Causes of difference in the traditions and categories of narrators

[2] In this sermon Amīr al-mu’minīn has divided the traditionists into four categories. The first category is that of a man concocts a tradition and attributes it to the Prophet. Traditions were in fact falsified and attributed to him, and this process continued, with the result that numerous novel traditions came into being. This is a fact which cannot be denied but if anyone does deny it his basis would be not knowledge or sagacity by oratory or argumentative necessity. Thus, once, ‘Alamu’l-hudā (Ensign of Guidance) as-Sayyid al-Murtaḍā had a chance of meeting the Sunni ‘ulamā’ (scholars) in confrontation and on this occasion as-Sayyid al-Murtaḍā proved by historical facts that the traditions related about the merits of the great companions are concocted and counterfeit. On this, the (Sunni) ‘ulamā’ argued that it was impossible that someone should dare speak a lie against the Prophet and prepare a tradition himself and attribute it to him. as-Sayyid al-Murtaḍā said there is a tradition of the Prophet that: A lot of false things will be attributed to me after my death and whoever speaks a lie against me would be preparing his abode in Hell. (alBukhārī, vol. l, p. 38; vol. 2, p. 102; vol. 4, p. 207; vol. 8, p. 54; Muslim, vol. 8, p. 229; Abū Dāwūd, vol. 3, pp. 319 -320; at-Tirmidhī, vol. 4, p. 524; vol. 5, pp. 35-36, 40, 199, 634; Ibn Mājah, vol.1, pp.13-15) If you regard this tradition as true then you should agree that false things have been attributed to the Prophet, but if you regard it false, this would prove our point. However, these were people whose hearts were full of hypocrisy and who used to prepare traditions of their own accord in order to create mischief and dispersion in religion and to misguide Muslims of weak convictions. They remained mixed with them as they used to do during the lifetime of the Prophet; and just as they remained busy in activities of mischief and destruction in those days, in the same way, even after the Prophet, they were not unmindful of deforming the teachings of Islam and metamorphosing its features. Rather, in the days of the Prophet they were always afraid lest he unveiled them and put them to shame, but after the Prophet their hypocritical activities increased and they attributed false things to the Prophet without demur for their own personal ends, and those who heard them believed in them because of their status as companions of the Prophet, thinking that whatever they said was correct and whatever they gave out was true. Afterwards also, the belief that all the companions are correct put a stopper on their tongues, as a result of which they were taken to be above criticism, questioning, discussion and censure. Besides, their conspicuous performance had made them prominent in the eyes of the government, and also because of this it needed courage and daring to speak against them. This is proved by Amīr al-mu’minīn’s words: These people gained positions with the leaders of misguidance and callers towards Hell, through falsehood and slanderings. So, they put them in high posts and made them officers over the heads of the people. Along with the destruction of Islam, the hypocrites also aimed at amassing wealth, and they were doing so freely by claiming to be Muslims, because of which they did not want to remove the veil of Islam (from their faces) and to come out openly, but they wanted to continue their Satanic activities under the garb of Islam and engaged themselves in its basic destruction and spreading of division and dispersal by concocting traditions. In this connection, Ibn Abi’1-Ḥadīd has written: When they were left free they too left many things. When people observed silence about them they also observed silence about Islam, but they continued their underground activities such as the fabrication of falsehoods to which Amīr al-mu’minīn has alluded, because a lot of untrue matters had been mixed with the traditions by the group of people of wrong beliefs, while some of them also aimed at extolling some particular party with whom they had other worldly aims as well. On the expiry of this period, when Mu‘āwiyah took over the leadership of religion and occupied the throne of temporal authority, he opened an official department for the fabrication of false traditions, and ordered his officers to fabricate and popularise traditions in disparagement of the Ahlu’l-bayt (the Household of the Holy Prophet) and in extolment of ‘Uthmān and the Umayyads, and announced rewards and grants of land for this work. Consequently, a lot of traditions about self-made distinctions gained entry in the books of traditions. Thus, Abu’1-Ḥasan al-Madā’inī has written in his book Kitāb al-aḥdāth and Ibn Abi’1-Ḥadīd has quoted it, namely: Mu‘āwiyah wrote to his officers that they should take special