Monday, 27 April 2009

Ahadiths: Uncorrupted? Uncreated? Unfabricated? Non-Contradictory? Part III

”The Qur’an alone is useless or” or “how the Sunnah was created”

From Part II

 ‘The Sunnah’ But "No One Else Got It"?

But, some places possessed Ahadith which no place else got! Again we read:

"Ibn Maja used to point out the area as well where a particular Hadith was well-known. For example he says after recording a Hadith under the heading of ‘Forgiving the Murderer’: This is the Hadith of the people of Ramlah. Noone else got it. Under the heading ‘Every Intoxicant is Haram he remarks after the Hadith of `Abdullah b Mas’ud: "This is the Hadith of the people of Raqqa." And after the Hadith of Mu’awiya: "This is the Hadith of the people of Raqqa." By locating the area where a certain hadith gained popularity, it becomes easier to explore fabrication if the same Hadith happens to appear from any other quarter with a different version."
(Criticism..., Abdul Gaffar, p. 143)

But, lets face it, there is every difference between what is here referred to as what became ‘popular’ in one place, and what is supposed to be a ‘part of a divine revelation embodied in a Sunnah’ - which would surely have been known by everyone in Islam from the beginning! The very fact that such are only found in one place certifies them as spurious, but in Islam, where nothing is certain, even these ‘may be the Sunnah’ - just as the various ‘almost Arabic... almost `Uthmanic’ readings ‘might be Qur’an’!!

"The Superiority That Islam And The Muslims Enjoy... Destroyed"

While Maududi made the assertion that "The entire account of his life - his sayings, instructions and actions - is preserved with complete accuracy. It is as though it all happened yesterday rather than thirteen centuries ago." (Towards..., p. 58), anyone who is well read within Islam knows that this is made WITHOUT ANY ‘PROOF’!

Furthermore, this applies not only to the Sunnah in the Ahadith collections but to all of Islam’s "historical" records. One need only examine the claims about the Ka`ba and al-Aqsa ‘Mosque’ (Temple of Solomon) to see that a wide array of ‘versions’9, not ‘a history’, is transmitted. The following conflicting remarks are made concerning Hadith #1056 in Sahih Muslim where it is stated that there was 40 years between the building of the Ka`ba and the Temple of Jerusalem:

"This part of the hadith is often made a target of criticism by the hostile critics of the Hadith. They contend that Ka`ba was built by Hadrat Ibrahim and the Temple of Jerusalem was built by Hadrat Sulaiman and there is span of one thousand years between these two Messengers of Allah, whereas the hadith asserts that there is a difference of only forty years between the setting up of these two Houses of Worship. The fact is that it is wrong to suppose that Ka`ba was built by Ibrahim and the Temple of Aqsa was built by Hadrat Sulaiman. Both these houses of worship were built by Adam and there was a difference of forty years between the two. Hadrat Ibrahim rebuilt it on the old foundations. The second view is that the Temple of Jerusalem was built not by Sulaiman but by Yaqub b. Ishaq b. Ibrahim who laid its foundation forty years after the rebuilding of the Ka’ba by Hadrat Ibrahim (Fath-ul-Mulhim, Vol. II, p.114) This point has been stressed by Hafiz Ibn Qayyim. He says: This hadith creates doubt in the mind of one who does not know its correct implications. It is said that it was Sulaiman b. Dawud who built the masjid Aqsa, whereas there yawns a space of time more than one thousand years between the two. The fact is that Sulaiman rebuilt the Aqsa Mosque and he was not the first to build it for the first time. It was built by Ya`qub b. Ishaq (peace be upon him) after the building of the Ka`ba by Ibrahim equal to so much space of time (Zad al-Ma`ad, vol. I, p. 11)"
(Sahih Muslim, English version, Vo. I, p. 264, footnote #723)

Yet, from the same commentator we also read:

"It was not for the first time that the Ka`ba was being reconstructed. According to Suhayli, it was first built by Shith son of Adam during his lifetime. Later on it was reconstructed by Hadrat Ibrahim." (Sahih Muslim, English, Vol. I, p. 193, footnote #560) It is evident that between these ‘histories’ is a great deal of disagreement!! Adam, Shith (Seth), or Ibrahim are all said to ‘perhaps’ have built the Ka`ba! And ‘perhaps’ Adam, Sulaiman (Solomon), or Jacob built the al-Aqsa Mosque!!

