Khabar Al-Waahid (The single line transmission) Does not establish ‘Ilm (definite knowledge) and it is not taken in the ‘Aqaa’id Muhammad Ash-Shuwaiky Bait ul-Maqdis First Edition 1422h/2002
All praise belongs to Allah the Lord of the worlds and prayers and peace be upon the Noblest of creatures and upon his family, companions and those who follow them with perfection until the Day of Judgement. Those who have gone away from the principals of Usool and the people of knowledge from amongst the Fuqahaa’, Scholars of Hadeeth and Usool, have claimed that the Khabar Al-Aahaad (single-line narrations) establish ‘Ilm (i.e. definite knowledge) and are taken into the ‘Aqaa’id according to the people of the Sunnah as a whole. Additionally they claim that only the Jahmiyah, Mu’tazilah, Jabriyyah and Khawaarij differ in regards to that. However a precise examination of the Mas’alah (issue) makes it apparent that their claim is Baatil (false) and that it does not have a Daleel (evidence) from the Kitaab, the Sunnah, the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah to support it. Rather the evidences and proofs repudiate this claim and in this small book I will present seven angles, each of which is sufficient enough to reject their claim.
The first angle: The first angle relates to the difference and distinction between the Khabar Al-Mutawaatir and the Khabar Al-Aahaad in terms of their definition and their reality in regards to the Sharee’ah according to the ‘Ulamaa who have mentioned the Mutawaatir and the Aahaad. They said: ‘The Khabar (report) can either be a definite lie (Kadhiban Qat’an) in which case it would be an invented and fabricated (Mukhtalaq, Mawdoo’) Hadeeth, or it would be definitely true (Sidqan Qat’an) and this is the Mutawaatir Hadeeth. If however the Hadeeth holds the possibility of being Sidqan (truthful) or Kadhiban (a lie) then it is Khabar Al- Aahaad’. The second and third of these mentioned types will be the place of our study here. Al-Khabar Al-Mutawaatir linguistically means: Consecutiveness where two or more matters follow on from each other with a pause or delay so that one follows after the other in accordance to the meaning of Witr which means one by one.
This meaning has come in the speech of Allah (swt):
Then we sent Our Messengers in succession (one after the other) (Al-Mu’minoon ). (Ref: Sharh of ‘Al-Kawkab Al-Muneer’ p332/2 amongst other books of Usool ). The meaning of Mutawaatir in Istilaah (Usooli terminology) is: The Khabar (report) from a (certain) number which would normally prevent their collusion upon a lie.
(Ref: ‘Al-Aayaat Al-Bayyinaat’ of Al-‘Ibaadiy 272/3). Its Hukm (ruling) is that it establishes ‘Ilm (knowledge) and Yaqeen according to the view of all of the Fuqahaa’ (ref: ‘Meezaan Al-Usool’ of As Samarqandiy p423 and 69/3). The one who denies (rejects) the Khabar (report) that has been confirmed to be Mutawaatir has disbelieved. Some of the ‘Ulamaa have collected and recorded them like As-Suyootiy, Az-Zubaidiy and AlKataaniy. The linguistic meaning of Khabar Al-Aahaad is: It is the plural of Ahad (one/single) and it is a Khabar (report) that has been related by one from another one as is taken from its name.
(Ref: ‘Meezaan Al-Usool’ p431). Its Istilaahi (terminological) meaning is: The Khabar Al-Waahid which is less than the level of the Tawaatur, and where a condition from amongst the conditions of the Tawaatur is missing. (Ref: ‘Sharh Al-Lam’ of Ash-Sheeraaziy p578/2).
Its Hukm is that it does not establish (Yufeed) ‘Ilm and certainty (Yaqeen). The one who denies it is not a disbeliever because it is below the level of the Mutawaatir. This is the view of the great
majority of the ‘Ulamaa including the four A’immah (Imaams) as we will go to make clear later inshaa Allah. This puts to rest the claims of those who deny this about them and their students and I have come across more than seventy from amongst them who held this view. I have added a special chapter at the end of this study just to present these opinions of theirs alone.
The second angle: The Adillah (evidences) from the Kitaab, the Sunnah and the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah which indicate that the Khabar Al-Aahaad do not establish (decisive) ‘Ilm and Yaqeen (certainty).
As for Al-Kitaab: Allah (swt) said:
O you who believe! If a rebellious disobedient person (Faasiq) comes to you with news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done. (Al-Hujuraat 6). Abu Bakr Al-Jassaas the Hanafi Scholar in respect to this Noble Aayaah: ‘This Aayah contains the indication that the Khabar Al-Waahid does not oblige ‘Ilm (knowledge) and if it obliged knowledge in itself then it would not have been in need of verification. There are people who use this as evidence for the permissibility of accepting the Khabar Al-Waahid of the ‘Adl (just person). The specification of verifying the Faasiq in respect to his Khabar (report/news) is an evidence indicating that the verification of the Khabar of the just person is not
permissible. This however is a mistaken understanding because the specification (Takhsees) of a matter does not indicate that the Hukm of everything outside of that is the opposite’. This Aayah is therefore from amongst the evidences/proofs for those who do not adopt the Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah (opposite meaning) in respect to the Khabar Al-Waahid of the Faasiq or the ‘Adl not establishing ‘Ilm (decisive knowledge). And His speech (swt):
And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses - lash them with eighty lashes (AnNoor 4). So Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla does not accept the single testimony (Shahaadah) for the confirmation and verification of the act of Zinaa (adultery/fornication). Rather He (swt) stipulated four witnesses as the Noble Aayah has guided to. This indicates that the single testimony does not establish (decisive) knowledge and even if it came from an ‘Adl (just person). Rather their needs to be a plurality, one after another (or on top of another) so that knowledge is (decisively) established.
This Aayah has been used as evidence by those who stipulate four as being the minimum grouping (number) for which their Khabar (report) will establish (decisive) knowledge and is considered to be Mutawaatir. (Ref: ‘At-Tamheed’ of Al-Kaloodhaaniy 28/3, ‘Nafaa’is Al-Usool’ Al-Faraafiy 2967/6, the introduction of ‘Nuzhum Al-Mutanaathir’ of Az-Zubaidy and many other books of Usool when they discuss the number which satisfies the Mutawaatr). It could be argued that this represents a specific case related to the witnesses of Zinaa alone. The evidence to support this being that Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has demanded two witnesses to corroborate and verify murder and theft. The answer to this argument: This in fact represents another argument and proof (Hujjah) to support our position. This is because Allah (swt) has demanded a plural (Jam’un) and not Khabar Waahid (a single/solitary line) for the verification of murder and theft. And two is a Jam’un (plural). The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Two and what is greater is a Jamaa’ah (collective)’ (At-Tahaawiy in ‘Ma’aani Al-Athaar’ 308/1, Al-Haakim in ‘Al-Mustadrak’, Ibn Maajah in his Sunnah 972 and AlBaihaqi in his ‘Sunan Al-Kubraa’ 69/3). Some of the ‘Ulamaa used this as evidence to say that the minimum number for the Mutawaatir (*) is two and this is a khabar waahid after waahid (one). (*ref: Al-Kuloodhaani in ‘At-Tamheed’ 29/3 and Al-Quraafiy in ‘Nafaa’is Al-Usool’ 2967/6) Similarly the Shar’a (Islamic legislation) has demanded that a Jam’u (collective) of two witnesses the Wasiyah (will) in addition to affirming the Talaaq (divorce), Zawaaj (marriage), the sighting of the new moon according to the stronger opinion, and to verify the Dain (debt). All of these are from amongst the Adillah (evidences) which indicate that the Khabar Al-Waahid, even if from a just person (‘Adl), does not establish (decisive) knowledge and even if it establishes the action (i.e. it is acted upon).
As for the Sunnah: He (saw) did not accept what Al-Waleed Bin ‘Uqbah Bin Abi Mu’ait informed him in regards to Bani Al-Mustaliq until he had dispatched Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed to verify his news. It was upon this incident that the Aayah of verification in Soorah Al-Hujuraat was revealed (Ref: Tafseer of At-Tabari of Aayah 6 of Soorah Al-Hujuraat). It should not be said that the command to verify was only because the informant was a Faasiq because the informant was a Sahaabi and the Sahaabah (rah) are ‘Udool (trustworthy) whilst those who have gone outside of this well accepted and established principle should not be relied upon here.
Addition the Nabi (saw) did not accept the statement of Dhu l-Yadayni when he told the Nabi (saw) that he had only prayed two Rak’ah for Salaatu zh-Zhohr. So he said to the Nabi (saw): ‘Have you shortened the prayer or did you forget?’ The Nabi (saw) then looked round to the right and the left and asked the people: ‘What is Dhu-Yaday l ni saying?’ They responded: ‘He spoke the truth. You did not pray except two Rak’ah’(Al-Bukhaari 1821/1 and Muslim 403/1 amongst others in the chapter ‘Forgetfulness in the Salaah’). The point to not in the speech of Dhu l-Yadayni is that it came in opposition to what the Messenger (saw) was certain in himself about whilst the Yaqeen (certainty) cannot be stood up against by Zhann (uncertainty) but rather it must be opposed by Yaqeen (certainty). For this reason the Nabi (saw) asked the people and they responded to him by saying that Dhu l-Yadayni had spoken the truth. Certainty was then stood up against Yaqeen and so he (saw) prayed that which he had forgotten and then made the Sajdah As-Sahw (prostration of forgetfulness). Therefore it is affirmed that the Khabar Al-Waahid did not ascertain certainty in respect to the Nabi (saw). From this Daleel and what is similar to it the following principle was deduced: ‘The Yaqeen does not go away except by way of Yaqeen’ or ‘The Yaqeen is not removed by the Zhann (doubtful/speculative) or Shakk (doubt)’ And Allah knows best.
As for the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah: The Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah (rah) has guided to the Khabar Al-Aahaad not establishing ‘Ilm and Yaqeen and that they are not taken into the Aqeedah; otherwise they would have verified and affirmed the Qur’aan by the solitary (Aahaad) statement in the case where this represent a pillar of the Aqeedah. Ahmad, At-Tabaraani, Ibn Mardawiyah and Al-Bazzaar related in a Saheeh chain from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) that ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (ra) used to take out the Mu’awidhataini (The last two Soorahs) from the Mushaf and in a narration it stated: ‘He used to rub out the Mu’awidhataini’ and he would say: ‘Do not mix the Qur’aan with that which is not from it. They (the two) are not from the Book of Allah but rather the Nabi (saw) used to only command us to seek refuge with them’.
Al-Bazzaar said: ‘No one from amongst the Sahaabah followed Ibn Mas’ood (in regards to this understanding)’. This is a clear evidence indicating that the Sahaabah (ra) did not affirm the Qur’aan or any part of it as being part of the Qur’aan by way of Aahaad like the statement of Ibn Mas’ood. Rather it had to be decisive and Mutawaatir.
Al-Haakim in his ‘Al-Mustadrak’ and others related from Katheer bin As-Sult that he said: ‘Ibn ul-‘Aas and Zaib Bin Thaabit were writing the Masaahif (Qur’aans) and they passed a certain Aayah and Zaid said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: ‘Ash-Sheikh Wash- Sheikhah (the old man and old woman) if they commit Zinaa then stone them to death’. ‘Amr said: ‘When this was revealed I approached the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said ‘Should we write it?’. Shu’bah said: ‘It was as if he disliked that to be done’. ‘Amr then said: ‘Do you see that of a Sheikh is not married that he is lashed and that if a young man who was married committed Zinaa is stoned?’. (Ref: Al-Mustadrak of Al-Haakim 360/4). A Riwaayah (narration) in Al-Muwatta’ states: ‘Umar (ra) said: ‘If it would not have been said that I added to the Qur’aan I would have written it’ and in another narration: ‘If the people would not have said that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab had added to the Book of Allah I would have written it because verily we had recited it’ (Ref: In ‘Al-Muwatta’’ of Maalik in the Book of Hudood in the chapter of stoning Hadeeth Number 10). In spite of that the Sahaabah (rah) did not affirm this sentence as being an Aayah in the Book of Allah Ta’Aalaa because it had not been verified decisively but rather only by Aahaad which represents Zhann (speculation). Imaam Maalik also related in Al-Muwatta’ a narration from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that she said: ‘From that which was revealed was ten consecutive feeds from the breast would make us Haraam to one another (i.e. marriage) then this was abrogated with five breast feeds and then the Messenger (saw) passed away whilst this was being recited from the Qur’aan’ (Ref: The book of breastfeeding Hadeeth number 17). This sentence however was also not affirmed to be an Aayah from the Book of Allah because it was not affirmed decisively but rather by Aahaad which is Zhann. Ibn Al-Anbaariy and Ibn Abi Daawood collected in their books tens of sentences that were found in the Muhafs of the Sahaabah individually but were not affirmed in the Mushaf AlImaam (the final compiled Mushaf in the time of ‘Uthmaan (ra) which is the only Mushaf that is considered to be the Qur’aan). From these sentences was the sentence that was found in the Mushaf of Az-Zubair (ra): ‘There is no blame upon you for you to seek a favour/bounty from your Lord in the seasons of Hajj’. And in the Mushaf of ‘Aa’ishah (ra): ‘And safeguard the prayers and the Salaat ul Wustaa (middle prayer) and Salaat ul ‘Asr’ (Here the last part is an addition to what was affirmed and agreed upon). And in the Mushaf of Ubayy Bin Ka’b: ‘So then fast three consecutive days as Kaffaarah for the Yameen (broken sworn oath)’ This is in addition to other sentences however the Sahaabah (rah) agreed and made consensus upon that they were not the Qur’aan and the evidence for this is that they were not affirmed in
the Mushaf Al-Imaam which is what we have between our hands. It is not valid to say that they are the Qur’aan because they were not verified and affirmed as being Tawaatur and decisive but rather they were Aahaad and represented Zhann. The Sahaabah (rah) then did something that was eye-catching which made clear that these sentences were not considered to be the Qur’aan. This is when they agreed to the decision of ‘Uthmaan Bin ‘Affaan (ra) to burn all of the Aahaad Masaahif (versions/copies) in the possession of the Sahaabah which were different in their sentences to the Mushaf Al-Imaam which they agreed upon to be the Qur’aan Al-Kareem and this is the position of the people of Islaam (Ahlu-s-Sunnah) everywhere and in every time. The companion of Muslim Ath-Thuboot said: ‘That which has been transmitted by Aahaad (single line transmissions) is definitely not from the Qur’aan and no difference is known in regards to this from a single person from the people of the Madhaahib’ (Ref: The commentary of Al-Mustasfaa of Al-Ghazaali 9/2). In this Ijmaa’ of action and speech (Fi’liy and Qawliy) from the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and that of the Madhaahib, lies the greatest evidence to support the view that the ‘Aqaa’id of the Muslims is not affirmed by anything other than Yaqeen (certainty). The Kitaab of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla is one of the pillars of the Islamic Aqeedah which we have brought forth in the context of the Mas’alah (issue) we are examining and it is sufficient to dispel those who have said that the Aahaad establish certainty and that they are taken to affirm the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs).
The third angle Their difference in regards to establishing the Khabar Al-Aahaad (single line or solitary report).
Amongst the evidences establishing that the Khabar Al-Aahaad do not benefit other than speculation, is the difference of the Sahaabah (rah) and those who came after them in regards to verifying the Khabar Al-Waahid in terms of its rejection and acceptance. If it establishes (decisive) ‘Ilm and Yaqeen (certainty) then their differing upon it would hold no meaning and some of them would have rejected this from others and condemned it. The fact that this did not happen therefore indicates to that which we have established. As for the Sahaabah (rah):
All of them did not accept the Riwaayah (narration) of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood when he did not consider the ‘Mu’awaidhataini’ to be from the Qur’aan as we have previously established in respect to the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah upon not considering the Khabar Al-Aahaad in the Qur’aan Al-Kareem whilst it represents the source of the Islamic ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs). Other examples:
1) From the Shar’iah examples and evidences of the actions and statements of the Sahaabah (ra) that occurred without anyone denying them and which indicate the permissibility of differing upon the acceptance and non-acceptance of the Khabar Al-Aahaad is what was reported from ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra). This is when he did not accept the narration of Hafsah the Mother of the believers in relation to the Statement of Allah (swt):
Safeguard the prayers and the middle-prayer (Al-Baqarah 238). This is when she added ‘Was Salaat ul ‘Asr’ (And the ‘Asr prayer). ‘Umar (ra) said to her: ‘Do you have a Bayyinah (clear proof/evidence) for that?’ She replied: ‘No’. So he said: ‘By Allah we will not insert into the Qur’aan that which a woman has born witness to without establishing a clear proof’. 2) ‘Umar (ra) rejected the Khabar (report) of Faatimah Bin Qais in respect to issue of Nafaqah, residence and settlement, Imaam Muslim and others related from Ash-Sha’biy that he relayed the Hadeeth of Faatimah Bin Qais that states that the Messenger of Allah (saw)did not give her the right of Nafaqah (spending) and residence (when she was divorced). ‘Umar said: ‘We will not leave the Kitaab of our Rabb and the Sunnah of our Nabiy for the speech of a woman which we
do not know if she has retained (remembered) or forgotten. She (the woman) has the right of housing and Nafaqah (spending)’. And he recited the speech of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
Do not turn them out of their (husband's) homes, and they shall not (themselves) leave, unless they engaged in some open evil lewdness (i.e. Zinaa) (At-Talaaq 1). ‘Aa’ishah (ra) also rejected this Hadeeth (Ref: Sharh of Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawi 104/1). 3) ‘Aa’ishah (ra) rejected the Khabar of Ibn ‘Umar (ra) in relation to the punishment of the dead due to the crying of his family over him. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related from ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘The dead will be punished due to the crying of his family over him’. When ‘Aa’ishah (ra) heard this she said: ‘By Allah the Messeenger of Allah (saw) did not at all say that the dead would be punished for anyone’s crying’. In another narration about this ‘Aa’ishah (ra) said: ‘May Allah’s mercy be upon Ibn ‘Umar because by Allah the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not say: ‘Verily Allah will punish the believer due to the crying of his family upon him’. (Ref: Fat’h ul- Baari’ of Al-‘Asqalaaniy 152/3 and the Sharh of Muslim by An-Nawawi 232/6).
4) Al-Bukhaari related Hudhaifah Bin Al-standing. Yamaan (ra) (saw) water went to place of waste of somethat people and urinated He said: then ‘The calledNabi for some andtheI brought it for him and he made Wudoo’’. However ‘Aa’ishah (ra) rejected this. Al -Haakim And Ibn Uwaanah in their Saheeh books related that she (ra) said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not urinate standing since the time that the Qur’aan descended’. And she (ra) said: ‘Whoever tells you that he used to urinate whilst standing don’t believe him’. (Ref: Fat’h ul -Baari’ 330/1 and Sharh of Muslim of An-Nawawi 165/3). 5) In regards to the sighting of the Nabi ( saw) of his Rabb (swt) on the night of the Mi’raaj (Ascension) which is from the matters of the unseen; An-Nasaa’i and Al-Haakim related with a Saheeh chain from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) that he said: ‘Do you find it wondrous that the close companionship belonged to Ibraaheem, the speech to Musaa and the sight to Muhammad’. ‘Abdur Razzaaq related from Mu’ammar Bin Al-Hasan that he swore that Muhammad (saw) saw his Rabb. Ibn Ishaq related that Ibn ‘Umar (ra) wrote to Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) asking him if Muhammad (saw) had seen his Rabb and Ibn ‘Abbaas wrote back: ‘Yes’. However ‘Aa’ishah (ra) strongly rejected this and said: ‘Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Rabb has lied’ (Ref: Sharh Muslim of An-Nawawi 3/4 and Fat’h ul-Baari’ 606/8.
