khabar al-waahid (the single line transmission) - muhammad ash-shuwaiky

Khabar Al-Waahid (The

single line transmission) Does not establish ‘Ilm (definite

knowledge) and it is not taken in the

‘Aqaa’id

Muhammad Ash-Shuwaiky

Bait ul-Maqdis

First Edition 1422h/2002

Contents:

Page 3 Foreword

Page 4 Chapter One: The First Angle: The difference between the definition of the

Mutawaatir Khabar (report) and the Khabar Al-Aahaad and its implications.

Page 6 Chapter Two: The Second Angle: The Adillah (evidences) from the Kitaab, the

Sunnah and the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah which indicate that the Khabar Al-

Aahaad do not establish (decisive) ‘Ilm and Yaqeen (certainty).

Page 11 Chapter Three: The Third Angle: How the Sahaabah and those who followed

them differed in respect to affirming the Khabar Al-Aahaad.

3 Chapter Four: The fourth Angle: It is not permitted for there to be disagreement

in the ‘Aqaa’id which have been firmly established amongst the Muslims.

Page 43 Chapter Five: The fifth Angle: That which they thought to be an evidence (for

their argument) but is not an evidence.

Page 53 Chapter Six: The Sixth Angle: The statements of the 'Ulamaa stating that the

Khabar Al-Waahid does not ascertain and establish 'Ilm (certain knowledge):

Page 67 Chapter Seven: The Seventh Angle: Their statements in relation to not using the

Khabar Al-Aahaad as an evidence for the Aqaa'id.

2

بسم اهلل الرمحن الرحيم

All praise belongs to Allah the Lord of the worlds and prayers and peace be upon the Noblest of

creatures and upon his family, companions and those who follow them with perfection until the

Day of Judgement.

Those who have gone away from the principals of Usool and the people of knowledge from

amongst the Fuqahaa’, Scholars of Hadeeth and Usool, have claimed that the Khabar Al-Aahaad

(single-line narrations) establish ‘Ilm (i.e. definite knowledge) and are taken into the ‘Aqaa’id

according to the people of the Sunnah as a whole. Additionally they claim that only the

Jahmiyah, Mu’tazilah, Jabriyyah and Khawaarij differ in regards to that.

However a precise examination of the Mas’alah (issue) makes it apparent that their claim is Baatil

(false) and that it does not have a Daleel (evidence) from the Kitaab, the Sunnah, the Ijmaa’ of

the Sahaabah to support it. Rather the evidences and proofs repudiate this claim and in this small

book I will present seven angles, each of which is sufficient enough to reject their claim.

3

The first angle:

The first angle relates to the difference and distinction between the Khabar Al-Mutawaatir and

the Khabar Al-Aahaad in terms of their definition and their reality in regards to the Sharee’ah

according to the ‘Ulamaa who have mentioned the Mutawaatir and the Aahaad. They said: ‘The

Khabar (report) can either be a definite lie (Kadhiban Qat’an) in which case it would be an

invented and fabricated (Mukhtalaq, Mawdoo’) Hadeeth, or it would be definitely true (Sidqan

Qat’an) and this is the Mutawaatir Hadeeth. If however the Hadeeth holds the possibility of

being Sidqan (truthful) or Kadhiban (a lie) then it is Khabar Al-Aahaad’.

The second and third of these mentioned types will be the place of our study here.

Al-Khabar Al-Mutawaatir linguistically means: Consecutiveness where two or more matters

follow on from each other with a pause or delay so that one follows after the other in accordance

to the meaning of Witr which means one by one.

This meaning has come in the speech of Allah (swt):

رى لنا ت ت ثم أرسلنا رمسمThen we sent Our Messengers in succession (one after the other) (Al-Mu’minoon 44).

(Ref: Sharh of ‘Al-Kawkab Al-Muneer’ p332/2 amongst other books of Usool ).

The meaning of Mutawaatir in Istilaah (Usooli terminology) is: The Khabar (report) from

a (certain) number which would normally prevent their collusion upon a lie.

(Ref: ‘Al-Aayaat Al-Bayyinaat’ of Al-‘Ibaadiy 272/3).

Its Hukm (ruling) is that it establishes ‘Ilm (knowledge) and Yaqeen according to the view of all

of the Fuqahaa’ (ref: ‘Meezaan Al-Usool’ of As Samarqandiy p423 and 69/3). The one who

denies (rejects) the Khabar (report) that has been confirmed to be Mutawaatir has disbelieved.

Some of the ‘Ulamaa have collected and recorded them like As-Suyootiy, Az-Zubaidiy and Al-

Kataaniy.

The linguistic meaning of Khabar Al-Aahaad is: It is the plural of Ahad (one/single) and it is

a Khabar (report) that has been related by one from another one as is taken from its name.

(Ref: ‘Meezaan Al-Usool’ p431).

Its Istilaahi (terminological) meaning is: The Khabar Al-Waahid which is less than the level

of the Tawaatur, and where a condition from amongst the conditions of the Tawaatur is missing.

(Ref: ‘Sharh Al-Lam’ of Ash-Sheeraaziy p578/2).

Its Hukm is that it does not establish (Yufeed) ‘Ilm and certainty (Yaqeen). The one who denies

it is not a disbeliever because it is below the level of the Mutawaatir. This is the view of the great

4

majority of the ‘Ulamaa including the four A’immah (Imaams) as we will go to make clear later

inshaa Allah. This puts to rest the claims of those who deny this about them and their students

and I have come across more than seventy from amongst them who held this view. I have added

a special chapter at the end of this study just to present these opinions of theirs alone.

5

The second angle:

The Adillah (evidences) from the Kitaab, the Sunnah and the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah which

indicate that the Khabar Al-Aahaad do not establish (decisive) ‘Ilm and Yaqeen (certainty).

As for Al-Kitaab:

Allah (swt) said:

وا نموا أن تمصيبموا ق وما بهالة ف تمصبحم م فاسق بنبأ ف تب ي على ما ف علتمم يا أي ها الذين آمنموا إن جاءكم نادمي

O you who believe! If a rebellious disobedient person (Faasiq) comes to you with news, verify it, lest you harm

people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done. (Al-Hujuraat 6). Abu Bakr Al-Jassaas the Hanafi Scholar in respect to this Noble Aayaah: ‘This Aayah contains the

indication that the Khabar Al-Waahid does not oblige ‘Ilm (knowledge) and if it obliged knowledge in itself then

it would not have been in need of verification. There are people who use this as evidence for the permissibility of

accepting the Khabar Al-Waahid of the ‘Adl (just person). The specification of verifying the Faasiq in respect to

his Khabar (report/news) is an evidence indicating that the verification of the Khabar of the just person is not

permissible. This however is a mistaken understanding because the specification (Takhsees) of a matter does not

indicate that the Hukm of everything outside of that is the opposite’.

This Aayah is therefore from amongst the evidences/proofs for those who do not adopt the

Mafhoom Al-Mukhaalafah (opposite meaning) in respect to the Khabar Al-Waahid of the Faasiq

or the ‘Adl not establishing ‘Ilm (decisive knowledge).

And His speech (swt):

م ثاني جلدة وهم هداء فاجلدم حصنات ثم ل يأتموا بأرب عة شم والذين ي رممون المم

And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses - lash them with eighty lashes (An-

Noor 4). So Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla does not accept the single testimony (Shahaadah) for the confirmation

and verification of the act of Zinaa (adultery/fornication). Rather He (swt) stipulated four

witnesses as the Noble Aayah has guided to. This indicates that the single testimony does not

establish (decisive) knowledge and even if it came from an ‘Adl (just person). Rather their needs

to be a plurality, one after another (or on top of another) so that knowledge is (decisively)

established.

6

This Aayah has been used as evidence by those who stipulate four as being the minimum

grouping (number) for which their Khabar (report) will establish (decisive) knowledge and is

considered to be Mutawaatir.

(Ref: ‘At-Tamheed’ of Al-Kaloodhaaniy 28/3, ‘Nafaa’is Al-Usool’ Al-Faraafiy 2967/6, the

introduction of ‘Nuzhum Al-Mutanaathir’ of Az-Zubaidy and many other books of Usool when

they discuss the number which satisfies the Mutawaatr).

It could be argued that this represents a specific case related to the witnesses of Zinaa alone. The

evidence to support this being that Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has demanded two witnesses to

corroborate and verify murder and theft.

The answer to this argument:

This in fact represents another argument and proof (Hujjah) to support our position. This is

because Allah (swt) has demanded a plural (Jam’un) and not Khabar Waahid (a single/solitary

line) for the verification of murder and theft. And two is a Jam’un (plural). The Messenger of

Allah (saw) said: ‘Two and what is greater is a Jamaa’ah (collective)’ (At-Tahaawiy in

‘Ma’aani Al-Athaar’ 308/1, Al-Haakim in ‘Al-Mustadrak’, Ibn Maajah in his Sunnah 972 and Al-

Baihaqi in his ‘Sunan Al-Kubraa’ 69/3). Some of the ‘Ulamaa used this as evidence to say that

the minimum number for the Mutawaatir (*) is two and this is a khabar waahid after waahid

(one). (*ref: Al-Kuloodhaani in ‘At-Tamheed’ 29/3 and Al-Quraafiy in ‘Nafaa’is Al-Usool’

2967/6)

Similarly the Shar’a (Islamic legislation) has demanded that a Jam’u (collective) of two witnesses

the Wasiyah (will) in addition to affirming the Talaaq (divorce), Zawaaj (marriage), the sighting of

the new moon according to the stronger opinion, and to verify the Dain (debt).

All of these are from amongst the Adillah (evidences) which indicate that the Khabar Al-Waahid,

even if from a just person (‘Adl), does not establish (decisive) knowledge and even if it

establishes the action (i.e. it is acted upon).

As for the Sunnah:

He (saw) did not accept what Al-Waleed Bin ‘Uqbah Bin Abi Mu’ait informed him in regards to

Bani Al-Mustaliq until he had dispatched Khaalid Bin Al-Waleed to verify his news. It was upon

this incident that the Aayah of verification in Soorah Al-Hujuraat was revealed (Ref: Tafseer of

At-Tabari of Aayah 6 of Soorah Al-Hujuraat).

It should not be said that the command to verify was only because the informant was a Faasiq

because the informant was a Sahaabi and the Sahaabah (rah) are ‘Udool (trustworthy) whilst

those who have gone outside of this well accepted and established principle should not be relied

upon here.

7

Addition the Nabi (saw) did not accept the statement of Dhu l-Yadayni when he told the Nabi

(saw) that he had only prayed two Rak’ah for Salaatu zh-Zhohr. So he said to the Nabi (saw):

‘Have you shortened the prayer or did you forget?’ The Nabi (saw) then looked round to

the right and the left and asked the people: ‘What is Dhu l-Yadayni saying?’ They

responded: ‘He spoke the truth. You did not pray except two Rak’ah’ (Al-Bukhaari 1821/1

and Muslim 403/1 amongst others in the chapter ‘Forgetfulness in the Salaah’).

The point to not in the speech of Dhu l-Yadayni is that it came in opposition to what the

Messenger (saw) was certain in himself about whilst the Yaqeen (certainty) cannot be stood up

against by Zhann (uncertainty) but rather it must be opposed by Yaqeen (certainty). For this

reason the Nabi (saw) asked the people and they responded to him by saying that Dhu l-Yadayni

had spoken the truth. Certainty was then stood up against Yaqeen and so he (saw) prayed that

which he had forgotten and then made the Sajdah As-Sahw (prostration of forgetfulness).

Therefore it is affirmed that the Khabar Al-Waahid did not ascertain certainty in respect to the

Nabi (saw).

From this Daleel and what is similar to it the following principle was deduced: ‘The Yaqeen does

not go away except by way of Yaqeen’ or ‘The Yaqeen is not removed by the Zhann

(doubtful/speculative) or Shakk (doubt)’ And Allah knows best.

As for the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah:

The Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah (rah) has guided to the Khabar Al-Aahaad not establishing ‘Ilm and

Yaqeen and that they are not taken into the Aqeedah; otherwise they would have verified and

affirmed the Qur’aan by the solitary (Aahaad) statement in the case where this represent a pillar

of the Aqeedah.

Ahmad, At-Tabaraani, Ibn Mardawiyah and Al-Bazzaar related in a Saheeh chain from Ibn

‘Abbaas (ra) that ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (ra) used to take out the Mu’awidhataini (The last two

Soorahs) from the Mushaf and in a narration it stated: ‘He used to rub out the Mu’awidhataini’

and he would say: ‘Do not mix the Qur’aan with that which is not from it. They (the two) are not

from the Book of Allah but rather the Nabi (saw) used to only command us to seek refuge with

them’.

Al-Bazzaar said: ‘No one from amongst the Sahaabah followed Ibn Mas’ood (in regards to this

understanding)’.

This is a clear evidence indicating that the Sahaabah (ra) did not affirm the Qur’aan or any part

of it as being part of the Qur’aan by way of Aahaad like the statement of Ibn Mas’ood. Rather it

had to be decisive and Mutawaatir.

8

Al-Haakim in his ‘Al-Mustadrak’ and others related from Katheer bin As-Sult that he said: ‘Ibn

ul-‘Aas and Zaib Bin Thaabit were writing the Masaahif (Qur’aans) and they passed a certain

Aayah and Zaid said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: ‘Ash-Sheikh Wash- Sheikhah (the

old man and old woman) if they commit Zinaa then stone them to death’. ‘Amr said: ‘When this

was revealed I approached the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said ‘Should we write it?’. Shu’bah

said: ‘It was as if he disliked that to be done’. ‘Amr then said: ‘Do you see that of a Sheikh is not

married that he is lashed and that if a young man who was married committed Zinaa is stoned?’.

(Ref: Al-Mustadrak of Al-Haakim 360/4).

A Riwaayah (narration) in Al-Muwatta’ states: ‘Umar (ra) said: ‘If it would not have been said

that I added to the Qur’aan I would have written it’ and in another narration: ‘If the people

would not have said that ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab had added to the Book of Allah I would have

written it because verily we had recited it’ (Ref: In ‘Al-Muwatta’’ of Maalik in the Book of

Hudood in the chapter of stoning Hadeeth Number 10).

In spite of that the Sahaabah (rah) did not affirm this sentence as being an Aayah in the Book of

Allah Ta’Aalaa because it had not been verified decisively but rather only by Aahaad which

represents Zhann (speculation).

Imaam Maalik also related in Al-Muwatta’ a narration from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that she said: ‘From

that which was revealed was ten consecutive feeds from the breast would make us Haraam to

one another (i.e. marriage) then this was abrogated with five breast feeds and then the Messenger

(saw) passed away whilst this was being recited from the Qur’aan’ (Ref: The book of

breastfeeding Hadeeth number 17).

This sentence however was also not affirmed to be an Aayah from the Book of Allah because it

was not affirmed decisively but rather by Aahaad which is Zhann.

Ibn Al-Anbaariy and Ibn Abi Daawood collected in their books tens of sentences that were

found in the Muhafs of the Sahaabah individually but were not affirmed in the Mushaf Al-

Imaam (the final compiled Mushaf in the time of ‘Uthmaan (ra) which is the only Mushaf that is

considered to be the Qur’aan).

From these sentences was the sentence that was found in the Mushaf of Az-Zubair (ra): ‘There is

no blame upon you for you to seek a favour/bounty from your Lord in the seasons of Hajj’.

And in the Mushaf of ‘Aa’ishah (ra): ‘And safeguard the prayers and the Salaat ul Wustaa (middle

prayer) and Salaat ul ‘Asr’ (Here the last part is an addition to what was affirmed and agreed

upon).

And in the Mushaf of Ubayy Bin Ka’b: ‘So then fast three consecutive days as Kaffaarah for the

Yameen (broken sworn oath)’

This is in addition to other sentences however the Sahaabah (rah) agreed and made consensus

upon that they were not the Qur’aan and the evidence for this is that they were not affirmed in

9

the Mushaf Al-Imaam which is what we have between our hands. It is not valid to say that they

are the Qur’aan because they were not verified and affirmed as being Tawaatur and decisive but

rather they were Aahaad and represented Zhann.

The Sahaabah (rah) then did something that was eye-catching which made clear that these

sentences were not considered to be the Qur’aan. This is when they agreed to the decision of

‘Uthmaan Bin ‘Affaan (ra) to burn all of the Aahaad Masaahif (versions/copies) in the

possession of the Sahaabah which were different in their sentences to the Mushaf Al-Imaam

which they agreed upon to be the Qur’aan Al-Kareem and this is the position of the people of

Islaam (Ahlu-s-Sunnah) everywhere and in every time. The companion of Muslim Ath-Thuboot

said: ‘That which has been transmitted by Aahaad (single line transmissions) is definitely not

from the Qur’aan and no difference is known in regards to this from a single person from the

people of the Madhaahib’ (Ref: The commentary of Al-Mustasfaa of Al-Ghazaali 9/2).

In this Ijmaa’ of action and speech (Fi’liy and Qawliy) from the companions of the Messenger of

Allah (saw) and that of the Madhaahib, lies the greatest evidence to support the view that the

‘Aqaa’id of the Muslims is not affirmed by anything other than Yaqeen (certainty). The Kitaab of

Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla is one of the pillars of the Islamic Aqeedah which we have brought forth in

the context of the Mas’alah (issue) we are examining and it is sufficient to dispel those who have

said that the Aahaad establish certainty and that they are taken to affirm the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs).

10

The third angle:

Their difference in regards to establishing the Khabar Al-Aahaad (single

line or solitary report).

Amongst the evidences establishing that the Khabar Al-Aahaad do not benefit other than

speculation, is the difference of the Sahaabah (rah) and those who came after them in regards to

verifying the Khabar Al-Waahid in terms of its rejection and acceptance. If it establishes

(decisive) ‘Ilm and Yaqeen (certainty) then their differing upon it would hold no meaning and

some of them would have rejected this from others and condemned it. The fact that this did not

happen therefore indicates to that which we have established.

As for the Sahaabah (rah):

All of them did not accept the Riwaayah (narration) of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood when he did not

consider the ‘Mu’awaidhataini’ to be from the Qur’aan as we have previously established in

respect to the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah upon not considering the Khabar Al-Aahaad in the

Qur’aan Al-Kareem whilst it represents the source of the Islamic ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs).

Other examples:

1) From the Shar’iah examples and evidences of the actions and statements of the Sahaabah (ra)

that occurred without anyone denying them and which indicate the permissibility of differing

upon the acceptance and non-acceptance of the Khabar Al-Aahaad is what was reported from

‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab (ra). This is when he did not accept the narration of Hafsah the Mother

of the believers in relation to the Statement of Allah (swt):

لة الومسطى حافظموا على الصلوات والص

Safeguard the prayers and the middle-prayer (Al-Baqarah 238).

This is when she added ‘Was Salaat ul ‘Asr’ (And the ‘Asr prayer). ‘Umar (ra) said to her: ‘Do you

have a Bayyinah (clear proof/evidence) for that?’ She replied: ‘No’. So he said: ‘By Allah we will

not insert into the Qur’aan that which a woman has born witness to without establishing a clear

proof’.

2) ‘Umar (ra) rejected the Khabar (report) of Faatimah Bin Qais in respect to issue of Nafaqah,

residence and settlement, Imaam Muslim and others related from Ash-Sha’biy that he relayed the

Hadeeth of Faatimah Bin Qais that states that the Messenger of Allah (saw)did not give her the

right of Nafaqah (spending) and residence (when she was divorced). ‘Umar said: ‘We will not

leave the Kitaab of our Rabb and the Sunnah of our Nabiy for the speech of a woman which we

11

do not know if she has retained (remembered) or forgotten. She (the woman) has the right of

housing and Nafaqah (spending)’. And he recited the speech of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

ن ل وهم نة بفاحشة يأتي أن إل يرمجن ول ب ميموتن من تمرجم ممب ي

Do not turn them out of their (husband's) homes, and they shall not (themselves) leave, unless they engaged in

some open evil lewdness (i.e. Zinaa) (At-Talaaq 1).

‘Aa’ishah (ra) also rejected this Hadeeth (Ref: Sharh of Saheeh Muslim by An-Nawawi 104/1).

3) ‘Aa’ishah (ra) rejected the Khabar of Ibn ‘Umar (ra) in relation to the punishment of the dead

due to the crying of his family over him. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related from ‘Abdullah Ibn

‘Umar (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘The dead will be punished due to the crying

of his family over him’. When ‘Aa’ishah (ra) heard this she said: ‘By Allah the Messeenger of

Allah (saw) did not at all say that the dead would be punished for anyone’s crying’.

In another narration about this ‘Aa’ishah (ra) said: ‘May Allah’s mercy be upon Ibn ‘Umar

because by Allah the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not say: ‘Verily Allah will punish the believer

due to the crying of his family upon him’. (Ref: Fat’h ul- Baari’ of Al-‘Asqalaaniy 152/3 and the

Sharh of Muslim by An-Nawawi 232/6).

4) Al-Bukhaari related that Hudhaifah Bin Al-Yamaan (ra) said: ‘The Nabi (saw) went to the

place of waste of some people and urinated standing. He then called for some water and I

brought it for him and he made Wudoo’’. However ‘Aa’ishah (ra) rejected this. Al-Haakim And

Ibn Uwaanah in their Saheeh books related that she (ra) said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) did

not urinate standing since the time that the Qur’aan descended’. And she (ra) said: ‘Whoever tells

you that he used to urinate whilst standing don’t believe him’. (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 330/1 and

Sharh of Muslim of An-Nawawi 165/3).

5) In regards to the sighting of the Nabi (saw) of his Rabb (swt) on the night of the Mi’raaj

(Ascension) which is from the matters of the unseen; An-Nasaa’i and Al-Haakim related with a

Saheeh chain from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) that he said: ‘Do you find it wondrous that the close

companionship belonged to Ibraaheem, the speech to Musaa and the sight to Muhammad’.

‘Abdur Razzaaq related from Mu’ammar Bin Al-Hasan that he swore that Muhammad (saw) saw

his Rabb.

