Mutawaatir Narration

[Abu Nihla]

Definition of Narration

Sensed information is of two kinds, what is directly perceived and what is heard from others: this is termed 'narration'. Narration is the transmission of information to yourself which others have sensed. In other words it is the communication to you of an event in the past by words. As such all knowledge of the past without exception is derived from 'narration' such as language, history and the like. If this is known it should be understood that narration is not merely an issue related to the deen but is a foundation of for all branches of human knowledge. Narration is a human event since it derives it's existence through humans. As such there are two aspects to narration: the narrators and the numbers of narrators.

Definition of Mutawaatir

The mutawaatir narration is any narration where the narrators are so many that it is not possible for it to be conspired upon or any coincidental error to have been made. As a result these reports yield certainty. This concept is known to every soul since it is experienced that not every report one hears is believed in whereas others are upon hearing them. The mind recognises the disparity between the two kinds of reports and innately and immediately attaches certainty to one but only probability to the other. For example without much reflection the mind would attach certainty to the reports informing about the existence of the U.S.A. even if one had not seen it whereas would not do so with a single report about a small car accident in a local newspaper. Therefore there is a difference between the two, it can be said that the one benefiting certainty possesses something which the other does not, that is signs (ayaat) which surround it indicating definiteness. These indicators are the numbers of the narrators and those things connected to them.

Factors Indicating Mutawaatir

It would be incorrect to say the numbers of the narrators is merely the only indicator just as it would be incorrect to consider merely the issues connected to one narrator to indicate definiteness, rather it is both of them together that must be considered. This is the method the mind takes, for on hearing many reports the mind does not sum up the reports and count whether the number has reached a mutawaatir number nor looks at the narrators and their characters, places of residence, detail of the report and decide, but rather it innately combines them both (jam') until it recognises the impossibility of error. This is by knowing each report's separateness. A report can reach a hearer through many chains of narration however this would not mean that it had traveled through different channels since there is a difference between the two. Chain of narration is not synonymous with channel, that is it can be possible that many narrators (or chains of) could amount to be same in the channel due to their being not separate i.e. that they knew each other plus collaboration or coincidence could not be ruled out. This is since it must be certain that the narrators did no take it from each other, that is they did not meet or that they did not make a mistake, by coincidence. Assuring their separateness means the narrators could not have taken it from each other since, by definition, they could not have met. Furthermore assuring separateness also means they could not have coincidentally produce the same report since man's mind can only think depending on his/her reality and every reality is individual and particular and therefore there are limitations on how man can think and consequently what he can imagine. Therefore imagining is contingent and limited upon the realities he or she has access to. It is true that every reality has commonalties and generalities however these are limited rather everything is unique and particular in essence.

Mutawaatir being arbitrary

It is false to think that merely by the fact that there exists no universal criteria for every report, i.e. a set number, that such a concept is arbitrary. Rather this concept, that is a perception of the surrounding indications, is a means of rational thought for every human. For example the means of differentiation of a adult from a child or the night from the day are all thought the mind performs with certainty. It is erroneous to conclude that merely because of the shady area that exists between each pair, i.e. night & day, child & adult, that none can be known with assurance. Rather, notwithstanding the transformance of one to the other, each can be known through the indications that exist alongside each. And this is a blessing from Allaah (swt) the Guarantor of truth that He has given us this ability, All Glory and Praises be to He. For He (swt) created the reality and made every event and thing particular, individual and unique. So therefore making everything separate in different degrees. This is something known definitely through ration. The mind understands this and searches the reports it receives for separateness since this indicates impossibility of error, only then does it become certain, just as it would sense the separateness of the child from the adult or the night from the day. For it could be narrated that a mugging was carried out by a man by 10 witnesses who, we could be certain, did not meet. However the mind would not consider such a reports as mutawaatir, with respect to the event of the mugger being a man, since although the numbers of narrators is great the detail of the narration is not since the sex of the mugger has only two possibilities that is male or female. Hence such a report would not rule out coincidence. However if it was narrated that by the same number of narrators the event of a mugger being an albino, Chinese man wearing a polka dot track suit; such a report would be mutawaatir since the detail of the report here would sufficiently rule out the possibility of error. Here the mind comprehends that the detail of the report together with the number of narrators would indicate separateness of the reports. Similarly a report could be narrated by 2 liars living in the same house which would not rule out the possibility of conspiring but be narrated by 2 people who live in different parts of the world ho have never had any contact. The point that is being made is that each report is surrounded by various factors such as the number of narrators, detail of the report, geographical diversity of the narrators and the like are the factors, these are the reports' signs. When these signs (at) indicate the report has been received from different (separate) channels the report is mutawaatir.