6) Imaam Muslim amongst others related from the Nabi (saw) that he said: ‘The Salaah is cut (broken) by (passing of) the woman, the donkey and the dog’. This reached ‘Aa’ishah (ra) and she rejected it saying: ‘You have made us similar to the donkeys and the dogs’ and in another narration: ‘You have made us equal to the dogs and the donkeys’ and in another: ‘You have made us dogs’. (Ref: Sharh Muslim of An-Nawawi 228/4 and Fat’h ulBaari’ 589/1). 7) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related from ‘Aasim who said: I said to Anas Bin Maalik: ‘Has it reached you that the Nabi (saw) said that there is no Hilf (allying) in Islaam?’ He said: ‘The Nabi (saw) allied between the Quraish and the Ansaar in my dwellings’ and in a narration from Muslim: ‘...in his house’. Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaaniy said: ‘The answer of Anas represents a denial of the main part of the Hadeeth because it included the negation of the Hilf whilst what Anas said affirmed its existence’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 501-2/10 These example are sufficient to deduce that the Akhbaar (reports) Al-Aahaad did not establish other than Zhann amongst the Sahaabah (rah) and is this was not the case then how could it be justified for them to have differences in respect to their acceptance and rejection whilst this was done in front of the eyes and ears of others and they did not condemn them for this. In addition there are many other examples of them not accepting a report without a secondary proof or testimony which also indicates that the Khabar Al-Aahaad did not represent anything other than Zhann for them. Examples of this:
1) What was recorded by At-Tirmidhi, Abu Daawood and others. Qubaisah Bin Abi Dhuaib said: The grandmother approached Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra) asking him about her inheritance: He said: ‘You do not have in the Book of Allah Ta’Aalaa anything and I have not known anything in the Sunnah of the Nabi of Allah (saw) that gives you anything. So return (home) so that I can revise the matter with the people’. So he asked the people and Al-Mugheerah Bin Shu’bah said: ‘She (a grandmother) came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he gave her a sixth’. Abu Bakr then said: ‘Do you have anyone else alongside you (who can confirm that)?’ Then Muhammad Bin Salamah came and said the same as what Al-Mugheerah Bin Shu’bah had said, and so Abu Bakr ( ra) applied this upon her’ (Ref: Sunan Abu Daawood 121/3 in the chapter of the grandmother and At-Tirmidhi in the chapter ‘What has come in regards to the inheritance of the grandmother’). 2) What Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related from Abu Musaa Al-Ash’ariy (ra) that he sought permission to enter upon ‘Umar (ra) three times and it was as if he found him busy so he returned. ‘Umar then said: ‘Did I not hear the voice of ‘Abdullah Bin Qais (i.e. Abu Musaa). Give him permission to enter’. So he called him back and said: ‘What made you do what you did?’ So he (Abu Musaa) said: ‘We were commanded to do this’. Then he said: ‘You will definitely bring evidence (testimony) for this or I will do something to you (i.e. punish)’. So they went to a gathering of the Ansaar and they said: ‘None except our youngest will give testimony
upon this’. So Sa’eed Al-Khudriy (ra) stood and said: ‘We were commanded to do this’. Then ‘Umar said: ‘This command of the Messenger of Allah (saw) was hidden from me and was distracted from it by trading in the markets’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 320/13, 27/11 and Sharh Muslim of An-Nawawi 130/14). 3) What was recorded by Imaam Ahmad and Abu Daawood amongst others from ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (ra) that he said: ‘I was a man who when I heard a Hadeeth from the Messenger of Allah (saw) that Allah would benefit me with it in the way that He wished me to benefit. And when one of his companions informed me I would seek an oath from them and if they swore and oath I would believe it, and Abu Bakr would inform me and Abu Bakr (ra) spoke the truth’ (Ref: Musnad of Imaam Ahmad 10/1, the Sunan of Abu Daawood 86/2 and ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh 10/2). Therefore as can be seen, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not affirm certainty, there would have been no reason for Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Ali (ra) to seek corroborating testimony and evidence or to take a sworn oath from their companions. This is despite them knowing with certainty that they were truthful and that they would not attribute lies to the Messenger of Allah (saw) because they are all ‘Udool (trustworthy) as a whole. It could be said that they used to accept many narrations without requesting corroborating evidence and proof which indicates that they viewed them as being certain and even if they were Khabar Al-Aahaad. Answer: Their acceptance of narrations without requesting corroborating evidence guides to the fact that they were firm in their view. They were either heard directly from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in which case it was certain for that person, or when the narration had become Mutawaatir amongst them and even if only in its meaning, For this reason they did not ask for testimony upon them and these reports are not considered by them to be Akhbaar Aahaad and its rules do not apply upon them. Our deduction based on the above mentioned examples about Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Ali in respect to them seeking corroborative testimony and oaths for the narration has not been presented to prove that the Khabar of two or three men establishes decisive knowledge and certainty as this is not its context. Rather it is to indicate that had every Khabar Waahid (singly transmitted report) established certainty in their view then why would they have asked for corroborative testimony and proof for it and were they silent over this. This is therefore is what we wanted to illustrate from these previous examples.
The differing of the ‘Ulamaa after the Sahaabah: As for the ‘Ulamaa who came after the Sahaabah (rah) then they spoke about their difference in respect to the acceptance and rejection of the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad and the reports that do not reach the level of Tawaatur and Yaqeen according to their agreement. This indicates that what
isn’t Mutawaatir is regarded to be Khabar Aahaad and that it does not establish (decisive) knowledge and certainty, and that it establishes the action (i.e. to act by them) and not I’tiqaad (belief), otherwise it would not have been permitted for them to differ in respect to them. These differences are many indeed and they require volumes, a matter which is well-known amongst those who have knowledge in these areas, and amongst the scholars of Fiqh and Hadeeth. However we will present some examples for the purpose of making the point. 1) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘None of you believes until his desires are in accordance to that which I have come with’. An-Nawawi recorded it in his ‘Forty’ and said that the Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh, we have related it from Kitaab Al-Hujjah with a Saheeh Isnaad. Al-Haafizh Ibn Hajr said: ‘It was brought by Al-Hasan Bin Sufyaan and other than him and its Rijaal (transmitters) are Thiqqaat (trustworthy/sound)’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 289/13). Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali said: ‘Classifying this Hadeeth as Saheeh is very remote (far off)’ (Ref: Jaam’i Al-‘Uloom Wa-l-Hikam p521). 2) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘Verily Allah has overlooked for me from my Ummah the mistake, forgetfulness and upon that which they were compelled (against their will)’. An-Nawawi said: ‘Hadeeth Hasan related by Ibn Maajah, Al-Baihaqi and others. Al-Haakim recorded it and said: ‘It is Saheeh upon their (two) conditionality’. Abu Haatim Ar-Raazi said: ‘This Hadeeth is not Saheeh and its Isnaad (chain) is not corroborated’. Al-Imaam Ahmad rejected it and Ibn Katheer said that its Isnaad was Jayyid (good/sound). (Ref: Jaam’i Al-‘Uloom Wa-l-Hikam p501 and Tufah At-Taalib of Ibn Katheer p271). 3) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘There is no harm and harming’ (Laa Darara Wa Laa Diraar). Al-Haakim said that its Isnaad was Saheeh and An-Nawawi classified it as Hasan. Al-Haafizh Khaalid Bin Sa’eed Al-Andulusiy said: ‘The Hadeeth ‘Laa Darara Wa Laa Diraar’ was not Saheeh’. (Ref: The previous reference p410). 4) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘The Imaam is Daamin and the Mu’adhdhin is Mu’tamin’. ‘Ali Bin Al-Mudaini said: It is not corroborated whilst Ibn Hibbaan classified it as Saheeh (Ref: Nail Al-Awtaar of Ash-Shawkaani 13/2).
5) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘The Hudodd are not undertaken inside the Masjid and leadership is not sought in it’. Related by Ahmad and Abu Daawood with a Da’eef (weak) chain. Ibn Hajr said in his Talkhees: ‘There is no problem with its Isnaad’ (Ref: Subul us Salaam AsSan’aaniy 155/1). 6) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘Whoever places a judge between/amongst the people then he has slaughtered without (the use of) a knife’. At-Tirmidhi classified it as Hasan, Ibn Khuzaimah as Saheeh whilst Ibn ul-Jawziy said: ‘This Hadeth is not Saheeh’ (Nail Al-Awtaar 1163/9). 7) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘The comparison of the kiss in Ramadhaan to the Madmadah (rinsing mouth in Wudoo’)’. Al-Haakim, Ibn Hibbaan and Ibn Khuzaimah related in their Sihaah (Saheeh collections). An-Nasaa’iy said: ‘This Hadeeth is Munkar (rejected) and Al-Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal said the same (Ref: Tuhfah Al-Ishraaf 17/8, ‘Aun Al-Ma’bood 12/7, and Tuhfah At-Taalib p425). 8) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘Talqeen Al-Mayyit’ (Instruction of the dead). Ibn Hajr regarded it with strength whilst Ibn ul-Qayyim classified it as Da’eef (weak) (Ref: Subul As-Salaam 113/2). 9) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade the fast of ‘Arafah’. Ibn Khuzaimah and Al-Haakim classified it as Saheeh whilst Al-‘Uqaily classified it as Da’eef (Ref: Subul As-Salaam 172/2). 10) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘Seek a righteous verdict from your heart for that which gives your Nafs comfort...’ An-Nawawi classified it as Hasan whilst Ibn Rajab declared it Da’eef. (Ref: Jaam’i Al-‘Uloom Wa-l-Hikam p147).
11) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘Are you two then blind’. Ibn Hajr said: The Hadeeth is differed upon in respect to its correctness/soundness (Sihhah) whilst At-Tirmidhi declared it as Hasan Saheeh. (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 550/1, Sunan At-Tirmidhi in the chapter of seeking permission and manners 192/4). 12) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘If you see a man who regularly attends the Masaajid then bear witness for his Imaan’. At-Tirmidhi said that it is a Saheeh Hadeeth and Al-Haakim and Ibn Khuzaimah classified it as Saheeh however Al-‘Iraaqiy and Maghaltay (Ref: Faid Al-Qadeer of Al-Manaawiy 358/1). 13) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘My Ummah will be divided into seventy and something divisions/groupings’. At-Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Saheeh whilst Ibn Hazm said that it is not Saheeh. (Ref: Sunan AtTirmidhi 124/4 and Al-Fasl fee Al-Malal Wan Nahl of Ibn Hazm 292/3). 14) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘Seeking knowledge is a Fareedah (obligation) upon every Muslim’. As-Suyootiy classified it as Saheeh, As-Sakhaawiy said it has credence with Abu Shaheen with a chain (sanad) where its transmitters are trustworthy and Al-Haafizh Al-Muzziy said it was Hasan, whilst Ibn ul-Qattaan said that it is not Saheeh in any respect and An-Nawawi declared it Da’ef (weak) (Ref: Faid ul-Qadeer 267/4 and Tadreeb Ar-Raawiy 149/1). 15) They disagreed about the Hadeeth forbidding singing. They were declared Da’eef by Ibn ul‘Arabi and Ibn Hazm whilst they were classified as Saheeh by other than them (Ref:Nail AlAwtaar 264/8). 16) They differed over the Hadeeth: ‘Any woman who is married without the permission of her Waliy then her Nikaah (marriage) is Baatil, Baatil, Baatil (invalid)’. Ibn Katheer said that a number of the people of knowledge discussed this. Ibn Jareeh said: Then I met Az-Zuhriy and asked him and he rejected/denied it and so they classified this Hadeeth as Da’eef based on that. He then said: This Hadeeth has been declared Saheeh by ‘Ali Bin AlMudainiy one of the A’immah (Notable Scholars) (Ref: Tuhfah At-Taalib p352).
17) They disagreed over the Hadeeth: ‘The example of my Ummah is like the rain, it is not known whether goodness is in ots beginning or its end’. Ibn Abdul-Barr said that this Hadeeth is Hasan whilst An-Nawawi declared it Da’eef. (Ref: Kashf ul-Khafaa’ of Al-‘Ajlooniy 197/2). 18) They disagreed over the Hadeeth: ‘Do you see the sun?’ He replied: Yes. He (then) said: Bear witness/testimony like it (i.e. in certainty and clarity) or leave it’. Al-Haakim declared it Saheeh whilst Ibn ‘Adiy declared it Da’eef (Subul As-Salaam of AsSan’aaniy 130/4). _____________ They also differed in respect to the Ahaadeeth of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim in spite of the claim made by Abu ‘Amr Bin As-Salaah (Rahimuhullah) when he stated that they establish and affirm ‘Ilm, Yaqeen (certainty) and Qat’ (decisiveness/definiteness) in terms of their correctness. Examples: 1) The Hadeeth of ‘Al-Istikhaarah’. It was related by Al-Bukhaari and classified as weak by Al-Imaam Ahmad (Ref: Tuhfah AdhDhaakireen, Ash-Shawkaani p133). 2) The Hadeeth: ‘Whatever has been tanned has been purified’. Related by Al-Imaam Muslim and classified as Da’eef by Al-Imaam Ahmad. 3) The Hadeeth: ‘That he (saw) prayed the prayer of eclipse with three Rukoo’s and four Rukoo’s’. Al-Bukhaari related this and Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy declared it as Da’eef (weak). 4) The Hadeeth: ‘Verily Allah created the ground (soil) on Saturday, the mountains on Sunday, the trees on Monday, the Makrooh on Tuesday, light on Wednesday, and sent forth in it the animals on Thursday and created Aadam on Friday’. Muslim recorded it in his Saheeh and Al-Baihaqi declared it Da’eef (Ref: Ibn Taymiyyah in ‘Ilm ul-Hadeeth 70). It is worth noting that the above Hadeeth has a relationship to the attributes (Siffaat) of Allah (swt) related to creation and the Qudrah (power/ability) to bring something out of nothing, and despite this they still differed in regards to it.
5) The Hadeeth: ‘This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. a noble) and may Allah make peace between two big groups of Muslims through him’. (Referring to Al-Hasan Bin ‘Ali (ra)). Al-Bukhaari related this and it was classifies as Da’eef by Al-Waleed Al-Yaajiy (The same source as previous reference). This Hadeeth also discusses the Ghaib (unseen) and yet there exists one who has classified it as Da’eef and not used it as evidence. 6) The Hadeeth: ‘Then as for the fire it will not fill until Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Aalaa will put down His foot and it (the fire) will say Qat Qat (Enough)’. (Mutaffaq ‘Alaihi i.e. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim). Al-Jazaa’iriy said: ‘This Hadeeth and others (with different meanings) which are many make it hard for the person to say that this is Saheeh let alone have certainty in it (Ref: Tawjeeh AnNazhar Ilaa Usool Al-Athar p130). This Hadeeth also relates to the unseen (Ghaib) and the being of Allah (swt). Despite being Saheeh there are those who have denied/rejected it. 7) The Hadeeth: ‘The Nabi (saw) had a horse called Luhaif’. Al-Bukhaari and classified as Da’eef by Ad-Daaruqutniy, Ahmad and Ibn Mo’een. (Ref: Same as previous p332). 8) The Hadeeth: ‘Ibraaheem (as) will meet his father Aazar on the Day of Judgement and dust will be upon Aazar’s face’. Related by Al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh and Al-Ismaa’eeliy said: This Khabar has questions in regards to its correctness. (Ref: Same as previous p332). 9) The statement of Al-Haafizh Bin Hajr as a whole about the Ahaadeeth of the two Saheeh collections which he critiqued saying: ‘ The number (of Hadeeth whose authenticity has been questioned) in the Book of Al-Bukhaari and even if Muslim shared some of these, is 110 Hadeeth. From these Muslim recorded 32 whilst Al-Bukhaari was alone in recording 78 of them’. (Ref: Introduction of Fat’h ul-Baari’ p246). (Translator’s Note: This quote does not mean that Ibn Hajr questioned the authenticity of this number of Hadeeth but rather he mentioned the number that others had questioned). The matter does not end here in relation to disagreement over the Sihhah (soundness/authenticity) of the Aahaad whether they were related in the two Saheeh books or others. Indeed it went further than that as there were ‘Ulamaa who blatantly rejected Ahaadeeth which were affirmed by other than them because they considered them to have been lies and fabrications made against the Messenger of Allah (saw). These included some that were recorded in the Saheeh collections of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
Examples: 1) Al-Imaam Muslim related: ‘Verily Allah created the ground (soil) on Saturday, and created in it the mountains on Sunday, the trees on Monday, the Makrooh on Tuesday, light on Wednesday, and sent forth in it the animals on Thursday and created Aadam after ‘Asr on Friday in the last creation in the last hour from the hours of Jumu’ah (Friday) in the time between ‘Asr and the night’ Ibn ul-Qayyim in his book ‘Naqd Al-Manqool’ (Critique of what has been transmitted) in the chapter: ‘The opposition of the subject of the Hadeeth to what is clear in the Qur’aan’ he said: ‘And this appears to resemble that which error has fallen upon in regards to the Hadeeth of Abu Hurairah: ‘Allah created the ground on Saturday...’ (Ref: p78). 2) Al-Imaam Muslim recorded from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) that he said: ‘The Muslims neither looked to Abu Sufyan (with respect) nor did they sit in his company. He (Abu Sufyan) said to the Nabi of Allah (saw): O Allah's Nabi, grant me three things. He replied in the affirmative. He (further) said: I have with me the most handsome and the best (woman) Umm Habiba, daughter of Abu Sufyan; marry her, whereupon he said: Yes. And he again said: Accept Mu'awiya to serve as your scribe. He said: Yes. He again said: Make me the commander (of the Muslim army) so that I should fight against the unbelievers as I fought against the Muslims. He said: Yes...’. Ibn Hazm said: ‘This Hadeeth is fabricated and there is no doubt in that’ (Ref: Tawjeeh AnNazhar Ilaa Usool Al-Athar p137). 3) Al-Imaam Muslim recorded: ‘If you live for a time, you would be about to see people going out (in the morning) with the anger of Allah and returning in the evening under the curse of Allah, and there would be in their hands (whips) like the tail of an ox’. Ibn ul-Jawziy quoted it in his ‘Mawdoo’aat’ (collection of fabricated Hadeeth) from Ibn Hibbaan and said: ‘This Khabar (report) with this wording (Lafzh) is Baatil (invalid/false)’ (Ref: Ibn ulJawziy in his ‘Mawdoo’aat Al-Kubraa’ 101/3). 4) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim in their books of Saheeh reported from Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that from the Nabi (saw) in respect to His speech Ta’Aalaa:
If you sought forgiveness for them seventy times then Allah will (still) never forgive them (At-Taubah 80). He (saw) said: ‘I will then increase to over seventy’. Al-Ghazaaliy said in ‘Al-Mustasfaa’: This Khabar Waahid (single line report) does not establish a proof in affirming the language’.
He said in ‘Al-Mankhool’: That which has been reported in relation to the Aayah of Istighfaar (seeking forgiveness) is a definite lie. The aim of this is to stay away from that which leads to despair from forgiveness so how can it be thought that the Messenger (saw) would be unmindful of that’ (Al-Mustasfaa 195/2 and Al-Mankhoul p212). This is in respect to what has been found within the two Saheehs. As for other than them then there is no hiding that they disagreed in respect to denying/rejecting them and affirming them and even if they were related to the Aqaa’id beliefs. This is like the Ahaadeeth about the miracle of the Nabi (saw) in regards to the returning of the sun after it had set in the Ghazwah of Khaibar. Al-Jawzqaaniy said that it was rejected and inconsistent (Mudtarib), Al-Jawziy quoted it in his ‘Mawdoo’aat’ (Book of fabricated Ahaadeeth) whilst At-Tahaawiy classified it as Saheeh in his ‘Mushkil Al-Aathaar’ as did Al-Qaadi ‘Iyaadh in his ‘Ash-Shifaa’. (Ref: ‘Al-Masnoo’ah’ of AsSuyootiy 336/1). Whoever wishes to examine the truthfulness of what we are saying then he should look at the book: ‘Fawaa’id Al-Majmoo’ah Fee Ahaadeeth Al-Mawdoo’ah’ of Ash-Shawkaani. It mentions in it many Saheeh and Hasan Ahaadeeth which some of the ‘Ulamaa have rejected and have classed as being from the Mawdoo’aat (Fabricated Ahaadeeth) a matter which Ash-Shawkaani paid attention to within this book. There is also the book: ‘Alaali’u ul-Masnoo’ah Fil Ahaadeeth Al-Mawdoo’ah’ by Al-Haafizh AsSuyootiy, in which he revised many of the Ahaadeeth from Ibn ul- Jawziy’s book: ‘AlMawdoo’aat Al-Kubraa’ and affirmed that they were considered to be Saheeh and Hasan in the opinion of others. Similarly Ibn Hajr also revised Ibn Al-Jawziy’s book of fabricated Ahaadeeth and those which were quoted from the Musnad of Al-Imaam Ahmad, which numbered twenty-four Ahaadeeth. This was in his book: ‘Al-Qawl Al-Musaddad Fi dh-Dhabb Musnad Al-Imaam Ahmad’. There is also the book ‘Al-Mustadrak’ of Al-Haakim in which he quoted Ahaadeeth upon the conditionality of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim or one of them as it appeared to him. However AdhDhahabi then followed him and revised many Ahaadeeth that he had considered to be from the Mawdoo’aat. If the examples that we have presented in this section about the Ikhtilaaf (difference and disagreement) of the ‘Ulamaa from the time of the Sahaabah (rah) until this time of ours in regards to the Aahaad narrations are correct then this would represent a decisive indication in respect to the Khabar Al-Aahaad not establishing decisiveness and Yaqeen (certainty). If this was not the case, then how could their disagreement and their rejection been justifiable? We would have seen some of them condemn others in a severe and strong manner in the same way that they would have done had the issue been related to the definite and Mutawaatir. As this condemnation did not happen it is then known with certainty that the Khabar Aahaad do not represent other than Zhann. Indeed in addition to that we find that they were agreed upon not
declaring disbelief upon the one who denies the Aahaad which is not the case with the Mutawaatir. This was mentioned by As-Sarkhasiy, Al- Jarjaaniy and the author of ‘Fawaatih ArRahmout as will be explained later. (Ref: Sarkhasiy in his ‘Usool’ 12/1 or 292, Abdu Sh-Shukoor in ‘Fawaatih Ar-Rahmoot’, Al-Haashiyah of Al-Ghazaali 11/2, and Al-Jarjaaniy in his ‘Ta’reef’ p102). Indeed there were also some who did not classify the one who rejected the Aahaad as being Faasiq like Qaadi Abu Ya’laa despite as Ijmaa’ being established upon this (Ref: Usool Fiqh, Abu Yaa’laa p233).
