The Inconsistency of the Traditionists and their errant Definition for Sahaba.
Note: This is the other half of the Previous article. To read the first part click here
The legal status
of those who saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was a factor, i.e., whether or not they had
reached puberty (baligh) when they met him. During
the Prophet's lifetime some of the Companions did produce children.
Their parents usually brought them to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Prophet would pray for them, cut their hair and give them their first
food, and sometime give them their names. Yet when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away most of these children had not
yet reached puberty. Were they be counted as Companions as well? On this issue the Traditionists were bitterly divided. Yahya
ibn Ma’een, Abu Zurah, Abi Hatim
and Abu Dawud were of the
opinion that those who had not reached legal majority when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away cannot be considered as Companions[1].
They insisted that these children enjoyed
the privilege of "seeing" the Prophet but did not have his
"Companionship" (lahu
ru’yah wa laysat lahu suhbah). Al-Ala’i even denies that they ever truly saw him (wa-la Suhbata lahu
wa- la ru’yata qa’tan) [2]. Al Waqidi is also reported as having held this view[3]. The majority
of the Traditionists however disagreed.
It was too difficult
for them to reject the claims of Companions Like Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali
and his generation, who knew the prophetic era (asr al- nubuwah) and accepted ri'wayah from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم,
but reached legal majority only after
his Passing away[4].' Were they not to be counted among the Companions,
the Traditions reported by them would have fallen into the category of
Al Mursal. Their position was by and large similar to that of the Follower’s, although not exactly so. We saw above that the
term al-mursal refers to those
prophetic Traditions whose chains of transmission reached back only to the Followers.
But the Traditionists had a
special term for prophetic
Traditions reported by people who had not reached puberty when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away. This term was al-mursal al-Sahaba. Unlike the other mursal this type was not weak
and could be used as an authoritative source[5]. Given
that the Traditionists insisted that those born in the final years of the Prophet's lifetime deserve the
title Companions, it might have been expected that they would include their
Traditions in the category of al
musnad. That they did not implies that the Traditionists did not see
these younger Companions as Companions in the fullest sense of the word.
From the above
discussion we can see that, for the Traditionists, membership among the Companions
was automatic. It is beyond anybody's control.
Whoever met the Prophet, like it or not, had to be included as Companions. Thus men like Al Hakam ibn Abi al As Al
Qurayshi Al Umawi, the father of
Marwan ibn al-Hakam, whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم disliked and whom he expelled from
Medina, was nonetheless a companion[6].
There were other scholars who did not see membership
as automatic. For them, to be a Companion meant more than just seeing the Prophet. Within the
Traditionists' circle those who held this view were known as the Usuliyun. The Traditionists did not bother to explain
clearly who the Usuliyun were, being mainly concerned with their views rather
than with their identity. So while these views were widely quoted (in order to
be refuted), their names are
barely mentioned in the sources. But the
way they are presented indicates that they must have been the opponents of the
Traditionists whose opinions they fought to reject. The most likely candidates of the Usuliyun
were in fact the adversaries of the Traditionists, i.e., the Mu'tazilis.
The names of the Usuliyun which are
occasionally cited by the Traditionists support this assumption, in that they
include Ibn al-Sibagh, Abu al-Husayn al-Basri, al- Kiya' al-Tabari,
and 'Amr ibn Yahya. Abu al-Husayn and 'Amr ibn Yahya were Mutazilis; Amr ibn Yahya, the Traditionists claimed, was none other than Abu 'Uthman
al-Jahiz (d. 255/868 in Basra), one of the leading
Mu'tazïIi scholar and a student
of the Mutazili theologian Al Nazzam[7].
Ab'u al-Husayn was for his part a famous Mu’taziIi scholar,
active in Baghdad, who died in 436/1044[8]. According to the author of al-Wadih the leading figures (shuyukh) of the Mu'tazilis held views similar to those of Abu
al- Husayn[9].
In contrast to the Traditionists, the Usuliyun insisted that the name Companion
be given only to those who accompanied the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم for
a long time, and who often had sessions with him."[10]. Thus Ibn Al-Sibagh is said to have
asserted that
The Companions were those who met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and stayed with him and followed him; those who came to him and departed from him without accompanying and following him therefore did not deserve this title.[11]
Abu al-Husayn apparently said more or less the same
thing:
To be a Companion, a person must have two qualifications: one is to have had long sessions (majalis) with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, because a person who only saw him, like those who came to him (al-wafidin) and others, and did not stay long, are not to be named Companions; the other is to have prolonged his stay with him, to have followed him (al- tab’lahu), to have taken (Traditions) from him (Al- Akhdh’anhu), and to have placed himself under his authority (al-itba' anh).[12]
The basis of the
Usuliyun argument was that the meaning of the word Suhbah itself necessitates close association[13]. Hence the
phrase Ashab Al Rasul (the
people of the Prophet) is
similar to Ashab Al Qaryah (the
people of the village), Ashab al-Kahf
wa-al-Raqim (the People of the Cave and Inscription), Ashab Al Jannah (the people of Paradise) and Ashab Al Hadith (the people of Traditions), all of which imply a close association.