Why Numbers Show Certainty and Refutation of Imagination and Coincidence

A large number precludes error since it is known from the reality that when a body of people is so large it is impossible for them to agree on anything. A sheer number makes it a physical impossibility to meet, agree and conclude. This number may vary due to the circumstances but nevertheless every reality has such a number. It is possible for example that this number say be a small number hundreds of years ago and be a far greater number now due to the introduction of telecommunications. It would be incorrect, as some sophists think, to say that it is possible in every single reality for a large number of people to conspire together since it is definite that ever reality is composed of particulars (things). And it is known that each particular (thing) is limited so there are constraints and restrictions on what is possible from the nature of the things themselves. The one who comprehends this will understand that each separate reality has limitations of what is possible and therefore has situations which are impossible. To say otherwise would be self-contradictory since (particulars) things are limited by definition i.e. limitation itself is what makes something a particular (thing). So denying there are limitations would by the same as denying there are things. Besides a large number of narrators that do not reach tawaatur in their number cannot agree without this itself becoming known to others. This is since keeping such a large communication and gathering a secret is an impossibility in the reality. Consequently huge agreement on error even with nontawaatur numbers is not possible. It is also false to believe that it is possible for man's mind to imagine anything and consequently for any number of narrators, no matter how separated, to by coincidence produce the same report. This is since man's ability to think is constrained by the reality he is restricted to. As a ramification of this it would only be possible for his thought to be based on these particulars, hence man's thought is limited. The assertion that man can imagine anything in an unlimited manner would be contradictory to this and so this is void and is merely a convention of mere sophists who philosophise. Since man's thought is limited he would only be able to imagine certain thoughts and not others. It follows from this if the narrators' realities are very similar then it would be able for the mind to imagine similar thoughts however if the realities are separate and very different then it would not be possible to imagine certain things namely those things. This is why the mutawaatir method depends upon making sure a report travels through separate channels.

Refutation of Mutawaatir being Subjective

It is an error to claim that just because the number of narrators (making a report mutawaatir) is not fixed; that it is subjective. This is because just because something changes in different circumstances does not mean it is subjective. Subjectivity is the judgement of something with no criteria. It is incorrect to say this is the case here since a criteria does exists: namely the reality itself, and this is what is used to judge. Rather the criteria is objective and constant, that is the reality and it is possibilities and impossibilities which is applied to each separate situation. The way the mind immediately knows error is impossible in a situation is merely by perceiving the context. In other words it is by sensation of the reality just as man would definitely sense the heat in a fire immediately or differentiate the adult from the child. It would be a wrong to further assume such knowledge is subjective due to it being immediate and non-demonstrable. Such an assumption limits definite knowledge to demonstrable facts, this simply has no basis. Furthermore demonstrable facts are definite but not everything definite is demonstrable since many facts are known through their being necessary and being necessarily known precludes them from derived which in turn precludes them from being demonstrable. This is since a demonstrable fact is a fact which is demonstrated from something else or follows from another fact, for example it follows from the definition of 1 and 2 that 2 is greater than 1, that is the conclusion of the one being greater than the other is known from the premises of what 1 is and 2 is. Limiting decisive knowledge to such a form of reasoning is simply false. Rather the nobler form of reaching certainty is immediate or necessary knowledge . This is simply knowledge which is not derived but rather is self evident such as sensing the heat in a fire and the like. These facts are not derived or proven from other things but are known by themselves. Consequently they are not known from other premises but rather known to the seer or the hearer. However this does not necessitate these facts being subjective since they are not inner or merely personal but are still known from the reality i.e the external world. In other words they are still rational thought by their taking into account of the reality. This is since they are verified by corresponding the experience with previous ones so that the word corresponds to a specific reality. For instance the word 'heat' one feels in the flame is verified and consequently known through correspondence with similar previous experience. One can verify what is said to be 'hot' in a certain case by merely correspondence of the word to many other realities besides the one in question, in this manner it rests on objective grounds. This is the case with all words derived from sense perception such as heat, blue, soft and the like merely sounds man assigns to certain attributes he or she experiences. Therefore they are the names man gives to certain effects that are experienced, blue for example is the name man gives to the effect he experiences when he looks at the sky or the sea. However our point is here is not a full discussion but rather to show that some facts known and immediately without being demonstrated from other facts. Once this is grasped it will be known that just because a report being mutawaatir is immediate, that is it is not demonstrated nor extracted from a pre-proved rule, it does not necessitate it being subjective. Rather the mind concluding a report is mutawaatir is similar to any other perception, it is merely sensed from the particular situation or context and there is no subjectivity in this.