Ibn Ishaq related that Ibn ‘Umar (ra) wrote to Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) asking him if Muhammad (saw)

had seen his Rabb and Ibn ‘Abbaas wrote back: ‘Yes’.

However ‘Aa’ishah (ra) strongly rejected this and said: ‘Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw

his Rabb has lied’ (Ref: Sharh Muslim of An-Nawawi 3/4 and Fat’h ul-Baari’ 606/8.

12

6) Imaam Muslim amongst others related from the Nabi (saw) that he said: ‘The Salaah is cut

(broken) by (passing of) the woman, the donkey and the dog’.

This reached ‘Aa’ishah (ra) and she rejected it saying: ‘You have made us similar to the donkeys

and the dogs’ and in another narration: ‘You have made us equal to the dogs and the donkeys’

and in another: ‘You have made us dogs’. (Ref: Sharh Muslim of An-Nawawi 228/4 and Fat’h ul-

Baari’ 589/1).

7) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related from ‘Aasim who said: I said to Anas Bin Maalik: ‘Has it

reached you that the Nabi (saw) said that there is no Hilf (allying) in Islaam?’ He said: ‘The Nabi

(saw) allied between the Quraish and the Ansaar in my dwellings’ and in a narration from

Muslim: ‘...in his house’.

Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaaniy said: ‘The answer of Anas represents a denial of the main part of the

Hadeeth because it included the negation of the Hilf whilst what Anas said affirmed its existence’

(Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 501-2/10

These example are sufficient to deduce that the Akhbaar (reports) Al-Aahaad did not establish

other than Zhann amongst the Sahaabah (rah) and is this was not the case then how could it be

justified for them to have differences in respect to their acceptance and rejection whilst this was

done in front of the eyes and ears of others and they did not condemn them for this.

In addition there are many other examples of them not accepting a report without a secondary

proof or testimony which also indicates that the Khabar Al-Aahaad did not represent anything

other than Zhann for them.

Examples of this:

1) What was recorded by At-Tirmidhi, Abu Daawood and others. Qubaisah Bin Abi Dhuaib

said: The grandmother approached Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra) asking him about her inheritance:

He said: ‘You do not have in the Book of Allah Ta’Aalaa anything and I have not known

anything in the Sunnah of the Nabi of Allah (saw) that gives you anything. So return (home) so

that I can revise the matter with the people’. So he asked the people and Al-Mugheerah Bin

Shu’bah said: ‘She (a grandmother) came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he gave her a

sixth’. Abu Bakr then said: ‘Do you have anyone else alongside you (who can confirm that)?’

Then Muhammad Bin Salamah came and said the same as what Al-Mugheerah Bin Shu’bah had

said, and so Abu Bakr (ra) applied this upon her’ (Ref: Sunan Abu Daawood 121/3 in the

chapter of the grandmother and At-Tirmidhi in the chapter ‘What has come in regards to the

inheritance of the grandmother’).

2) What Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related from Abu Musaa Al-Ash’ariy (ra) that he sought

permission to enter upon ‘Umar (ra) three times and it was as if he found him busy so he

returned. ‘Umar then said: ‘Did I not hear the voice of ‘Abdullah Bin Qais (i.e. Abu Musaa).

Give him permission to enter’. So he called him back and said: ‘What made you do what you

did?’ So he (Abu Musaa) said: ‘We were commanded to do this’. Then he said: ‘You will

definitely bring evidence (testimony) for this or I will do something to you (i.e. punish)’. So they

went to a gathering of the Ansaar and they said: ‘None except our youngest will give testimony

13

upon this’. So Sa’eed Al-Khudriy (ra) stood and said: ‘We were commanded to do this’. Then

‘Umar said: ‘This command of the Messenger of Allah (saw) was hidden from me and was

distracted from it by trading in the markets’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 320/13, 27/11 and Sharh

Muslim of An-Nawawi 130/14).

3) What was recorded by Imaam Ahmad and Abu Daawood amongst others from ‘Ali Ibn Abi

Taalib (ra) that he said: ‘I was a man who when I heard a Hadeeth from the Messenger of Allah

(saw) that Allah would benefit me with it in the way that He wished me to benefit. And when

one of his companions informed me I would seek an oath from them and if they swore and oath

I would believe it, and Abu Bakr would inform me and Abu Bakr (ra) spoke the truth’ (Ref:

Musnad of Imaam Ahmad 10/1, the Sunan of Abu Daawood 86/2 and ibn Hibbaan in his

Saheeh 10/2).

Therefore as can be seen, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not affirm

certainty, there would have been no reason for Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Ali (ra) to seek

corroborating testimony and evidence or to take a sworn oath from their companions. This is

despite them knowing with certainty that they were truthful and that they would not attribute lies

to the Messenger of Allah (saw) because they are all ‘Udool (trustworthy) as a whole.

It could be said that they used to accept many narrations without requesting corroborating

evidence and proof which indicates that they viewed them as being certain and even if they were

Khabar Al-Aahaad.

Answer: Their acceptance of narrations without requesting corroborating evidence guides to the

fact that they were firm in their view. They were either heard directly from the mouth of the

Messenger of Allah (saw) in which case it was certain for that person, or when the narration had

become Mutawaatir amongst them and even if only in its meaning, For this reason they did not

ask for testimony upon them and these reports are not considered by them to be Akhbaar

Aahaad and its rules do not apply upon them.

Our deduction based on the above mentioned examples about Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Ali in

respect to them seeking corroborative testimony and oaths for the narration has not been

presented to prove that the Khabar of two or three men establishes decisive knowledge and

certainty as this is not its context. Rather it is to indicate that had every Khabar Waahid (singly

transmitted report) established certainty in their view then why would they have asked for

corroborative testimony and proof for it and were they silent over this. This is therefore is what

we wanted to illustrate from these previous examples.

The differing of the ‘Ulamaa after the Sahaabah:

As for the ‘Ulamaa who came after the Sahaabah (rah) then they spoke about their difference in

respect to the acceptance and rejection of the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad and the reports that do not

reach the level of Tawaatur and Yaqeen according to their agreement. This indicates that what

14

isn’t Mutawaatir is regarded to be Khabar Aahaad and that it does not establish (decisive)

knowledge and certainty, and that it establishes the action (i.e. to act by them) and not I’tiqaad

(belief), otherwise it would not have been permitted for them to differ in respect to them. These

differences are many indeed and they require volumes, a matter which is well-known amongst

those who have knowledge in these areas, and amongst the scholars of Fiqh and Hadeeth.

However we will present some examples for the purpose of making the point.

1) They differed over the Hadeeth:

‘None of you believes until his desires are in accordance to that which I have come with’.

An-Nawawi recorded it in his ‘Forty’ and said that the Hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh, we have related

it from Kitaab Al-Hujjah with a Saheeh Isnaad.

Al-Haafizh Ibn Hajr said: ‘It was brought by Al-Hasan Bin Sufyaan and other than him and its

Rijaal (transmitters) are Thiqqaat (trustworthy/sound)’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 289/13).

Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali said: ‘Classifying this Hadeeth as Saheeh is very remote (far off)’ (Ref:

Jaam’i Al-‘Uloom Wa-l-Hikam p521).


‘Verily Allah has overlooked for me from my Ummah the mistake, forgetfulness and upon that

which they were compelled (against their will)’.

An-Nawawi said: ‘Hadeeth Hasan related by Ibn Maajah, Al-Baihaqi and others.

Al-Haakim recorded it and said: ‘It is Saheeh upon their (two) conditionality’.

Abu Haatim Ar-Raazi said: ‘This Hadeeth is not Saheeh and its Isnaad (chain) is not

corroborated’.

Al-Imaam Ahmad rejected it and Ibn Katheer said that its Isnaad was Jayyid (good/sound). (Ref:

Jaam’i Al-‘Uloom Wa-l-Hikam p501 and Tufah At-Taalib of Ibn Katheer p271).


‘There is no harm and harming’ (Laa Darara Wa Laa Diraar).

Al-Haakim said that its Isnaad was Saheeh and An-Nawawi classified it as Hasan.

Al-Haafizh Khaalid Bin Sa’eed Al-Andulusiy said: ‘The Hadeeth ‘Laa Darara Wa Laa Diraar’ was

not Saheeh’. (Ref: The previous reference p410).


‘The Imaam is Daamin and the Mu’adhdhin is Mu’tamin’.

‘Ali Bin Al-Mudaini said: It is not corroborated whilst Ibn Hibbaan classified it as Saheeh (Ref:

Nail Al-Awtaar of Ash-Shawkaani 13/2).

15


‘The Hudodd are not undertaken inside the Masjid and leadership is not sought in it’.

Related by Ahmad and Abu Daawood with a Da’eef (weak) chain.

Ibn Hajr said in his Talkhees: ‘There is no problem with its Isnaad’ (Ref: Subul us Salaam As-

San’aaniy 155/1).


‘Whoever places a judge between/amongst the people then he has slaughtered without (the use

of) a knife’.

At-Tirmidhi classified it as Hasan, Ibn Khuzaimah as Saheeh whilst Ibn ul-Jawziy said: ‘This

Hadeth is not Saheeh’ (Nail Al-Awtaar 1163/9).


‘The comparison of the kiss in Ramadhaan to the Madmadah (rinsing mouth in Wudoo’)’.

Al-Haakim, Ibn Hibbaan and Ibn Khuzaimah related in their Sihaah (Saheeh collections).

An-Nasaa’iy said: ‘This Hadeeth is Munkar (rejected) and Al-Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal said the

same (Ref: Tuhfah Al-Ishraaf 17/8, ‘Aun Al-Ma’bood 12/7, and Tuhfah At-Taalib p425).


‘Talqeen Al-Mayyit’ (Instruction of the dead).

Ibn Hajr regarded it with strength whilst Ibn ul-Qayyim classified it as Da’eef (weak) (Ref: Subul

As-Salaam 113/2).


‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade the fast of ‘Arafah’.

Ibn Khuzaimah and Al-Haakim classified it as Saheeh whilst Al-‘Uqaily classified it as Da’eef

(Ref: Subul As-Salaam 172/2).


‘Seek a righteous verdict from your heart for that which gives your Nafs comfort...’

An-Nawawi classified it as Hasan whilst Ibn Rajab declared it Da’eef. (Ref: Jaam’i Al-‘Uloom

Wa-l-Hikam p147).

16


‘Are you two then blind’.

Ibn Hajr said: The Hadeeth is differed upon in respect to its correctness/soundness (Sihhah)

whilst At-Tirmidhi declared it as Hasan Saheeh. (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 550/1, Sunan At-Tirmidhi

in the chapter of seeking permission and manners 192/4).


‘If you see a man who regularly attends the Masaajid then bear witness for his Imaan’.

At-Tirmidhi said that it is a Saheeh Hadeeth and Al-Haakim and Ibn Khuzaimah classified it as

Saheeh however Al-‘Iraaqiy and Maghaltay (Ref: Faid Al-Qadeer of Al-Manaawiy 358/1).


‘My Ummah will be divided into seventy and something divisions/groupings’.

At-Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Saheeh whilst Ibn Hazm said that it is not Saheeh. (Ref: Sunan At-

Tirmidhi 124/4 and Al-Fasl fee Al-Malal Wan Nahl of Ibn Hazm 292/3).


‘Seeking knowledge is a Fareedah (obligation) upon every Muslim’.

As-Suyootiy classified it as Saheeh, As-Sakhaawiy said it has credence with Abu Shaheen with a

chain (sanad) where its transmitters are trustworthy and Al-Haafizh Al-Muzziy said it was Hasan,

whilst Ibn ul-Qattaan said that it is not Saheeh in any respect and An-Nawawi declared it Da’ef

(weak) (Ref: Faid ul-Qadeer 267/4 and Tadreeb Ar-Raawiy 149/1).

15) They disagreed about the Hadeeth forbidding singing. They were declared Da’eef by Ibn ul-

‘Arabi and Ibn Hazm whilst they were classified as Saheeh by other than them (Ref:Nail Al-

Awtaar 264/8).


‘Any woman who is married without the permission of her Waliy then her Nikaah (marriage) is

Baatil, Baatil, Baatil (invalid)’.

Ibn Katheer said that a number of the people of knowledge discussed this. Ibn Jareeh said: Then

I met Az-Zuhriy and asked him and he rejected/denied it and so they classified this Hadeeth as

Da’eef based on that. He then said: This Hadeeth has been declared Saheeh by ‘Ali Bin Al-

Mudainiy one of the A’immah (Notable Scholars) (Ref: Tuhfah At-Taalib p352).

17

17) They disagreed over the Hadeeth:

‘The example of my Ummah is like the rain, it is not known whether goodness is in ots

beginning or its end’.

Ibn Abdul-Barr said that this Hadeeth is Hasan whilst An-Nawawi declared it Da’eef. (Ref:

Kashf ul-Khafaa’ of Al-‘Ajlooniy 197/2).

18) They disagreed over the Hadeeth:

‘Do you see the sun?’ He replied: Yes. He (then) said: Bear witness/testimony like it (i.e. in

certainty and clarity) or leave it’.

Al-Haakim declared it Saheeh whilst Ibn ‘Adiy declared it Da’eef (Subul As-Salaam of As-

San’aaniy 130/4).

_____________

They also differed in respect to the Ahaadeeth of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim in

spite of the claim made by Abu ‘Amr Bin As-Salaah (Rahimuhullah) when he stated that they

establish and affirm ‘Ilm, Yaqeen (certainty) and Qat’ (decisiveness/definiteness) in terms of

their correctness.

Examples:

1) The Hadeeth of ‘Al-Istikhaarah’.

It was related by Al-Bukhaari and classified as weak by Al-Imaam Ahmad (Ref: Tuhfah Adh-

Dhaakireen, Ash-Shawkaani p133).

2) The Hadeeth: ‘Whatever has been tanned has been purified’.

Related by Al-Imaam Muslim and classified as Da’eef by Al-Imaam Ahmad.

3) The Hadeeth: ‘That he (saw) prayed the prayer of eclipse with three Rukoo’s and four

Rukoo’s’.

Al-Bukhaari related this and Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’iy declared it as Da’eef (weak).

4) The Hadeeth: ‘Verily Allah created the ground (soil) on Saturday, the mountains on Sunday,

the trees on Monday, the Makrooh on Tuesday, light on Wednesday, and sent forth in it the

animals on Thursday and created Aadam on Friday’.

Muslim recorded it in his Saheeh and Al-Baihaqi declared it Da’eef (Ref: Ibn Taymiyyah in ‘Ilm

ul-Hadeeth 70).

It is worth noting that the above Hadeeth has a relationship to the attributes (Siffaat) of Allah

(swt) related to creation and the Qudrah (power/ability) to bring something out of nothing, and

despite this they still differed in regards to it.

18

5) The Hadeeth: ‘This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. a noble) and may Allah make peace between

two big groups of Muslims through him’. (Referring to Al-Hasan Bin ‘Ali (ra)).

Al-Bukhaari related this and it was classifies as Da’eef by Al-Waleed Al-Yaajiy (The same source

as previous reference).

This Hadeeth also discusses the Ghaib (unseen) and yet there exists one who has classified it as

Da’eef and not used it as evidence.

6) The Hadeeth: ‘Then as for the fire it will not fill until Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Aalaa will put

down His foot and it (the fire) will say Qat Qat (Enough)’.

(Mutaffaq ‘Alaihi i.e. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim).

Al-Jazaa’iriy said: ‘This Hadeeth and others (with different meanings) which are many make it

hard for the person to say that this is Saheeh let alone have certainty in it (Ref: Tawjeeh An-

Nazhar Ilaa Usool Al-Athar p130).

This Hadeeth also relates to the unseen (Ghaib) and the being of Allah (swt). Despite being

Saheeh there are those who have denied/rejected it.

7) The Hadeeth: ‘The Nabi (saw) had a horse called Luhaif’.

Al-Bukhaari and classified as Da’eef by Ad-Daaruqutniy, Ahmad and Ibn Mo’een. (Ref: Same as

previous p332).

8) The Hadeeth: ‘Ibraaheem (as) will meet his father Aazar on the Day of Judgement and dust

will be upon Aazar’s face’.

Related by Al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh and Al-Ismaa’eeliy said: This Khabar has questions in

regards to its correctness. (Ref: Same as previous p332).

9) The statement of Al-Haafizh Bin Hajr as a whole about the Ahaadeeth of the two Saheeh

collections which he critiqued saying: ‘The number (of Hadeeth whose authenticity has been

questioned) in the Book of Al-Bukhaari and even if Muslim shared some of these, is 110

Hadeeth. From these Muslim recorded 32 whilst Al-Bukhaari was alone in recording 78 of them’.

(Ref: Introduction of Fat’h ul-Baari’ p246). (Translator’s Note: This quote does not mean that

Ibn Hajr questioned the authenticity of this number of Hadeeth but rather he mentioned the

number that others had questioned).

The matter does not end here in relation to disagreement over the Sihhah

(soundness/authenticity) of the Aahaad whether they were related in the two Saheeh books or

others. Indeed it went further than that as there were ‘Ulamaa who blatantly rejected Ahaadeeth

which were affirmed by other than them because they considered them to have been lies and

fabrications made against the Messenger of Allah (saw). These included some that were recorded

in the Saheeh collections of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

19

Examples:

1) Al-Imaam Muslim related: ‘Verily Allah created the ground (soil) on Saturday, and created in it

the mountains on Sunday, the trees on Monday, the Makrooh on Tuesday, light on Wednesday,

and sent forth in it the animals on Thursday and created Aadam after ‘Asr on Friday in the last

creation in the last hour from the hours of Jumu’ah (Friday) in the time between ‘Asr and the

night’

Ibn ul-Qayyim in his book ‘Naqd Al-Manqool’ (Critique of what has been transmitted) in the

chapter: ‘The opposition of the subject of the Hadeeth to what is clear in the Qur’aan’ he said:

‘And this appears to resemble that which error has fallen upon in regards to the Hadeeth of Abu

Hurairah: ‘Allah created the ground on Saturday...’ (Ref: p78).

2) Al-Imaam Muslim recorded from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) that he said: ‘The Muslims neither looked

to Abu Sufyan (with respect) nor did they sit in his company. He (Abu Sufyan) said to the Nabi

of Allah (saw): O Allah's Nabi, grant me three things. He replied in the affirmative. He (further)

said: I have with me the most handsome and the best (woman) Umm Habiba, daughter of Abu

Sufyan; marry her, whereupon he said: Yes. And he again said: Accept Mu'awiya to serve as your

scribe. He said: Yes. He again said: Make me the commander (of the Muslim army) so that I

should fight against the unbelievers as I fought against the Muslims. He said: Yes...’.

Ibn Hazm said: ‘This Hadeeth is fabricated and there is no doubt in that’ (Ref: Tawjeeh An-

Nazhar Ilaa Usool Al-Athar p137).

3) Al-Imaam Muslim recorded: ‘If you live for a time, you would be about to see people going

out (in the morning) with the anger of Allah and returning in the evening under the curse of

Allah, and there would be in their hands (whips) like the tail of an ox’.

Ibn ul-Jawziy quoted it in his ‘Mawdoo’aat’ (collection of fabricated Hadeeth) from Ibn Hibbaan

and said: ‘This Khabar (report) with this wording (Lafzh) is Baatil (invalid/false)’ (Ref: Ibn ul-

Jawziy in his ‘Mawdoo’aat Al-Kubraa’ 101/3).

4) Al-Bukhaari and Muslim in their books of Saheeh reported from Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that from the

Nabi (saw) in respect to His speech Ta’Aalaa:

لمم إن تست غفر لمم سبعي مرة ف لن ي غفر اللهم

If you sought forgiveness for them seventy times then Allah will (still) never forgive them (At-Taubah 80).

He (saw) said: ‘I will then increase to over seventy’.

Al-Ghazaaliy said in ‘Al-Mustasfaa’: This Khabar Waahid (single line report) does not establish a

proof in affirming the language’.

20

He said in ‘Al-Mankhool’: That which has been reported in relation to the Aayah of Istighfaar

(seeking forgiveness) is a definite lie. The aim of this is to stay away from that which leads to

despair from forgiveness so how can it be thought that the Messenger (saw) would be unmindful

of that’ (Al-Mustasfaa 195/2 and Al-Mankhoul p212).

This is in respect to what has been found within the two Saheehs. As for other than them then

there is no hiding that they disagreed in respect to denying/rejecting them and affirming them

and even if they were related to the Aqaa’id beliefs.

This is like the Ahaadeeth about the miracle of the Nabi (saw) in regards to the returning of the

sun after it had set in the Ghazwah of Khaibar.

Al-Jawzqaaniy said that it was rejected and inconsistent (Mudtarib), Al-Jawziy quoted it in his

‘Mawdoo’aat’ (Book of fabricated Ahaadeeth) whilst At-Tahaawiy classified it as Saheeh in his

‘Mushkil Al-Aathaar’ as did Al-Qaadi ‘Iyaadh in his ‘Ash-Shifaa’. (Ref: ‘Al-Masnoo’ah’ of As-

Suyootiy 336/1).

Whoever wishes to examine the truthfulness of what we are saying then he should look at the

book: ‘Fawaa’id Al-Majmoo’ah Fee Ahaadeeth Al-Mawdoo’ah’ of Ash-Shawkaani. It mentions in

it many Saheeh and Hasan Ahaadeeth which some of the ‘Ulamaa have rejected and have classed

as being from the Mawdoo’aat (Fabricated Ahaadeeth) a matter which Ash-Shawkaani paid

attention to within this book.

There is also the book: ‘Alaali’u ul-Masnoo’ah Fil Ahaadeeth Al-Mawdoo’ah’ by Al-Haafizh As-

Suyootiy, in which he revised many of the Ahaadeeth from Ibn ul-Jawziy’s book: ‘Al-

Mawdoo’aat Al-Kubraa’ and affirmed that they were considered to be Saheeh and Hasan in the

opinion of others.

Similarly Ibn Hajr also revised Ibn Al-Jawziy’s book of fabricated Ahaadeeth and those which

were quoted from the Musnad of Al-Imaam Ahmad, which numbered twenty-four Ahaadeeth.

This was in his book: ‘Al-Qawl Al-Musaddad Fi dh-Dhabb Musnad Al-Imaam Ahmad’.