The fourth angle: It is not permitted for there to be disagreement in the ‘Aqaa’id which have been firmly established amongst the Muslims.
This issue is nearly one of the basic and obvious issues for the ‘Ulamaa of the Muslims and the evidences for it are abundant and Qat’iy (decisive). From them is the statement of Allah (swt):
)051(
Verily, those who disbelieve in Allah and his Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allah and his Messengers saying: "We believe in some but reject others" and wish to adopt a way in between. They are in truth disbelievers and we have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment (An-Nisaa 150-151).
And His statement (swt):
Then do you believe in some of the book and disbelieve in some? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Judgement they shall be consigned to the most severest torment and Allah is not unaware of what you do *Al-Baqarah 82). In a Saheeh Hadeeth related by Abu Hurairah (ra) the Nabi (saw) said: ‘Al-Jidaal (arguing/disputing) in respect to the Qur’aan is Kufr’and in another Saheeh narration: ‘AlMiraa’ (disputing/arguing/doubting) in respect to the Qur’aan is Kufr ’. Al-Imaam Abu ‘Umar Ibn Abdul Barr (rh) said: ‘The meaning of this is that two people argue/wrangle about an Aayah and one denies it and proceeds upon doubt. This is the type of Miraa’ (disputing) that is Kufr. As for disputing in respect to the Ahkaam of the Qur’a an and its meanings, then the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) disputed in regards to this a lot. This therefore makes clear to you that the disputing which is Kufr is the denial/disbelief and Shakk (doubt). This is like the speech of Allah (swt):
And those who disbelieve will not cease to be in doubt/disputing (Miryah) about it (this Qur'aan) (Al-Hajj 55). And he said: And the Salaf (predecessors) forbade the disputation and arguing in regards to Allah all Glory and Praise to him in respect to His Siffaat (attributes) and Asmaa’ (names). As for the Fiqh (i.e. Shar’iyah rulings) then they have agreed (held a consensus Ijmaa’) upon the argument and debate in respect to it. This is because it is an ‘Ilm (knowledge) that requires returning the branches to the ‘Usool (bases) due to the requirement of that whilst the I’tiqaadaat (beliefs) are not like that (Ref: Jaami’ Bayaan Al-‘Ilm Wa Fadlihi 92/2). As for the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad then this Hukm (ruling) does not apply upon them, meaning the ruling that applies to the beliefs (Aqaa’id). As for what they claim in respect to them being from the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs) or take the same ruling as the Aqaa’id, then their claim is Baatil (invalid) and rejected for a number of reasons: The first reason:
There is no Daleel (evidence) indicating that the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad are from the beliefs whether in the Qur’aan, the Sunnah or the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah. Rather the previously mentioned evidences have established the opposite to be the case. The second reason:
The denial of some of the Sahaabah and those who came after them of many of the Akhbaar Al Aahaad in addition to their disagreement over corroborating them as we have already mentioned earlier in the previous chapter. If the case was as they say then it would not have been allowed for anyone to differ and disagree or argue and dispute in respect to them. We would be seeking error in the Sahaabah (rah) who transmitted the Deen to us and the sin/error would fall upon the one who did that. This is inconceivable and it is rejected by the definite evidences. The third reason:
If the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad were from the ‘Aqaa’id or evidences for the ‘Aqaa’id then the Islamic beliefs would contain contradictions which would lead to harmful divisions in the Deen. This is because there are Saheeh Akhbaar Aahaad which clash with the Aayaat of the Qur’aan or are contradictory to them. This is like the Hadeeth related by Al-Imaam Muslim: ‘Verily Allah created the ground (soil) on Saturday, and created in it the mountains on Sunday, the trees on Monday, the Makrooh on Tuesday, light on Wednesday, and sent forth in it the animals on Thursday and created Aadam after ‘Asr on Friday in the last creation in the last hour from the hours of Jumu’ah (Friday) in the time between ‘Asr and the night’ (Ref: Naql Al-Manqool Ibn ulQayyim p78 where he considers it to be in conflict with what is explicit in the Qur’aan). This Hadeeth mentions that the creation was seven days whilst this contradicts the speech of Allah (swt) in the Qur’aan:
(He it is) who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between it in six days (Al-Furqaan 59). Similar to this is the Hadeeth of ‘Al-Gharaaneeq Al-‘Ulaa’: More than one of the A’immah and Huffaazh related this from more than one path, narration and a number of worded versions which were classified as being Saheeh by more than one of them. The (claimed) Hadeeth mentions: ‘That the Messenger of Allah (saw) was in Makkah and he recited Sourah An-Najm until he reached the Aayah: ‘And Al-Manaat the third the other’ and then it came upon his tongue to say: ‘They are the Gharaaneeq Al-Ulaa (the highest Cranes i.e. praise) and indeed their intercession is hoped for’. The disbelievers of Makkah then said: ‘He has not mentioned our Gods with goodness before this day’. Then he (saw) prostrated and so they all prostrated. Then Jibreel (as) came after that and said: ‘Present to me that which you have brought’. Then when he reached: ‘‘They are the Gharaaneeq Al-Ulaa (the highest Cranes i.e. praise) and indeed their intercession is hoped for’, Jibreel (as) said: ‘I did not bring this to you, it is from Shaytaan’. Then Allah (swt) revealed:
Never did we send a Messenger or a Prophet before you but when he desired (or hoped for) a matter Shaitaan threw (in the path some falsehood/misguidance) in it (Al-Hajj 52). This narration and anything similar to it is in contradiction and opposition to the speech of Allah (swt):
)3(
And he does not speak from his Hawaa (desires), Rather it is none other than Wahy (divine inspiration/revelation) that is inspired (An-Najm 3-4). It contradicts with the ‘Ismah (infallibility) of the Nabi (saw) in respect to the conveyance of His Message (Tableegh). There is also the Hadeeth recorded by Al-Imaam Muslim and others: ‘That the parents of the Messenger of Allah are in the fire’. This contradicts with the statement of Allah:
And we would not punish until we had sent a Messenger (Al-Israa 15). (Translators note: The issue here and understanding is not as clear cut as the author presents and Allah knows best as there may be no contradiction between the meaning of the Aayah and the Hadeeth is understood differently).
There are also Saheeh Ahaadeeth which inform us that the Messenger of Allah (saw) was affected by the Magic of a Jew (Ref: The main books of Tafseer when discussing the reason for the revelation of the Mu’awwidhataini). This however contradicts the statement of Allah (swt):
Allah will protect you from mankind (Al-Maa’idah 67). It also contradicts the ‘Ismah (infallibility) in respect to the conveyance of the Message (Tableegh) because the one who is enchanted is not aware of what he says or does. Al-Imaam Muslim and others also related from Faatimah Bin Qais that she said: ‘That the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not allocate for her housing or Nafaqah (spending)’ whilst this is in opposition to the speech of Allah (swt):
Do not turn them out of their (husband's) homes, and they shall not (themselves) leave, unless they engaged in some open evil lewdness (i.e. Zinaa) (At-Talaaq 1). Based upon what we have mentioned in terms of Ahaadeeth which contradict with the Noble Qur’aan it is not valid for it to be said that the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad establish Yaqeen and belief. Otherwise the Islamic beliefs would be contradictory and it would be an invitation towards divisions occurring in the Deen which is a matter which is condemned by the Shar’a without disagreement. The Saheeh (correct) Madh’hab (view) is that if the Aahaad contradict with the Qur’aan they are rejected Akhbaar aredefinite). Zhanniyah or contain some whilst the Qur’aan because is Qat’iythe (Decisive and The(speculative Zhanniy cannot oppose the doubt) Qat’iy in the case where it is not possible to bring them together and reconcile them. As for contradictions amongst the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad themselves and between the Akhbaar AlAahaad and the Mutawaatir from the Sunnah, then they are many as well. This indicates that the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad are not Yaqeeniyyah (reach the level of certainty) or ‘Aqadiyah (reach the
level of belief) and that they are not valid and suitable to establish the ‘Aqeedah, or otherwise there would be contradictions within the Islamic beliefs. Examples: 1) Al-Imaam Ahmad related in his Musnad from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that she said: ‘There was a Jewess who used to serve her and ‘Aa’ishah would not do anything kind towards her except that the Jewess would say: ‘May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave’. She (‘Aa’ishah) said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) then entered my house and I asked: ‘This Jewish lady, we do not do anything of kindness to her except that she says: ‘May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave’’. He (saw) said: ‘The Jews have lied and they are the greatest liars in respect to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla. There is no punishment other than the punishment of the Day of Judgment. It stayed like that for as long as Allah wished and then one day in the middle of that day he (saw) went out with his Thawb whilst his eyes were red and he began to call out at the top of his voice: ‘O people...if you were to know that which I know then you would have cried often and laughed little. O people, seek refuge in Allah from the punishment of the grave for verily the punishment of the grave is the Haqq (truth)’ (Ref: 81/6). Al-Haafizh Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaaniy said that Ahmad related this upon the condition of AlBukhaari (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 236/3). This Hadeeth is Aahaad with a Saheeh Isnaad (chain) and it denies the punishment of the grave once and affirms it once. If it established definite certain knowledge and belief (I’tiqaad) as they claim then this would mean that we would have to believe in two opposites related to the same issue at the same time which is inconceivable rationally and in accordance to the Shar’a. If it is said that the first meaning was abrogated by the second and as such there is no contradiction? The answer to this would be: This is from the Akhbaar (information and beliefs) and not from the Ahkaam (rulings) and Naskh (abrogation) does not occur in respect to them. If it was to occur then this means that one of the reports was a lie and this is inconceivable which opposes the ‘Ismah (infallibility) of the Nabi (saw) in respect to Tableegh. Az-Zarkashiy said in ‘Al-Bahr’: And secondly...This is an issue which has been attributed to Naskh (abrogation) among the Scholars of Usool. Let’s examine this; If it is from the matters that cannot possibly be changed in the case where it can only represent one thing, like the Siffaat (attributes) of Allah, or a Khabar (news) of the Anbiyaa’ and previous nations, or relate to the final hour and its signs like the coming of Ad-Dajjaal, then it is not permitted to be abrogated by agreement just as Abu Ishaq Al-Marooziy and Ibn Burhaan have stated, as this would lead to lying. (Ref: ‘Al-Bahr ul-Muheet Fee Usool Al-Fiqh’ 98/4). 2) Also from the conflicting Akhbaar Al-Aahaad is what Al-Imaam Muslim related from Jaabir and Ibn ‘Umar in respect to the Farewell Hajj and that the Nabi (saw) headed towards Makkah
on the Day of An-Nahr (sacrifice), that he made the Ifaadah Tawaaf and then prayed Zhohr in Makkah before returning to Minaa. In another narration also from the same path it stated: ‘That he made the Ifaadah Tawaaf and then returned and prayed Zhohr in Minaa’ (Ref: Related by Muslim in his Saheeh as An-Nawawi mentioned in his Sharh 194/8 and 58/10). Ibn Hazm said: One of these two narrations is Kadhib (lie/untrue) without doubt (‘Dhail AlJawaahir Al-Mudee’a’ of Abu Al-Wafaa’ (428/2). Ibn Hazm only said this because he stated that the Khabar Al-Aahaad establish (definite) knowledge. Upon his view then the two narrations establish definite knowledge and certainty and that would mean having Imaan in two contradictory matters. To escape from this dilemma he declared one to be a lie but without evidence to support that. 3) What Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related in the Hadeeth of Al-Israa’ (journey to Al-Aqsaa) when they related: ‘That it had been before he had been revealed to’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 478/13). This is whilst it is not hidden from anyone and indeed is not allowed to be hidden from anyone, that the event of Al-Israa’ occurred after the Messenger (saw) had started his message and that it occurred one year before the Hijrah. This Hadeeth therefore contradicts with the definite Mutawaatir and whoever believes it would have brought together two opposites which represents the Aqeedah of the ignorant. For this reason the ‘Ulamaa have placed down a principle for this situation. This is: If the Zhanniy is in opposition to the Qat’iy, the Zhanniy is rejected and the Qat’iy is acted upon (or taken). 4) Al-Bukhaari related in his Saheeh from Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that he asked Bilal (ra): ‘Did the Nabi (saw) pray inside the Ka’bah? He replied: ‘Yes, two Rak’ah between the pillars that were upon his left.... he then went outside and prayed two Rak’ah facing the Ka’bah’ (Fat’h ul-Baari’ 500/1). This is contradictory to what Al-Bukhaari also related from Ibn ‘Abbaas who said: ‘When the Nabi (saw) entered the house (Ka’bah) he made Du’aa in all of its places and he did not pray until he had exited’. In another narration also recorded by Al-Bukhaari and also from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) he said: ‘So he entered the house (Ka’bah) and made Takbeer in its places and he did not pray in it’ (Fat’h ulBaari’ 468/3). 5) Al-Bukhaari related from Jaabir (ra) the story of the stoning of Ma’iz in which it was said: ‘When the stones troubled him, he fled, but he was caught and was stoned till he died. The Prophet spoke well of him and prayed over him (Janaazah)’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 130/12). This Khabar however is in opposition to the report recorded by Al-Baihaqi in his Sunan in which it was related: ‘That he did not pray over him’.
Al-Baihaqi said: Al-Bukhaari related it from Mahmoud Bin Ghailaan from ‘Abdur Razzaaq and in it he said that he (saw) prayed over him, and this is an error (Ref: Sunan Al-Baihaqi Al-Kubraa 218/9).
6) Al-Bukhaari related from Abu Hurairah (ra) that the Nabi (saw) said: ‘The Imaan is sixty and a few Shu’bah (branches)’ (Ref: Related in his Saheeh as has been mentioned in Al-Fat’h 51/1). However Al-Imaam Muslim related the wording: ‘The Imaan is seventy and a few Shu’bah (branches)’ (Ref: In his Saheeh and in the Sharh of An-Nawawi 3/2). This is a clear contradiction between the two reports or narrations and this is what the ‘Ulamaa have named as ‘Idtiraab Al-Matn’ (inconsistency of the text of the Hadeeth). 7) Al-Bukhaari related from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that the Nabi (saw) prayed the prayer of Kusoof (eclipse) with them, four bowings (Rukoo’s) in two Sajdahs (Rak’ahs) (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 548/2). However Al-Imaam Muslim related contrary to that: ‘That the sun eclipsed during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he stood up (in prayer) for a rigorously long time. He then bowed and then stood up and then bowed and then stood up and then bowed, thus observing three ruku's in two rak'ahs and four prostrations’. In a third narration recorded by Muslim from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) she related: ‘That the Nabi (saw) prayed six Raka’aat and four Sajadaat’ (Ref: Sharh Muslim An-Nawawi 203/6) I order to escape from this contradiction a number of ‘Ulamaa did not classify the narration of Muslim as Saheeh and these included, Ash-Shaafi’iy, Al-Bukhaari and Ahmad (Ref: Ibn ulQayyim in Zaad ul-Ma’aad 124/1 and Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned his classifying it as Da’eef in his book ‘Ilm ul-Hadeeth p70). 8) What Al-Bukhaari related from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) that the Nabi (saw): ‘Married Maymoonah whilst he was in (the state of) Ihraam’. However this is contrary to what was recorded by Muslim from Zaid Al-Asamm who said that Maymoonah had told him that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had married her whilst he was Halaal (i.e. not in the state of Ihraam). At-Tabari said: As for the story of Maymoonah then the reports about is have been contradictory (in opposition to each other) (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 165/9). 9) Al-Imaam Muslim and others recorded from ‘Abdullah Bin ‘ Amr from the Nabi (saw) that he said: ‘The first sign would be the appearance of the sun from the west, the appearance of the
beast before the people in the forenoon and whichever of the two happens first, then the second one would follow immediately after that’ (Ibn Katheer in his book An-Nihaayah Fil Fitan Wal Malaahim 217/1). However this is contradictory to narrations that mention that the first sign is the appearance of Ad-Dajjaal. At-Tirmidhi with a Hasan Saheeh Isnaad relates from Abu Hurairah (ra) from the Nabi (saw) that he said: ‘If three things appear the persons Imaan will not benefit them if they had not already believed or gained goodness in their Imaan; the Dajjaal, the Daabbah (beast) and the rising of the sun from the West’. This is amongst many other relations which dictate that the appearance of the Dajjaal is the first of the signs’ (Ref: Sunan At-Tirmidhi the Kitaab (chapter) of Tafseer 326/3 and the Nihaayah Fil Fitan Wal Malaahim of Ibn Katheer 166/1). Additionally if the first of the signs was the sun rising from the west whilst it is known that after its rising from the west that the door to Taubah (repentance) is closed, then what benefit would there then be in the coming of Ad-Dajjaal after that, the coming of ‘Isaa (as) and the appearance of Al-Mahdi, their killing of Ad-Dajjaal and the Rule of ‘Isaa (as) upon the earth by the Shar’a, as has been mentioned in the Aahaad Ahaadeeth. After paying attention to the inconsistency of these Ahaadeeth how can it be said that they reach the level of decisiveness, Yaqeen (certainty) and I’tiqaad (belief), whilst they bring together two opposites??!! As for what Ibn Katheer (rh) said that the appearance of Ad-Dajjaal is the first sign upon the ground/earth whilst the rising of the sun from the West is the first sign from the heavens, then this represents a Ta’weel (interpretation) to escape from the two opposites but it is a Ta’weel (interpretation) which has no Daleel (evidence) to support it. It would have been safer and sounder to say: ‘All of these Akhbaar (reports/relations) are Aahaad, they are Zhanniyah (not definite), they do not represent the ‘Aqeedah and that the ‘Aqaa’id are not established (affirmed) by them. After that it is then possible to provide an interpretation and reject some of them. 10) From amongst the Akhbaar which are contradictory are the different narrations in relation to the Basmalah (Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem) being an Aayah of the Qur’aan in every Soorah or not? Al-Imaam Muslim related from Anas (ra): When the Messenger of Allah (saw) was amongst us one day he dosed off and then raised his head whilst smiling. So I asked: What has made you laugh O Messenger of Allah? He replied: The following Soorah was just revealed upon me:
)3(
)2(
)0 (
In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem. Verily we have granted you Al-Kauthar. So pray to your Lord and sacrifice. Verily the one who angers you is cut off. This is contradicted by what Al-Imaam Muslim also related from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) who said: ‘Rge Messenger of Allah (saw) used to open his prayer with the Takbeer and the recitation of AlHamdu Lillahi Rabbil ‘Aalameen. And in another report recorded by Muslim from Anas (ra): ‘I prayed behind the Nabi (saw)and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. They used begin with Al-Hamdu Lillahi Rabbil ‘Aalameen and did not mention Bismillahir Rahmaan Ar-Raheem, whether at the beginning of the recitation or at the end’. (Ref: These narrations and the different opinions of the ‘Ulamaa can be found in Al-Jaami’ Li Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan Al-Kareem, Al-Qurtubi 91/1). As a result of this the ‘Ulamaa differed in this issue in a clear manner and had the Ahaadeeth established certainty then how can inconsistencies and differences occur in respect to them. As such the Ahaadeeth of the Basmalah remain from the Aahaad category and do not reach the level of Yaqeen (certainty) and I’tiqaad (belief), otherwise you would have the situation where it would be certain and a matter of belief that it was from the Aayaat of the Qur’aan whilst having certainty and belief that it was not from the Aayaat of the Qur’aan, at the same time. This means bringing together opposites and contradictions which is inconceivable in respect to the Islamic Aqeedah and representative of a corrupt Madh’hab. The fourth reason:
If the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad were considered to be ‘Aqeedah, or that the Aqeedah is affirmed by them they would have declared the one who denies or rejects them as a disbeliever. However they were explicit in respect to not declaring disbelief to the one who denies them which is different to the one who denies the Mutawaatir. This has been agreed upon by the ‘Ulamaa according to what As-Sarkhasiy mentioned in his ‘Usool’, Al-Jarjaani in his ‘Ta’reef’ and the author of ‘Fawaatih Ar-Rahmoot’ (Ref: Supplement of Al-Mustasfaa Al-Ghazaali 111/2). There has also existed amongst the ‘Ulamaa who did not declare the denier as a Faasiq, like AlQaadi, unless and Ijmaa’ has been convened in respect to it, in which case he would be Faasiq (rebelliously disobedient).The meaning of this is that we are not Mukallifeen (legally entrusted/responsible) to believe in the Aahaad Ahaadeeth. This is because, how can the Khabar Al-Aahaad be ‘Aqeedah and a Daleel for the Aqeedah whilst the one who denies it is not declared a disbeliever in accordance to the agreement of the ‘Ulamaa, unless they are not actually representative of the Aqeedah and are not an evidence for the Aqeedah, and as such they do not take its Hukm (ruling). The fifth reason:
Not all of Islaam is Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah so that the Aahaad are required to be part of these Aqaa’id (beliefs). Rather Islaam includes societal, economic, criminal, judicial, political and military Ahkaam alongside the Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah. In respect to all of these Ahkaam the Khabar Al-Aahaad is considered a Hujjah (proof) which is different to the case of the Ahkaam of the Aqeedah. This differentiation is built upon the basis of the difference between the Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah and the Ahkaam that are not related to the Aqeedah in respect to the reality, the Hukm and the Daleel for each of them. The Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah are those which are related to the Imaan. Its linguistic meaning is: At-Tasdeeq (belief) and its Istilaahi (Terminological) meaning is: ‘At-Tasdeeq AlJaazim (decisive belief) that is in conformity to the reality by way of Daleel (evidence) (AlMahsool of Ar-Raaziy 12/1, Al-Armawiy 169/1 in his Tahseel, As-Sanaa’iy in his answer to the questioner p60, the commentaries of Al-Jarjaaniy and At-Taftaazaaniy upon Ibn ul-Haajib 6061/1, Tafseer Ar-Raaziy 27-61/2 and Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah An-Nabhaani 19/1). Therefore if the Tasdeeq is by way of other that the Qat’iy (definite) Daleel it would not be Jaazim (definite/decisive) but rather it would be Zhann (indecisive) or Shakk (doubtful). This is because Al-Jazm linguistically means: Al-Qat’a (decisiveness/definiteness) and it is said: He Jazama Al-Amr Qata’ahu Qat’an Laa ‘Audah Feehi (He decisively decided a matter, he decided it decisively/definitely in a definite manner in which there is no going back (reversal) (Ref: AlQamoos Al-Muheet 89/4). And if it is not in conformity to the reality then it is Jahl (ignorance). For this reason these two conditions are essential for I’tiqaad (to establish the Aqeedah): Al-Jazm (decisiveness) and conformity (Mutaabaqah). Otherwise the I’tiqaad or the Imaan would be Faasid (corrupted). As for the Ahkaam (rulings) that are not related to the Aqeedah then these are known to the ‘Ulamaa as being the practical Ahkaam i.e. related to the actions of the ‘Ibaad (servants/slaves) in terms of being Halaal and Haraam and not in terms of being Kufr and Imaan. The Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah and the Ahkaam Al-‘Amaliyah (practical Ahkaam related to actions) all represent Islamic thoughts in our view. So Laa Ilaahah Illallah (There is no deity other than Allah) is a thought whilst ‘The dead meat (carrion) has been mad Haraam upon you’ is also a thought. The difference between them is that the first is Aqeedah and relates to a matter of Tasdeeq whilst the latter is a Hukm related to the action. Therefore, that which has been demanded to have Imaan and Tasdeeq in, relates to the Ahkaam of the Aqeedah and that which has been demanded to be acted in accordance to it, is considered to be from the Ahkaam Al-‘Amaliyah (practical Ahkaam related to actions).