Refutation of Saying Mutawaatir Method has Transmitted False Reports

One could say that the concept of mutawaatir is false since many things are related by it's method which are false. For example the Christians are large in number and proclaim the crucifixion of 'Eesa ibn Maryam and the western world are large in number and proclaim that fornication is halaal therefore mutawaatir is not definite. This reasoning is simply fallacious on a number of counts. Firstly this reasoning is crude since it is a fundamental misunderstanding of mutawaatir. That is ''a narration of a event with so many narrators at each stage that it is not possible for it to be conspired upon or mistakes to have been made''. Hence the conditions are that from event the narrators must be large in number and be based upon sense perception of the event. Therefore it is not enough for a narration to be merely narrated by a large number rather it is imperative that the actual event is narrated from sense perception. Therefore it is invalid to assert that such erroneous views such as the crucifixion of 'Eesa ibn Maryam, the western world's view of fornication being halaal and the like since none of these rest upon any sense perception. Consequently these are not termed mutawaatir, they are merely custom (urf) and custom is not mutawaatir. For example the Capitalist west's view of fornication is not a single event and has not been sensed so how can this be claimed as mutawaatir? Similarly the Christians assertion of the crucifixion of 'Eesa ibn Maryam may be held by many but how is this sensed? Rather they transmit it from the Gospels and not as an independently narrated fact, this is perceptible from any discussion with them. So it is not based on sense perception of the event but rather from the Gospels, hence it is merely 'mutawaatir' from the Gospels and this is not a proof. Furthermore the gospels are not mutawaatir and still do not even attain the standard of acceptable hadith ahad i.e., so there is no authority in them. As for the saying that it is impossible to differentiate custom from the mutawaatir it is flawed. The question is centered on how we know a fact held by a large number of people originates from sense perception or some other source. And this is clear for it is merely from the many narrators themselves, if a multitude narrate an event as a sense perception it will be mutawaatir whereas that which is not will merely be custom. It would not be possible to mistake one for the other since the indication of the origination being sense-perception or not is not separable from the report, that is the indication will be within the information that is reported. And it will not be possible for all of them to fabricate the claim of it being sensually perceived since their number precludes this. If they were to do so then this would mean the possibility of them (the narrators) all being able to by chance, in isolation produce the same report, as well as attribute it to a witnessed event, which has already been refuted or intentionally group together to do so which is precluded by their number. Hence it would be known with great ease that the 'crucifixion of 'Eesa ibn Maryam' is not mutawaatir since each person or source which we may come across, i.e. a Christian, book, TV programme, do not narrate the event as witnessed by narrators but rather narrate it as a fact from the Gospel and this deserves no attention. Furthermore even if such rubbish was narrated as a sense perception then this would not be of any consequence. This is since a mutawaatir narration is that which is widespread or transmitted by a large in number in each (tier or generation) from the event to the hearer. The 'crucifixion of 'Eesa ibn Maryam' rather originates from the fourth or fifth century (Christian Era) from whence it was widespread amongst the Christians rather than the first century, wherein the event is attributed. And truly every claim needs a proof otherwise any claim could be made by anyone.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

bro do you have the 2nd part to this article?

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

Abu Nihla, no-one on this forum denies the authority of mutawatir reports. So what is the purpose of putting that long article up here as if we are all in danger of falling into the denial of mutawatir reports.

The real problem is with those people who reject sahih ahad reports.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

well actually the reality is salahudin and his HT reject mutawatir ma'nawee ahadith!

[Salahudin]

well actually the reality is salahudin and his HT reject mutawatir ma'nawee ahadith!

The reality is that you don't know what your talking about!..how many time do we have to tell you to fear Allah (swt) for your mischief??

The Party states that the so called 'Mutawatir' Ma'nawee hadith are a collection of Ahad narrations and do not yield the inevitable cognisance that is required for matters related to the Aqeedah but if the ahad hadith are either Sahih or Hassan then they are proof for actions....

[Abu Dharr Al Kashmiri]

the one who denies mutawaatir ahadith, what is their classification?

[Abuz Zubair]

The reality is that you don't know what your talking about!..how many time do we have to tell you to fear Allah (swt) for your mischief??

The Party states that the so called 'Mutawatir' Ma'nawee hadith are a collection of Ahad narrations and do not yield the inevitable cognisance that is required for matters related to the Aqeedah but if the ahad hadith are either Sahih or Hassan then they are proof for actions....
How silly is that?

How is what you said is ANY different to what Abu iman said?

well actually the reality is salahudin and his HT reject mutawatir ma'nawee ahadith!

What Abu Iman said is in fact precise and concise and what you said is long-winded...

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

jazakALLAHU Khairan bro Abu.Zubair...it seems these Hizbies hate me so much that they become blinded by it and post the exact same thing but in their wording.....madness?!.....nah he is being himself!

Akhee hayya 'ala jihaad, check out: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=2237

basically brother abu nihla's ht say it is kufr and salahudin's ht say mutawatir ma'nawee doesn't exist.

btw sal......can you answer where you understood the Qur'an being a group to group transmission as oppossed to generation to generation? does your group really say this?

[Salahudin]

How silly is that?

How is what you said is ANY different to what Abu iman said?



What Abu Iman said is in fact precise and concise and what you said is long-winded...

How silly is what?
How can we reject something that doesn't exist?
I clarified that the Party does not reject the sahih or hassan hadith as such ( what you guys term mutawatir manawee)....accepts them in actions but does not accept them to be decisive thus forbidden for matters upon which Aqeedah is built...even the hadith related to Aqeedah from amongst the ahad (mutawatir manawee) are not rejected per se...rather they represent information which forms part of the Islamic discourse...

[Salahudin]

btw sal......can you answer where you understood the Qur'an being a group to group transmission as oppossed to generation to generation? does your group really say this?

I was specifically talking about the joining of Quran during the time of Umar (ra) i.e. how did they collect it and accept what was Quran and what wasn't Quran....to answer..the sahaba unanimously agreed to accept those verses in the Mushaf's held by the Sahaba that were conveyed by Muhammed (saw) to a Group (Tawatur) and they rejected the verses in any Mushaf that were not conveyed to a group (Tawatur) by Muhammed (saw)...this is because Muhammed (saw) was ordered to convey the verses, on receiving them ,to a group...

