Hadith of Man kazaba alayya and argumantum a silentio

Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ Joseph Schacht, one of the prominent users of the principle of argumentum e silentio in his researches, explains it as follows: The best way of proving that a tradition did not exist at a certain time is to show that it was not used as a legal argument in a discussion which would have made reference to it imperative, if it had existed.2 Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Bekir KUZUDİŞLİ, Yrd. Doç. Dr.* “Men Kezebe ‘Aleyye Hadisi ve e Silentio Delîli” Özet: Bu makalenin amacı, Batılı araştırmacılarca kullanılan e silentio prensibinin, ilk üç asırdaki hadis rivâyetiyle ne ölçüde uyum arz ettiğini ve elimizde bulunan kaynaklarla ne ölçüde sonuç elde edilebileceğini araştırmaktır. G. H. A. Juynboll tarafından “Men Kezebe ‘Aleyye...” hadisinin bu metoda göre tarihlendirilmeye çalışılması, metodun işlerliğini görmek açısından karşımıza önemli bir fırsat çıkarmaktadır. Dolayısıyla bu makalede sözü edilen hadis Taberânî’nin Turuku Men kezebe aleyye... adlı kitabı ve diğer temel hadis kaynakları dikkate alınarak muhtelif yönlerden incelenmiş ve Juynboll’un ulaştığı sonuçlar test edilmiştir. Ayrıca bu araştırma bize, isnad ve metinlerin ilk asırdaki kullanımlarına ilişkin çeşitli tespitler yapma imkânı da sunmuştur. Atıf: Bekir KUZUDİŞLİ, “Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio”, Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD), V/II, 2007, ss. 47-71. Anahtar Kelimeler: Men kezebe ‘alayye, Juynboll, e silentio, hadis, tarīk, mütevātir. I. Introduction Since the nineteenth century, the debate on the soundness of hadīths expanded beyond the Muslim world as Western scholars, who did not find the methods of hadīth critique developed by Muslims adequately convincing, became involved in the discussions about the evaluation of hadīths and their origins. Some of these Western scholars tried to propose some methods for evaluating hadīths. An example of these methods is the argumentum e silentio. It is possible to find some hints of this method in the classical books of Muslim scholars,1 yet much of its popularity owes to the frequent use of it by some Western scholars in their research. It is not our goal here to determine whether the argumentum e silentio was taken from classical Islamic sources. The purpose of this article is to assess the usage of this method as defined by Schacht and Juynboll in the critique of hadīth. To illustrate my argument I shall utilize the example of the hadīth of man kadhaba ‘alayya. According to this opinion, if a relevant hadīth had not been used in a debate, this should be seen as a proof that it was circulated after the time of debate. Schacht’s claim, using this method that many hadīths about ahkām are not authentic but they appeared in later centuries, has sparked a vivid debate about the usage of this method.3 Since Schacht first proposed it, many ahkām hadīths have been researched in the e silentio framework, and G. H. A. Juynboll, a follower of Schacht’s school from the Netherlands, produced the most comprehensive works in this ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth which is topic. Perhaps the most important one is “... unanimously accepted by Muslim hadīth specialists as mutawātir. With the purpose of proving his claim that the narratives in classical hadīth books do not belong to the Prophet but instead are products of the following centuries, Juynboll uses the argumentum e silentio to determine the date in which the hadīths in question were first circulated.4 Juynboll examined the hadīth of “... ‫ ” כ ب‬to prove his claim by applying argumentum e silentio to determine its date of origin. He appears to assume that Muslim hadīth collectors included all the material they had gathered from their predecessors in their collections. Therefore their texts must be considered as complete records of the available material on a certain issue at a certain time.5 Although I mentioned above only two scholars who used e silentio in their works, there are many others who acted on the basis of this principle. For instance the claim of Norman Calder, pertaining to the hadīth on the cleanliness of water 2 3 4 5 * 1 İstanbul Üniversitesi İlâhiyat Fakültesi, [email protected] For example see. Abū Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad as-Sarakhsī, Usūl as-Sarakhsī (ed. Abū alVafā al-Afgānī), Dār al-Ma’rifa 1973, I, 340. 47 48 Joseph Schacht, the Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudance, Oxford: The Clarendon Press 1975, p. 140. M. Mustafa al-A‘zamī, On Schacht’s origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudance, Riyad: King Saud University 1985, p. 118; Zafer İshaq al-Ensārī, “The Authenticity of traditions: A critique of Joseph Schacht’s argument e silentio”, Hamdard Islamicus, 1984, p. 51–61; Harald Motzki, The Origins Of Islamic Jurisprudance Meccan Fıqh before the classical schools. Leiden: Brill 2002, p. 21–22. G. H. A. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition Studies in chronology, provenance and authorship of early hadīth, s. 108–133. This article does not mention in which areas this hadīth was narrated widespreadly and evaluations in this matter. So, distribution of the hadīth according to areas is topic of another article. Juynboll, a.g.e., 98; Motzki, “Dating Muslim Tradition: A Survey”, Arabica, LII/2, 2005, s. 217. It is seen that Juynboll used argumentum e silentio on his Nafī’s article See. Motzki, “Quo vadis, Hadith Forschung? Eine kritische Untersuchung von G.H.A. Juynboll: Nāfi‘ the mawlā of Ibn ‘Umar, and his position in Muslim Hadith literature” Der Islam, 1996, s. 58-59. ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ leftover by cats, which accordingly must not have been known in Mālik’s time as it does not appear in Mālik’s Mudawwana, is a conclusion based on the argument of e silentio.6 Calder finds it strange that this hadīth is cited only in the Muwatta. He claims that if Malik had known the hadīth, he would have included it in both the Mudawwana and the Muwatta, not only the Muwatta. ‫ ” כ ب‬has also been investigated in many works The hadīth of the “... both in the past and the present.7 Whereas Muslim scholars generally examined the turuq of this hadīth, some contemporary scholars questioned its authenticity.8 But this article will specifically concentrate on Juynboll’s method; investigating to what extent his method can be used in the sciences of narration. Hence, other scholars’ views on the hadīth in question will also not be discussed in this article. Meanwhile Juynboll has stated that Mālik had narrated a few hadīth discouraging dishonesty, one of which is a tradition expressed by Umar b. alKhattab using the word “‫” ل‬.10 According to Juynboll, these are the forerunners of the numerous “... ‫ ” כ ب‬traditions in the Iraqī collections.11 Al-Humaydī, another Hijāzī collector, lists the “... ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth just one time in his Musnad. According to Juynboll, al-Humaydī narrated this hadīth with the following flawed but highly relevant isnād: al-Humaydī > Sufyan b. Uyayna > men lā uhsī ‘an Abī Hurayra > Prophet. When one takes into account the fact that only four persons transmitted this hadīth from Abū Hurayra even in the time of al-Bukhārī, Ibn Uyayna’s words “Men lā uhsī” seems to be an effort to conceal his flawed isnād. Moreover, it can also be understood that Ibn Uyayna at his time was unable to substantiate this hadīth with a less ‘flawed isnād”.12 Observing the area of Egypt, notwithstanding the inclusion of numerous traditions commanding the avoidance of telling lies, Ibn Wahb’s Jāmi‘, the ‫ ” כ ب‬. The author earliest compilation in that area, fails to mention “... also finds it interesting that this hadīth does not appear in the Sunan of anNasā’ī (p. 303/915) who had spent a preponderance of his life in Egypt, as ‫ ” כ ب‬had already been known in Egypt during his time the hadīth “... approximately for one century. In the isnāds that are found in the other sources it is understood that the masters of an-Nasā’ī were the narrators of the ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth. So, this situation must result from the following facts: “... an-Nasā’ī either never received it from his master (i.e. Qutayba b. Sa‘īd), because it was falsely attributed to the latter after the former had left for Egypt, or an-Nasā’ī rejected it out of mistrust”.13 Essentially, this hadīth began to circulate in Egypt not earlier than the end of the second century and possibly not earlier than the end of the third century.14 2. Throwing a glance at the vicinity of Irāq, it is seen that this hadīth is found in the Musnad of at-Tayālisī (p. 204/819), one of the earliest compilations of the region. According to Juynboll, the argument claiming that this hadīth appeared in the Musnad attributed to Abū Hanīfa (d. 150/767) is not acceptable, because the biographical sources concerning Abū Hanīfa reveals his indifference to hadīths. He is even reported to have mockingly reacted to prophetic sayings, which were transformed into legal maxims or slogans. Probably due to the clash between Ahl al-Hadīth and Ahl al-Ray, later