care of those who were adherents of ‘Uthmān, his well-wishers and lovers and to award high positions, precedence and honour to those who related traditions about his merits and distinctions, and to convey to him whatever is so related by any person, along with his name, the name of his father and the name of his tribe. They did accordingly and heaped up traditions about the merits and distinctions of ‘Uthmān because Mu‘āwiyah used to award them rewards, clothes, grants and lands. When the fabricated traditions about the merits of ‘Uthmān had been spread throughout the realm, with the idea that the position of the earlier Caliphs should not remain low, Mu‘āwiyah wrote to his officers: As soon as you receive this order of mine you should call upon the people to prepare traditions about the distinctions of the companions and other caliphs also, and take care that if any Muslim relates any tradition about Abū Turāb (‘Alī) you should prepare a similar tradition about the companions to contradict it because this gives me great pleasure and cools my eyes, and it weakens the position of Abū Turāb and his partymen. and is more severe to them than the merits and distinctions of ‘Uthmān. When his letters were read to the people, a large number of such traditions were related extolling the companions that are all fabricated with no truth at all. (Sharḥ Nahj al-balāghah, vol. 11, pp. 43-47) In this connection Abū ‘Abdillāh Ibrahīm ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Arafah known as Nifṭawayh (244/858-323/935) who was one of the prominent scholars and traditionists has written, and Ibn Abi’1-Ḥadīd has quoted him, that: Most of the false traditions about the merits of the companions were fabricated during the days of Mu‘āwiyah in order to gain position in his audience because his view was that in this way he could disgrace Banū Hāshim and render them low. (ibid.) After that, fabrication of traditions became a habit, the world seekers made it a means of securing position with kings and nobles and to amass wealth. For example, Ghiyāth ibn Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī (2nd cent. A.H.) fabricated a tradition about the flight of pigeons, in order to please al-Mahdī ibn al-Manṣūr (the ‘Abbāsid Caliph) and to secure position near him. Tārīkh Baghdād, vol. 12, pp. 323-327; Mīzān al-i‘tidāl, vol. 3, pp. 337-338; Lisān al-mīzān, vol. 4, p. 422). Abū Sa‘īd al-Madā’inī and others made it a means of livelihood. The limit was reached when the al-Karrāmiyyah and some of the al-Mutaṣawwifah gave the ruling that the fabrication of traditions for the prevention of sin or for persuasion towards obedience was lawful. Consequently, in connection with persuading and dissuading, traditions were fabricated quite freely, and this was not regarded against the religious law or morality. Rather, this work was generally done by those who bore the appearance of asceticism or fear of Allāh and who passed their nights in praying and days in filling their registers with false traditions. An idea about the number of these fabricated traditions can be had from the fact that out of six hundred thousand traditions al-Bukhārī selected only two thousand seven hundred and sixty-one traditions, (Tārīkh Baghdād, vol. 2, p. 8; al-Irshād as-sārī, vol.1, p.28; Ṣifatu’ṣ-ṣafwah, vol. 4, p. 143). Muslim thought fit for selection only four thousand out of three hundred thousand (Tārīkh Baghdād, vol. 13, p. 101; al-Muntaẓam, vol. 5, p. 32; Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ, vol. 2, pp. 151,157; Wafayāt al-a‘yān, vol. 5, p. 194). Abū Dāwūd took four thousand and eight hundred out of five hundred thousand (Tārīkh Baghdād, vol. 9, p. 57; Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ, vol. 2, p. 154; al-Muntaẓam, vol. 5, p. 97; Wafayāt al-a‘yān, vol. 2, p. 404), and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal took thirty thousand out of nearly one million traditions (Tārīkh Baghdād, vol. 4, pp. 419—420; Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ, vol. 2, p. 17; Wafayāt al-a‘yān, vol. l, p. 64; Tahdhīb at-tahdhīb, vol. l, p. 74). But when this selection is studied some traditions which come across can, in no circumstances, be attributed to the Prophet. The result is that a group of considerable number has cropped up among Muslims who, in view of these (so-called) authoritative collections and true traditions, completely reject the evidentiary value of the traditions, (For further reference see al-Ghadīr, vol. 5, pp. 208-378). The second category of relaters of traditions are those who, without appreciating the occasion or context, related whatever they could recollect, right or wrong. Thus, in al-Bukhārī (vol. 2, pp. 100—102; vol. 5, p. 98); Muslim (vol. 3, pp. 41—45); at-Tirmidhī (vol. 3, pp. 327—329); an-Nasā’ī (vol. 4, p. 18); Ibn Mājah (vol. l, pp. 508—509); Mālik