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

How silly is what?
How can we reject something that doesn't exist?
I clarified that the Party does not reject the sahih or hassan hadith as such ( what you guys term mutawatir manawee)....accepts them in actions but does not accept them to be decisive thus forbidden for matters upon which Aqeedah is built...even the hadith related to Aqeedah from amongst the ahad (mutawatir manawee) are not rejected per se...rather they represent information which forms part of the Islamic discourse...

so yes, you do reject mutawatir ma'nawe.

anyways, now the issue of al-Qur'an, you say:


I was specifically talking about the joining of Quran during the time of Umar (ra) i.e. how did they collect it and accept what was Quran and what wasn't Quran....to answer..the sahaba unanimously agreed to accept those verses in the Mushaf's held by the Sahaba that were conveyed by Muhammed (saw) to a Group (Tawatur) and they rejected the verses in any Mushaf that were not conveyed to a group (Tawatur) by Muhammed (saw)...this is because Muhammed (saw) was ordered to convey the verses, on receiving them ,to a group...

what are you on?

the Qur'an was in a sahifah in the time of Abu Bakr(ra), so why now go to the time of 'Umar(raa)? and what does the transmission got to do with the collection? they are 2 separate things?

verification of a verse for writing in the mushaf had different shurut to the transmission of the text orally. That is why when the sahaaba(raa) had the shart of 2 witnesses for each parchment with ayaat, there was a verse from surah tawba (i believe) and there was only one witness, and they resolved it somehow(Forgotten details) and in that time everyone knew the verse but it was about the shurut they(raa) placed for writing it into a mushaf. wa ALLAHU A'lam

the point is whether in the time of 'umar(ra) before or after, the transmission is generation to generation where no asaneed,no need to verify people in chains etc this is mutawatir 'amm and this is different to group to group to group transmission of tawatur lafdhee and ma'nawee.

The Rasul(saw) did not just convey the Qur'an to a group, rather the whole qarn/generation had the Qur'an conveyed to them and they themselves conveyed it to the succeeding generation, and so on and so forth.

also bro, what about the tawatur of the 5 salah, you agreed it was tawatur but what type of tawatur?

jazakALLAHU Khairan

[sultanmuradII]

these Hizbies hate me so much

Is that an official position to hate you or are you generalising on to many brothers?

Isn't a generation just a larger group of people?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Is that an official position to hate you or are you generalising on to many brothers?

Isn't a generation just a larger group of people?
its specific to the one it applys to.

[abuzakarya]

Salahudin, are there any circumstances under which would you ever hold a position at variance with your breakaway HT sub-cult? Would you say that HT is actually your madhab?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Isn't a generation just a larger group of people?


come on, think about it! seriously!

[sultanmuradII]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sultanmuradII

Isn't a generation just a larger group of people?


come on, think about it! seriously!

Hmmm! O.K. .... a generation is a large group of people.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Hmmm! O.K. .... a generation is a large group of people.

ALLAHU Musta'an!

you emailed me about hadith studies, yet are you trying to really conclude after your research that the narration of the Qur'an which is generation to generation (i.e. involved the masses in general) is synonymous to the narration of mutawtir hadith of group to group i.e. a small section of the generation over which people can differ upon the veracity of the reports?

are you deluded by hizbiyyah or can you still not see a simple point like this that you will start nit-picking again?

the minimum number for a group is 5, can you compare the narrative of 5 people in each level to hundreds and thousands?

ajeeb! maybe one day the orientalists will come feast from you people in order to attack the Book of ALLAH Ta'ala saying "look you people say this"

have you brother in your studies encountered what is understood as mutawatir 'amm?

[sultanmuradII]

the minimum number for a group is 5
... and what is the maximum number?

have you brother in your studies encountered what is understood as mutawatir 'amm?
My search and research is on-going my brother.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

... and what is the maximum number?

thats the whole point, there is no maximum, rather there is a point where cognisance is reached and there is also in the case of the tawatur of a hadith and the tawatur of the Qur'an and where they differ. I will elaborate innsha'ALLAH

The tawatur 'amm narration is a narration which involves the "masses" of people in a generation, and they themselves transmit it not to a select few but to the entire succeeding generation and so forth.

The knowledge of the matter is spread out amongst the whole community.

With regards to a mutawatir hadith, then this is transmitted not throughout the generation but to a select number of narrators in each generation. Although he knowledge of the subject matter can be known to the "masses"

The narrators of the Qur'an do not need to be verified, etc because the whole generation is saying the same thing.

The narrators of the chains for tawatur ahadith need to be verified and some reports need authentication. This is one of the major differences.

There are more, but look into any book of 'ulum al-Qur'an it should have some stuff of use to see the differences.


My search and research is on-going my brother.

Alhamdulillah, I only asked you out of enquiry brother not out of animosity innsha'ALLAH.

[Salahudin]

What is Considered a Proof of the Quran?

What has been successively conveyed to of the Quran and we know it is Quran is alone which a proof. As for what has been conveyed to us via Ahad i.e. individually such as Ibn Masud’s Mushaf i.e. copy of the Quran is not considered a proof because the prophet was commanded to convey the Quran to a group of companions upon whose saying the proof is based upon and they can not be in agreement not to convey or abandon what they heard from the Messenger (saw). So, if there is something in the Quran that is conveyed by whose saying a proof is not set upon i.e Ahad narrators, this is not considered Quran because it is contrary to what the Messenger (saw) was commanded to convey, because only a single Sahabi conveyed it. A number of companions who heard what the Messenger told them were commanded to write it down. Such a number of companions or group represented the succession of conveyance of the Quran, so there was no chance for an individual sahabi or a number that did not reach the level of being Successive (Mutawatir) in the conveyance of the Quran. So, what has been conveyed of the Quran via Ahad is not considered as proof whatsoever.
It might be said that the memorizers of the Quran in the Messengers time did not reach the level/limit of succession i.e. Tawatur because of their minority (small number) and its collection was by way of Ahad and so the companions ‘Mushaf’ i.e. copies of the Quran were different and if the Messenger (saw) conveyed the Quran to a group whose saying the proof was set upon, then there would be no difference in the Mushaf. The answer to this is:

Firstly: All the companions agreed that the Quran was recited and conveyed to a number of them whose sayings the proof was set upon and all the Muslims agreed on that. Besides, the Quran is the Miracle that indicates the Messengers truthfulness decisively and if it is not conveyed to anyone who did not see the prophet, it will not be considered a proof for him unless it is conveyed successively.

