[objective-enquirer]

It is a common method to prefer hadīth reports over historical ones. For example, al-Waqidi (d. 207) reports that when Hazrat Abu Talib® died, The Prophet(s) was at his grave and He(s) cried and made du’a for him, etc. Also earliest written souce Seerah of Ibn Isḥāq (d. 85) in which hazrat Abu Talib® read the kalimah according to Hazrat al-Abbas® but on the other hand, we have a report in sahih bukhari by Ibn al-Musayyab who says that at death Abu Talib refused to read the kalimah. Though ibn al-Muassayyab was not even born at the time of hazrat abu talib’s death nor does he give his source and whats more is that both ibn Ishaq’s (d. 85) version and Bukhari’s (d. 256) are identical in its plot and details except that hazrat Abu talib reads the kalimah in ibn ishaq and in bukhari he does not. The positive version precedes bukhari’s by two hundred years!
So here we have two things: scholars prefer hadith over history to such an extent that even if the hadith has a missing link (mursal) it is still preferred over the reports of history, etc.

Now, in light of the above methodology let us now provide two examples in which the methodology is reversed.
One: the age of hazrat abu bakr al-siddiq®. History tells us that he was born after the Prophet(s) but sahih hadith informs us that he was older than the Noble Messenger(s). It is reported in numerous books of hadith such as tibrani, daraqutni, ibn asakir and so on but here I will quote from Ibn Abi `Asim (d. 287) with the link and with authentication provided:
Ibn al-asam says that the Prophet(s) said to Abu bakr who is older I(s) or You? Abu bakr replied: You are greater, nobler and more excellent than me though I am older than you(s).

(حديث مرفوع) حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى ، نا ابْنُ أَبِي عَدِيٍّ ، عَنْ حَبِيبِ بْنِ الشَّهِيدِ ، عَنْ مَيْمُونِ بْنِ مِهْرَانَ ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ الأَصَمِّ ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ : " أَنَا أَكْبَرُ أَوْ أَنْتَ ؟ " قَالَ : لا ، بَلْ أَنْتَ أَكْبَرُ مِنِّي ، وَأَكْرَمُ مِنِّي ، وَخَيْرٌ مِنِّي ، وَأَنَا أَسَنُّ مِنْكَ "
http://www.islamweb....d=50&pid=445466

so the sahih hadith tells us that hazrat Abu bakr was older and history tells us that He was younger! why prefer history over hadith whilst for Abu talib it is argued the other way round? for Hazrat Abu Bakr the goal post changes?
---
There are also two hadith reports in sahih bukhari which add up to suggest that Hazrat Abu bakr siddiq did not do hijrah with the Prophet(s). those scholars (bayhaqi) who replied to such a discrepancy have merely replied with ‘may be’ it was such and such. This does not answer the question because one has to provide evidence and not make a guess. These are important questions. I must say that since mullafied crew will not understand and will start accusing. For now, I do think that he was younger and that he did hijrah with the Prophet(s) as is famously known. but what is the justification? for hijrah if you ask I will cite.

[seeker]

objective-enquirer, on 14 May 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

It is a common method to prefer hadith reports over historical ones. For example, al-Waqidi (d. 207) reports that when Hazrat Abu Talib® died, The Prophet(s) was at his grave and He(s) cried and made du’a for him, etc. Also earliest written souce Seerah of Ibn Is?aq (d. 85) in which hazrat Abu Talib® read the kalimah according to Hazrat al-Abbas® but on the other hand, we have a report in sahih bukhari by Ibn al-Musayyab who says that at death Abu Talib refused to read the kalimah. Though ibn al-Muassayyab was not even born at the time of hazrat abu talib’s death nor does he give his source and whats more is that both ibn Ishaq’s (d. 85) version and Bukhari’s (d. 256) are identical in its plot and details except that hazrat Abu talib reads the kalimah in ibn ishaq and in bukhari he does not. The positive version precedes bukhari’s by two hundred years!
So here we have two things: scholars prefer hadith over history to such an extent that even if the hadith has a missing link (mursal) it is still preferred over the reports of history, etc.

