_ living islam : Islamic tradition _ https://www.livingislam.org/ Rawis Not Suited To Transmit Hadith Q: "Can you comment on the criticism that some have leveled against some of the rawis of the imams of recitation being unfit to transmit hadith and the opinion that the qira'at are not mutawatir - with the exception of Hafs (whom the hadith scholars declared to be unfit to transmit hadith) being attributed to Imam al-Suyuti?" Al-Suyuti in the Itqan (i) does not discuss the rank of the rawis and (ii) considers the requirement of mass transmission (tawatur) a sine qua non precondition of anything Qur'anic. Moreover, he describes it as the position of the verifiers of Ahl al-Sunna, while acknowledging a difference of opinion among "many of the legal theorists." Al-Zarkashi said in al-Burhan (Type 22): [ARABIC] "The seven readings are mass-transmitted according to the Jumhur, and it was said, 'rather, they are well-known [only].'" Ibn al-Baqillani addressed this in very strong words in al-Intisar (1:120-123) and his position is that the early Muslims did not retain anything they were not sure belonged in the Muwatta', al-Muzani's Mukhtasar, Ibn al-Mubarrid's Muqtadab, Euclid's geometry, Ptolemy's Almagest and famous Arabic poetry; so it is unreasonable to suppose they were not even more careful concerning the Book of Allah Most High. What accounts for the possibility of a difference is, as al-Suyuti in the Itqan (Types 22-27, Riyadh ed. 2:498) quoted from Ibn al-Jazari's Nashr, that if tawatur had been required for every single letter and vowel in the Qur'an, it would have excluded from it many of the well- established, sahih variants in reading (as in the second type below), and Allah knows best. Then al-Suyuti said (2:502-504): "Al-Jazari truly mastered this chapter to perfection, and I have determined that the canonical readings fall into the following types: first, the mutawatir, which is what was transmitted by a group who could not possibly have colluded on a lie, from an identical group, and so forth to the end of its chain. Most of the readings are of this type. (Footnote: I.e. mass-transmitted, and what is mass-transmitted to this day is the ten canonical reading that are in al-Jazari's book al-Nashr.) "The second type is (i) what is sound in its chain without reaching the level of tawatur, (ii) conforms to Arabic (iii) and script as well as (iv) being well-known among the canonical readers who consider neither a mistake nor an anomaly, (v) and being recited [as Qur'an, e.g. in prayer]. ... Its examples are what the paths from the Seven have differed in transmitting, some of the narrators transmitting it and some not. (Footnote: Such as the levels of madd, fath, imala for some words and so forth.) "The third type is aahaad of which the chains are sound but which contravene the script or Arabic or are not as famous as the previous rank, nor are they recited [as Qur'an]. Al-Tirmidhi in his Jami` and al-Hakim in his Mustadrak gave many examples of this kind. ... "The fourth is the anomalous (shaadhdh), which is the unsound- chained. ... "The fifth is the forged, such as the readings of al-Khuza`i [i.e. the qira'a spuriously attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa]. "A sixth type has appeared to me, similar to the previous one, from among the types of hadith, namely, the interpolated (mudraj), which is a glossarial addition to the canonical reading such as the reading of Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas 'from the same mother as himself' (min umm) at the end of the verse {And he has a brother or a sister} (al-Nisa' 12)." Going back to the ranks of the Canonical Readers in hadith: it is not considered relevant knowledge, because Allah Most High gave them a higher rank. Imam al-Dhahabi described Hafs ibn `Umar in Ma`rifat al- Qurra' as "the Qur'an Rehearser of Islam in his time" and in that book he does not mention the hadith rank of any of the great Qurra'. Who, then, is trying to be more royalist than the king? And in his chapter on Hafs in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' he says: "As for al- Daraqutni's statement that he [Hafs] was da`if, he meant in the recension (dabt) of reports. When it comes to canonical readings, he is most trustworthy (thabt) - an Imam! Likewise, a group of the canonical readers are all athbaat in Qira'a but not hadith, such as Nafi`, al-Kasa'i, Hafs: they rose up to the difficulties of the Qur'anic wordings and they ascertained them. They did not do this for hadith, just as a number of the hadith masters meticulously mastered hadith but not Qira'a. This is the case for everyone who excels in a particular discipline exclusively of others, and Allah knows best." Thus, as Imam al-Dhahabi beautifully showed - note that he was also a specialist of canonical readings - the phrase "weak in hadith" here is taken with a grain of salt as it only means that hadith narration was not their skill but rather the Book of Allah was all their world, and in the latter discipline they were more than trustworthy. If, however, the claim that they were "weak in hadith" is meant as an attack on their probity or veracity or reliability in transmitting the Qur'an, then it is a very suspicious statement that reeks of atheism since it is tantamount to saying that Allah Most High failed at preserving His Dhikr and that the Umma followed error, wal-`iyadhu billah. Q: "I actually do not understand why they are considered mutawatir when most of the chains of the acceptable readings are identified as revolving around only 10 imams." Tawatur is not dependent on a precise number such as 7, 10, 40 or 70 but according to the subjective notion already mentioned, namely any *number and class* of people whom the scholars determine could not possible conspire over a lie. I do not know of a work that gathers up all the chains of each canonical reading back to the Companions. What we do have is the names of the *main* students of the Companions and *their* main students etc. thus: Sahabi - Tabi`in - Great Qari (canonical readers) - Rawi (canonical narrators) - Turuq (paths of canonical transmission). What they all concur on is pivotal to more than ten imams at every level of transmission. WAllahu a`lam. May Allah Most High bless us with the remembrance of His Awliya' who conveyed His Book to us just as they received It, and fill our lives with Its Lights here and hereafter. AND: -- begin quote -- <> -- end quote -- Good point, but are we sure of the above premises? Only one person called him a kadhdhab and attributed forgery to him, and that is the Rafidi Hafiz `Abd al-Rahman ibn Yusuf, known as Ibn Khirash, whose judgment is extreme. He is on record calling Dawud al-Zahiri a kafir, and Abu Zur`a publicly rebuked him for that. Al-Dhahabi more than once flatly rejects Ibn Khirash's negative judgments in the Mizan and you should also read his chapter on Ibn Khirash there. As for the other narration calling him a kadhdhab, I doubt Ibn Ma`in ever called him this because (i) al-Dhahabi relates the same account without the latter wording in Mizan al-I`tidal and (ii) what is established from Ibn Ma`in is that he said of him "Not trustworthy." Also, two other narrations from Ahmad have respectively: "There is no harm in him" and "usable (salih)" while Waki` abd Ibn al-Sawwaf considered him thiqa. The point is that everyone who spoke negatively of him said: "in hadith" including al-Bukhari and Muslim, al-Nasa'i, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bazzar, al-Bayhaqi and others, which confirms the explanation I quoted from al-Dhahabi. NB: The phrase of Abu Ahmad al-Hakim, "dhahib al-hadith" does not mean "he wastes hadiths" but means the same as "matruk al-hadith" or, in al-Bukhari's terminology, "tarakuh" i.e. he is discarded as a narrator and his narrations are discarded. Cf. al-Raf` wal-Takmil. GF Haddad 2009-02-15/17