|
A Perspective On The Matter
In many narrations, Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq explained the reason beyond Abū-Bakr and `Umar’s having rested upon analogy and personal opinions:
Nu`mān ibn Muhammad ibn Mansūr al-Maghribiy, the judge of Egypt, narrated that one day, a man asked Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq why the ummah disagreed about the religious issues and laws while the religion is one and the Prophet is one. Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq answered him with a question, “As much as you know, did they (the Muslims) disagree on such issues during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime?”
“Of course not,” answered the man, “They would not disagree because they would refer all their affairs to the Holy Prophet.”
“Thus was the reason!” explained Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq, “Had they carried out the Holy Prophet’s commission and chose the one whom he had nominated as their leader, they would not have disagreed. Rather, they elected those who were not full aware of all the questions that were filed before them. They therefore referred these questions to the Sahābah who gave various opinions and thus disagreement was originated. Had there been only one definite person before whom the issues were filed and who would certainly give a definite answer, as was done during the Holy Prophet’s lifetime, they would not have disagreed.”[381]
In al-`Ayyāshiy’s book of Tafsīr, it has been narrated that Imam Ja`far al-Sādiq said,
“Those people thought that they were so experienced in the religious affairs that they comprehended anything needed by the ummah. Yet, they did not learn all the instructions of the Holy Prophet nor did they convey to them his knowledge. When issues of the religious rulings were referred to them, they would not have knowledge with them or with the Holy Prophet’s instructions in that respect. Moreover, they would be embarrassed if people would accuse them of ignorance or if they could not find answers for the people’s questions and, as a result, people would refer their issues to the sources of knowledge. They therefore used opinions and analogy in the religion of Almighty Allah, abandoned the Holy Prophet’s knowledge, and adhered to heresies about which the Holy Prophet said, ‘All innovated things are heresies.’ Had they referred the questions that they ignored to Almighty Allah, His Messenger, and those of authority (Uli’l-Amr) among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it, namely the Household of Muhammad, would have certainly known it.”[382]
Nu`mān, the judge, narrated on the authority of Muhammad ibn Qays on the authority of his father that al-A`mash said…
“When those who lack knowledge managed the affairs of the ummah, they referred the questions that were directed to them to the people who, as a result, gave different opinions causing disagreement.”[383]
The Sahābah’s Learning From The Holy Prophet
Ibn Hazm, as well as other scholars, has excused that the hardships of life prevented the Sahābah from learning from the Holy Prophet. He says,
It is known for everybody that the Sahābah surrounded the Holy Prophet in al-Madīnah; yet each one of them had to work and seek earnings taking into consideration the harsh circumstances that they had to experience. This fact has been reported in many narrations. For instance, the Holy Prophet, Abū-Bakr, and `Umar, once, had to leave their houses because of the harsh hunger that they felt. The Sahābah therefore had to work in marts, manage ranches of date-palm trees, and the like. Only did a party of them attend before the Holy Prophet on specific times whenever they could find spare time. This is also an undeniable fact which was expressed by Abū-Hurayrah who said, ‘The Muhājirūn, my brethren, were always engaged by making deals in marts; and the Ansār, my brethren too, were engaged by guarding their date-palm trees. As for me, I was such a poor man that I accompanied the Messenger of Allah so as to satisfy my appetite.’[384] Having confessed of this truth, `Umar said, ‘I have missed learning this (issue) from the Hadīth of the Messenger of Allah. I was engaged in making deals in marts.’”[385] It has been narrated that `Umar alternated with another man (from the Nizār tribe) on visiting the Holy Prophet for learning.