It is no wonder a follower of Islam after looking at a true historical record at a national library, bent over double at the waist, grabbed his head in his hands and in desperation moaned, "We Muslims cannot accept the history of the world because it conflicts with Islam!"10

A simple perusal of Islam’s attempts to rebut the issue over which it has become so incensed in recent years, makes it evident that the sira, tarikh, etc., the things cited by Maududi as ‘immaculately’ preserving Islam’s past, do not even agree as to whether or not Satan put words in Muhammad’s mouth! Rather they record that false verses had to be expunged from the Qur’an and replaced with other verses! Which version of the biography is "like it only happened yesterday"? Not only so, but Islam continues to publish and sell the very materials transmitting this sort of thing!! [See Appendix B for the Islamic ‘attempt’ to rebut its own ‘sources’ on this matter. Not here in this article]11

But, this is precisely what pervades the ‘sources’ of Islam which Maududi would declare presents Islam’s history and details "as if it happened yesterday"!! It just isn’t so!

One can understand now why maulana Azami expressed himself so clearly when he pleaded that a realisation that this was the true state of the sources would mean:

"the superiority that Islam and the Muslims enjoy over all other faiths and religious communities would also be destroyed. For it would necessarily mean that the Muslims had no history, no intellectual achievements to their credit, since there is no dependable way of knowing about those achievements."

All this is fully realised in more ways than one. It is, then, also no wonder that Islam tries so hard to convince its people that this is the plight of Christianity’s history, Book, and its major doctrines, and not that of Islam!12


1/ This Hadith is declared ‘rejected’ in another quotation, and its obvious absence from Sahih al-Bukhari must mean that those scholars’ have removed it! There is no ‘protection’ of Sunnah here.
2/ Yet how many know that the last two collections named, contain Ahadith about the collection of the Qur’an different from the one which al-Bukhari recorded which places Caliph `Uthman in the centre? For examples see The Collection of the Qur’an, Burton.
3/ Al-Khams meaning ‘the 5’.
4/ Of course, if you believe the theology of ‘Divine Protection’ then you must believe it is all part of ‘Divine Protection’ no matter how late they are collected.
5/ The word sunnan means Sunnahs (plural), and so indicates the principle use of the collection - being to find Muhammad’s Sunnah.
6/ A disciple of ibn Taymiyya, d. 748 A.H.; see p. 106f, Al-Albani Unveiled.
7/ Acknowledging that the ‘new meanings’ given by the ‘new readings’ already corrupted Islam’s claimed pure ‘Word of Allah’ we look to see how pure the rest is.
8/ Azami is not someone who is appealing to his readers on the basis of "Allah promised to preserve the thikr", but simply appealing for the general reliability of the sources.
9/ This is upheld in that when one reads the text of, for example, Sahih Muslim, one repeatedly finds the wording "in another version...", and inevitably something is different, and they aren’t always ‘minor’ matters, as we can see here. The same applies time and again to the earliest Sirah, that of ibn Ishaq. There is nothing in Islam but a general tale which has become embellished with a wide array of ‘facts’ [exactly what it accuses others of].
10/ Not only do the followers of Islam disagree among themselves, but what they hold as ‘history’ directly disagrees with all those records previous to Muhammad. Yet, to accuse others of being guilty of such flagrant disregard for God, for truth, and so of forging their Books in order to change history is beyond belief.
11/ And not only that, but the followers of Islam who are Shafi’ites and say "We only accept what as-Suyuti says." have to contend with the fact that the aforementioned article relates: "Somehow Suyuti accepted the authenticity of it." On top of this our Shi’ah scholars relates: "In the commentary of the Qur’anic verse: Satan would try to tamper with the desires of every Prophet or Messenger whom We sent. Then Allah would remove Satan’s temptation and strengthen His revelation (Surah al-Hajj) as given in Commentary of Ad-Durrul Manthur by Suyuti vol. IV, pp. 366, 368 fourteen narrations purporting to deal with this topic have been narrated by some distinguished companions." (A Probe..., p. 71f). Our Shi’ah writer maintains that even Sayyid Kutb, was he not the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (?!), included this in his commentary.
12/ Some have attributed the numbers who follow Ahmad Deedat to this very state of Islam’s sources:
"Ahmad Deedat stated in his lectures and books that Jesus was placed on the cross but he did not die on it:... It is a known fact that because of the untiring efforts of Ahmad Deedat, millions of Muslims have changed their traditional views as to what happened to Jesus. This instantaneous change in the view of millions of Muslims is a phenomenon that deserves closer investigation. It is either that Ahmad Deedat possesses a stronger logic and appeal than the Islamic tradition that says that someone else was crucified instead of Jesus and that Jesus was lifted up alive to heaven, or that this Islamic tradition is so flimsy, in spite of its antiquity, that it was neither well established nor deeply rooted in the minds of Muslims. This tradition was simply an unsatisfactory explanation on to which they clung. The minute these millions were offered another explanation, they quickly accepted it without much reflection
(Deedat in The Balance, Internet,