By examining the Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) of the Kitaab and the Sunnah, the difference between that which it has been demanded to have Imaan in and that which the action has been demanded in accordance to it, becomes clearly evident. So His statement (swt):
O you who believe, believe in Allah and His Messenger (An-Nisaa 136). And His speech (swt):
And believed in what was revealed upon Muhammad and it is the Haqq (truth) from their Rabb (Muhammad 2). And:
And those who believe in that which was revealed to you and what was revealed before you and have certain belief in the hereafter (Al-Baqarah 4). These texts are clear in respect to them demanding Imaan alone i.e. Imaan (belief) without action. And Allah (swt) said:
And establish the Salaah and give the Zakaah (Al-Baqarah 4). And:
And it is a duty upon mankind to Allah, to make Hajj to the House for the one who has the capability and means to do so (Aali ‘Imraan 7). And:
O you who believe, when you take a loan (contract a debt) for a set time then write it down (Al-Baqarah 282). And He (swt) said:
So then marry women of your choice (An-Nisaa’ 4). And:
Fighting has been proscribed upon you even though it is disliked by you (Al-Baqarah 216). And He Ta’Aalaa said:
And maintain the best of conducts with your parents (An-Nisaa’ 46). And:
Tell the believers to lower their gaze (An-Noor 30). These are amongst many other Nusoos (texts) which demand to be acted in accordance with. Therefore the Ahkaam that have been taken from these texts are called Ahkaam ‘Amaliyah (practical rulings) whilst the previously quoted Nusoos refer to Ahkaam which are Tasdeeqiyah, ‘Aqeediyah or ‘Ilmiyyah.
In addition there are other Nusoos from the Kitaab which also make clear this difference: Allah (swt) said:
Verily those who have believed and acted with righteous actions. And He (swt) said:
Except those who have believed and acted with righteous actions. The connection/conjunction (‘Atf) of the action upon the Imaan is a Daleel showing the difference between them. Similar to that is His speech Ta’Aalaah:
O you who believe bow and prostrate. And:
And establish the Salaah and give the Zakaah And His speech (swt):
Verily Allah commands justice and the best of conduct. In these Aayaat the difference between the Rukoo’ (bowing) and Sujood (prostration), between the Salaah and the Zakaah, and between the ‘Adl (justice and Ihsaan (best conduct) is clear and
apparent in respect to their meanings and even if they have been connected by the Waw Al‘Atifah (the connecting/conjoining Waw i.e. and). It is worth noting the ‘Atf (connecting Waw) could occur between two nouns without this dictating a difference between them however an Aqliy (rational) or Naqly (transmitted) Qareenah (connotation) would then alter that: This is like His statement (swt):
Lord of the two Easts and Lord of the two Wests. This conflicts with the ‘Aql (mind) and the Naql (what is transmitted) because the Rabb is One alone. Fr this reason the Waw does not function in this Aayah as it does in the above mentioned Aayaat. And Allah knows best. Also His speech (swt):
So know that He is Laa Ilaaha Illallahi and seek forgiveness for your sin. Here there is also a differentiation between the I’tiqaad (what is believed in) which is that there is no deity other than Allah, and between the seeking of forgiveness which is an action, for the same reason. This is similar in His statement (swt):
)01(
Shall I guide you to a trade that will save you from a painful punishment? (That you) believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that you perform Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah with your property (wealth) and your lives. That is better for you if you were to know. This is a Daleel indicating that Al-Jihaad is an action (‘Amal) and not Imaan and the difference between them is established based on the same reasoning.
The Sunnah also guides to this differentiation as can be seen in the Hadeeth in which Jibreel (as) asked the Nabi (saw) about ‘Al-Islaam, Al-Imaan and Al-Ihsaan’ and his answer (saw) was that Al-Islaam was: To bear witness upon Laa Ilaaha Illallah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to establish the Salaah, to give the Zakaa, to fast Ramadhaan and to perform Hajj of the House if he finds the means and capability. This is whilst Imaan was: To believe in Allah, His Malaa’ikah (angels), His Kutub (books), His Rusul (Messengers), the Day of Judgement and in that the Qadr, its good and bad, was from Allah Ta’Aalaa. And in respect to the Ihsaan he (saw) said: To worship Allah as if you can see Him and if you have not seen Him then (to be aware) that He sees you (Ref: Al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh 144/6). This Hadeeth makes clear the difference between the Ahkaam Al-Amaliyah (Rulings related to actions) in terms of the Shahaadah, the Salaah, the Zakaah, the Sawm, the Hajj, and Ihsaan and how it should be undertaken (and practically sought), and between the Ahkaam At-Tasdeeqiyah (Rulings related to belief) represented in having Imaan in Allah, His angels, His books, His Messengers, the Day of Judgement and the good and bad Qadr from Allah Ta’Aalaa. Ibn Taymiyyah said: ‘So when Imaan was mentioned with Islaam it made Islaam the apparent (outward manifesting) actions: The two Shahaadahs, the Salaah, the Zakaah, the Siyaam and the Hajj. And it made the Imaan that which is in the heart in respect to Imaan (belief) in Allah, His angels, His books, His Messengers, the Day of Judgment and the Qadr, its good and bad, being from Allah Ta’Aalaa. This is also the same (meaning) that has come in the Hadeeth related by Ahmad from Anas (ra) from The Nabi (saw) that he said: ‘Al-Islaam is open and AL-Imaan is in the heart’. (Ref: Ibn Taymiyyah in his book ‘Al-Imaan’ p14). Also from the Sunnah is that which Al-Bukhaari related in his Saheeh from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) who said: ‘Verily, the first of what was revealed from it i.e. the Qur’aan, were the Mufassal Surahs, mentioning Al-Jannah and An-Naar (Paradise and Hellfire). This was until the people returned to Islaam (i.e. accepted it) and then the Halaal and the Haraam descended’. Ibn Hajr said in Al-Fat’h: ‘This guides to the divine wisdom in respect to the ordering of the revelation, as the first which was revealed from the Qur’aan was the call to Tawheed, giving glad tidings to the believer and the one who is obedient with Jannah, and tidings to the disbeliever and disobedient of the fire. Then when the souls (people) were tranquil and content with that the Ahkaam (legal rulings) were then revealed. For this reason she said: If the first thing to be revealed was the command not to drink Khamr they would have said: We will not leave it’. (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari 40/9). The speech of ‘Aa’ishah (ra) takes the ruling of Marfoo’ (raised) to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and the difference between the rulings of Jannah and Naar which are Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah, and the Halaal and the Haraam which are the practical Ahkaam related to actions, is made clear in it.
This difference that we have mentioned between the Ahkaam related to belief and those related to actions is completely clear in respect to the great majority of the Fuqahaa, Scholars of Usool and Hadeeth. It is clear in their publications in more than one place in a manner that cannot be hidden from anyone who Allah (swt) has granted knowledge and piety in respect to the Deen. Al-Hasan Al-Basriy said: ‘Al-Imaan is that which is settled in the heart and is affirmed by the action’ (Ref: Ibn Abi Shaibah related this from him in his Musannaf 189/7). Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbaliy said: ‘So that in which care and attention has been specified for every Muslim, is to study that which has come from (swt) and His Messenger (saw), and to then strive (Ijtihaad) to understand that and to take heed of its meanings. He must then believe in that if it is from the matters of ‘Ilm (knowledge) whilst if it is from the matters related to actions then he must exert his effort in striving to perform what he is able to of the commands (i.e. to the best of his ability) and abstain from what he had been forbidden from. This so that his whole concern is turned completely towards that and not to anything else’ (Ref: Jaami’ Al-‘Uloom Wa-l-Hikam p118). Al-Qaraafiy said: ‘And in that way the Usool (fundamentals) of the Deen being clearly apparent and these are the matters that are learnt and not the matters that are acted upon’ (Ref: Nafaa’is Al-Usool 121/1). Al-Jarjaaniy said: ‘The Aqaa’id (beliefs) represents that which is believed in but not acted upon’ (Ref: Ta’reefaat p196). ‘Alaa’ Ad-Deen As-Samarqandiy said: ‘The place of the Khabar is the category related to action. However if it is found in the category of beliefs and it is from the matters of Kalaam, then it will not be a proof’ (Ref: Meezaan Al-Usool p434). Ibn Al-Baaqalaaniy said: ‘Al-Imaan according to the language is Tasdeeq (belief) and it does not include the remaining actions of the limbs and the hearts’ (Ref: Al-Insaaf p34). Due to not wanting to spend too much time quoting their statements I will suffice in mentioning the main points of this as they have come in their publications. These are well-known and sufficiently apparent for the one who wishes to examine them. They include: 1) Their differentiating between the Aqeedah and the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to definition: So the Aqeedah is: Al-Imaan. And the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy is: The Khitaab Ash-Shaar’i (the address of the legislator) related to the actions of the ‘Ibaad (servants/slaves). 2) Their approval (acceptance) of Ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) in respect to the Zhanniy (non-decisive) Furoo’ branches and not the Qat’iy (decisive) Usool (fundamentals).
3) Their acceptance of difference of opinion in respect to the Khabar Al-Aahaad and not the Mutawaatir that have been agreed upon by consensus, as we have already established in this book. 4) Their differentiation in respect to the definition of Al-Fiqh and Al-Usool. 5) Their differentiating between the Adillah (evidences) of Usool and the obligation of them being Qat’iyah, and between the branches. So Zhann is sufficient in regards to them if they are not Qat’iy and this is agreed upon amongst them. 6) Their declaration of disbelief (Takfeer) upon the one who denies a Qat’iy Asl (definite srcin, fundamental) or that which must be known from the Deen by Daroorah (necessity) and this does not apply to the Zhanny (non-decisive) Far‘ (branch). 7) Their division of the Sharee’ah into categories of being Ahkaam and Aqaa’id (beliefs), or Ahkaam ‘Amaliyyah (practical rulings) and Ahkaam ‘Ilmiyyah (Ahkaam of knowledge), like Ibn Rajab mentioned amongst others above. 8) Their division of the Qur’aan in respect to the categories of Aayaat of Ahkaam, Aayaat of Qisas (stories) and Aayaat of Aqaa’id and the unseen matters. 9) Differentiating between the Kaafir and the Muslim in respect to the Khitaab of Takleef i.e. Are the disbelievers addressed with the Usool of the Sharee’ah and its branches or just one to the exclusion of the other. 10) That the one who makes an error in the branches is rewarded which is different to the Usool and the Qat’iy in which case the one who errs is sinful. 11) The Khabar Al-Aahaad is taken for the Ahkaam but not taken for the Aqaa’id as we have mentioned in this book. 12) The Ahkaam Al-‘Amaliyah (those related to actions) are open and prone to abrogation whereas the Aqaa’id (beliefs) are not open to abrogation. 13) Their differentiation between the one who is killed as a Hadd punishment and the one who is killed due to apostasy. 14) They forbade Taqleed (imitation) in the Usool (fundamentals) of the Deen whilst permitting it in the branches (Furoo’). These are amongst some of the differentiations that guide definitely to the fact that they used to differentiate between the Aqeedah and what was related to it, and the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah Al‘Amaliyah and what is related to them.
As for what some say in respect to the division of Shar’iyah matters to Usool (fundamentals) and Furoo’ (branches) being a Bid’ah (innovation) which the Sunnah did not come with, then this is strange speech by which knowledge and the people of knowledge are rejected. This is because this approach would lead to the rejection of all of the ‘Ulamaa and their knowledge as being Bid’ah because they divided the Shar’iah sciences into Fiqh and Usool ul-Fiqh, and they divided it into Hadeeth and Fiqh, the divided the Fard in to Kifaayah and ‘Ain, the Qur’aan into Aayaat of Ahkaam and Aayaat of Qisas (stories), divided the commands into more than twenty categories, divided the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy into the categories of Takleefiy and Wad’iy, the Sunnah into Mutawaatir and Aahaad, the Aahaad (themselves) into more than ten types, they classified the Qawaa’id (principles) into Kulliyah and ‘Aammah, the language into Nahw, Sarf and Balaaghah, the Sunnah into Fi’liyah, Qawliyah and Taqreeriyah (action, speech and consent/approval), the Ijmaa’ (of the Sahaabah) into Qawli (by statement) and Sukooti (by silence), the ‘Uloom into Sam’iyah (revealed) and ‘Aqliyah (rational/intellectual), the Adillah (evidences) into Sami’iyah and ‘Aqliyah , the Mutawaatir into Lafzhy and Ma’nawiy and they divided and classified the Dalaalah (textual implication) into Iltizaam (necessary), Tadammun (inclusive) and Mutaabah (conformity) amongst many other divisions and classifications. All of these classifications were not quoted in the Kitaab, the Sunnah or the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah, so does that mean that they are all Bid’ah!!? If that was the case then this means the demolition and pulverisation of every one of the sciences and declaring all of the ‘Ulamaa as being ignorant, something that no sane and rational person would ever say. The correct view is that these divisions and classifications only happened after examining their reality and that Bid’ah is far removed from them, and its rulings and definitionsdoes not apply to them. As for what has been said in respect to the Imaan being Qawl (speech) and ‘Amal (action), then this is correct, but not from the perspective that the Imaan is an action, because this is in opposition to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah as we have discussed above. Rather it is correct and valid from the perspective that the action is an evidence for the existence of the Imaan of a believing person who performs righteous acts. This is indicated in the speech of the Nabi (saw) when he said: ‘If you see a man frequenting the Masaajid then bear witness upon his Imaan’. And if you wish, read and gain understanding from His speech (swt):
The Arab Bedouins sa id: ‘We have believed’, Say you have not believed but rather say we have submitted, and Imaan has yet to enter their hearts, And if you obey Allah and His Messenger nothing from your actions will be wasted. Verily Allah is Ghafoor Raheem (Al-Hujuraat 14).
With this reasoning Al-Hasan said: ‘Imaan is not by way of adornment (or being endowed) or by way of wishes but rather it is what the heart has settled upon and what the action affirms’. Therefore the ‘Amal (action) affirms the Imaan but is not itself the Imaan. There is also the statement of the Messenger (saw): ‘The Imaan is seventy and some parts, its highest part is the statement Laa Ilaaha Illallah and its lowest part is removing the harm from the public passageways/paths’. The meaning of this likewise is not that the Imaan and the action are one and the same matter because this would contradict and oppose the Qur’aan and the Sunnah in respect to differentiating between the Imaan and the action. The meaning can only then be that removing the harm is a fruit from amongst the fruits of Imaan and an evidence for its existence. The easiest way to understand the difference between the Aqeedah and the Ahkaam related to actions in terms of its reality, ruling and evidence, is that the one who opposes or contradicts the Aqeedah and denies it is declared a disbeliever with no difference of opinion in respect to that, whilst the one who contravenes the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah related to the Halaal and the Haraam or the one who denies (a ruling) is not declared a disbeliever. He would only be considered as being disobedient and sinful with the exception of the Mu’tazilah who declared the one who committed a Kabeerah (major sin) as being a disbeliever. Similarly learning the Halaal and the Haraam is required by the Shar’a and this is an action and is not called Imaan otherwise ignorance of it or not learning it would be Kufr (disbelief), and no Jaahil (ignorant) person would state this, let alone an ‘Aalim (someone possessing knowledge). The Sixth reason:
Also from amongst the evidences indicating that the Khabar Al-Aahaad do not establish and ascertain Yaqeen (certainty) and are not taken into the I’tiqaad (belief) is: That many of them have been narrated in meaning where the narrator strove to understand what the Nabi (saw) said and then transmitted it in his own language according to his understand, and this definitely implies Zhann (indecisiveness). So it is not possible for it to be said that the Hadeeth which was related by the Sahaabah in meaning establishes certainty or that it is suitable to be used as an evidence for the Aqeedah. Otherwise the Ijtihaad of the Mujtahideen would establish it whilst this is in opposition to the Sunnah has explicitly mentioned when it stated that the Ijtihaad is prone to error just as it is prone to being correct, and as such it is not valid to establish the Aqaa’id by it. An example in regards to the way a Hadeeth is related by way of meaning is what Ahmad, Abdul-Barr and others related from Makhool who said: ‘We entered (the place of) Waathilah Bin Al-Asqa’ and we said to him: ‘Tell us of a Hadeeth that has no addition and no omission’. Hr was angered by this and said: ‘There is no problem if I add or omit as longs as I am correct with its meaning’.
