_ living islam : Islamic tradition _ 
  https://www.livingislam.org/


Hadith of Zayd ibn `Amr in Bukhari

Q:
  A common orientalist polemic is to challenge the traditional accounts
  of Muhammad's (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) monotheism prior to his prophethood.
  A cited narration (with commentary from Ibn Hajar) is this:

  "Narrated by Mu'ty Ibn Asad, narrated by Abd Al-Aziz Ibn Al-Mukhtar,
  narrated by Musa Ibn Akbah, narrated by Salim who heard Abdullah
  narrating that the prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) met Zaid Ibn Amr Ibn
  Nufail at the bottom of Baldah, and this was the time before the prophet
  (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) received revelation. So the prophet presented to
  him (Zaid) a table on which was served meat. However, Zaid refused to
  eat from it and said, "I do not eat what you sacrifice to your idols,
  and I do not eat except what Allah's name have been mentioned on."

  Explanation of Hadith Bukhari in Fath Al-Bari The Hadith of Ibn Amr
  found in the story of Zaid Ibn Amr Ibn Nufail has been transmitted with
  some variation. According to the majority (of narrators) the phrase "The
  prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) presented to him (Zaid) a table" IS THE
  CORRECT ONE."


  The Orientalists quoted this in order to contradict this narration: "
  Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:The Prophet met Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail 
  IN THE BOTTOM OF (THE VALLEY OF) BALDAH BEFORE ANY DIVINE INSPIRATION CAME 
  TO THE PROPHET. A MEAL WAS PRESENTED TO THE PROPHET BUT HE REFUSED TO EAT 
  FROM IT. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, "I do not eat
  anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none
  but those things on which Allah's Name has been mentioned at the time of
  slaughtering." Zaid bin 'Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to
  slaughter their animals, and used to say, "Allah has created the sheep
  and He has sent the water for it from the sky, and He has grown the
  grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name
  of Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and
  considered it as something abominable. " (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5,
  Book 58, Number 169
  http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.169)"

  and attempt to harmonize it by saying "When one reads this narration in
  light of the previous one from al-Bukhari, we can safely conclude that
  Muhammad had given some meat to Zaid. When the latter refused to accept
  these idol sacrifices, Muhammad became convicted which in turn led him
  to abandon the eating of such sacrifices. The Meccans then tried to
  offer Muhammad some of their sacrificial meat which he clearly refused
  in light of his newfound conviction prompted by Zaid."

  My question is, how have the traditional 'ulema understood these
  narrations? They seem to be contrary to the preserved Islamic creed of
  our traditional 'ulema. Also, this actually leads into some questions I
  had about hadith methodology. Is a hadith rejected in its authenticity
  solely on its text and not just the chain of transmitters? Also, how do
  we refute the orientalist reconstruction of events vs. our
  interpretation, and how do we show that our harmonizations between
  varied reports are more correct than the orientalists?


A:
The meal was prepared by the Quraysh during a trip of which the
Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, was a member before his Prophetic
mission and there is neither mention that he partook of the food nor
actual report that it was an idol-sacrifice; hence the narration is not
contrary to the preserved Islamic creed of our traditional Ulema. 

Al-Khattabi in A`lam al-Hadith (3:1657) said that it is known that at
that time the Prophet did not share in Quraysh's meat that was
sacrificed to the idols, but he shared in it otherwise, even if the name
of Allah Most High had not been pronounced over it, unless it was
carrion. Indeed, even after Prophethood, the prohibition of the meat of
the pagans was not revealed for a long while.

Al-Suhayli in al-Rawd al-Unuf (1:383) points out that (1) nothing in the
hadith shows that the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, ate from
that food and (2) the prohibition of meats sacrificed to other than
Allah Most High is original to Islam and not to the Law of Ibrahim, upon
him peace.

Ibn Battal in Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari as cited in Fath al-Bari said that
the food had been passed to the Prophet, upon him peace, who demurred
and passed it on to `Amr, who demurred and said what he said.

Al-Kirmani in al-Kawakib al-Darari (15:62) said: Did the Prophet eat
from it? The fact that it was placed before him does not indicate this.
How often is food placed before the traveller and he does not touch it! 

Al-`Ayni in `Umdat al-Qari (16:286) said that Ibn Battal's explanation
makes al-Kirmani's remark moot, but Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (7:143)
points out that Ibn Battal gives not proof for his scenario.

Al-Kirmani, Ibn Hajar, al-`Ayni, and others give preference to
al-Khattabi's explanation. 


Q:
 Is a hadith rejected in its authenticity solely on its text and not
 just the chain of transmitters?

A:
Rejection is on the basis of chain, which tends to be the more
objective criterion; or text; or a combination of the two.

Among the characteristics of forged content: Poor Arabic; copycat effect
(trying to reduplicate the style and sound of an authentic hadith);
sheer nonsense ("Do not eat the pumpkin before you slaughter it");
Disproportion or gross exaggeration (e.g. in reward or punishment);
extravagant praise or blame (of places, time, dynasties, tribes,
foods...); anachronism; racialism; literary artifice; edification and/or
entertainment; ex nihilo origin (being mentioned in later books, which
is actually a transmission criterion).

Among the characteristics of forged chains: the presence of one or more
liar or forger in it.


Q:
 Also, how do we refute the orientalist reconstruction of events vs.
 our interpretation, and how do we show that our harmonizations between
 varied reports are more correct than the orientalists?

A:
Through three attributes they do not share with us: (1) Istiqra' - being
more meticulous and thorough in the basic reading of the sources; (2)
Insaf - being more objective and logical in parsing those sources; and
(3) Tawfiq - being granted what the Imams such as Malik and al-Ghazzali
called a light in the heart by which we can see the truth. Islamic
literature abundantly illustrates these attributes at work while
Orientalist literature abundantly illustrates absence of them.


GF Haddad
2008-10-05