There is also the book ‘Al-Mustadrak’ of Al-Haakim in which he quoted Ahaadeeth upon the

conditionality of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim or one of them as it appeared to him. However Adh-

Dhahabi then followed him and revised many Ahaadeeth that he had considered to be from the

Mawdoo’aat.

If the examples that we have presented in this section about the Ikhtilaaf (difference and

disagreement) of the ‘Ulamaa from the time of the Sahaabah (rah) until this time of ours in

regards to the Aahaad narrations are correct then this would represent a decisive indication in

respect to the Khabar Al-Aahaad not establishing decisiveness and Yaqeen (certainty). If this was

not the case, then how could their disagreement and their rejection been justifiable? We would

have seen some of them condemn others in a severe and strong manner in the same way that

they would have done had the issue been related to the definite and Mutawaatir. As this

condemnation did not happen it is then known with certainty that the Khabar Aahaad do not

represent other than Zhann. Indeed in addition to that we find that they were agreed upon not

21

declaring disbelief upon the one who denies the Aahaad which is not the case with the

Mutawaatir. This was mentioned by As-Sarkhasiy, Al-Jarjaaniy and the author of ‘Fawaatih Ar-

Rahmout as will be explained later. (Ref: Sarkhasiy in his ‘Usool’ 12/1 or 292, Abdu Sh-Shukoor

in ‘Fawaatih Ar-Rahmoot’, Al-Haashiyah of Al-Ghazaali 11/2, and Al-Jarjaaniy in his ‘Ta’reef’

p102).

Indeed there were also some who did not classify the one who rejected the Aahaad as being

Faasiq like Qaadi Abu Ya’laa despite as Ijmaa’ being established upon this (Ref: Usool Fiqh, Abu

Yaa’laa p233).

22

The fourth angle:

It is not permitted for there to be disagreement in the ‘Aqaa’id which have been firmly

established amongst the Muslims.

This issue is nearly one of the basic and obvious issues for the ‘Ulamaa of the Muslims and the

evidences for it are abundant and Qat’iy (decisive).

From them is the statement of Allah (swt):

له وي قمولمون ن مؤمنم ون أن ي مفرقموا ب ي الله ورمسم له ويمريدم إن الذين يكفمرمون بالله ورمسم ونكفمرم بب ع بب عون وا ب ي ذلك سبيل ويمريدم ا وأعتدنا للكافرين عذابا ممهينا( 051)أن ي تخذم مم الكافرمون حق أمولئك هم

Verily, those who disbelieve in Allah and his Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allah and his

Messengers saying: "We believe in some but reject others" and wish to adopt a way in between. They are in truth

disbelievers and we have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment (An-Nisaa 150-151).

And His statement (swt):

الكتاب ن يا أف ت مؤمنمون بب ع م إل خزي ف الياة الد فما جزاءم من ي فعلم ذلك منكم وتكفمرمون بب عا ت عملمون وي وم القيامة ي مردون إل أشد العذاب وما اللهم بغافل عم

Then do you believe in some of the book and disbelieve in some? Then what is the recompense of those who do so

among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Judgement they shall be consigned to the

most severest torment and Allah is not unaware of what you do *Al-Baqarah 82).

In a Saheeh Hadeeth related by Abu Hurairah (ra) the Nabi (saw) said: ‘Al-Jidaal

(arguing/disputing) in respect to the Qur’aan is Kufr’ and in another Saheeh narration: ‘Al-

Miraa’ (disputing/arguing/doubting) in respect to the Qur’aan is Kufr’.

Al-Imaam Abu ‘Umar Ibn Abdul Barr (rh) said: ‘The meaning of this is that two people

argue/wrangle about an Aayah and one denies it and proceeds upon doubt. This is the type of

Miraa’ (disputing) that is Kufr. As for disputing in respect to the Ahkaam of the Qur’aan and its

meanings, then the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) disputed in regards to this a lot.

This therefore makes clear to you that the disputing which is Kufr is the denial/disbelief and

Shakk (doubt). This is like the speech of Allah (swt):

ول ي زالم الذين كفرموا ف مرية منهم

23

And those who disbelieve will not cease to be in doubt/disputing (Miryah) about it (this Qur'aan) (Al-Hajj 55).

And he said: And the Salaf (predecessors) forbade the disputation and arguing in regards to Allah

all Glory and Praise to him in respect to His Siffaat (attributes) and Asmaa’ (names). As for the

Fiqh (i.e. Shar’iyah rulings) then they have agreed (held a consensus Ijmaa’) upon the argument

and debate in respect to it. This is because it is an ‘Ilm (knowledge) that requires returning the

branches to the ‘Usool (bases) due to the requirement of that whilst the I’tiqaadaat (beliefs) are

not like that (Ref: Jaami’ Bayaan Al-‘Ilm Wa Fadlihi 92/2).

As for the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad then this Hukm (ruling) does not apply upon them, meaning the

ruling that applies to the beliefs (Aqaa’id). As for what they claim in respect to them being from

the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs) or take the same ruling as the Aqaa’id, then their claim is Baatil (invalid) and

rejected for a number of reasons:

The first reason:

There is no Daleel (evidence) indicating that the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad are from the beliefs

whether in the Qur’aan, the Sunnah or the Ijmaa’ of the Sahaabah. Rather the previously

mentioned evidences have established the opposite to be the case.

The second reason:

The denial of some of the Sahaabah and those who came after them of many of the Akhbaar Al

Aahaad in addition to their disagreement over corroborating them as we have already mentioned

earlier in the previous chapter. If the case was as they say then it would not have been allowed

for anyone to differ and disagree or argue and dispute in respect to them. We would be seeking

error in the Sahaabah (rah) who transmitted the Deen to us and the sin/error would fall upon

the one who did that. This is inconceivable and it is rejected by the definite evidences.

The third reason:

If the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad were from the ‘Aqaa’id or evidences for the ‘Aqaa’id then the Islamic

beliefs would contain contradictions which would lead to harmful divisions in the Deen. This is

because there are Saheeh Akhbaar Aahaad which clash with the Aayaat of the Qur’aan or are

contradictory to them. This is like the Hadeeth related by Al-Imaam Muslim: ‘Verily Allah

created the ground (soil) on Saturday, and created in it the mountains on Sunday, the trees on

Monday, the Makrooh on Tuesday, light on Wednesday, and sent forth in it the animals on

Thursday and created Aadam after ‘Asr on Friday in the last creation in the last hour from the

hours of Jumu’ah (Friday) in the time between ‘Asr and the night’ (Ref: Naql Al-Manqool Ibn ul-

Qayyim p78 where he considers it to be in conflict with what is explicit in the Qur’aan).

This Hadeeth mentions that the creation was seven days whilst this contradicts the speech of

Allah (swt) in the Qur’aan:

24

ما ف ستة أيام ن هم ماوات والرض وما ب ي الذي خلق الس

(He it is) who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between it in six days (Al-Furqaan

59). Similar to this is the Hadeeth of ‘Al-Gharaaneeq Al-‘Ulaa’: More than one of the A’immah and

Huffaazh related this from more than one path, narration and a number of worded versions

which were classified as being Saheeh by more than one of them. The (claimed) Hadeeth

mentions: ‘That the Messenger of Allah (saw) was in Makkah and he recited Sourah An-Najm

until he reached the Aayah: ‘And Al-Manaat the third the other’ and then it came upon his

tongue to say: ‘They are the Gharaaneeq Al-Ulaa (the highest Cranes i.e. praise) and indeed their

intercession is hoped for’. The disbelievers of Makkah then said: ‘He has not mentioned our

Gods with goodness before this day’. Then he (saw) prostrated and so they all prostrated. Then

Jibreel (as) came after that and said: ‘Present to me that which you have brought’. Then when he

reached: ‘‘They are the Gharaaneeq Al-Ulaa (the highest Cranes i.e. praise) and indeed their

intercession is hoped for’, Jibreel (as) said: ‘I did not bring this to you, it is from Shaytaan’. Then

Allah (swt) revealed:

يطانم ف أممنيته ول ول نب إل إذا تن ألقى الش وما أرسلنا من ق بلك من رسم

Never did we send a Messenger or a Prophet before you but when he desired (or hoped for) a matter Shaitaan

threw (in the path some falsehood/misguidance) in it (Al-Hajj 52).

This narration and anything similar to it is in contradiction and opposition to the speech of Allah

(swt):

و إل وحي يموحى( 3)وما ي نطقم عن الوى إن هم

And he does not speak from his Hawaa (desires), Rather it is none other than Wahy (divine

inspiration/revelation) that is inspired (An-Najm 3-4).

It contradicts with the ‘Ismah (infallibility) of the Nabi (saw) in respect to the conveyance of His

Message (Tableegh).

There is also the Hadeeth recorded by Al-Imaam Muslim and others: ‘That the parents of the

Messenger of Allah are in the fire’.

This contradicts with the statement of Allah:

بين حتى نبعث رسول ا معذ وما كن

25

And we would not punish until we had sent a Messenger (Al-Israa 15).

(Translators note: The issue here and understanding is not as clear cut as the author presents and Allah knows best

as there may be no contradiction between the meaning of the Aayah and the Hadeeth is understood differently).

There are also Saheeh Ahaadeeth which inform us that the Messenger of Allah (saw) was

affected by the Magic of a Jew (Ref: The main books of Tafseer when discussing the reason for

the revelation of the Mu’awwidhataini).

This however contradicts the statement of Allah (swt):

ك واللهم الناس من ي عصمم

Allah will protect you from mankind (Al-Maa’idah 67).

It also contradicts the ‘Ismah (infallibility) in respect to the conveyance of the Message

(Tableegh) because the one who is enchanted is not aware of what he says or does.

Al-Imaam Muslim and others also related from Faatimah Bin Qais that she said: ‘That the

Messenger of Allah (saw) did not allocate for her housing or Nafaqah (spending)’ whilst this is in

opposition to the speech of Allah (swt):

ن ل وهم نة بفاحشة يأتي أن إل يرمجن ول ب ميموتن من تمرجم ممب ي

Do not turn them out of their (husband's) homes, and they shall not (themselves) leave, unless they engaged in

some open evil lewdness (i.e. Zinaa) (At-Talaaq 1).

Based upon what we have mentioned in terms of Ahaadeeth which contradict with the Noble

Qur’aan it is not valid for it to be said that the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad establish Yaqeen and belief.

Otherwise the Islamic beliefs would be contradictory and it would be an invitation towards

divisions occurring in the Deen which is a matter which is condemned by the Shar’a without

disagreement.

The Saheeh (correct) Madh’hab (view) is that if the Aahaad contradict with the Qur’aan they are

rejected because the Akhbaar are Zhanniyah (speculative or contain some doubt) whilst the

Qur’aan is Qat’iy (Decisive and definite). The Zhanniy cannot oppose the Qat’iy in the case

where it is not possible to bring them together and reconcile them.

As for contradictions amongst the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad themselves and between the Akhbaar Al-

Aahaad and the Mutawaatir from the Sunnah, then they are many as well. This indicates that the

Akhbaar Al-Aahaad are not Yaqeeniyyah (reach the level of certainty) or ‘Aqadiyah (reach the

26

level of belief) and that they are not valid and suitable to establish the ‘Aqeedah, or otherwise

there would be contradictions within the Islamic beliefs.

Examples:

1) Al-Imaam Ahmad related in his Musnad from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that she said: ‘There was a Jewess

who used to serve her and ‘Aa’ishah would not do anything kind towards her except that the

Jewess would say: ‘May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave’. She (‘Aa’ishah)

said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) then entered my house and I asked: ‘This Jewish lady, we do

not do anything of kindness to her except that she says: ‘May Allah protect you from the

punishment of the grave’’. He (saw) said: ‘The Jews have lied and they are the greatest liars in

respect to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla. There is no punishment other than the punishment of the Day

of Judgment. It stayed like that for as long as Allah wished and then one day in the middle of

that day he (saw) went out with his Thawb whilst his eyes were red and he began to call out at

the top of his voice: ‘O people...if you were to know that which I know then you would have

cried often and laughed little. O people, seek refuge in Allah from the punishment of the grave

for verily the punishment of the grave is the Haqq (truth)’ (Ref: 81/6).

Al-Haafizh Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaaniy said that Ahmad related this upon the condition of Al-

Bukhaari (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 236/3).

This Hadeeth is Aahaad with a Saheeh Isnaad (chain) and it denies the punishment of the grave

once and affirms it once. If it established definite certain knowledge and belief (I’tiqaad) as they

claim then this would mean that we would have to believe in two opposites related to the same

issue at the same time which is inconceivable rationally and in accordance to the Shar’a.

If it is said that the first meaning was abrogated by the second and as such there is no

contradiction?

The answer to this would be: This is from the Akhbaar (information and beliefs) and not from

the Ahkaam (rulings) and Naskh (abrogation) does not occur in respect to them. If it was to

occur then this means that one of the reports was a lie and this is inconceivable which opposes

the ‘Ismah (infallibility) of the Nabi (saw) in respect to Tableegh.

Az-Zarkashiy said in ‘Al-Bahr’: And secondly...This is an issue which has been attributed to

Naskh (abrogation) among the Scholars of Usool. Let’s examine this; If it is from the matters

that cannot possibly be changed in the case where it can only represent one thing, like the Siffaat

(attributes) of Allah, or a Khabar (news) of the Anbiyaa’ and previous nations, or relate to the

final hour and its signs like the coming of Ad-Dajjaal, then it is not permitted to be abrogated by

agreement just as Abu Ishaq Al-Marooziy and Ibn Burhaan have stated, as this would lead to

lying. (Ref: ‘Al-Bahr ul-Muheet Fee Usool Al-Fiqh’ 98/4).

2) Also from the conflicting Akhbaar Al-Aahaad is what Al-Imaam Muslim related from Jaabir

and Ibn ‘Umar in respect to the Farewell Hajj and that the Nabi (saw) headed towards Makkah

27

on the Day of An-Nahr (sacrifice), that he made the Ifaadah Tawaaf and then prayed Zhohr in

Makkah before returning to Minaa.

In another narration also from the same path it stated: ‘That he made the Ifaadah Tawaaf and

then returned and prayed Zhohr in Minaa’ (Ref: Related by Muslim in his Saheeh as An-Nawawi

mentioned in his Sharh 194/8 and 58/10).

Ibn Hazm said: One of these two narrations is Kadhib (lie/untrue) without doubt (‘Dhail Al-

Jawaahir Al-Mudee’a’ of Abu Al-Wafaa’ (428/2).

Ibn Hazm only said this because he stated that the Khabar Al-Aahaad establish (definite)

knowledge. Upon his view then the two narrations establish definite knowledge and certainty

and that would mean having Imaan in two contradictory matters. To escape from this dilemma

he declared one to be a lie but without evidence to support that.

3) What Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related in the Hadeeth of Al-Israa’ (journey to Al-Aqsaa) when

they related: ‘That it had been before he had been revealed to’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 478/13).

This is whilst it is not hidden from anyone and indeed is not allowed to be hidden from anyone,

that the event of Al-Israa’ occurred after the Messenger (saw) had started his message and that it

occurred one year before the Hijrah. This Hadeeth therefore contradicts with the definite

Mutawaatir and whoever believes it would have brought together two opposites which

represents the Aqeedah of the ignorant.

For this reason the ‘Ulamaa have placed down a principle for this situation. This is: If the

Zhanniy is in opposition to the Qat’iy, the Zhanniy is rejected and the Qat’iy is acted upon (or

taken).

4) Al-Bukhaari related in his Saheeh from Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that he asked Bilal (ra): ‘Did the Nabi

(saw) pray inside the Ka’bah? He replied: ‘Yes, two Rak’ah between the pillars that were upon his

left.... he then went outside and prayed two Rak’ah facing the Ka’bah’ (Fat’h ul-Baari’ 500/1).

This is contradictory to what Al-Bukhaari also related from Ibn ‘Abbaas who said: ‘When the

Nabi (saw) entered the house (Ka’bah) he made Du’aa in all of its places and he did not pray

until he had exited’.

In another narration also recorded by Al-Bukhaari and also from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) he said: ‘So he

entered the house (Ka’bah) and made Takbeer in its places and he did not pray in it’ (Fat’h ul-

Baari’ 468/3).

5) Al-Bukhaari related from Jaabir (ra) the story of the stoning of Ma’iz in which it was said:

‘When the stones troubled him, he fled, but he was caught and was stoned till he died. The

Prophet spoke well of him and prayed over him (Janaazah)’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 130/12).

This Khabar however is in opposition to the report recorded by Al-Baihaqi in his Sunan in

which it was related: ‘That he did not pray over him’.

28

Al-Baihaqi said: Al-Bukhaari related it from Mahmoud Bin Ghailaan from ‘Abdur Razzaaq and

in it he said that he (saw) prayed over him, and this is an error (Ref: Sunan Al-Baihaqi Al-Kubraa

218/9).

6) Al-Bukhaari related from Abu Hurairah (ra) that the Nabi (saw) said:

‘The Imaan is sixty and a few Shu’bah (branches)’ (Ref: Related in his Saheeh as has been

mentioned in Al-Fat’h 51/1).

However Al-Imaam Muslim related the wording: ‘The Imaan is seventy and a few Shu’bah

(branches)’ (Ref: In his Saheeh and in the Sharh of An-Nawawi 3/2).

This is a clear contradiction between the two reports or narrations and this is what the ‘Ulamaa

have named as ‘Idtiraab Al-Matn’ (inconsistency of the text of the Hadeeth).

7) Al-Bukhaari related from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that the Nabi (saw) prayed the prayer of Kusoof

(eclipse) with them, four bowings (Rukoo’s) in two Sajdahs (Rak’ahs) (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’

548/2).

However Al-Imaam Muslim related contrary to that: ‘That the sun eclipsed during the lifetime of

the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he stood up (in prayer) for a rigorously long time. He then

bowed and then stood up and then bowed and then stood up and then bowed, thus observing

three ruku's in two rak'ahs and four prostrations’.

In a third narration recorded by Muslim from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) she related: ‘That the Nabi (saw)

prayed six Raka’aat and four Sajadaat’ (Ref: Sharh Muslim An-Nawawi 203/6)

I order to escape from this contradiction a number of ‘Ulamaa did not classify the narration of

Muslim as Saheeh and these included, Ash-Shaafi’iy, Al-Bukhaari and Ahmad (Ref: Ibn ul-

Qayyim in Zaad ul-Ma’aad 124/1 and Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned his classifying it as Da’eef in his

book ‘Ilm ul-Hadeeth p70).

8) What Al-Bukhaari related from Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) that the Nabi (saw): ‘Married Maymoonah

whilst he was in (the state of) Ihraam’.

However this is contrary to what was recorded by Muslim from Zaid Al-Asamm who said that

Maymoonah had told him that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had married her whilst he was

Halaal (i.e. not in the state of Ihraam).

At-Tabari said: As for the story of Maymoonah then the reports about is have been

contradictory (in opposition to each other) (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 165/9).

9) Al-Imaam Muslim and others recorded from ‘Abdullah Bin ‘Amr from the Nabi (saw) that he

said: ‘The first sign would be the appearance of the sun from the west, the appearance of the

29

beast before the people in the forenoon and whichever of the two happens first, then the second

one would follow immediately after that’ (Ibn Katheer in his book An-Nihaayah Fil Fitan Wal

Malaahim 217/1).

However this is contradictory to narrations that mention that the first sign is the appearance of

Ad-Dajjaal. At-Tirmidhi with a Hasan Saheeh Isnaad relates from Abu Hurairah (ra) from the

Nabi (saw) that he said: ‘If three things appear the persons Imaan will not benefit them if they

had not already believed or gained goodness in their Imaan; the Dajjaal, the Daabbah (beast) and

the rising of the sun from the West’. This is amongst many other relations which dictate that the

appearance of the Dajjaal is the first of the signs’ (Ref: Sunan At-Tirmidhi the Kitaab (chapter)

of Tafseer 326/3 and the Nihaayah Fil Fitan Wal Malaahim of Ibn Katheer 166/1).

Additionally if the first of the signs was the sun rising from the west whilst it is known that after

its rising from the west that the door to Taubah (repentance) is closed, then what benefit would

there then be in the coming of Ad-Dajjaal after that, the coming of ‘Isaa (as) and the appearance

of Al-Mahdi, their killing of Ad-Dajjaal and the Rule of ‘Isaa (as) upon the earth by the Shar’a, as

has been mentioned in the Aahaad Ahaadeeth.

After paying attention to the inconsistency of these Ahaadeeth how can it be said that they reach

the level of decisiveness, Yaqeen (certainty) and I’tiqaad (belief), whilst they bring together two

opposites??!!

As for what Ibn Katheer (rh) said that the appearance of Ad-Dajjaal is the first sign upon the

ground/earth whilst the rising of the sun from the West is the first sign from the heavens, then

this represents a Ta’weel (interpretation) to escape from the two opposites but it is a Ta’weel

(interpretation) which has no Daleel (evidence) to support it.

It would have been safer and sounder to say: ‘All of these Akhbaar (reports/relations) are

Aahaad, they are Zhanniyah (not definite), they do not represent the ‘Aqeedah and that the

‘Aqaa’id are not established (affirmed) by them. After that it is then possible to provide an

interpretation and reject some of them.

10) From amongst the Akhbaar which are contradictory are the different narrations in relation to

the Basmalah (Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem) being an Aayah of the Qur’aan in every Soorah or

not?

Al-Imaam Muslim related from Anas (ra): When the Messenger of Allah (saw) was amongst us

one day he dosed off and then raised his head whilst smiling. So I asked: What has made you

laugh O Messenger of Allah? He replied: The following Soorah was just revealed upon me:

بسم الله الرمحن الرحيم

ناك الكوث ر و الب ت رم ( 2)فصل لربك وانر ( 0)إنا أعطي (3)إن شانئك هم

30

In the Name of Allah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem. Verily we have granted you Al-Kauthar. So pray to your

Lord and sacrifice. Verily the one who angers you is cut off.

This is contradicted by what Al-Imaam Muslim also related from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) who said: ‘Rge

Messenger of Allah (saw) used to open his prayer with the Takbeer and the recitation of Al-

Hamdu Lillahi Rabbil ‘Aalameen.