Secondly: What is certain and immutable is that when an Ayah or Ayat were revealed to the Messenger (saw) he used to call the writers of revelation, ‘Wahi’, to write down the revelation and read them to a group of Muslims whose sayings indicate definite proof. He also recited the Ayat to the Muslims who attended the prayers with him. The fact is that the Quran was not recited nor conveyed to an individual Muslim but rather it was conveyed to a group of Muslims whose number reached the level of succession, ‘Tawatur’.

Thirdly: The issue is (not) one of memorization of the whole Quran by individual Muslims but the rather the important issue is the conveyance of individual Ayat. Suppose that the memorizers of the whole Quran did not reach the level of succession, this does not mean that the conveyance of the individual Ayat did not reach the limit of succession (Tawatur). So the non-existence of the successive number of sahaba who memorized the whole Quran does not indicate the non-existence of the successive number of sahaba who memorized the individual Ayat and wrote them down. Every Ayah was conveyed successively from the prophet to the Muslims, so it cannot be said the memorizers of the whole did not reach the level of succession (Tawatur) in prophets time.

Fourthly: Gathering the Quran is not the same as conveying it from the prophet because conveyance is the hearing of the Quran orally and this is the topic hear. As for the gathering of the Ayat of the Quran in one Mushaf (copy), the search was not for their being Quran but for being the first or last, long or short. Gathering the Quran was not gathering of what the companions conveyed. The Quran was already gathered in a Mushaf with Prophet in Aisha’s (ra) house. Its gathering was just to connect pieces of the Mushaf in Aisha’s (ra) house together with strings and match them with what the memorizers had. So, the case of gathering the Quran is not the same as the case of conveyance. For this, the issue here is not the gathering of the Quran. As for the differences in Mushaf at the time, anything in them that is conveyed by Ahad is not considered Quran and is not a proof. The case is not connected with the Mushaf itself but with the Ayat contained in the Mushaf. So if a single Ayat is conveyed successively i.e. to a number of companions who reached the level of Tawatur, it is considered Quran and a proof but if a ayah has been conveyed by Ahad, it will not be considered of the Quran. So Othmans (ra) Mushaf is Quran entirely because all Ayat included in it were conveyed successively by a number of companions who reached the level of Tawatur, But Ibn Masuds (ra) Mushaf must be examined i.e. what it contained by way of Tawatur is Quran but its Ayat that were conveyed by way of Ahad is not considered Quran such as the Ayah in his Mushaf which says, “…fasting three successive days”. This Ayah was not conveyed via Tawatur so it is not Quran and it is not considered proof.

So, there is no objection concerning the memorizers of Quran the Mushaf (copy) of the Companions. It is proved that the Quran is what has been conveyed successively (Tawatur) and what has been conveyed by Ahad is not Quran. What must be noticed is that the Quran was conveyed through being in his presence after it, the Wahi, had been inspired to him. It was recorded as well as memorized. The companions did not narrate the Quran but conveyed it i.e. they conveyed what was inspired to the Messenger in the form of Wahi. This is not the same as Hadith that was narrated and not recorded at the time of its saying but rather, it was recorded by the Third Generation of followers. The Quran was written and recorded at the time of inspiration and the companions conveyed what came it terms of Wahi (revelation).


This is an average translation from Shaksiya Volume 3.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

what does your cut n paste prove? that the Qur'an is not tawatur 'amm?

[Salahudin]

what does your cut n paste prove? that the Qur'an is not tawatur 'amm?

Maybe this will help you ( I took this from the Party website):

The 'tawatur by meaning' reports are a collection of numerous reports about various incidents, which are compiled together because they share a similar meaning found in them. What is said, by some, is that the common meaning found in them must be true based on the numerous reports from different people, even though each report is a about a separate incident and each incident is individually reported or reported by a few.

To illustrate the error in this, the following example about reports of fires occurring in London can be used:

If we consider 3 groups of 3 people that report they witnessed a fire in a flat in London, at night.

The first group of 3 people each of whom report a fire to have happened in East London in May 1992, the second group of 3 people reported their fire to have been in West London in December 1998, and the third group of 3 people, each reported that their fire happened in South London and didn’t give a date. We also take into account that the reporters in each group have no connection with each other, as to suspect collusion, and are reliable.

From the above information, it should be clear that we are talking about at least 3 separate incidents, where each one of these reported incidents does not reach the level of certainty, since they are only reported by a few individuals, i.e. we are uncertain that each incident is definitely not a lie and thus may not have happened, i.e. there may not even have been a fire in London in1992, 1998 or ever based solely on these reports.

The proponents of ‘tawatur by meaning’ came along, highlighting the similarities in such different reports, in this case a fire in a flat in London at night, and string together these separate incidents reported based on the similarities found them. They then add up the number of reporters, and try to make it seem that doubt has been eliminated because of the increase in numbers reporting similar things.