Now, in light of the above methodology let us now provide two examples in which the methodology is reversed.
One: the age of hazrat abu bakr al-siddiq®. History tells us that he was born after the Prophet(s) but sahih hadith informs us that he was older than the Noble Messenger(s). It is reported in numerous books of hadith such as tibrani, daraqutni, ibn asakir and so on but here I will quote from Ibn Abi `Asim (d. 287) with the link and with authentication provided:
Ibn al-asam says that the Prophet(s) said to Abu bakr who is older I(s) or You? Abu bakr replied: You are greater, nobler and more excellent than me though I am older than you(s).

(???? ?????) ?????????? ????????? ???? ??????????? ? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ? ???? ??????? ???? ?????????? ? ???? ????????? ???? ????????? ? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? : " ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ? " ????? : ?? ? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????? ? ?????????? ?????? ? ???????? ?????? ? ??????? ??????? ?????? "
http://www.islamweb....d=50&pid=445466

so the sahih hadith tells us that hazrat Abu bakr was older and history tells us that He was younger! why prefer history over hadith whilst for Abu talib it is argued the other way round? for Hazrat Abu Bakr the goal post changes?
---
There are also two hadith reports in sahih bukhari which add up to suggest that Hazrat Abu bakr siddiq did not do hijrah with the Prophet(s). those scholars (bayhaqi) who replied to such a discrepancy have merely replied with ‘may be’ it was such and such. This does not answer the question because one has to provide evidence and not make a guess. These are important questions. I must say that since mullafied crew will not understand and will start accusing. For now, I do think that he was younger and that he did hijrah with the Prophet(s) as is famously known. but what is the justification? for hijrah if you ask I will cite.

What is the relevance of the age of the personalities mentioned? Or is this more an assessment on inconsistencies with regards to the way scholars derive from primary/secondary sources? Hadith is taken over history because the standards for history are very, very low; Shaykh Hamza says that in books even narrations without a sanad are mentioned, because the purpose of the tarikh books are different to the purpose of ahadith. As such, I don't think Bukhari's date has an effect on his authenticity.

By the way, I don't think anyone should prematurely have doubt concerning the Hijrah. There is an ayah of Quran that is a testament to the "second of the two".

[Nemesis]

objective-enquirer, on 14 May 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

For now, I do think that he was younger and that he did hijrah with the Prophet(s) as is famously known. but what is the justification? for hijrah if you ask I will cite.

interesting as well as intriguing, please do tell, by the way, was your question answered when it was asked on ummah channel, and if so what was the answer

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

The point in my opinion is how history and hadith are manipulated to strengthen ones argument and force one opinion to mean absolute accuracy. In Short we are willing to accept a weak hadith that proves our subjective perspective about certain characters and reject the same methodology for another who we may not like as much.

Politics in Religion? Manipulation of facts and texts for personal purposes? sidetracking clear information to mean something less? all this happens, I never knew until I watched Ummah Channel.

[Nemesis]

seeker, on 14 May 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

By the way, I don't think anyone should prematurely have doubt concerning the Hijrah. There is an ayah of Quran that is a testament to the "second of the two".

i have also heard and read that the "second of the two" also refers to Imam Ali(as) Allah knowa best, maybe, O.E can shed some light on this

[objective-enquirer]

Nemesis, on 14 May 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

interesting as well as intriguing, please do tell, by the way, was your question answered when it was asked on ummah channel, and if so what was the answer

the answer was: we have never heard such a report and whoever attributes a lie to the Prophet(s) he should make his abode the hell fire! and also that there is no such hadith and that the weak report says ' a questioner asked the question' and in no way it mentions the Prophet(s) and Abu bakr®' conversation, etc. typical mullah. trying to say that the questioner has lied! you can see the the direct marfu` evidence above and the existence of such a report and that the questioner did NOT attribute a LIE to the Prophet(s)....

[sunniskeptic]

It is clear to me -- well with my limited understanding!--that the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah throughout the ages has been to give preference to hadith over what is in the books of history. That is fair enough and if we are now
going to pick and choose it will mean a complete reform in the accepted history and teaching of Islam. Isn't this exactly what the orientalists are now trying to do? Apply the methods of modern histography to early Islamic
history as has been done with Christianity and Judaism already---interestingly, I was reading about just such a book which has come out and has caused shock waves amongst the Western historians of Islam as it completely
rewrites what is commonly accepted Islamic history -- including that of tradition Muslim historians. If we wish to go down the route of applying modern scientific historical research methodology to the early history of Islam then
we have to be prepared to face the results. It is something I am sure Muslims will not accept.