mem- II. Juynboll’s claims about the origins of the man kadhaba ‘alayya hadīth We can summarize Juynboll’s claims about the origins of this hadīth as follows: ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth does not appear 1. In the Hijāz and Egypt region the “... in the collections written before 180 h. because neither the Jāmi‘ of ‘Abd Allāh b. Wahb (d. 197/813) nor Muwatta of Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795) recorded this hadīth. When looking at the books of other scholars around the Hijāz, it is seen that this hadīth appeared for the first time in ash-Shāfi‘ī’s (d. 204/820) and alHumaydī’s (d. 219/834) books. When we take into account the fact that Abd al-Azīz ibn Muhammad al-Darāwardī (d. 187/803), who appears in some of the hadīths of ash-Shāfi‘ī, and his masters, who are mentioned in the isnāds from al-Darāwardī, were also among the sources of Mālik b. Anas, it gives a clue about the person who brought the aforementioned hadīth into circulation in Hijāz. According to Juynboll, if this was the case, then Mālik, hearing it from his instructors, should have included this hadīth in his book - if he really heard it. 9 6 7 8 9 Norman Calder, Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1993, p. 26; Motzki, “The Prophet and the Cat: On dating Mālik’s Muwatta and legal traditions” JSAI, 22 (1988), p. 24. See for instance Abū al-Qāsım Sulaymān b. Ahmad at-Tabarānī (d. 360) Juz’un fīhi Turuqu Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya Muta‘ammidan (ed. Muhammed b. Hasan al-Ghumārī), Beirut: Dār al-Basāir al-Islāmiyya 1417/1997 (Henceforth abbrev. Turuq); Abū Abd Allāh Muhammaed b. Abī al-Fayz al-Kattānī, Nazm al-mutenāthir min al-ahādīth al-mutavātir, Beirut: Dār alkutub al-ilmiyya 1407/1987, s. 37. Mustafa Karataş, Rivayet Tekniği Açısından Hadislerin Artması ve Sayısı, İstanbul: İşaret&İHAM Publ. 2006, p. 69–73. For instance see. Fazlurrahman, Islam, s. 59. For other view see. Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, Cambridge University Press 1996, p. 159 (fn. 30). Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 112–113. 49 10 11 12 13 14 50 Juynboll does not indicate which word of Umar in the Muvatta. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 112. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 114. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 109–110. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 118. ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ bers of the Hanafite Madhhab may have attributed the relevant hadīth to Abū Hanīfa.15 When one continues to examine the Irāqī books, according to Juynboll, there is no trace of this hadīth in the Jāmi‘ of ar-Rabī‘ b. Habīb either.16 When looking at the Musnad of at-Tayālisī it is seen that the hadīth in question is narrated with various isnāds. Five of seven isnāds found in this book begin with at-Tayālisī > Shu‘ba. On the basis of the word “‫ ” ل‬appearing in Muwatta, Juynboll claims that the hadīths beginning with “... ‫ ” אل‬that are narrated in the at-Tayālisī are older than the “... ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīths.17 From this investigation Juynboll inferred the following conclusions: First of all, the more detailed a hadīth is recorded, the later it came into circulation. ‫ ” כ ب‬dictum must have This holds also true for isnāds. Secondly, the “... been come into circulation in Iraq sometime between the deaths of ar-Rabī‘ b. Habīb and at-Tayālisī, in other words, sometime in the course of the second half of the second century A.H. (...). Thirdly, the actual wording of the dictum evolved from ‘‫’ אل‬, ‘‫ ’ ل‬and ‘‫ ’ ل‬to ‘‫ ’כ ب‬and even ‘‫’א ى‬.18 3. In the next step Juynboll, compares the isnāds of “... ‫ ” כ ب‬narrated in Ibn al-Jawzī’s (d. 597/1201) introduction of Kitāb al-Mawdū‘āt, with the nine books on which the Concordance is based. This yields the following results: With the exception of the three,19 all isnāds in the nine books were recorded in Kitāb al-Mawdū‘āt”. Thus, those thirty-one isnāds not appearing in the nine books mentioned in Kitāb al-Mawdū‘āt, must have been fabricated after the fourth century A.H.20 Rabī‘ b. Habīb21 and therefore this hadīth was not in circulation at that time. But, a careful scrutiny of this compilation divulges the existence of the narration under question. Moreover, there is a special chapter which was opened and entitled as “The Sin of a Person Lying in the Name of the Prophet” by arRabī‘. In this chapter ar-Rabī‘ narrated two hadīths: Abū Ubayda > Jābir b. ‫ه‬ ‫أ‬ ‫א‬ ‫” כ ب‬. The second Zayd > Ibn Abbas > Prophet: “‫א אر‬ isnād comprises ar-Rabī‘ > Yahyā b. Kethīr > Atā b. as-Sāib > ‘Abd Allāh b. alHārith. The latter seems to be more detailed, which includes an account of ‘Abd Allāh b. al-Harith who was asked the reason why the Prophet had articu‫أ‬ ‫א‬ ‫ כ ب‬. Subsequently, upon the conlated the hadīth “‫ه א אر‬ fession of ignorance of those sitting closeby, he goes on to elucidate the motive behind the hadīth’s utterance. (sabab al-wurūd).22 Long before ar-Rabī‘ b. Habīb, this hadīth had in fact been narrated by Ma‘mar b. Rāshid (d. 153/770),23 though Juynboll turns a blind eye to this collection. Ma‘mar, under the title of “Bāb al-kidhb ala’ an-Nabiyy Salla’llāhu ‘alayhi ve sallam” records three hadīths: 1. Ma‘mar > Abū Hārūn al-‘Abdī > ‫أ א‬ ‫” כ ب‬. 2. Ma‘mar > alAbū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī > Prophet: “‫א אر‬ Hasan > Prophet: “‫א אر‬ ‫ه‬ ‫א א أ‬ ‫כ ب‬ ‫ج وכ‬ ‫و‬ ‫א‬ ”. 3. Ma‘mar > Rajul > Sa‘īd b. Jubayr > Prophet: “... ‫ ” כ ب‬in the famous form, 24 the reason of its utterance is equally mentioned in ample detail. The hadīth in question is contained also in the Musannaf of Abd ar-Razzāq (d. 211/827), to which Juynboll never referred. In the title of “Mas’ala Ahl al،‫ج‬ ‫إ א و‬ ‫א‬ ‫و آ و‬ ‫ّ א‬ Kitāb” he narrated the hadīth of “ ‫כ ب‬ ‫א אر‬ ‫ه‬ ‫أ‬ ‫כ‬ ” via Awzā‘ī > Hassān b. ‘Atiyya > Abū Kabsha > ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Amr b. ‘As > The Prophet.25 ‘Abd ar-Razzāq also recorded this hadīth via Ja‘far b. Sulaymān > ‘Amr b. Dīnār > one of the children of Suhayb > ‫ة وإ‬ ‫א כ ّ أن‬ ‫” כ ب‬26 Furthermore, it is Suhayb as “‫ّ ب‬ noteworthy that in the title about the fate of those who lie in the name of the Prophet, Abd ar-Razzāq recorded the following hadīth via Ma‘mar > Rajul > Sa‘īd b. Jubayr: “One person had lied about Prophet. Prophet said to ‘Ali and Zubayr, ‘Go and if you grab hold of him, kill him”,27 as Ma‘mar in his book transmitted the hadīth “... ‫ ” כ ب‬and the event in question in detail by III. The Hadith of man kadhaba ‘alayya in the early books and argumentum e silentio As Juynboll stated clearly, he reached his conclusions with support from the e silentio framework. Below, we will discuss to what extent this method - as used by Juynboll- is sound and reliable when applied to the sciences of narration. ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth in early hadīth sources casts doubt on Reviewing the “... Juynboll’s conclusions, due to Juynboll’s inadequate investigation. For instance Juynboll claims that the hadīth in question did not appear in the Jāmi‘ of ar- 21 22 23 15 16 17 18 19 20 Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 121–124. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 124. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 125–129. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 128–129. Juynboll mentions that one isnad in the Musnad of ash-Shāfi‘ī may be added to them (Muslim Tradition, p. 130). Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 130. 51 24 25 26 27 52 Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 124. Rabī‘ b. Habīb, al-Jāmi‘ as-sahīh, edited. Muhammad Adrīs, Beirut-Uman: Dār al-hikmaMaktaba al-istikāma 1415/1995, p. 283. Motzki, “Dating Muslim Traditions”, p. 218. Ma‘mar b. Rāshid, Jāmī‘, ed. Habīb al-Rahmān al-A’zamī, al-Maktaba al-Islāmī, 2th edition, 1403/1983, XI, 261 (with al-Musannaf of Abd ar-Razzāq). Abd ar-Razzāq, al-Musannaf, VI, 111. He repeats this isnad with similar words in his alMusannaf (X, 312) and his Tafsīr (Abd ar-Razzāq as-San‘ānī, Tafsīr al-Kur’ān, ed. Mustafa Muslim Muhammad, Riyād: Maktaba al-Rushd 1410/1990, II, 205). Abd ar-Razzāq, al-Musannaf, VI, 186. Abd ar-Razzāq, al-Musannaf, V, 308. ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ the hadīth “... ‫ ” כ ب‬and the event in question in detail by narrating same isnād. On the other hand, Abū ‘Ali al-Hasan b. Mūsā al-Ashyab (d. 209/825), a person who resided in Baghdad, Musul, Tabaristan and Ray had recorded this ‫כ ب‬ hadīth in his Juz. He mentioned this hadīth with the words “ ‫א أ‬ ‫أ א‬ ” via Ibn Lahī‘a > Abū Ushshāne al-Maāfirī > ‘Uqba b. ‘Āmir > The Prophet.28 In addition to flaws that originated from inadequate research, it seems that endorsed perception about important scholars’ approach to hadīth in the history of fıqh and hadīth, is effective in the use of argumentum e silentio. In this respect, Juynboll’s contention about Abū Hanīfa is a paramount example. Apart from Juynboll’s argument concerning Abū Hanīfa’s approach to hadīth, he has actually contended that the isnād and matn could not be completely constituted in the first half of the second century. It seems that this contention shaped his approach to the Musnad of Abū Hanīfa. Thus, using the books of Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798) and Muhammed ash-Shaybānī (d. 189/805), two pupils of Abū Hanīfā who are in close proximity to Ahl al-Hadīth, seems to be more logical than directly discussing Abū Hanīfa’s understanding of hadīth, as both Abū Yūsuf and ash-Shaybāni -who narrated the Muwatta of ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth from their teacher Abū Mālik b. Anas- transmitted the “... Hanīfa. While Abū Yusuf recorded the hadīth in question with its famous form via Abū Hanīfa > Abū Zū’be > Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī > The Prophet.29 Muhammad b. al-Hasan ash-Shaybānī narrated this hadīth in the same words via Abū Hanīfa > ‘Atiyya al-‘Awfī > Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī > The Prophet.30 The two isnāds are also contained in the Musnad of Abū Hanīfa.31 Abū Ru’ya, who appears in the isnād of Abū Hanīfa,32 cited as Abū Dhūba by Abū Yūsuf, is a narrator about whom we have scarce information. Juynboll checked this ambiguity about the name from the Kitāb al-Āthār of Abū Yūsuf, and stated, with the help of the editor of Āthār, that the name may actually be Abū Rawq.33 It is highly interesting that, while meticulously recording the pertinent isnād including its page and number from Kitāb al-Āthār, Juynboll seems to have ignored the hadīth “... ‫ ” כ ب‬contained in the following isnād, asserting that “somehow the ‘man kadhaba’ hadīth doesn’t appear to be 34 there”. As a result, it is understood by the testimony of Abū Hanīfa’s two pupils known for their proximity to Ahl al-Hadīth that Abū Hanīfa did indeed ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth. transmit the “... At the same time, Juynboll tends to not accept this hadīth in some collections because of his doubts about their authenticity. In the same way, he claimed that this hadīth began to circulate in Egypt not earlier than the end of ‫” כ ب‬ the third century, arguing on the basis of the absence of the “... hadīth in the Jāmi‘ of Ibn Wahb (even though the hadīth was not contained in the Sunan of an-Nasā’ī). However, another part of the Jāmi‘ of Ibn Wahb, especially concerned with ahkām was discovered and published. In this book, the hadīth in question is recorded with the isnād of Ibn Lahī‘ā > Ibn Hubayra > Shaykh > Abū Tamīm al-Jayshānī > Qays b. Sa‘d b. ‘Ubāda > The Prophet, in the introductory part of a hadīth concerning the ban on alcohol.35 Juynboll studied the text as a manuscript, owing to the reference of M.J. Kister. Although Juynboll did not find the text as plausible, in the Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal the hadīth in question was narrated via al-Hasan b. Mūsā > Ibn Lahī‘a… instead of via Ibn Wahb > Ibn Lahī‘a… including the same matn (the ‫ ” כ ب‬appears, followed by sentences prohibiting alcohol). hadīth of “... According to Juynboll, the unknown compiler of this collection can at best be dated as belonging to the middle of the third century. One of the discernible points that strengthened Juynboll’s conviction is that none of these narrators except Ibn Lahi‘a, who appeared in the isnāds of the manuscript, had been mentioned in Ibn Wahb’s another Jāmi‘.36 28 29 30 31 32 33 Ashyab, Juz, p. 43. Abū Yūsuf Ya‘kūb b. Ibrāhīm al-Ansārī, Kitāb al-Āthār (ed. Abū al-Vafā al-Afgānī), Matbaāt al-istikāma, 1355/1937, p. 207. Muhammad b. al-Hasan ash-Shaybānī, Kitāb al-Āthār, Karachi: İdāra al-Qur’ān ve ‘ulūm alIslamiyya 1407/1987, p. 80. Abū Hanīfa, al-Musnad, ed. Safwat as-Saqā, [y.y.], [t.y.], p. 27. In some sources he was recorded as ‘Abū Rūba’ or ‘Abū Ru’ba’. (See. ‘Ali al-Qārī, Sharh Musnad Abī Hanīfa, Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyya 1405/1983, p. 294; Ibn Hajar, Ta‘jīl almanfa‘a bi zavāidi ricāl al-aimma al-arba‘a (ed. Ikrām Allāh Imdād al-Haqq), Beirut: Dār alkitāb al-‘Arabī, p. 174). Abu al-Wafā al-Afgānī, editor of Kitāb al-Āthār, explains that this person is, probably, Abū Rawq ‘Atiyya b. al-Hārith al-Hamadānī al-Kūfī (Abū Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Āthār, p. 207 –note of 53 34 35 36 54 editor). But in the isnad of Abū Hanīfa, the fact that the name of Abū Rūbe is clearly recorded Shaddād b. Abd ar-Rahmān shows that the judging of editor was wrong. At the same time, Ibn Hajar states that Abū Rūba Shaddād b. Abd ar-Rahmān transmitted the hadīth in question and Ibn Hibbān listed that he was one of the reliable narrator. (Ibn Hajar, Ta‘jīl al-manfa‘a, p. 174. See, also, Ibn Hibbān, Thikāt, ed. Sayyid Sharifuddīn Ahmad, Beirut: Dār al-fikr 1395/1975, IV, 354) At that point it is understood that Juynboll’s saying i.e. “Abū Rū‘be is nowhere listed in the biographical dictionaries...” is not correct (Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 123). Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 123 (n. 130). Ibn Wahb, al-Jāmi‘ fi’l-ahkām, Cairo: Dār al-vafā 1425/2005, p. 60. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 117–118. ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ To sum up, apart from the general objection against Juynboll’s claims,37 when one takes into account the aforementioned isnād, it is evident that it does not belong to the third century, in line with his endorsed process of the development of isnād that he repetitiously mentions. In the rijāl books, Ibn Hubayra is already recorded as a pupil of Abū Tamīm al-Jayshānī38 and therefore an unknown “sheikh”, who causes the isnād to be regarded as weak, is unneeded. Likewise, in the hadīth books compiled in the third century many hadīths were narrated with the isnād of Ibn Lahī‘a > ‘Abd Allāh b. Hubayra > Abū Tamīm al-Jayshānī… in various subjects.39 Furthermore, since Ibn Lahī‘a, the hadīth of “... ‫ ” כ ب‬has been confirmed with the same isnād by other sources. For instance, in his Futūhu Mısr, Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam (d. 257/871) via his father, ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Abd al-Hakam, and Talq b. as-Samh > Ibn Lahī‘a...;40 in his Tārīkh al-Fasawī (d. 277/890) via Nadr b. Abd al-Jabbār > Ibn Lahī‘a… transmitted the same isnād and matn.41 Besides these books, Abū Ya‘lā (d. 307/919), then at-Tabarānī (d. 360/971), then Ibn al-Jawzī (using tarīq of Ibn Hanbal and al-Fasawi), also recorded the same isnād.42 Additionally, according to the zawāid literature compiled by al-Būsirī (d. 840/1436) and Ibn Hajar (d. 852/1449) this hadīth was transmitted by Ahmad b. Manī‘ (d. 244/858) with isnāds al-Hasan b. Mūsā > Ibn Lahī‘a… as it was the case in the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal. Yet the name of Abū Tamīm al-Jayshānī (d. 77/696) did not appear in the isnād of Ahmad b. Manī‘.43 The fact that Abū Tamīm, who is a reliable narrator, was omitted from the isnād does not imply anything in regards to saving the isnād from claims of weakness. Whichever isnād is taken into account, the isnād in question could not be rescued from weakness; a situation continuing until Ibn al-Jawzī’s time. If Juynboll’s theory about the origins of isnād were acceptable, this isnād would also have been corrected. As a result, it is understood that the next generation of scholars also confirmed the isnād, which passes in the second fragment of Ibn Wahb. Thus, transmission of the same isnād by Ibn Wahb does not seem to be a problem. Juynboll, believing that the hadīth in question is not mentioned in Ibn ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth by referWahb’s Jāmi‘, evaluates the transmission of the “... ring to Ibn Wahb as an interesting event.44 The isnād he means is Ahmad b. Hanbal > Hārūn b. Ma‘rūf > Ibn Wahb > ‘Amr b. al-Hārith > Hishām b. Abī Ruqayya45 > Maslama b. Mukhallad > ‘Uqba b. ‘Āmir al-Juhanī > The Prophet. As Juynboll has recorded, this isnād was transmitted by Ibn Jawzī from Ibn Wahb in the same way, i.e. the isnād of Ibn Wahb > ‘Amr b. al-Hārith > Abū ‘Ushshāna > ‘Uqba b. ‘Āmir. The fact that these isnāds did not occur in the Jāmi‘ of Ibn Wahb, according to Juynboll, arouses suspicion about the citations. So this isnād probably must have been circulated by the teacher of Ahmad b. Hanbal i.e. Harūn b. Ma‘rūf and/or Bahr b. Nasr or of one or more persons using their names.46 But, the isnād of Ibn Wahb > ‘Amr b. al-Hārith > Hishām (> Maslama) > ‘Uqba b. ‘Āmir that Juynboll mentioned, was transmitted not only by Ibn Hanbal; al-Fasawī also narrated it with the isnād of Abd al-‘Azīz b. ‘Imrān ve Zayd b. Bishr > Ibn Wahb > ‘Amr b. al-Hārith…47 Abu Ya’la mentioned the same hadīth via al-Hasan b. Ma‘rūf > Ibn Wahb…;48 and the as-Sahīh of Ibn Hibbān via ‘Abd Allāh b. Muhammad b. Salm > Harmala b. Yahyā > ‘Abd Allāh b. Wahb….49 While at-Tabarānī included in one of his books the isnād of Abū Yazīd Yūsuf b. Yazīd > ‘Abd Allāh b. Abd al-Hakam > Ibn Wahb…, he transmitted in his another book the isnād of Khayr b. ‘Arafa al-Mısrī > ‘Abd Allāh b. Abd al-Hakam > Ibn Wahb…50 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Actually, some of Juynboll’s premises are not correct. For instance, in the Ibn Wahb’s alJāmi‘ that Juynboll accepted it (Abd Allāh) Ibn Hubayra is frequantly mentioned as teacher of Ibn Lahīa (Abd Allāh b. Wahb b. Muslim al-Qurashī, al-Jāmi‘ fi’l-hadīth, ed. Mustafa alHasan al-Husayin, al-Mamlaka as-Suudiyya: Dār Ibn al-Jawziyya 1416/1996, I, 57, 321, 323, II, 643, 741). Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, Beirut: Dār al-fikr 1404/1984, VI, 56. See, for instance, Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Musannaf, I, 44; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, I, 52, II, 320, 531, V, 145 etc. Ibn Abd al-hakam, Futūhu Mısr ve’l-Maghrib, ed. Ali Muhammad ‘Umar, Maktaba aththaqāfa al- dīniyya, 1415/1995, p. 303. Abū Yūsuf Ya‘qūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī, al-Ma‘rifa va at-tārikh, ed. Halīl Mansūr, Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyya 1419/1999, I, 132. Abū Ya‘lā Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Musannā at-Tamīmī, al-Musnad (ed. Husayin Selīm Ahmad), Dār al-me’mūn li’t-turāth 1404/1984, III, 36; at-Tabarānī, Turuq, p. 343; Abū al-Faraj ‘Abd arRahmān b. ‘Ali b. Jawzī, Kitāb al-Mawdū‘āt min al-ahādīth al-marfū‘āt (ed. Nureddin b. Şükrü b. Ali Boyacılar), Edvā as-salaf 1418/1997, I, 106. Ahmad b. Abī Bakr al-Busirī, Ithāf al-hiyara al-mahara bi zawāid al-masānid al-ashara, ed. Abū Abd ar-Rahmān ‘Ādil b. Sa’d, Abū Usāma Sayyid b. Mahmūd, Riyād: Maktaba al-Rushd 1419/1998, I, 280; Ibn Hajar, al-Matālib al-‘āliya bi zavāid al- masānid ath-thamāniya, ed. Qāsım b. Sālih b. Qāsım, Riyād: Dār al-āsime-Dār al- ghays, 1420/2000, XXV, 34. 55 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 56 Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 116–117. Although Juynboll has found out that Hishām b. Abī Ruqayya was pupil of Maslama b. Mukhallad as using information which was recorded by the Ibn Hajar, he stated Hishām was a majhūl claiming that this man is nowhere else dealt with. But, this assumption is also not correct. In the Rijāl books the name of Hishām b. Abī Ruqayya was recorded by al-Bukhārī (at-Tārīkh al-kabīr, VIII, 192) and ‘Ijlī (Tārikh ath-thiqāt, II, 328) and stressed that he was an Egyptian. In the hadīth books, Ibn Abī Shayba (al-Musannaf, VI, 47, VII, 233); Ibn Hanbal (al-Musnad, II, 222) and Hākim (al-Mustadrak, I, 684) transmitted isnads through his name. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 117. al-Fasawī, Tārīkh, II, 293. Abū Ya‘lā, al-Musnad, III, 289. Ibn Hibbān, as-Sahīh, ed. Shuayb al-Arnāūt, Beirut: Muassasa al-risāla 1412/1991, XII, 252. at-Tabarānī, Turuq, p. 323; idem, al-Mu‘jam al-kabīr, ed. Hamdī Abd al-Majīd as-Silafī, Cairo: Maktaba Ibn Taymiyya, XVII, 305. ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ At the same time, the isnād of ‘Uqba b. ‘Āmir > Abū ‘Ushshāna > ‘Amr b. al-Hārith > Ibn Wahb that Juynboll mentioned, was narrated in the sources prior to Ibn al-Jawzī. As his preceding isnād, Ibn Hanbal again transmitted this hadīth via Hārūn b. Ma‘rūf > Ibn Wahb…;51 Ruyānī recorded it with the isnād of Ahmad b. Sālih > Ibn Wahb…52 This hadīth is, also, mentioned in Tabarānī via Ahmad b. Rishdīn > Ahmad b. Sālih > Ibn Wahb…;53 in the as-Sahīh of Ibn Hibbān, again, via ‘Abd Allāh b. Muhammad b. Salm > Harmala b. Yahyā > Ibn Wahb.54 The fact that in both isnāds (‘Amr b. al-Hārith > Abū Ushshāne; ‘Amr b. al-Hārith > Hishām b. Abī Ruqayya) deriving from Ibn Wahb, the name of a different narrator is to be seen is due to ‘Amr b. Hārith rather than Ibn Wahb. There is no reason that Ahmad b. Hanbal or his teacher Hārūn b. Mūsā, or a narrator who Ibn Hibbān recorded in the isnād of ‘Abd Allāh b. Muhammad b. Salm > Harmala b. Yahyā, mentions Hishām b. Abī Ruqayya instead of Abū Ushshāne or vice-versa. In the end both transmitters are Egyptian and reliable.55 At the same time, scholars other than Ibn Wahb attribute this hadīth to the two narrators: The narration of ‘Uqba b. ‘Āmir is transmitted by Ashyab (d. 209) via Ibn Lahī‘a > Abū ‘Ushhāna > ‘Uqba56; by Ahmad b. Hanbal via alHasan b. Mūsā > Ibn Lahī‘a > Abū ‘Ushshāna…;57 and by Ibn Abd al-Hakam via Abd al-Malik b. Maslama > Ibn Lahī‘a > Abū ‘Ushshāna…58 On the other hand, al-Fasawī, in one place, narrated it with the isnād of ‘Amr b. Rabī b. Tārıq > Yahyā b. Ayyūb > ‘Amr b. al-Hārith > Ibn Abī Ruqayya…,59 and in another place, with Sa‘īd b. Abī Maryam > Yahyā b. Ayyūb > al-Hasan b. Sawbān va ‘Amr b. al-Hārith > Ibn Abī Ruqayya….60 In addition, Ibn Abd alHakam’s isnād of Abd al-Malik b. Maslama > Ibn Lahī‘a > Yezīd b. Abī Habīb > Ibn Abī Ruqayya > ‘Uqba b. Mālik must also be recorded.61 As a result, not only from the isnāds found in Ibn Wahb but also from other isnāds of Egyptian narrators, it is understood that this hadīth was com- monly known in Egypt at that time. Although Ibn Wahb appeared in later sources as a narrator of the hadīth of “... ‫” כ ب‬, the fact that the hadīth in question was not contained in his Jāmī means that later scholars might have benefited from his other books or that his manuscript in our hands is not complete. It being understood that Ibn Wahb is one of the narrators of this hadīth, the fact that other scholars, especially Ashyab, had transmitted a similar hadīth, and furthermore that the Egyptian Ibn Abd al-Hakam recorded it elsewhere in his Futūhu Misr, may have effected Juynboll’s dating rather negatively. At that point, the fact that Juynboll’s claim that the hadīth of the ‫ ” כ ب‬does not appear in the as-Sunan as-sughrā –which will be “... evaluated shortly-, that he presents as a proof of his doubt concerning Egypt does not necessarily make sense. A study focused on e silentio and its application on the hadīth of the “ ‫כ ب‬ ... ” suggests the following results: Because of the inadequate investigation of Juynboll, his conclusion that the hadīth in question was circulated in the second half of the second century is no longer acceptable. The fact that this hadīth was contained in the Jāmī‘ of Ma‘mar b. Rāshid both with its famous form and with its sabab al-wurūd shows at least that this hadīth was recorded in compilations in the first half of the second century. On the other hand, the existence of the same words in the books of ar-Rabī‘, Abū Yūsuf and Muhammad ash-Shaybānī invalidated his conclusion that the actual wording of the dictum evolved from ‘‫’ אل‬, ‘‫ ’ ل‬and ‘‫ ’ ل‬to ‘‫ ’כ ب‬and even ‘‫’א ى‬. At the same time, the fact that the matn, and even the longer version of the hadīth, was transmitted in the narration of Ma‘mar b. Rāshid and ar-Rabī‘ like the later books completely contradicts the opinion that the matns increased in time. Furthermore, as we stated above, his pupil Abd ar-Razzāq narrated the matn transmitted by Ma’mar reductively. From another perspective, because the investigation imperatively starts from the absent instead of the existent, this method requires the analysis, one by one, of every compilation written since the early periods. Apart from its practical difficulties, the existence of books that have not reached our time and the probability of finding out about them have forced us to act more prudently. As seen in the example of Ibn Wahb, although one hadīth is not contained in his book, if it is quoted in the later compilations, this most likely means that the book recording this hadīth has not reached our time or has missed some fragments, rather than being fabricated. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, IV, 159. Abū Bakr Muhammad b. Hārūn ar-Rūyānī, al-Musnad, ed. Ayman Ali Abū Yamānī, Riyad: Muassasa Qurtuba-Maktaba dāri rāya 1417/1995I, I, 181. at-Tabarānī, al-Mu‘jam al- kabīr, XVII, 301. Ibn Hibbān, as-Sahīh, III, 329. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb, III, 63. Information about the Hishām b. Abī Ruqayya has previously been mentioned. See also Ibn Hajar, Ta‘jīl al-manfa‘a, p. 432. Abū Ali al-Hasan b. Mūsā al-Ashyab al-Baghdādī, Juz’, ed. Khālid b. Qāsım, Dār ‘ulūm alhadīth 1410/1990, p. 43. Ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, IV, 159. Ibn Abd al-Hakam, Futūh, p. 322. Fasawī, al-Ma‘rifa, II, 293. Fasawī, al-Ma‘rifa, II, 292. Ibn Abd al-Hakam, Futūh, p. 326. 