash himself is criticized and accused of bias, so what he narrated alone is not to be relied upon, so how about if he contradicts?
Al-Hafiz Al-Dhahabi described him in Tadhkirat Al-Huffaz as a “zindiq,” and Ibn Adi said in Al-Kamil:
“ Between the hadith, Abdun told us and Ibn Kharash narrated it on the authority of Khalid Ibn Yusuf, with a chain of transmission traceable to the Prophet.
Abdun mentioned to me that Ibn Kharash narrated hadiths that he had transmitted in mursal form and hadiths that he had transmitted in mutawatir form, which he did not mention here.
I heard Abdun say: I said to Ibn Kharash: The hadith, ‘We do not inherit what we leave behind is charity.’ He said: It is false. I said: Who do you accuse in this chain of transmission? It was narrated by Al-Zuhri, Abu Al-Zubayr, and Ikrimah Ibn Khalid on the authority of Malik Ibn Aws Ibn Al-Hadathan. These people came to them. He said: No, I only accuse Malik Ibn Aws.”
- I heard Abdun say: Ibn Kharash brought to Bandar of ours two parts that he had composed about the faults of the two sheikhs, so he granted him two thousand dirhams, so he built a room for that in Baghdad to narrate in, but he did not enjoy it and died when he finished it.
- I heard Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Saeed, known as Abd al-Rahman ibn Yusuf ibn Kharash, I heard Abdun attribute weakness to him.
- I heard Abdun say: Khalid ibn Yusuf al-Samti told us: Abu Awana told us: Asim told us: Al-Sha’bi told us: Al-Nu’man ibn Bashir said: The lawful is clear and the unlawful Ibn Uqda said: When Ibn Kharash was in Kufa, whenever he wrote something about Shi’ism, he would say to me: This is not spent except with me and with you, O Abu al-Abbas.
- I heard Abd al-Malik ibn Muhammad Abu Na’im praising this Ibn Kharash and he said: I have not seen anyone with a better memory than him. No sheikh or chapter is mentioned about him except that he is mentioned in it. This Ibn Kharash is one of those who are mentioned for memorizing hadith from the memorizers of Iraq, and he had a discussion session for himself separately. Only something about Shi’ism is mentioned about him, as Abdun mentioned. As for the hadith, I hope that he does not deliberately lie .
As for the narration from Ibn Ma’in, it is not authentic, due to the ignorance of the narrator from him, Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Baghdadi. To elaborate on this issue, I will quote what Sheikh Abu Abdul Aziz Saud al-Zamanan wrote in “Nusf al-Shubuhat,” in which he says:
“ Ibn ‘Adi transmitted that Ibn Ma’in denied it, saying: I am al-Saji, who narrated to us Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Baghdadi, who said: I heard Yahya bin Ma’in say: ‘Hafs bin Sulayman and Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayyash were among the most knowledgeable people about the recitation of ‘Aasim, and Hafs was a better reciter than Abu Bakr, and Abu Bakr was truthful, and Hafs was a liar.’”
- First: The status of the narrator from Ibn Ma’in, who is Ibn Muhriz Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Baghdadi, must be studied. Is this narrator trustworthy or not? Then, did Ibn Ma’in’s students agree with him in this narration or disagree with him? Are Ibn Ma’in’s students equal in their ranks in trustworthiness, or are some of them stronger than others?
Second: The narration is rejected, as the narrator from Ibn Ma’in is Ibn Muhriz Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Baghdadi, who is unknown, so he was not mentioned in the books of criticism and approval, and they did not mention him in criticism or approval, so he is… Unknown status and the chain of transmission is weak and cannot be proven.
- Third: Although the chain of transmission is not proven, the trustworthy scholars among Ibn Ma'in's students contradicted him. Uthman bin Sa'id al-Darimi and Abu Qudamah al-Sarakhsi both narrated on the authority of Ibn Ma'in that he said about Hafs bin Sulayman: "He is not trustworthy."
- Al-Darimi is: Uthman bin Sa'id. Al-Dhahabi said about him: "The imam, the scholar, the preserver, the critic... He learned the science of hadith and its causes from Ali, Yahya, and Ahmad. He surpassed the people of his time and was fluent in the Sunnah and perceptive in debate." Abu Qudamah is Ubayd Allah bin Sa'id al-Sarakhsi. Abu Hatim said: "He was trustworthy." Abu Dawud said: "Trustworthy." Al-Nasa'i said: "Trustworthy, reliable. Few of us have written about him like him." Al-Hafiz said in al-Taqreeb: "Trustworthy, reliable, Sunni." While Ibn Mahraz did not mention any documentation or even criticism of him in the books of criticism and approval, so he is unknown.
Fourth: None of those who narrated from Ibn Ma’in or in their questions to him agreed with what Ibn Mahraz alone said about denouncing Hafs, such as Al-Duri, the trustworthy Imam and Hafiz, who was a frequent companion of Ibn Ma’in and was his long companion, to the point that Ibn Ma’in said about Al-Duri: “Our friend and companion,” and Al-Hafiz said about him in Al-Taqreeb: “A trustworthy Hafiz.” Rather, the others who narrated from Ibn Ma’in, such as Ibn Al-Junayd, Al-Daqqaq, and others, did not agree with him.