It is called In the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland.
Here is the link to the Guardian's review of it: http://www.guardian....ord-tom-holland

and here is the response of Tom Holland to the review:
http://www.guardian....-glen-bowersock


In another review (the Telegraph this time) we find a concise summary of the aim of Tom Holland. I quote,

Quote

"In that context, Holland focuses on the birth of Islam through the prophet Mohammed in Mecca and Medina (modern-day Saudi Arabia) during the course of the seventh century, as it is told to us by one of Mohammed’s biographers, Ibn Hisham, in the ninth century. The faith of Islam, as Holland points out, is centred on the study and strict observation of both the divine revelations to Mohammed (the Koran), and how Mohammed acted during his lifetime (the Hadith and the Sunna).Yet, echoing what many (mostly non-Muslim) scholars have queried before, Holland points to the historical problem of the evidence: before 800AD, almost 200 years after Mohammed’s death in 632AD, the only “traces we possess” for the development of Islam “are either the barest shreds of shreds, or else the delusory shimmering of mirages”.

The task Holland sets himself is to ask what can be done about that gap. His answer is to approach it from the opposite direction: to approach the origins of Islam from its recent past, from the world of fifth to seventh century late antiquity. “Is it possible,” he asks, “that Islam, far from originating outside the mainstream of ancient civilisation, was in truth a religion in the grand tradition of Judaism and Christianity – one bred of the very marrow of late antiquity?”

Beware! Makes fascinating but disturbing reading. Those who wish to open the can of worms of understanding Islam only vis-a-vis Tarikh beware!

Actually, what is required is for an academic Muslim historian or scholar to answer these latest, bold, claims in an academic manner (if they can).

[objective-enquirer]

Nemesis, on 14 May 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

i have also heard and read that the "second of the two" also refers to Imam Ali(as) Allah knowa best, maybe, O.E can shed some light on this

No brother the second of the two does not refer to Imam Ali(a) He was on the bed of the Prophet(s) at the time. The narrative is that there was a guide of the Prophet(s) a sahabi by the name of abdullah ibn ariqaz ibn bakr and there is a conversation between the Prophet(s) and him just before the the incident of the ghaar reported in Nasai and elsewhere that he said that I will take you to Medina on a route that no one knows, etc.
this makes three people. The Prophet(s), Hazrat Abu bakr® and Hazrat abdullah ibn ariqaz ibn bakr®. Everyone believes that the verse refers to Hazrat Abu bakr al-Siddiq® and I also think so too.


The point is that though it is most likely that hazrat abu bakr al-siddiq® was with the Noble Prophet(s) but certain other details do not add up.

a question that has been bugging me for ages is what sahih bukhari reports with absolutely sahih chains and that those who attempted to answer the discrepancy could not provide evidence for their claims and were only saying 'may be' 'perhaps' and this is not good enough for me. anyway here are the two hadith from Bukhari Sharif and both are from Ibn Umar through Nafi`:

Quote

Narrated by Ibn 'Umar

When the earliest emigrants came to Al-'Usba a place in Quba', before the arrival of the Prophet- Salim, the slave of Abu Hudhaifa, who knew the Qur'an more than the others used to lead them in prayer.

Here we have Hazrat Salim as the Imam of all the earliest muhajirun BEFORE the arrival of the Prophet(s).

Quote

Narrated by Ibn 'Umar

Salim, the freed salve of Abu Hudhaifa used to lead in prayer the early Muhajirin (emigrants) and the companions of the Prophet in the Quba mosque. Among those (who used to pray behind him) were Abu Bakr, 'Umar, Abu Salama, and Amir bin Rabi'a.

so Salim was the Imam before the Prophet(s) arrived in Medina and those who prayed behind him were hazrat Abu Bakr®.



wasn't He supposed to arrive in Medina with the Prophet(s)? If they arrived together and went in separate destinations then where is the narrative for that? If they were together then why is the Prophet(s) not leading the Prayer? if the Prophet(s) is still on His(s) way then where did hazrat Abu bakr come from? was he not 'attached' to the Prophet(s) from A to B?