It was related by Ibn Maajah and others from Anas (ra) that anytime he would relate a Hadeeth from the Nabi (saw) he would say: ‘Or like he said’ (i.e. not exact wording). He also related that Ibn Mas’ood (ra) would say when he related a Hadeeth: ‘Or close to that, or more than that or less than that’. This therefore is what they meant when they said ‘the Hadeeth related by way of meaning’.
The Fifth Angle: This relates to what they thought (Zhann) was a Daleel but is not in fact a Daleel: As for what they believed to be a Daleel (evidence) indicating that the Khabar Al-Waahid is from the Aqaa’id (beliefs) and establishes Yaqeen (certainty), then this is an illusion and does not even rise to the level of Zhann. This is whilst the issue requires a Qat’iy (decisive) Daleel and not a Zhanny one, and it is stipulated for it be established by both the Thuboot (chain of narration) and the Dalaalah (meaning) in order for it not to be exposed to Shakk (doubt) or Zhann (speculation). This is because it represents the Aqeedah or what the Aqeedah is built upon. From what they thought was a Daleel: What was recorded in the Saheehaini, the Lafzh (worded version) of Al-Bukhaari and related by Ibn ‘Abbaas(ra) who said: ‘When the Nabi (saw) dispatched Mu’aadh to Al-Yaman he said to him: ‘You are going to a people from the people of the book so let the first of what you invite them to be Tawheed in Allah (swt). Then if they recognise that then inform them that Allah has made obligatory upon them five prayers in their days and nights’(Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 347/13). This Hadeeth is not viable to be used as an evidence in regards to the Aqaa’id (beliefs) for a number of reasons: Firstly: The Khabar Al-Aahaad to not establish other than Zhann and is therefore not viable to be ‘Aqeedah or a Daleel for the Aqeedah as we have previously affirmed. Secondly: The Riwaayah relates to inviting them to Tawheed and not to the affirmation of Tawheed. This is based on the statement: ‘If they then recognise it’ and in the narration of Muslim: ‘Then if they recognise Allah Ta’Aalaa’. It is known that knowing Allah Ta’Aalaa is not ascertained except by examination (thought) because there is no Taqleed in respect to the beliefs. Allah (swt) has reproached the one who imitates in respect to the Aqeedah and rebukes the one who does that with a sever rebuke:
Allah (swt) said:
)23(
Verily we found our fathers following a certain way and religion, and we guide ourselves by their footsteps. (The warner) said: "Even if I bring you better guidance than that which you found your fathers following?" They said: "Verily, we disbelieve in that with which you have been sent with."(Az-Zukhruf 23-24).
Have you come to us to turn us away from that (Faith) we found our fathers following and so that you two will have greatness in the land? We are not going to believe in you two (Younus 78).
)50(
)53(
)52(
And indeed we bestowed aforetime on Ibraaheem (Abraham) his (portion of) guidance, and we were wellacquainted with him. When he said to his father and his people: "What are these statues to which you are devoted?" They said: "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said: "Indeed you and your fathers have been in manifest error." (Al-Anbiyaa 51-54). Allah (swt) has also made clear that knowing Him (i.e. belief) occurs by way of Nazhar (examination), Tadabbur (pondering) and Tafakkur (thought) and not by way of Taqleed (imitation). Allah (swt) said:
We will show them our signs in the horizons, and within their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that it is the truth (Al-Fussilaat 53).
And from among his signs are the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge (Ar-Room 22).
Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding (Aali ‘Imraan 10).
)0(
)0(
)0( Do they not look at (regard) the camels, how they were created? And at the heaven, how it is has been raised? And at the mountains, how they are have been rooted and fixed firm? And at the earth, how it has been spread out? (Al-Ghaashiyah 17-20).
Then let man look at that from which he was created from (At-Taariq 5). These are some of many Aayaat from the Qur’aan Al-Kareem which draw the attention and examination of the human being to the creations of Allah (swt) demanding the utilisation and use of the ‘Aql (mind) to know (and understand) His creation. We therefore see the Aayaat stating: ‘For a people who can reason (Ya’qil)’ and ‘For a people who can think/contemplate (yatafakkar)’ which is decisively in opposition to Taqleed. In addition the Hadeeth differentiates between knowing and having knowledge of Allah (swt) and the Ahkaam related to actions that have been mandated. This is evident when he (saw) said: ‘Then if they recognise Allah Ta’Aalaa then inform them that Allah has made obligatory upon them five prayers in their days and nights’. Taqleed can be practised in respect to the practical Ahkaam related to actions whilst it is not possible to do this with the Aqeedah. This has been confirmed by Ijmaa’ (of the Ulamaa) as mentioned by Al-Qurtubi in his Jaami’ (Ref: In his Tafseer 212/2). Thirdly: The narration of Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) has Idtiraab (inconsistency) in its Matn (the textof the Hadeeth). So in the version of Al-Bukhaari it states: ‘So let the first of what you invite them to be Tawheed in Allah (swt)’, whilst in a version related by Al-Imaam Muslim it is related as: ‘‘So let the first of what you invite them to bethe ‘Ibaadah (worship) of Allah’ and it has been related: ‘So call them to the Shahaadah of Laa Ilaaha Illallah and that I am the Messenger of Allah’.
There is also another inconsistency that occurs in the Isnaad (chain) of the narration of Muslim: Abu Bakr said: Perhaps Wakee’ related from Ibn ‘Abbaas...’The Hadeeth’. On one occasion in the reports of Muslims the Hadeeth has been related Mawsool (chain complete all the way through) and on another occasion it has been related as Mursal (not mentioning the name of the Sahaabi in the chain). In the ‘Urf (custom) of the people (scholars) of Hadeeth, the Hadeeth which is Mudtarib (has inconsistencies) is defective and not used as a proof/evidence. AlHaafizh Adh-Dhahabi said: ‘The Mudtarab (inconsistent) and the Mu’allal (defective) is that
which has been related upon different Awjah (faces/ways/realities)’ (Ref: Al-Mawqizhah of AdhDhahabi p51, Zhufr ul-Amaaniy p240. Fourthly: The scholars of Hadeeth have discussed the Hadeeth in regards to the Isnaad of AlBukhaari as the Sanad includes ‘Al-Fadl Bin Al-‘Alaa and Ad-Daaruqutniy said about him: ‘Katheer Al-Wahm (a lot of delusion)’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 347/13).
Therefore in accordance to the conditionality of Ad-Daaruqutniy the Hadeeth in his view is Da’eef and by greater reason it cannot establish knowledge (‘Ilm i.e. belief) and Yaqeen (certainty). Fifthly: This subject (Aqeedah) is not benefited by the Khabar At-Tawaatur in the case where the disbeliever is not bound by anything and even if a thousand or more people approach him to inform him that Muhammad (saw) is the Nabi and Rasool or that the Qur’aan is the Kalaam of Allah which was revealed to Muhammad (saw), unless the proof of that is established upon him in regards to these beliefs.
The issue then relating to proving and affirming the Aqeedah as being an Aqeedah is not restricted to the mere conveyance or informing of its existence. So it can be seen that the proof and argument was not established over the disbelievers of Makka due to them merely hearing about the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) from the Sahaabah (rah). Rather they brought a miracle to them that proved his Prophethood (saw) and brought that as a proof and argument against them and then some of them believed whilst others disbelieved. Sixthly: Even if we assumed that the narration was free from all weakness, inconsistencies and interpretations then the Nabi’s (saw) sending of Mu’aadh to Al-Yaman only occurred once and this happened before the farewell pilgrimage as stated by the historians (Ref: Seerah Ibn Katheer 198/4). Mu’aadh (ra) did not return from there until the Khilafah of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra) and this means that Yemen was Daar ul-Islaam. It had been opened by Khalid Bin Waleeed and ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (rah) with their armies a number of which reached the level of Tawaatur. Therefore Mu’aadh was not sent there except as a Qaadi and a teacher at the head of a delegation that included many Muslims. As such any problems are resolved and the argument based on this Riwaayah (narration of Mu’aadh) falls down in respect to this subject. This is because the number of Muslims who were present in Yemen in addition to the commanders of the conquest, Mu’aadh and his delegation reached the level of Tawaatur and their Khabar establishes Al-Qat’a (decisiveness). After that there remains to meaning to their statement that Mu’aadh (ra) invited them to the Aqeedah by way of the Khabar Waahid and Allah is most knowing.
Another evidence which they believed (Zhann) to be a Daleel but is not in fact an evidence is the command to change the direction of the Qiblah. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related from Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that he said: ‘Whilst the people were praying the morning prayer in Qubaa’ someone came to them and said: ‘That the Nabi (saw) had received revelation of the Qur’aan in the night and he was commanded to face towards the Ka’bah’. And so they faced it, they had been facing towards Ash-Shaam (i.e. Masjid Al-Aqsaa) and then they turned towards the Ka’bah’ (Ref: Nail Al-Awtaar Ash-Shawkaani 176/2).
This usage of evidence and deduction is also rejected for a number of reasons: Firstly: It assumes that the issue is one related to certainty in Aqeedah whilst it is not. Yaqeen (certainty) and Aqeedah are not established by the Khabar Al-Waahid and the evidence for that as we have mentioned is that the Sahaabah (rah) held a consensus in regards to not accepting the Khabar Al-Waahid to affirm the Qur’aan which is a fundamental basis of the Aqeedah and I am not aware of any difference in this regard amongst the Fuqahaa and scholars of Hadeeth and Usool. Secondly: The issue of the changing direction of the Qiblah is not an issue related to Imaan or the Aqeedah but rather it is a practical issue related to implementation. For this reason the Qat’iy (definite/decisive) Daleel is not required and it is sufficient for the Daleel to be Zhanniy like the Khabar Al-Waahid. The greatest evidence to support the fact that it is not an issue related to Tasdeeq (belief) of the Aqeedah is that the changing of the Qiblah is considered to be an abrogation and abrogation does not occur in respect to belief but only occurs in respect to the Ahkaam related to actions (Al-Ahkaam Al-‘Amaliyah). Thirdly: Using a Khabar Waahid as an evidence for deduction to establish that the Khabar Waahid establishes (definite) ‘Ilm (knowledge) and Yaqeen is a circular argument and it is not valid to depend on it. This is in the case that it s essential for there to be a Daleel Qat’iy like the Qur’aan or the Mutawaatir to establish and ascertain that the Khabar Al-Waahid establishes ‘Ilm and Yaqeen. Fourthly: The changing of the direction of the Qiblah and its abrogation came from the Qur’aan and not the Sunnah as some have imagined. The conveyance of this ruling to the people praying in Qubaa’ falls within this consideration. In the narration it was related: ‘That the Nabi (saw) had received revelation of the Qur’aan in the night and he was commanded to face towards the Ka’bah’. In another narration recorded by Ahmad and Abu Daawood from Anas he said: ‘That the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to pray towards Bait ul-Maqdis and then the following was revealed:
Verily! we have seen the turning of your face towards the sky. Surely, we shall turn you to a Qiblah (prayer direction) that shall please you, so turn your face in the direction of Al-Masjid- al-Haraam (Al-Baqarah 144). A man from Bani Salamah then passed through whilst they were in the Rukoo’ of the Fajr prayer after having already completed one Rak’ah, and he called out ‘Verily the Qiblah has changed direction’ and so they all turned as they were (i.e. in Rukoo’) towards the Ka’bah’ (Ref: Nail AlAwtaar 176-177/2). Fifthly: That the Nabi (saw) did not command that man to convey but rather what happened was that he volunteered to do that and we was not reproached. In regards to the people of Qubaa were fully aware that what they did was related to a practical Shar’iy ruling and was not a
matter of Aqeedah, and that it did not rest upon decisive evidence (Daleel Qat’iy) and found the transmission of one of them in this matter sufficient despite not him not having been ordered to convey it. This is because they outweighed his truthfulness over his potential to be untruthful. Therefore for these reasons their usage of the changing of the direction of the Qiblah in this subject is a deduction that is not based on evidence. This is because our subject area revolves around the Khabar Al-Waahid establishing decisive knowledge (Aqeedah) whilst the Khabar of a man does not establish other than an action and Aqeedah is not established by it. If any of the people of Qubaa’ had not obeyed him then he would not have disbelieved based on the evidence that the Nabi (saw) did not command anyone from them (the Muslims) to repeat what they had already performed from that Salaah before having been informed and he did not command them to seek repentance and forgiveness. And Allah is most high and aware, and to Him is our final destination. Also what they have thought to be a Daleel whilst it is not a Daleel is the Hadeeth: 'Indeed actions are by the intentions'. They said that this Hadeeth which is Khabar Aahaad was used by the 'Ulamaa as a proof in relation to beliefs considering that the place of the Niyah is the heart and that the place of the Aqeedah is the heart. As such the Niyah is the same as Aqeedah and takes its ruling (Hukm). This however is rejected and invalid from a number of angles: Firstly: None from amongst the scholars of Arabic have stated that the Niyah (intention) is the Aqeedah or that it is Imaan whether in its wording (Lafzh) or meaning (Ma'naa). Rather they said that it means: Al-Qasd (that which is intended) and its place is the heart. Secondly: In respect to the Aqeedah, when the heart is tied to it, it becomes Imaan and it is not valid to make a reversal in regards to it; indeed any reversal from it would be considered Kufr (disbelief). However reversing or going back on the Niyah (intention) is not considered Kufr or even a Ma'siyah (act of disobedience) and it can even possible be Mubaah to reverse the Niyah on some occasions even if it was within the 'Ibaadaat like the Salaah and the Naafilah Sawm (fast). Similarly an action undertaken without the Niyah is not considered Kufr but rather it is invalid if the validity of that action rests upon the Niyah whilst it would be considered Saheeh (valid) if the Niyah is not stipulated as a condition, for example: returning the usurped property, Amaanaat (trusts), divorce, freeing slaves and marriage. Thirdly: It is necessary in regards to the Hadeeth to omit the Mudaaf (grammatical term: added word) and the Fuqahaa have differed in regards to its evaluation. Those who have stipulated the Niyah in the actions have evaluated it in the following way: 'Indeed the Sihhah (validity) of the actions are by the intentions' and the actions just as they include the actions of the heart they also include the actions of the limbs and the Hadeeth covers them. As such there is no room to restrict them to the actions of the Qalb (heart) (Ref: Sharh 'Umdat ul-Ahkaam of Ibn Daqeeq Al'Abd 9/1). Indeed Ash-Shaafi'iy (rh) said that this Hadeeth includes within it seventy chapters of Fiqh (Ref: At-Toofiy in his book At-Ta'yeen Fee Sharh Al-Arba'een p34).
Based upon this evaluation the Niyah (intention) is related to the validity of the actions and not to their Kamaal (completion/perfection). This would not be valid in respect to the Aqaa'id (beliefs) because a lack of perfection in them would mean a deficiency and this is Kufr may refuge be sought in Allah from that. Therefore nothing remains except for us to say that this Hadeeth is not (representative of) Aqeedah and that the Aqeedah is not established by it from this angle as well. Fourthly: The Ikhlaas (sincerity) in the action is not from the Imaan but rather it is from the Ihsaan as has been mentioned in the Saheeh Hadeeth when he (saw) was asked about Ihsaan and
then said: 'To worship Allah as if you see Him and if you cannot see Him then that He sees you'. This then represents illustrations of Ikhlaas (sincerity). Ibn Taymiyyah said: 'Whoever says that the apparent (Zhaahir) actions which have been commanded are not from Islaam, then his statement is Baatil (invalid), which is different to the case of the Tasdeeq (belief) which is in the heart. There is nothing in the Nusoos that indicates that it is from Islaam, rather it is from the Imaan. Islaam is only: The Deen as the Nabi (saw) explained it in that one's face and heart submit to Allah. So have the Ikhlaas An-Niyaah (sincerity of intention) to Allah is Islaam and this is not Tasdeeq (belief), that is from the type that is an action of the heart whilst this is of the type that is knowledge of the heart (Ref: In his book of Imaan p284). Fifthly: How can this Hadeeth be Aqeedah or establish certainty whilst it is Khabar Aahaad and the one who denies it is not a disbeliever which is different to the case of the Qur'aan and the Mutawaatir of the Sunnah because the one who denies the Qur'aan or the Sunnah Mutawaatir is classified with disbelief. That is because they have been established by Qat' (decisiveness) and Yaqeen (certainty) and is Aqeedah whilst the former is not established by Qat' but rather by Zhann (indeciciveness) and as such they are regarded differently.
Also from what they thought to be Daleel but is not a Daleel is: The speech of Allah (swt):
For there should separate from every division of them a group [remaining] so that they obtain understanding in the religion and so that they warn [i.e., advise] their people when they return to them that they might be cautious. (AtTaubah 122). They considered the least number for a Taa'ifah (group) to be one and the warning (to be cautious) is related to the mention of Al-Jannah and An-Naar (the fire) which are both Aqeedah. As such they argue that the Khabar Al-Waahid has been used in relation to the Aqaa'id (beliefs) however this view is rejected from two angles: Firstly: It is not agreed upon that the smallest number for the Taa'ifah (group) is one but rather they have said that its lowest number is two and what is more than two and as such the use of this Aayah as an evidence in this subject area is problematic.
Secondly: The use of Taa'ifah (group) in this Aayah is a number that it establishes the plural and not a single person and the evidence for this is the use of the plural pronoun in the statement yatafaqqahoo (they obtain understanding) and in His statement (swt): Liyundhiroo (so that they warn). Another Daleel that they thought to be a Daleel but is not one is the statement of Allah (swt):
And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart; each of them will be questioned (Al-Israa 36). They considered from this that everything that was brought to us by the Nabi (saw) is 'Ilm and Qat' (decisive) in respect to us and that there is no Zhann (indecisiveness) in it. This deduction is also rejected for a number of reasons: Firstly: This Aayah is Zhanniy (indecisive/speculative) in its Dalaalah (import/meaning). From its meanings is what At-Tabari related from Ibn 'Abbaas (rah): 'No one should present that which he does not have knowledge of' and he also related from Ibn ul-Hanafiyah that is means: 'The fabricated/false witness/testimony'.
At-Tabari said: 'These two interpretations are close in meaning because the statement that the speaker does not have knowledge of' includes the false testimony and the presenting of falsehood and claims of hearing a matter that nobody has heard or seeing a matter that nobody has seen to the people fall'. (Tafseer At-Tabari 110/9). Therefore it is possible that the Aayah is not related to the conveyance of the Wahi (divine revelation/inspiration) but rather it relates to testimonies and what is related to them. Secondly: If we were to assume that the Aayah relates to the conveyance (Tableegh) or legislation (Tashree') then it relates to that which leads to 'Ilm (knowledge) and Qat' (decisiveness) like the Usool (foundations) of the Deen and it does not reale to all of the Ahkaam Ash-Sharee'ah. The evidence for this is that Zhann is sufficient in respect to many of the branches of the Sharee'ah like the Ahkaam which are built upon Ijtihaad and many of the Ahkaam which are built upon Qiyaas. In respect to all of these Zhann is sufficient or that which
is most preponderant/likely (Ghalabat Azh-Zhann). Thirdly: If we were to assume again that the Aayah relates to the Tashree' (legislation) then it is Muhtamil (probable) to be specific to the Nabi (saw) i.e. 'do not say something in accordance to your opinion and your Ijtihaad' which is in harmony with the fact that he does not speak from his own desire. This is not the case with anyone else from the Ummah because it is possible for him to give his view about the Shar'a (legislation) based on his Ijtihaad and if he makes an error there is no fault or sin upon him and indeed he would be rewarded. This is in accordance to the
Saheeh Hadeeth: 'If the Haakim (judge) undertakes Ijtihaad and gets it right then he will gain two rewards and if he undertakes Ijtihaad and gets it wrong then he will have one reward' (AlBukhaari in the Book Al-I'tisaam chapter 21). All of this relates to Zhann and there is no Qat' of Yaqeen within it. Another evidence which they believed to be an evidence to establish there argument but is not an evidence is: They claimed that the Sunnah in its entirety is Akhbaar Aahaad in order tfor them to affirm that the Aqaa'id are established by the Aahaad and not by the Tawaatur. This deduction is also rejected for a number of reasons: Firstly: The Aahaad are what have been related one person from another one whilst the Tawaatur is what one after another have reported (Ref: As mentioned at the beginning of the book).