And in another report recorded by Muslim from Anas (ra): ‘I prayed behind the Nabi (saw)and

Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. They used begin with Al-Hamdu Lillahi Rabbil ‘Aalameen and did not

mention Bismillahir Rahmaan Ar-Raheem, whether at the beginning of the recitation or at the

end’. (Ref: These narrations and the different opinions of the ‘Ulamaa can be found in Al-Jaami’

Li Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan Al-Kareem, Al-Qurtubi 91/1).

As a result of this the ‘Ulamaa differed in this issue in a clear manner and had the Ahaadeeth

established certainty then how can inconsistencies and differences occur in respect to them.

As such the Ahaadeeth of the Basmalah remain from the Aahaad category and do not reach the

level of Yaqeen (certainty) and I’tiqaad (belief), otherwise you would have the situation where it

would be certain and a matter of belief that it was from the Aayaat of the Qur’aan whilst having

certainty and belief that it was not from the Aayaat of the Qur’aan, at the same time. This means

bringing together opposites and contradictions which is inconceivable in respect to the Islamic

Aqeedah and representative of a corrupt Madh’hab.

The fourth reason:

If the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad were considered to be ‘Aqeedah, or that the Aqeedah is affirmed by

them they would have declared the one who denies or rejects them as a disbeliever. However

they were explicit in respect to not declaring disbelief to the one who denies them which is

different to the one who denies the Mutawaatir. This has been agreed upon by the ‘Ulamaa

according to what As-Sarkhasiy mentioned in his ‘Usool’, Al-Jarjaani in his ‘Ta’reef’ and the

author of ‘Fawaatih Ar-Rahmoot’ (Ref: Supplement of Al-Mustasfaa Al-Ghazaali 111/2).

There has also existed amongst the ‘Ulamaa who did not declare the denier as a Faasiq, like Al-

Qaadi, unless and Ijmaa’ has been convened in respect to it, in which case he would be Faasiq

(rebelliously disobedient).The meaning of this is that we are not Mukallifeen (legally

entrusted/responsible) to believe in the Aahaad Ahaadeeth. This is because, how can the Khabar

Al-Aahaad be ‘Aqeedah and a Daleel for the Aqeedah whilst the one who denies it is not

declared a disbeliever in accordance to the agreement of the ‘Ulamaa, unless they are not actually

representative of the Aqeedah and are not an evidence for the Aqeedah, and as such they do not

take its Hukm (ruling).

The fifth reason:

31

Not all of Islaam is Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah so that the Aahaad are required to be part of

these Aqaa’id (beliefs). Rather Islaam includes societal, economic, criminal, judicial, political and

military Ahkaam alongside the Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah. In respect to all of these Ahkaam

the Khabar Al-Aahaad is considered a Hujjah (proof) which is different to the case of the

Ahkaam of the Aqeedah.

This differentiation is built upon the basis of the difference between the Ahkaam related to the

Aqeedah and the Ahkaam that are not related to the Aqeedah in respect to the reality, the Hukm

and the Daleel for each of them.

The Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah are those which are related to the Imaan. Its linguistic

meaning is: At-Tasdeeq (belief) and its Istilaahi (Terminological) meaning is: ‘At-Tasdeeq Al-

Jaazim (decisive belief) that is in conformity to the reality by way of Daleel (evidence) (Al-

Mahsool of Ar-Raaziy 12/1, Al-Armawiy 169/1 in his Tahseel, As-Sanaa’iy in his answer to the

questioner p60, the commentaries of Al-Jarjaaniy and At-Taftaazaaniy upon Ibn ul-Haajib 60-

61/1, Tafseer Ar-Raaziy 27-61/2 and Ash-Shakhsiyah Al-Islaamiyah An-Nabhaani 19/1).

Therefore if the Tasdeeq is by way of other that the Qat’iy (definite) Daleel it would not be

Jaazim (definite/decisive) but rather it would be Zhann (indecisive) or Shakk (doubtful). This is

because Al-Jazm linguistically means: Al-Qat’a (decisiveness/definiteness) and it is said: He

Jazama Al-Amr Qata’ahu Qat’an Laa ‘Audah Feehi (He decisively decided a matter, he decided it

decisively/definitely in a definite manner in which there is no going back (reversal) (Ref: Al-

Qamoos Al-Muheet 89/4).

And if it is not in conformity to the reality then it is Jahl (ignorance).

For this reason these two conditions are essential for I’tiqaad (to establish the Aqeedah): Al-Jazm

(decisiveness) and conformity (Mutaabaqah). Otherwise the I’tiqaad or the Imaan would be

Faasid (corrupted).

As for the Ahkaam (rulings) that are not related to the Aqeedah then these are known to the

‘Ulamaa as being the practical Ahkaam i.e. related to the actions of the ‘Ibaad (servants/slaves) in

terms of being Halaal and Haraam and not in terms of being Kufr and Imaan.

The Ahkaam related to the Aqeedah and the Ahkaam Al-‘Amaliyah (practical Ahkaam related to

actions) all represent Islamic thoughts in our view. So Laa Ilaahah Illallah (There is no deity

other than Allah) is a thought whilst ‘The dead meat (carrion) has been mad Haraam upon you’

is also a thought. The difference between them is that the first is Aqeedah and relates to a matter

of Tasdeeq whilst the latter is a Hukm related to the action.

Therefore, that which has been demanded to have Imaan and Tasdeeq in, relates to the Ahkaam

of the Aqeedah and that which has been demanded to be acted in accordance to it, is considered

to be from the Ahkaam Al-‘Amaliyah (practical Ahkaam related to actions).

32

By examining the Shar’iyah Nusoos (texts) of the Kitaab and the Sunnah, the difference between

that which it has been demanded to have Imaan in and that which the action has been demanded

in accordance to it, becomes clearly evident.

So His statement (swt):

وله يا أي ها الذين آمنموا آمنموا بالله ورسم

O you who believe, believe in Allah and His Messenger (An-Nisaa 136).

And His speech (swt):

م و الق من رب د وهم وآمنموا با ن مزل على ممم And believed in what was revealed upon Muhammad and it is the Haqq (truth) from their Rabb (Muhammad

2). And:

م يموقنمون والذين ي مؤمنمون با أمنزل إليك وما أمنزل من ق بلك وبالخرة هم

And those who believe in that which was revealed to you and what was revealed before you and have certain belief

in the hereafter (Al-Baqarah 4).

These texts are clear in respect to them demanding Imaan alone i.e. Imaan (belief) without

action.

And Allah (swt) said:

لة وآتموا الزكاة وا الص وأقيمم

And establish the Salaah and give the Zakaah (Al-Baqarah 44).

And:

ولله على الناس حج الب يت من استطاع إليه سبيل

33

And it is a duty upon mankind to Allah, to make Hajj to the House for the one who has the capability and

means to do so (Aali ‘Imraan 77).

And:

ى فاكتمبموهم يا أي ها الذين آمنموا إذا تداي نتمم بدين إل أجل ممسم

O you who believe, when you take a loan (contract a debt) for a set time then write it down (Al-Baqarah 282).

And He (swt) said:

م من النساء وا ما طاب لكم فانكحم

So then marry women of your choice (An-Nisaa’ 4).

And:

م ره لكم و كم مم القتالم وهم تب عليكم كم

Fighting has been proscribed upon you even though it is disliked by you (Al-Baqarah 216).

And He Ta’Aalaa said:

وبالوالدين إحسانا

And maintain the best of conducts with your parents (An-Nisaa’ 46).

And:

وا من أبصارهم ؤمني ي غمض قمل للمم

Tell the believers to lower their gaze (An-Noor 30).

These are amongst many other Nusoos (texts) which demand to be acted in accordance with.

Therefore the Ahkaam that have been taken from these texts are called Ahkaam ‘Amaliyah

(practical rulings) whilst the previously quoted Nusoos refer to Ahkaam which are Tasdeeqiyah,

‘Aqeediyah or ‘Ilmiyyah.

34

In addition there are other Nusoos from the Kitaab which also make clear this difference:

Allah (swt) said:

الات إن الذين آمنموا وعملموا الص

Verily those who have believed and acted with righteous actions.

And He (swt) said:

الات إل الذين آمنموا وعملموا الص

Except those who have believed and acted with righteous actions.

The connection/conjunction (‘Atf) of the action upon the Imaan is a Daleel showing the

difference between them.

Similar to that is His speech Ta’Aalaah:

وا دم يا أي ها الذين آمنموا اركعموا واسجم

O you who believe bow and prostrate.

And:

لة وآتموا الزكاة و وا الص أقيمم

And establish the Salaah and give the Zakaah And His speech (swt):

حسان إن الله يأممرم بالعدل وال

Verily Allah commands justice and the best of conduct.

In these Aayaat the difference between the Rukoo’ (bowing) and Sujood (prostration), between

the Salaah and the Zakaah, and between the ‘Adl (justice and Ihsaan (best conduct) is clear and

35

apparent in respect to their meanings and even if they have been connected by the Waw Al-

‘Atifah (the connecting/conjoining Waw i.e. and).

It is worth noting the ‘Atf (connecting Waw) could occur between two nouns without this

dictating a difference between them however an Aqliy (rational) or Naqly (transmitted) Qareenah

(connotation) would then alter that:

This is like His statement (swt):

رب المشرق ي ورب المغرب ي

Lord of the two Easts and Lord of the two Wests.

This conflicts with the ‘Aql (mind) and the Naql (what is transmitted) because the Rabb is One

alone. Fr this reason the Waw does not function in this Aayah as it does in the above mentioned

Aayaat. And Allah knows best.

Also His speech (swt):

فاعلم أنهم ل إله إل اللهم واست غفر لذنبك

So know that He is Laa Ilaaha Illallahi and seek forgiveness for your sin.

Here there is also a differentiation between the I’tiqaad (what is believed in) which is that there is

no deity other than Allah, and between the seeking of forgiveness which is an action, for the

same reason.

This is similar in His statement (swt):

م من عذاب أليم م على تارة ت منجيكم ون ف سبيل الله ( 01)هل أدملكم وله وتماهدم ت مؤمنمون بالله ورسمون نتمم ت علمم م إن كم ر لكم م خي م ذلكم م وأن فمسكم بأموالكم

Shall I guide you to a trade that will save you from a painful punishment? (That you) believe in Allah and His

Messenger, and that you perform Al-Jihaad in the way of Allah with your property (wealth) and your lives. That

is better for you if you were to know.

This is a Daleel indicating that Al-Jihaad is an action (‘Amal) and not Imaan and the difference

between them is established based on the same reasoning.

36

The Sunnah also guides to this differentiation as can be seen in the Hadeeth in which Jibreel (as)

asked the Nabi (saw) about ‘Al-Islaam, Al-Imaan and Al-Ihsaan’ and his answer (saw) was that

Al-Islaam was: To bear witness upon Laa Ilaaha Illallah and that Muhammad is the Messenger

of Allah, to establish the Salaah, to give the Zakaa, to fast Ramadhaan and to perform Hajj of the

House if he finds the means and capability.

This is whilst Imaan was: To believe in Allah, His Malaa’ikah (angels), His Kutub (books), His

Rusul (Messengers), the Day of Judgement and in that the Qadr, its good and bad, was from

Allah Ta’Aalaa.

And in respect to the Ihsaan he (saw) said: To worship Allah as if you can see Him and if you

have not seen Him then (to be aware) that He sees you (Ref: Al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh 144/6).

This Hadeeth makes clear the difference between the Ahkaam Al-Amaliyah (Rulings related to

actions) in terms of the Shahaadah, the Salaah, the Zakaah, the Sawm, the Hajj, and Ihsaan and

how it should be undertaken (and practically sought), and between the Ahkaam At-Tasdeeqiyah

(Rulings related to belief) represented in having Imaan in Allah, His angels, His books, His

Messengers, the Day of Judgement and the good and bad Qadr from Allah Ta’Aalaa.

Ibn Taymiyyah said: ‘So when Imaan was mentioned with Islaam it made Islaam the apparent

(outward manifesting) actions: The two Shahaadahs, the Salaah, the Zakaah, the Siyaam and the

Hajj. And it made the Imaan that which is in the heart in respect to Imaan (belief) in Allah, His

angels, His books, His Messengers, the Day of Judgment and the Qadr, its good and bad, being

from Allah Ta’Aalaa. This is also the same (meaning) that has come in the Hadeeth related by

Ahmad from Anas (ra) from The Nabi (saw) that he said: ‘Al-Islaam is open and AL-Imaan is in

the heart’. (Ref: Ibn Taymiyyah in his book ‘Al-Imaan’ p14).

Also from the Sunnah is that which Al-Bukhaari related in his Saheeh from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) who

said: ‘Verily, the first of what was revealed from it i.e. the Qur’aan, were the Mufassal Surahs,

mentioning Al-Jannah and An-Naar (Paradise and Hellfire). This was until the people returned to

Islaam (i.e. accepted it) and then the Halaal and the Haraam descended’.

Ibn Hajr said in Al-Fat’h: ‘This guides to the divine wisdom in respect to the ordering of the

revelation, as the first which was revealed from the Qur’aan was the call to Tawheed, giving glad

tidings to the believer and the one who is obedient with Jannah, and tidings to the disbeliever

and disobedient of the fire. Then when the souls (people) were tranquil and content with that the

Ahkaam (legal rulings) were then revealed. For this reason she said: If the first thing to be

revealed was the command not to drink Khamr they would have said: We will not leave it’. (Ref:

Fat’h ul-Baari 40/9).

The speech of ‘Aa’ishah (ra) takes the ruling of Marfoo’ (raised) to the Messenger of Allah (saw)

and the difference between the rulings of Jannah and Naar which are Ahkaam related to the

Aqeedah, and the Halaal and the Haraam which are the practical Ahkaam related to actions, is

made clear in it.

37

This difference that we have mentioned between the Ahkaam related to belief and those related

to actions is completely clear in respect to the great majority of the Fuqahaa, Scholars of Usool

and Hadeeth. It is clear in their publications in more than one place in a manner that cannot be

hidden from anyone who Allah (swt) has granted knowledge and piety in respect to the Deen.

Al-Hasan Al-Basriy said: ‘Al-Imaan is that which is settled in the heart and is affirmed by the

action’ (Ref: Ibn Abi Shaibah related this from him in his Musannaf 189/7).

Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbaliy said: ‘So that in which care and attention has been specified for every

Muslim, is to study that which has come from (swt) and His Messenger (saw), and to then strive

(Ijtihaad) to understand that and to take heed of its meanings. He must then believe in that if it is

from the matters of ‘Ilm (knowledge) whilst if it is from the matters related to actions then he

must exert his effort in striving to perform what he is able to of the commands (i.e. to the best

of his ability) and abstain from what he had been forbidden from. This so that his whole concern

is turned completely towards that and not to anything else’ (Ref: Jaami’ Al-‘Uloom Wa-l-Hikam

p118).

Al-Qaraafiy said: ‘And in that way the Usool (fundamentals) of the Deen being clearly apparent

and these are the matters that are learnt and not the matters that are acted upon’ (Ref: Nafaa’is

Al-Usool 121/1).

Al-Jarjaaniy said: ‘The Aqaa’id (beliefs) represents that which is believed in but not acted upon’

(Ref: Ta’reefaat p196).

‘Alaa’ Ad-Deen As-Samarqandiy said: ‘The place of the Khabar is the category related to action.

However if it is found in the category of beliefs and it is from the matters of Kalaam, then it will

not be a proof’ (Ref: Meezaan Al-Usool p434).

Ibn Al-Baaqalaaniy said: ‘Al-Imaan according to the language is Tasdeeq (belief) and it does not

include the remaining actions of the limbs and the hearts’ (Ref: Al-Insaaf p34).

Due to not wanting to spend too much time quoting their statements I will suffice in mentioning

the main points of this as they have come in their publications. These are well-known and

sufficiently apparent for the one who wishes to examine them.

They include:

1) Their differentiating between the Aqeedah and the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy in respect to definition:

So the Aqeedah is: Al-Imaan.

And the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy is: The Khitaab Ash-Shaar’i (the address of the legislator) related to

the actions of the ‘Ibaad (servants/slaves).

2) Their approval (acceptance) of Ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) in respect to the Zhanniy

(non-decisive) Furoo’ branches and not the Qat’iy (decisive) Usool (fundamentals).

38

3) Their acceptance of difference of opinion in respect to the Khabar Al-Aahaad and not the

Mutawaatir that have been agreed upon by consensus, as we have already established in this

book.

4) Their differentiation in respect to the definition of Al-Fiqh and Al-Usool.

5) Their differentiating between the Adillah (evidences) of Usool and the obligation of them

being Qat’iyah, and between the branches. So Zhann is sufficient in regards to them if they are

not Qat’iy and this is agreed upon amongst them.

6) Their declaration of disbelief (Takfeer) upon the one who denies a Qat’iy Asl (definite origin,

fundamental) or that which must be known from the Deen by Daroorah (necessity) and this

does not apply to the Zhanny (non-decisive) Far‘ (branch).

7) Their division of the Sharee’ah into categories of being Ahkaam and Aqaa’id (beliefs), or

Ahkaam ‘Amaliyyah (practical rulings) and Ahkaam ‘Ilmiyyah (Ahkaam of knowledge), like Ibn

Rajab mentioned amongst others above.

8) Their division of the Qur’aan in respect to the categories of Aayaat of Ahkaam, Aayaat of

Qisas (stories) and Aayaat of Aqaa’id and the unseen matters.

9) Differentiating between the Kaafir and the Muslim in respect to the Khitaab of Takleef i.e.

Are the disbelievers addressed with the Usool of the Sharee’ah and its branches or just one to

the exclusion of the other.

10) That the one who makes an error in the branches is rewarded which is different to the Usool

and the Qat’iy in which case the one who errs is sinful.

11) The Khabar Al-Aahaad is taken for the Ahkaam but not taken for the Aqaa’id as we have

mentioned in this book.

12) The Ahkaam Al-‘Amaliyah (those related to actions) are open and prone to abrogation

whereas the Aqaa’id (beliefs) are not open to abrogation.

13) Their differentiation between the one who is killed as a Hadd punishment and the one who

is killed due to apostasy.

14) They forbade Taqleed (imitation) in the Usool (fundamentals) of the Deen whilst permitting

it in the branches (Furoo’).

These are amongst some of the differentiations that guide definitely to the fact that they used to

differentiate between the Aqeedah and what was related to it, and the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah Al-

‘Amaliyah and what is related to them.

39

As for what some say in respect to the division of Shar’iyah matters to Usool (fundamentals) and

Furoo’ (branches) being a Bid’ah (innovation) which the Sunnah did not come with, then this is

strange speech by which knowledge and the people of knowledge are rejected. This is because

this approach would lead to the rejection of all of the ‘Ulamaa and their knowledge as being

Bid’ah because they divided the Shar’iah sciences into Fiqh and Usool ul-Fiqh, and they divided

it into Hadeeth and Fiqh, the divided the Fard in to Kifaayah and ‘Ain, the Qur’aan into Aayaat

of Ahkaam and Aayaat of Qisas (stories), divided the commands into more than twenty

categories, divided the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy into the categories of Takleefiy and Wad’iy, the

Sunnah into Mutawaatir and Aahaad, the Aahaad (themselves) into more than ten types, they

classified the Qawaa’id (principles) into Kulliyah and ‘Aammah, the language into Nahw, Sarf

and Balaaghah, the Sunnah into Fi’liyah, Qawliyah and Taqreeriyah (action, speech and

consent/approval), the Ijmaa’ (of the Sahaabah) into Qawli (by statement) and Sukooti (by

silence), the ‘Uloom into Sam’iyah (revealed) and ‘Aqliyah (rational/intellectual), the Adillah

(evidences) into Sami’iyah and ‘Aqliyah , the Mutawaatir into Lafzhy and Ma’nawiy and they

divided and classified the Dalaalah (textual implication) into Iltizaam (necessary), Tadammun

(inclusive) and Mutaabah (conformity) amongst many other divisions and classifications.

All of these classifications were not quoted in the Kitaab, the Sunnah or the Ijmaa’ As-Sahaabah,

so does that mean that they are all Bid’ah!!? If that was the case then this means the demolition

and pulverisation of every one of the sciences and declaring all of the ‘Ulamaa as being ignorant,

something that no sane and rational person would ever say.

The correct view is that these divisions and classifications only happened after examining their

reality and that Bid’ah is far removed from them, and its rulings and definitionsdoes not apply to

them.

As for what has been said in respect to the Imaan being Qawl (speech) and ‘Amal (action), then

this is correct, but not from the perspective that the Imaan is an action, because this is in

opposition to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah as we have discussed above. Rather it is correct and

valid from the perspective that the action is an evidence for the existence of the Imaan of a

believing person who performs righteous acts. This is indicated in the speech of the Nabi (saw)

when he said: ‘If you see a man frequenting the Masaajid then bear witness upon his Imaan’. And

if you wish, read and gain understanding from His speech (swt):

م ميانم ف ق ملموبكم ل ال ا يدخم وإن تمطيعموا الله قالت العرابم آمنا قمل ل ت مؤمنموا ولكن قمولموا أسلمنا ولمور رحيم م شيئا إن الله غفم م من أعمالكم ولهم ل يلتكم ورسم

The Arab Bedouins said: ‘We have believed’, Say you have not believed but rather say we have submitted, and

Imaan has yet to enter their hearts, And if you obey Allah and His Messenger nothing from your actions will be

wasted. Verily Allah is Ghafoor Raheem (Al-Hujuraat 14).

40

With this reasoning Al-Hasan said: ‘Imaan is not by way of adornment (or being endowed) or by

way of wishes but rather it is what the heart has settled upon and what the action affirms’.

Therefore the ‘Amal (action) affirms the Imaan but is not itself the Imaan.

There is also the statement of the Messenger (saw): ‘The Imaan is seventy and some parts, its

highest part is the statement Laa Ilaaha Illallah and its lowest part is removing the harm from the

public passageways/paths’.