This post has been edited by objective-enquirer: 14 May 2012 - 07:33 PM

[Mudassar-Rana]

Fatema-the-resplendent, on 14 May 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Politics in Religion? Manipulation of facts and texts for personal purposes? sidetracking clear information to mean something less? all this happens, I never knew until I watched Ummah Channel.

I love the way that every second word is a dig at the deo's and then they have a disclaimer that all are welcome and we are not deliberately insulting anyone! In essence dont complain to OFCOM! The channel is run in essence as anti deobandi and anti shia, therefore it can't move forward and offer something positive of its own back - though the recent documentary about syeda halima was awesome but that type of programming is the exception.

[Mudassar-Rana]

sunniskeptic, on 14 May 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

It is clear to me -- well with my limited understanding!--that the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah throughout the ages has been to give preference to hadith over what is in the books of history. That is fair enough and if we are now
going to pick and choose it will mean a complete reform in the accepted history and teaching of Islam. Isn't this exactly what the orientalists are now trying to do? Apply the methods of modern histography to early Islamic
history as has been done with Christianity and Judaism already---interestingly, I was reading about just such a book which has come out and has caused shock waves amongst the Western historians of Islam as it completely
rewrites what is commonly accepted Islamic history -- including that of tradition Muslim historians. If we wish to go down the route of applying modern scientific historical research methodology to the early history of Islam then
we have to be prepared to face the results. It is something I am sure Muslims will not accept.

It is called In the Shadow of the Sword by Tom Holland.
Here is the link to the Guardian's review of it: http://www.guardian....ord-tom-holland

and here is the response of Tom Holland to the review:
http://www.guardian....-glen-bowersock


In another review (the Telegraph this time) we find a concise summary of the aim of Tom Holland. I quote,



Beware! Makes fascinating but disturbing reading. Those who wish to open the can of worms of understanding Islam only vis-a-vis Tarikh beware!

Actually, what is required is for an academic Muslim historian or scholar to answer these latest, bold, claims in an academic manner (if they can).

I dont doubt that classical scholars have done a lot of work - i just think the modern scholars have done very little to make sure it is well known enough. We've grown up on the fact that we neednt question because the tabieen were righteous people with super human memory hence thats good enough. The downside of this lack of inquisition is that erroneous stuff entered the deen too. This type of intellectual attack upon islam is good because it awakens people to go back and study and get us the answer.

[Qadri-Jilani]

The question to ask OE is why the report from ta'rikh cannot be classed as a hadith (or the equivalent in authority thereof) if it has a sound chain of transmission, and similarly why is a weak hadith given more weight than a sound tradition found in say Ibn Ishaq?

Should the defining factor not be the authenticity of the chain of transmission (regardless of where it is found)?

A case in point being the example of the iman of Hazrat Abu Talib.

OE if you could kindly share your thoughts.

[objective-enquirer]

Quote

OE if you could kindly share your thoughts

random thoughts:

History is the third dimension in the story of Islam. `Ilm tells you what is, `Aqidah tells you what should be and History tells you what was.
There is history of being and history of becoming. The former is history of rest and the latter is the history of motion. So when we study the gradual change and transformation, from one stage to the other then it is history of becoming. And when it just relates a state of affairs then it is history of being.
The functions of hadith and history are different. The hadith is atomisitic in the nature of its transmission and content. It deals with atoms of information relevant to the practice of Muslims in general. In other words its function is normative. History on the other hand is descriptive. It is here that the problem arises for interpretation.

The historians in terms of extant texts precede the hadith collections and generally write without partisan proclivities. The hadith works on the other hand have a definite sectarian flavour. The hadith collections were made in two to three centuries after The Noble Messenger(s) when the schools had been crystallized and contours clearly defined. The political, social, and sectarian ‘times’ in which hadith distillation occurred left its mark on the literature itself. For example, Khulafah Rashidun time had already elapsed by two hundred years or more. We have tens of hadith which present them arriving at the door of the Prophet(s) or asking questions or accompanying Him(s) in exactly the order of their caliphate. Hz Abu Bakr knocks first then hz Umar then hz Uthman. We can understand it may have happened once but the appearance in the same order everytime suggests the liberties taken by the reporters which reflects an element of projecting their own political times onto the Prophet’s (s) time. Another example could be Bukhari’s omission of rafa` al-yadayn hadith from his sahih though it fulfils his conditions. This also reflects the position of his school.