The aforesaid narration of Abū-Hurayrah had added to us a new information about Abū-Bakr and `Umar who cared for commerce more than learning the religious affairs from the Holy Prophet. On the other side, we notice the existence of other Sahābah for whom the Holy Prophet prayed knowledge and understanding. About `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd, the Holy Prophet said, ‘You are a learnt boy.’ About `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, he said, ‘O Allah! Increase his knowledge in the religion.’[386] The same thing is applicable to other Sahābah. Nonetheless, those Sahābah whom were praised by the Holy Prophet as having been acquainted with an amount of knowledge have never been declared as having had full knowledge with the Holy Qur'ān and the Sunnah save `Alī ibn Abī-Tālib about whom the Holy Prophet, very frequently, confirmed that he learnt his entire knowledge. Moreover, the Holy Prophet used to be alone with him twice a day during which he taught him his knowledge.[387] In this respect, Imam `Alī used to say,
‘Ask me any question about the Book of Allah, for I certainly am acquainted with the knowledge of the revelation of each and every verse, whether it was revealed at night or on day, or on a mount or in a plain.’[388]
For more details, let us cite the following narrations: Al-Bukhāriy has narrated on the authority of `Ubayd ibn `Umayr that Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`ariy, once, asked permission to see `Umar but he was not permitted because `Umar seemed to be busy. He therefore returned. When `Umar asked them to let him in, they searched for him until he was found.
‘Why did you leave?’ asked `Umar.
‘We have been ordered of doing so when we are not permitted,’ answered Abū-Mūsā.
‘Bring a proof on this claim lest I will hurt your back and belly,’ threatened `Umar.
Hence, Abū-Mūsā left `Umar to bring witnesses. As he passed by a group of the Ansār and asked them to witness, they were so certain of the matter that they suggested to him to take the youngest among them since even he heard the Holy Prophet’s instruction in that regard. Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy thus came with Abū-Mūsā and testified the matter.
Commenting on it, `Umar said, ‘I have missed learning this (issue) from the Hadīth of the Messenger of Allah. I was engaged by making deals in the marts.’[389]
The Holy Qur'ān has also mentioned the matter of asking permission on more than one occasion:
“If ye find no one in the house, enter not until permission is given to you. [Holy Qur’ān: 24/28]”
“O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet’s houses until permission is given you. [Holy Qur’ān: 33/53]”
Finally, asking permission is not only a religious instruction but also a human manner.
Why did `Umar threaten hurting Abū-Mūsā’s back and belly if he would not prove his claim? Was it for the sake of careful investigation in the Hadīth? If Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy had not witnessed that the Holy Prophet warned against entering on somebody without asking permission, what would `Umar have done with Abū-Mūsā? This situation of `Umar is completely contradictory to the conception of the Sahābah’s ultimate decency. If Abū-Mūsā is regarded as one of the decent Sahābah, `Umar’s asking for investigation will be meaningless? `Umar should have taken his time before accusing the Sahābah and should not have jumped to conclusions before investigation! Even if we yieldingly accept that `Umar only wanted to investigate that matter carefully, the following narration will be meaningless:
In al-Madkhal ilā ‘Ilm Usūl al-Fiqh, al-Dawālībiy narrates on the authority of `Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, in his book of al-Amwāl, that a Bedouin, once, came to `Umar and complained, ‘In the pre-Islamic era, we fought for our land and then we converted to Islam on it. From what are you then protecting it?’
This statement made `Umar so angry that he nodded his head down, puffed, and played at his mustache.[390]Having noticed his anger, the Bedouin went on repeating his statement. (As he relied upon the idea of the identification of advantage, and without investigation in the Holy Qur'ān or Sunnah,) `Umar answered, ‘The fortune is Allah’s; the subjects are His servants; I swear that unless I… etc.[391]
It has been narrated on the authority of Bujālah on the authority of `Abdullāh ibn `Abbās that `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, once, passed by a boy who was reading from the Holy Qur'ān the following verse,
‘The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers,’ [Holy Qur’ān: 33/6]
with the addition, ‘and he is as their father.’ On hearing this, `Umar ordered the boy to erase that sentence. The boy rejected since the copy was Ubayy ibn Ka`b’s. `Umar then went to Ubayy and asked about the matter. Ubayy answered with strict language, “While you were engaged in making deals in marts, I was engaged in the Holy Qur'ān.”[392]
A similar narration is that when Ubayy ibn Ka`b recited the holy verse,
‘Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils),’ [Holy Qur’ān: 17/32]
adding ‘and odious’ after ‘a shameful’, `Umar came and asked him about it. Yet, Ubayy answered, “I have heard it directly from the mouth of the Holy Prophet while you were making deals in the mart of al-Baqī`.”[393]
A third narration is that when `Umar heard a boy reciting a holy verse in a definite way, he asked him about it. The boy referred to Ubayy as his teacher. `Umar hence went to Ubayy and asked about it.