The meaning of this likewise is not that the Imaan and the action are one and the same matter

because this would contradict and oppose the Qur’aan and the Sunnah in respect to

differentiating between the Imaan and the action. The meaning can only then be that removing

the harm is a fruit from amongst the fruits of Imaan and an evidence for its existence.

The easiest way to understand the difference between the Aqeedah and the Ahkaam related to

actions in terms of its reality, ruling and evidence, is that the one who opposes or contradicts the

Aqeedah and denies it is declared a disbeliever with no difference of opinion in respect to that,

whilst the one who contravenes the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah related to the Halaal and the Haraam

or the one who denies (a ruling) is not declared a disbeliever. He would only be considered as

being disobedient and sinful with the exception of the Mu’tazilah who declared the one who

committed a Kabeerah (major sin) as being a disbeliever.

Similarly learning the Halaal and the Haraam is required by the Shar’a and this is an action and is

not called Imaan otherwise ignorance of it or not learning it would be Kufr (disbelief), and no

Jaahil (ignorant) person would state this, let alone an ‘Aalim (someone possessing knowledge).

The Sixth reason:

Also from amongst the evidences indicating that the Khabar Al-Aahaad do not establish and

ascertain Yaqeen (certainty) and are not taken into the I’tiqaad (belief) is: That many of them

have been narrated in meaning where the narrator strove to understand what the Nabi (saw) said

and then transmitted it in his own language according to his understand, and this definitely

implies Zhann (indecisiveness). So it is not possible for it to be said that the Hadeeth which was

related by the Sahaabah in meaning establishes certainty or that it is suitable to be used as an

evidence for the Aqeedah. Otherwise the Ijtihaad of the Mujtahideen would establish it whilst

this is in opposition to the Sunnah has explicitly mentioned when it stated that the Ijtihaad is

prone to error just as it is prone to being correct, and as such it is not valid to establish the

Aqaa’id by it.

An example in regards to the way a Hadeeth is related by way of meaning is what Ahmad,

Abdul-Barr and others related from Makhool who said: ‘We entered (the place of) Waathilah Bin

Al-Asqa’ and we said to him: ‘Tell us of a Hadeeth that has no addition and no omission’. Hr

was angered by this and said: ‘There is no problem if I add or omit as longs as I am correct with

its meaning’.

41

It was related by Ibn Maajah and others from Anas (ra) that anytime he would relate a Hadeeth

from the Nabi (saw) he would say: ‘Or like he said’ (i.e. not exact wording). He also related that

Ibn Mas’ood (ra) would say when he related a Hadeeth: ‘Or close to that, or more than that or

less than that’.

This therefore is what they meant when they said ‘the Hadeeth related by way of meaning’.

42

The Fifth Angle:

This relates to what they thought (Zhann) was a Daleel but is not in fact a Daleel:

As for what they believed to be a Daleel (evidence) indicating that the Khabar Al-Waahid is from

the Aqaa’id (beliefs) and establishes Yaqeen (certainty), then this is an illusion and does not even

rise to the level of Zhann. This is whilst the issue requires a Qat’iy (decisive) Daleel and not a

Zhanny one, and it is stipulated for it be established by both the Thuboot (chain of narration)

and the Dalaalah (meaning) in order for it not to be exposed to Shakk (doubt) or Zhann

(speculation). This is because it represents the Aqeedah or what the Aqeedah is built upon.

From what they thought was a Daleel: What was recorded in the Saheehaini, the Lafzh (worded

version) of Al-Bukhaari and related by Ibn ‘Abbaas(ra) who said: ‘When the Nabi (saw)

dispatched Mu’aadh to Al-Yaman he said to him: ‘You are going to a people from the

people of the book so let the first of what you invite them to be Tawheed in Allah (swt).

Then if they recognise that then inform them that Allah has made obligatory upon them

five prayers in their days and nights’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 347/13).

This Hadeeth is not viable to be used as an evidence in regards to the Aqaa’id (beliefs) for a

number of reasons:

Firstly: The Khabar Al-Aahaad to not establish other than Zhann and is therefore not viable to

be ‘Aqeedah or a Daleel for the Aqeedah as we have previously affirmed.

Secondly: The Riwaayah relates to inviting them to Tawheed and not to the affirmation of

Tawheed. This is based on the statement: ‘If they then recognise it’ and in the narration of

Muslim: ‘Then if they recognise Allah Ta’Aalaa’. It is known that knowing Allah Ta’Aalaa is not

ascertained except by examination (thought) because there is no Taqleed in respect to the beliefs.

Allah (swt) has reproached the one who imitates in respect to the Aqeedah and rebukes the one

who does that with a sever rebuke:

Allah (swt) said:

ون ة وإنا على آثارهم ممقتدم م بأهدى ما وجدتم عليه ( 23)إنا وجدنا آباءنا على أمم قال أولو جئتمكمم قالموا إنا با أمرسلتمم به كافرمون آباءكم

Verily we found our fathers following a certain way and religion, and we guide ourselves by their footsteps. (The

warner) said: "Even if I bring you better guidance than that which you found your fathers following?" They said:

"Verily, we disbelieve in that with which you have been sent with."(Az-Zukhruf 23-24).

ما الكبياءم ف الرض وما ننم ل ون لكم ا وجدنا عليه آباءنا وتكم ما بمؤمني أجئت نا لت لفت نا عم كم

43

Have you come to us to turn us away from that (Faith) we found our fathers following and so that you two will

have greatness in the land? We are not going to believe in you two (Younus 78).

نا نا إب راهيم رمشدهم من ق بلم وكم إذ قال لبيه وق ومه ما هذه التماثيلم الت ( 50)به عالمي ولقد آت ي ون م ف ضلل ( 53)قالموا وجدنا آباءنا لا عابدين ( 52)أن تمم لا عاكفم نتمم أن تمم وآباؤمكم قال لقد كم

ممبي

And indeed we bestowed aforetime on Ibraaheem (Abraham) his (portion of) guidance, and we were well-

acquainted with him. When he said to his father and his people: "What are these statues to which you are

devoted?" They said: "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said: "Indeed you and your fathers have been

in manifest error." (Al-Anbiyaa 51-54).

Allah (swt) has also made clear that knowing Him (i.e. belief) occurs by way of Nazhar

(examination), Tadabbur (pondering) and Tafakkur (thought) and not by way of Taqleed

(imitation).

Allah (swt) said:

لمم أنهم الق سنمريهم آياتنا ف الفاق وف أن فمسهم حت ي تب ي

We will show them our signs in the horizons, and within their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that it

is the truth (Al-Fussilaat 53).

م إن ف ذلك ليات لل م وألوانكم ماوات والرض واختلفم ألسنتكم عالمي ومن آياته خلقم الس

And from among his signs are the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and

colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge (Ar-Room 22).

ماوات والرض واختلف الليل والن هار ليات لمول اللباب إن ف خلق الس

Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs

for men of understanding (Aali ‘Imraan 170).

44

لقت بل كيف خم ماء كيف رمفعت ( 01)أفل ي نظمرمون إل ال وإل البال كيف ( 01)وإل السطحت (01)نمصبت وإل الرض كيف سم

Do they not look at (regard) the camels, how they were created? And at the heaven, how it is has been raised?

And at the mountains, how they are have been rooted and fixed firm? And at the earth, how it has been spread

out? (Al-Ghaashiyah 17-20).

لق نسانم مم خم ف لي نظمر ال

Then let man look at that from which he was created from (At-Taariq 5).

These are some of many Aayaat from the Qur’aan Al-Kareem which draw the attention and

examination of the human being to the creations of Allah (swt) demanding the utilisation and use

of the ‘Aql (mind) to know (and understand) His creation. We therefore see the Aayaat stating:

‘For a people who can reason (Ya’qil)’ and ‘For a people who can think/contemplate

(yatafakkar)’ which is decisively in opposition to Taqleed.

In addition the Hadeeth differentiates between knowing and having knowledge of Allah (swt)

and the Ahkaam related to actions that have been mandated. This is evident when he (saw) said:

‘Then if they recognise Allah Ta’Aalaa then inform them that Allah has made obligatory

upon them five prayers in their days and nights’. Taqleed can be practised in respect to the

practical Ahkaam related to actions whilst it is not possible to do this with the Aqeedah. This has

been confirmed by Ijmaa’ (of the Ulamaa) as mentioned by Al-Qurtubi in his Jaami’ (Ref: In his

Tafseer 212/2).

Thirdly: The narration of Ibn ‘Abbaas (ra) has Idtiraab (inconsistency) in its Matn (the textof the

Hadeeth). So in the version of Al-Bukhaari it states: ‘So let the first of what you invite them to

be Tawheed in Allah (swt)’, whilst in a version related by Al-Imaam Muslim it is related as:

‘‘So let the first of what you invite them to be the ‘Ibaadah (worship) of Allah’ and it has

been related: ‘So call them to the Shahaadah of Laa Ilaaha Illallah and that I am the

Messenger of Allah’.

There is also another inconsistency that occurs in the Isnaad (chain) of the narration of Muslim:

Abu Bakr said: Perhaps Wakee’ related from Ibn ‘Abbaas...’The Hadeeth’. On one occasion in

the reports of Muslims the Hadeeth has been related Mawsool (chain complete all the way

through) and on another occasion it has been related as Mursal (not mentioning the name of the

Sahaabi in the chain). In the ‘Urf (custom) of the people (scholars) of Hadeeth, the Hadeeth

which is Mudtarib (has inconsistencies) is defective and not used as a proof/evidence. Al-

Haafizh Adh-Dhahabi said: ‘The Mudtarab (inconsistent) and the Mu’allal (defective) is that

45

which has been related upon different Awjah (faces/ways/realities)’ (Ref: Al-Mawqizhah of Adh-

Dhahabi p51, Zhufr ul-Amaaniy p240.

Fourthly: The scholars of Hadeeth have discussed the Hadeeth in regards to the Isnaad of Al-

Bukhaari as the Sanad includes ‘Al-Fadl Bin Al-‘Alaa and Ad-Daaruqutniy said about him:

‘Katheer Al-Wahm (a lot of delusion)’ (Ref: Fat’h ul-Baari’ 347/13).

Therefore in accordance to the conditionality of Ad-Daaruqutniy the Hadeeth in his view is

Da’eef and by greater reason it cannot establish knowledge (‘Ilm i.e. belief) and Yaqeen

(certainty).

Fifthly: This subject (Aqeedah) is not benefited by the Khabar At-Tawaatur in the case where

the disbeliever is not bound by anything and even if a thousand or more people approach him to

inform him that Muhammad (saw) is the Nabi and Rasool or that the Qur’aan is the Kalaam of

Allah which was revealed to Muhammad (saw), unless the proof of that is established upon him

in regards to these beliefs.

The issue then relating to proving and affirming the Aqeedah as being an Aqeedah is not

restricted to the mere conveyance or informing of its existence. So it can be seen that the proof

and argument was not established over the disbelievers of Makka due to them merely hearing

about the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) from the Sahaabah (rah). Rather they brought a

miracle to them that proved his Prophethood (saw) and brought that as a proof and argument

against them and then some of them believed whilst others disbelieved.

Sixthly: Even if we assumed that the narration was free from all weakness, inconsistencies and

interpretations then the Nabi’s (saw) sending of Mu’aadh to Al-Yaman only occurred once and

this happened before the farewell pilgrimage as stated by the historians (Ref: Seerah Ibn Katheer

198/4). Mu’aadh (ra) did not return from there until the Khilafah of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (ra)

and this means that Yemen was Daar ul-Islaam. It had been opened by Khalid Bin Waleeed and

‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (rah) with their armies a number of which reached the level of Tawaatur.

Therefore Mu’aadh was not sent there except as a Qaadi and a teacher at the head of a delegation

that included many Muslims. As such any problems are resolved and the argument based on this

Riwaayah (narration of Mu’aadh) falls down in respect to this subject. This is because the

number of Muslims who were present in Yemen in addition to the commanders of the conquest,

Mu’aadh and his delegation reached the level of Tawaatur and their Khabar establishes Al-Qat’a

(decisiveness). After that there remains to meaning to their statement that Mu’aadh (ra) invited

them to the Aqeedah by way of the Khabar Waahid and Allah is most knowing.

Another evidence which they believed (Zhann) to be a Daleel but is not in fact an evidence is the

command to change the direction of the Qiblah. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim related from Ibn

‘Umar (ra) that he said: ‘Whilst the people were praying the morning prayer in Qubaa’ someone

came to them and said: ‘That the Nabi (saw) had received revelation of the Qur’aan in the night

and he was commanded to face towards the Ka’bah’. And so they faced it, they had been facing

towards Ash-Shaam (i.e. Masjid Al-Aqsaa) and then they turned towards the Ka’bah’ (Ref: Nail

Al-Awtaar Ash-Shawkaani 176/2).

46

This usage of evidence and deduction is also rejected for a number of reasons:

Firstly: It assumes that the issue is one related to certainty in Aqeedah whilst it is not. Yaqeen

(certainty) and Aqeedah are not established by the Khabar Al-Waahid and the evidence for that

as we have mentioned is that the Sahaabah (rah) held a consensus in regards to not accepting the

Khabar Al-Waahid to affirm the Qur’aan which is a fundamental basis of the Aqeedah and I am

not aware of any difference in this regard amongst the Fuqahaa and scholars of Hadeeth and

Usool.

Secondly: The issue of the changing direction of the Qiblah is not an issue related to Imaan or

the Aqeedah but rather it is a practical issue related to implementation. For this reason the Qat’iy

(definite/decisive) Daleel is not required and it is sufficient for the Daleel to be Zhanniy like the

Khabar Al-Waahid. The greatest evidence to support the fact that it is not an issue related to

Tasdeeq (belief) of the Aqeedah is that the changing of the Qiblah is considered to be an

abrogation and abrogation does not occur in respect to belief but only occurs in respect to the

Ahkaam related to actions (Al-Ahkaam Al-‘Amaliyah).

Thirdly: Using a Khabar Waahid as an evidence for deduction to establish that the Khabar

Waahid establishes (definite) ‘Ilm (knowledge) and Yaqeen is a circular argument and it is not

valid to depend on it. This is in the case that it s essential for there to be a Daleel Qat’iy like the

Qur’aan or the Mutawaatir to establish and ascertain that the Khabar Al-Waahid establishes ‘Ilm

and Yaqeen.

Fourthly: The changing of the direction of the Qiblah and its abrogation came from the Qur’aan

and not the Sunnah as some have imagined. The conveyance of this ruling to the people praying

in Qubaa’ falls within this consideration. In the narration it was related: ‘That the Nabi (saw) had

received revelation of the Qur’aan in the night and he was commanded to face towards the

Ka’bah’. In another narration recorded by Ahmad and Abu Daawood from Anas he said: ‘That

the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to pray towards Bait ul-Maqdis and then the following was

revealed:

لة ت رضاها ف ول وجهك شطر المسجد ال ماء ف لن مولي نك قب رام قد ن رى ت قلب وجهك ف الس

Verily! we have seen the turning of your face towards the sky. Surely, we shall turn you to a Qiblah (prayer

direction) that shall please you, so turn your face in the direction of Al-Masjid- al-Haraam (Al-Baqarah 144).

A man from Bani Salamah then passed through whilst they were in the Rukoo’ of the Fajr prayer

after having already completed one Rak’ah, and he called out ‘Verily the Qiblah has changed

direction’ and so they all turned as they were (i.e. in Rukoo’) towards the Ka’bah’ (Ref: Nail Al-

Awtaar 176-177/2).

Fifthly: That the Nabi (saw) did not command that man to convey but rather what happened

was that he volunteered to do that and we was not reproached. In regards to the people of

Qubaa were fully aware that what they did was related to a practical Shar’iy ruling and was not a

47

matter of Aqeedah, and that it did not rest upon decisive evidence (Daleel Qat’iy) and found the

transmission of one of them in this matter sufficient despite not him not having been ordered to

convey it. This is because they outweighed his truthfulness over his potential to be untruthful.

Therefore for these reasons their usage of the changing of the direction of the Qiblah in this

subject is a deduction that is not based on evidence. This is because our subject area revolves

around the Khabar Al-Waahid establishing decisive knowledge (Aqeedah) whilst the Khabar of a

man does not establish other than an action and Aqeedah is not established by it. If any of the

people of Qubaa’ had not obeyed him then he would not have disbelieved based on the evidence

that the Nabi (saw) did not command anyone from them (the Muslims) to repeat what they had

already performed from that Salaah before having been informed and he did not command them

to seek repentance and forgiveness. And Allah is most high and aware, and to Him is our final

destination.

Also what they have thought to be a Daleel whilst it is not a Daleel is the Hadeeth: 'Indeed

actions are by the intentions'. They said that this Hadeeth which is Khabar Aahaad was used by

the 'Ulamaa as a proof in relation to beliefs considering that the place of the Niyah is the heart

and that the place of the Aqeedah is the heart. As such the Niyah is the same as Aqeedah and

takes its ruling (Hukm).

This however is rejected and invalid from a number of angles:

Firstly: None from amongst the scholars of Arabic have stated that the Niyah (intention) is the

Aqeedah or that it is Imaan whether in its wording (Lafzh) or meaning (Ma'naa). Rather they said

that it means: Al-Qasd (that which is intended) and its place is the heart.

Secondly: In respect to the Aqeedah, when the heart is tied to it, it becomes Imaan and it is not

valid to make a reversal in regards to it; indeed any reversal from it would be considered Kufr

(disbelief). However reversing or going back on the Niyah (intention) is not considered Kufr or

even a Ma'siyah (act of disobedience) and it can even possible be Mubaah to reverse the Niyah

on some occasions even if it was within the 'Ibaadaat like the Salaah and the Naafilah Sawm

(fast). Similarly an action undertaken without the Niyah is not considered Kufr but rather it is

invalid if the validity of that action rests upon the Niyah whilst it would be considered Saheeh

(valid) if the Niyah is not stipulated as a condition, for example: returning the usurped property,

Amaanaat (trusts), divorce, freeing slaves and marriage.

Thirdly: It is necessary in regards to the Hadeeth to omit the Mudaaf (grammatical term: added

word) and the Fuqahaa have differed in regards to its evaluation. Those who have stipulated the

Niyah in the actions have evaluated it in the following way: 'Indeed the Sihhah (validity) of the

actions are by the intentions' and the actions just as they include the actions of the heart they also

include the actions of the limbs and the Hadeeth covers them. As such there is no room to

restrict them to the actions of the Qalb (heart) (Ref: Sharh 'Umdat ul-Ahkaam of Ibn Daqeeq Al-

'Abd 9/1). Indeed Ash-Shaafi'iy (rh) said that this Hadeeth includes within it seventy chapters of

Fiqh (Ref: At-Toofiy in his book At-Ta'yeen Fee Sharh Al-Arba'een p34).

48

Based upon this evaluation the Niyah (intention) is related to the validity of the actions and not

to their Kamaal (completion/perfection). This would not be valid in respect to the Aqaa'id

(beliefs) because a lack of perfection in them would mean a deficiency and this is Kufr may

refuge be sought in Allah from that. Therefore nothing remains except for us to say that this

Hadeeth is not (representative of) Aqeedah and that the Aqeedah is not established by it from

this angle as well.

Fourthly: The Ikhlaas (sincerity) in the action is not from the Imaan but rather it is from the

Ihsaan as has been mentioned in the Saheeh Hadeeth when he (saw) was asked about Ihsaan and

then said: 'To worship Allah as if you see Him and if you cannot see Him then that He sees you'.

This then represents illustrations of Ikhlaas (sincerity).

Ibn Taymiyyah said: 'Whoever says that the apparent (Zhaahir) actions which have been

commanded are not from Islaam, then his statement is Baatil (invalid), which is different to the

case of the Tasdeeq (belief) which is in the heart. There is nothing in the Nusoos that indicates

that it is from Islaam, rather it is from the Imaan. Islaam is only: The Deen as the Nabi (saw)

explained it in that one's face and heart submit to Allah. So have the Ikhlaas An-Niyaah (sincerity

of intention) to Allah is Islaam and this is not Tasdeeq (belief), that is from the type that is an

action of the heart whilst this is of the type that is knowledge of the heart (Ref: In his book of

Imaan p284).

Fifthly: How can this Hadeeth be Aqeedah or establish certainty whilst it is Khabar Aahaad and

the one who denies it is not a disbeliever which is different to the case of the Qur'aan and the

Mutawaatir of the Sunnah because the one who denies the Qur'aan or the Sunnah Mutawaatir is

classified with disbelief. That is because they have been established by Qat' (decisiveness) and

Yaqeen (certainty) and is Aqeedah whilst the former is not established by Qat' but rather by

Zhann (indeciciveness) and as such they are regarded differently.

Also from what they thought to be Daleel but is not a Daleel is: The speech of Allah (swt):

م إذا رجعموا ين ولي منذرموا ق ومهم وا ف الد هم م طائفة ليت فق هم ل فرقة من م يذرمون ف لول ن فر من كم إليهم لعلهم

For there should separate from every division of them a group [remaining] so that they obtain understanding in the

religion and so that they warn [i.e., advise] their people when they return to them that they might be cautious. (At-

Taubah 122).

They considered the least number for a Taa'ifah (group) to be one and the warning (to be

cautious) is related to the mention of Al-Jannah and An-Naar (the fire) which are both Aqeedah.

As such they argue that the Khabar Al-Waahid has been used in relation to the Aqaa'id (beliefs)

however this view is rejected from two angles:

Firstly: It is not agreed upon that the smallest number for the Taa'ifah (group) is one but rather

they have said that its lowest number is two and what is more than two and as such the use of

this Aayah as an evidence in this subject area is problematic.

49

Secondly: The use of Taa'ifah (group) in this Aayah is a number that it establishes the plural and

not a single person and the evidence for this is the use of the plural pronoun in the statement

yatafaqqahoo (they obtain understanding) and in His statement (swt): Liyundhiroo (so that they

warn).

Another Daleel that they thought to be a Daleel but is not one is the statement of Allah (swt):

كل أولئك كان عنه مسئول ول تقف ما ليس لك به علم إن السمع والبصر والفؤاد

And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart; each of them

will be questioned (Al-Israa 36).