However, the point is not that hadith is unreliable but rather its normative function has shaped its selection. History on the other hand reports things which do not go down well with the partisan hadith scholars because it provides a linear narrative and includes details about certain persons and events that does not conform to the idealistic notions espoused by the hadith scholars and that it provides an alternative narrative.
Anyway, these are just some observations as a student and may be entirely wrong. Look at Malikis and ?anafis and ?adith scholars. Each rejects the others hadith when it conflicts with the madhhab of its eponymous founder. The isnad system is great when there is an agreement but when the positions of school x are challenged then it boils down to your preference of a reporter. History does not really have to rely on Isnad system because there are other methods of verification. Hadith scholars tell us that abd al-malik ibn marwan called himself khalifat al-rasul but numismatic evidence tells us that he declared himself khalifat Allah! The khalifah of God. The coins are there for us to see from 72 AH.

This post has been edited by objective-enquirer: 15 May 2012 - 05:38 PM

[sunniskeptic]

So, brother OE, in effect you are saying that from a neutral observer's point of view history -- if verifiable by, for example, primary evidence -- is more reliable and accurate than hadith?

If so, then why do Muslims react strongly to these modern methods of historical research -- for example, looking for artefacts from a given time period or using carbon dating etc. -- when applied to early, formative Islam?

You cannot apply it to some situations if this method indicates an outcome which goes with your sensibilities (I don't mean you specifically!) but prefer the hadith method in other cases when historical records might not support wha
your view. You either submit all of islamic history to modern secular research -- just like Christianity and Judaism have done --or none of it.

Please give me your comments on this. For example, if we disregard the hadith and koran what historical evidence is there for the existence of any of the Khulafa e Rashideen or, naudhubillah, for Huzoor Paak sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.
I have debated on other forums with atheists who say that there is no neutral historical evidence which is scientifically reliable for the existence of the Habib sal Alllahu alayhi wa sallam! What are we to say to them? By the same token,
they declare the existence of Isa alayhisalam 'a myth'. At least our Master is much later in history and we have more chance of finding such historical evidence. (For example, we have many examples of the blessed hairs of the Prophet and
doing a DNA analysis on them could, in theory, let us know the genetic code of Allah's Habib and carbon dating could tell us the era they were from....of course, no Muslim would ever allow such tests to be done. In their absence, the other type of evidence is
existence of letters attributed to the Messenger or the mention of the Messenger in other historical sources. For example, our traditions say Huzoor Pur Noor wrote a letter to Heraclius -- then a type of evidence would be the mention of such a letter
in the official records of Heraclius...do you see?

I am not advocating such an approach -- although if we are confident in the truth of Islam we should not fear such an approach--- but it would cause chaos with Islamic tradition as it exists today. After all, it is by such analyses that many scholars
dismiss the hadith as unreliable.

Any comments?

a

[sunniskeptic]

Mudassar-Rana, on 14 May 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

. This type of intellectual attack upon islam is good because it awakens people to go back and study and get us the answer.

Sadly, it is more likely to be dismissed by 'traditionally trained scholars' as Orientalist anti-Islamic propaganda and therefore these people will not get us the answer as they do not know the modern methodologies of researching history.
They are trained --correct me if i'm wrong -- on 'qeel and qaal' (he said and she said).

[Mudassar-Rana]

sunniskeptic, on 17 May 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Sadly, it is more likely to be dismissed by 'traditionally trained scholars' as Orientalist anti-Islamic propaganda and therefore these people will not get us the answer as they do not know the modern methodologies of researching history.
They are trained --correct me if i'm wrong -- on 'qeel and qaal' (he said and she said).

All people engage in propaganda im always shocked when people say its anti islamic propaganda - why did u expect that the kuffar wont attack islam? Its beyond me. In a recent debate show on the Ummah Channel they had 4 gentleman discussing political solutions for muslims. One was from PTI, one from HT, one from the local community and another "independent analyst" who in actual fact was the brother of the chap from HT and also member of HT yet he was presented as an independent analyst! Not decrying what they said but why treat people as fools?