57 IV. Hadith of Man kadhaba ‘alayya and argumentum e silentio in later collections. As stated above, Juynboll compared the isnāds of Ibn al-Jawzī with the isnāds of Kutub at-Tis‘a and ash-Shāfi‘ī’s ar-Risāla and claimed that 31 extra 58 ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ isnāds contained in Ibn al-Jawzī’s book were fabricated after the 4th century. Besides Juynboll’s fallacious conviction that the first four centuries merely consisted of Kutub at-Tis‘a and ash-Shāfi‘ī’s ar-Risāla, which he compares with with Ibn al-Jawzī, there is a methodical problem originating from argumentum e silentio, as e silentio is dependent on the principle that a scholar mentions all the turuqs both of his time and of his precedents. So, the answer to the following theoretical questions must be investigated. Did one author compile all the isnāds previously transmitted? If so, did he aim to reach all of them? A matter that originated from Juynboll’s applications may also be added: Are the compilations of Kutub at-Tis‘a’s authors limited to only those in the Concordance? Here, we will first investigate the answer to the last question, which stems from the inadequacy of Juynboll’s application, then move on to the other questions. An-Nasā’ī is a very good example of the fact that the compilations of Kutub at-Tis‘a’s authors do not consist only of those in Concordance. As mentioned above, deriving from the absence of this hadīth in the Sunan of anNasā’ī, Juynboll claimed that it began to circulate in Egypt not earlier than towards the end of the second century and possibly ‘not earlier than towards the end of the third century’. Let us reinstate the question above: are not any other books of his besides the Sunan apart from those books of an-Nasā’ī that did not reach us? In his Kitāb as-Sunan al-kabīr isnāds derived from ‘Ali b. Abī Tālib, Zubayr b. ‘Awwām, Abū Hurayra, Anas b. Mālik and a companion whose name was not mentioned, were transmitted.62 In that case, there remains one possibility: The fact that the hadīth did not appear in as-Sunān assughra, known as Mujtabā, probably is due to a deficiency in the isnād or matn or because of a reason in author’s mind. For example, in the Sunan of anNasā’ī absence of Kitāb al-‘Ilm or Muqaddima (or understood as Kitāb asSunna), in which the author of Kutub as-Sitta transmitted the hadīth in question in this section, can be considered as a reason for its being not mentioned.63 In spite of all these possibilities, it is affirmed that Juynboll’s dating about Egypt is not true because Ibn Abd al-Hakam who is Egyptian, had narrated the same hadīth before an-Nasā’ī. The same holds true for Bukhārī (d. 256/870), Tirmidhī (d. 279/892) and other authors. For instance, Bukhārī transmitted one isnād derived from ‘Ammar b. Yāsir in his at-Tārīkh al-Kabīr64 but it does not appear in his as- Sahīh. In the same way, Tirmidhī narrated one isnād derived from Abū Bakr in his al-Ilal although it is not contained in the Jāmi‘.65 As a result, it is clear that the argumentum e silentio requires that all available compilations belonging to one author must be scrutinized. All scholars concerning the hadīths can assume that authors, especially authors of the Sahīh and the Sunan, did not record all the isnāds despite their knowledge of them.66 When differences affecting the means of a hadīth were found, or they want to show anything specific in the isnād, authors narrated other tarīqs. After recording the hadīths concerning their subjects, the fact that the authors of the Sunan have frequently stated the expression of the “hadīths of fulān and fulān were found in this section” shows that they know more isnāds and have more knowledge from their actual recordings. So, a comparison between at-Tabarānī’s Juz’un fīhi Turuqu Man kadhaba ‘alayya mute‘ammidan and his precedents, his contemporaries, then Ibn alJawzī may help us answer the questions posed above; as the name of atTabarānī’s book implies, he aimed to mention all turuqs of the “Man kadhaba” hadīths to his knowledge. at-Tabarānī has transmitted 175 isnāds from 63 companions. A comparison of this book, which Juynboll stated that he did not reach it,67 with preceding compilations, shows the degree of usefulness of e silentio in the sciences of narration. Although we have compared all hadīths contained in at-Tabarānī’s book, with preceding compilations, presenting all results appears unlikely. Hence, isnāds derived from Abū Hurayra will be studied as examples for the following. 62 63 64 See for ‘Ali, Zubayr, Abū Hurayra, Anas an-Nasā’ī, Kitāb as-Sunan al-kabīr, ed. Abd alGhaffār Sulaymān, Sayyid Kisrawī, Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyya 1411/1991, III, 457–458; see companion who was not mentioned his name II, 444. Bukhārī, Tirmidhī and Abū Dāvūd narrated this hadīth in ‘Kitāb al-‘Ilm’; Muslim and Ibn Māja transmitted it in the ‘Muqaddima’. But this situation does mean that it did not contain in the other chapters. Bukhārī, at-Tārīkh al-kabīr (ed. Seyyid Hāshim al-Nedvī), Dār al-fikr, [t.y.], VI, 292. 59 1. at-Tabarānī records in his books 13 tarīqs from Abū Hurayra. They are as follows: First Isnād: Abū Hurayra > Abū Salama b. ‘Abd ar-Rahmān> Muhammad b. ‘Amr > ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Muhammad > al-Qa‘nabi (‘Abd Allāh b. Maslama) > ‘Ali b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz > at-Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 189). Second Isnād: Abū Hurayra > Abū Salama b. ‘Abd ar-Rahmān > Muhammad b. ‘Amr > Anas b. ‘Iyād > Ahmad b. Sālih > ‘Ubayd b. Rijāl > at-Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 191). 65 66 67 60 Tirmidhī, ‘İlal at-Tirmidhī al-kabīr (Abū Tālib al-Qādī) (ed. Subhī as-Sāmarrāī), Abu alMe‘ātī an-Nūrī, Mahmūd Muhammed as-Saīdī, Ālam al-kutub 1409/1989, p. 340. A‘zamī, On Schacht’s Origins, p. 118. The same holds true for other kind of books. See for instance: Josef Horowitz, “The Growth of the Muhammed Legend” The Life of Muhammed (ed. Uri Rubin), USA: Ashgate 1998), p. 273. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 108. ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ When one examines available compilations in the first three centuries, one encounteres four different books that transmit the matn with an introduction; Abū Hurayra > Abū Salama > Muhammed b. ‘Amr.... According to this compilations this isnād were narrated by Muhammed b. Bishr (Ibn Māja, Muqaddima, 34), Yezīd (Ibn Hanbal, II, 501); Abda b. Sulaymān (Hannād, az-Zuhd, II, 638)68 and Ibn Abī ‘Adī (Abū Ya‘lā, al-Musnad, X, 506) other than Abd al‘Azīz b. Muhammad wa Anas b. ‘Iyad. ‘Abde b. Sulaymān, who found in the isnād of Hannād (d. 243/857) later quoted by Ibn Hibbān (as-Sahīh, I, 210). Ash-Shāfi‘ī narrated this hadīth through the first four narrators contained in at-Tabarānī’s first isnād (al-Musnad, I, 239). In the book of Ibn al-Jawzī, this tarīq preceded with Muhammed b. Sulaymān after Muhammed b. ‘Amr (I, 84). Third Isnād: Abū Hurayra > Abū Sālih > Abū Hasīn > Shu‘ba > ‘Amr b. Marzūq > Yūsuf b. Ya‘qūb al-Qādī > at-Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 193). When one examines the books before at-Tabarānī, it appears that this isnād lasts after “Abū Hurayra > Abū Sālih > Abū Hasīn > Shu‘ba” with Tayalisī (Musnad, I, 318, he stated Shu‘ba and Abū ‘Awāna. An-Nasā’ī, also, used this tarīq, as-Sunan al-kabīr, III, 458); Muhammad b. Ja‘far (Ibn Hanbal, II, 410 and 469) and Sulaymān b. Dāvūd (Ibn Hanbal, II, 519). It is narrated with the tarīq of ‘Amr b. Marzūq by Abū Bakr al-Qati‘ī (d. 358/979) who is a contemporary of at-Tabarānī (Juz’u Alf, p. 463)69. Ibn al-Jawzī, records it through Muhammad b. Ja‘far > Ahmad b. Hanbal (I, 84). Fourth Isnād: Abū Hurayra > Abū Sālih > Abū Hasīn > Abū ‘Awāna > Halaf b. Hishām > ‘Ali b. Abd al-‘Azīz > at-Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 195). Here, atTabaranī stresses that the isnād of Muhammad b. ‘Ubayd b. Hisāb > Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Hadramī was narrated with a change beginning from Abū ‘Awāna. In compilations before at-Tabarānī, this hadīth after Abū Hurayra > Abū Sālih > Abū Hasīn > Abū ‘Awāna was transmitted by Mūsā b. Ismāil (Bukhārī, “’Ilm” 38, “Adab”, 109). Like at-Tabarānī, Muslim and Abū Ya‘lā narrated it via the tarīq of Muhammad b. ‘Ubayd in their books (Muslim, “Muqaddima”, 2; Abū Ya‘lā, Mu‘jam ash-shuyūh, p. 57)70. Ibn al-Jawzī recorded the same hadīth with the tarīq of Abū ‘Awāna > Halaf b. Hishām like at-Tabarānī’s first isnād. (I, 84). Fifth Isnād: Abū Hurayra > Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyab > az-Zuhrī > ‘Abd arRazzāq b. ‘Umar > Abū Sālih al-Harrānī > Yahya b. ‘Usmān b. Sālih ve Miqdām b. Dāvūd > at-Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 196). According to Heythemī’s records, al-Bazzār had recorded earlier than at-Tabarānī (Kashfu’l-astār, I, 116). The narration of al-Bazzār and that of at-Tabarānī is the same with regards to the first four transmitters. In al-Bazzār’s book, this isnād ends with Yahyā b. Hassān instead of Abū Sālih. At the same time, Ibn ‘Adī, a contemporary of at-Tabarānī, narrated with the isnād of Abū Hurayra > Sa‘īd b. alMusayyab > az-Zuhrī > Nu‘mān b. Rāshid... (al-Kāmil, I, 24). Ibn al-Jawzī quoted it through Ibn ‘Adī’s isnād. (I, 86). Sixth Isnād: Abū Hurayra > Ibn Sīrīn > Muqātil (b. Sulaymān) > ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Isma an-Nusaybī > Mūsā b. Ayyūb an-Nusaybī > Muhammad b. Ibrāhīm Sāriya and Husayin b. Sumaydī al-Antākī > at-Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 198). As much as we could investigate, this isnād is not contained in compilations before at-Tabarānī. The contemporary of at-Tabarānī, Ibn ‘Adī, transmitted this hadīth with the same isnād except that he mentioned his teacher Muhammad b. Ahmad (al-Kāmil, I, 25). Ibn al-Jawzī quoted it through Ibn ‘Adī’s isnād (I, 86). Seventh Isnād: Abū Hurayra > Habbān b. Jaz‘ > Zaynab bint Ta‘liq > Abū ‘Āsim > Abū Muslim al-Kashshī > at-Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 200). This isnād could not be found both in the books of at-Tabaranī’s contemporaries and the compilations of the preceding books. Ibn al-Jawzī, equally, does not record it. Eighth Isnād: Abū Hurayra > Kathīr b. ‘Ubayd > his grandchild ‘Anbasa b. Sa‘īd > Abū Walīd at-Tayālisī > ‘Abbas b. Fadl al-Asfātī > at-Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 201). As much as we could investigate this isnād could not be found neither in the books of at-Tabaranī’s contemporaries nor in the compilations of the preceding books. Ibn al-Jawzī does not record it either. Ninth Isnād: Abū Hurayra > ‘Atā b. as-Sāib > Zayd b. Aslam > ‘Abd arRahmān b. Zayd b. Aslam > İsmāil b. Zakariyya > ‘Abdān b. Ahmad > atTabarānī (Turuq, p. 203). This isnād, which appears highly interesting, was transmitted with Abū Hurayra > ‘Atā b. Yesār.... by Ahmad b. Hanbal before at-Tabarānī (al-Musnad, III, 12). Ibn al-Jawzī, does not quote it. The isnād will be evaluated below. Tenth Isnād: Abū Hurayra > A‘raj > Abu az-Zinād > Abū ‘Umayya b. Ya‘lā > Sulaymān b. Dāvūd ash-Shāzakūnī > Muhammad b. Nusayr al-Isfahānī > atTabarānī (Turuq, p. 205). As far as we could investigate, this isnād also could not be found in the compilations preceding that of at-Tabaranī. Ibn al-Jawzī does not record it either. Eleventh Isnād: Abū Hurayra > Kaysān b. Sa‘īd > Sa‘īd b. Abī Sa‘īd > Ibn Abī Zi’b > Shuayb b. Ishāq > Hishām b. Khālid > Ahmad b. ‘Ali al-Ābār > at- 68 69 70 Hannād b. Sarī, az-Zuhd, ed. Abd ar-Rahman Abd al-Jabbār al-Firyevāī, Kuwait: Dār alkhulafā li’l-kitāb al-Islāmī 1406/1986. Abū Bakr Ahmad b. Ja‘far b. Hamdān al-Qati‘ī, ed. Bedr b. ‘Abd Allāh, Kuwait: Dār an-nafāis 1993. Abū Ya‘lā, Mu‘jam ash-shuyūkh Abī Ya‘lā, ed. Husayin Selīm Esed, Beirut: Dār al-Ma’mūn li’t-turāth 1410/1989. 61 62 ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 207). This isnād, as much as we could investigate could not be found in the books of at-Tabaranī’s contemporaries and in the compilations of the preceding books. Ibn al-Jawzī does not quote it either. Twelfth and Thirteenth Isnāds: Abū Hurayra > Abū ‘Usman at-Tunbūzī > Ibn Abī Nā‘ima al-Ma‘āfirī > Bakr b. ‘Amr > Yahya b. Ayyūb > Sa‘īd b. Abī Maryam > Abū Yazīd al-Karātīsī > at-Tabarānī (Turuq, p. 209). In the thirteenth isnād, at-Tabarānī transmitted it with the isnād of Abū Hurayra > Abū ‘Usman Muslim b. Yasār > Bakr b. ‘Amr > Sa‘īd b. Abī Ayyūb > Abū ‘Abd arRahmān al-Muqrī > Bishr b. Mūsā without stating name of Ibn Abī Nā‘ima between Abū ‘Usman and Bakr b. ‘Amr (Turuq, p. 211). The hadīth in question in the first isnād (including Ibn Abī Nā‘ima) is contained in Ahmad b. Hanbal’s (al-Musnad, II, 365, see the isnād which he derived from a diffirent teacher II, 321). We see that the second isnād (excluding Ibn Abī Nā‘ima) was transmitted more widely. Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849) and Ishāq ibn Rāhūya (d. 238/853) alternatively narrated it from Abū Abd ar-Rahmān al-Muqrī who appears in at-Tabaranī’s isnād (Musannaf, V, 296; Ibn Rāhūya, al-Musnad, I, 341);71 Bukhārī transmitted it through a different narrator i.e. via ‘Abd Allāh b. Yezīd instead of Abū Abd ar-Rahmān al-Muqrī (al-Adab al-mufrad, p. 100).72 Ibn al-Jawzī, quoted this hadīth from Bukhārī (I, 85). When one reviews at-Tabarānī’s isnāds, it is seen that in his thirteen isnāds eight of them have been contained in the compilations of the 3th century A.H, especially in Ibn Hanbal’s Musnad. Of the five tarīqs which are mentioned the before at-Tabarānī’s books, one isnād was narrated by a contemporary of atTabarānī i.e. Ibn ‘Adī, the other four isnāds, as much as we could investigate, could not be encountered in the basic hadīth collections. Ibn al-Jawzī only transmitted seven isnāds from Abū Hurayra. These isnāds were contained in the basic collections; furthermore, five of them were narrated through authors whose books are presently available. Ibn al-Jawzī had quoted, however, that the only isnād which did not appear in Tabāranī is Abū Hurayra > Abū Sālih > A‘mash > Abū Mu‘āviya... (Ibn al-Jawzī, I, 85). According to Juynboll’s point of view, this isnād must then have come into circulation after at-Tabarānī. But the fact that the same isnād and hadīth is contained in the book of Ibn ‘Adī, a contemporary of at-Tabarānī, (al-Kāmil, VI, 282) has again indicated the erroneousness of his point of view. On the other hand it is important that the six isnāds narrated in the book of at-Tabarānī were not transmitted by Ibn al-Jawzī. If we compare the books of two eras and draw a conclusion according to the number of isnāds, as Juynboll would propose, we would have concluded that the isnāds in question decreased from the time at-Tabarānī to the era of Ibn al-Jawzī, not increased. The same holds true for other companions as well. For instance, while atTabarānī transmitted eight isnāds from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī,73 the number of isnāds contained in the book of Ibn al-Jawzī is four.74 While at-Tabarānī also narrated the hadīth in question from ‘Abd Allāh b. Amr through six isnāds, Ibn al-Jawzī has recorded only three isnāds;75the isnād of Abū Hurayra > Abū Sālih > A‘mesh …, as we have stated above, shows that opposite examples of this are also true. Concerning argumentum e silentio, another point that must be taken into account is the measure of the successfulness of at-Tabarani in his endeavor to record all isnads, as he compiled a book solely for this purpose. ‫” כ ب‬, which derived from Abū Examining the other isnāds of the “... Hurayra, we see that at-Tabarānī could not collect all the isnāds in the compilations of the first three centuries, even in his own books. For instance, in the Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal the hadīth in question was transmitted with the isnād of Abū Hurayra > Kulayb > ‘Āsim b. Kulayb > ‘Abd al-Wāhid b. Ziyād > ‘Affān (al-Musnad, II, 413) and narrated with the same isnād by Ishāq b. Rāhūya, with the exception of the last narrator, i.e. ‘Affān (al-Musnad, I, 290). Furthermore, the same hadīth is mentioned in the Sunan of ad-Dārimī (d. 255/868) with the isnād of Abū Hurayra > Kulayb > ‘Āsim b. Kulayb > Sālih b. ‘Umar > Abū Ma‘mer Ismāil b. Ibrāhīm (“Muqaddima”, 50). But this isnād appears neither in at-Tabarānī’s Turuqu Man kadhaba ‘alayya muta‘ammidan’ nor in his other collections. at-Tabarānī’s isnāds appearing in books other than Turuq are: 1. Abū Hurayra > the father of Suddī (‘Abd ar-Rahmān b. Abī Karīma) > Suddī > Nūh b. Abī Maryam > Nu‘aym b. Hammād > Ja‘far > at-Tabarānī (alMu’jam al-awsat, III, 338).76 2. Abū Hurayra > ‘Abd Allāh b. Qāsım > Ibn Shawzab > Muhammad b. Kathīr > ‘Umar b. Hattāb as-Sijistānī > Muhammad b. Yūnus al-‘Usfūrī > atTabarānī (al-Musnad ash-Shamiyyīn, II, 247).77 Another isnād was narrated by al-Humaydī, which did not appear in atTabarānī’s Turuqu Man kadhaba ‘alayya nor his other books.78 But this isnād, 73 74 71 72 Ishāq b. Ibrāhim b. Makhlad b. Rāhūya, al-Musnad, ed. Abd al-Ghafūr b. Abd al-Haqq alBalūshī, Madīna: Maktaba al-İmān 1412/1991. Bukhārī, al-Adab al-mufrad (ed. Fuād Abd al-Bāqī), Beirut: Dār al-bashāir al-Islamiyya 1409/1989. 63 75 76 77 64 at-Tabarānī, Turuq, pp. 213–227. Ibn al-Jawzī, Mawdū‘āt, I, 95–96. at-Tabarānī, Turuq, p. 169; Ibn al-Jawzī, Mavdū‘āt, I, 81. at-Tabarānī, al-Mu’jam al-avsat (ed. Tāriq al-Husaynī), Cairo: Dār al-Haramayn 1410/1990, III, 338. at-Tabarānī, Musnad ash-Shamiyyīn (ed. Hamdī Abd al-Majīd as-Silafī)/ 1405/1984, II, 247. ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ which is considered important, requires more examination. Juynboll has recorded the isnād in question as al-Humaydī > Sufyān > “ ‫أ‬ /narrators I can not count > Abū Hurayra. According to Juynboll, when one takes into account that this hadīth was derived from Abū Hurayra through only four ‫أ‬ must have successors in the time of al-Bukhārī, Sufyān’s sentence of “ been understood as follows: “Ibn ‘Uyayna was at the time still unable to substantiate the saying with a less ‘detective’ isnād”.79 As Juynboll said, al-Humaydī’s isnād is highly interesting. But when one ‫א אن و‬ ‫ي אل‬ ‫א‬ examines his Musnad, it seen that this isnād is “ ‫ة‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬/al-Humaydī said, Sufyān transmitted to us and other narrators too numerous to count, also, transmitted to me.80 This is radically different than Juynboll’s understanding of this isnād. Because al-Humaydī records that he heard it from many transmitters alongside his teacher Ibn ‘Uyayna. This case indicates Juynboll’s error as he compared this expression with the pupils of Abū Hurayra instead of Sufyān’s contemporaries. On the other hand, when one takes into account that al-Humaydī was one of ash-Shāfi‘ī’s pupils, who transmitted this hadīth by many isnāds81, it seems likely that the former had heard this hadīth from other sources. Be that as it may, here it is important that al-Humaydī did not endeavor to transmit his teacher’s hadīth as a marfū isnād. This case indicates the inclination of Muslim scholars towards honesty about their sources. Furthermore, as much as we could investigate, the fact that the isnād in question did not appear in later compilations affects negatively the theory of “growing with time in soundness” of isnāds, which Juynboll refers elsewhere. In that case, the expression of al-Humaydī, namely, “narrators I can not count” must be seen as a sign to its widespread narration at that time. Likewise, the fact that his contemporary Qāsım b. Sallām (d. 224/839), without recording any isnād, stated “Do not you know the Prophet said: ‘ ... ‫ ’כ ب‬supports this opinion.82 The fact that at-Tabarānī did not collect all the isnāds in his books and that of preceding compilations were not restricted by isnāds deriving solely from Abū Hurayra. For instance, while the isnād of Sa‘īd b. Zayd > Qays b. Abī Alqama … was narrated by al-Bazzār (al-Musnad, IV, 100), it is not contained in at-Tabarānī’s Turuq. As much as we could investigate, the isnād in question does not appear in his other compilations. In his Turuq, at-Tabarānī recorded two isnāds that derived from Abū Bakr: 1. Abū Bakr > Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh, 2. Abū Bakr > Abd al-Khayr b. Yazīd (Turuq, p. 49–51). But in the preceding hadīth books, the same narration was transmitted with the isnād of Abū Bakr > Abū Kabshe al-Anmārī... by Tirmidhī (‘Ilal, I, 340), al-Bazzār (I, 166–167) and Abū Bakr al-Marwazī (Musnad Abī Bakr, p. 132). Although at-Tabarānī narrated this isnād in the al-Mujam al-awsat (III, 173), he did not record it in his Turuq. In the isnāds derived from Zayd b. Arqam, although at-Tabarānī only transmitted the isnād of Zayd > Yazīd b. Hayyān... (Turuq, 243–249), he wrote down the same hadīth with the isnād of Zayd b. Arqam > Abū Ishāq as-Sabī‘ī... in the al-Mu‘jam al-kabīr (V, 191). On the other hand, while the author mentioned the isnād of al-Mughīra b. Shu‘ba > Hunayda in his al-Mujam al-kabīr (XX, 444), this isnād does not appear in his Turuq. Could at-Tabarānī reach those isnāds after his compilation of Turuq? Despite its theoretical possibility, it seems not reasonable, as the isnāds in question contained in the Turuq are found in his various books. Seeing that at-Tabarānī, who had aimed at assembling the entire collection ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth, could not attain success, neither in the of isnāds of the“... isnāds of his own books nor those of the preceding compilations, it is not right to apply argumentum e silentio to other books that do not intend to collect all isnāds of the hadīth. The situation between at-Tabarānī and the before at-Tabarānī compilations resembles the situation between at-Tabarānī and Ibn al-Jawzī. In other words, while some isnāds that did not appear in at-Tabarānī were found in Ibn alJawzī, the latter did not obtain all the isnāds recorded by at-Tabarānī. When one examines the narration derived from Abū Hurayra from the viewpoint of isnād and matn, which at-Tabarānī recorded in his Turuq, it is ‫א أ‬ ‫אل‬ seen that the matn of the first isnād was written down as “ ‫أ‬ ‫ه א אر‬ ”. In the transmission of Hannād, Ibn Māja and Abū Ya‘lā, this tarīq is recorded as “... ‫ّ ل‬ ”; in that of Ibn Hibbān it is reported as “... ‫” אل‬. On the other hand, Ibn Hanbal narrated it as “... ‫ل‬ ”. In all of these transّ missions, the first three narrators are the same (i.e. Abū Hurayra > Abū Salama > Muhammad b. ‘Amr). There is no implication that the matn evolved ‫” כ ب‬ from “‫ ” אل‬to “‫ ;”כ ب‬Ibn al-Jawzī recorded this isnād with the “... matn. However, he transmitted it not only in the end of Abū Hurayra > Abū Salama but also with two different isnāds mentioned with a tahwīl. Thus, it is not possible to reach a concrete conclusion due to the lack of a clear explanation of which matn belongs to which isnād. 78 79 80 81 82 Abū Bakr Abd Allāh b. Zubayr al-Humaydī, al-Musnad (ed. Habīb ar-Rahmān al-A‘zamī), Beirut-Cairo: Dār al-kutub al-‘Ilmiyye and Mektebe al-Mutanabbī, II, 492. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. 114. Humaydī, al-Musnad, II, 492. Dhahabī, Siyar, X, 7. Abū ‘Ubayd Qāsım b. Sallām, Gharīb al-hadīth (ed. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Mu‘īd Khān), Dār al-kutub al-‘Arabī, Beirut, 1396/1976, III, 32. His expression above must not be understood as him knowing of any isnad of this hadīth. On the contrary he transmitted it with the isnad in his Fadāil al-Qur’ān (Qāsım b. Sallām, Kitāb Fedāil al-Qur’ān (ed. Marvān ‘Atiyya, Muhsin Harāba-Vafā Taqiyyuddīn), Dımashq-Beirut: Dāru Ibn Kathīr 1415/1995, pp. 67–68). 65 66 ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ at-Tabarānī’s matn of the second isnād is “... ‫” כ ب‬. Although the first three narrators are the same as the preceding isnād, he records it separately, probably due to the difference in matn. But ‘Ubayd b. Rijāl al-Misrī, a narrator in the isnād, as much as we could investigate, is not found in the Rijāl books, namely he is majhūl. So, this seems to be a change due to him. The isnād containing the tarīq of Abū Hurayra > Abū Sālih > Abū Hasīn > ‫” כ ب‬. This Shu‘ba (thirth isnād) is the famous form of hadīth i.e. “... narration was transmitted as “... ‫ ” כ ب‬without any change in the books of at-Tayālisī, Ibn Hanbal, an-Nasā’ī and Ibn al-Jawzī. In the same way, the isnād of Abū Hurayra > Abū Sālih > Abū Hasīn > Abū ‘Awāna, listed in the subsequent order was narrated by al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Ya‘lā and at-Tabarānī as ‫ ” כ ب‬without any change. The same holds true for the matn of Ibn al“... Jawzī. It is noteworthy that the name of Abū Sālih Zakwān as-Sammān (d. 101/720) was not recorded between Abū Hurayra and Abū Hasīn in the book of Ibn al-Jawzī. Although at the first glance this case indicates soundness of isnāds, which Juynboll claimed elsewhere, the opposite is true. In as much as we could investigate, Abū Hasīn ‘Usman b. ‘Āsım b. Husayn (d. 127/745) does not appear among the pupils of Abū Hurayra. So, the lack of Abū Sālih asSammān turned the isnād into munqati‘. Be that as it may, it is more suitable to accept it as a simple mistake of a narrator. The matn of the fifth isnād which was narrated with the tarīq of Abū Hurayra > Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyab > az-Zuhrī is highly different: “ ‫ن ر‬ ‫ور כ ب‬ ‫أ ور כ ب‬ ‫ ر אد إ‬: ‫( ”א‬Turuq, p. 196). In the alBazzār (d. 292/905) and Ibn al-Jawzī this matn, although there are tiny changes ‫ ”כ ب‬instead of “ ‫)”כ ب‬, is the same. If the theory that the matns (i.e., “ ّ ّ were improved in the course of time were a general rule, as Juynboll claimed, we should expect to find that this matn would have reflected the same feature ‫ ” כ ب‬form because it appeared in the books of a and be recorded in “... later era. Another case is also striking here: The isnād in question was quoted from Kashf al-astār ‘an zawāid al-Bazzār ala Kutub as-Sitta, the book of Heythemī (d. 807/1405), not from Musnad of al-Bazzār, which is presently available. This means that the hadīth in question can be found in the early manuscripts, which we have not presently reached or have not survived to our time.83 Therefore, it is not valid to consider that the isnāds which appeared in Ibn al-Jawzī but that we could not find in the presently available early collections were circulated after 4th century. For instance, Ibn al-Jawzī used the isnād coming from Ibrāhīm b. Ishāq al-Harbī (d. 285/898) in the nearly twenty ‫” כ ب‬ tarīqs. It is known that Ibrāhīm b. Ishāq tried to collect isnāds of “... before at-Tabarānī.84 The same holds true for Ibn Sāid (v. 318/930) quoted by Ibn al-Jawzī on more than fifteen occasions, as Yahya b. Muhammad b. Sāid also tried to collect the isnād of the hadīth in question before at-Tabarānī.85 It is understood that those compilations of hadīth, which probably did not survive to our time, are among the sources of Ibn al-Jawzī. All of this suggests that the unreliability of the supposition that isnads, which were not located in the presently available collections of pre-3th century eras but were quoted by Ibn al-Jawzī through Ibrahim b. Ishāq and Ibn Sāid, are products of later centuries. The matn coming through the isnād of Abū Hurayra > Ibn Sīrīn > Mu‫א و כ وא אس أ‬ ‫א‬ ‫א وآوى‬ ‫أ ث‬ qātil... is also rather different: “ ‫כ ب‬ ‫لو‬ ‫فو‬ ‫( ” כ‬Turuq, p. 198). In the isnāds of Ibn ‘Adī and Ibn al-Jawzī, this hadīth was transmitted with the same words except “ ‫ل‬ ‫فو‬ ‫ ” כ‬expression. This sentence is omitted in both authors. While in the seventh isnād the matn is “‫ه א אر‬ ‫أ‬ ‫א أ‬ ‫” אل‬, in the eighth, ninth and eleventh isnāds the matns are the famous form of “ ‫כ ب‬ ... ”. Because we could not find this isnād in the other books, it seems almost impossible to reach a conclusion as to whether the matn improved or not. The ninth isnād beginning with the isnād of Abū Hurayra > ‘Atā b. Yasār > Zayd b. Aslam... seems very interesting because this isnād was narrated by Ahmad b. Hanbal in the Musnad of Abū Saīd al-Khudrī (not that of Abū ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth after Hurayra). In this narration The Prophet stated the “... expressing that the companions must not write down other things than Qur’ān, but that they could transmit from “Banī Isrāil”. But this is the hadīth of Abū Saīd al-Khudrī not that of Abū Hurayra. So, Ahmad b. Hanbal and Muslim recorded a similar hadīth with the isnād of Abū Sa‘īd > ‘Atā b. Yasār > Zayd b. Aslam...86 It is understood that Ahmad b. Hanbal, knowing it is faulty, reported it by the same isnād as his teacher narrated. But he seems to have intended to indicate this mistake by transmitting it in the Musnad of Abū Saīd al-Khudrī. In the book of at-Tabarānī the name that was recorded as ‘Atā b. asSāib instead of ‘Atā b. Yasār seems to be more of a mistake than a conscious change. ‘Atā b. as-Sāib (d. 136/754) was very young and could only transmit via his father from middle-aged companions.87 As a result, the change in question does not seem to be a conscious amendment as it does not elevate the isnād to a sounder tarīq. 