Strictness and Laxity in
by Sh. G. F. Haddad Shawwâl 1425 [also as pdf-file]
Mullâ `Alî al-Qârî Allâh have mercy on him! showed in his Major Dictionary of H.adîth Forgeries known under the two titles of al-Mawd.ûât al-Kubrâ
and al-Asrâr al-Marfû`a fîl-Akhbâr al-Mawd.û`a
that many of the reports supposed by some of the authorities to be false are not forgeries at all. This is an important corrective for todays semi-educated censors that condemn many true reports as false on the false assumption that stricter is better. They forgot that as long as the proof of forgery is unestablished beyond reasonable doubt and short of compelling assumption regarding a weak report, it becomes a lie to cry forgery and bar people from the benefit of belief in it! This holds true even if its chain of transmission falls short of the rank of sound (s.ah.îh.
). Godfearing precaution toward the Prophet
goes both ways: not only with respect to steering clear from attributing to him what he never said or did, but also with respect to steering clear from belying what he might have said or done.
Allâh Most High said,
For the best provision is godfearing.
So fear you Me, men possessed of minds! }(Quran, 2:197)
and the Messenger of Allâh
said in one of the wordings of the most famous masstransmitted (mutawâtir
Whoever attributes a lie to me or rejects something I have ordered, let him take possession of a house in Gehenna.
When the Muh.addith
of Irâq Sirâj al-Dîn `Umar ibn `Alî al-Qazwînî (d. 750) declared eighteen of the h.adîths of al-Tibrîzîs Mishkât al-Mas.âbîh.
forged, the peerless H.âfiz. Ibn H.ajar al-`Asqalânî replied with his Ajwiba `alâ Risâlat al-Qazwînî
, in which he graded five to seven of the eighteen supposed forgeries weak (d.a`îf
), nine to eleven of them fair (h.asan
), two sound (s.ah.îh.
), and none of them forged! This anecdote is a shining illustration of the difference between half-baked h.adîth science and the real thing.
Yet, al-Qazwînî was a Muh.addith
in the best sense of the word. What excuse can pseudo-scholars give? The reader may have seen them at work. They make speeches and publish censorious articles, webpages, and books on h.adîth forgeries and innovations that resemble fiction more than `ilm
. Nor do their manners and ethics resemble those of Muslims, let alone the small pupils of the Ulema. Rather, they are unscrupulous, unwelcome proselytes working under the glossy cover of moneyed propaganda. They clang ever so loud in ostentatious defense of the Sunna from deviation when they themselves are of dubious doctrine and unqualified even to be students of this noble art. Worst of all, they have no qualms about trying to alter the Prophetic legacy of h.adîth and persuade the Umma that the Prophet
said and did other than what 1,400 years of Scholarship of the Sunna has led you to believe. As incompetent strictness is rejected, so is ignorant laxity which consists in attributing anything and everything to the Prophet
, his Companions, the Imâms of the Law, those of the Prophetic Household, or the rest of the Awliyâ without any standard of honesty and accuracy in reporting.
Among the worst offenders are those that sit to preach without having paid their learning dues at the feet of the Ulema because they cannot wait for others to sit at their own feet. What matters for them is to appear to quote from authority so as to assume authority and reap its benefits. Unscrupulosity or misconceived piety among the followers of such admonishers has them drink up what they hear unconditionally as spiritual directives (irshâd
) even if it should be baseless, foolish, incoherent, even irreligious. Ignorance has reached the point where one that rightly sues for authenticity is branded as a fastidious ignoramus by the ignoramus who has no idea whether a report is in the S.ah.îh.
or in Kalîla wa-Dimna
nor cares to check!
The above-mentioned types stand at odds with the Sunna from two opposite extremes and can be called the Laxists and the Strictists:
1- The Laxists have no idea who spoke what but insist on attributing it without the least scruple of authenticity, in the manner of story-tellers, even after it is made clear to them that they perpetuate untruths or have no proof for their discourse other than self-perpetuating tradition or unverified hearsay. As Ibn al-Mubârak said, The chain of transmission is part and parcel of the Religion, and were it not for the chain of transmission, anyone could say anything. Examples of this type are the anthropomorphists, modernists, the Shî`îs, some of the Sufis, and many of the general public known as the `awâmm including preachers that are neither full-fledged `awâmm
2- The Strictists think it a light matter to cry lies at some of what the Messenger of Allâh
might have said, pretexting forgery in blind mimicry of what they think is strictness even after they have been shown that their proofs of forgery are themselves sickly and controverted to begin with. Examples of this type are the Wahhâbîs and Salafîs in all their varieties.
Among the latter type are those that cling to blind imitation and continue to cry forgery at the h.adîth My Companions are like the stars
, claiming that it is d.a`îf
as stated by Ah.mad ibn H.anbal, Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Bazzâr and many others1 as if d.a`îf
were synonyms, if only those references were not a half-lie in the first place! In reality, this h.adîth is not forged but admissible as shown in a separate article [as pdf-document]
, and from Allâh comes all success.