“The Holy Prophet himself recited it in this way before me while you owere merchandising in the mart of al-Baqī`,” said Ubayy to `Umar.
“This is completely true,” answered `Umar.[394]
It has been narrated on the authority of Idrīs al-Khawalāniy that Ubayy ibn Ka`b, while reciting the holy verse,
“While the unbelievers got up in their hearts heat and cant—the heat and cant of ignorance—Allah sent down His tranquility to his Messenger and to the believers,” [Holy Qur’ān: 48/26],
added the phrase ‘Had you got up in your hearts heat and cant like theirs, the Sacred Mosque would have been full of mischief,’ in the middle of it. When `Umar was informed about this, he became angry and summoned Ubayy. He then asked a number of the Sahābah, among whom was Zayd ibn Thābit, to be present. He then asked Zayd to recite the Sūrah of al-Fath (that includes the verse involved) and Zayd recited it without that addition. Hence, `Umar reproached Ubayy. Defending himself, Ubayy asked permission to speak. When he was granted permission, he said to `Umar, “Indeed, you know that I was permitted to be present before the Holy Prophet while you were on the door. Now, if you permit me to recite as same as I was taught by the Holy Prophet, I will; otherwise I will not recite a singly letter of the Qur'ān from now on.”
Yet, `Umar permitted him.[395]
According to another narration, Ubayy said to `Umar, “You indeed know that I frequently attended before the Holy Prophet while you were absent; and I was permitted to visit him while you were not; and I was given knowledge at that time. Hence, if you want me to confine myself to my house, I will do it and will then never say anything more in this respect.”[396]
The aforesaid narrations may carry the idea that Ubayy ibn Ka`b had recited the Holy Qur'ān erroneously; therefore, `Umar came to correct it for him. Yet, this is not quite true, because Ubayy was taught the knowledge of the Holy Qur'ān in a special way. In this regard, Anas ibn Mālik narrated that the Holy Prophet, once, said to Ubayy, “Almighty Allah has ordered me to recite the Sūrah of al-Bayyinah (No. 98) before you in particular.”
“Has the Lord mentioned me by name?” asked Ubayy.
“Yes, He has,” answered the Holy Prophet.’
On hearing this, Ubayy wept.[397]
Any further details on this matter will take us away from our main topic, which is that `Umar’s knowledge has not been as exactly as depicted by some scholars; rather he spent most of his time making deals in markets. Further, his situations were not purposed for careful investigation in the reporting of the Hadīth and he was not given special knowledge by the Holy Prophet; rather, and to be more precise, he alternated on visiting the Holy Prophet. He was also reported to have said, “I was engaged by making deals in the marts,” the same statement that was, more than once, said to him by Ubayy ibn Ka`b.
Away from debasing `Umar, this fact is only intended to show the actual manners of the Sahābah in general and `Umar in specific during their stay with the Holy Prophet. As a result, the haloes that were later on drawn around their characters have not been actual.
In plain words, what has been said about `Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s aptitude in the fields of conquests and military is different from his role in the prohibition of the recordation and reporting of the Hadīth and setting fire to the records of Hadīth.[398]
At the same time as we do not pretend to forget `Umar’s Islamic conquests, we do not accept his decisions regarding the reduction in reporting and the prohibition of recording the Hadīth.
