Guillaume--Life of Muhammad.pdf - Radical Truth

xxxviii
The Life of Muhammad
AI-Bukhiiri quoted him as an authority and Muslim cited him often.
Abu'I-l;Iasan b. al-Qal\iin relegated him to the class 'good' (l;asan) because
people disputed about him. As to the tradition from Falima, ~~-Khali~
gave us an isniid running back through 1.1. and Fa\1ma to Asma d. Abu
Bakr: 'I heard a woman questioning the prophet ·and saying, "I have a
rival wife and I pretend to be satisfied with what my husband has nofin fact
given me in order to anger her". He answered, "He who affects to be
satisfied with what he has not been given is like one who dons two false
garments".'1 Abii'l-I;Iasan said that this was the tradition from Fatima
which injured I.I.'s reputation, so that her husband Hisham called him a
liar. Malik followed him and others imitated them. However, there are
other traditions on her authority.
One cannot but admire the way in which I. Sayyidu'I-Nas discusses
these attacks on.the credibility of our author. He goes at once to the root of
the matter and shows what little substance there is in them. Though, like
the speakers he criticizes, he tacitly assumes that early writers ought to
have furnished their traditions with isniids which would have met the
rigorous demands of later generations who were famili~r witha ,;hole s~a
of spurious traditions fathered on the prophet and h,s companIOns, hiS
common sense and fairness would not let him acquiesce in the charge of
tadlis which, by omitting a link in the chain or by citing the original
narrator without further ado, automatically invalidated a hadith in later
days. Thus he said in effect that though I.I.'s traditions at times lack
complete documentation there is no question of his truthfulness In t~e
subject-matter he reports; and as to the charge of shi'ism and. qadante
leanings, they are valid in another field altogether and have not~mg to do
with the Sira. Again, what if Makki b. Ibrahim dId abandon h,s lectures
when he heard him relate traditions about the divine attributes? Many of
the ancients failed to go the whole way when such problems were discussed,
so what he says is of little significance.
Yazid's story that the Madinans would not listen to traditions on I.I.'s
authority does not amount to much because he does not tell us why, and so
we can resort only to conjecture; and we have no right to impugn a true
tradition because of what we think is a defect. We have already explained
why Ya~ya al-Qallan would have none of him and called him liar on the
authority of Wuhayb from Malik, and it is not improbable that he was the
cause of the Medinans' attitude in the foregoing account.. A~mad b.
l;Ianbal and I. al-Madini have adequately replied to Hisham's accusation.
As to Numayr's accusation that he related false hadith on the authority
of unknown persons, even if his trustworthiness and honesty were not a
matter of tradition, suspicion would be divided between him and his
informants; but as we know that he is trustworthy the charge lies against
the persons unknown, not against him. Similar attacks have been made
upon Sufyan al-Thauri and others whose hadith differ greatly in this way
l
Thia apin hal nothing to do with the Sira.
Introduction
x.xxix
and what they base on unknown informants is to be rejected while that
coming from known people is accepted. Sufyan b. 'Uyayna gave up Jarir
aI-Ju'fi after he had heard more than a thousand traditions from him and
yet he narrated traditions on his authority. Shu'ba related many tradi;ions
from him and others who were stigmatized as 'weak'.
As to A~mad's complaint that he recorded composite traditions without
assigning the matter of them to the several contributors, their words
agreed however many they were; and even if they did not yet the meaning
was identical. There is a tradition that Wathila b. al-Asqa' said: 'If I give
you the mea?ing of a tra~ition (not in the precise words that were used)
that IS suffiCIent for you. Moreover, Muhammad b. Sirin said that he
used to hear traditions from ten different people in ten different words with
the same meaning. A~".'ad'~ complaint that 1.1. took othel' men's writings
and Incorporated them m hIS own account cannot be regarded as serious
until it can be proved that he had no licence to repeat them. One must look
at the method of transmission: if the words do not plainly necessitate an
oral communication, then the accusation of tad/is I lies. But we ought not to
accept such a charge unless the words plainly imply that. If he expressly
says that he heard people say something when in fact he did not, that is a
downright lie and pure invention. It is quite wrong to say such a thing of
1.1. unless the w?rds leave no other choice.' When A~mad's son quoted
h,S father as saymg that 1.1. was not to be regarded as an authority in
legal matters though he saw how tolerant he was to non-legal matters which
mak~ up the greater part of the Maghazi and the prophetic biography, he
applied thIS adverse judgement on sunan to other matters. Such an extension
is excluded by his truthful reputation.
As to Yal.>ya's saying that he was trustworthy but not authoritative in
legal matters, it is sufficient for us that he is pronounced trustworthy.
If only men like al-'Umari and Malik were acceptable there would be
precious few acceptable authorities! Yaha b. Sa'id probably blindly
followed Malik because he heard from him what Hisham had said about
1.1. His refu.sal to accept him as an authority in legal matters has already
been dealt WIth under A~mad. Ya~ya made no distinction between them
an.d ~ther traditions in the way of complete acceptance or downright
reJectIon.
Other attacks on his reputation rest on points that are not explained and
for t?e ?,ost part the agents are unfair. Even in legal matters Abu 'Is a
al-T,rm,dhi and Abu I;Iatim b.l;Iibban (d. 354) accepted him as an authority.
The refutation of his opponents would not have been undertaken were
it not for the favourable verdict and praise that the learned gave him.
But for that a few of the charges would have sufficed to undermine his
I Th~ mea,ning of ~his technical term is clear from the Context, W.'s falsche l'>,lame11
untersch:eben IS not strIctly correct,
z, The discussion of 1.l.'s dislike of al-Kalbi's traditions is· unimportant and is therefore
omltted here.