84 85 86 83 87 A‘zamī, On Schacht's Origins, p. 118; Motzki, The Origins, p. 22. 67 68 Kattānī, Nazm al-mutanāthira, p. 37. Kattānī, Nazm al-mutanāthira, p. 37. Ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, III, 39, 56; Muslim, “az-Zuhd va ar-Raqāiq”, 72. Ibn Hacer, Tahdhīb, VII, 183. ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD) ___________________________________________________________ In the twelfth and thirteenth isnāds the matn was contained in Ibn Abī Shayba and al-Bukhārī as “... ‫ّ ل‬ ”; in other books as “... ‫אل‬ ”. Ibn alّ Jawzī has recorded it through the tarīq of al-Bukhārī. This isnād indicates again the erroneousness of Juynboll’s comparison of the book of Ibn al-Jawzī with Kutub at-Tis‘a and ash-Shāfi‘ī’s ar-Risāla. Because the isnād that Ibn alJawzī transmitted from al-Bukhārī is contained in his al-Adab al-mufrad (p. 100), not in his al-Jāmi as-sahih; Juynboll who underestimated this case accepted it as a product of 4th century. Examining the isnāds coming from Abū Hurayra with the matn, it can be seen that the matns had been changed by the change of the first two (or three) narrators (like “‫ ”כ ب‬instead of “‫)” אل‬, but in the following centuries there has not been significant changes except problems stemming from weak transmitters. While this case is suitable for systematical and pre-systematical process of the narration of the hadīth, it is seems to contradict the fact that the hadīth in question was mentioned as “literally mutawatir” (mutawātir lafzī).88 As a result, our investigation of the claim that “the actual wording of the dictum evolved from ‘‫’ אل‬, ‘‫ ’ ل‬and ‘‫ ’ ل‬to ‘‫ ’כ ب‬and even ‘‫ ”’א ى‬can be summarized as follows: Instead of analyzing a hadīth on a horizontal plane within the hadīth collections without taking its companion-narrators into consideration, – a theory ‫ ” כ ب‬narrated by Ma‘mar-, it which is weakened by the hadīth of “... seems to be healther to examine the narration of each companion in a vertical manner. For example, the thirty isnāds which derived from Wāsila b. Asqa‘ started ‫أ‬ ‫”إن‬.89 This matn is the same with the forms of “... ‫ ”إن أ ى א ى‬or “... ‫א ى‬ in the books of ash-Shafi‘ī, which is narrated at first by him in appearance and in at-Tabarānī and also in the books of the authors who lived between them.90 If the process that Juynboll claimed was valid in the history of hadīth, we ‫ ” כ ب‬in later compilations. would have found this hadīth only as “... required in the examination covers at least two or three centuries and the place we have to investigate encompasses an extensive geography i.e. from Egypt to Yemen and to Bukhārā etc. These aspects of the e silentio method make its practical usage difficult and cast doubts onto conclusions reached through it. Two facts also point to the shortcomings pertinent to the e silentio method: First, most of the books authored in that era did not reach our time. Second, an important part of the books are still manuscripts in libraries. Given these drawbacks of e silentio method, to draw a conclusion based on an author’s presently available books about the existence or non-existence of a hadīth seems to be highly risky endeavor, particularly if we think his other books may not have reached us. Besides the above-mentioned disadvantages of this method, we must add that one scholar can not know all the isnāds of his era and in his geography, and even if we suppose that he does, he may not have recorded them. For instance, arguing that a hadīth was not known in the Hijaz area in the second century (hijra) based on its absence in the Muwatta of Mālik will amount to equating the knowledge of Mālik to just the hadīths of the Muwatta and equating the knowledge of Hijaz’s area to Imām Mālik and the Muwatta. Juynboll’s mistakes in applying argumentum e silentio must be added to the theoretical difficulties of this method mentioned above. This requires a re‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth. One of his examination of his conclusions about the “... mistakes is that he compared the isnāds of Ibn al-Jawzī with the isnāds of Kutub at-Tis‘a and ash-Shāfi‘ī’s ar-Rısāla disregarding other compilations and his following the claim that 31 extra isnāds contained in the Ibn al-Jawzī’s ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth book were fabricated after 4th century. Furthermore, the “... could also have been mentioned in the books of tafsīr, tarīkh etc. in addition to hadīth sources. On the other hand, the hadīths that an author will record into his book are first of all at his discretion. Consequently, one author may open a section with the name of “The Sin of Lie” and may narrate many hadīths there, but he may ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth due to his preference. For instance, not transmit the “... while this hadīth was not found among the narrations forbidding lying in Wakī‘ b. Jarrāh’s az-Zuhd,91 it was extensively mentioned in the Hannād’s azZuhd.92 But the hadīth in question does not appear with its famous form in the published parts of Kitāb Dzamm al-kidzb of Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, who was a pupil of Ibn Abī Shayba, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Bukhārī and other contempo- V. Evaluation and Conclusion It seems that Juynboll’s conclusion reached by using argumentum e silentio in the dating of the “... ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth is flawed because of insufficient research and the method he uses. First of all, because argumentum e silentio starts from the absent instead of existent, it requires a thorough investigation of every compilation in which a particular hadīth may appear. The time span 88 89 90 This topic will be investigated in another article. See. Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, III, 490, 491, IV, 106, 107; Bukhārī, “Manāqıb”, 4; Ibn Hibbān, as-Sahīh, I, 215. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, al-Musnad, p. 239; at-Tabarānī, Turuq, p. 358 etc. 69 91 92 70 Wakī‘ b. Jarrāh, Kitāb az-Zuhd, ed. ‘Abd ar-Rahmān ‘Abd al-Jabbār al-Firyavāī, Madīna: Maktaba ad-dār 1404/1984, III, 695–702. See. Hannād, az-Zuhd, II, 638–640. ___________________________________ Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio rary scholars. Hence because he was their pupil, he was expected to know it.93 Besides, although Kharāitī –who lived in a relatively later era-, had allocated a chapter for hadīths forbidding lies in his book, 94 he did not put this hadīth in his book.95 So, we may not reach a sound conclusion if we expect that the “ ‫ ” כ ب‬hadīth must be found in every section where hadīths forbidding lies are mentioned. As a result, Juynboll’s claim that the hadīth in question began to circulate in the second half of the second century A.H. and his other conclusions seem to be unacceptable because sources like Ma‘mar b. Rāshid and Rabī‘ b. Habīb transmitted the same hadīth, and because of the methodological criticisms that were put forward against argumentum e silentio. This does not mean that e silentio is useless for the sciences of narration. E silentio can be used as further support without forgetting its shortcomings, along with the employment other methods. “Hadīth of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e silentio” Abstract: The aim of this article is to investigate the e silentio principle that has been used in the West and whether it is in conformity with the principles of hadīth narration during the first three centuries, in addition to how it can be supported by currently available data. The experiment of dating the hadīth of “man kadhaba…” with this principle by Juynboll gives us an idea about its usefulness. Thus, in this article the “man kadhaba…” hadīth is investigated in the context of at-Tabarani’s Turuq Man ‘alayya … as well as the other fundamental hadīth literature and Juynboll’s findings about the hadīth is examined. This research also provides opportunities to determine how the isnād and the text of a hadīth were treated in the first centuries. Citation: Bekir KUZUDİŞLİ, “Hadith of Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya and Argumentum e Silentio”, Hadis Tetkikleri Dergisi (HTD), V/II, 2007, pp. 47-71. Key Words: Man Kadhaba ‘Alayya Juynboll, e silentio, hadīth, tarīq, mutawātir. 93 94 95 ‘Abd Allāh b. Muhammad al-Qurashī Ibn Abī ad-Dunyā, Dham al-kidhb ve ahlihī (ed. Muhammad Ghassān-Nasūh Ozqu), Dimashq-Beirut: Dār as-sanābil 1993. Abū Bekr Muhammed b. Ja‘far b. Sahl ash-Shāmirī al-Kharāitī, Masāvi al-akhlāq ve madhmūmuhā (ed. Mustafa b. Ebū an-Nasr ash-Shalabī), Maktaba as-savādī li’t-tevzī, Jiddah, 1412/1992, pp. 31–61. The books of Ibn Abī al-Dunyā (Dhamm al-kidhb, p. 40) and of al-Kharāitī (Masāvi al-ahlāq, p. 80) have contained the hadīth of “ ‫ى أ כ ب و أ א כ א‬ ‫ث‬ ”. But this hadīth has been found with this form in the Jāmī of Ibn Wahb and has been suggested by Juynboll ‫( ” כ ب‬Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, p. that this form circulated before the hadīth of “... 115–116). 71