They considered from this that everything that was brought to us by the Nabi (saw) is 'Ilm and

Qat' (decisive) in respect to us and that there is no Zhann (indecisiveness) in it.

This deduction is also rejected for a number of reasons:

Firstly: This Aayah is Zhanniy (indecisive/speculative) in its Dalaalah (import/meaning). From

its meanings is what At-Tabari related from Ibn 'Abbaas (rah): 'No one should present that

which he does not have knowledge of' and he also related from Ibn ul-Hanafiyah that is means:

'The fabricated/false witness/testimony'.

At-Tabari said: 'These two interpretations are close in meaning because the statement that the

speaker does not have knowledge of' includes the false testimony and the presenting of

falsehood and claims of hearing a matter that nobody has heard or seeing a matter that nobody

has seen to the people fall'. (Tafseer At-Tabari 110/9).

Therefore it is possible that the Aayah is not related to the conveyance of the Wahi (divine

revelation/inspiration) but rather it relates to testimonies and what is related to them.

Secondly: If we were to assume that the Aayah relates to the conveyance (Tableegh) or

legislation (Tashree') then it relates to that which leads to 'Ilm (knowledge) and Qat'

(decisiveness) like the Usool (foundations) of the Deen and it does not reale to all of the Ahkaam

Ash-Sharee'ah. The evidence for this is that Zhann is sufficient in respect to many of the

branches of the Sharee'ah like the Ahkaam which are built upon Ijtihaad and many of the

Ahkaam which are built upon Qiyaas. In respect to all of these Zhann is sufficient or that which

is most preponderant/likely (Ghalabat Azh-Zhann).

Thirdly: If we were to assume again that the Aayah relates to the Tashree' (legislation) then it is

Muhtamil (probable) to be specific to the Nabi (saw) i.e. 'do not say something in accordance to

your opinion and your Ijtihaad' which is in harmony with the fact that he does not speak from

his own desire. This is not the case with anyone else from the Ummah because it is possible for

him to give his view about the Shar'a (legislation) based on his Ijtihaad and if he makes an error

there is no fault or sin upon him and indeed he would be rewarded. This is in accordance to the

50

Saheeh Hadeeth: 'If the Haakim (judge) undertakes Ijtihaad and gets it right then he will gain two

rewards and if he undertakes Ijtihaad and gets it wrong then he will have one reward' (Al-

Bukhaari in the Book Al-I'tisaam chapter 21). All of this relates to Zhann and there is no Qat' of

Yaqeen within it.

Another evidence which they believed to be an evidence to establish there argument but is not

an evidence is: They claimed that the Sunnah in its entirety is Akhbaar Aahaad in order tfor them

to affirm that the Aqaa'id are established by the Aahaad and not by the Tawaatur. This deduction

is also rejected for a number of reasons:

Firstly: The Aahaad are what have been related one person from another one whilst the

Tawaatur is what one after another have reported (Ref: As mentioned at the beginning of the

book).

By examining the Sunnah closely we find that two types or categories are included within it.

There are Ahaadeeth that have not been related except by one from (another) one like the

Hadeeth: 'Indeed actions are only bey the intentions' and there are Ahaadeeth that have been

related one after another one like the Hadeeth: 'Whosoever lies about me intentionally then let

him prepare his seat of the fire' which was related by more than sixty Sahaabah abd all of them

related it from the Nabi (saw) and they did not relate it one from another one from amongst

them.

Secondly: The vast majority of the Mujtahideen, scholars of Usool and Hadeeth have

established the existence of the Tawaatur within the Sunnah and it is hard to find a single work

of theirs that does not contain some mention or indication of this. More than one of them

pursued them (the Tawaatur Ahaadeeth) and collected them like As-Suyootiy in his book 'Al-

Azhaar Al-Mutanaathirah Fil Ahaadeeth Al-Mutawaatirah', Al-Kataaniy in his book 'Nuzhum Al-

Mutanaathir Fil Hadeeth Al-Mutawaatir' and Az-Zubaidi in his book 'Al-Laali'u Al-

Mutanaatharah Fil Ahaadeeth Al-Mutawaatirah'. As for what Ibn Hibbaan said in respect to the

Sunnah as a whole being Akhbaar Al-Aahaad then this is an opinion which does not have a

Daleel (to support it) and it is in opposition to the reality of the Sunnah and the vast majority of

the 'Ulamaa.

Thirdly: More than one of the 'Ulamaa affirmed the existence of the Mutawaatir Hadeeth

related to the Aqeedah like the Hadeeth: 'Whoever bears witness to Laa Ilaaha Illallah Jannah is

obligatory for him'. As-Suyootiy said that it is Tawaatur in his Al-Azhaar Al-Mutanaathirah and

Al-Kataaniy in his Nuzhum Al-Mutanaathir. This also includes the Hadeeth of the 'Hawd'

(basin), intercession and the sight of Allah Ta'Aalaa in the hereafter which Ibn Hajar and Ibn ul-

Jawziy stated to be Mutawaatir.

This is in addition to the Hadeeth of Al-Israa and that Idrees is in the fourth heaven and the

Hadeeth of the splitting of the moon and its descent (setting) which Al-Haakim stated to be

Mutawaatir.

51

Similarly the Hadeeth of the shaking of the 'Arsh (throne) upon the death of Sa'd Ibn Mu'aadh

(ra) which was classified as being Mutawaatir by Ibn Abdul-Barr , the Hadeeth of the Haneen Al-

Jidh'i (the yearning tree trunk) classified as Mutawaatir by 'Iyaad, the Hadeeth of the camel that

complained to the Nabi (saw) which Al-Kataaniy viewed as Mutawaatir. (Ref: All of these can be

found in Nuzhum Al-Mutanaathir in the Hadeeth Al-Mutawaatir of Al-Kataaniy). There is also

the Hadeeth related to Allah Subhaanahu being above His heavens and upon his 'Arsh, the

Hadeeth affirming the 'Arsh and the Hadeeth affirming the Siffaat of the Rabb Ta'Aalaa which

Ibn ul-Qayyim declared to be Mutawaatir (Ref: Mukhtasar As-Sawaa'iq Al-Mursalah p517).

Another of what they believed to be an evidence to support their opinion but is not evidence is

that they made a comparison between the transmitters and the Sahaabah (rah) which is a

deduction that is also rejected. This is because the Sahaabah (rah) are the first who heard the

statements of the Nabi (saw) and it was Qat'iy for each of them and there was no room for

Zhann as long as they had heard it directly from him (saw).

As for those who came after them then the statement (Qawl) of the Sahaabah is not Qat'iy

(definite/decisive) because they are not Ma'soom (infallible) from the mistake unless they are all

in agreement by Ijmaa'. The same applies to those who followed them until the era that the

Hadeeth was recorded. For this reason the science of Jarh and Ta'deel (critiquing of Hadeeth)

arose and in light of the the Ahaadeeth were classified as Saheeh and Da'eef.

Also what they thought to be an evidence but is not in fact evidence is their claim that an Ijmaa'

exists upon the Khabar Al-Aahaad establishing decisive 'Ilm (knowledge) and that an Ijmaa'

exists upon the Aahaad being taken into the 'Aqeedah. However this claim is false as it has been

confiormed since the time of recording and since the time of the four A'immah (Imaams) that

the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not establish other than Zhann (indecisiveness) and that it is not

taken into the Aqaa'id (beliefs).

In the following chapter of this brief book I have presented that which proves this point.

52

The Sixth Angle:

The statements of the 'Ulamaa stating that the Khabar Al-Waahid does not ascertain and

establish 'Ilm (certain knowledge):

The following are statements according to the well-known Madhaahib of the Ahlu-s-Sunnah:

The Maalikiy Madh'hab:

We will begin with that which has been attributed to Al-Imaam Maalik (rh) in relation to this

subject: Abu-l-Waleed Al-Baajiy said: 'The Madh'hab of Maalik (rh) is the acceptance of the

Khabar Al-Waahid Al-'Adl (from the just and trustworthy) and that iis obligatory to act without

their being decisiveness in it and this is what all of the Fuqahaa hold as their opinion' (Ref: Al-

Ishaarah Fee Usool-ul-Fiqh p203).

It was stated in 'Iesaal As-Saalik fee Usool Al-Imaam Maalik: 'My pronouncement is upon two

categories: Qat'iy and Zhanny. The Qat'iy includes the Mushaahad (witnessed) and what has

been transmitted by way of Tawaatur whilst the Zhanny is what is transmitted by the Saheeh

Khabar Al-Aahaad and it represents a Zhanny proof whilst the Qat'iy represents a Qat'iy Hujjah

(proof/evidence)' (Ref: Muhammad Bin Yahyaa Bin 'Umar Al-Mukhtaar Bin At-Taalib p17).

Additional beneficial point:

From that which indicates that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not establish decisive 'Ilm

(knowledge) in the view of Al-Imaaam Maalik (rh) is that he would reject it if it was in

opposition to the actions of the people of Al-Madinah as has been mentioned by Al-Qaadiy

'Iyaad and Sahnoon and they presented as an example for this the Hadeeth: 'The two traders

have a choice (to complete the trade or end it) as long as they have nor departed from one

another'. He rejected this because it was in contradiction to the actions of the people of Al-

Madinah (Ref: Tarteeb Al-Madaarik Wa Taqreeb Al-Masaalik of Al-Qaadit 'Iyaad 70/2).

Abu Ishaq Al-Asfraa'eeniy stated from Ibn Khuwaiz Mindaad that he had oddities attributed to

be from Maalik that did not fit with the high level of the Madh'hab and he mentioned from

amongst them the statement: 'That the Khabar Al-Waahid establishes (definite) 'Ilm (knowledge)'

(Ref: As mentioned by Ibn Hajr in 'Lisaan Al-Meezaan' 291/5).

Abu Abdullah Ash-Shaatibiy said: 'As for the second, the Zhanny which returns to a Qat'iy

origin then working with it is evident and the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad in the generality fall into this

category'.

And he also said: 'The ranking of the Sunnah comes after that of the Kitaab (Al-Qur'aan) in

consideration and the evidence for that is a number of matters:

53

Firstly: That the Kitaab is Maqtoo' Bihi (decisive/definite) whilst the Sunnah is Mazhnoonah

(Zhanny) and the Qat'i (decisiveness) in it refers to it as a whole and not in its details. This is in

contrast to the Kitaab which is Qat'iy as a whole and in its details, and that which is decisive

comes ahead of that which is Zhanniy' (Ref: Al-Muwaafaqaat 16/3 and 7/4).

Abu l-'Abbaas Al-Quraafi said: 'The chapter about Khabar Al-Waahid: It is the Khabar of a

single just person ('Adl) or just people ('Udool) which establish Zhann'.

And he said: 'And Khabar Al-Waahid does not establish other than Zhann'.

And he also said: 'And Khabar Al-Waahid is Mazhnoon (indecisive)' (Ref: Sharh Tanqeeh Al

Fusool p356).

Abu Bakr Bin Al-'Arabiy said: 'As for the second (type): That which obliges action but not

knowledge then it is the Khabar Al-Waahid which is Mutlaq (unrestricted) in regards to that

which is unique by its 'Ilm (knowledge). And some people said: 'That it obliges 'Ilm (knowledge)

just a it obliges the action like the Khabar al-Mutawaatir. They could only have arrived at this due

to two reasons: Either their ignorance of what 'Ilm is or due to their ignorance of what the

Khabar Al-Waahid is. We know by way of Daroorah (necessity) the abstention of attining 'Ilm by

way of the Khabar Al-Waahid and the possibibility of their exposure to lies and foregetfulness'.

(Ref: Al-Mahsool p115).

The Mufassir Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi said: 'And most of the Ahkaam Ash-Sharee'ah are based

upon Ghalabat Azh-Zhann (the most probable/preponderant) like Qiyaas, Khabar Al-Waahid

and other than them (Ref: Al-Jaami' Li Ahkaam Al-Qur'aan in the Tafseer of the Aayaah: Verily

some Zhann (speculation) is Ithm (a sin)'.

Abu l-'Abbaas Al-Qutubi in his 'Al-Mufham' in relation to the changing of the direction of the

Qiblah: 'So they left the Tawaatur for the Khabar Al-Waahid which is Mazhnoon (speculative)'

(Ref: Mufham Sharh Saheeh Muslim 125/2).

Al-Qaadi Ibn Al-Baaqalaaniy said: 'And the Aahaad to not lead to the 'Ilm (knowledge i.e. belief)'

and he also said: 'Know and may Allah give you Tawfeeq that all that knowledge has ben

demanded in does not accept within that Akhbaar Al-Aahaad' (Ref:At-Talkhees 430-434/2 and

similar to that in At-Tamheed p164).

Ibn Abdul-Barr said: 'Our people (of our Madh'hab) and others have differed in respect to the

just Khabar Al-Waahid: Does it oblige both 'Ilm and 'Amal (action)? Or does oit oblige the

action and not the knowledge?'

He said: 'The opinion of the majority of the people of proficiency is that it oblges action but not

'Ilm and this is the opinion of Ash-Shaafi'iy and the Majority of the Scholars of Fiqh and Nazhar

(examination)' (Ref: Al-Musawwadah li Aali Taymiyyah p220).

Al-Hujuwiy said: 'And the correct view is that the Khabar Al-Waahid if it is free of Qaraa'in

(other external indications) establishes Zhann which is different to the view of the Zhaahiriyah

(Madh'hab) who claimed that it establishes 'Ilm Al-Yaqeeniy (certain knowledge)' (Ref: Al-Fikr

As-Saamiy 111/1).

54

Az-Zarqaaniy said: 'So attach the impermissibility of abrogating the Qur'aan by it (i.e. the Khabar

Al-Aahaad) due to the meaning that has been mentioned which is that it it is Zhanny whilst the

Qur'aan is Qat'iy. And the Zhanny is weaker that the Qat'iy and it is not strong enough to

remove it. Those who say that it is permissible to abrogate the Qur'aan by the Sunnah Al-

Aahaadiyah have relied upon the Qur'aan being Zhanniy in its Dalaalah (meaning/import). Their

proof (argument) is invalid because even if the Qur'aan contains that which is not Qat'iy Ad-

Dalaalah (definite in meaning/import) it is nevertheless Qat'iy Ath-Thuboot (definite in its

transmission). This is whilst the Sunnah Al-Aahaadiyah is Zhanny in Dalaalah and Thuboot

together. It is therefore weaker and so how can it replace it (the Qur'aan)?' (Ref: Manaahil Al-

'Urfaan 173/2).

The Hanafi Madh'hab:

We will begin with what has been attributed to Al-Imaam Abu Haneefah (rh):

Al-Hasan related from Abu Haneefah (rh) that their is no Kaffaarah upon him and if news

reached him because the Khabar Al-Waahid does not oblige certain knowledge ('Ilm Yaqeen) but

rather only obliges action because of thinking well (husn Azh-Zhann) of the one relating but not

all doubt is negated from it' (Ref: As-Sarkhasiy in his Mabsoot 80/3).

What has become well-known in respect to Abu Haneefah rejecting the Khabar Al-Waahid if it

was in opposition to the Qiyaas or if was from that which had become a general necessity.

Abu-l-Barakaat An-Nasafi in 'Kashf ul-Asraar 'Alaa-l-Manaar' said: 'As for the claim of certain

knowledge by it then this is false because we have made clear that the Mash'hoor does not

establish certainty and the Khabar Al-Waahid by greater reason. And this is because the Khabar

Al-Waahid is Muhtamal (open to question) in itself and how can certainty be established with the

existsence of this Ihtimaal (openness to being questioned)' (Ref: Kshf ul-Asraar Alaa-l-Manaar

19/2).

Al-Kamaal Bin Al-Himaam in At'Tahreer the author of Tayseer At-Tahreer: 'The view of the

majority of the Fuqahaa and the Muhadditheen is that the Khabar Al-Waahid does not establish

(definite) knowledge at all i.e. whether or not there are (supporting) Qaraa'in (indications). He

then said that the Khabar Al-Waahid could establish 'Ilm with Qaraa'in' (Ref: Tayseer At-Tahreer

76/3).

He then affirmed in Fat'hul Qadeer saying: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid does not oblige Yaqeen

(certainty) but rather it only obliges Zhann' (Ref: Fat'h-ul-Qadeer 159/3).

Abdul Hameed Al-Asmandiy stated: 'The majority held the view that it does not oblige 'Ilm in

origin and the Zhaahiris viewed that it does entail decisive Knowledge'.

Al-Asmandiy had studied the positions of all of the Madhaahib (different schools) and adopted

the opinion of the majority just as he forbade the acceptance of the Aahaad in the 'Aqeedah as

55

will be mentioned in its chapter inshaa Allah (Ref: Al-Mawsoom Badhl An-Nazhr Fil Usool

p393).

As-Sarkhasiy said: 'The Fuqahaa of the regions (rh) have said: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid Al-'Adl is

a Hujjah (proof/evidence) to be acted upon in a matter of the Deen but the 'Ilm Yaqeen (certain

knowledge) is not established by it'.

He then said: 'And we have explained previously that the certain knowledge ('Ilm Yaqeen) is not

established by the Mash'hoor reports with this meaning so how can it be established by the

Khabar Al-Waahid' his 'Usool' 329/1, 112/1 and 321/1).

Al-Khabaazi said: 'And because the Khabar Al-Aahaad entails Ghalabat Azh-Zhann

(preponderant) and obliges action due to it not fulfilling the requirements of Yaqeen in a certain

manner'(Ref: Al-Mughni Fee Usool-ul-Fiqh p195).

'Alaa Ad-Deen As-Samarqandiy said: 'And from it (i.e. the categories and types of Aahaad) are

those which are found in the subject of the action. As for when they are found in the subject

area of the beliefs and they are from the issues of Al-Kalaam then they are not a Hujjah because

they oblige Zhann and the 'Ilm (knowledge) which is most probable (to be correct) is not 'Ilm

Qat'iy (definite)' (Ref: Meezaan Al-Usool p430).

Abu Ja'far As-Sajastaaniy said: 'And the Khabar Al-Waahid: It does not oblige 'Ilm and it must

be acted upon as a blessing dues to it being attributed to the Nabi (saw)' (Ref: Al-Ghinyah Fil

Usool p38).

Fakhr ul-Islaam Al-Bazdawiy said: 'And this, meaning the Khabar Al-Waahid, obliges action and

it does not oblige certain knowledge 'Ilm Yaqeen'.

He then said: 'We have explained that the Mash'hoor does not establish certain knowledge then

this (Khabar Al-Waahid) is Awlaa (more correct to be applied to). And this is because the

Khabar Al-Waahid is Muhtamal (open to question) and their is no certainty in that which has

Ihtimaal (this openness or possibility) and whoever denies this has made himself foolish and his

intellect has strayed' (Ref: Kashf ul-Asraar 'Alaa Usool Al-Bazdawiy 370/2).

'Abdul 'Azeez Al-Bukhaari in his Sharh (explanation) of the Kalaam (speech) of Al-Bazdawiy

said: 'Meaning, it does not establish 'Ilm Yaqeen (certain knowledge) and it does not establish

'Ilm Tuma'neenah (knowedge that provides tranquillity/peace of mind). This is thye Madh'hab

of the majority of the people of knowledge and the sum of the Fuqahaa (Ref: Kashf ul-Asraar

'Alaa Usool Al-Bazdawiy 376/2).

He also said: 'The divine evidences (Adillah) are of four types: Qat'iy Ath-Thuboot and Ad-

Dalaalah (definite in transmission and meaning), Zhanny Ath-Thuboot and Qat'iy Ad-Dalaalah

(indecisiove in transmission and definite in meaning) like the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad which carry a

Qat'iy (definite) understood meaning, Zhanny Ath-Thuboot and Ad-Dalaalah (speculative

transmission and meaning) like the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad which carry a Zhanny meaning' (Ref:

Kashf ul-Asraar Alaa Usool Al-Bazdawiy 28/1).

Ibn 'Aabideen said similar to this in his Haashiyah (Ref: Haashiyah 'Alaa Radd ul-Mukhtaar

95/1).

56

Abu Ath-Thanaa Al-Maatureediy said: 'And its Hukm (the Khabar Al-Aahaad) is that is obliges

action but not 'Ilm' (Ref: His book Usool ul-Fiqh p148).

Nizhaam Ad-Deen Al-Ansaariy said: 'The majoiryt of the pople (Scholars) of Usool and from

them the three A'immah viewed that the Khabar Al-Waahid absolutely does not establish 'Ilm if

the one who did not provide the Khabar is not an infallible Prophet, and whether it was attached

to Qaraa'in (external indications) or not' (Ref: Sharh Muslim Ath-Thuboot and Haashiyah Al-

Mustasfaa 121/2).

Abu Bakr Al-Jassaas in his statement in respect to the speech of Allah Ta'Aalaa:

نموا م فاسق بنبأ ف تب ي إن جاءكم

If a Faasiq comes to you with news then verify it (Al-Hujuraat 6).

He said: 'And this Aayah there is an indication that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not oblige 'Ilm

and if it obliged 'Ilm at all then why would it be in need of verification' (Ref: Ahkaam Al-Qur'aan

279/5).

Al-Kaasaaniy said: 'We have named this type Waajib and not Fard because the Fard is a name for

what its obligations has been ascertained by the Qat'iy Daleel and this type of Zakaah has not

been affirmed by a Qat'iy Daleel. Rather the Daleel for it is Shubhat ul-'Adam and it is Khabar

Al-Waahis' (Ref: Badaa'i' As-Sanaa'i' 69/2).

In another place in the same book he said: 'The Wujoob (obligation) of the Mas'h (wiping) upon

the splint/plaster is established by the Hadeeth of 'Ali (ra) and it is from the Aahaad and so

acting upon it is obliged and not 'Ilm (knowledge)' (Ref: 14/1).

Abu Zaid Ad-Daboosiy said: 'So much of desires and Bid'a occurred in respect to the Khabar Al-

Waahid was in regards to it being accepted in belief (I'tiqaad) or in action without placing it

before the Kitaab and the established Sunnah which was followed by then interpreting the

Kitaab to be in agreement with the Khabar Al-Waahid which made the following and building of

the Deen based upon that which certain knowledge is not obliged in. The foundation then

became 'Ilm established upon Shubhah (doubt) and so there was no increase except in Bid'ah.