Likewise it is
obvious that one who only comes to a person or sees him or does
business with him cannot be said to
have been a companion of that
person[14]. The
Traditionists, however, insisted otherwise. The word Suhbah, they maintained, never originally
signified a long-term association. All linguists
agreed that the word Sahabi
is derived from
the word al-Suhbah. This word is applied, without any restriction, to whoever associates
helf with others regardless of whether the association is long or not.
It is just like other words such as mukallim (speaker), mukbatib
(preacher) and Darib (beater) which are applied to those who perform
these acts (i.e., to speak, preach,
and beat) regardless of whether they do so once or many times in succession[15]. And
Hence, Due to the efforts of the traditionists, I became a Muazin of the local
Masjid as I gave the call for Namaz (Aza’an) once.
[By this same
logic, we can say that a person is Pious no matter how many times he prays in a
Day, no matter how much he respects his parents. If he had done this once, even
for a short time, then he should be considered Pious.]
The only trouble
was that many within the Traditionists own circle disagreed with this very definition. The view of Hazrat Anas ibn Malik رضي الله عنه and
Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab رضي الله عنه has already been mentioned. Their understanding of
what a Companion was reflected
the customary meaning of the
word Suhbah advocated
by the Usuliyun. Ali ibn al-Madani,
Ibn Hanbal and al-Bukhari also seem to
have believed that the term Suhbah
did not originally include those who had only seen the Prophet. If this is
the case, then what the later Traditionists call the customary meaning
(al-mana Al urfi) of Suhbah was actually closer in spirit to the meaning assigned by the
earliest generation of Traditionists. And yet, how could Traditionists
like Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab,
whose Prophetic Traditions are considered as the soundest of Al Mursal[16]
at variance with other
Traditionists over so
fundamental an issue?
To solve this problem, the
Traditionists had to do at least one of two things:
Either reinterpret the past or negate it; they in
fact tried to do both. They
reinterpreted Anas ibn Malik’s رضي الله عنه statement, saying that what Anas meant by the word "Sahiba' (in "fa amma man Sahibahu fa-la) was a particular kind of Suhbah (al-Suhbah Al Khasah)[17]. The views of Abu Zur'ah and Abu
Dawud whose opinions
on puberty tended to limit the boundaries of Companionship and therefore could be seen as
sympathetic to the position
of the Usuliyun were also interpreted in the same way. Thus
what they meant was that those who had not reached their legal majority when the Prophet died did not enjoy the status of the special Companionship Suhbah Khassah[18]. They denied
that Sa'id
ibn al-Musayyab ever made the
statement attributed to him, insisting
that it must have had its origin
among the Usuliyun."[19] They
pointed for instance to the fact
that its chain of transmission included al-Waqidi, whose reputation among the Traditionists
was not very sound.[20] This claim may be accurate; yet it must be kept in mind that not only did
the Traditionists acknowledge that al-Waqidi‘ s own definition differed from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab[21] so that it is unlikely that he would have tampered with the latter's
definition for his own good-but also
that, on other occasions, the Traditionists did not hesitate to use information
from al-Waqidi.[22] Sometimes the
reason had nothing to do with al-Waqidi. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab's view was reckoned weak because it necessitated
the exclusion of Companions like Jabir ibn 'Abdullah al-Bajali رضي الله عنه who only became a Muslim in the year of the Prophet's passing
away[23].. So the issue was not
whether this report truly came from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab.
It was rejected because it’s
content contradicted the
formal definition favored by the Traditionists.[As the modern Salafi’s do]. In this case the Traditionists relied on their
definition, which was formulated later, to evaluate Sa'id ibn
al-Musayyab's, which was formulated
earlier."