Ahadiths: Uncorrupted? Uncreated? Unfabricated? Non-Contradictory? Part II

”The Qur’an alone is useless or” or “how the Sunnah was created”

From Part I

How Reliable Is The Content (Matn) Of The Sources?

(a) Concerning Portions Of The Qur’an

First, we note that it is well-known that there are Ahadith in the ‘Sahih’ collections which describe how various things are missing from the Qur’an
(1) Verses of suckling missing:

"(3421) ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims)."
(Sahih Muslim, Vol. II, p. 740, #3421)

The admission in this Hadith that the verse was in the Qur’an until Muhammad died indicates either that this is the truth and that this verse is indeed missing from the Qur’an, or, that the Hadith has a false content and is not ‘sahih’
. While some want it to mean that Muhammad abrogated it, this is not indicated in Muslim’s Hadith.
(2) Verse of stoning missing:

"(4194) ‘Abdullah b. Abbas reported that ‘Umar b. Kattab sat on the pulpit of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning. I am afraid that, with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do NOT find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah’s Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy."
(Sahih Muslim, Vol. III, p. 912, #4194)

We note that once again there is a clear testimony in the text of an Hadith that a "verse of stoning" was part of the Qur’an. If we accept this testimony, then the Qur’an is incomplete. If the content of this Hadith is false, then what is it doing in a ‘sahih’ collection? This Hadith, it should be noted, is virtually word for word to the text of ibn Ishaq’s Sirah (p. 684), and is in a sermon given by ‘Umar.

We notice that Von Denffer notes some of these in his section on abrogation and declares the testimony to these missing verses as "not considered reliable":

"The information concerning al-nasikh wa-al mansukh must be treated with caution as, for all reports concerning the text of the Qur’an, two independent witnesses are required. Many of the examples which the scholars have drawn upon to illustrate this question (and I have quoted them for the same purpose) are based on one witness only. ‘Aiisha alone reported that 10 or 15 sucklings had been part of the Qur’anic recitation, and only ‘Umar reported that the ‘verse of stoning’ had been included in the Qur’anic text. These legal rulings were not included in the Qur’an precisely because they were not considered reliable, being based on one witness only." (Ulum, p, 112)

It really isn’t a matter of ‘one witness’, but of the fact that these Ahadith were collected by scholars who asserted their content as ‘truth’. Even if Von Denffer’s assertion was true, we are still left with the fact that this would mean that false Ahadith are found in the ‘sahih’ collections. Why are they there if they do not represent truth?

When we find that all of these Ahadith, including the next example, were also included in almost every ‘sahih’ collection, then we must assume that early Islam accepted the corruption of the Qur’an and that only later did its followers decide to declare for it something closer to ‘Perfection and Protection’.
(3) Surahs missing:

"(2286) ... We used to recite a Sura which resembled in length and severity to (Sura) Bara’at. I have however forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used to recite a sura which resembled one of the suras of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: "O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practice" (lxi 2.) and "that it is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13).
(Sahih Muslim, Vol. II, p. 500f, #2286)

While the translator in his footnotes lays the blame on ‘abrogation’, the Hadith does not state such. The testimony is that these were full surahs which were "forgotten". Again, if the content of the Hadith is true, then the Qur’an is missing some Surahs. If, on the other hand, the content if false then why is this Hadith in a ‘sahih’ collection?

In conclusion, each of these widely recorded Ahadith assert that verses or Surahs are missing from the Qur’an.

The verse of stoning Hadith was recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Tirmidhi, ibn Maja and Malik.
The verses of suckling Hadith was recorded by Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Nisai, Darimi and Malik.
The forgotten Suras Hadith was recorded by Muslim and a slightly shorter version in Musnad Ahmad, Vol. 5, p. 131 narrated by Ali bin Ka’b (these recordings cited from A Probe..., al-Askari, p. 31)

Islam has many ‘explanations’ for these which vary from ‘abrogated’ to ‘only one witness’. Yet we are left with the fact that these are unacceptable Ahadith which are in ‘sahih’ collections. We believe the scholars of Islam have "explained way" the text and "changed the meaning" so as to make them seem acceptable when they are not.