The harm of this to the Deen was then greater than the harm of those who did not accept the

Khabar Al-Waahid...' (Ref: As-Sam'aaniy mentioned this from him in 'Qawaat'i Al-Adillah'

366/1).

The Shaafi'iy Madh'hab:

We will begin with that which has been attributed to l-Imaam Ash-Shaafi'iy (rh):

57

Abu Bakr As-Sairufiy said: The Khabar Al-Waahid obliges action ('Amal) and not 'Ilm

(knowledge) and this has been transmitted from the majority of the 'Ulamaa including Ash-

Shaafi'iy (Ref: Az-Zarkashiy in 'Al-Bahr ul-Muheet' 262/4).

Ibn Abdul Barr Al-Maalikiy as mentioned earlier when he attributed this to the majority of the

'Ulamaa and he said: And it is the view of Ash-Shaafi'iy.

This is in addition to what Al-Ansaariy from the Ahnaaf who we also mentioned earlier

mentioned when he stated that this is the view of three A'immah (Imaams) whilst intending: Abu

Haneefah, Maalik and Ash-Shaafi'iy.

Al-Haafizh Abu Bakr Bin Thaabit who is well-known as Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadiy in his book:

'A mention of the doubt of those who claim that the Khabar Al-Waahid establishes 'Ilm and

presenting its falsehood/invalidity'.

He says: 'And as for Khabar Al-Aahaad then it is what falls short of the description of the

Mutawaatir and knowledge is not Qat'iy (definite) by it and even if it was related by a group'.

And he said: 'As for the other type of collections like the Akhbaar (reports) related in the Saheeh

Books of Sunnah then these oblige action whilst they do not oblige knowledge (Ref: Al-Kifaayah

Fee 'Ilm Ar-Riwaayah p16,18 and 25 and in 'Al-Faqeeh Wa-l-Mutafaqqah' 1/96).

Abu-l-Mu'aaliy Al-Juwaini well-known as the Imaam Al-Haramaini said: 'A group from amongst

the Hanaabalah (Hanbali Madh'hab) and the Hadeeth writers viewed that the Khabar Al-Waahid

Al-Adl obliges 'Ilm and this represents a disgrace which is not hidden from any aware person'.

And he said: 'Do you permit for the 'Adl (just person) who you have characterised as such to be

mistaken and for him to make an error? They then say: No, that would be a false accusation,

dishonourable and a violation to the veil of esteem and standing and there is no need to add any

explanation beyond that. And it would be closer to say the narrators have erred and the

establishing by way of a collective/plural are not many. If the error was not conceivable then a

narrator would not recind his narration and the issue is the opposite to what they imagine it to

be'.

And he said in 'Al-Waraqaat': 'Al-Aahaad is that which obliges action ('Amal) but does not affirm

'Ilm (knowledge) due to the possibility of error within it (Ref: Al-Burhaan 606/1 and Al-

Waraqaat p12).

An-Nawawi in Sharh Muslim said: 'And what Ibn As-Salaah said in regards to Saheeh Al-

Bukhaari and Muslim in this subject is in opposition to what the Muhaqqiqeen (those who

undertook critical studies) and the majority have said. They say: The Ahaadeeth of the Saheehaini

(Two books of Saheeh: Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) are not Mutawaatirah. They only establish

Zhann because they are Aahaad and the Aahaad only ascertain Zhann in accordance to what

they have decided, and there is no difference in this regard between Al-Bukhaari, Muslim and

others. The fact that the Ummah has accepted them only means that the obligation of acting in

accordance to what they contain is strengthened and this is agreed upon. Indeed the Akhbaar Al-

Aahaad in other than these two (collections) must (also) be acted upon if the chains are Saheeh

58

(sound) and they do not establish anything other than Zhann just like the Saheehain (Two books

of Al-Bukhaari and Muslim)'.

And he also said: 'As for the Khabar Al-Waahid then it is that which does not fulfil the

conditions of the Mutawaatir whether their was one single narrator or more than one, and they

(scholars) have disagreed in regards to its Hukm (ruling). That which the majority of the Muslims

from amongst the Sahaabah, the Taabi'een and those who came after from the Muhadditheen,

Fuqahaa and scholars of Usool viewed is that the Khabar Al-Waahid Ath-Thiqqah (trustworthy)

is a Hujjah (proof/evidence) from amongst the Hujjaj (evidences) of the Shar'a (Islamic

legislation) which must be acted by and that they establish Zhann (indefiniteness) and do not

establish 'Ilm' (Sharh Saheeh Muslim An-Nawawi 20/1, 131/1).

Al-Haafizh Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaaniy in 'Nukhbat ul-Fikr' when speaking about the Mutawaatir

said: 'All of it is acceptable to establish Al-Qat'u (Definiteness/decisiveness) in terms of the

truthfulness of the one who is informing which is not the case with other than it from the

Akhbaar Al-Aahaad' (Ref: Nukhbat ul-Fikr p38).

Ar-Raaziy said when discussing the Statemnet of Allah (swt):

م طائفة ف هم ل فرقة من لول ن فر من كم

For there should separate from every division of them a group (At-Taubah 122).

'We only say here that the Taa'ifah (group) mentioned here is a number whose speech does not

establish 'Ilm (knowledge) because every three is a Firqah (division) and Allah Ta'Aalaa has made

obligatory for every division a group should be taken out from them and a Taa'ifah (group) from

three means one or two whilst the statement of one or two does not establish 'Ilm'.

And he also said: 'And because we know out of necessity that the statement of one does not

establish 'Ilm'.

And he said: 'As for the Naql (transmission): Then it is either Tawaatur or Aahaad and the first

establishes 'Ilm and the second establishes Zhann' (Ref: Al-Mahsool 123-172/2 and Nafaa'is Al-

Usool Sharh Al-Mahsool by Al0Quraafiy 531/2).

Al-Asnawiy said: 'As for the Sunnah then the Aahaad from it does not establish (or affirm) other

than Zhann' (Ref: Nihaayat As-Su'aal 41/1 and 270/2).

Az-Zarkashi said in 'Al-Bahr': 'Indeed the Khabar Al-Waahid does not affirm 'Ilm and this is the

opinion of the majoioryt of the people of Hadeeth, opinion and Fiqh' (Ref: Al-Bahr ul-Muheet

Fee Usool ul Fiqh 262/4).

Ibn ul-Atheer said: 'And the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not affirm 'Ilm (knowledge) but we

worship in accordance to it'.

59

And he said: 'What has been said by the Muhadditheen that it inherits 'Ilm then it may be that

they intended that it establishes and affirms the 'Ilm (knowledge) that obligates action or that

they named the Zhann as 'Ilm. For this reason some of them inherit 'Ilm Azh-Zhaahir (evident)

whilst 'Ilm does not have Zhaahir and Baatin (what is evident and what is hidden), but rather it is

only Zhann (speculative)' (Ref: Jaami' Al-Usool min Ahaadeeth Ar-Rasool 69/1).

Abu Ishaq Ash-Sheeraaziy said: 'in our view: If the Khabar Al-Waahid established 'Ilm then the

Khabar of every person would be obliged and if that was also the case then it would be

obligatory for 'Ilm (knowledge) to be established by the Khabr of the one who claims

Prophethood or the one who claims that he is owed money by someone else. And as nobody has

said that then this guides to there being nothing in it that obligates knowledge ('Ilm)'.

He then said: 'And because if it was to obligate knowledge then it would be necessary for their to

be a clash if it was opposed by a Khabar Mutawaatir, and in the case where it is established and

affirmed that the Mutawaatir comes before it, then this indicates that it does not obligate 'Ilm

(knowledge)' (Ref: At-Tabsirah p299).

Abu Haamid Al-Ghazaaliy said in Al-Mustasfaa: 'So if this was defined we would say: The

Khabar Al-Waahid does not ascertain knowledge and this is known by necessity (Ma'loom Bid

Daroorah). And we do not believe everything that we hear. If we were to believe and we had two

contradictory reports then how can we believe in two opposites? What has been said about the

Muhadditheen in respect to that obliging 'Ilm then it is likely that they meant that it obliges the

'Ilm (knowledge) of the obligation to act'. (Ref: Al-Mustasfaa 145/1).

Shams ud-Deen Al-Asfahaaniy said: 'The Akhbaar (reports) related from the Messenger (saw) are

either Mutawaatirah or Aahaad. And the Mutawaatirah are impossible to be a lie and as for the

Aahaad then some of them are lies definitely'.

He then said: As for the Mulaazamah (inherence): 'Then this is because Khabar Al-Aahaad do

not establish other than Zhann'.

And he said: 'As for the Sunnah then the Aahaad from it do not establish other than Zhann

(indecisiveness) (ref: His Sharh of Minhaaj Al-Usool 536-544/2 and 41/1).

As-Sibky said: in Al-Ibhaaj: 'The Nass (text) is two categories: (The) Aahaad which do not

ascertain other than Zhann' (Ref: Al-Ibhaaj Sharh Al-Minhaaj 38/1).

And he said in Jam'u-l-Jawaami': 'Khabar Al-Waahid does not affirm 'Ilm (knowledge) unless it is

by way of a Qareenah' and then he said: 'The majority say that it does not affirm knowledge

absolutely (at all). (Ref: Jam'u-l-Jawaami' Ma'a Sharh Al-Jalaal Al-Muhallaa 130/2).

Al-Baydawiy said: 'The Mutawaatir is not abrogated by the Aahaad because the Qat' (definite) is

not removed by the Zhann (indefinite). (Ref: Al-Minhaaj Ma'a Sharhi Al-Jazariy 443/1).

Abu Bakr Bin Fawrak said: 'As for that which is from the category of the Aahaad which is valid

to be used as evidence by way of its path, trustworthiness of its transmitters, justice of its

narrators and the connection of what they have transmitted, then that, even if it does not oblige

60

Al-Qat' (definiteness), it does establish the Ghalab Azh-Zhann (the most preponderant and

likely) and allows for a Hukm (to be deduced) (ref: Muskil Al-Hadeeth Wa Bayaanuhu p44).

Al-Baghdaadi Al-Asfraa'eeniy said: 'And (in regards to) the Akhbaar Al-Aahaad, then whatever

the level of the Sihhah (soundness) of their chain (Isnaad) and its text (meaning) is not

impossible to the mind (to reconcile), then it is obligatory in respect to the action but not for

'Ilm (knowledge'. (Ref: Usool Ud Deen p12 and Al-Farq Baina l-Farq p250).

Al-Maawardiy said in Al-Haawiy: 'If it is as such, then even if it obliges action, it does not oblige

Al-'Ilm Al-Baatin (hidden) which is different to the Mustafeed and the Mutawaatir (Ref: Al-

Haawiy Al-Kabeer 144/20).

Al-Haafizh Zain ud-Deen Al-'Iraaqiy said: '...When the people (Scholars) of Hadeeth said that a

certain Hadeeth is Saheeh then what is apparently meant by that to us is to act in accordance to

what is evident in the Isnaad and it does not mean that it is Maqtoo' (definite) in its

soundness/correctness (Sihhah) in regards to that matter and this is because of the possibility of

mistake and forgetfulness from (even) the trustworthy. This is the correct view which the

majority of the Ahl-ul-'Ilm are upon and is in opposition to those who have said that the Khabar

Al-Waahis obliges 'Ilm Azh-Zhaahir (apparent/evident knowledge) like Hussein Al-Karaabeesiy

and others beside him (Ref: His Sharh of Al-Alfiyah Fil Hadeeth 15/1).

Safiy ud-Deen Al-Armawiy said: 'As for the Naql (transmission) then it is either Aahaad or

Tawaatur and the Aahaad do not ascertain other than Zhann (indecisiveness) (Ref: Niyaaht ul-

Wusool 104/1).

Al-'Izz Bin Abdus Salaam in his reply to Ibn As-Salaah in regards to making the Ahaadeeth of

the two Saheehs establish Al-Qat' (deciveness) said: 'It has been transmitted from the Mu'tazilah:

That if the Ummah acts in accordance to a Hadeeth then this dictates definiteness in its Sihhah

(correctness). He said: This is a base (vile) Madh'hab' (Ref: Az-Zarkashiy in Salaasil Adh-Dhahab

p321 and Al-Haafizh Al-'Iraaqiy in At-Taqyeed and Al-Eedaah p41-42).

Al-Haithami in As-Sawaa'iq Al-Muhriqah said: 'And texts have been related about Abu Bakr amd

others like 'Ali which are contradictory in respect to their virtues and these do not establish Al-

Qat' (definiteness) because they are all Aahaad and Zhaaniy in their Dalaalah'.

He also said: 'Because what is benfited from the Ijmaa' is Qat'iy and what is benefited from the

Khabar Al-Waahid is Zhanniy, and there is not opposition (clash) between the Zhanniy and the

Qat'iy but rather the Qat'iy is worled with whilst the Zhanniy is cancelled (Ref: As-Sawaa'iq Al-

Muhriqah 110/1 and 173/1).

Ibn Daqeeq Al-'Eid said: The second issue: Is it permitted abbrogating the Kitaab and the

Sunnah Al-Mutawaatirah by a Khabar Al-Waahid? This was forbidden by the majority because

the definite (Maqtoo') is not removed by the indefinite (Mazhnoon)'.

61

He also said: 'As for the second point which is related to the Khabar Al-Aahaad which is

contrary to the known Qiyaas Al-Usool then it is not obliged to work with it. This is because the

known (Ma'loom) Usool is Maqtoo' (definite) from the Shar'a whilst the Khabar Al-Aahaad are

Mazhnoon (indefinite) and the Mazhnoon does not stand against the Ma'loom (known)' (Ref:

Ihkaam Al-Ahkaam Sharh 'Umdat Al-Ahkaam 181/1 and 121/3).

Al-Jarjaaniy said: 'The Khabar Al-Aahaad is that which has been transmitted Waahid (one) from

Waahid (one) and it does not reach th level (limit) of Istish'haar (being widespread) and its Hukm

(ruling) is that it obligates actions but not 'Ilm (Ref: Ta'reefaat 131/1).

Abu Zur'ah Al-'Iraaqiy said: 'They have different views in respect to the Khabar Al-Aahaad:

Does it ascertain 'Ilm or not?

First: It ascertains knowledge if it includes Qaraa'in (external indications).

Second: It does not ascertain 'Ilm at all (absolutely) and even with Qaraa'in, and this is the view

of the majority.

Thirdly: It establishes 'Ilm absolutely.

And he said: 'If the Maqtoo' (definite) is mentioned in respect to it not being truthful (Kidhb) or

is mentioned in respect to its truthfulness (Sidq) a third category is being mentioned and it is:

The Mazhnoon (indefinite) in respect to its Sidq (truthfulness) and this is the Khabar Al-'Adl Al-

Waahid (trustworthy Khabar Al-Waahid)' (Ref: Al-Ghaith Al-Haami' Sharh Jam'u l-Jawaami'

491-492/2).

Ibn At-Talmasaaniy said: 'Know that what is intended by the Khabar Al-Waahid in Usool Ul-

Fiqh is: Al-Khabr (the report) that does not ascertain 'Ilm (knowledge) and Yaqeen (certainty)'

(Ref: Sharh Al-Ma'aalim Fee Usool ul-Fiqh 167/2).

Adud Al-Millah Al-Eejiy said: 'Our opinion is that the Mutawaatir is Maqtoo' (definite) and the

Aahaad is Mazhnoon (indefinite) and the Qaat'i is not met by the Mazhnoon (indefinite) (Ref:

Sharh Al-Adud 'Alaa Mukhtasar Ibn ul-Haajib p278).

The Hanbali Madh'hab:

We will begin by mentioning that which has been attributed to Al-Imaam Ahmad (rh):

Two opinions have been related from him; the first is that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not

ascertain knowledge ('Ilm) and the second is that it does ascertain it. The first however is the

strongest amongst the Fuqahaa of his Madh'hab.

Al-Muwaffiq Ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah Al-Maqdasiy said: 'The reports from our Imaam (Al-

Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal) have differed in respect to the attainment of 'Ilm by way of the

Khabar Al-Waahid. It has been related that it does not occur in his view and this is the opinion

of the majority and the opinion of those who came later from those of our Madh'hab. This is

62

because we know by necessity that we do not believe every Khabar (report) that we hear and if it

established and ascertained 'Ilm then it would not be valid to find two reports that are

contradictory to one another due to the impossibility of two opposites being brought together

(Ref: Rawdat Un-Naazhir Wa Jannat ul-Manaazhir 260/1).

Ibn Badraan in his commentary upon 'Rawdat An-Nazhar' said: 'The chain of the second

opinion attributed to the Imaam without restriction needs to be examined just as what has been

attributed to him by Ibn ul-Haajib, Al-Waasitiy and others in respect to him saying that

knowledge is attained whenever an 'Adl (trustworthy person) informs (of a matter) and if he is

not then by Qareenah (indication/linkage). This is because this is not correct in origin and how

is it fitting for the like of an Imaam of the Sunnah to make such a claim. This is whilst there is in

any book that has been related from him a Saheeh narration and all of his narrations may Allah

be pleased with him are recorded and well-known amongst those who excel from his followers

and the author may Allah's mercy be upon him is from amongst those. With that I guide to this

(attributed) narration lying outside of his speech and then they act with them as has been

mentioned here. That has been affirmed so take a pause O fair one' (Ref: Nuzhat ul-Khaatir

'Alaa Rawdat An-Nazhar 261/1 a supplement to Rawdat An-Nazhar).

Safiy ud-Deen Al-Baghdaadiy said: 'The Aahaad is that which is not Tawaatur and 'Ilm is not

attained by it in accordance to one of the two reports (attributed to Al-Imaam Ahmad) and this

is the opinion of the majority and those who came later from his companions (i.e. from his

Madh'hab' (Ref: Qawaa'id Al-Usool Wa Ma'aaqid Al-Fusool p16).

Al-Muwaffiq ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah Al-Maqdasiy said: 'The Khabar is that which is open to

At-Tasdeeq (to be believed/affirmed) and At-Takdheeb (disbelieved) and it has two categories:

Tawaatur and Aahaad. So the Mutawaatir ascertains 'Ilm and it is obligatory to have Tasdeeq in it

and even if no other Daleel has indicated (or guided to) it. And there is no Khabar that is known

to be truthful by itself apart from the Mutawaatir whilst the truthfulness is is only known for

anything else through another (secondary) Daleel that guides to the same Khabar (Ref: Rawdat

An-Nazhar 243/1).

Al-Qaadiy Abu Ya'laa said: 'If the khabar Al-Ahad obligated 'Ilm then it would be obligated in

any description that it was found' (Ref: Al-'Iddah Fee Usool ul-Fiqh 901/1).

Suleymaan At-Toofiy said: 'The Khabar is either Tawaatur and it affiorms 'Ilm or it is is merely

Aahaad and as such definitely does not affirm 'Ilm as has been established here (Ref: Sharh

Mukhtasar Ar-Rawdah 108/2).

Abu-l-Khitaab Al-Kaloodhaaniy said: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid does not dictate 'Ilm and this is

the opinion of the majority of the 'Ulamaa' (Ref: At-Tamheed Fee Usool ul-Fiqh).

Ibn 'Uqail said: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid does not establish 'Ilm or Darooriy (what is essential/of

necessity) or Al-Muktasib (that which attained) upon the Saheeh of the two reports attributed to

our companion (Imaam Ahmad)' (Ref: Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh 403/4).

63

Ibn Taymiyyah said: 'The Khabar Al-Waahid that has been met with acceptance obliges 'Ilm

according to the majority of the 'Ulamaa'.... He then said: 'This is because despite in itself not

establishing other than Zhann, however due to being tied to the Ijmaa' of the people of

knowledge in respect to the acceptance of the Hadeeth with Tasdeeq (belief/affirmation) it takes

the standing of the Ijmaa' of the people of knowledge in Fiqh in respect to a Hukm (legal ruling)

which they have beased upon the Zhaahir (what is evident), Qiyaas or Khabar Waahid. That is

then a Hukm that has become Qat'iy in the view of the majority and if it is not by 'Ijmaa

(consensus) then it is not Qat'iy' ('Ilm ul-Hadeeth p100).

And he also said: 'Nobody from those who have 'Aql (reason/intellect) has said that every

Khabar Waahid or the Khabar of anyone is truthful or establishes knowledge or that it could not

be untruthful' (Ref: Al-Jawaab As-Saheeh Liman Badal Deen ul-Maseeh 481/6 and also Al-

Musawwadah LiAali Taymiyyah p220).

The Zaidi Madh'hab:

Ash-Shawkaani said in Al-Irshaad: The second section: 'Al-Aahaad and it is the Khabar that does

not establish 'Ilm in itself and it is the same in respect to not establishing it in origin or

establishing it by way of external Qaraa'in (indications/linkages). This is because there is nothing

in between the Mutawaatir and the Aahaad and this is the opinion of the majority' (ref: Irshaad

Al-Fuhool 92/1).

Al-Ameer As-San'aaniy the author of Subul-us-Salaam said: 'Upon evaluation Qiyaas Al-Usool

affims Al-Qat' (definiteness) whilst the Khabar Al-Waahid does not affirm other than Zhann

(indefiniteness)'

And he also said: 'The Usool affirms Al-Qat' whilst the Khabar Al-Waahid affirms Zhann and

the definite supercedes the indefinite' (Ref: Haashiyah Ihkaam Al-Ahkaam Sharh Umdat Ahkaam

of Ibn Daqeeq Al-'Eid 53-57/4).

He said in another place: 'The correct view which the majority of the people of knowledge are

upon is that the Khabar Al-Aahaad which is the Saheeh Hadeeth is that however is not definite

at the same time and for that reason no one is legally responsible (and held to task) except for

that related to the action and not that related to 'Ilm' (Ref: Tawdeeh Al-Afkaar 24-25/1).