Fifth: It is known that if there is a difference of opinion about the narrator, it is necessary to verify the most valid narration, balance between the narrations, and state the most valid and the reasons for the preference. Among the scientific evidence and rules for balancing between the narrations are preference by memorization, mastery, and accuracy. We find that those who narrated from Ibn Ma'in the weakening of Hafs without mentioning the denial were the most knowledgeable, masterful, and accurate, and the most devoted to their sheikh than Ibn Mahraz, so their narration is preferred.
Sixth: Among the preponderant evidence and scientific rules for preference between the narrations is preference by number and majority. We find that the one who transmitted Ibn Ma'in's denial of Hafs was Ibn Mahraz (the unknown), while those who did not mention the denial are more numerous.
Seventh: All of the imams of criticism and authentication who wrote a biography of Hafs touched upon his weakness in hadith and his leadership in the Qur'an, and none of them referred to accusing him of lying. If such a thing were proven, it would fly away.
- Eighth: By examining all the statements of the scholars, examining them and following them, they described Hafs as abandoned or weak in hadith, and his accusation of lying was not proven by those whose words are considered in this regard.
- Ninth: The scholars of hadith are strict on the subject of lying, so how can they accept a liar’s reading of the Book of Allah? It is not acceptable by Sharia or reason to not accept the narration of a liar or someone accused of lying in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - while his narration of the Book of Allah is accepted. The scholars have rejected the narration of someone who lies in people’s speech, even if he did not intentionally lie in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - because of the possibility that he lied in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - to protect and preserve the hadith of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - so it is inconceivable that his reading and narration of the Book of Allah would be accepted.
Tenth: Whoever accused him of lying has made a clear mistake and his statement is rejected and he has no honor, whoever he may be. Indeed, if he saw the reality of the nation today, he would be ashamed of himself to rush into those descriptions with which he accused Hafs, may God be pleased with him.
- Eleventh: In order to make concessions with the opponent, if we assume that the transmission from Ibn Ma’een is correct regarding his denial of Hafs, then lying in the language may be used to mean a mistake. Ibn Hibban – may Allah have mercy on him – said: “The people of Hijaz call a mistake a lie.” Ibn Hajar said in the biography of Bard, the freed slave of Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab: “Ibn Hibban said in al-Thiqat: ‘He was one of the trustworthy people who used to make mistakes, and the people of Hijaz call a mistake a lie.’ I said: ‘Ibn Hajar means the saying of his master: Do not lie about me as ‘Ikrimah lied about Ibn ‘Abbas – may Allah be pleased with them both .’” End quote.
And Sheikh Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab – may Allah preserve him – says:
“ The opponent may bring up to us that Ibn Ma’een’s – may Allah have mercy on him – denouncing him in the hadith is evidence of his lying in general, so his lying extends to the Qur’an. The answer is simple. We say: You may have that if Ibn Ma’een had lied about him in the hadith only, then his lying about the Qur’an would be more appropriate. But this did not happen, because the one who lied about him in the hadith is the same one who believed him and presented him in the recitation (i.e. Ibn Ma’een). This means one of two things, no third:
- Either Ibn Ma'in (may Allah have mercy on him) does not understand what he is saying, so he both denies it and believes it at the same time - and this is nonsense to say about an Imam of the Sunnis like Ibn Ma'in - -
or - The second is that we correct his statement (may Allah have mercy on him) and remove the contradiction between the two meanings. Then we will find that what is meant by denouncing him is declaring him wrong, and this is the appropriate meaning that can be attributed to this Imam (may Allah have mercy on him), and of course our language does not reject it, praise be to Allah. Ibn Manzur (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Lisan al-'Arab 1/709:
“In the hadith of the Witr prayer, Abu Muhammad (may Allah be pleased with him) lied, meaning he made a mistake. He called it a lie because it is similar to it in that it is the opposite of correctness, just as lying is the opposite of truthfulness, even though they differ in terms of intention and purpose, because the liar knows that what he says is a lie, and the one who makes a mistake does not know. This man is not an informant, but rather he said it with an effort that led him to conclude that Witr is obligatory, and lying does not enter into effort, but rather error enters into it. Abu Muhammad (may Allah be pleased with him) was a companion and his name was Masoud bin Zaid.
The Arabs used lying in place of error, and he recited the verse of Al-Akhtal:
Did your eyes lie to you or did you see through someone?
Dhu al-Rummah said:
“There is no lie in his hearing.”
In the hadith of Urwah, it was said to him: Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) says that the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stayed in Mecca for a dozen years. He said: “He lied,” meaning he made a mistake. And from this is the saying of Imran to Samrah (may Allah be pleased with them both) when he said: “The one who has fainted prays a prayer with every prayer until he completes it.” He said: “You have lied, but he prays them together,” meaning you made a mistake. “… End of Lisan al-Arab
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment