It is frequently claimed by the Christian missionaries that there are no hadith collections from the first century of hijra. According to them the first hadith collections were written around 250 years after hijra.
We will show the evidence of existence of hadith collections from first century of hijra.
2. Examples Of First Century Hadith Collections
The Sahifa Of Hammam bin Munabbih: This is perhaps one of the earliest known hadith collections. Hammam bin Munabbih was a student of Abu Hurrairah and well-known among the scholars of the hadith to be trustworthy. According to the book Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Periodt:
An example is the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih, (d. 110/719), a Yemenite follower and a disciple of companion Abu Hurrayrah, (d. 58/677), from whom Hammam wrote this Sahifah, which comprises 138 hadith and is believed to have been written around the mid-first AH/seventh century.
The author went on to say:
It is significant that Hammam introduces his text with the words: “Abu Hurrayrah told us in the course of what he related from the Prophet”, thus giving the source of his information in the manner which became known as “sanad” or “isnad”, i.e., the teacher of chain of teachers through whom an author reaches the Prophet, a practice invariably and systematically followed in Hadith compilations.
We can see that of the 138 narrations in the Sahifa, 98 of them are faithfully witnessed in the later collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, both through narrations of Abu Hurrairah and witnessing narrations from other Companions.
We also see that all but two of the narrations are found in one section of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, again witnessing the preservation of hadith and that earlier works were faithfully rendered in later documents.
Using the first century Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih as a “control group” Marston Speight compared it (i.e., the Sahifa) with about the 1500 variant readings of the same ahadith found in the collections of Ibn Hanbal (Musnad), al-Bukhari (Sahih) and Muslim (Sahih); the last three collections date from 3rd/9th century. Speight says:
… the texts in Hammam and those recorded in Ibn Hanbal, Bukhari and Muslim with the same isnad show almost complete identity, except for a few omissions and interpolations which do not affect the sense of the reports. On the other hand, the same ahadith as told by other transmitters in the three collections studied show a rich variety of wording, again without changing the meaning of the reports.
Further he comments about the reports of Hammam found in the later compilations of Ibn Hanbal, al-Bukhari and Muslim by saying that:
… I have found practically no sign of careless or deceptive practices in the variant texts common to the Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih.
In other words, it shows the meticuluous nature of hadith transmission as well as high moral and upright characters of the transmitters as well as collectors of the hadith; a fact that Islamic traditions had always asserted and now the western scholarship endorses it.
The Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani: An article by Harald Motzki appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies that mentioned about the the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani as a source of authentic ahadith of the first century AH. Since the article is quite huge (21 pages), we will deal with only the conclusions of the author.
While studying the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq, I came to the conclusion that the theory championed by Goldziher, Schacht, and in their footsteps, many others – myself included – which in general, reject hadith literature as a historically reliable sources for the first century AH, deprives the historical study of early Islam of an important and a useful type of source.
Some important hadith collections from second century of hijra are the following:
The Muwatta’ of Malik bin Anas: Malik bin Anas (d. 179/795) was the founder of Maliki school of jurisprudence. The Muwatta’ of Malik was compiled in mid-second century AH. It is not a corpus of hadith in a true sense but a collection of practices of people of Madinah.
Musannaf of Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 AH)
Musannaf of Ma`mar bin Rashid (d. 153 AH)
A detailed report on hadith can be seen at `Abdur Rahim Green’s Debate Material.
And Allah knows best!
 A. F. L. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant and G. R. Smith (Ed.), Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Period, 1983, Cambridge University Press, p. 272.
 More information can be obtained from the book Sahifa Hammam bin Munabbih: The Earliest Extant Work On The Hadith, 1979, M. Hamidullah, Centre Cultural Islamique.
 R. M. Speight, “A Look At Variant Readings In The Hadith“, Der Islam, 2000, Band 77, Heft 1, p. 170.
 ibid., p. 175.
 `Abd al-Razzaq b. Hammam al-San`ani (ed. Habib al-Rahman al-A`zami), Al-Musannaf, 1970-72, 11 Volumes, Beirut.
 H. Motzki, “The Musannaf Of `Abd al-Razzaq Al-San`ani As A Source of Authentic Ahadith of The First Century A.H.“, Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 1991, Volume 50, p. 21.
 Beeston et al., Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Period, op.cit, pp. 272-273.
source: Islamic Awareness
I note that Dr Jonathan Brown dates Hammam ibn Munabbih’s death to “circa 130/747” in Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World, page 22. This is later than the date cited in the article above.
@Paul: thank you for sharing the article.
Just wanted to add the below description on the current state of western scholarship as recently communicated by two western scholars as opposed to “the Christian missionaries” mentioned in the article.
Harald Motzki, quoted in the Islamic Awarenes article, says the following in a recent overview:
“What can we know about the beginnings of Islam in general and Islamic law in particular?… There are no trustworthy direct sources on Islamic law and jurisprudence from the first century and a half. Most of the sources that contain information on this period originated in subsequent centuries. The sources suggest or even expressly assert that their knowledge about early times is based on earlier oral and/or written sources.
Opinions differ about whether or not, and the extent to which, these sources are credible and their claims verifiable. Two extreme positions have emerged. On the one side are skeptics who reject the existence – indeed, the very possibility – of scientifically grounded knowledge about the first century and a half of Islam. They treat statements in the sources on the early period as back-projections of later circumstances and ideas. Prominent exponents of source skepticism are I. Goldziher, J. Schacht, J. Wansbrough, M. Cook, P. Crone, N. Calder and G.R. Hawting. On the other side are scholars who place considerable trust in source statements on the early period and, on this basis, attempt to describe or reconstruct the historical beginnings of Islam and Islamic law. This group includes born Muslims, like M.Z. Siddïqï, M. SibäcI, F. Sezgin, A. Hasan and M.M. Azami, and non-Muslims, like N. Abbott. In addition, some scholars, for diverse reasons, reject radical scepticism and try to tread a path between the two extremes. This group includes, among others, J. Robson, N.J. Coulson, D.S. Powers, J. van Ess, M. Muranyi, H. Motzki and G. Schoeler. Publications by scholars of any of the three camps frequently receive critical commentary from proponents of the other camps. This is a good thing, as there can be no scientific progress without criticism”.
P. 1-2, Harald Motzki, Theme Issue: Methods of Dating Early Legal Traditions. In, Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 19, No. 1/2, (2012), pp. 1-10. Motzki believes it is possible to date a number of traditions to an early period of Islam, that is to about the end of the 7th century, though not any further back than this. In contrast to what might be implied in the Islamic Awareness article the question of authenticity is more complicated and Motzki’s method is about dating though in some of his publications he deals with historical evaluation.
Whether right or wrong, according to Daniel Brown, in the current state of western hadith scholarship, this “middle ground” did not win the day:
“Apart from these noteworthy holdouts Goldziher’s [e.g., Motzki et. al] broad premise won the day: the vast bulk of Hadith literature will be of little help as a source for seventh-century Arabia or the career of the Prophet, rather it will provide evidence about the beliefs of the Muslim community and the development of Islamic law and piety. Debate then moves on to the question of whether we can find convincing ways to get behind the third-century literary sources and if so how far into the early second or late first century the hadith might take us. Post-Goldziher hadith studies might be seen as a series of attempts to slowly, painstakingly and partially fill the yawning gap in our knowledge of early Islam that he exposed”.
The Wiley Blackwell Concise Companion to the Hadith, Ed. By Daniel W. Brown, 2020, p. 44.
Those interested in a discussion of the classical tradition, may find helpful the first chapter of the book, “The Classical Tradition” authored by Ghassan Abdul-Jabbar pp 15-38.
Yeah, I guess barring manuscript evidence we sure don’t… what’s that 2 people I’ve made look like jack@$$e$ now?
Make that 3, including the Agnostic doorknob.
Archaeology and epigraphical materials might also help us better understand or “fill the gap” on early Islam, it’s traditions and piety.
Numbers jumped to 4 by my count
Sure, tell me how that works out for you.
Sahifah evidence of Munabbih is impressive but article below indicates Munabbih’s sahifah does not prove that this early work to be extant….
Hammam ibn Munabbih (d. 719 CE) was known to be a disciple of Abu Hurairah (d.677-78 CE). It is understood that Hammam wrote a ‘sahifah’ which comprised approximately 140 ahadith which he had heard from his tutor Abu Hurairah.
It is often asserted that manuscripts of the original ‘sahifah’ of Hammam are to be found at both Berlin and Damascus. This is often used as evidential proof that Hadith were being recorded in the first century of Islam and have been faithfully absorbed into later compilations. By cross referencing the Hadith found in the ‘sahifah’ with those in later compilations of Ahadith, the degree of faithfulness in the transmission process is established.
Dr. Hamidullah, a scholar from the Indian subcontinent published a document entitled ‘Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbih’ in which he attempted to argue that the manuscripts he cited provided evidence of Abu Hurairah’s accounts as recorded by Hammam.
Not only did he cite the Berlin, and Damascus manuscript, he also cited a manuscript at Cairo.
His document which included his analysis was made available in both Urdu and in an English translation (published from Hyderabad 1955 and 1961). There also exists a French version of Dr. Hamidullah’s work which is translated by Hossein G. Tocheport and is the source used in this article.
Having cited Dr. Hamidullah’s work, it is absolutely clear that the manuscripts he cites at these locations were not an original copy of the manuscripts but a reproduction. The Berlin copy further cites an individual by the name of Ibn Asaka who also had involvement with the manuscript at Damascus.
(Non-French speakers are advised to have the following excerpts in red translated)
Whoa, what are Joseph Islam’s qualifications? Oh yeah, we established he has none earlier.
Next to show his stupidity nobody claimed they were original manuscripts applying this same logic give me original manuscripts of the Quran so I guess according to this retarded kaffir the Quran was not written during the Prophet’s(saw) time…
Who is Hammam Ibn Munabbih connected to?
And who is Abu Hurayra?
Are any of these allegations from this Shia source true?
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Is even 5% of the following couple posts true copying the link above true?
….I just skimmed at it but it includes many solid Sunni sources….
Yasin T. Al-Jibouri
Abu Hurayra and the Falsification of Traditions (Hadith)
By Yasin T. al-Jibouri
In this eye opening text, Yasin T. al-Jibouri sheds light on the true characteristics of one of the most famous narrators of traditions from the Ahlu-Sunnah, Abu Hurayra. Whom was known to have supposedly reported more traditions from the beloved lips of the Holy Prophet (S) than any other narrator in the History of Islam. Yet if one were to examine even in brief his life as has been done throughout this short book – it would be clear to every person of intellect how this man from whom reports are being widely taken and attributed to the Prophet (S) are nothing more than complete and utter fabrications told in falsehood for the purpose of deviation to meet the order of the political agenda of the time. It is a must read for all seekers of truth and knowledge.
Mu’awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan ibn Harb played a major role in distorting the Islamic creed by paying writers to tailor design “traditions” to serve his interests and support his deviated views. He installed himself as ruler of Syria1 in 40 A.H./661 A.D. and ruled for twenty long years till his death at the age of seventy-eight. Mu’awiyah declared himself “caliph” in Syria when he was 59 years old and assumed authority by sheer force.
He was neither elected nor requested to take charge. He did not hide this fact; rather, he bragged about it once when he addressed the Kufians saying, “O people of Kūfa! Do you think that I fought you in order that you may establish prayers or give zakat or perform the pilgrimage?! I know that you do pray, pay zakat and perform the pilgrimage. Indeed, I fought you in order to take command over you with contempt, and Allāh has given me that against your wishes. Rest assured that whoever killed any of us will himself be killed. And the treaty between us of amnesty is under my feet.”2
Shortly before his death, which took place in the month of Rajab of 60 A.H./May of 680 A.D., he managed to secure the oath of allegiance to his corrupt and immoral son, Yazid, as his successor. He did so by intimidation once and once by buying loyalty and favors, spending in the process huge sums of money that belonged to the Muslims, funds of their baytul-mal, state treasury. The weak-minded majority of the Muslims of his time swore allegiance to him. This proves that the majority does not necessarily have to be right. Imām al-Hussain (ﻉ), together with a small band of devotees to the cause of truth, refused to bow their heads to the oppressive forces.
Yet the worst type of mischief which Mu’awiyah committed was his embarking on the task of fabricating hadīth, traditions detailing what the Prophet of Islam (ﺹ) said or did. Hadīth is one of the two sources of Islam’s legislative system, the Shari’a, the other being the Holy Qur’ān. Selecting Imām ‘Ali (ﻉ) as his lifetime’s adversary, Mu’awiyah soon found out that his cause was hopeless. ‘Ali’s merits were very well recognized by every Muslim while Mu’awiyah’s family and dismal conduct were the objects of their contempt. Mu’awiyah’s past record was dark and shameful whereas that of ‘Ali (ﻉ) was glorious and shining, full of heroism in defense of Islam.
In order to sustain his campaign and raise the status of his likes, Mu’awiyah had to attract the remnant of some companions of the Prophet (ﺹ) whose characters were known to be weak and who had a genuine interest in the material things of this world, in its vanishing riches. He employed them to fabricate traditions custom-designed to his own tailoring. This trend of fabricating hadīth constituted a grave danger to the integrity of the Islamic tenets. It was very important to ward off such a danger. To expose such a trend to the Muslims at large was very vital, pivotal, of the highest priority. It would be accomplished by exposing and disgracing those who embarked upon committing and nurturing such terrible mischief. Imām al-Hussain’s revolution broke out in order to undertake this very task.
Let us now review a few samples of fabricated traditions 3.
The main figure “credited” with fabricating “traditions” by the thousands was one Abu Hurayra. Who is this man?
In the year 7 A.H./629 A.D., a young and very poor man from the Daws tribe of southern Arabia (Yemen) named Abu Hurayra met the Prophet (ﺹ) immediately after the battle of Khaybar and embraced Islam.
He is well known in history as “Abu Hurayra,” the fellow of the kitten, after a kitten to which he was very much attached. His name shone neither during the lifetime of the Prophet (ﺹ) nor of the four righteous caliphs but during the un-Islamic reign of terror of the Umayyads which lasted from 661 to 750 A.D.
It was then that the Islamic world witnessed an astronomical number of “traditions” which were attributed, through this same Abu Hurayra, to the Prophet of Islam (ﺹ). Since these traditions, known collectively as hadīth, constitute one of the two sources of the Islamic legislative system, the Sharī’a, it is very important to shed light on the life and character of this man.
Abū Hurayra is supposed to have quoted the Prophet (ﺹ) as saying, “Allāh has trusted three persons for His revelation: Myself, Gabriel and Mu’awiyah.” We wonder what Allāh was doing for the revelation when Mu’awiyah was in the camp of the infidels. This quotation is cited by Ibn Asakir, Ibn Uday, Muhammed ibn Aa’ith, Muhammed ibn Abd al-Samarqandi, Muhammed ibn Mubarak al-Suri and al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi. They all quote Abū Hurayra as saying,
“سمعت رسول الله يقول: ان الله ائتمن على وحيه ثلاثة أنا و جبرائيل و معاوية”.
Imagine! He even puts his name before that of archangel Gabriel! Astaghfirullāh!
According to al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, Abū Hurayra claimed,
“ناول النبي معاوية سهما فقال: خذ هذا السهم حتى تلقاني به في الجنة!”
The Prophet (ﺹ) gave Mu’awiyah an arrow then said to him, “Take this arrow until we meet in Paradise.” What a lucky arrow to enter Paradise! Let us stop here to discuss this man, Abū Hurayra, who may have had the lion’s share in distorting the Prophet’s Sunnah especially when we come to know that he was quoted by a host of tabi’īn who in turn are quoted by hundreds others who in turn are quoted by thousands others…, and so on and so forth. This is why his name is in the forefront of narrators of hadīth.
It is of utmost importance to expose the facts relevant to Abu Hurayra so that Muslims may be cautious whenever they come across a tradition narrated by him or attributed to him which, all in all, reached the astronomical figure of 5,374 “traditions,” that is, more “traditions” than anyone else in history…
This figure is questioned not only due to the short period during which he saw the Prophet (ﺹ) but also due to the fact that Abu Hurayra did not know how to read and write, and although he spent no more than three years in the company of the Prophet (ﺹ), that is to say, on and off, whenever such company did not involve any danger to his life.
This fact is supported by the renown compiler al-Bukhari, the most famous compiler of hadīth, who endorses no more than 93 of them! Muslim, another compiler of hadīth, endorses only 89 of Abū Hurayray’s alleged ahādīth. The reader can easily conclude that this figure of 5,374 “traditions” is quite unrealistic when he comes to know that Abu Bakr, friend of the Prophet (ﺹ) and one of the earliest converts to Islam, narrated no more than 142 traditions. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab narrated no more than 537 traditions. ‘Othman ibn ‘Affan narrated no more than 146 traditions.
And ‘Ali (ع), the man who was raised by the Prophet (ﺹ) and who was always with him, following him like his shadow for 32 years, and whose memory and integrity nobody at all can question, narrated no more than 586 traditions.
All these men, especially ‘Ali (ﻉ) and Abu Bakr, spent many years of their lives in the company of the Prophet (ﺹ) and did not hide when their lives were in jeopardy, as is the case with Abu Hurayra, yet they did not narrate except a tiny fraction of the number of “traditions,” many of which cannot be accepted by logic and commonsense, narrated by or attributed to Abu Hurayra.
These facts and figures are stated in the famous classic reference titled Siyar A’lām an-Nubalā’ سير أعلام النبلاء by at-Thahbi. This is why it is so important to discuss this man and expose the factories of falsification of hadīth established by his benefactors, the Umayyads, descendants and supporters of Abu Sufyan, then his son Mu’awiyah, then his son Yazid, all of whom were outright hypocrites and had absolutely nothing to do with Islam.
There is no agreement about what Abū Hurayra’s name was, nor when he was born or when he died. Yet his name is said to be ‘Omayr ibn ‘Amir ibn ‘Abd Thish-Shari ibn Tareef, of the Yemenite tribe of Daws ibn ‘Adnan4. His mother’s name is Umaima daughter of Safeeh ibn al-Harith ibn Shabi ibn Abu Sa’b, also of the Daws tribe. His date of birth is unknown, but he is said to have died in 57, 58, or 59 A.H., and that he had lived to be 78. This would put the date of his birth at 677, 678 or 679 A.D.
Some say that his name was Abdul-Rahmān ibn Sakhr al-Azdi. He accepted Islam in 7 A.H./628-9 A.D. immediately after the Battle of Khaybar, and he was then more than thirty years old. He was one of those indigent Muslims who had no house to live in, so they were lodged at the Suffa, a row of rooms adjacent to the Prophet’s Mosque in Medīna. These residents used to receive the charity doled out to them by other Muslims. He used to see the Prophet (ﺹ) mostly when it was time to eat. He missed most of the battles in defense of Islam waged after that date although he was young and healthy and capable of serving in the army.
What is the meaning of his kunya “Abū Hurayra”, man of the kitten? Ibn Qutaybah al-Dainuri quotes Abū Hurayra on p. 93 of his book titled Al-Ma’arif المعارف as saying,
… و كنيت بأبي هريرة بهرة صغيرة كنت ألعب بها
“… And I was called ‘Abū Hurayra’ because of a small kitten I used to play with.”
In his Tabaqāt book, Ibn Sa’d quotes Abū Hurayra as saying,
“كنت أرعى غنما و كانت لي هرة صغيرة فكنت اذا كان الليل وضعتها في شجرة فاذا أصبحت أخذتها فلعبت بها فكنوني أبا هريرة”
“I used to tend to a herd, and I had a small kitten. When it was night time, I would place her on a tree. When it was morning, I would take her and play with her, so I was called ‘Abū Hurayra’ [man of the small kitten].”
The Umayyads found in Abū Hurayra the right man to fabricate as many “traditions” as they needed to support their un-Islamic practices and then attribute them to the Prophet (ﺹ), hence the existence of such a huge number of traditions filling the books of the Sunnah. And the Umayyads rewarded Abū Hurayra very generously.
When he came from Yemen to Hijaz, Abū Hurayra had only one single piece of striped cloth to cover his private parts. When Mu’awiyah employed Abū Hurayra to work in the factories producing custom-designed “traditions,” he rewarded him by appointing him as the governor of Medīna. He also married him off to a lady of prestige for whom Abū Hurayra used to work as a servant and built him al-Aqeeq mansion. Who was that lady?
She was Bisra daughter of Ghazwan ibn Jābir ibn Wahab of Banu Mazin, sister of emir (provincial governor) Utbah ibn Ghazwan, an ally of Banu Abd Shams, the man who was appointed by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab as governor of Basra. Utbah ibn Ghazwan عتبه بن غزوان was a famous sahābi and a hero of Islam, and he died during the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab.
Then Mu’awiyah married Abū Hurayra off to Utbah’s sister, Bisra, a number of years after the death of her famous brother. He used to work for Bisra as a servant. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani mentions Bisra in the first setion of his famous work Al-Isaba fi Akhbar al-Sahāba الاصابة في أخبار الصحابة and says the following about Bisra,
“و كانت قد استأجرته في العهد النبوي ثم تزوجها بعد ذلك لما كان مروان يستخلفه في امرة المدينة على عهد معاوية
“She used to let him work for her during the time of the Prophet (ﺹ), then he married her after that when Marwan [ibn al-Hakam] used to let him be in charge of Medīna during the time of Mu’awiyah.” In his Tabaqāt, Ibn Sa’d quotes Abū Hurayra as saying the following about his wife, Bisra,
أكريت نفسي من ابنة غزوان على طعام بطني و عقبة رجلي… فكانت تكلفني أن أركب قائما، و أورد حافيا، فلما كان بعد ذلك زوجنيها الله فكلفتها أن تركب قائمة و أن تورد حافية!!
“I placed myself at the service of the daughter of Ghazwan in exchange for food for my stomach and for something to wear on my feet… She used to order me to ride while serving her and to approach her barefoot to serve her. After that, Allāh made her my wife, so I ordered her to ride as she served me and to approach me barefoot!!” Thus, Abū Hurayra “got even” with the unfortunate lady!
Abū Hurayra found himself during the Umayyads’ reign of terror and oppression a man of wealth and influence, owning slaves and having servants. Prior to that, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab appointed him as governor of Bahrain for about two years during which Abū Hurayra amassed a huge wealth, so much so that people complained about him to ‘Umar who called him to account for it. Finding his excuse too petty to accept, ‘Umar deposed him.
‘Umar also questioned him about the unrealistically abundant traditions which he was attributing to the Prophet (ﺹ), hitting him with his cane, reprimanding him for forging traditions and even threatening to expel him from the Muslim lands.
All these details and more can be reviewed in famous references such as: Ar-Riyad an-Nadira الرياض النضرة by at-Tabari, in Vol. 4 of the original Arabic text of al-Bukhari’s Sahīh, where the author quotes Abū Hurayra talking about himself, in Abū Hurayra book by the Egyptian scholar Mahmoud Abū Rayyah, in سير أعلام النبلاء Siyar A’lam an-Nubala’ by al-Thahbi, in شرح نهج البلاغة Sharh Nahjul-Balāgha by Ibn Abul-Hadeed, in البداية و النهاية Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya by Ibn Katheer, in طبقات الفقهاء Tabaqāt al-Fuqaha by Ibn Sa’d (also famous as Tabaqāt Ibn Sa’d), in تأريخ الأمم و الملوك Tarikh al-Umam wal Muluk by at-Tabari, in تاريخ الخلفاء Tarikh al-Khulafa by as-Sayyuti, in فتح الباري Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in المستدرك Al-Mustadrak by al-Hakim, and in numerous other references.
Yet some Muslims label Abū Hurayra as “Islam’s narrator,” propagating for his fabrications without first studying them in the light of the Qur’ān and going as far as invoking the Almighty to be pleased with him….
Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar (ibn al-Khattab) claimed that the Prophet (ﺹ) said, “You will see greed after me and things with which you will disagree.” People, he went on, asked, “O Messenger of Allāh! What do you order us to do then?” The Prophet (ﺹ), Abdullāh continued, said, “Give the governor what is his and plead to Allāh for yours.” Islam, true Islam, never condones toleration of unjust rulers.
Another fabricated tradition is also narrated by Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar who quotes the Prophet (ﺹ) supposedly saying, “Put up with whatever conduct you do not like of your rulers because if you abandon the جماعة Jama’a (group) even the distance of one foot then die, you will die as unbelievers.”
Surely many despots ruling the Muslim world nowadays can appreciate such “traditions” and will not hesitate to publicize for them and be generous to those who promote them; they would give them generous salaries and build them mansions… Such fabricated “traditions” are not only in total contrast with the Qur’ān and the Sunnah as well as with other verified traditions, they invite the Muslims to be the slaves of their rulers.
This is exactly what Mu’awiyah wanted, and this is exactly what so-called “Muslim” rulers like him want in our day and time… Unfortunately for the Muslims and fortunately for their enemies, there are many “Muslim” rulers like this Mu’awiyah. This is why there is poverty, ignorance, dictatorship, injustice, oppression and subjugation to the enemies of Islam throughout the Muslim world nowadays.
When Abu Hurayra came to the Prophet (ﺹ), he was young and healthy and, hence, capable of enlisting in the Prophet’s army. But he preferred to be lodged together with the Muslim destitute at the Suffa referred to above. Most of the time which Abu Hurayra spent with the Prophet (ﺹ) was during the lunches or dinners the Prophet (ﺹ) hosted for those destitute.
Abu Hurayra himself admitted more than once that he remained close to the Prophet (ﺹ) so that he could get a meal to eat. Another person who used to shower the destitutes of the Suffa with his generosity was Ja’far ibn Abu Talib (588 – 629 A.D.), the Prophet’s cousin and a brother of ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (ﻉ). He was, for this reason, called “Abul Masakeen”, father of the destitutes.
This is why Abu Hurayra used to regard Ja’far as the most generous person next only to the Prophet (ﺹ). When the Prophet (ﺹ) mandated military service for all able men in the Mu’ta expedition, Ja’far ibn Abu Talib did not hesitate to respond to the Prophet’s call, but Abu Hurayra, who considered Ja’far as his patron, preferred not to participate, thus violating the order of the Prophet (ﺹ). History records the names of those who did likewise.
In 21 A.H./642 A.D., during the caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, Abu Hurayra was made governor of Bahrain. After two years, he was deposed because of a scandal. The details of that scandal are recorded in the books of Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, the Mu’tazilite writer, and in Ibn al-Atheer’s famous classic book Al-’Iqd al-Fareed. A summary of that incident runs as follows:
When Abu Hurayra was brought to him, ‘Umar said to him: “I have come to know that when I made you governor of Bahrain, you did not even have shoes to wear, but I am now told that you have purchased horses for one thousand and six hundred dinars.” Abu Hurayra said, “I had horses which have multiplied, and I received some as gifts.” ‘Umar then said, “I would give you only your salary. This (amount) is a lot more than that (more than your salary for both years). Pay the balance back to baytul-māl (the Muslim state treasury)!”
Abu Hurayra said, “This money is not yours.” ‘Umar said, “By Allāh! I would bruise your back!” Saying this, ‘Umar whipped Abu Hurayra till the latter bled. Then ‘Umar thundered: “Now bring the money back!” Abu Hurayra replied: “I am to account for it before Allāh.” ‘Umar said, “This could be so only if you had taken it rightfully and had paid it back obediently. I shall throw you back to your mother as though you were dung so that she would use you to graze donkeys.” Some sources say that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was able to extract ten thousand gold dinar pieces from Abu Hurayra which were deposited at baytul-māl.
Further below is the rest
This research claims that
“In his book titled Ta’weel al-Ahādīth, Ibn Qutaybah says, “Abu Hurayra used to say: ‘The Messenger of Allāh said such-and-such, but I heard it from someone else.” In his book Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, al-Thahbi says that Yazid ibn Ibrahim once cited Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaj saying that Abu Hurayra used to commit forgery.
In his book Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, Ibn Katheer states that Yazid ibn Haroun heard Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaj accusing Abu Hurayra of the same, that is, that he forges hadīth, and that he used to narrate what he used to hear from Ka’b al-Ahbar as well as from the Messenger of Allāh without distinguishing one from the other.”
Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaj is considered one of the most important forbears of the Ahl al hadith movement, as recounted by Professor Brown in his book on Introduction to Hadith….
Is above true? I realize that too often (many, not all) Shia polemicists twist information, usually mistakenly from copying from other Shia polemicists….
But I think this author did primary research on Abu Hurayra looking at some Sunni sources that give troubling information on him (on Abu Hurayra, also spelled Abu Hurairah in some places)….
Even before becoming caliph, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was fully aware of what type of person Abu Hurayra was, and he knew that the man did not enjoy any respect among the Prophet’s sahāba. In his Musnad, Musaddad narrates through Khalid ibn Yahya who quotes his father quoting Abu Hurayra himself saying that ‘Umar once reprimanded him on hearing that he was narrating incredibly too many traditions and attributing them to the Prophet (ﺹ). He rebuked him once and said,
“لتتركن الحديث عن رسول الله أو لألحقنك بأرض دوس أو بأرض القردة
“You shall leave alone quoting the Messenger of Allāh or I shall send you back to the Daws land or to the land of apes.”
This same quotation is cited by Ibn Asakir and is hadīth No. 4885, p. 239, Vol. 5 of Kanzul-Ummal. The reader ought to remember than even before becoming caliph, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was a man of power and prestige, let alone being the Prophet’s father-in-law; so, his word carried weight even then.
‘Umar had little or no toleration for people who abuse the Prophet’s hadīth, so much so that on p. 34, Vol. 1, of his Sahīh book, Muslim tells us that ‘Umar once hit Abu Hurayra during the lifetime of the Prophet (ﺹ) so hard, causing the man to fall on his rear end. Here are Muslim’s exact words as they exist in his famous Sahīh book which is one of the main 6 books of traditions:
انه (عمر) ضربه على عهد النبي ضربة خر بها لأسته
As for ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (ﻉ), he came to know that Abu Hurayra used to say, “My friend (meaning the Messenger of Allāh) talked to me,” or “I saw my friend,” so he said to him,
متى كان النبي خليلك يا أبا هريرة؟
When did the Prophet (ﺹ) ever be your friend, O Abu Hurayra?!” as we read on p. 52 of Ibn Qutaybah’s work تأويل مختلف الأحاديث Ta’weel mukhtalaf al-ahādīth.
According to the sequence employed by Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqāt, Abu Hurayra ranks in the ninth or tenth class of narrators of hadīth. He came to the Messenger of Allāh near the end of the seventh Hijri year. Hence, historians say that he accompanied the Prophet (ﺹ) no more than three years5 according to the best estimates, while other historians say it was no more than two years if we take into consideration the fact that the Prophet (ﺹ) sent him to accompany Ibn al-Hadrami to Bahrain, then the Messenger of Allāh died while he was still in Bahrain.6
Abu Hurayra was not known for his jihad or valour, nor was he among those who were regarded as brilliant thinkers, nor among the jurists who knew the Qur’ān by heart, nor did he even know how to read and write… Yet the man of the kitten became famous for the abundance of ahādīth which he used to narrate about the Messenger of Allāh.
This fact attracted the attention of verifiers of hadīth especially since he had not remained in the company of the Prophet (ﺹ) for any length of time and to the fact that he narrated traditions regarding battles which he had never attended.
Some verifiers of hadīth gathered all what was narrated by the righteous caliphs as well as by the ten men given the glad tidings of going to Paradise in addition to what the mothers of the faithful and the purified Ahl al-Bayt, and they did not total one tenth of what Abu Hurayra had narrated all alone.
Then fingers were pointed at Abu Hurayra charging him with telling lies and with fabricating and forging hadīth. Some went as far as labelling him as the first narrator in the history of Islam thus charged. Yet he is called by some Muslim narrators and is surrounded with a great deal of respect. They totally rely on him, even go as far as saying “Radiya Allhu ‘anhu”, Allāh pleased with him, whenever they mention his name.
Some of them may even regard him as being more knowledgeable than ‘Ali (ﻉ) due to one particular tradition which he narrates about himself and in which he says, “I said, ‘O Messenger of Allāh! I hear a great deal of your hadīth which I have been forgetting!’ The Prophet (ﺹ) said, ‘Stretch your mantle! I had created the heavens, the earth, and all creation in seven days.’”
When ‘Umar heard about it, he called him in and asked him to repeat that hadīth. Having heard him repeating it, ‘Umar struck him and said to him, “How so when Allāh Himself says it was created in six days, while you yourself now say it was done in seven?!” Abu Hurayra said, “Maybe I heard it from Ka’b al-Ahbar…” ‘Umar said, “Since you cannot distinguish between the Prophet’s ahādīth and what Ka’b al-Ahbar says, you must not narrate anything at all.”7
We have to stop here to discuss who this Ka’b al-Ahbar كعب الأحبار was.
He is “Abu Ishaq” Ka‘b ibn Matti (Matthew) al-Himyari al-Ahbār, a prominent rabbi from Yemen. He belonged to the clan of Thu Ra’in or Thu al-Kila’ from the Arab Himyari tribe to which Balqees, the Queen of Saba’ (Sheba), wife of Prophet Solomon, belonged. Ka’b was Arab by birth, Jewish by faith.
Before quoting what others have said about Ka’b al-Ahbar, the author of this book wrote this footnote for p. 102 of Dr. Muhammed al-Tijani al-Samawi’s book Shi’as are the Ahl al-Sunnah:
His full name is “Abu Ishaq” Ka’b ibn Mati’ (Matti, Matthew) (d. 32 A.H./652 A.D.). He was a Jew from Yemen who pretended to have embraced Islam then went to Medina during the reign of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. Then he went to Syria to be one of Mu’awiyah’s advisors. He died in Homs, Syria. He is believed to have succeeded in injecting a great deal of Judaicas into the Islamic beliefs.
Muslims are divided in their judgment of this man and his influence on the Islamic creed and on its followers:
1. Some Sunnis say that the man accepted Islam during the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, so they count him among the tabi’in, quoting many of his Isra’iliyyat (Judaicas). Some other Sunni scholars say that he remained Jewish till his death in Homs, Syria, during the time of Othman ibn Affan after serving for a number of years as advisor to Mu’awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, having lived more than a hundred years, which is more accurate.
Ka’b accompanied ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab during his trip to Jerusalem (al-Quds). He helped locate the foundations of the ancient Jewish temple where ‘Umar built the Aqsa Mosque. He also later helped find the place of the Rock. ‘Umar cleaned it from rubble and fenced it, and an Umayyad ruler later built the Dome of the Rock over it as an integral part of the Aqsa Mosque.
As regarding the “traditions” which he succeeded to infiltrate into Islamic literature, al-Bukhari does not quote any of them at all. There is one narration in Muslim transmitted from Ka’b al-Ahbar through the authority of none other than this Abu Hurayra who reported it relying on the authority of al-A’mash who cited Abu Salih. Muslim, Abu Dāwūd and al-Tirmithi have recorded his “hadīth”. Some of his “hadīth” is included in al-Qurtubi’s Tafsīr on Chapter Ghāfir (Ch. 40 of the Holy Qur’ān).
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, a 14th century Sunni Shafi’i Islamic scholar, regards Ka’b al-Ahbar as being trustworthy (calling him thiqah), ranking him in the second tabaqa (class of reporters of hadīth).
2. As regarding what Shi’ite Muslims think of this Jewish rabbi, all their scholars without any exception reject him, discard his stories, which he narrated from the Torah, and warn against accepting his narratives. According to Shi’ites, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab and a number of prominent companions had a very positive attitude towards Ka’b.
However, the most knowledgeable and the most farsighted among them, namely Imām ‘Ali (ﻉ), discredited Ka’b who did not dare to come close to Imām ‘Ali (ﻉ) despite the fact that the Imām (ﻉ) was in Medina for the duration of Ka’b’s stay. It is reported that Imām ‘Ali (ﻉ) said about Ka’b: “Certainly he is a professional liar!”
One of the contemporary Shi’ite scholars who have expressed their opinion about Ka’b al-Ahbar is Dr. Muhammad al-Tijani al-Samawi, a convert to Shi’ite Islam from the Tijani Sufi tarīqa. Al-Tijani’s ancestors had originally come from Samawa, Iraq, but he was born in Tunisia on February 2, 1943 and earned two Ph.D. degrees one of which was from the Sorbonne (University of Paris).
He is famous for his first book titled Then I was guided in which he narrates his experience with converting from Sunni to Shi’ite Islam. The author of this book translated al-Tijani’s book titled Shi’as are the Ahl al-Sunnah to which reference is made in this Volume and in other books which he has written. Al-Tijani discredits Ka’b and makes a reference to him on these pages of his work referred to above: 74, 102, 208, 209 and 215. Here is what al-Tijani says about Ka’b al-Ahbar on p. 215:
Judaica and Jewish doctrines have filled the books of hadīth. Ka’b al-Ahbar, a Jew, may have succeeded in getting such doctrines and beliefs included into the books of hadīth, hence we find traditions likening or personifying Allāh, as well as the theory of incarnation, in addition to many abominable statements about the prophets and messengers of Allāh: All of these are cited through Abu Hurayra.
Imām Muhammad Jawad Chirri (who was born in Lebanon on October 1, 1905 and died in Dearborn, Michigan, on November 10, 1994), a 21st century Shi’a Islamic scholar, is credited for getting the Azhar University of Islam to issue on July 1, 1959 a statement recognizing the Shi’ite Ja’fari School of Islamic Thought. He is more famous for two books which he wrote: The Brother of the Prophet Muhammad, The Imām ‘Ali and Inquiries about Islam. Having quoted one hadīth, Chirri wrote saying,
This dialogue should alert us to the deceptive and successful attempt on the part of Ka’b to influence future events by satanic suggestions. It contains a great deal of deception which produced many harmful results to Islam and the Muslims.
Now it is up to the reader to make up his mind whether we, Muslims, should pay attention to what this Jewish rabbi had said or not.
It is also narrated that ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (ﻉ) has said, “Among all the living, the person who has told the most lies about the Messenger of Allāh is Abu Hurayra al-Dawsi,” as we read on p. 28, Vol. 4, of Ibn Abul-Hadeed’s Sharh Nahjul-Balāgha. Mother of the faithful ‘Ā’isha, too, testified to his being a liar several times in reference to many ahādīth which he used to attribute to the Messenger of Allāh. For example, she resented something which he had once said so she asked him,
ما هذه الأحاديث التي تبلغنا أنك تحدث بها عن النبي؟ هل سمعت الا ما سمعنا و رأيت الا ما رأينا؟
“What are all these ahādīth which reach us and which you tell people that the Prophet (ﺹ) said them? Have you heard anything which we did not hear, or have you seen anything which we did not see?”
In a rude and impolite way, Abu Hurayra answered the Mother of the Faithful with these words:
يا أماه! انه كان يشغلك عن رسول الله المرآة و المكحلة
“Mother! The mirror and the kohl diverted you from the hadīth of the Messenger of Allāh.”
This text exists on p. 509, Vol. 3 of al-Hakim’s Sahīh al-Mustadrak, and al-Thahbi testified to its authenticity, adding that ‘Ā’isha did not accept Abu Hurayra’s excuse by the token she boycotted him till she died. Marwan ibn al-Hakam, her cousin, interfered and took upon himself to verify one hadīth the authenticity of which ‘Ā’isha questioned.
It was then that Abu Hurayra admitted, “I did not hear it from the Messenger of Allāh; rather, I heard it from al-Fadl ibn al-’Abbas,” as we are told on p. 232, Vol. 2 of al-Bukhari’s Sahīh in a chapter dealing with a fasting person who wakes up finding himself in the state of janaba, and also on p. 272, Vol. 1, of Malik’s Mawta’. It is because of this particular narration that Ibn Qutaybah charged him with lying saying, “Abu Hurayra claimed that al-Fadl ibn al-’Abbas, who had by then died, testified to the authenticity of that tradition which he attributed to him in order to mislead people into thinking that he had heard it from him.”8
In his book titled Ta’weel al-Ahādīth, Ibn Qutaybah says, “Abu Hurayra used to say: ‘The Messenger of Allāh said such-and-such, but I heard it from someone else.” In his book Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, al-Thahbi says that Yazid ibn Ibrahim once cited Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaj saying that Abu Hurayra used to commit forgery.
In his book Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, Ibn Katheer states that Yazid ibn Haroun heard Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaj accusing Abu Hurayra of the same, that is, that he forges hadīth, and that he used to narrate what he used to hear from Ka’b al-Ahbar as well as from the Messenger of Allāh without distinguishing one from the other.
Ja’far al-Iskafi has said, “Abu Hurayra is doubted by our mentors; his narrations are not acceptable.”9
During his lifetime, Abu Hurayra was famous among the sahāba of lying and forgery and of narrating too many fabricated ahādīth to the extent that some of the sahāba used to deride him and ask him to fabricate ahādīth agreeable with their own taste.
For example, a man from Quraysh put on once a new jubba (a long outer garment) and started showing off. He passed by Abu Hurayra and sarcastically said to him, “O Abu Hurayra! You narrate quite few traditions about the Messenger of Allāh; so, did you hear him say anything about my jubba?!” Abu Hurayra said, “I have heard the father of al-Qasim saying, ‘A man before your time was showing off his outfit when Allāh caused the earth to cave in over him; so he has been rattling in it and will continue to do so till the Hour.’ By Allāh! I do not know whether he was one of your people or not.”10
How can people help doubting Abu Hurayra’s traditions since they are so self-contradictory? He narrates one hādīth then he narrates its opposite, and if he is opposed or his previously narrated traditions are used against him, he becomes angry or starts babbling in the Ethiopian language. 11
How could they help accusing him of telling lies and of forgery after he himself had admitted that he got traditions out of his own pouch then attributed them to the Prophet (ﺹ)?
Al-Bukhari, in his Sahīh, states the following:
Abu Hurayra said once, “The Prophet (ﺹ) said, ‘The best charity is willingly given; the higher hand is better than the lower one, and start with your own dependents. A woman says: ‘Either feed me or divorce me.’ A slave says, ‘Feed me and use me.’ A son says, ‘Feed me for the woman who will forsake me.’” He was asked, “O Abu Hurayra! Did you really hear the Messenger of Allāh say so?” He said, ‘No, this one is from Abu Hurayra’s pouch!”12
Notice how he starts this “tradition” by saying, “The Prophet (ﺹ) said,” then when they refuse to believe what he tells them, he admits by saying, “… this one is from Abu Hurayra’s pouch!” So congratulations to Abu Hurayra for possessing this pouch which is full of lies and myths, and for which Mu’awiyah and Banu Umayyah provided a great deal of publicity, and because of which he acquired position, authority, wealth, and mansions. Mu’awiyah made him the governor of Medina and built him the Aqeeq mansion then married him off to a woman of honorable descent for whom he used to work as a servant…
Since Abu Hurayra was the close vizier of Mu’awiyah, it is not due to his own merits, honor, or knowledge; rather, it is because Abu Hurayra used to provide him with whatever traditions he needed to circulate. If some sahāba used to hesitate in cursing “Abu Turab,” namely Commander of the Faithful ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (ﻉ), the man who was raised by the Prophet (ﺹ), who married the Prophet’s sinless daughter Fatima and founded the first Infallible Family in Islam, who fought for Islam like a lion, a man for whose knowledge Nahjul-Balāgha book testifies, the man whose true worth is known only by Allāh and the Messenger of Allāh…, finding such cursing to be embarrassing, Abu Hurayra cursed ‘Ali (ﻉ) in his own house and as his Shi’as heard:
Ibn Abul-Hadeed narrates the following:
When Abu Hurayra came to Iraq in the company of Mu’awiyah in the Year of the Jama’a, he came to Kufa’s Mosque. Having seen the huge number of those who welcomed him, he knelt down then beat his bald head and said, “O people of Iraq! Do you claim that I tell lies about the Messenger of Allāh and thus burn myself in the fire?!
By Allāh! I heard the Messenger of Allāh saying, ‘Each prophet has a sanctuary, and my sanctuary is in Medina from Eer to [the mountain of] Thawr; so, anyone who makes it unclean will be cursed by Allāh, the angels, and all people, and I bear witness that ‘Ali had done so.” When Mu’awiyah came to hear this statement, he gave him a present, showered him with his generosity and made him governor of Medina (then capital of the Islamic world).13
Suffices us to point out to the fact that he was created governor of Medina by none other than Mu’awiyah. There is no doubt that verifiers and researchers who are free from prejudice will doubt anyone who befriended the enemy of Allāh and His Messenger and who was antagonistic towards the friends of Allāh and of His Messenger…
There is no doubt that Abu Hurayra did not reach that lofty position of authority, namely being the governor of Medina, the then capital of the Islamic domains, except by virtue of the services which he had rendered to Mu’awiyah and other authoritative Umayyads. Praise to the One Who changes the conditions!
Abu Hurayra had come to Medina with nothing to cover his private parts other than a tiny striped piece of cloth, begging passers-by to feed him. Then he suddenly became ruler of the sacred precincts of Medina, residing in the Aqeeq mansion, enjoying wealth, servants and slaves, and nobody could say a word without his permission. All of this was from the blessings of his pouch!
Do not forget, nor should you be amazed, when nowadays we see the same plays being repeatedly enacted, and history certainly repeats itself. How many ignorant indigent persons sought nearness to a ruler and joined his party till they became feared masters who do and undo, issuing orders as they please, having a direct access to wealth without being accounted for it, riding in automobiles without being watched, eating foods not sold on the market…?
One such person may not even know how to speak his own language, nor does he know a meaning for life except satisfying his stomach and sexual appetite. The whole matter is simply his having a pouch like the one Abu Hurayra used to have with some exception, of course, yet the aim is one and the same: pleasing the ruler and publicizing for him in order to strengthen his authority, firm his throne, and finish his foes.
Abu Hurayra loved the Umayyads and they loved him since the days of ‘Othman ibn ‘Affan, their leader. His view with regard to ‘Othman was contrary to that of all the sahāba who belonged to the Muhājirūn and the Ansār; he regarded all the sahāba who participated in or encouraged the killing of ‘Othman as apostates.
Undoubtedly, Abu Hurayra used to accuse ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (ﻉ) of killing ‘Othman. We can derive this conclusion from the statement he made at Kufa’s mosque and his saying that ‘Ali (ﻉ) made Medina unclean and that he, therefore, was cursed by the Prophet (ﺹ), the angels, and everyone else. For this reason, Ibn Sa’d indicates in his Tabaqāt that when Abu Hurayra died in 59 A.H./679 A.D., ‘Othman’s descendants carried his coffin and brought it to the Baqee’ to bury it as an expression of their appreciation of his having had high regards for ‘Othman.14
Surely Allāh has his own wisdom in faring with His creation. ‘Othman ibn ‘Affan, the master of Quraysh and their greatest, was killed although he was the Muslims’ caliph bearing the title of “Thul-Noorayn” and of whom, according to their claim, the angels feel shy.
Yet his corpse did not receive the ceremonial burial bath nor was it shrouded; moreover, it was not buried for full three days after which it was buried at Medina’s then Jewish cemetery. Abu Hurayra died after having enjoyed pomp and power. He was an indigent man whose lineage and tribal origins were not known to anybody. He had no kinship to Quraysh.
Despite all of this, the caliph’s sons, who were in charge of running the affairs during Mu’awiyah’s reign, took to bearing his corpse and to burying it at the Baqee’ where the Messenger of Allāh was buried…! But let us go back to Abu Hurayra to examine his attitude towards the Prophet’s Sunna.
In his Sahīh, al-Bukhari quotes Abu Hurayra as saying,
حفظت عن رسول الله وعاءين فأما أحدهما فبثثته، و أما الآخر فلو بثثته قطع هذا البلعوم
I learned the fill of two pouches (receptacles) [of ahādīth] from the Messenger of Allāh: I have disseminated only one of them; as for the other, if I disseminate it, this throat will be slit,” as we are told on p. 38, Vol. 1, of al-Bukhari’s Sahīh.
Here is Abu Hurayra revealing what erstwhile is hidden, admitting that the only traditions he quoted were the ones that pleased the ruling authorities. Building upon this premise, Abu Hurayra used to have two pouches, or two receptacles, as he called them. He used to disseminate the contents of one of them, the one which we have discussed here that contains whatever the rulers desired.
As for the other, which Abu Hurayra kept to himself and whose ahādīth he did not narrate for fear his throat would be slit, it is the one containing the authentic traditions of the Prophet (ﺹ). Had Abu Hurayra been a reliable authority, he would never have hidden true ahādīth while disseminating illusions and lies only to support the oppressor, knowing that Allāh curses whoever hides the clear evidence.
On p. 37, Vol. 1, of the same reference, we find al-Bukhari quoting him saying once, “People say that Abu Hurayra narrates too many ahādīth. Had it not been for two [particular] verses in the Book of Allāh, I would not have narrated a single hadīth:
‘Those who conceal what We have revealed of clear proofs and the guidance, after Our having clarified [everything] for people in the Book, these it is whom Allāh shall curse, and those who curse shall curse them, too’ (Qur’ān, 2:159).
Our brethren from the Muhājirūn used to be busy consigning transactions at the market-place, while our brethren from the Ansār used to be busy doing business with their own money, while Abu Hurayra kept in the shadow of the Prophet (ﺹ) in order to satisfy his hunger, attending what they did not attend, learning what they did not learn.”
How can Abu Hurayra say that had it not been for a couple of verses in the Book of Allāh, he would not have narrated a single hadīth, then he says, “I learned two receptacles [of ahādīth] from the Messenger of Allāh: I have disseminated one of them; as for the other, if I disseminate it, this throat will be slit”?! Is this not his admission of having concealed the truth despite both verses in the Book of Allāh?!
Had the Prophet (ﺹ) not said to his companions, “Go back to your people and teach them”? as we read on p. 30, Vol. 1, of al-Bukhari’s Sahīh.
Had he not also said, “One who conveys is more aware than one who hears”? Al-Bukhari states that the Prophet (ﺹ) urged the deputation of ‘Abd Qays to learn belief and scholarship “… Then convey what you learn to those whom you have left behind,” as you can read on the same page of the previous reference.
Can we help wondering: Why should the throat of a sahābi be slit if he quotes the Prophet (ﺹ)?! There must be a secret here which the caliphs do not wish others to know. Here, we would like to briefly say that “the people of the remembrance أهل الذكر” was [a phrase in] a Qur’ānic verse revealed to refer to ‘Ali’s succession of the Prophet (ﺹ). Actually, this phrase “أهل الذكر” carries a greater meaning than “the people of the remembrance.”
The word الذكر referred to in this Qur’ānic phrase means the Holy Qur’ān. So, the more accurate meaning of it should be: “the people who have with them the knowledge of the Qur’ān.” Is there anyone else in Islamic history besides the Prophet of Islam (ﺹ) who knew the Holy Qur’ān better than ‘Ali (ﻉ)?
Abu Hurayra is not to blame; he knew his own worth and testified against his own soul that Allāh cursed him, and so did those who curse, for having hidden the Prophet’s hadīth. But the blame is on those who call Abu Hurayra the “narrator of the Sunna” while he himself testifies that he hid it then testifies that he fabricated it and told lies in its regard, then he further goes on to testify that it became confused for him, so he could not tell which one was the statement of the Prophet (ﺹ) and which one was made by others. All of these ahādīth and correct admissions are recorded in al-Bukhari’s Sahīh and in other authentic books of hadīth.
How can anyone feel comfortable about a man whose justice was doubted by the Commander of the Faithful ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (ﻉ) who charged him with lying, saying that among the living, nobody told more lies about the Prophet (ﺹ) than Abu Hurayra?!
‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, too, charged him of the same; he beat him and threatened to expel him. ‘Āyisha doubted his integrity and many times called him a liar, and many other sahāba cast doubts about his credibility and rejected his contradictory ahādīth, so he would once admit his error and would sometimes prattle in Ethiopian language (Amharic).15
A large number of Muslim scholars refuted his traditions and charged him with lying, fabricating, and throwing himself at Mu’awiyah’s dinner tables, at his coffers of gold and silver.
Is it right, then, for Abu Hurayra to become “Islam’s narrator” from whom the religion’s injunctions are learned?
Finally, there are more “traditions” narrated by Abu Hurayra which apparently came from Ka’b al-Ahbar and are cited in Volume One of this book. They depict the Almighty as having a material form, so He walks, talks, laughs, puts His leg in Hell in order to fill it…, up to the end of a long list of such nonsense in which unfortunately many Muslims of the world still believe and “credit” for which goes to Abu Hurayra…
Our conclusion is that we do not mean in this essay that Muslims should discard all traditions transmitted by Abu Hurayra; rather, they must be careful when coming across such traditions and must not accept them blindly. This rule should not be applied only to Abu Hurayra’s hādīth but to all hādīth.
1.Actually, it was not Syria but Sham, a word which is not quite common in English. Sham used at the time to include Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan.
2.Ibn Abul-Hadid, Sharh Nahjul-Balāgha شرح نهج البلاغة, Vol. 16, p. 15
3.For more information about this man, Abū Hurayra, refer to Shī’as are the Ahl as-Sunnah, a book written in Arabic by Dr. Muhammed at-Tijani as-Samawi and translated into English by myself. It is available for sale from Vantage Press, Inc., 516 West 34th Street, New York, N.Y. 10001, or you may order it through the Internet’s worldwide web: http://www.amazon.com. Its title in the said web is “Shī’as are the Ahl as-Sunnah.”
4.1According to Al-Munjid fil lugha wal a`lam المنجد في اللغة و الأعلام, however, Abu Hurayra’s name is recorded as `Abd al-Rahmān ibn Sakhr al-Azdi, and that he died in 59 A.H./678 A.D. The same reference indicates that this man spent “a long time” in the company of the Prophet, which is not true at all; he accompanied the Prophet from time to time for less than three years.The Publisher of this Munjid, namely Dar al-Mashriq of Beirut, Lebanon, is sponsored by the Catholic Press of Beirut. Undoubtedly, the information about Abu Hurayra in this Arabic-Arabic dictionary must have been furnished by Sunnis who try their best to elevate the status of Abu Hurayra even at the risk of sacrificing historical facts.
5.Al-Bukhari, Sahīh, Vol. 4, p. 175, where the author quotes Abu Hurayra talking about himself in a chapter dealing with the characteristics of Prophethood.
6.I have excerpted some paragraphs for this text from my own translation of Muhammed al-Tijani al-Samawi’s book Shi`as are the Ahl al-Sunna (New York: Vantage Press, 1996), pp. 207-215.
7.Refer to the book titled Abu Hurayra by the Egyptian author Mahmoud Abu Rayyah.
8.This is stated in al-Thahbi’s book Siyar A`lām al-Nubalā’.
9.Ibn Abul-Hadeed, Sharh Nahjul-Balāgha, Vol. 4, p. 68.
10.Ibn Katheer, Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, Vol. 8, p. 108.
11.Al-Bukhari, Sahīh, Vol. 7, p. 31.
12.Al-Bukhari, Sahīh, Vol. 6, p. 190, in a chapter dealing with spending on the wife and children.
13.Ibn Abul-Hadeed, Sharh Nahjul-Balāgha, Vol. 4, p. 67.
14.Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqāt, Vol. 2, p. 63.
15.Abu Hurayra was bilingual. He spoke Arabic (his mother tongue) and Amharic. Historically speaking, during Abu Hurayra’s time, Amheric was the language of “aristocrats” due to the fact that the Ethiopians had for many years colonized Yemen till they were kicked out of it at the hands of Sayf ibn Thi Yazun (or Yazin), Himyar’s king who died in 574 A.D.
I do remember reading in what I faintly remember as being a Sunni source that Mu’awiyah who was son and the Prophet’s arch-enemy, Abu Sufyan and son of Hind, who had the Prophet’s uncle assassinated and notoriously ate his uncle’s liver, had chosen Abu Hurayra to be the leader of Madina.
Of course, Mu’awiyah professed Islam….some Sunnis say a little before the conquest of Makkah and some Sunnis say after Makkah was conquered and Abu Sufyan and Mu’awiyah had no real alternative to converting if they wanted to keep any power whatsoever.
And of course, after the Prophet’s death, the main enemies of Mu’awiyah was the Prophet’s family led by the biggest supporter of the Prophet, Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Also, as everyone agrees, Mu’awiyah chose Yazid, his son through his Christian Arab’s mother to succeed him. And Yazid very soon killed almost all the Prophet’s male descendants through Husayn, the son of Ali and Fatima (the Prophet’s daughter) and put the Prophet’s female descendants in chains.
The severed head of Husayn was rammed down a stick and the head was paraded in Damascus and other localities by the Ummayads.
What people don’t realize is that much if not most of the most loyal soldiers in the army of Mu’awiyah and Yazid were Christian Arabs from the same tribe as the mother of Yazid.
Is it true as I believe Sunni sources say that Mu’awiyah chose Abu Sufyan over many other people to be the leader of Al-Madina.
And as all qualified historians would say, Al-Madina, the Prophet’s city did not want Mu’awiyah to be the leader of the Muslims.
The above is a very important question that should not longer be covered over.
Who needs scholars when some random guy on the internet has it all figured out?
Ok, so either you cannot deny any of my specific questions or you did you not read it?
One of my questions was if even 5% of the above on Abu Hurayah is true?
But is there anyone who is able to deny any of the above?
These are from Sunni sources, some are solid Sunni sources. It should be very easy to deny if it is not true.
Ihsan: Ok, so either you cannot deny any of my specific questions or you did you not read it?
Why should your questions be taken seriously to begin with? When the vast majority of the Ummah don’t deny the authority of the hadith, who is some random anonymous guy on the internet to say otherwise? Traditional Islam has produced jurists, philosophers, saints, warriors, etc. Name one Quranist that even comes close to Al Ghazali, for example. You guys are a joke.
I am not claiming any Quranist is like Al Ghazali.
I am not a Quranist.
I would not my children to learn Islam from any Quranist when there is someone like Ghazali.
In fact, even though we don’t have many Al Ghazalis today, I would want my children to learn Islam in traditional Sunni mosques.
But for us adult who are serious, these questions should not be covered by another thousand years by saying “who are you,” and so on.
We need to be serious about religion.
And what makes you think that if Ghazali was born today, he would not have an issue with the way we lift up hadith of Abu Hurayra to almost the glory of God Almighty?
When will this foolishness end? Another thousand years?
What made Ghazali the Ghazali was that he was able to think outside the box….he went against the status quo to argue that there is a problem with this doctrine of ijma (consensus)….
He said there is a problem with many Muslims thinking that all non-Muslims are destined for hell even if they what they heard of Islam is in a distorted way.
He pointed out the problems of literalists like many (not all) of todays Salafis who can’t fully appreciate the ocean of spirituality in the Qur’an.
What makes you think if Ghazali was born today without the biases of his age and training, that he would swallow the hadithist perspective hook, line, and sinker?
Yes, if you think that Ghazali of the medieval age to be implanted and drop out of the sky, it would be hard for him to make sense, let alone fully understand the vast problems of hadith that have been uncovered in the last few hundred years and the vast more that will be uncovered in the future.
What if the soul of Ghazali was born today and learned the techniques and knowledge of the last few hundred years?
Would this same searcher of truth throw it all away and opt for the vast but limited, biased, and often wrongheaded thinking of the medieval age?
It is this fixed mindset that thinks of the texts only in the context of sparse alleged narratives ….this same fixed mindset that thinks of people in a fixed way.
When will the foolishness end?
After another thousand years?
Type in my question…
Is it true as I believe Sunni sources say that Mu’awiyah chose Abu Sufyan over many other people to be the leader of Al-Madina?
I meant did he choose Abu Hurayra (the writing of Abu Sufyan is a typo) to be the leader al-Madina?
The point of what is this person’s qualifications came up.
In a recent post on this blog
regarding the mathematical challenge to evolution.
Gerlenter is not a biologist, much less an evolutionary biologist.
However, his points are logical and verifiable and come from his mathematical expertise.
It is illustrative to think of the pathetic level of discussion coming from some Traditionalists and virtually all Salafists regarding hadith “science.”
When experts bring their expertise, whether statisticians, experts on memory, PhD scholar on oral narrations, etc. bringing to bear their expertise on the profound problems with trying to shackle the infallible Qur’an with the fallible “authentic” hadith, we hear blah, blah, blah…who is this person’s qualifications to point out the problem….blah, blah, blah.
But here with evolution, it is A-ok to bring in someone who is not an evolutionary biologist.
The opposition to the Prophet would often bring this up….what are the qualifications of this Hashemi who does not have male sons or is not an elder in his tribe or does not have angels next to him, blah, blah, blah.
Allah says to look at the content (of the Qur’an) and if you can oppose the content, then try.
This shoot the messenger approach is an old and tired tactic.
Much of science would not progress if paradigms challenged by those who were not indoctrinated in that field did not speak up.
Einstein was not qualified and neither were many.
Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolution is a good book for how science progressed ….painful reading for those who cannot think outside of their narrow box.
Is anyone else having issues posting? I’ve been trying to refute deviants and I can’t post my response.
Must be some demonic conspiracy of modernists and Quranists and western academics preventing your posts.
Oh no the Rafidah who were the main ones responsible for forging ahadith after the First Fitna and were one of the main reasons hadith sciences had to be created have an opinion lol. Hey, let’s get the Jews of Madinah’s views on the Prophet(saw) and the Quran since everyone is getting a shot at the mic today. Anyways down the line with this foolishness:
1. Yasin T. al-Jibouri
Wow, you’re SUPER late for quoting this kaffir whose paper was torn apart by Twelvershia.net:
Which btw the Shia should have no qualms with Abu Hurayra(ra) as he wasn’t even involved in the civil and got into it with the Umayyads (oh but your kaffir source forgot to tell that to you huh?)
Now that I’ve shown you know and the kuffar you associate with know nothing about the field (again) EVEN then let me just give it to you and we throw about Abu Hurayrah(ra) (you know the guy who was there and did more for the deen than me, you and everyone on this blog combined) As you’re aware he, for the most part, does NOT have a hadith exclusive to him if we dropped him we would lose a grand total of drum roll please…8 ahadith.
2. Deviant mantra
As all deviants throughout history you have to attack scholarship because NO ONE agrees with your kufr. Also Albert Einstein had schooling on the subject wth are you talking about? He wasn’t some random j@ck@$$ eating cheetos on his couch like the people you bring.
Ghazali (along with EVER ISLAMIC SCHOLAR EVER) believed in hadith! So you’re not even making sense anymore, lol.
Oh, you broke thought the conspiracy….congrats!
Whenever you are able to go through the rest of the conspiracy, respond to the ***specific*** questions.
There are many claims in the link above.
Are even 5% of them true?
Below are your responses….choose one.
No…ok then prove it.
Did Mu’awiyah (who you believe by Salafi doctrine to be WAY better than Al Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyya, etc.) appoint Abu Hurayra as head of Al Madina?
Below are your responses…choose one.
Down the line:
No. Proved it, in the link already retard.
Yes. And he was appointed a governor before that in Bahrain by Umar bin Khattab(ra). So do you also now want to insult Umar(ra) as well?
Just started to take a glance at the response…
it starts with “This article partially is a response to the extended rant by Yasin T. al-Jibouri on Al-Islam.org: Abu Hurayrah and The Falsification of Traditions”
I couldn’t follow the grammar of the sentence fully but if it claims to address partially the article by al-Jibouri, then which parts of it does it not address?
Is there more than 5% of the article that is not addressed?
I realize that it will take a long time to go through the entire booklet by al-Jibouri and go point by point to see what is addressed and what (possibly) is not addressed or not addressed in full.
Please don’t affect your sleep. I am not in a rush.
Respond at your convenience after you fully rest, work, etc.
The meaning of that sentence is part of the reason for writing this article is to address al-Jibouri’s poor paper.
The chart you have is quoting all repeats, weak ahadith etc. from all the main narrating Sahaba which is why the numbers are different. Also, this chart hurts not helps your argument. The author’s point is:
1. Abu Hurayra(ra) does not have a drastically larger amount of reports attributed to him than any other Sahaba like Aisha(ra), Anas(ra) etc
2. On Pg 228 of the paper he even says similar to what I am saying about collaborative reports. What he listed is not the ONLY collabs it was a sample between him and others.
Once you take away repeats Abu Hurayra(ra) has a grand total of approx 1,300 as noted by Dr. Muhammad Al-Yamani in the article. Now once we drop weak and collabs he has a total of 8 as noted in the article by Sheikh Muhammad Al-Amin.
So yeah live with the fact that you just slandered multiple Sahaba for no reason.
Down the line:
No. Proved it, in the link already retard.
Yes. And he was appointed a governor before that in Bahrain by Umar bin Khattab(ra). So do you also now want to insult Umar(ra) as well?”
I see this link address this specific book.
Let’s see if it proves 95%+ to be false.
So he was appointed by Mu’awaiyah.
Yes, I am familiar with Umar bin Khattab (ra) appointing him as governor of Bahrain.
I read in I believe in sources attributed to be Sunni that ‘Umar deposed him and accused him of embezzling public funds.
Did ‘Umar do that?
No. Again read paper dumb@$$.
My turn, I’ll just copy again do to your poor reading comprehension:
“…then let me just give it to you and we throw about Abu Hurayrah(ra) (you know the guy who was there and did more for the deen than me, you and everyone on this blog combined) As you’re aware he, for the most part, does NOT have ahadith exclusive to him and if we dropped him we would lose a grand total of drum roll please…8 ahadith.”
As I said you don’t know anything about Islam but want to debate about it.
So you are claiming that only 8 of Abu Hurayra’s hadith are khabir wahid?
Lol not a claim its a fact. Again read the article they give the analysis. I can’t post to the link because it is interfering with my ability to make post on the site for some reason but you can find it in the article. So yeah…lol this must be REALLY embarrassing.
So 92% of Abu Hurayra’s hadith are corroborated by text attributing to other companions.
1. So it is a fact that all these 92% are all companions or are some mursal corroborations?
2. What percentage of Abu Huraya’s ahadith are above the level of ahad narrations?
And how do you define ahad?
I don’t know what country you are in….if you need to rest, go to sleep.
But if you are completely, then I sent some questions above and
also look at the graphs on pages 223 -228 of this thesis on Abu Hurayra
the graphs are under it’s statement that
“the subsequent charts indicate the number and percentage (of ahadith from Abu Hurayra) after subtracting the corroborative reports of Abu Hurayra”
It seems to massively dispute the number of “8” hadith you are giving…
Please give the exact page numbers which prove this 8 and exclude all other ahadith.
I have to go now but will continue this later.
My apologies I skimmed your rant:
Umar(ra) made people have equal what they came into a governor position with. He did this with several governors as a precaution against corruption pg 100:
So I assume you are claiming that Umar deposed several of those he made governors and accused them of embezzlement?
And I assume you are implying that ‘Umar was false in his serious accusations against them?
Did Umar do this also with your hero, Mu’awiyah who was appointed governor of the important area of al Sham?
You clearly know nothing about Umar(ra). His style was…strict to say the least (this was a reason Abu Bakr (ra) was hesitant to appoint him) If you actually do things like read from people who know what they’re talking about he dismisses ALOT of governors even when he finds them not guilty. (Also again if you weren’t dumb he would’ve taken his hand not just dismissed him)
Also, no Muawwiyah(ra) did NOT have this happen to him. The 3 governors were Abu Hurayrah(ra), Sad ibn Abi Waqqas(ra) and Amr bin Al As(ra). They even disputed this but he did it anyway as a precaution so people couldn’t say corruption happened.
And just a correction all Sahaba are Muslims’ heroes, not just mine for the record. (WHisper you might want to read the Quran because I don’t think any ayah came down about Allah being pleased with you. But shhh…don’t tell nobody)
Also same thing here in this video about Abu Hurayra(ra)
I liked this video. Who is this guy? He speaks in a way that does not create opposition….I think he is a good role model for people having any view.
I want to thank you @stewjo004.
In this thread I learned a few important things….
I know that Abu Hurayrah did not narrate 5000+ ….I knew there were repeats and I heard there were like 1500 or so unique narrations but I forgot that, so thanks for bringing it to attention.
I assumed there would be weak narrations of Abu Hurayrah but I thought that the large majority in the 6 books would be classified as authentic….if this person is right, then I more than half are weak narrations….I would like to double check that but again something I learned.
But the most important part is that so many of his narrations have cross narrations.
I knew that many of his hadiths have cross narrations but I was surprised to learn that there are only 8 authentic and unique narrations of his.
You point to page 228 of that thesis which I thought is at odds with your numbers but I will double check.
I do have a few questions about the cross narrations.
Any cross narration, even if by just one companion would substantially strengthen one of Abu Hurayrah’s narration.
However I am curious to learn more.
Do you know how many cross narrators in proportional terms?
For example, if there are only 8 unique narrations among the narrations deemed authentic, then that would like just 2% of 400+ narrations that the brother quotes…that is so small, let’s make it that all have cross narrations just to do simple math….
Is it like 25% of the 400+ hadiths have 1 other cross narrator, 25% of the hadiths have 2 other cross narrators, 25% have 3 cross narrators, and 25% have 4+ cross narrators?
I know the numbers won’t be exactly like that.
But I would greatly appreciate if you find out from me from a source(s) that is not guessing this but actually did this analysis.
Walakum. Down the line:
1. He is one of the members of the Sunni Defense team.Usually they focus on Shia polemics but it was relevant for our discussion
2. I think you may have combined info of 1500 narrations and 8 unique into 1500 unique. No problem it happens especially if you’re casually perusing a subject.
3. Yeah if you check the thesis he’s saying similar and that Abu Huraira(ra) has a similar number to other heavy hitters like Aisha(ra) and Anas(ra) (and that in Tirmidhi and Muwatta he is actually a smaller narrator) and then does an analysis of a few cross-references.
4. I have no idea honestly. It would definetly be interesting though.