ibn Anas (al-Muwaṭṭa’, vol. l, p. 234); ash-Shāfi‘ī (Ikhtilāfu’l-ḥadīth, on the side lines of “al-Umm”, vol.7, p.266); Abū Dāwūd (vol. 3, p. 194); Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (vol. l, pp. 41,42) and al-Bayhaqī(vol. 4, pp. 72—74) in the chapter entitled ‘weeping over the dead’ it is stated that when Caliph ‘Umar was wounded Ṣuhayb came weeping to him, then ‘Umar said: O Ṣuhayb, you weep over me, while the Prophet had said that the dead person is punished if his people weep over him. When after the death of Caliph ‘Umar this was mentioned to ‘Ā’ishah, she said: “May Allāh have mercy on ‘Umar. The Messenger of Allāh did not say that weeping of relations causes punishment on the dead, but he said that the punishment of an unbeliever increases if his people weep over him.” After this ‘Ā’ishah said that according to the holy Qur’ān no person has to bear the burden of another, so how could the burden of those who weep be put on the dead. After this the following verse was quoted by ‘Ā’ishah: . . . And no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another; (Qur’ān, 6:164; 17:15; 35:18; 39:7; 53:38). The wife of the Holy Prophet ‘Ā’ishah relates that once the Prophet passed by a Jewish woman over whom her people were weeping. The Prophet then remarked, “Her people are weeping over her but she is undergoing punishment in the grave.” The third category of the relaters of traditions is of those who heard some repealed traditions from the Prophet but could not get any chance to hear the repealing traditions which he could relate to others. An example of a repealing tradition is the saying of the Prophet which also contains a reference to the repealed tradition, namely: “I had disallowed you to visit graves, but now you can visit them.” (Muslim, vol. 3, p. 65; at-Tirmidhī, vol. 3, p. 370; Abū Dāwūd, vol. 3, pp. 218, 332; an-Nasā’ī, vol. 4, p. 89; Ibn Mājah, vol. l, pp. 500—501; Mālik ibn Anas, vol. 2, p. 485; Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, vol. l, pp. 145,452; vol. 3, pp. 38, 63, 66, 237, 350; vol. 5, pp. 350, 355, 356, 357, 359, 361; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, vol. 1, pp. 374—376; and al-Bayhaqī, vol. 4, pp. 76—77). Herein the permission to visit graves has repealed the previous restriction on it. Now, those who heard only the repealed tradition continued acting according to it. The fourth category of relaters of traditions is of those who were fully aware of the principles of justice, possessed intelligence and sagacity, knew the occasion when a tradition was first uttered (by the Prophet) and were also acquainted with the repealing and the repealed traditions, the particular and the general, and the timely and the absolute. They avoided falsehood and fabrication. Whatever they heard remained preserved in their memory, and they conveyed it with exactness to others. It is they whose traditions are the precious possession of Islam, free from fraud and counterfeit and worthy of being trusted and acted upon. That collection of traditions which has been conveyed through trustworthy bosoms like that of Amīr al-mu’minīn and has remained free from cutting, curtailing, alteration or change particularly present Islam in its true form. The position of Amīr al-mu’minīn in Islamic knowledge has been most certainly proved through the following traditions narrated from the Holy Prophet such as: Amīr al-mu’minīn, Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar have narrated from the Holy Prophet that he said: I am the city of knowledge and ‘Alī is its door. He who wants to acquire (my) knowledge should come through its door. (al-Mustadrak, vol. 3, pp. 126—127; al-Istī‘āb, vol. 3, p. 1102; Usd al-ghābah, vol. 4, p. 22; Tārīkh Baghdād, vol. 2, p. 377; vol. 4, p. 348; vol. 7, p. 172; vol. 11, pp. 48—50; Tadhkirah al-ḥuffāẓ, vol. 4, p. 28; Majmā‘ az-zawā’id, vol. 9, p. 114; Tahhib at-tahdhīb, vol. 6, p. 320; vol. 7, p. 337; Lisān al-mīzān, vol. 2, pp. 122—123; Tārīkh al-khulafā’, p. 170; Kanz al-‘ummāl, vol. 6, pp. 152, 156, 401; ‘Umdah al-qārī, vol. 7, p. 631; Sharḥ al-mawāhib al-ladunniyyah, vol. 3, p. 143) Amīr al-mu’minīn and Ibn ‘Abbās have also narrated from the Holy Prophet that: I am the store-house of wisdom and ‘Alī is its door. He who wants to acquire wisdom should come through its door. (Ḥilyah al-awliyā’, vol. l, p. 64; Maṣābiḥ as-sunnah, vol. 2, p. 275; Tārīkh Baghdād, vol. l1, p. 204; Kanz al-‘ummāl, vol. 6, p. 401; ar-Riyāḍ an-naḍirah, vol. 2, p. 193) If only people could take the Prophet’s blessings through these sources of knowledge. But it is a tragic chapter of history that although traditions are accepted through the Khārijites and enemies of the Prophet’s family, whenever the series of relaters includes the name of any individual from among the Prophet’s family there is hesitation in accepting the tradition.