By examining the Sunnah closely we find that two types or categories are included within it. There are Ahaadeeth that have not been related except by one from (another) one like the Hadeeth: 'Indeed actions are only bey the intentions' and there are Ahaadeeth that have been related one after another one like the Hadeeth: 'Whosoever lies about me intentionally then let him prepare his seat of the fire' which was related by more than sixty Sahaabah abd all of them related it from the Nabi (saw) and they did not relate it one from another one from amongst them. Secondly: The vast majority of the Mujtahideen, scholars of Usool and Hadeeth have established the existence of the Tawaatur within the Sunnah and it is hard to find a single work of theirs that does not contain some mention or indication of this. More than one of them pursued them (the Tawaatur Ahaadeeth) and collected them like As-Suyootiy in his book 'AlAzhaar Al-Mutanaathirah Fil Ahaadeeth Al-Mutawaatirah', Al-Kataaniy in his book 'Nuzhum AlMutanaathir Fil Hadeeth Al-Mutawaatir' and Az-Zubaidi in his book 'Al-Laali'u AlMutanaatharah Fil Ahaadeeth Al-Mutawaatirah'. As for what Ibn Hibbaan said in respect to the Sunnah as a whole being Akhbaar Al-Aahaad then this is an opinion which does not have a Daleel (to support it) and it is in opposition to the reality of the Sunnah and the vast majority of the 'Ulamaa. Thirdly: More than one of the 'Ulamaa affirmed the existence of the Mutawaatir Hadeeth related to the Aqeedah like the Hadeeth: 'Whoever bears witness to Laa Ilaaha Illallah Jannah is obligatory for him'. As-Suyootiy said that it is Tawaatur in his Al-Azhaar Al-Mutanaathirah and Al-Kataaniy in his Nuzhum Al-Mutanaathir. This also includes the Hadeeth of the 'Hawd' (basin), intercession and the sight of Allah Ta'Aalaa in the hereafter which Ibn Hajar and Ibn ulJawziy stated to be Mutawaatir.
This is in addition to the Hadeeth of Al-Israa and that Idrees is in the fourth heaven and the Hadeeth of the splitting of the moon and its descent (setting) which Al-Haakim stated to be Mutawaatir.
Similarly the Hadeeth of the shaking of the 'Arsh (throne) upon the death of Sa'd Ibn Mu'aadh (ra) which was classified as being Mutawaatir by Ibn Abdul-Barr , the Hadeeth of the Haneen AlJidh'i (the yearning tree trunk) classified as Mutawaatir by 'Iyaad, the Hadeeth of the camel that complained to the Nabi (saw) which Al-Kataaniy viewed as Mutawaatir. (Ref: All of these can be found in Nuzhum Al-Mutanaathir in the Hadeeth Al-Mutawaatir of Al-Kataaniy). There is also the Hadeeth related to Allah Subhaanahu being above His heavens and upon his 'Arsh, the Hadeeth affirming the 'Arsh and the Hadeeth affirming the Siffaat of the Rabb Ta'Aalaa which Ibn ul-Qayyim declared to be Mutawaatir (Ref: Mukhtasar As-Sawaa'iq Al-Mursalah p517). Another of what they believed to be an evidence to support their opinion but is not evidence is that they made a comparison between the transmitters and the Sahaabah (rah) which is a deduction that is also rejected. This is because the Sahaabah (rah) are the first who heard the statements of the Nabi (saw) and it was Qat'iy for each of them and there was no room for Zhann as long as they had heard it directly from him (saw). As for those who came after them then the statement (Qawl) of the Sahaabah is not Qat'iy (definite/decisive) because they are not Ma'soom (infallible) from the mistake unless they are all in agreement by Ijmaa'. The same applies to those who followed them until the era that the Hadeeth was recorded. For this reason the science of Jarh and Ta'deel (critiquing of Hadeeth) arose and in light of the the Ahaadeeth were classified as Saheeh and Da'eef. Also what they thought to be an evidence but is not in fact evidence is their claim that an Ijmaa' exists upon the Khabar Al-Aahaad establishing decisive 'Ilm (knowledge) and that an Ijmaa' exists upon the Aahaad being taken into the 'Aqeedah. However this claim is false as it has been confiormed since the time of recording and since the time of the four A'immah (Imaams) that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not establish other than Zhann (indecisiveness) and that it is not taken into the Aqaa'id (beliefs). In the following chapter of this brief book I have presented that which proves this point.
The Sixth Angle: The statements of the 'Ulamaa stating that the Khabar Al-Waahid does not ascertain and establish 'Ilm (certain knowledge):
The following are statements according to the well-known Madhaahib of the Ahlu-s-Sunnah:
The Maalikiy Madh'hab: We will begin with that which has been attributed to Al-Imaam Maalik (rh) in relation to this subject: Abu-l-Waleed Al-Baajiy said: 'The Madh'hab of Maalik (rh) is the acceptance of the Khabar Al-Waahid Al-'Adl (from the just and trustworthy) and that iis obligatory to act without their being decisiveness in it and this is what all of the Fuqahaa hold as their opinion' (Ref: AlIshaarah Fee Usool-ul-Fiqh p203). It was stated in 'Iesaal As-Saalik fee Usool Al-Imaam Maalik: 'My pronouncement is upon two categories: Qat'iy and Zhanny. The Qat'iy includes the Mushaahad (witnessed) and what has been transmitted by way of Tawaatur whilst the Zhanny is what is transmitted by the Saheeh Khabar Al-Aahaad and it represents a Zhanny proof whilst the Qat'iy represents a Qat'iy Hujjah (proof/evidence)' (Ref: Muhammad Bin Yahyaa Bin 'Umar Al-Mukhtaar Bin At-Taalib p17). Additional beneficial point:
From that which indicates that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not establish decisive 'Ilm (knowledge) in the view of Al-Imaaam Maalik (rh) is that he would reject it if it was in opposition to the actions of the people of Al-Madinah as has been mentioned by Al-Qaadiy 'Iyaad and Sahnoon and they presented as an example for this the Hadeeth: 'The two traders have a choice (to complete the trade or end it) as long as they have nor departed from one another'. He rejected this because it was in contradiction to the actions of the people of AlMadinah (Ref: Tarteeb Al-Madaarik Wa Taqreeb Al-Masaalik of Al-Qaadit 'Iyaad 70/2). Abu Ishaq Al-Asfraa'eeniy stated from Ibn Khuwaiz Mindaad that he had oddities attributed to be from Maalik that did not fit with the high level of the Madh'hab and he mentioned from amongst them the statement: 'That the Khabar Al-Waahid establishes (definite) 'Ilm (knowledge)' (Ref: As mentioned by Ibn Hajr in 'Lisaan Al-Meezaan' 291/5). Abu Abdullah Ash-Shaatibiy said: 'As for the second, the Zhanny which returns to a Qat'iy srcin then working with it is evident and the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad in the generality fall into this category'. And he also said: 'The ranking of the Sunnah comes after that of the Kitaab (Al-Qur'aan) in consideration and the evidence for that is a number of matters:
Firstly: That the Kitaab is Maqtoo' Bihi (decisive/definite) whilst the Sunnah is Mazhnoonah (Zhanny) and the Qat'i (decisiveness) in it refers to it as a whole and not in its details. This is in contrast to the Kitaab which is Qat'iy as a whole and in its details, and that which is decisive comes ahead of that which is Zhanniy' (Ref: Al-Muwaafaqaat 16/3 and 7/4). Abu l-'Abbaas Al-Quraafi said: 'The chapter about Khabar Al-Waahid: It is the Khabar of a single just person ('Adl) or just people ('Udool) which establish Zhann'. And he said: 'And Khabar Al-Waahid does not establish other than Zhann'. And he also said: 'And Khabar Al-Waahid is Mazhnoon (indecisive)' (Ref: Sharh Tanqeeh Al Fusool p356). Abu Bakr Bin Al-'Arabiy said: 'As for the second (type): That which obliges action but not knowledge then it is the Khabar Al-Waahid which is Mutlaq (unrestricted) in regards to that which is unique by its 'Ilm (knowledge). And some people said: 'That it obliges 'Ilm (knowledge) just a it obliges the action like the Khabar al-Mutawaatir. They could only have arrived at this due to two reasons: Either their ignorance of what 'Ilm is or due to their ignorance of what the Khabar Al-Waahid is. We know by way of Daroorah (necessity) the abstention of attining 'Ilm by way of the Khabar Al-Waahid and the possibibility of their exposure to lies and foregetfulness'. (Ref: Al-Mahsool p115). The Mufassir Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi said: 'And most of the Ahkaam Ash-Sharee'ah are based upon Ghalabat Azh-Zhann (the most probable/preponderant) like Qiyaas, Khabar Al-Waahid and other than them (Ref: Al-Jaami' Li Ahkaam Al-Qur'aan in the Tafseer of the Aayaah: Verily some Zhann (speculation) is Ithm (a sin)'. Abu l-'Abbaas Al-Qutubi in his 'Al-Mufham' in relation to the changing of the direction of the Qiblah: 'So they left the Tawaatur for the Khabar Al-Waahid which is Mazhnoon (speculative)' (Ref: Mufham Sharh Saheeh Muslim 125/2). Al-Qaadi Ibn Al-Baaqalaaniy said: 'And the Aahaad to not lead to the 'Ilm (knowledge i.e. belief)' and he also said: 'Know and may Allah give you Tawfeeq that all that knowledge has ben demanded in does not accept within that Akhbaar Al-Aahaad' (Ref:At-Talkhees 430-434/2 and similar to that in At-Tamheed p164). Ibn Abdul-Barr said: 'Our people (of our Madh'hab) and others have differed in respect to the just Khabar Al-Waahid: Does it oblige both 'Ilm and 'Amal (action)? Or does oit oblige the action and not the knowledge?' He said: 'The opinion of the majority of the people of proficiency is that it oblges action but not 'Ilm and this is the opinion of Ash-Shaafi'iy and the Majority of the Scholars of Fiqh and Nazhar (examination)' (Ref: Al-Musawwadah li Aali Taymiyyah p220). Al-Hujuwiy said: 'And the correct view is that the Khabar Al-Waahid if it is free of Qaraa'in (other external indications) establishes Zhann which is different to the view of the Zhaahiriyah (Madh'hab) who claimed that it establishes 'Ilm Al-Yaqeeniy (certain knowledge)' (Ref: Al-Fikr As-Saamiy 111/1).
Az-Zarqaaniy said: 'So attach the impermissibility of abrogating the Qur'aan by it (i.e. the Khabar Al-Aahaad) due to the meaning that has been mentioned which is that it it is Zhanny whilst the Qur'aan is Qat'iy. And the Zhanny is weaker that the Qat'iy and it is not strong enough to remove it. Those who say that it is permissible to abrogate the Qur'aan by the Sunnah AlAahaadiyah have relied upon the Qur'aan being Zhanniy in its Dalaalah (meaning/import). Their proof (argument) is invalid because even if the Qur'aan contains that which is not Qat'iy AdDalaalah (definite in meaning/import) it is nevertheless Qat'iy Ath-Thuboot (definite in its transmission). This is whilst the Sunnah Al-Aahaadiyah is Zhanny in Dalaalah and Thuboot together. It is therefore weaker and so how can it replace it (the Qur'aan)?' (Ref: Manaahil Al'Urfaan 173/2).
The Hanafi Madh'hab: We will begin with what has been attributed to Al-Imaam Abu Haneefah (rh): Al-Hasan related from Abu Haneefah (rh) that their is no Kaffaarah upon him and if news reached him because the Khabar Al-Waahid does not oblige certain knowledge ('Ilm Yaqeen) but rather only obliges action because of thinking well (husn Azh-Zhann) of the one relating but not all doubt is negated from it' (Ref: As-Sarkhasiy in his Mabsoot 80/3). What has become well-known in respect to Abu Haneefah rejecting the Khabar Al-Waahid if it was in opposition to the Qiyaas or if was from that which had become a general necessity. Abu-l-Barakaat An-Nasafi in 'Kashf ul-Asraar 'Alaa-l-Manaar' said: 'As for the claim of certain knowledge by it then this is false because we have made clear that the Mash'hoor does not establish certainty and the Khabar Al-Waahid by greater reason. And this is because the Khabar Al-Waahid is Muhtamal (open to question) in itself and how can certainty be established with the existsence of this Ihtimaal (openness to being questioned)' (Ref: Kshf ul-Asraar Alaa-l-Manaar 19/2). Al-Kamaal Bin Al-Himaam in At'Tahreer the author of Tayseer At-Tahreer: 'The view of the majority of the Fuqahaa and the Muhadditheen is that the Khabar Al-Waahid does not establish (definite) knowledge at all i.e. whether or not there are (supporting) Qaraa'in (indications). He then said that the Khabar Al-Waahid could establish 'Ilm with Qaraa'in' (Ref: Tayseer At-Tahreer 76/3). He then affirmed in Fat'hul Qadeer saying: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid does not oblige Yaqeen (certainty) but rather it only obliges Zhann' (Ref: Fat'h-ul-Qadeer 159/3). Abdul Hameed Al-Asmandiy stated: 'The majority held the view that it does not oblige 'Ilm in srcin and the Zhaahiris viewed that it does entail decisive Knowledge'. Al-Asmandiy had studied the positions of all of the Madhaahib (different schools) and adopted the opinion of the majority just as he forbade the acceptance of the Aahaad in the 'Aqeedah as
will be mentioned in its chapter inshaa Allah (Ref: Al-Mawsoom Badhl An-Nazhr Fil Usool p393). As-Sarkhasiy said: 'The Fuqahaa of the regions (rh) have said: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid Al-'Adl is a Hujjah (proof/evidence) to be acted upon in a matter of the Deen but the 'Ilm Yaqeen (certain knowledge) is not established by it'. He then said: 'And we have explained previously that the certain knowledge ('Ilm Yaqeen) is not established by the Mash'hoor reports with this meaning so how can it be established by the Khabar Al-Waahid' his 'Usool' 329/1, 112/1 and 321/1). Al-Khabaazi said: 'And because the Khabar Al-Aahaad entails Ghalabat Azh-Zhann (preponderant) and obliges action due to it not fulfilling the requirements of Yaqeen in a certain manner'(Ref: Al-Mughni Fee Usool-ul-Fiqh p195). 'Alaa Ad-Deen As-Samarqandiy said: 'And from it (i.e. the categories and types of Aahaad) are those which are found in the subject of the action. As for when they are found in the subject area of the beliefs and they are from the issues of Al-Kalaam then they are not a Hujjah because they oblige Zhann and the 'Ilm (knowledge) which is most probable (to be correct) is not 'Ilm Qat'iy (definite)' (Ref: Meezaan Al-Usool p430). Abu Ja'far As-Sajastaaniy said: 'And the Khabar Al-Waahid: It does not oblige 'Ilm and it must be acted upon as a blessing dues to it being attributed to the Nabi (saw)' (Ref: Al-Ghinyah Fil Usool p38). Fakhr ul-Islaam Al-Bazdawiy said: 'And this, meaning the Khabar Al-Waahid, obliges action and it does not oblige certain knowledge 'Ilm Yaqeen'. He then said: 'We have explained that the Mash'hoor does not establish certain knowledge then this (Khabar Al-Waahid) is Awlaa (more correct to be applied to). And this is because the Khabar Al-Waahid is Muhtamal (open to question) and their is no certainty in that which has Ihtimaal (this openness or possibility) and whoever denies this has made himself foolish and his intellect has strayed' (Ref: Kashf ul-Asraar 'Alaa Usool Al-Bazdawiy 370/2). 'Abdul 'Azeez Al-Bukhaari in his Sharh (explanation) of the Kalaam (speech) of Al-Bazdawiy said: 'Meaning, it does not establish 'Ilm Yaqeen (certain knowledge) and it does not establish 'Ilm Tuma'neenah (knowedge that provides tranquillity/peace of mind). This is thye Madh'hab of the majority of the people of knowledge and the sum of the Fuqahaa (Ref: Kashf ul-Asraar 'Alaa Usool Al-Bazdawiy 376/2). He also said: 'The divine evidences (Adillah) are of four types: Qat'iy Ath-Thuboot and AdDalaalah (definite in transmission and meaning), Zhanny Ath-Thuboot and Qat'iy Ad-Dalaalah (indecisiove in transmission and definite in meaning) like the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad which carry a Qat'iy (definite) understood meaning, Zhanny Ath-Thuboot and Ad-Dalaalah (speculative transmission and meaning) like the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad which carry a Zhanny meaning' (Ref: Kashf ul-Asraar Alaa Usool Al-Bazdawiy 28/1). Ibn 'Aabideen said similar to this in his Haashiyah (Ref: Haashiyah 'Alaa Radd ul-Mukhtaar 95/1).
Abu Ath-Thanaa Al-Maatureediy said: 'And its Hukm (the Khabar Al-Aahaad) is that is obliges action but not 'Ilm' (Ref: His book Usool ul-Fiqh p148). Nizhaam Ad-Deen Al-Ansaariy said: 'The majoiryt of the pople (Scholars) of Usool and from them the three A'immah viewed that the Khabar Al-Waahid absolutely does not establish 'Ilm if the one who did not provide the Khabar is not an infallible Prophet, and whether it was attached to Qaraa'in (external indications) or not' (Ref: Sharh Muslim Ath-Thuboot and Haashiyah AlMustasfaa 121/2). Abu Bakr Al-Jassaas in his statement in respect to the speech of Allah Ta'Aalaa:
If a Faasiq comes to you with news then verify it (Al-Hujuraat 6). He said: 'And this Aayah there is an indication that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not oblige 'Ilm and if it obliged 'Ilm at all then why would it be in need of verification' (Ref: Ahkaam Al-Qur'aan 279/5). Al-Kaasaaniy said: 'We have named this type Waajib and not Fard because the Fard is a name for what its obligations has been ascertained by the Qat'iy Daleel and this type of Zakaah has not been affirmed by a Qat'iy Daleel. Rather the Daleel for it is Shubhat ul-'Adam and it is Khabar Al-Waahis' (Ref: Badaa'i' As-Sanaa'i' 69/2). In another place in the same book he said: 'The Wujoob (obligation) of the Mas'h (wiping) upon the splint/plaster is established by the Hadeeth of 'Ali (ra) and it is from the Aahaad and so acting upon it is obliged and not 'Ilm (knowledge)' (Ref: 14/1). Abu Zaid Ad-Daboosiy said: 'So much of desires and Bid'a occurred in respect to the Khabar AlWaahid was in regards to it being accepted in belief (I'tiqaad) or in action without placing it before the Kitaab and the established Sunnah which was followed by then interpreting the Kitaab to be in agreement with the Khabar Al-Waahid which made the following and building of the Deen based upon that which certain knowledge is not obliged in. The foundation then became 'Ilm established upon Shubhah (doubt) and so there was no increase except in Bid'ah. The harm of this to the Deen was then greater than the harm of those who did not accept the Khabar Al-Waahid...' (Ref: As-Sam'aaniy mentioned this from him in 'Qawaat'i Al-Adillah' 366/1).
