[Biggest
Islamic
web site in the
U.S.]
P.O. Box 356, Kingsville, MD 21087.
Phone: 410-435-5000.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are not necessarily
shared by editorial committee.
Responses (positive or negative) up to 250 words are welcome.
Names will be withheld on request.
--------------------------------------------
Questions and Answers:
"Persian Conspiracy" Theory about Hadith: Shows
Parwez's Ignorance
"Deem not the summons of the Messenger among
yourselves like the summons of
one of you to another: Allah does know those of
you who slip away under shelter
of some excuse: then let those beware who
withstand the Messenger's order,
lest some trial befall them, or a grievous
chastisement be inflicted on them."
[The Qur'an 24:63.]
Quoted by Imam Ahmed Ibn
Hanbal in his confrontation with a
despotic ruler who wanted to include sectarian
concerns into the fabric of
Islam.
[The following writer has sent several questions
this time. We'll answer only
one at a time so as not to burden a substantial
segment of our readers who
are already quite well read in Islam.]
Question from: M.,
Canada.
You are trying to
connect the "Qur'an Only"
movement to Jewish scholars but Allama Parvez
writes so well about some facts of
Hadith which no one else had noticed. He wrote
that ALL the scholars of Hadith
were Persians. He saw that Hadith was not
collected by the early Arab scholars.
The Persians brought Hadith to oppose the Arabs.
He writes about
Bukhari,
Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maja and Nasai:
"All of them were Iranians. None of them was an
inhabitant of Arabia. It's an
astonishing fact that none of the Arabs took up
this great task and the
collection and compilation of Hadith was
fulfilled by non-Arabs (ajamis) Secondly,
all of these persons were in the third century
Hijra ...." [Maqame Hadith,
G.A. Parvez, page 13.]
Answer by
Kaukab Siddique:
Parwez's theory is
absurd for anyone who has done
any reading on Hadith ; hence I feel as if I am
wasting my time answering
this question. However, I need to answer because
Parwez has been effective among
people who have not studied Hadith. Among them is
a man named Dr. Sayed Abdul
Wadud who wrote a book titled Conspiracies
against the Qur'an in which he
made a straight copy of Parvez's list of the six
scholars of Hadith in the form
of a chart indicating their Persian origin. A
very sincere gentleman (who is in
Canada), Akbarally Meherally, was taken in by
Abdul Wadud's book and wrote a
book of his own Myths and Realities of Hadith in
which he reproduces the same
chart as Abdul Wadud (p.86) quite confidently. I
doubt if Meherally knew that
Abdul Wadud is a follower of Parwez.
Let's break down the issue.
1. Were the six actually all Iranians? The answer
is NO. Probably Parwez did
not look at any map connected to Muslim history.
Even the area known as
"Khurasan" was a vast area, much of it now
included in
Afghanistan.
Allama Tajuddin
Subki (died 771 H.) has left us a good
impression of the area known as
Khurasan. He writes in his Tabqat al-Shafi'a:
"The leading cities of Khurasan were
four which were like its pillars which marked its
foundation: Merv, Nishapur,
Balkh and Herat. These were its greatest cities
but if you were to say that
they were actually the cities of Islam, that
wouldn't be wrong because these were
the centers of Islamic knowledge as well as of
government."
Of the six Parwez noticed, the greatest, Imam
Bukhari was born in
Bukhara, which is in central Asia and is not
included it in Iran or in Khurasan. So
Parwez's theory is busted by the very one he
hated most. Perhaps Parwez should
have come up with a Central Asian theory.
Ibn Maja was from Qazwin which is and was in
AZERBAIJAN. Talk to any
Azerbaijani, and it becomes apparent that though
Azerbaijan today is in Iran, it
has its own history and background. Azerbaijanis
are not Persians.
Abu Dawood was from Sijistan which is or
overlaps with what we call
Baluchistan today, some of it now in modern
Iran and some in Pakistan.
Thus we are left with a Persian conspiracy
with three "conspirators."
Of these, Tirmidhi actually differed with Imam
Bukhari and criticized the
technical quality of some of Imam Bukhari's
texts. He also has some criticism of
Imam Muslim's texts. Thus this "conspiracy" was
certainly not working.
Nasai and Muslim were from the general area
of Khurassan but there are
serious differences in the way they presented
Hadith. Nasai actually ignores
quite a few of the narrators Bukhari accepted.
The methodology, purpose and
style of all six is unique, each in its own way.
All six were independent scholars who stayed
away from any control by
rulers and took extreme pains to make sure that
no one could pressure or buy
them. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they
were organizing some kind of
cultural "counter revolution" against the Arabs.
They loved the Prophet (pbuh) so
much and were so fearful of attributing anything
to him incorrectly that they
would differ among themselves and debate over
the best possible sources of
information about the Prophet's (pbuh) Hadith.
For instance, Tirmidhi differed
with Bukhari over his sources for a Hadith about
ISTINJA (or cleaning oneself
after going to the bathroom). This was indeed a
strange "conspiracy" that these
two were differing over which chain of narrators
was best for reference to
the Prophet's (pbuh) mode of cleaning himself.
This must have been a revolution
about cleanliness!
2. When Parwez gave his neat little chart about
the six Persian
"conspirators," he conveniently forgot that
Hadith was collected in non-Persian cities too.
For instance, numerous scholars who met the
companions (r.a.) of the Prophet
(pbuh) in cities outside Khurasan, also compiled
Hadith. Among the great
centers of Hadith scholarship were Arab cities,
Makka,
Madina,
Damascus, Kufa,
Basra and parts of
Egypt
and
Palestine.
The
greatest center of learning turned out
to be Baghdad which was cosmopolitan, both
Arabic and Ajami.
3. Parwez did not understand Hadith scholarship.
Hence he did not realize
that the six greats he attacked were merely
compilers of selective editions of
Hadith WHICH ALREADY EXISTED. [A comparison for
understanding: Various scholars
prepare selections of Iqbal's poetry from his
many years of poetry. This does
not mean that the anthologists invented Iqbal's
poetry. They simply put
together what they thought was Iqbal's best or
what was best for their purposes.]
The six were simply trying, each in his own way,
to check on the authenticity of
Hadith narrations by the most stringent of tests.
In ADDITION to the six, there were other giants
of Hadith scholarship who
concentrated on the APPLICATION of the Qur'an and
the Hadith to the issues
facing the community. Of the FIVE MOST FAMOUS OF
THESE GREATS, four were Arabs:
Imam Jafar as-Sadiq
Imam Malik
Imam Shafi'i
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal
[The only non-Arab, great by comparison with
these four, was Imam Abu
Hanifa. Perhaps Parwez should have come up with a
theory of ARAB CONSPIRACY to
control non-Arabs. Unfortunately for him, Imam
Abu Hanifa was the student of Imam
Jafar. The Arabs and the non-Arabs worked
together. Islam for both was about
the Qur'an and the AUTHENTICITY OF HADITH. All
were SCHOLARS OF THE QUR'AN, a
requirement before anyone could study Hadith.]
Incidentally, Imam Ahmad's Musnad is not
included in the six books of
Hadith because its purpose (by definition of the
word 'Musnad') was to be
INCLUSIVE, while Imam Bukhari and the others were
EXCLUSIVE, trying to keep out
any narration which had any weakness OF ANY KIND.
Imam Jafar is from the Ahlul Bait, so
nobody can suspect him of being
an Ajami or non-Arab. He took Hadith from Hazrat
Ali(r.a.), one of the
companions of the Prophet (pbuh) who WROTE Hadith
during the time of the Prophet
(pbuh), which debunks the idea that Hadith were
first written down in the third
century.