Unfortunately, the majority of scholars have confused these two matters. When one objects to `Umar’s role in resting upon personal opinions in the religious questions, their answer will be concentrated on his military achievements. Such irony indicates a gloomy thought that lacks accuracy and perspicacity. A personal fitness in the military management does not necessarily mean the capacity of the mastership of issuing religious verdicts since defense of the authority and expansion in the frontiers of the State are matters that promote the caliph and the Muslims although they have nothing to do with the educational structure of the caliph’s personality. Although history has granted al-Mu`tasim, the `Abbāsid caliph, loftiness sublimity when he responded to the lady who raised her voice with his name calling for help, it has not concealed his lack of education, knowledge, and religious wisdom.
According to the previous discussion, we can list three of the grand Sahābah with the names of those who objected to `Umar. Those three were `Ammār ibn Yāsir, Abū-Sa`īd al-Khidriy, and Ubayy ibn Ka`b.
Notes:
[348] Muhammad Rashīd Ridā: Tafsīr al-Manār 4:31.
[349] `Abd al-Wahhāb Khallāf: Khulāsat Tārīkh al-Tashrī’ al-Islāmi 40.
[350] Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād 303.
[351] `Abd al-Wahhāb Khallāf: Khulāsat Tārīkh al-Tashrī’ al-Islāmi 72.
[352] Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād 79-80.
[353] Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy (The Influence of the disagreed proofs on the Islamic Jurisprudence) 247.
[354] Ibn Kathīr: Tārīkh Dimashq 40:500; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 10:293 H. 29479.
[355] Sunan al-Nassā’iy 1:169; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 1:209; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:190; `Abd al-Razzāq: al-Musannaf 1:239 H. 215 with little difference.At any rate, the same incident has been narrated in another form in the following reference books of Hadīth: Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:319; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 1:88 H. 322; Sunan al-Nassā’iy 1:168; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 1:209.
[356] Al-`Ayniy: `Umdat al-Qārī (A commentary on al-Bukhāriy’s al-Sahīh) 4:19.
[357] Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bārī fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy (A commentary on al-Bukhāriy’s al-Sahīh) 1:352.
[358] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:69; Sunan Abī-Dāwūd 1:87 H. 321; al-Dārqutniy: al-Sunan 1:179 H. 15.
[359] Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:189-190; Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:96; Sunan al-Nassā’iy 1:171; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 1:216-7; Taysīr al-Wusūl 3:115; al-Khatīb al-Baghdādiy: Tārīkh Baghdād 8:377.
[360] Al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6:255 H. 12247, 10:120.
[361] The two sources of the Islamic laws are the Holy Qur'ān and Sunnah.
[362] Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islām 356.
[363] Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn as quoted from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:64 H. 325; Musnad Ibn al-Ju`d 1:316 H. 2152; al-Nassā'iy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:400 H. 3918; Musnad al-Shāmiyyīn 2:395 H. 1567; Shu`ab al-Īmān 3:451 H. 4040; Fayd al-Qadīr 3:409.
[364] Muhammad `Ajjāj al-Khatīb: al-Sunnah qabl al-Tadwīn 86 as quoted from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:37 H. 253, 1:45 H. 313; Akhbār Makkah 1:150 H. 184; al-Ahādīth al-Mukhtārah 1:418 H. 297.
[365] In this discussion, we suppose, yet condescendingly, that the kissing of the Black Stone is a feature of compliance with Almighty Allah’s orders. However, this issue also indicates `Umar’s ibn al-Khattāb’s unawareness of the religious laws. Imam `Alī has told that the Black Stone profits the people and that it will, on the Resurrection Day, witness for those who come to and kiss it. Besides, the Holy Prophet told that the Black Stone is one of the Paradise’s precious stones; hence, to kiss it is a sort of eagerness to Paradise and one of its features. The Holy Prophet has also told that the Black Stone is Almighty Allah’s right hand on earth with which He shakes hands with His servants exactly as one shaking hands with his friend. Finally, the Holy Prophet is also reported to have said that one who misses paying homage to the Holy Prophet but kisses the Black Stone will be regarded as having sworn allegiance to Almighty Allah and His Apostle. See Sharh al-`Umdah 3:436; Sharh Fath al-Qadīr 1:449; Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 3:463; `Awn al-Ma`būd 5:229 Ch. 48; Musannaf `Abd al-Razzāq 5:39 H. 8920; `Umdat al-Qāri 9:240; Irshād al-Sāri 3:190; Nasb al-Rāyah 3:116; Subul al-Hudā wa’l-Rashād 1:176.