The Shaafi'iy Madh'hab: We will begin with that which has been attributed to l-Imaam Ash-Shaafi'iy (rh):
Abu Bakr As-Sairufiy said: The Khabar Al-Waahid obliges action ('Amal) and not 'Ilm (knowledge) and this has been transmitted from the majority of the 'Ulamaa including AshShaafi'iy (Ref: Az-Zarkashiy in 'Al-Bahr ul-Muheet' 262/4). Ibn Abdul Barr Al-Maalikiy as mentioned earlier when he attributed this to the majority of the 'Ulamaa and he said: And it is the view of Ash-Shaafi'iy. This is in addition to what Al-Ansaariy from the Ahnaaf who we also mentioned earlier mentioned when he stated that this is the view of three A'immah (Imaams) whilst intending: Abu Haneefah, Maalik and Ash-Shaafi'iy. Al-Haafizh Abu Bakr Bin Thaabit who is well-known as Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadiy in his book: 'A mention of the doubt of those who claim that the Khabar Al-Waahid establishes 'Ilm and presenting its falsehood/invalidity'. He says: 'And as for Khabar Al-Aahaad then it is what falls short of the description of the Mutawaatir and knowledge is not Qat'iy (definite) by it and even if it was related by a group'. And he said: 'As for the other type of collections like the Akhbaar (reports) related in the Saheeh Books of Sunnah then these oblige action whilst they do not oblige knowledge (Ref: Al-Kifaayah Fee 'Ilm Ar-Riwaayah p16,18 and 25 and in 'Al-Faqeeh Wa-l-Mutafaqqah' 1/96). Abu-l-Mu'aaliy Al-Juwaini well-known as the Imaam Al-Haramaini said: 'A group from amongst the Hanaabalah (Hanbali Madh'hab) and the Hadeeth writers viewed that the Khabar Al-Waahid Al-Adl obliges 'Ilm and this represents a disgrace which is not hidden from any aware person'. And he said: 'Do you permit for the 'Adl (just person) who you have characterised as such to be mistaken and for him to make an error? They then say: No, that would be a false accusation, dishonourable and a violation to the veil of esteem and standing and there is no need to add any explanation beyond that. And it would be closer to say the narrators have erred and the establishing by way of a collective/plural are not many. If the error was not conceivable then a narrator would not recind his narration and the issue is the opposite to what they imagine it to be'. And he said in 'Al-Waraqaat': 'Al-Aahaad is that which obliges action ('Amal) but does not affirm 'Ilm (knowledge) due to the possibility of error within it (Ref: Al-Burhaan 606/1 and AlWaraqaat p12). An-Nawawi in Sharh Muslim said: 'And what Ibn As-Salaah said in regards to Saheeh AlBukhaari and Muslim in this subject is in opposition to what the Muhaqqiqeen (those who undertook critical studies) and the majority have said. They say: The Ahaadeeth of the Saheehaini (Two books of Saheeh: Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) are not Mutawaatirah. They only establish Zhann because they are Aahaad and the Aahaad only ascertain Zhann in accordance to what they have decided, and there is no difference in this regard between Al-Bukhaari, Muslim and others. The fact that the Ummah has accepted them only means that the obligation of acting in accordance to what they contain is strengthened and this is agreed upon. Indeed the Akhbaar AlAahaad in other than these two (collections) must (also) be acted upon if the chains are Saheeh
(sound) and they do not establish anything other than Zhann just like the Saheehain (Two books of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim)'. And he also said: 'As for the Khabar Al-Waahid then it is that which does not fulfil the conditions of the Mutawaatir whether their was one single narrator or more than one, and they (scholars) have disagreed in regards to its Hukm (ruling). That which the majority of the Muslims from amongst the Sahaabah, the Taabi'een and those who came after from the Muhadditheen, Fuqahaa and scholars of Usool viewed is that the Khabar Al-Waahid Ath-Thiqqah (trustworthy) is a Hujjah (proof/evidence) from amongst the Hujjaj (evidences) of the Shar'a (Islamic legislation) which must be acted by and that they establish Zhann (indefiniteness) and do not establish 'Ilm' (Sharh Saheeh Muslim An-Nawawi 20/1, 131/1). Al-Haafizh Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaaniy in 'Nukhbat ul-Fikr' when speaking about the Mutawaatir said: 'All of it is acceptable to establish Al-Qat'u (Definiteness/decisiveness) in terms of the truthfulness of the one who is informing which is not the case with other than it from the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad' (Ref: Nukhbat ul-Fikr p38). Ar-Raaziy said when discussing the Statemnet of Allah (swt):
For there should separate from every division of them a group (At-Taubah 122). 'We only say here that the Taa'ifah (group) mentioned here is a number whose speech does not establish 'Ilm (knowledge) because every three is a Firqah (division) and Allah Ta'Aalaa has made obligatory for every division a group should be taken out from them and a Taa'ifah (group) from three means one or two whilst the statement of one or two does not establish 'Ilm'. And he also said: 'And because we know out of necessity that the statement of one does not establish 'Ilm'. And he said: 'As for the Naql (transmission): Then it is either Tawaatur or Aahaad and the first establishes 'Ilm and the second establishes Zhann' (Ref: Al-Mahsool 123-172/2 and Nafaa'is AlUsool Sharh Al-Mahsool by Al0Quraafiy 531/2). Al-Asnawiy said: 'As for the Sunnah then the Aahaad from it does not establish (or affirm) other than Zhann' (Ref: Nihaayat As-Su'aal 41/1 and 270/2). Az-Zarkashi said in 'Al-Bahr': 'Indeed the Khabar Al-Waahid does not affirm 'Ilm and this is the opinion of the majoioryt of the people of Hadeeth, opinion and Fiqh' (Ref: Al-Bahr ul-Muheet Fee Usool ul Fiqh 262/4). Ibn ul-Atheer said: 'And the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not affirm 'Ilm (knowledge) but we worship in accordance to it'.
And he said: 'What has been said by the Muhadditheen that it inherits 'Ilm then it may be that they intended that it establishes and affirms the 'Ilm (knowledge) that obligates action or that they named the Zhann as 'Ilm. For this reason some of them inherit 'Ilm Azh-Zhaahir (evident) whilst 'Ilm does not have Zhaahir and Baatin (what is evident and what is hidden), but rather it is only Zhann (speculative)' (Ref: Jaami' Al-Usool min Ahaadeeth Ar-Rasool 69/1). Abu Ishaq Ash-Sheeraaziy said: 'in our view: If the Khabar Al-Waahid established 'Ilm then the Khabar of every person would be obliged and if that was also the case then it would be obligatory for 'Ilm (knowledge) to be established by the Khabr of the one who claims Prophethood or the one who claims that he is owed money by someone else. And as nobody has said that then this guides to there being nothing in it that obligates knowledge ('Ilm)'. He then said: 'And because if it was to obligate knowledge then it would be necessary for their to be a clash if it was opposed by a Khabar Mutawaatir, and in the case where it is established and affirmed that the Mutawaatir comes before it, then this indicates that it does not obligate 'Ilm (knowledge)' (Ref: At-Tabsirah p299). Abu Haamid Al-Ghazaaliy said in Al-Mustasfaa: 'So if this was defined we would say: The Khabar Al-Waahid does not ascertain knowledge and this is known by necessity (Ma'loom Bid Daroorah). And we do not believe everything that we hear. If we were to believe and we had two contradictory reports then how can we believe in two opposites? What has been said about the Muhadditheen in respect to that obliging 'Ilm then it is likely that they meant that it obliges the 'Ilm (knowledge) of the obligation to act'. (Ref: Al-Mustasfaa 145/1). Shams ud-Deen Al-Asfahaaniy said: 'The Akhbaar (reports) related from the Messenger (saw) are either Mutawaatirah or Aahaad. And the Mutawaatirah are impossible to be a lie and as for the Aahaad then some of them are lies definitely'. He then said: As for the Mulaazamah (inherence): 'Then this is because Khabar Al-Aahaad do not establish other than Zhann'. And he said: 'As for the Sunnah then the Aahaad from it do not establish other than Zhann (indecisiveness) (ref: His Sharh of Minhaaj Al-Usool 536-544/2 and 41/1). As-Sibky said: in Al-Ibhaaj: 'The Nass (text) is two categories: (The) Aahaad which do not ascertain other than Zhann' (Ref: Al-Ibhaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj 38/1). And he said in Jam'u-l-Jawaami': 'Khabar Al-Waahid does not affirm 'Ilm (knowledge) unless it is by way of a Qareenah' and then he said: 'The majority say that it does not affirm knowledge absolutely (at all). (Ref: Jam'u-l-Jawaami' Ma'a Sharh Al-Jalaal Al-Muhallaa 130/2). Al-Baydawiy said: 'The Mutawaatir is not abrogated by the Aahaad because the Qat' (definite) is not removed by the Zhann (indefinite). (Ref: Al-Minhaaj Ma'a Sharhi Al-Jazariy 443/1). Abu Bakr Bin Fawrak said: 'As for that which is from the category of the Aahaad which is valid to be used as evidence by way of its path, trustworthiness of its transmitters, justice of its narrators and the connection of what they have transmitted, then that, even if it does not oblige
Al-Qat' (definiteness), it does establish the Ghalab Azh-Zhann (the most preponderant and likely) and allows for a Hukm (to be deduced) (ref: Muskil Al-Hadeeth Wa Bayaanuhu p44). Al-Baghdaadi Al-Asfraa'eeniy said: 'And (in regards to) the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad, then whatever the level of the Sihhah (soundness) of their chain (Isnaad) and its text (meaning) is not impossible to the mind (to reconcile), then it is obligatory in respect to the action but not for 'Ilm (knowledge'. (Ref: Usool Ud Deen p12 and Al-Farq Baina l-Farq p250). Al-Maawardiy said in Al-Haawiy: 'If it is as such, then even if it obliges action, it does not oblige Al-'Ilm Al-Baatin (hidden) which is different to the Mustafeed and the Mutawaatir (Ref: AlHaawiy Al-Kabeer 144/20). Al-Haafizh Zain ud-Deen Al-'Iraaqiy said: '...When the people (Scholars) of Hadeeth said that a certain Hadeeth is Saheeh then what is apparently meant by that to us is to act in accordance to what is evident in the Isnaad and it does not mean that it is Maqtoo' (definite) in its soundness/correctness (Sihhah) in regards to that matter and this is because of the possibility of mistake and forgetfulness from (even) the trustworthy. This is the correct view which the majority of the Ahl-ul-'Ilm are upon and is in opposition to those who have said that the Khabar Al-Waahis obliges 'Ilm Azh-Zhaahir (apparent/evident knowledge) like Hussein Al-Karaabeesiy and others beside him (Ref: His Sharh of Al-Alfiyah Fil Hadeeth 15/1). Safiy ud-Deen Al-Armawiy said: 'As for the Naql (transmission) then it is either Aahaad or Tawaatur and the Aahaad do not ascertain other than Zhann (indecisiveness) (Ref: Niyaaht ulWusool 104/1). Al-'Izz Bin Abdus Salaam in his reply to Ibn As-Salaah in regards to making the Ahaadeeth of the two Saheehs establish Al-Qat' (deciveness) said: 'It has been transmitted from the Mu'tazilah: That if the Ummah acts in accordance to a Hadeeth then this dictates definiteness in its Sihhah (correctness). He said: This is a base (vile) Madh'hab' (Ref: Az-Zarkashiy in Salaasil Adh-Dhahab p321 and Al-Haafizh Al-'Iraaqiy in At-Taqyeed and Al-Eedaah p41-42). Al-Haithami in As-Sawaa'iq Al-Muhriqah said: 'And texts have been related about Abu Bakr amd others like 'Ali which are contradictory in respect to their virtues and these do not establish AlQat' (definiteness) because they are all Aahaad and Zhaaniy in their Dalaalah'. He also said: 'Because what is benfited from the Ijmaa' is Qat'iy and what is benefited from the Khabar Al-Waahid is Zhanniy, and there is not opposition (clash) between the Zhanniy and the Qat'iy but rather the Qat'iy is worled with whilst the Zhanniy is cancelled (Ref: As-Sawaa'iq AlMuhriqah 110/1 and 173/1). Ibn Daqeeq Al-'Eid said: The second issue: Is it permitted abbrogating the Kitaab and the Sunnah Al-Mutawaatirah by a Khabar Al-Waahid? This was forbidden by the majority because the definite (Maqtoo') is not removed by the indefinite (Mazhnoon)'.
He also said: 'As for the second point which is related to the Khabar Al-Aahaad which is contrary to the known Qiyaas Al-Usool then it is not obliged to work with it. This is because the known (Ma'loom) Usool is Maqtoo' (definite) from the Shar'a whilst the Khabar Al-Aahaad are Mazhnoon (indefinite) and the Mazhnoon does not stand against the Ma'loom (known)' (Ref: Ihkaam Al-Ahkaam Sharh 'Umdat Al-Ahkaam 181/1 and 121/3). Al-Jarjaaniy said: 'The Khabar Al-Aahaad is that which has been transmitted Waahid (one) from Waahid (one) and it does not reach th level (limit) of Istish'haar (being widespread) and its Hukm (ruling) is that it obligates actions but not 'Ilm (Ref: Ta'reefaat 131/1). Abu Zur'ah Al-'Iraaqiy said: 'They have different views in respect to the Khabar Al-Aahaad: Does it ascertain 'Ilm or not? First: It ascertains knowledge if it includes Qaraa'in (external indications). Second: It does not ascertain 'Ilm at all (absolutely) and even with Qaraa'in, and this is the view of the majority. Thirdly: It establishes 'Ilm absolutely. And he said: 'If the Maqtoo' (definite) is mentioned in respect to it not being truthful (Kidhb) or is mentioned in respect to its truthfulness (Sidq) a third category is being mentioned and it is: The Mazhnoon (indefinite) in respect to its Sidq (truthfulness) and this is the Khabar Al-'Adl AlWaahid (trustworthy Khabar Al-Waahid)' (Ref: Al-Ghaith Al-Haami' Sharh Jam'u l-Jawaami' 491-492/2). Ibn At-Talmasaaniy said: 'Know that what is intended by the Khabar Al-Waahid in Usool UlFiqh is: Al-Khabr (the report) that does not ascertain 'Ilm (knowledge) and Yaqeen (certainty)' (Ref: Sharh Al-Ma'aalim Fee Usool ul-Fiqh 167/2). Adud Al-Millah Al-Eejiy said: 'Our opinion is that the Mutawaatir is Maqtoo' (definite) and the Aahaad is Mazhnoon (indefinite) and the Qaat'i is not met by the Mazhnoon (indefinite) (Ref: Sharh Al-Adud 'Alaa Mukhtasar Ibn ul-Haajib p278).
The Hanbali Madh'hab: We will begin by mentioning that which has been attributed to Al-Imaam Ahmad (rh):
Two opinions have been from him;isthe first is that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does is not ascertain knowledge ('Ilm)related and the second that it does ascertain it. The first however the strongest amongst the Fuqahaa of his Madh'hab. Al-Muwaffiq Ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah Al-Maqdasiy said: 'The reports from our Imaam (AlImaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal) have differed in respect to the attainment of 'Ilm by way of the Khabar Al-Waahid. It has been related that it does not occur in his view and this is the opinion of the majority and the opinion of those who came later from those of our Madh'hab. This is
because we know by necessity that we do not believe every Khabar (report) that we hear and if it established and ascertained 'Ilm then it would not be valid to find two reports that are contradictory to one another due to the impossibility of two opposites being brought together (Ref: Rawdat Un-Naazhir Wa Jannat ul-Manaazhir 260/1). Ibn Badraan in his commentary upon 'Rawdat An-Nazhar' said: 'The chain of the second opinion attributed to the Imaam without restriction needs to be examined just as what has been attributed to him by Ibn ul-Haajib, Al-Waasitiy and others in respect to him saying that knowledge is attained whenever an 'Adl (trustworthy person) informs (of a matter) and if he is not then by Qareenah (indication/linkage). This is because this is not correct in srcin and how is it fitting for the like of an Imaam of the Sunnah to make such a claim. This is whilst there is in any book that has been related from him a Saheeh narration and all of his narrations may Allah be pleased with him are recorded and well-known amongst those who excel from his followers and the author may Allah's mercy be upon him is from amongst those. With that I guide to this (attributed) narration lying outside of his speech and then they act with them as has been mentioned here. That has been affirmed so take a pause O fair one' (Ref: Nuzhat ul-Khaatir 'Alaa Rawdat An-Nazhar 261/1 a supplement to Rawdat An-Nazhar). Safiy ud-Deen Al-Baghdaadiy said: 'The Aahaad is that which is not Tawaatur and 'Ilm is not attained by it in accordance to one of the two reports (attributed to Al-Imaam Ahmad) and this is the opinion of the majority and those who came later from his companions (i.e. from his Madh'hab' (Ref: Qawaa'id Al-Usool Wa Ma'aaqid Al-Fusool p16). Al-Muwaffiq ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah Al-Maqdasiy said: 'The Khabar is that which is open to At-Tasdeeq (to be believed/affirmed) and At-Takdheeb (disbelieved) and it has two categories: Tawaatur and Aahaad. So the Mutawaatir ascertains 'Ilm and it is obligatory to have Tasdeeq in it and even if no other Daleel has indicated (or guided to) it. And there is no Khabar that is known to be truthful by itself apart from the Mutawaatir whilst the truthfulness is is only known for anything else through another (secondary) Daleel that guides to the same Khabar (Ref: Rawdat An-Nazhar 243/1). Al-Qaadiy Abu Ya'laa said: 'If the khabar Al-Ahad obligated 'Ilm then it would be obligated in any description that it was found' (Ref: Al-'Iddah Fee Usool ul-Fiqh 901/1). Suleymaan At-Toofiy said: 'The Khabar is either Tawaatur and it affiorms 'Ilm or it is is merely Aahaad and as such definitely does not affirm 'Ilm as has been established here (Ref: Sharh Mukhtasar Ar-Rawdah 108/2). Abu-l-Khitaab Al-Kaloodhaaniy said: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid does not dictate 'Ilm and this is the opinion of the majority of the 'Ulamaa' (Ref: At-Tamheed Fee Usool ul-Fiqh). Ibn 'Uqail said: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid does not establish 'Ilm or Darooriy (what is essential/of necessity) or Al-Muktasib (that which attained) upon the Saheeh of the two reports attributed to our companion (Imaam Ahmad)' (Ref: Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh 403/4).
Ibn Taymiyyah said: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid that has been met with acceptance obliges 'Ilm according to the majority of the 'Ulamaa'.... He then said: 'This is because despite in itself not establishing other than Zhann, however due to being tied to the Ijmaa' of the people of knowledge in respect to the acceptance of the Hadeeth with Tasdeeq (belief/affirmation) it takes the standing of the Ijmaa' of the people of knowledge in Fiqh in respect to a Hukm (legal ruling) which they have beased upon the Zhaahir (what is evident), Qiyaas or Khabar Waahid. That is then a Hukm that has become Qat'iy in the view of the majority and if it is not by 'Ijmaa (consensus) then it is not Qat'iy' ('Ilm ul-Hadeeth p100). And he also said: 'Nobody from those who have 'Aql (reason/intellect) has said that every Khabar Waahid or the Khabar of anyone is truthful or establishes knowledge or that it could not be untruthful' (Ref: Al-Jawaab As-Saheeh Liman Badal Deen ul-Maseeh 481/6 and also AlMusawwadah LiAali Taymiyyah p220).
The Zaidi Madh'hab: Ash-Shawkaani said in Al-Irshaad: The second section: 'Al-Aahaad and it is the Khabar that does not establish 'Ilm in itself and it is the same in respect to not establishing it in srcin or establishing it by way of external Qaraa'in (indications/linkages). This is because there is nothing in between the Mutawaatir and the Aahaad and this is the opinion of the majority' (ref: Irshaad Al-Fuhool 92/1). Al-Ameer As-San'aaniy the author of Subul-us-Salaam said: 'Upon evaluation Qiyaas Al-Usool affims Al-Qat' (definiteness) whilst the Khabar Al-Waahid does not affirm other than Zhann (indefiniteness)' And he also said: 'The Usool affirms Al-Qat' whilst the Khabar Al-Waahid affirms Zhann and the definite supercedes the indefinite' (Ref: Haashiyah Ihkaam Al-Ahkaam Sharh Umdat Ahkaam of Ibn Daqeeq Al-'Eid 53-57/4). He said in another place: 'The correct view which the majority of the people of knowledge are upon is that the Khabar Al-Aahaad which is the Saheeh Hadeeth is that however is not definite at the same time and for that reason no one is legally responsible (and held to task) except for that related to the action and not that related to 'Ilm' (Ref: Tawdeeh Al-Afkaar 24-25/1). Muhammad Bin Ibraaheem Al-Wazeer Al-Yamaaniy in 'Al-'Awaasim Wal-Qawaasim' in his rebuttal of As-Sayyid: ''Ilm with of its Nusoos (texts) would only obliged ifwith it was obliged to outweigh the statement: That all working with Zhann is Haraam andbe if working Zhann was prohibited then working with Al-Khabar Al-Waahid would be prohibited and in that case it 'Ilm would not be obligatory in anything from the Khabar Al-Aahaad' (Ref: 'Al-'Awaasim WalQawaasim' 286/1). He also said: 'We have accepted that the Hadeeth is Saheeh but it is however Ahaadiy Zhanniy whilst As-Sayyid has claimed that the issue is Qat'iy' (Ref: 'Al-'Awaasim Wal-Qawaasim' 235/2).