So for them a fire must have occurred, because now you have 9 people reporting a fire in London in a flat at night, and it does not matter which fire, where and when - just that a fire happened. The proponents will argue usually with the question: how could 9 people report the same thing (a fire in London) and a fire had not occurred, as if 9 people were all reporting THE same thing! That is why they have to be constantly reminded that it is separate incidents that are being reported i.e. fires and not a fire, and each of those could be a false report.

It is usually the way this question is proposed that confuses the mind with actual tawatur reports, but the moment you ask as to whether we are sure about any of the incidents, and does one incident make the other certain (i.e. as in our example just because a fire was reported in East London, did not make the report of the fire in West London any more certain), that we find the argument looses it’s strength.

Another point to note which is often brought up is the argument that these people did not collude; therefore it must be true what they are saying. Well since we have noted that they are not reporting the same incident, then what bearing does non-collusion have on this. It is like saying that another single person reported a fire in Kuala Lumpur, and because he couldn’t have colluded with the one reporting the fire in London there must have been a fire. The non-collusion is expected in these cases since they are from different times and places.

Now if one wants to add more numbers, we can say 10 groups of 3 people reported 10 different fires at different times and places, which when we count the number of reports they amount to many more. The probability that a fire may have occurred is increased, but never the less remains a probability i.e. we can not be certain about any of the fires, otherwise we should be able to say at least one of them is certain or 3 of them or all ten of them, but we find that we can't and the uncertainty remains.

We can have fewer variables in our example, by having reports reporting the same place in which the fire occurs i.e. in the same flat, but just the years in which the fires were reported to be different. However, the same reasoning applies, that each time the fire was reported, it could be a false report, and uncertainty is not removed.

It is therefore important to remember that when talking about tawatur, we are dealing with something which is transmitted with out any doubt, and not just probability. Therefore we must be clear on the reality of tawatur and non-reality of ‘tawatur by meaning’, lest we fall for the imagined certainty that many did

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

i've seen this poor post. When I get my exams finished I will be returning to your site to finish the discussion bi'idnillah Ta'ala

Anyway, That is not what I'm asking.

Oklet me ask you simple. do you know what mutawatir 'amm is?

[Salahudin]

i've seen this poor post. When I get my exams finished I will be returning to your site to finish the discussion bi'idnillah Ta'ala

Anyway, That is not what I'm asking.

Oklet me ask you simple. do you know what mutawatir 'amm is?

No-one disagreed with you on the matter of concerning the conveyance of Al-Quran from generation to generation to generation rather the discussion was about the the conveyance of the individual ayat contained within the Mushaf held by the Sahaba.
The point that was being made was the ayat conveyed via Ahad were not considered Quran such as some verses in Ibnu Masuds (ra) Mushaf. This because such verses were not conveyed by Tawatur from the Prophet(saw) and hence were rejected.
Since al-Quran forms part of the Aqeedah and what constitutes Al Quran was established through by being conveyed to a GROUP (reached Tawatur) at the time of it being revealed plus at the times of Prayer etc...
Hence this is another way of establishing why Aqeedah matters cannot be established by ahad or what you call 'Mutawatir Manawi' (which in fact is not Mutawatir / Tawatur).

[Mansoor Ali]

"If a narration from Muhammad, salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, is reported by reliable narrators & scholars, and they report it in connected form back to Muhammad, salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, and it is accepted by scholars, then it necessitates knowledge. This is stated by those who are precise & work to preserve the sunnah. But this saying of theirs - that aahaad hadeeth doesn't amount to knowledge & that it must be reported in mutawaatir form in order to result in knowledge, then this is something innovated by the Mu'tazila & the Qadariya. It was seized from them by some scholars of fiqh"

--- Abul Muzaffar As-Sam'aanee.

HT follow the innovated principle that only mutawaatir hadeeth amounts to certainty.

[sultanmuradII]

It was seized from them by some scholars of fiqh

Any famous top scholars? If so do we follow the majority or the few or follow the truth?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

do you not know who as-sanaa'ee is?

[Salahudin]

"If a narration from Muhammad, salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, is reported by reliable narrators & scholars, and they report it in connected form back to Muhammad, salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, and it is accepted by scholars, then it necessitates knowledge. This is stated by those who are precise & work to preserve the sunnah. But this saying of theirs - that aahaad hadeeth doesn't amount to knowledge & that it must be reported in mutawaatir form in order to result in knowledge, then this is something innovated by the Mu'tazila & the Qadariya. It was seized from them by some scholars of fiqh"

--- Abul Muzaffar As-Sam'aanee.

HT follow the innovated principle that only mutawaatir hadeeth amounts to certainty.

So do the Sahaba also follow an innovated principle? (astagfirullah)...maybe you think they should be rebuked for rejected the verses in Ibn Masuds Mushaf?!!!
This is the problem I frequently come across you brothers is that your blind following of your 'shiek' distracts you from what is actually being written...

Furthermore, I am not sure why he using the word knowledge in a general fashion because the decisive belief and knowledge of the sharia rules are two different subjects requiring two different levels of proof...

[Ummatun Wasata]

This is the problem I frequently come across you brothers is that your blind following of your 'shiek' distracts you from what is actually being written...

Bismilla, Brother I sincerely advise you to step out of the box and take a long look at yourself. Many times on this forum you have spoke against others for following scholars. Think about this carefully. Do you really think that you and I are capable of evaluating the sources such as Usul ul Fiqh and the like?