(b) Concerning The Other Matters

First we note some Ahadith concerning Muhammad’s Sunnah from at-Tirmidhi, ibn Majah and Ahmad. As we have already seen, the first two are among the six ‘sahih’ collections.

The name ‘Ahmad’ refers to the Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal (164-241) of which Abdul Gaffar wrote:

"The earliest major collection of Hadith" (Criticism, p. 14)

The definition of the term Musnad is found in the following statement:

"For e.g., out of 1720 Hadith in Muwatta, only 600 Hadith are held to be Musnad, i.e. With uninterrupted Isnad to the Prophet." (Criticism, p. 122)

Surely this being the ‘earliest collection’ what it contains should be the soundest? But what do we find in it, and the others? We note the following:

646w. Ayesha reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah say in one of his prayers: O Allah! take easy account from me. I asked: O Prophet of Allah! what is easy account? He replied: To look to his record (of deeds) and to forgive him. O Ayesha! he whose account will be strictly taken on that day will be destroyed
. - Ahmad (Mishkat IV, p. 106; cited from Islam As It Sees Itself..., Nehls, p. 117)

Another reads:

102. Anas reported that the Apostle of Allah used to say it quite frequently: O, Turner of the hearts! keep me steadfast on your religion. I said: Allah’s Apostle, We do affirm faith in you and in what you have been sent with (despite this) do you entertain fear about us; whereupon he said: yes. Verily the hearts are between two fingers from the fingers of Allah and He turns them as He likes. - Tirmizi, Ibn Maja
(Mishkat, Saddiqui, Vol. 1, p. 68f)

It does not stand alone:

120 Yes, but I have also heard Allah’s Messenger as saying: Verily Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, took a handful in His right hand and the (other handful) in His left hand. [and said] This is for this, and this is for this, and I do not mind. I do not know in which handful I would be in (and that makes me weep)
-- Ahmad. (Mishkat, Saddiqui, Vol. 1, p. 77)

In the same collection:

119 Abu Al-Darda’s reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: Allah created Adam when He had to create him and He struck his right shoulder and there emitted from it a white offspring as if it were white ants. He struck his left shoulder and there emitted from it a black offspring as if they were charcoals. He then said (to those who had been emitted) from right shoulder: For Paradise and I do not mind and then He said to those (who had been omitted) from his left shoulder: They are for Hell and I do not mind.
- Ahmad (Mishkat, Saddiqui, Vol. 1, p. 76f)

Not only is there no hope in such content, but it is obvious that while later followers have ‘sifted’ such sources to give instead whatever theological perspective of a ‘hopeful prophet’ they what to present, not what the early scholars recorded as being ‘true Muhammad’ or ‘true Islam’.

And Hanbal is credited with being a ‘founding scholar’ of one of the Madhabs. The same is true of Malik and Shafi’i. Surely these were sound men whose scholarship was above reproach? Instead we find the following:

"Even Malik’s student Shafi’i checked his fault. The scholars, comparing Malik’s Hadith with several of his colleagues found him faulty. And as seven out of eight scholars were almost unanimous in their actual Hadith against Malik, thus the mistake was checked."
(Criticism, p. 18)

However, one must not think that the examples cited above as attributed to these men are delegated to the trash barrel. Rather this is the type of content from which the Sunnah of Islam is determined! We read of the importance of knowing collections like that of Ahmad and Malik:

"It is not valid to count someone as scholar of the Shari’a if he is ignorant of the Muwatta, the Six Books, the Musnad of Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) and the rest of the books which are consulted on Hadith."
(Muwatta, English translation, p. xxxii)

Finally, let us examine several examples of Ahadith from the two most favoured of the ‘Six Books’, the Sahih (authentic) collections of Imams Bukhari and Muslim, which surely are problematic.

(1) Sahih Muslim #1058 states clearly from Muhammad:

"(1058) Jabir b. ‘Abdullah al-Ansari reported; The Prophet said: I have been conferred upon five (things) which were not granted to anyone before me (and these are): Every apostle was sent particularly to his own people, whereas I have been sent to all the red and black..."
(Saddiqi, Vol. 1, p. 264, #1058)

How many followers of Islam want to believe this Sunnah, that Muhammad was sent only "to the red and black"?