He has repeated similar statements throughout his book which can be seen by the one who reads through it.
Mashaayikh (Scholars) from our current time: Ash-Sheikh Taqiy-ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy said: 'Khabar Al-Waahid: It is what a number that has not reached the level of Tawaatur has related in the three eras and there is no significance to what came after them. It establishes Zhann and it does not establish Yaqeen (certainty)' (Ref: Ash-Shakhsiyah 78/3). Ash-Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltoot said: 'This is the Tawaatur which obligates Yaqeen (certainty) due to it being proven that it came from the Messenger of Allah (saw). If however it was Khabar Al-Waahid or a small number and even if in some of the levels (of the chain) then it would not be Mutawaatir and definite in regards to it being attributable to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and it would only be Aahaadiy, its connection to the Messenger contains a Shubhah (doubt) and therefore does not affirm and establish Yaqeen (certainty)' (Ref: Al-Islaam 'Aqeedah Wa Sharee'ah p59). Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah said: 'The Hdaeeth Al-Aahaad ascertain the most likel;y Zhanny (indefinite) 'Ilm (knowledge) and does not ascertain the Qat'iy 'Ilm because there is Shubhah in regards to the connection to the Nabi (saw)' (Ref: Usool ul-Fiqh p108). Abdul Wahhaab Al-Khallaaf said: 'And the Sunnah Al-Aahaad is reported by way of Zhann from the Messenger (saw) because its chain does not ascertain Al-Qat' (definiteness)' (Usool ul-Fiqh p42). Ash-Sheikh Al-Khuduriy said: 'As for the Khabar Al-Waahid it does not acertain 'Ilm in itself whether it has been benefited by Qaraa'in (external indications) or is not benefited in origin' (Ref: Usool ul-Fiqh p216 and 228). Ash-Sheikh Al-Mubarakfooriy said: 'What is attained from the Khabar Al-Waahid is Zhann and it is what is open to accept weakness and strength' (Ref: Tuhfah Al-Ahwadhiy 367/2). Ash-Sheikh Hasan Al-Banaa said: 'That which the majority of the Muslims fro the Sahaabah, the Taabi'een and those who came after them from the Muhadditheen, Fuqahaa and Scholars of Usool were upon from was: 'That the trustworthy (Thiqqah) Khabar Al-Waahid is aand Hujjag (proof/evidence) amongst the Shar'i evidences that must be acted upon that they establish Zhann and do not establish 'Ilm'. He then said: 'And as for those who say that it obligates 'Ilm then that is contentious to what is perceivable' (Ref: Madhkar Mabaahith 'Uloom Al-Hadeeth p37). Ahmad Ibraaheem Bik said: 'And from it (the Sunnah) is that which is transmitted by Aahaad and has not become famous/widespread like the first (we discussed). It could be Mutawaatir in
the first line/level and then be transmitted as Aahaad. In regards to this category, if all of the relaters did so from the Messenger until it reached us by trustworthy, just and precise people in accordance to what they had heard, then what has reached us benefits the Hukm Ash-Shar'iy in the issues related to actions but not the 'Aqaa'id. Its chain is established by the most probable and the most probable Zhann is sufficient for the actions but not the Aqaa'id (beliefs) which are based upon the Adillah Al-Qat'iyah (definite/decisive evidences)' ('Ilm Usool ul-Fiqh and Ta'reekh At-Tashree' Al-Islaamiy p18-19). And Sayyid Qutb (rh) said in relation to the Ahaadeeth recorded by Al-Imaam Muslim in his Saheeh stating that the Nabi (saw) had been bewitched by the Jew Labeed Al-A'asam: He said: 'However these narration oppose the srcin of the 'Ismah (infallibility) of the Prophet in regards to his action and conveyance and they do not fit with the belief (I'tiqaad) that every action from amongst his actions and every speech of his represents Sunnah and Sharee'ah. Similarly it in opposition to the denial in the Qur'aan denying that he had been bewitched or enchanted when it proved the falsehood of what the Mushrikeen used to claim in this big lie of theirs. As such these narrations are cast away and in addition the Ahaadeeth Al-Aahaad are not adopted in the issue of the 'Aqeedah whilst the reference point for it is the Qur'aan and the Tawaatur which is a condition for the Ahaadeeth to be taken into the Usool of the 'I'tiqaad (belief)' (Ref: Zhilaal AlQur'aan 4008/6) when discussing Surah Al-Falaq).
The Seventh Angle: Their statements in relation to not using the Khabar Al-Aahaad as an evidence for the Aqaa'id.
Abu-l-'Abbaas Al-Qurtubi when presenting his discussion upon the Hadeeth of the visual sighting of his Rabb on the night of the Israa and Al-Mi'raaj: 'The issue is not from those related to the actions making it sufficient to have Zhanny evidences but rather the issue is from the beliefs and it is not sufficient in regards to them to have other than a Qat'iy Daleel' (Ref: AlMufham Sharh Saheeh Muslim 402/1 and it was also mentioned from him by the author of Zhufr ul-Amaaniy p120). Safiy ud-Deen Al-Armawiy said: 'This is because what is required in regards to the Usool is 'Ilm and Yaqeen (certainty) whilst the Khabar Al-Waahid does not establish that as we have previously explained. This is different to the branches because Zhann is sufficient for it and the Khabar Al-Waahid benefits that' (Ref: Nihaayat-ul-Wusool Fee Diraayat-ul-Usool 2811/7). He also said: 'And we have made an Ijmaa' in regards to the Khabar Al-Waahid being unacceptable in the Usool of the Deen' (Ref: Same source 2834/7). Jamaal Ud-Deen Al-Asnawiy said: 'This is because the Aahaad narration, when it affirms it only affirms Zhann whilst the Shaari' has only permitted the Zhann in relation to the issues related to actions and these are the Furoo' branches without permitting this for the issues related to 'Ilm like the principles/foundations of Usool ud-Deen' (Ref: Nihaayat As-Su'aal 270/2). Al-Qaadi Ibn ul-Baaqalaaniy said: 'From this he deduced thta the Khabar Al-Waahid is not accepted in the 'Aqliyyaat (rationalities) and the Usool of the 'Aqaa'id and everything related to 'Ilm'. And he also said: 'And know, May Allah give you Tawfeeq that everything that 'Ilm is demanded in that the Khabar Al-Aahaad are not accepted tin regards to it' (Ref: At-Talkhees 430/2). 'Alaa Ad-Deen As-Samarqandiy said: 'From them (the Ahaad) are those in which the Khabar is found in the area of the action. As for however when it is found in the area of I'tiqaadaat (beliefs) and it is from the issues of Al-Kalaam then it will not represent a Hujjah (proof/evidence) because it dictates Zhann and a knowledge that it most probable in opinion and it does not oblgate definite knowledge ('Ilm Qat'iy). It is therefore not a Hujjah (evidence/proof) for that which is built upon the definite knowledge and the belief in reality' (Ref: Meezaan Al-Usool p430). As-Sibkiy said: 'That it is not from his conditions for it to be Qat'iy (definite) Mutawaatir but rather when the Hadeeth is Saheeh, even if Zhaahir (evident) and it is from the Aahaad narrations, it is permitted to rely upon it in regards to that because it is not from the issues of belief in which the Qat' (definiteness) is stipulated as a condition' (Ref: Mentioned in Zhufr ulAmaaniy Sharh Mukhtasir Al-Jarjaaniy p120).
Abu uth-Thanaa Mahmood Al-Maatureediy said: 'And for this reason it is not a Hujjah (proof/evidence) for the issues related to the beliuefs because it (the beliuef) is built upon the 'Ilm Al-Qat'iy whilst the Khabar Al-Waahid only dictates knowledge that is most probable in opinion/view and even the greatest Zhann is not equal to the Qat'iy 'Ilm' (Ref: Usool ul-Fiqh p148). Abdul-Hameed Al-Asmandiy said: 'And if you wish to affirm Al-Qadeem Ta'Aalaa and his Siffaat (attributes) then we say: Then the Khabar Al-Waahid is not accepted in regards to that because if we were to accept it in relation to this then we would have accepted it in relation to the beliefs (i'tiqaadaat) whilst it is impermissible to accept the Khabar Al-Waahid in the beliefs' (Ref: Badhl An-Nazhar Fil Usool p406). Abu-l-'Abbaas Al-Quraafiy said when responding to those who forbiod the Khabar Al-Waahid in regards to the action: Our anser is: 'That that is specific to the foundations (Qawaa'id) of the Deen, the Usool and the Qat'iy Ibaadaat' (Ref: Tanqeeh Al-Fusool p358). Abu-l-Khitaab and Ibn 'Uqail said: 'The Akhbaar Al-Aahaad are not utilised in the Usool of the Deen (Ref: Attributed to them by Ibn An-Najjaar in Al-Kawkab Al-Muneer 353/2). Abu-l-Ishaq Ash-Sheeraaziy in response to those who say that if the Khabar Al-Waahid is permitted in the Furoo' Branches) then it should also be acceptable in the Usool (fundamentals) like Tawheed and the affirmation (Ithbaat) of the Usool said: 'The answer: It is that the issues of Usool are Adillah 'Aqliyah that dictate definite knowledge ('Ilm Qat'iy) for a reason and so we are in no need of the Khabar Al-Waahid (in regards to this)' (Ref: Sharh Al-Lam'i 601/2). Al-Bazdawiy said: 'As the Khabar Al-Waahid does not ascertain certainty (yaqeen) then it is not a Hujjah (proof/evidence) in that which relates to the belief because it (the belief) is built upon Yaqeen (certainty) and even if it is considered as evidence (Hujjah) in that which ius related to the action' (Ref: Kashf ul-Asraar 'Alaa Usool Al-Bazdawiy 27/3). Al-Haafizh Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaaniy said: 'What is apparent in the manner Al-Bukhaari proceeded with in the Chapter of Tawheed is that he placed the Ahaadeeth related to the divine Siffaat (attributes) by aupplementing every Hadeeth in the chapter by an Aayah from the Qur'aan so as to indicate that the Khabar Al-Aahaad should not be left alone to be used as proof and evidence for the beliefs (I'tiqaadaat)' (Ref: Fat'h-ul-Baari 359/13). Al-'Ainiy in his Sharh of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari when discussing the 'Aadhaan' said: 'These matters have only been mentioned is in order to know that the implementation of the Khabar is only in the matters related to action (Al-'Amaliyaat) and not in the beliefs (I'tiqaadaat)' (Ref: 'Umdat ulQaari' 12/25). Al-Mulaa 'Ali Al-Qaariy stated in related to the Hadeeth mentioning that the two parents of the Messenger of Allah (saw) were in the fire: 'Unless it is Qat'iy in its Diraayah (meaning/text) not Zhanny in Riwaayah (transmission) because it falls within the Baab (chapter/issue) of beliefs in
which the Zhanniyaat are not utilised and the Aahaad are not sufficient' (Ref: Evidences of belief of Abu Haneefah in regards to the two parents of the Messenger of Allah (saw) p62). Bakheet Al-Mutee'iy in his Sharh of Al-Asanawiy: 'The conclusion is that we forbid (prevent) that the 'Illah (legal reasoning) which dictates the obligation (Wujoob) of the action by way of the Khabar Al-Waahid in regards to the actions be present in regards to the beliefs because that which is required in regards to the 'Amaliyaat (practical actions) is the action and Zhann is sufficient for it whilst what is intended in relation to the I'tiqaadaat (beliefs) is the belief that is in conformance to the reality based on that which obliges that and Zhann is not sufficient to establish that' (Ref: In his commentary to the Sharh of Al-Asanawiy Li-Minhaaj Al-Baydaawiy 270/2). Mahmoud Shaltoot said: 'And from here what we concluded is reaffirmed in respect to the Ahaadeeth Al-Aahaad not benefiting (the subject of) Aqeedah and that it is not permitted to rely upon it in relation to the unseen matters, a view which holds a consensus (agreed upon) and is firmly established by intellectual (rational) necessity in which there is no room for dispute amongst those who are rational' (Ref: Al-Islaam Aqeedah Wa Sharee'ah p61). Sayyid Qutb said: 'And the Ahaadeeth Al-Aahaad are not taken in respect to the matter of the Aqeedah and its point of reference is the Qur'aan whilst the Tawaatur is the condition (Shart) for taking Ahaadeeth in the Usool of I'tiqaad (belief)' (Ref: Fee Zhilaal Al-Qur'aan (In the shade of the Qur'aan) 4008/6). Abdul Wahhaab An-Najjaar said: 'If the transmission of the Khabar is Aahaad then in it is not valid to be a Daleel upon proving matters of belief because the intended purpose of the matters of belief is for them to be Qat' (definite) and the Khabar which is indefinite in transmission (Zhanny Ath-Thuboot) and indefinite in import/meaning (Zhanniy Ad-Dalaalah) does not establish definiteness' (Ref: In the introduction of his book Qisas Al-Anbiya' (Stories of the Prophets) Point number four). And Abdur Rahmaan Al-Juzairiy said: When commenting on the reality of Sihr (magic): 'And those who say that magic has a real effect do not have other than the Hadeeth of Al-Bukhaariy related by 'Aa'ishah (ra) that stated that the Nabi (saw) had been the victim of majic and that he had imagined that he had done something that he had not actually done. This Hadeeth is Saheeh and none of its transmitters have been discredited and it is best to say: The like of these Ahaadeeth are counted in the branch issues but not in the issues of I'tiqaad (belief). This is because the 'Aqaa'id (beliefs) are not built upon other cerian evidences (Adillah Yaqeeniyah) and however Saheeh these evidences are they are still Ahaadeeth Aahaad and do not affirm other than Zhann' (Ref: Fiqh 'Ala Al-.Madhaahib Al-Arba'ah 391/5).
The above are what I have come across from the statements and opinions of the 'Ulamaa and I find this quantity enough in this small book to counter the false claims that have been attributed to the A'immah (great scholars) of the Muslims and their students and had someone wished to
obtain even more statements of this type then he would have been able to obtain them if he was endowed with the ability to research and study. And it is worth noting that I did not find a single source that stated that the Khabar Al-Aahaad established and affirmed decisive knowledge absolutely (i.e. without any restrictions or provisions) apart from the Zhaahiriy Madh'hab as mentioned by Ibn Hazm in his Ahkaam. As for the remainder of thoise who said that this typr of Khabar affirms knowledge then they restricted that to a Qareenah (external indication or support) in which the 'Ilm outweighs the Zhann, like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn ul-Qayyim and An-Niozhaam of the heads of the Mu'tazilah amongst others. This is whilst making clear that in the absence of the Qareenah the Khabar AlWaahid would not affirm other than Zhann. If it is said by some that the seventy that have been mentioned amongst others are from the 'Ulamaa of Kalaam and are not from the Ahl-us-Sunnah then it can be said to them: You have stoked and provoked discord in that in which there is no benefit. Are Al-Qurtubiy, Ibn ulArabiy, Ash-Shaatibi, Ibn Abdul Barr and Az-Zarqaaniy of the Maalikiy Madh'hab from the 'Ulamaa of Kalaam?! Or are the Muhaddith Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadiy, Ibn Hajr, Ibn Daqeeq Al-'Eid, Ibn ul-Atheer, Ibn ul-Jazariy, An-Nawawi, Ibn Abdus Salaam, Al-Maawardiy and AlAsanawiy from the Shaafi'iy Madh'hab from amongst the 'Ulamaa of Kalaam?! Are Al-Kamaal Bin Al-Himaam, As-Sarkhasiy, Ibn 'Aabidain, Al-Kaasaaniy, An-Nasafiy, Al-Ansaariy and AlJassaas from the Hanfafi Madh'hab from the 'Ulamaa of Kalaam?! Are Ibn Qudaamah AlMaqdasiy, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn 'Uqail, Abu-l-Khattaab, Ibn ul-Muneer and Abu Ya'laa from the 'Ulamaa of Kalaam?! Are the four A'immah also amongst the 'Ulamaa of Kalaam?!! Nobody would ever say that apart from the most arrogant and stubborn of people and may refuge be sought in Allah from that. And if it is said that they are from the Ashaa'irah (upon the Ash'ariy view) in the shape of an accusation and charge as if being from the Ashaa'irah was even an accusation, it can be said to them in response: What we have established and presented above represents the opinions of the Fuqahaa of the considered and well established Madhaahib (Schools of thought) as held by the Muslims. As such, if these Madhaahib are Ash'ariyah then this means that they recognised that the Ashaa'irah were upon the Haqq and as a result proceeded along with them. If it is then said that these 'Ulamaa were not upon the Madh'hab of the Ashaa'irah then they should be told to take back the accusation that they made against them.
Additional beneficial points for clarification:
The meaning of 'Ilm, Zhann and Yaqeen as used by the 'Ulamaa in their statements: 'Ilm (knowledge): It is the I'tiqaad Al-Jaazim Al-Mutaabiq Lil Waaqi' (The decisive belief that is in conformity to reality) (Ref: Al-Jarjaaniy in his definitions (Ta'reefaat) p135 and As-San'aaniy in his Sharh Baghiyat Al-Amal p22). This is what is meant when they say that the Khabar AlAahaad Laa Yufeedu l-'Ilm (does not affirm/ascertain 'Ilm). 'Ilm is also used whilst intending Fiqh (understanding) in the Deen like that which has come in the statement of the Messenger of
Allah (saw): Talabu-l-'Ilmi Fareedah' (Seeking knowledge is an obligation) and also in the Hadeeth: 'The Anbiyaa (prophets) do not inherit a Deenaar or a Dirham but rather they are the inheritors of 'Ilm (knowledge)'. Yaqeen: This is also a Mushtarak Lafzh (A word with more than one meaning) and so it is used with the intended meaning of death:
And worship your Lord until Yaqeen (death) comes to you (Al-Hijr 99). It is also used with the intended meaning that means the opposite to Shakk (doubt) like the speech of Allah (swt):
Verily this is the certain truth (Al-Waaqi'ah 95). And it is also used to mean the opposite of Zhann (an indefinite thought/belief):
They have no knowledge ('Ilm) of it except the following of Zhann (assumption) and they did not kill him for certain (Yaqeenan) (An-Nisaa 157). This last meaning is what is intended in the statement that: 'Khabar Al-Aahaad Laa Yufeedu-l'Ilma Wa-l-Yaqeen' (The Khabar Al-Aahaad does not affirm knowledge and certainty). Zhann: This is also a Lafzh Mushtarak (word with more than one meaning) and it has been used with the intended meaning of Yaqeen (certainty) like has come in the speech of Allah (swt):
Those who believe (Zhann) that they are going to meet their Lord and that they are to Him returning (AlBaqarah 46). It has also been used with the intended meaning of a lie:
They are following nothing but Zhann and they are not but falsifying (Al-An'aam 116). And it has been utilised with the intended meaning of Shakk (doubt/suspicion) like in His speech (swt):
O You who believe keep well clear of doubt (suspicion) (Al-Hujuraat 12). This is like the statement of the Messenger (saw): 'And beware of Zhann (doubt/suspicion) because verily Zhann is the most deceitful of speech'. It has also been used with the intended meaning of the I'tiqaad Ar-Raajih (the most probable/outweighed belief):
If they believe (Zhann) that they can keep to the limits of Allah (Al-Baqarah 230). And this last type was mentioned by Az-Zarkashiy in Al-Burhaan (Ref: Al-Burhaan Fee 'Uloom il Qur'aan 156/4) and by Al-Ghaziy in his Itqaan (Ref: Itqaan Maa Yusin Min Al-Akhbaar AdDaa'irah Alaa-l-Alsin 476/1). And Ash-Sheeraaziy said: 'The Zhann allows for two matters; the first is more evident than the other and that is like the trustworthy (sound) report (Khabar) which is permitted to be Saadiq (truthful) just as it is permitted to be untruthful (Kaadhib) in the case where the most apparent of its states is that of truthfulness' (Ref: Sharh Al-Lam'i 150/1). Therefore this last meaning of Zhann is that which is intended in the speech of the 'Ulamaa whene they said that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not ascertain other than Zhann and does not establish Yaqeen. And Allah is the most high and aware and to him is the return. Completed and All Praise belongs to Allah in the beginning and the end and Prayers be upon our master Muhammad and upon his family and companions altogether. Ramadhaan Al-Mubaarak 1422h/2001 Bait-ul-Maqdis.