[366] Sahīh Muslim 2:896 H. 157; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 1:50; Sunan al-Nassā’iy 5:153; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 5:20; Taysīr al-Wusūl 1:340 H. 30; Sunan Ibn Mājah 3:992 H. 2979; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 2:348; Musnad al-Bazzār 1:346 H. 226; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 3:418.
[367] Sayyid Ja`far Murtadā al-`Āmiliy: al-Sahīh min Sīrat al-Nabiy al-A’dham 1:79; Mu`ammar ibn Rāshid: al-Jāmi` 2:992 H. 2979; Musnad Ahmad 1:50 H. 351.
[368] Dr. Muhammad Sallām Madkūr: Manāhij al-Ijtihād fi’l-Islām 349.
[369] This is in fact not accurate; `Umar condemned, threatened, and punished many of those who objected to his opinions. Many examples have been previously cited and many others will be later on shown.
[370] Dr. Mustafā Dīb al-Baghā: Athar al-Adillati’l-Mukhtalafi fīhā fi’l-Fiqh al-Islāmiy 347.
[371] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah: A’lām al-Muwaqqi’īn; Sunan al-Dārimiy 1:71 H. 167; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 4:543 H. 22990; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 10:115.
[372] Sunan al-Dāraqutniy 4:206-7; Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 12:91; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 10:150.
[373] Dr. Turkiy: Munādharāt if Usūl al-Sharī’ah bayna Ibn Hazm wa’l-Bājiy 398.
[374] Dr. Nādiah Sharīf al-`Umariy: Ijtihād al-Rasūl 226.
[375] `Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khāliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 329; al-Kulayniy: al-Kāfī 1:60 H. 6; al-Qandūziy: Yanābī` al-Mawaddah 3:218. Imam al-Sādiq is also reported as saying, “The explanation of each and every matter about which two may disagree is existing in the Book of Allah; yet, men’s intellects cannot comprehend it.”
[376] `Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khāliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 329 as quoted from Ibn Abi-Hātam; Tafsīr al-Tabariy 14:162; Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 2:583.
[377] Al-Tabarāniy: al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr 1:72; Ibn `Abd al-Rabb al-Qurtubiy: Jāmi`u Bayān al-`Ilm wa-Fadlih(i); al-Madkhal Ilā’l-Sunan al-Kubrā 1:192 H. 217; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 13:289.
[378] Ibn Abi’l-Hadīd: Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah 11:102; Sunan al-Dāraqutniy 4:146 H. 12; I`tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah 1:123 H. 201; Ibn Hajaf al-`Asqalāniy: Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 13:289; al-Madkhal Ilā’l-Sunan al-Kubrā 1:190 H. 213.
[379] Dr. Turkiy: Munādharāt if Usūl al-Sharī’ah Bayna Ibn Hazm wa’l-Bājiy 416 as quoted from Ibn Hazm: al-Ahkām.
[380] Al-Wāfi al-Mahdiy: al-Ijtihād fi’l-Shari’ah al-Islāmiyyah 63.
[381] Nu`mān: Sharh al-Alfādh 1:90.
[382] Al-`Ayyāshiy: Tafsīr 2:331-2; al-Hurr al-'Āmiliy: Wasāi’l al-Shī’ah 27:61; al-Burhān 2:476 H. 6; al-Majlisiy: Bihār al-Anwār 5:297. Nu`mān the judge, in Ikhtilāf Usūl al-Madhhab, Dar al-Andalus Press, 1973, records the same narration.
[383] Al-Qādī Nu`mān al-Maghribiy: Sharh al-Akhbār 1:196. A similar narration is recorded in Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays al-Hilāliy 2:105.