(2) We note also that Sahih Muslim #6281 states categorically from Muhammad:

"Abu Huraira reported it was said of Allah’s Messenger: Invoke curse upon the polytheists, whereupon he said, I have not been sent as an invoker of curse but "I have been sent as mercy."
(Saddiqi, Vol 4, p. 1371ff)

And, just prior to this in Sahih Muslim we find:

"(6281) ... it seemed as if he (the servant) was late in responding... so he (‘Abd al-Malik) invoked curse upon him, and when it was morning Umm Darda’ said to him: I heard you cursing your servant during the night when you called him, and she said: I heard Abu Darda’ as saying that Allah’s Messenger said: The invoker of curse would neither be intercessor nor witness on the Day of Resurrection." (Vol. 3, p. 1371)

Yet, Hadith #6285 and several after it state that Muhammad cursed his own people and made an excuse for it:

"(6285) ‘A’isha reported that two persons visited Allah’s Messenger and both of them talked about a thing, of which I am not aware, but that annoyed him and he invoked curse upon both of them and hurled malediction, and when they went out I said: Allah’s Messenger, the good would reach everyone but it would not reach these two. He said: Why so? I said: Because you have invoked curse and hurled malediction upon both of them. He said: Don’t you know that I have made condition with my Lord saying thus: O Allah, I am a human being and that for a Muslim upon whom I invoke curse or hurl malediction make it a source of purity and reward."
(Vol. 3, p. 1372)

#6286 to 6299 continue on this same topic and they vary as to how extensive Muhammad’s behaviour could be:

"(6290) ...I am a human being and thus for a Muslim whom I give any harm or whom I scold or upon whom I invoke curse or whom I beat, make it a source of blessing, purification and nearness to Thee on the Day of Resurrection."
(Vol. 3, p. 1372)


"(6297) ...I am a human being and I am pleased just as a human being is pleased and I lose my temper just as a human being loses temper, so for any person from amongst my Umma whom I curse and he in no way deserves it, let that, O Lord, be a source of purification and purity and nearness to (Allah) on the Day of Resurrection." ((Vol. 3, p. 1373) We read some comments on this from a Shi’ah scholar:


Bukhari in his Saheeh, volume 4, page 71 and Muslim in his Saheeh, volume 2, page 392 relate from narrators ending up with Abu Huraira that the Holy Prophet said: "O Allah, Muhammad is only a human being. He gets enraged as a human being gets enraged. I have made a covenant with You; do not go against me in that. So if there be any Believers whom I have hurt, abused, cursed or whipped You make it atonement for him and a means of granting him nearness to You."

It is noteworthy that it is not proper for the Holy Prophet (S.A.) or any of the Prophets to hurt, whip, abuse or curse any one who does not deserve it, whether in rage or otherwise....
The virtuous and the evil doers all know that to hurt, whip, abuse or curse one who does not deserve it is a serious evil from which all believers refrain. How then can such an act be possible of being committed by the Chief of all Prophets and the Last of the Messengers of Allah when he himself is reported to have said, "Cursing a Muslim is an evil".
According to a tradition recorded by Bukhari in his Saheeh, volume 4, page 39 Abu Huraira said: It was said to the Prophet of Allah, "O Prophet of Allah, pray against the Unbelievers". He replied, "I have not been sent down as a curse but as a mercy". Such was his attitude towards the Unbelievers. How then would he behave with the Believers who do not deserve evil"." (Abu Huraira, Syed Abdul Husai Sharafuddin Mossvi, p. 48, Peermahomed Ibrahim Trust)

The Sunnis don’t seem to see their own Ahadith quite so clearly for on the one hand Muhammad’s example is said to be taken as "the best example" of how to live, and on the other hand that this type of behaviour concerning which it is right to say "The virtuous and the evil doers all know that to hurt, whip, abuse or curse one who does not deserve it is a serious evil from which all believers refrain." - is ‘something minor’!

We read from Saddiqi on these Ahadith and Muhammad’s uncontrolled behaviour:

"Muhammad is the greatest, the most eminent, the most God-conscious, and the most pious among created beings including the Prophets. He was calm and self-possessed to an unimaginable extent and was elevated to the spiritual and moral heights much above the reach of anyone beside him. ... Allah had safeguarded him from committing any major sin, as he is the Prophet and a model and an ideal for humanity, but he was not made absolutely infallible. He could err though the nature of his error was quite minor and insignificant. Allah had a Divine purpose behind at as He wanted to instil in the minds of the people the humanness of Muhammad with all his unparalleled dignity and glory as the Last Prophet."
(Sahih Muslim, Saddiqi, Vol. 4, ft. 2863, p. 1373)

We note from the foregoing Hadith that the Sunnah of Muhammad was to tell others that they could not be "intercessors" on the Day of Resurrection if they invoked curse, but at the same time he claimed to be ‘THE Intercessor’ for that Day despite the fact that he cursed for no reason!

If these are true then Muhammad forced others to behave in a self-controlled fashion while he did not. If these Ahadith are not true then what are they doing as ‘the source of the Sunnah’ in a ‘sahih’ collection?

(3) On yet another Hadith in Sahih Muslim (Saddiqi, #280, Vol. 1, p. 89) we find our Shi'ah scholar stating:


According to Muslim in his Saheeh, volume 2, page 445, Abu Huraira narrated from the Holy Prophet (S.A.) that: A man committed a sin then said, "O Allah, pardon my sin". Allah said, "A servant of Mine committed sin and realised that he has a Lord Who forgives the sins, and takes account of sins." Then the man reverted and again committed sin. Then he said, "O my Lord pardon my sin." Allah said, "A servant of Mine committed sin and realised that he has a Lord Who forgives the sins, and takes account of sins." Then he again reverted and committed sin and said, "O my Lord pardon my sin." Allah then said, "A servant of Mine committed sin and realised that he has a Lord Who forgives the sins, and takes account of sins. Do whatever you like for I have pardoned you."


... It is obvious that there can be no indulgences from the side of Allah for a man to commit what is forbidden. How then is it possible that a person may commit sin, then ask for pardon, again commit a sin and again ask for pardon and may go on repeating this action till Allah allows him to go on committing sins as He had pardoned him. And. For what act of his can this man be assumed to deserve such a licence to commit sins when it is well known that even Prophets, their truthful testifiers and Divine Messengers too were not allowed such freedom."
(Abu Huraira, p. 82f)

(4) Another Hadith from Sahih Muslim (#4066- 4070) - for which we will not give the full text - tells of Sulaiman (Solomon) deciding to go around 60, 70 or 90 of his wives in one night and declaring they will all give birth to children who will grow up to be horsemen and "fight in the cause of Allah". We are told that the angel Jibreel tells him to say "if Allah wills". However, Sulaiman does not listen and consequently ends up with one child only which one translator states was "a half man". Again Saddiqi strives in a 24 line footnote to cover all the arguments of those who are "hostile critics of Hadith". Not surprisingly, his first explanation is that the Hadith is wrong and Muhammad did not actually say this, but the reporter erred and attributed to Muhammad something the Jews believed (sic!):

"This is one of those few ahadith which have been made the target of severe criticism by the hostile critics of Hadith. Various explanations have been offered for it. The one explanation is that the Holy Prophet in this statement made a reference to the usual qualities of strength and power which the Banu Israel supposed their apostles to possess. Abu Huraira missed this point and attributed this statement to the Holy Prophet himself."
(Vol. 3, p. 880, ft. 2092)

Saddiqi further gives other arguments including that it was not Muhammad that said that Sulaiman went to all these woman in one night, but that Abu Huraira made a mistake! Thus he admits the Hadith is false!!

However when he attributes this to the Jews mentality stating "The one explanation is that the Holy Prophet in this statement made a reference to the unusual qualities of strength and power which Bani Israel supposed their prophets to possess.", he ignores the fact that he had already translated several Ahadith (#2697, 2698, 2699) which state the same things about Muhammad:

"(2697) ...she [’A’isha] said: I applied perfume to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he went round his wives and then entered upon the state of Ihram in the morning." (Vol. 2, p. 587)

And al-Bukhari related similarly:

"268. Narrated Qatada; Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had he the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, p. 165; cited from Islam As It Sees Itself..., Nehls, p. 39)

And all this seems to have been accepted as Muhammad’s behaviour for Ibn Sa’d relates:

"’Ubayd Allah Ibn Musa informed us on the authority of Usamah Ibn Zayd, he on the authority of Safwan Ibn Sulaym, he said: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Gabriel brought a kettle from which I ate and I was given the power of sexual intercourse equal to forty men." (Vol. 1, p. 438; cited from Islam As It Sees Itself..., Nehls, p. 39)

However, Saddiqi seems only to be avoiding the most obvious consequences of accepting the Hadith, namely that the Sunnah of Muhammad on the behaviour of prophets is evidenced in his declaration that Sulaiman was disobedient to an angel and ignored what was declared to have been the Divine Will. Thus our Shi’ah scholar states:

"Secondly, it is not proper for a Prophet to ignore trust in Allah in respect of his actions, more so after being reminded by the angel. After all what prevented him from saying "if Allah so wills", because it serves as a prayer before Allah and a way of turning to Him. As such only those who do not have their attention fixed on Allah would avoid it."
(Abu Huraira, p. 34)

In such a Hadith the Sunnah of Muhammad is that prophets disobey angels and God’s Will!!
(5) This same type Sunnah of accepting the rebellion of the prophets against the Will of the Deity is portrayed in another Hadith wherein Moses is also rebellious against an angel:


Bukhari in his Saheeh, volume 2, page 163 and also volume 1, page 158 and Muslim in his Saheeh, volume 2, page 309 have narrated each in his Saheeh through narrators reaching upto Abu Huraira who said that the Angel of Death came to Prophet Moosa and said: "Respond to the call of your Lord". On this Prophet Moosa slapped on the eye of the Angel knocking it out. The Angel went back to Allah and said, "You sent me to such a servant of Yours who does not want death and knocked out my eye."
Abu Huraira says: Allah restored his eye to its position and commanded, "Go to My servant again and tell him. "If you want life, you put your hand on the body of the bull. Then you will live as many number of years as the number of hair covered by your hand."
According to Imam Ahmed Bin Hanbal’s version in his Musnad, volume 4, page 315, in this tradition Abu Huraira has shown that the Angel of Death used to come to every one openly. When he came to Prophet Moosa he slapped him and knocked his eye out. Historian Ibne Jareer Tabari also relates this tradition in his Tareekh, volume 1, in these words: "The Angel of Death used to visit the people openly till he came to prophet Moosa who slapped and knocked his eye out". In the end it adds that the Angel of Death started coming to people secretly after Prophet Moosa’s death."
(Abu Huraira, p. 35f)

We wonder then where Islam derives its theology that prophets do not sin and disobey the Divine will! Certainly not from the Sunnah of the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim! We must assume also that Muhammad’s Sunnah on angels is that they are so weak as to be afraid of men!
(6) Concerning the fact that another ‘sahih’ Hadith related from Abu Huraira is recognised as false, we read from this same Shi’ah scholar:

"Abu Huraira’s narrations become also doubtful because in some cases he claims to have been present where he was not actually present for undeniable reasons.
For example, he said: I called on Ruqayya, daughter of the Holy Prophet (S.A.), the wife of Usman while she was holding a comb in her hand. She said, "The Prophet of Allah (S.A.) has just gone from me, after I combed his hair. He said, "How do you find Abu Abdullah (i.e. Usman)". (sic) I said, All right". He said, "Accord him honour as among all my companions he is the most similar to me in manners".
Hakim has related this tradition in his Mustadrak, volume 2, page 48 with the remark that the sources of this tradition are correct but its text is unbelievable because Raqayya had died three years after Hijra at the time of the victory of Badr while Abu Huraira accepted Islam after the victory of Khyber in the 7th year A.H. The same remark has been made by Zahabi in Talkees-ul-Mustadrak about this tradition."
(Abu Huraira, Syed Abdul Husai Sharafuddin Mossvi, p. 89, Peermahomed Ibrahim Trust)

While the title of this Shi’ah scholar’s book (i.e. Abu Huraira) indicates his intent is to discredit Abu Huraira, the blame lies with the collectors of Ahadith who have failed to distinguish true content from false.
(7) We note the Hadith from Sahih Muslim concerning the length of ‘Allah’ and Adam:

" Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created Adam in His own image with His Length of sixty cubits..."
(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1481, #6809)

Does this Hadith represent ‘original Islam’? If so, why does no one admit this today? Or, if they do, which group in Islam accepts this as ‘the Sunnah of Muhammad’ and uses it in defining their ‘attributes of Allah’?
(8) As a last example we note:

"(6630) Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah created one hundred (parts of) mercy and He distributed one amongst His creation and kept this one hundred excepting one with Himself (for the Day of Resurrection)."
(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1437, #6629)

One cannot accept a theology of God which says that the mercy He created is the same Mercy He exercises - except perhaps in Islamic Ahadith where God is said to act as He wills - just like man.

"The Jews Made False Ahadith"!?

What we have presented here are but a few of the many examples that could be cited of Ahadith which are contained in what Islam claims are the ‘authentic’ sources, but which surely are not acceptable to any thoughtful followers of Islam.

Some followers of Islam when approached over such Ahadith in the ‘sahih’ collections say "Oh, the Jews made false Ahadith!".

Yet, when asked if they are admitting there are false Ahadith in the sahih’ Collections, they say "NO"! This is all simply another ‘outwitting’ as there is no defense for the content of these ‘sahih’ collections.

Islam admits that there were an extremely large number of Ahadith which were fabricated for all kinds of reasons
. It is obvious that many that are false Ahadith have come from among these and the collecting scholars were not able to sort true from false.

The truth is, therefore, that while the modern followers of Islam declare to the world the validity of its ‘sahih Sources’ of Sunnah, there are many things in them which are unacceptable and which even their ancient ancestors decided they couldn’t accept.

The present writer was only able to find an honest statement concerning the admissibility of the content of the Ahadith collections from the chief Shi’ah missionary of Tanzania:

"4. Many companions noted down whatever hadith they heard from Imams, without any distinction of subject and without dividing them into chapters. Such collections were called ‘Asl’ (Plural: Usul = Foundations.) 400 such ‘Usul’ were prevalent among the Shias at the time of the death of Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.).
5. Later scholars collected and arranged the Ahadith subjectwise and in chapters etc.
Such books are called "Book".
The 400 books which were called ‘Usul’ were the most popular. They were the basis of all tenets, beliefs and laws of Shia Ithnaasheri faith. ...
The Shia scholars after the death of Imam Hasan Askari (a.s.) were of the opinion that if all the Ahadith in those 400 ‘Usul’ were collected in one book and divided subjectwise into parts, chapters and sub-chapters, it would fulfil a great need of the time and would ensure the safety of that vast treasure of knowledge, as it would be far easier to handle one book instead of 400 booklets.
It was not an easy task: collecting all the Usul from far and wide was an uphill task in itself; then the editing and arranging them was another painstaking job. All eyes were on Thiqatul-Islam Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Yaqub Al-Kulaini Ar-Razi. When pressure mounted, he accepted the responsibility....
And, thus, after 20 years’ continuous back-breaking effort, ‘KAFI’ came into being.
This book alone contains more ahadith than all six authentic books (Sihah-e-Sitta) of the Sunnis put together.
Al-Kulaini was born 260 A.H. And died 329 A.H.
Some other scholars also collected the Ahadith from other books and Usul. Famous among them are:
Abu Jafar Muhammad bib Ali (bin Husain bin Musa bin Babwayh Cummi), popularly known as Shaikh Saduque (died 381 A.H.) wrote ‘Man La Yahdhuruhul Faqih’. Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Hasan bin Ali At-Tusi popularly known as Shaikhut-Taifa and Shaikh Tusi (born, 385 A.H.; died 466 A.H.), wrote ‘Tahzib-ul-Ahkaam’ and ‘Al-Istibsar’.
The later two books opened the way of critical study of Ahadith, and, thus, laid the foundation of ‘Ijtihad....
In 448 A.H. The Sunnis of Baghdad attacked the Shias and burned the library and house of Sheikh Tusi. He with his disciples went to Najaf and founded the religious university and the town. His grave is in Najaf.
Many other collections of Ahadith were written in the period under review, but only these four became popular and famous.
If a hadith is found in any of the above-mentioned books, it does not follow that that ‘hadith’ is ‘automatically’ authentic.
Likewise, if a hadith is found in other collections which were compiled by trustworthy scholars and it fulfils all conditions of authenticity, it will be accepted as ‘authentic’ even if it is not found in any of the above mentioned books."
(Qur’an and Hadith, Rizvi, p. 70- 72)

Thus the Shi’ah admit not only that their collections also were extremely late and that they too contain ‘non-authentic’ Ahadith, but that it was only the books of the 4th and 5th centuries A.H. that "opened the way of critical study of Ahadith, and, thus, laid the foundation of ‘Ijtihad...".

In the following Chapter we will note what this meant in terms of understanding the Qur’an and the religion.

Continues in Part III