Imam Malik (most influential and with a wide
FOLLOWING IN
AFRICA)
was
from the holy city of Madina. His dates are
93-179 H and his collection of
Hadith, MUWATTA, written in 130 H. (before the
middle of the second century) is one
of the most famous books of Hadith. its very
existence refutes the story that
Hadith were first written in the third century.
[It is not included in the
SIX because its focus is on hadith RELATING TO
LAW and not to the entire gamut
of the Prophet's life (pbuh).] Malik had
thousands of students, many of whom
were great scholars of Hadith in their own right.
Most amazingly, Parwez missed Imam
Shafaii. [His dates: 150-204 also show
that Hadith was available in writing in the
Second century of Islam.] This
great scholar took on those who were trying to
claim that ONE REPORT FROM THE
PROPHET (pbuh) was not sufficient for purposes of
law. His work was definitive
in this field. There are few who have served
Hadith scholarship better. For
purposes of this discussion, I will only look at
his Arab descent.
Muhammad (Shafaii son of Idrees, son of Abbas,
son of ‘Usman, son of Shafa'e,
son of Saib, son of Ubaid, son of Abd Yazeed, son
of Hashim, son of Abd
Yazeed, son of Abdul Muttalib son of Abd Manaf.
[Pakistani
readers should look up Imam Shafaii
kay ahd, mujahidat aur
zaat-o-sifat ka mukammal jaiza (A Complete
Appraisal of the Era, scholarly decisions,
personality and qualities of Imam Shafii) by
Egyptian writer Muhammad Abu
Zahra, translated by Syed Raees Ahmad J'afri into
Urdu.]
Parwez's fatal mistake was that he ignored
AHMAD IBN HANBAL, who was not
only an Arab scholar of Hadith but one who
insisted that in the presence of
Hadith, there is no need for qiyas. As pointed
out earlier, his Musnad, a
compendium of Hadith bigger than Bukhari's Sahih
is available today. Ahmad's dates
are very significant: 164-241 H. Thus he was the
contemporary of Bukhari and
most of the other five greats of Hadith. He was
part of the huge variety of
scholarship which emerged from Islam's cultural
center BAGHDAD.
That Parwez would try to condemn Bukhari for
being "Iranian" while
ignoring Ahmad ibn Hanbal is a sign of scholarly
dishonesty. Ahmad's MUSNAD is a
deadly blow for Parwez because it contains the
ENTIRE TEXT of a FIRST CENTURY
collection of Hadith, which was prepared in
WRITING by Hammam ibn Munabbih who
listened to Abu Huraira (r.a.) and wrote down 138
Hadith from him. [The
ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT of Hammam's collection was
discovered by the
Indian
scholar, Dr.
Hamidullah.]
What we are looking at here is that:
A FIRST CENTURY collection in WRITING reached
the THIRD CENTURY intact and
was PUBLISHED IN FULL TEXT in the Musnad of Ahmad
ibn Hanbal which EXISTS
TODAY. Thus, there can be no doubt that Hadith of
the Prophet (pbuh) were
successfully transmitted to future generations by
the scholars of Hadith.
[By the way, Ahmad was Arab, not a Persian
"conspirator. He was from
the Arab tribe of Sheiban which settled in Basra
when Omar ibn al-Khattab (r.a.)
asked for volunteers to settle in that seemingly
inhospitable area. Ahmad's
line connects with that of the Prophet (pbuh)
through Nazar bin Maadan bin
‘Adnan.]
Imam Ahmed defied THREE ABBASID Caliphs who
were trying to bring
sectarian concepts into Islam. I am not surprised
that Parwez ignored him. Parwez was
helping the secularist rulers of his time to
bring sectarian ideas into Islam
to help defeat the independent Islamic scholars
of our time like Syed Abul
‘Ala Maudoodi (rahmatullah alaih).
We as Muslims can be proud that people of all
nations have contributed to
Islamic learning. I will later discuss WHY
WRITTEN COMPILATIONS OF HADITH
became so important in the third century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-06-08 Sun 13:40ct