Scholars study years on end and dedicate their lives to such work. The reality is that you and I cannot evaluate such matters; hence we have to rely upon the understanding of scholars. So when you discuss something, it is the understanding of a scholar i.e. Nabhaani (rh). If you and I were at the calibre of a scholar we would not be quoting and referring to scholars.

Now think about this. Why should one take the understanding from Nabhaani (rh) over the giants of this Ummah? Please don't get emotional, just think about it. Where does the safety of the deen reside, is it with Nabhaani (rh) or with the scholars of the past that the ummah recognise as authorities over them?

You need to think about these points before thinking about the topic of revival and the vital issue. You need to realise where the safety of the Deen is and with whom the understanding of the deen is preserved.

Remember Iblees is a sworn enemy and that his mission is to mislead the son of Adam and this will be done by misleading personalities such as scholars and mislead them to think that such and such is a valid Ikhtilaaf. All we need to do is look around us and we will witness Iblees and his handy work. Look at all the people that he has deviated and led astray by his whispering. Read the likes of Talbees Iblees and you will realise how he works.

No pun intended. I wish for my brother that which I wish for myself.

Allahu'Alim
May Allah Azza wa'Jall guide us all to that which is correct.
Wa Asalaamu’Alaikum

[sultanmuradII]

Most scholars will say their understanding is in line with the past great scholars, so you end up having to evaluate or accept the scholars argument. Also there seems that there are many matter over which disagreemnts arose, take Abu Hanifa's and other's definition of iman as an example.

do you not know who as-sanaa'ee is?

no, I don't know, was he a top scholar who seized the so called innovation of the qadriya and mu'tazila, if so how is he a top scholar then?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Most scholars will say their understanding is in line with the past great scholars, so you end up having to evaluate or accept the scholars argument. Also there seems that there are many matter over which disagreemnts arose, take Abu Hanifa's and other's definition of iman as an example.

then we should look to what they said and look to their understandings, theri circumstances, what preceded them and the implications of what they said and the view of the community.



no, I don't know, was he a top scholar who seized the so called innovation of the qadriya and mu'tazila, if so how is he a top scholar then?

if you don't know then try and find out innsha'ALLAH

[Mansoor Ali]

Some of the people of kalam, and the Mu'tazila, and those who followed them from later generations, like Mahmood Shaltoot, Ahmad Shalbee, 'Abd Al-Kareem 'Uthmaan, asserted that khabar al ahad can't be used as a means of founding matters of 'aqeeda.

This assertion of theirs is inadmissable, for if the authenticity of a hadeeth is established, having been transmitted by a chain of trustworthy narrators, and in the correct manner, then eemaan in it is compulsory, no matter if it is mutawaatir or ahad.

--- Imaam Al-'Uthaymeen.

Salahuddin said
So do the Sahaba also follow an innovated principle?

The implementation of khabar al-ahad by the Sahaaba & Taabi'een without repudiation is widely circulated & known.

--- Imaam ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Baaree, 234/13

[Salahudin]

Some of the people of kalam, and the Mu'tazila, and those who followed them from later generations, like Mahmood Shaltoot, Ahmad Shalbee, 'Abd Al-Kareem 'Uthmaan, asserted that khabar al ahad can't be used as a means of founding matters of 'aqeeda.

This assertion of theirs is inadmissable, for if the authenticity of a hadeeth is established, having been transmitted by a chain of trustworthy narrators, and in the correct manner, then eemaan in it is compulsory, no matter if it is mutawaatir or ahad.

--- Imaam Al-'Uthaymeen.

Salahuddin said


The implementation of khabar al-ahad by the Sahaaba & Taabi'een without repudiation is widely circulated & known.

--- Imaam ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Baaree, 234/13


Sahaba accepted rulings to do with actions not belief when they received the report from a single narrator.

[Mansoor Ali]

Salahuddin saidSahaba accepted rulings to do with actions not belief when they received the report from a single narrator.

Imaam ibn Al-Qayyim said in his refutation of those who reject the proof of hadeeth ahad:

The Sahaaba asserted that which an individual narrated from the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, and they did not respond to the one who informed him with the statement: your information is ahad, this does not constitute knowledge until it is mutawaatir.

If one companion narrated from the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, concerning Allaah's attributes, it was believed in. They believed in Allaah's vision, His speech, His call on Judgement Day, His descent every night to the lowest heaven, His laughter, His act of grasping the heavens and placing them on His finger, His foot.

Those who asserted that hadeeth ahad constitutes certainty or knowledge include Maalik, Ash-Shaafi'ee, the companions of Abu Haneefa, Daawood bin 'Alee & his companions.

[Salahudin]

Salahuddin said

Imaam ibn Al-Qayyim said in his refutation of those who reject the proof of hadeeth ahad:

The Sahaaba asserted that which an individual narrated from the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, and they did not respond to the one who informed him with the statement: your information is ahad, this does not constitute knowledge until it is mutawaatir.

If one companion narrated from the Prophet, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, concerning Allaah's attributes, it was believed in. They believed in Allaah's vision, His speech, His call on Judgement Day, His descent every night to the lowest heaven, His laughter, His act of grasping the heavens and placing them on His finger, His foot.

Those who asserted that hadeeth ahad constitutes certainty or knowledge include Maalik, Ash-Shaafi'ee, the companions of Abu Haneefa, Daawood bin 'Alee & his companions.

I think your confused between conveyance (tabligh) and establishing the proof for aqeedah matters.