The result was that the Traditionists
extended the meaning of the word Suhbah to include those who were with the Prophet for only a very short time, or who had even had no more than a glimpse of him, claiming this extended
meaning to be the original meaning. The Usuliyun words, as quoted
by Abu al-Muzzafar al-Samâni, express this phenomenon
correctly :
The Traditionists assign the name Companion to everyone who narrates from the Prophet, a tradition or a word, and they extend (the meaning) so that they also count as Companions those who saw him only one time (ra’ahu Ruyah).[24]
The
Traditionists for their part reasoned that, because the Prophet was so eminent,
anybody who saw him had been
specially favored[25]. To have spent with the Prophet even a (very short) time (sa'atan) was an accomplishment superior to any other. Thus Hazrat Umar ibn Abd al-'Aziz, the
most pious Umayyad Caliph, lagged far behind
in terms of religious achievement when compared
to Mu'awiyah, who rebelled against a
legally appointed Caliph 'Ali. As it was expressed "One of
Mu'awiyah's days with the Prophet was better
than 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz's رضي الله عنه lifetime
and his ‘family[26].
➽Conclusion:
There is a need to reform the definition of Sahaba, thus moderating it
(protecting it from extremes of both traditionists and Usuliyun). As a student
of Islamic studies my opinion on who a Sahabi is as
A Muslim, who meets the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, attend His (at least) few majalis, accompany Him and remain faithful to Him and His Family and passes away in that condition.
[1] Al Iraqi, Al
Taqyid, Pg 292-293.
[2] Al Iraqi, Al
Taqyid, Pg 293.
[3] "Wa haka
al Qadi Iyyad an Al Waqidi annahu Yashtaritu Baligh," Al Shawkani, Irshad
Al Fuhul ila Tahqiq Al Haqq min ilm Al Usul. (Cairo: Mustafa Al Babi Al
Halabi wa Awladuh, 1937), Pg 70.
[4] Al Shawkani,
Irshad Al Fuhul ila Tahqiq Al Haqq min ilm al Usul (Cairo: Mustafa Al Babi Al Halabi, 1937), Pg 70; Ibn Hajr, Fath
Al Bari, Vol 7, Pg 4; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Rawi, Pg 397; Al Hakim Al Nisaburi
assigned them to the lowest level of the class of companions; See his Ma'arifat,
Pg 22.
[5] Al Qasimi,
Qawaid, Pg 148.
[6] Ibn Abd Al
Barr, Al Istiab, Vol 1, Pg 359-360.
[7] Ibn Khallikan,
Wafayat Al Ayn, ed. Ihsan Abbas (Beirut: Dar Sadir,n.d), Vol 2, Pg 471, 474; Ibn Al Murtada, Kitab Tabaqat Al
Mutazilah, ed. Susanna Diwald Wilzer (Beirut; Al Matba'ah Al Kathulikiyah, 1961),
Pg 68,70.
[8] Ibn Khallikan,
Wafayat Al Ayn, Vol 4, Pg 271.
[9] Al Sakhawi,
Fath Al Mughith, Vol 3, Pg 92.
[10] Ibn Al Salah,
Ulum Al Hadith, Pg 393, Al Amidi, Al Ihkam, Pg 130; Al Nawawi, Al Taqrib, Pg 81-82, Tadhib Al Asma, Vol 1, Pg 14;
al Sakhawi, Irshad Al Fuhul, Pg 70; Al Bihari,
Kitab Musallam Al Thubut (Cairo):Al Matba'ah Al Husayniyah Al Misriyah, 1908), Vol
2, Pg 120.
[11] Al Iraqi,
Al Taqyid, Pg 297; Al Sakhawi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 3, Pg 92.
[12] Abu Al Husayn
Al Basri, Al Mu'tamad Fi Usul Al Fiqh (Damascus: Al Ma'had Al Ilmi Al Firansi
lil Dirasat Al Arabiyah, 1965), Vol 2, Pg 666.
[13] Ibn Al Salah,
Ulum Al Hadith, Pg 293; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Raawi, Pg 398.
[14] Al Amidi,
Al Ihkam, Pg 133-134. See Also Al Basri, Al
Mu'tamad, Vol 2, Pg 666-667. Compare the Usuliyun's argument with the
Shi'is. They share the view that the title "Companion" should only be
given to those who really close to the Prophet. But, whereas the Usuliyun basically
open the possibility of being a companion to every Muslim. The Shi'i limits
this title to the descendants of the Prophet. They divide companionship into
two: The true companionship (al Suhbah Al Haqiqiyah) and the external
companionship (Al Suhbah Al Zahir Al Amr). Unlike the later, the former is
applied only to those who complied fully with the Prophets Commands and prohibitions
and followed him in everything that came from Him. And this is only applied to
the imams of his descndants (al a'immah min
dhurriyatih). See Ibn Hayyun, Tarbiyat Al Muminin or Ta'wil Da'a'im Al
Islam, Ms. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Ms.