[384] Sahīh al-Bukharjiy 1:55 H. 118, 2:827 H. 2223; Sahīh Muslim 4:1939 H. 2492; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 2:240 H. 7273.
[385] Ibn Hazm: al-Ihkām fi Usūl al-Ahkām 2:254.
[386] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 1:66 H. 143; Sahīh Muslim 4:1927 H. 2477; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 3:615 H. 6280.
[387] Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 42:386; al-Hakīm al-Hasakāniy: Shawāhid al-Tanzīl Li-Qawā`id al-Tafdīl 1:48.
[388] Tafsīr al-San`āniy 3:241; Ibn Sa`d: al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 2:338; Ibn `Asākir: Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq 42:398; Ibn Jarīr al-Tabariy: Dhakhā'ir al-`Uqbā fī Manāqib Dhawi’l-Qurbā 1:83; Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy: al-Sawā`iq al-Muhriqah 2:375; Fath al-Malik al-`Aliy 75.
[389] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 6:2676 H. 2920; Sahīh Muslim 3:1694 H. 2153; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4:400, 403; Sunan Ibn Mājah 2:1221 H. 3706; Musannaf Ibn Abī-Shaybah 5:268 H. 25968.
[390] Al-Tabarāniy, in al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr 1:66 H. 45; and Ibn Shabbah, in Tārīkh al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah 3:839; and Abū-`Ubayd, as mentioned in Ibn Sa`d’s al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā 3:326; and Ibn Qudāmah, in al-Mughni 5:338; and Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalāniy’s Fath al-Bāri fī Sharh Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 6:177; and in Mawāhib al-Jalīl 6:10; and Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s al-`Ilal wa-Ma`rifat al-Rijāl 2:73; have recorded on the authority of Zayd ibn Aslam on the authority of ‘Āmir ibn Abudllah ibn al-Zubayr that whenever he became angry, `Umar used to play with his mustache and puff.
[391] Al-Wāfī al-Mahdiy: Ma’l-Ijtihād fi’l-Sharī’ah al-Islāmiyyah 74 as quoted from al-Dawālībiy, in al-Madkhal ilā ‘Ilm Usūl al-Fiqh 10. The narration is also recorded in al-Madkhal Ilā `Ilm al-Usūl 100, al-Muhadhdhab 1:427, and al-Mughni 5:338.
[392] Al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 3:305; al-Bayhaqiy: al-Sunan al-Kubrā 7:69; al-Qurtubiy: Tafsīr 14:125-6.
[393] Al-Suyūtiy: al-Durr al-Manthūr 4:179; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-'Ummāl 2:568 H. 4744; al-Shawkāniy: Fath al-Qadīr 3:225.
[394] Al-Zamakhshariy: Tafsīr al-Kashshaf 2:304; al-Hākim al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Ala’l-Sahīhayn 3:305; al-Suyūtiy: al-Durr al-Manthūr 3:269.
[395] Al-Suyūtiy: al-Durr al-Manthūr 6:79; al-Hakīm al-Nīsāpūriy: al-Mustadrak `Alā’l-Sahīhayn 2:245 H. 2891; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 2:568 H. 4745.
[396] Tafsīr al-Qur'ān al-‘Adhīm 4:314; al-Muttaqiy al-Hindiy: Kanz al-`Ummāl 2:595 H. 4816 (as reported from Ibn Abī-Dāwūd).
[397] Sahīh al-Bukhāriy 3:1385 H. 3598, 4:1896 H. 4676; Sahīh Muslim 1:550 H. 799; Sunan al-Tirmidhiy 5:665 H. 3792; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 3:130, 5:122.
[398] Jirji Zaydan: Tārīkh al-Tamaddun al-Islāmi (History of the Islamic Urbanism).
Source:
The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith, Causes and Effects
A Glance at the Methodologies and Principles of the two Muslims Schools of Hadith
By: Sayyid Ali Al-Shahristani
|