Muhammad Bin Ibraaheem Al-Wazeer Al-Yamaaniy in 'Al-'Awaasim Wal-Qawaasim' in his

rebuttal of As-Sayyid: ''Ilm with all of its Nusoos (texts) would only be obliged if it was obliged

to outweigh the statement: That working with Zhann is Haraam and if working with Zhann was

prohibited then working with Al-Khabar Al-Waahid would be prohibited and in that case it 'Ilm

would not be obligatory in anything from the Khabar Al-Aahaad' (Ref: 'Al-'Awaasim Wal-

Qawaasim' 286/1).

He also said: 'We have accepted that the Hadeeth is Saheeh but it is however Ahaadiy Zhanniy

whilst As-Sayyid has claimed that the issue is Qat'iy' (Ref: 'Al-'Awaasim Wal-Qawaasim' 235/2).

64

He has repeated similar statements throughout his book which can be seen by the one who reads

through it.

Mashaayikh (Scholars) from our current time:

Ash-Sheikh Taqiy-ud-Deen An-Nabhaaniy said: 'Khabar Al-Waahid: It is what a number that has

not reached the level of Tawaatur has related in the three eras and there is no significance to

what came after them. It establishes Zhann and it does not establish Yaqeen (certainty)' (Ref:

Ash-Shakhsiyah 78/3).

Ash-Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltoot said: 'This is the Tawaatur which obligates Yaqeen (certainty)

due to it being proven that it came from the Messenger of Allah (saw). If however it was Khabar

Al-Waahid or a small number and even if in some of the levels (of the chain) then it would not

be Mutawaatir and definite in regards to it being attributable to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and

it would only be Aahaadiy, its connection to the Messenger contains a Shubhah (doubt) and

therefore does not affirm and establish Yaqeen (certainty)' (Ref: Al-Islaam 'Aqeedah Wa

Sharee'ah p59).

Ash-Sheikh Abu Zahrah said: 'The Hdaeeth Al-Aahaad ascertain the most likel;y Zhanny

(indefinite) 'Ilm (knowledge) and does not ascertain the Qat'iy 'Ilm because there is Shubhah in

regards to the connection to the Nabi (saw)' (Ref: Usool ul-Fiqh p108).

Abdul Wahhaab Al-Khallaaf said: 'And the Sunnah Al-Aahaad is reported by way of Zhann from

the Messenger (saw) because its chain does not ascertain Al-Qat' (definiteness)' (Usool ul-Fiqh

p42).

Ash-Sheikh Al-Khuduriy said: 'As for the Khabar Al-Waahid it does not acertain 'Ilm in itself

whether it has been benefited by Qaraa'in (external indications) or is not benefited in origin' (Ref:

Usool ul-Fiqh p216 and 228).

Ash-Sheikh Al-Mubarakfooriy said: 'What is attained from the Khabar Al-Waahid is Zhann and

it is what is open to accept weakness and strength' (Ref: Tuhfah Al-Ahwadhiy 367/2).

Ash-Sheikh Hasan Al-Banaa said: 'That which the majority of the Muslims fro the Sahaabah, the

Taabi'een and those who came after them from the Muhadditheen, Fuqahaa and Scholars of

Usool were upon was: 'That the trustworthy (Thiqqah) Khabar Al-Waahid is a Hujjag

(proof/evidence) from amongst the Shar'i evidences that must be acted upon and that they

establish Zhann and do not establish 'Ilm'.

He then said: 'And as for those who say that it obligates 'Ilm then that is contentious to what is

perceivable' (Ref: Madhkar Mabaahith 'Uloom Al-Hadeeth p37).

Ahmad Ibraaheem Bik said: 'And from it (the Sunnah) is that which is transmitted by Aahaad

and has not become famous/widespread like the first (we discussed). It could be Mutawaatir in

65

the first line/level and then be transmitted as Aahaad. In regards to this category, if all of the

relaters did so from the Messenger until it reached us by trustworthy, just and precise people in

accordance to what they had heard, then what has reached us benefits the Hukm Ash-Shar'iy in

the issues related to actions but not the 'Aqaa'id. Its chain is established by the most probable

and the most probable Zhann is sufficient for the actions but not the Aqaa'id (beliefs) which are

based upon the Adillah Al-Qat'iyah (definite/decisive evidences)' ('Ilm Usool ul-Fiqh and

Ta'reekh At-Tashree' Al-Islaamiy p18-19).

And Sayyid Qutb (rh) said in relation to the Ahaadeeth recorded by Al-Imaam Muslim in his

Saheeh stating that the Nabi (saw) had been bewitched by the Jew Labeed Al-A'asam: He said:

'However these narration oppose the origin of the 'Ismah (infallibility) of the Prophet in regards

to his action and conveyance and they do not fit with the belief (I'tiqaad) that every action from

amongst his actions and every speech of his represents Sunnah and Sharee'ah. Similarly it in

opposition to the denial in the Qur'aan denying that he had been bewitched or enchanted when

it proved the falsehood of what the Mushrikeen used to claim in this big lie of theirs. As such

these narrations are cast away and in addition the Ahaadeeth Al-Aahaad are not adopted in the

issue of the 'Aqeedah whilst the reference point for it is the Qur'aan and the Tawaatur which is a

condition for the Ahaadeeth to be taken into the Usool of the 'I'tiqaad (belief)' (Ref: Zhilaal Al-

Qur'aan 4008/6) when discussing Surah Al-Falaq).

66

The Seventh Angle:

Their statements in relation to not using the Khabar Al-Aahaad as an evidence for the

Aqaa'id.

Abu-l-'Abbaas Al-Qurtubi when presenting his discussion upon the Hadeeth of the visual

sighting of his Rabb on the night of the Israa and Al-Mi'raaj: 'The issue is not from those related

to the actions making it sufficient to have Zhanny evidences but rather the issue is from the

beliefs and it is not sufficient in regards to them to have other than a Qat'iy Daleel' (Ref: Al-

Mufham Sharh Saheeh Muslim 402/1 and it was also mentioned from him by the author of

Zhufr ul-Amaaniy p120).

Safiy ud-Deen Al-Armawiy said: 'This is because what is required in regards to the Usool is 'Ilm

and Yaqeen (certainty) whilst the Khabar Al-Waahid does not establish that as we have

previously explained. This is different to the branches because Zhann is sufficient for it and the

Khabar Al-Waahid benefits that' (Ref: Nihaayat-ul-Wusool Fee Diraayat-ul-Usool 2811/7).

He also said: 'And we have made an Ijmaa' in regards to the Khabar Al-Waahid being

unacceptable in the Usool of the Deen' (Ref: Same source 2834/7).

Jamaal Ud-Deen Al-Asnawiy said: 'This is because the Aahaad narration, when it affirms it only

affirms Zhann whilst the Shaari' has only permitted the Zhann in relation to the issues related to

actions and these are the Furoo' branches without permitting this for the issues related to 'Ilm

like the principles/foundations of Usool ud-Deen' (Ref: Nihaayat As-Su'aal 270/2).

Al-Qaadi Ibn ul-Baaqalaaniy said: 'From this he deduced thta the Khabar Al-Waahid is not

accepted in the 'Aqliyyaat (rationalities) and the Usool of the 'Aqaa'id and everything related to

'Ilm'.

And he also said: 'And know, May Allah give you Tawfeeq that everything that 'Ilm is demanded

in that the Khabar Al-Aahaad are not accepted tin regards to it' (Ref: At-Talkhees 430/2).

'Alaa Ad-Deen As-Samarqandiy said: 'From them (the Ahaad) are those in which the Khabar is

found in the area of the action. As for however when it is found in the area of I'tiqaadaat

(beliefs) and it is from the issues of Al-Kalaam then it will not represent a Hujjah

(proof/evidence) because it dictates Zhann and a knowledge that it most probable in opinion

and it does not oblgate definite knowledge ('Ilm Qat'iy). It is therefore not a Hujjah

(evidence/proof) for that which is built upon the definite knowledge and the belief in reality'

(Ref: Meezaan Al-Usool p430).

As-Sibkiy said: 'That it is not from his conditions for it to be Qat'iy (definite) Mutawaatir but

rather when the Hadeeth is Saheeh, even if Zhaahir (evident) and it is from the Aahaad

narrations, it is permitted to rely upon it in regards to that because it is not from the issues of

belief in which the Qat' (definiteness) is stipulated as a condition' (Ref: Mentioned in Zhufr ul-

Amaaniy Sharh Mukhtasir Al-Jarjaaniy p120).

67

Abu uth-Thanaa Mahmood Al-Maatureediy said: 'And for this reason it is not a Hujjah

(proof/evidence) for the issues related to the beliuefs because it (the beliuef) is built upon the

'Ilm Al-Qat'iy whilst the Khabar Al-Waahid only dictates knowledge that is most probable in

opinion/view and even the greatest Zhann is not equal to the Qat'iy 'Ilm' (Ref: Usool ul-Fiqh

p148).

Abdul-Hameed Al-Asmandiy said: 'And if you wish to affirm Al-Qadeem Ta'Aalaa and his

Siffaat (attributes) then we say: Then the Khabar Al-Waahid is not accepted in regards to that

because if we were to accept it in relation to this then we would have accepted it in relation to

the beliefs (i'tiqaadaat) whilst it is impermissible to accept the Khabar Al-Waahid in the beliefs'

(Ref: Badhl An-Nazhar Fil Usool p406).

Abu-l-'Abbaas Al-Quraafiy said when responding to those who forbiod the Khabar Al-Waahid

in regards to the action: Our anser is: 'That that is specific to the foundations (Qawaa'id) of the

Deen, the Usool and the Qat'iy Ibaadaat' (Ref: Tanqeeh Al-Fusool p358).

Abu-l-Khitaab and Ibn 'Uqail said: 'The Akhbaar Al-Aahaad are not utilised in the Usool of the

Deen (Ref: Attributed to them by Ibn An-Najjaar in Al-Kawkab Al-Muneer 353/2).

Abu-l-Ishaq Ash-Sheeraaziy in response to those who say that if the Khabar Al-Waahid is

permitted in the Furoo' Branches) then it should also be acceptable in the Usool (fundamentals)

like Tawheed and the affirmation (Ithbaat) of the Usool said: 'The answer: It is that the issues of

Usool are Adillah 'Aqliyah that dictate definite knowledge ('Ilm Qat'iy) for a reason and so we are

in no need of the Khabar Al-Waahid (in regards to this)' (Ref: Sharh Al-Lam'i 601/2).

Al-Bazdawiy said: 'As the Khabar Al-Waahid does not ascertain certainty (yaqeen) then it is not a

Hujjah (proof/evidence) in that which relates to the belief because it (the belief) is built upon

Yaqeen (certainty) and even if it is considered as evidence (Hujjah) in that which ius related to

the action' (Ref: Kashf ul-Asraar 'Alaa Usool Al-Bazdawiy 27/3).

Al-Haafizh Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaaniy said: 'What is apparent in the manner Al-Bukhaari proceeded

with in the Chapter of Tawheed is that he placed the Ahaadeeth related to the divine Siffaat

(attributes) by aupplementing every Hadeeth in the chapter by an Aayah from the Qur'aan so as

to indicate that the Khabar Al-Aahaad should not be left alone to be used as proof and evidence

for the beliefs (I'tiqaadaat)' (Ref: Fat'h-ul-Baari 359/13).

Al-'Ainiy in his Sharh of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari when discussing the 'Aadhaan' said: 'These matters

have only been mentioned is in order to know that the implementation of the Khabar is only in

the matters related to action (Al-'Amaliyaat) and not in the beliefs (I'tiqaadaat)' (Ref: 'Umdat ul-

Qaari' 12/25).

Al-Mulaa 'Ali Al-Qaariy stated in related to the Hadeeth mentioning that the two parents of the

Messenger of Allah (saw) were in the fire: 'Unless it is Qat'iy in its Diraayah (meaning/text) not

Zhanny in Riwaayah (transmission) because it falls within the Baab (chapter/issue) of beliefs in

68

which the Zhanniyaat are not utilised and the Aahaad are not sufficient' (Ref: Evidences of belief

of Abu Haneefah in regards to the two parents of the Messenger of Allah (saw) p62).

Bakheet Al-Mutee'iy in his Sharh of Al-Asanawiy: 'The conclusion is that we forbid (prevent)

that the 'Illah (legal reasoning) which dictates the obligation (Wujoob) of the action by way of the

Khabar Al-Waahid in regards to the actions be present in regards to the beliefs because that

which is required in regards to the 'Amaliyaat (practical actions) is the action and Zhann is

sufficient for it whilst what is intended in relation to the I'tiqaadaat (beliefs) is the belief that is in

conformance to the reality based on that which obliges that and Zhann is not sufficient to

establish that' (Ref: In his commentary to the Sharh of Al-Asanawiy Li-Minhaaj Al-Baydaawiy

270/2).

Mahmoud Shaltoot said: 'And from here what we concluded is reaffirmed in respect to the

Ahaadeeth Al-Aahaad not benefiting (the subject of) Aqeedah and that it is not permitted to rely

upon it in relation to the unseen matters, a view which holds a consensus (agreed upon) and is

firmly established by intellectual (rational) necessity in which there is no room for dispute

amongst those who are rational' (Ref: Al-Islaam Aqeedah Wa Sharee'ah p61).

Sayyid Qutb said: 'And the Ahaadeeth Al-Aahaad are not taken in respect to the matter of the

Aqeedah and its point of reference is the Qur'aan whilst the Tawaatur is the condition (Shart) for

taking Ahaadeeth in the Usool of I'tiqaad (belief)' (Ref: Fee Zhilaal Al-Qur'aan (In the shade of

the Qur'aan) 4008/6).

Abdul Wahhaab An-Najjaar said: 'If the transmission of the Khabar is Aahaad then in it is not

valid to be a Daleel upon proving matters of belief because the intended purpose of the matters

of belief is for them to be Qat' (definite) and the Khabar which is indefinite in transmission

(Zhanny Ath-Thuboot) and indefinite in import/meaning (Zhanniy Ad-Dalaalah) does not

establish definiteness' (Ref: In the introduction of his book Qisas Al-Anbiya' (Stories of the

Prophets) Point number four).

And Abdur Rahmaan Al-Juzairiy said: When commenting on the reality of Sihr (magic): 'And

those who say that magic has a real effect do not have other than the Hadeeth of Al-Bukhaariy

related by 'Aa'ishah (ra) that stated that the Nabi (saw) had been the victim of majic and that he

had imagined that he had done something that he had not actually done. This Hadeeth is Saheeh

and none of its transmitters have been discredited and it is best to say: The like of these

Ahaadeeth are counted in the branch issues but not in the issues of I'tiqaad (belief). This is

because the 'Aqaa'id (beliefs) are not built upon other cerian evidences (Adillah Yaqeeniyah) and

however Saheeh these evidences are they are still Ahaadeeth Aahaad and do not affirm other

than Zhann' (Ref: Fiqh 'Ala Al-.Madhaahib Al-Arba'ah 391/5).

The above are what I have come across from the statements and opinions of the 'Ulamaa and I

find this quantity enough in this small book to counter the false claims that have been attributed

to the A'immah (great scholars) of the Muslims and their students and had someone wished to

69

obtain even more statements of this type then he would have been able to obtain them if he was

endowed with the ability to research and study.

And it is worth noting that I did not find a single source that stated that the Khabar Al-Aahaad

established and affirmed decisive knowledge absolutely (i.e. without any restrictions or

provisions) apart from the Zhaahiriy Madh'hab as mentioned by Ibn Hazm in his Ahkaam. As

for the remainder of thoise who said that this typr of Khabar affirms knowledge then they

restricted that to a Qareenah (external indication or support) in which the 'Ilm outweighs the

Zhann, like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn ul-Qayyim and An-Niozhaam of the heads of the Mu'tazilah

amongst others. This is whilst making clear that in the absence of the Qareenah the Khabar Al-

Waahid would not affirm other than Zhann.

If it is said by some that the seventy that have been mentioned amongst others are from the

'Ulamaa of Kalaam and are not from the Ahl-us-Sunnah then it can be said to them: You have

stoked and provoked discord in that in which there is no benefit. Are Al-Qurtubiy, Ibn ul-

Arabiy, Ash-Shaatibi, Ibn Abdul Barr and Az-Zarqaaniy of the Maalikiy Madh'hab from the

'Ulamaa of Kalaam?! Or are the Muhaddith Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadiy, Ibn Hajr, Ibn Daqeeq

Al-'Eid, Ibn ul-Atheer, Ibn ul-Jazariy, An-Nawawi, Ibn Abdus Salaam, Al-Maawardiy and Al-

Asanawiy from the Shaafi'iy Madh'hab from amongst the 'Ulamaa of Kalaam?! Are Al-Kamaal

Bin Al-Himaam, As-Sarkhasiy, Ibn 'Aabidain, Al-Kaasaaniy, An-Nasafiy, Al-Ansaariy and Al-

Jassaas from the Hanfafi Madh'hab from the 'Ulamaa of Kalaam?! Are Ibn Qudaamah Al-

Maqdasiy, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn 'Uqail, Abu-l-Khattaab, Ibn ul-Muneer and Abu Ya'laa from the

'Ulamaa of Kalaam?! Are the four A'immah also amongst the 'Ulamaa of Kalaam?!! Nobody

would ever say that apart from the most arrogant and stubborn of people and may refuge be

sought in Allah from that.

And if it is said that they are from the Ashaa'irah (upon the Ash'ariy view) in the shape of an

accusation and charge as if being from the Ashaa'irah was even an accusation, it can be said to

them in response: What we have established and presented above represents the opinions of the

Fuqahaa of the considered and well established Madhaahib (Schools of thought) as held by the

Muslims. As such, if these Madhaahib are Ash'ariyah then this means that they recognised that

the Ashaa'irah were upon the Haqq and as a result proceeded along with them. If it is then said

that these 'Ulamaa were not upon the Madh'hab of the Ashaa'irah then they should be told to

take back the accusation that they made against them.

70

Additional beneficial points for clarification:

The meaning of 'Ilm, Zhann and Yaqeen as used by the 'Ulamaa in their statements:

'Ilm (knowledge): It is the I'tiqaad Al-Jaazim Al-Mutaabiq Lil Waaqi' (The decisive belief that is

in conformity to reality) (Ref: Al-Jarjaaniy in his definitions (Ta'reefaat) p135 and As-San'aaniy in

his Sharh Baghiyat Al-Amal p22). This is what is meant when they say that the Khabar Al-

Aahaad Laa Yufeedu l-'Ilm (does not affirm/ascertain 'Ilm). 'Ilm is also used whilst intending

Fiqh (understanding) in the Deen like that which has come in the statement of the Messenger of

Allah (saw): Talabu-l-'Ilmi Fareedah' (Seeking knowledge is an obligation) and also in the

Hadeeth: 'The Anbiyaa (prophets) do not inherit a Deenaar or a Dirham but rather they are the

inheritors of 'Ilm (knowledge)'.

Yaqeen: This is also a Mushtarak Lafzh (A word with more than one meaning) and so it is used

with the intended meaning of death:

واعبمد ربك حت يأتيك اليقيم

And worship your Lord until Yaqeen (death) comes to you (Al-Hijr 99).

It is also used with the intended meaning that means the opposite to Shakk (doubt) like the

speech of Allah (swt):

ق اليقي إن هذا لمو ح

Verily this is the certain truth (Al-Waaqi'ah 95).

And it is also used to mean the opposite of Zhann (an indefinite thought/belief):

ما لمم به من علم إل ات باع الظن وما ق ت لموهم يقينا

They have no knowledge ('Ilm) of it except the following of Zhann (assumption) and they did not kill him for

certain (Yaqeenan) (An-Nisaa 157).

This last meaning is what is intended in the statement that: 'Khabar Al-Aahaad Laa Yufeedu-l-

'Ilma Wa-l-Yaqeen' (The Khabar Al-Aahaad does not affirm knowledge and certainty).

Zhann: This is also a Lafzh Mushtarak (word with more than one meaning) and it has been used

with the intended meaning of Yaqeen (certainty) like has come in the speech of Allah (swt):

م إليه راجعمون م وأن هم م مملقمو رب الذين يظمنون أن هم

71

Those who believe (Zhann) that they are going to meet their Lord and that they are to Him returning (Al-

Baqarah 46).

It has also been used with the intended meaning of a lie:

م إل يرمصمون إن ي تبعمون إل الظن وإن هم

They are following nothing but Zhann and they are not but falsifying (Al-An'aam 116).

And it has been utilised with the intended meaning of Shakk (doubt/suspicion) like in His

speech (swt):

يا أي ها الذين آمنموا اجتنبموا كثريا من الظن

O You who believe keep well clear of doubt (suspicion) (Al-Hujuraat 12).

This is like the statement of the Messenger (saw): 'And beware of Zhann (doubt/suspicion)

because verily Zhann is the most deceitful of speech'.

It has also been used with the intended meaning of the I'tiqaad Ar-Raajih (the most

probable/outweighed belief):

ود الله دم إن ظنا أن يمقيما حم

If they believe (Zhann) that they can keep to the limits of Allah (Al-Baqarah 230).

And this last type was mentioned by Az-Zarkashiy in Al-Burhaan (Ref: Al-Burhaan Fee 'Uloom il

Qur'aan 156/4) and by Al-Ghaziy in his Itqaan (Ref: Itqaan Maa Yusin Min Al-Akhbaar Ad-

Daa'irah Alaa-l-Alsin 476/1).

And Ash-Sheeraaziy said: 'The Zhann allows for two matters; the first is more evident than the

other and that is like the trustworthy (sound) report (Khabar) which is permitted to be Saadiq

(truthful) just as it is permitted to be untruthful (Kaadhib) in the case where the most apparent

of its states is that of truthfulness' (Ref: Sharh Al-Lam'i 150/1).

Therefore this last meaning of Zhann is that which is intended in the speech of the 'Ulamaa

whene they said that the Khabar Al-Aahaad does not ascertain other than Zhann and does not

establish Yaqeen. And Allah is the most high and aware and to him is the return.

Completed and All Praise belongs to Allah in the beginning and the end and Prayers be upon our

master Muhammad and upon his family and companions altogether.

Ramadhaan Al-Mubaarak 1422h/2001 Bait-ul-Maqdis.

72

khabar al-waahid (the single line transmission) - muhammad ash-shuwaiky

Documents