25736, 20 recto.
[15] Khatib Al
Baghdadi, Al Kifayah, Pg 69-70; Al Iraqi, Al Taqyid, Pg 296-297; Al Suyuti, Tadrib
Al Rawi, Pg 398.
[16] The reaon
why his Prophetic traditions enjoy such a high esteem is because he was the son
of a companion (His father was among the Ashab Al Shajarah and was present at
the Bay'at al Ridwan) and because he was one of the only two sucessors who knew
(adraka) and heard reports from the Ten companions to whom the Prophet promised
Paradise. See Al Hakim Al Nisaburi, Ma'rifat, Pg 25.
[17] al Iraqi,
Fath Al Mughith, Vol 4, Pg 338; Al Sakhawi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 3, Pg 93. It
seems that the traditionists often used this approach to interpret any statement
coming from other traditionists that contradicted their view. Thus when Imam
Ahmed bin Hanbal was reported to have denied Maslamah ibn Mukhallad's companionship
(Suhbah), Ibn Hajr says that what Ahmed bin Hanbal meant was particular companionship
(al Suhbah Al Khassah) (Ibn Hajr, Al Isabah, Vol 3, pg 398). Likewise when
Muhammad Ibn Awf says that he does not know if Malik Ibn Hunayrah had companionship,
it is interpreted by Ibn Hajr to mean, once again, that Muhammad ibn Awf is
referring to the particul;ar companionship (Ibn Hajr, Al Isabah, Vol 3, Pg
337).
[18] Al Iraqi,
Fath Al Mughith, Vol 4, Pg 338; Al Sakhawi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 3, Pg 95.
[19] Ibn Al
Salah, Ulum Al Hadith, Pg 293.
[20] Al Iraqi,
Al Taqyid, Pg 297; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Rawi, Pg 398. The full Isnaad of Ibn Al
Musayyab's view is given by Khatib Al Baghdadi, Al Kifayah, Pg 68-69.
[21] "Qala
Ibn Amr [al waqidi]: ra'aytu ahl al- ilm yaquluna kull man ra'a Rasul Allah Salla
Allah alayhi was sallama wa qad adraka al- hilm wa aqala amr al din wa- radiyahu
fa huwa indana min man sahiba Al Nabi salla Allah alayhi was sallama wa law sa'atan
min nahr" (Khatib al Baghdadi, Al Kifayah, Pg 68-69).
[22] Reading biographical
dictionaries on the companions, one can see clearly the truth of this
statement. The traditionists’ argument for differentiating between historical
information and Hadith information (to make the point that, while we can accept
his information on Hadith) is problematic. How can we decide that Al Waqidi's
information concerning Sa'id bin Al Mussayab belongs to the hadith and therefore
should be rejected while his information about other people belongs to history
and therefore can be accepted?
[23] Al Nawawi,
Al Taqrib, Pg 82; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Ra'awi, Pg 398-399.
[24] Ibn Al
Salah, Uloom Al Hadith, Pg 292.
[25] Ibn Al Salah,
Uloom Al Hadith, Pg 292, Ibn Kathir, Al Ba'ith, Pg 98; Al Iraqi, Fath Al
Mughith, Vol 4, Pg 337. The Usuliyun have a different way of seeing it. To
them, the position of Companion was so prestigious that not just anybody can easily
achieve it. It must be more than just seeing the Prophet. So the difference is
that while the traditionists make the Prophet the starting
point for defining the companions, the Usuliyun give more weight to the high
position of the companions (because the position of the companions is so
eminent).
[26] Ibn Kathir,
Al Ba'ith, pg 98. There are others who refuse to pass judgement on who was superior,
Muawiyah or Hazrat Umar ibn Abdul Aziz. The reason given is that because
Muawiyah was a "companion" (according to traditionists), possessing adalah,
the issue cannot even be discussed (Ibn Abd Al Barr, Jami Al Bayan al Ilm was fadlihi
wa ma Yanbaghi fi Riwayatihi wa Hamlih, ed. Abd Al Rahman Muhammad Uthman (Madina:
Al Maktabah Al Salafiyah, 1968).,Vol 2, Pg 227. Since however Muawiyah is being
compared with Umar ibn Abd Al Aziz who was not a companion, can the refusal to pass
judgement be interpreted as an implicit acknowledgement of the inferiority of
Muawiya?