If I quote you a verse from Al-Quran which talks about an aqeedah matter ( decisively) do you believe it because it came from me or because you are convinced that what I say is from al-Quran?
Basically you have to establish for yourself decisively that what I conveyed is decisive i.e. that what I conveyed is al-Quran and the subject matter is Aqeedah etc...

Anyway here are some quotes:

al-Shatabi said in ‘Al-Muwafaqat’, “The sources of Fiqh of the Deen are definite, not probable and the evidence for that is that they refer to Shariah generalizations which must be definite”. He also said, “If uncertainty or probability is connected to Shariah generalizations, it can also be connected to the origin of Shariah because it is the first general issue in Deen and this is not accepted” and “If it is possible to make the probability a source in Fiqh sources, it will be possible to make it a source in the Sources of Deen and this is not so according to the agreement of all scholars” and “Some scholars said there is no way to prove the Shariah sources based upon probability because it is legislation i.e. Tashree, and we do not worship Allah by probability except in branches of Shariah” and “The sources must definite because if it is probable there will be the possibility of varieties and such a result does not make probability a source of Deen”. Al-Asnawi said in his ‘Nihayat El-sawl' while talking about guidance of ‘Do’ and ‘Perform’ in terms of the probable evidence is not considered, “As for Ahad (i.e as evidence of sources) it is false because Ahad means probability and the legislator permitted probability in practical affairs i.e. the branches of Shariah but not in knowledgeable affairs such as the rules of the Source of Deen and the rules of Source of Fiqh”.

[Mansoor Ali]

HT are today's followers of the misguided Mu'tazila.

When the Mu'tazila started spreading the bida that hadeeth ahad can't believed in, scholars confronted their misguidance.

Ash-Shaafi'ee :

...Indeed the punishment of the grave is a fact, the questioning of those in the graves is a fact, the resurrection is a fact, the accountability is a fact, heaven and hell are facts. Whatever else is related in the sunna and so mentioned by the scholars and their followers throughout the lands of the Muslims is also true."

Ahmad:

From the essential sunna, which if a person leaves anyone of its points - not having eemaan in it will not be from its people are.....punishment of the grave...

Sufyaan bin 'Uyayna:

"...affirming al-qadr, giving precedence to Aboo Bakr and 'Umar, the Pond, intercession, the scales, the bridge over hell, eemaan is statement and action, the Quraan is Allaah's speech, punishment of the grtave, being resurrected on Judgement Day and not testifying that any Muslim will definitely be in heaven or hell."

Ibn Qutayba:

"...the Quraan is Allaah's speech uncreated, that Allaah will be seen on Judgement Day, giving precedence to Aboo Bakr and 'Umar, eemaan in punishment of the grave. They do not differ in these fundamentals. Whosoever opposes them in any of these matters, hate and declare such a person an innovator and cut themselves from him."

[Salahudin]

HT are today's followers of the misguided Mu'tazila.

When the Mu'tazila started spreading the bida that hadeeth ahad can't believed in, scholars confronted their misguidance.

Ash-Shaafi'ee :

...Indeed the punishment of the grave is a fact, the questioning of those in the graves is a fact, the resurrection is a fact, the accountability is a fact, heaven and hell are facts. Whatever else is related in the sunna and so mentioned by the scholars and their followers throughout the lands of the Muslims is also true."

Ahmad:

From the essential sunna, which if a person leaves anyone of its points - not having eemaan in it will not be from its people are.....punishment of the grave...

Sufyaan bin 'Uyayna:

"...affirming al-qadr, giving precedence to Aboo Bakr and 'Umar, the Pond, intercession, the scales, the bridge over hell, eemaan is statement and action, the Quraan is Allaah's speech, punishment of the grtave, being resurrected on Judgement Day and not testifying that any Muslim will definitely be in heaven or hell."

Ibn Qutayba:

"...the Quraan is Allaah's speech uncreated, that Allaah will be seen on Judgement Day, giving precedence to Aboo Bakr and 'Umar, eemaan in punishment of the grave. They do not differ in these fundamentals. Whosoever opposes them in any of these matters, hate and declare such a person an innovator and cut themselves from him."

Once again: the old hide behind scholars statements trick!
Whats the matter, can't discuss the matter intellectually? That you have to resort to shallow comments such so and so follow mutazillah...
I doubt very much that you really comprehend the arguement let alone what gorups liek the mutazillah, jabriya etc really said and stood for...

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Once again: the old hide behind scholars statements trick!
Whats the matter, can't discuss the matter intellectually? That you have to resort to shallow comments such so and so follow mutazillah...
I doubt very much that you really comprehend the arguement let alone what gorups liek the mutazillah, jabriya etc really said and stood for...

lol!

Well brother how about coming here: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=3321 and showing everyone how its done?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

lol!

Well brother how about coming here: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=3321 and showing everyone how its done?

brother, your avoiding this thread like it's the plague.

So you seek honest discussion to seek the truth? Or will you just go around making claims and only "back it up" when you can "cut n paste" a response?

I ask this of you seriously and mockingly....even though it may seem that, but I only describe the reality.

wa ALLAHU Musta'an!

[justabro]

So you seek honest discussion to seek the truth?
nope

Or will you just go around making claims and only "back it up" when you can "cut n paste" a response?
yup

[gag order]

Sahaba accepted rulings to do with actions not belief when they received the report from a single narrator.

some examples would help here!

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Sahaba accepted rulings to do with actions not belief when they received the report from a single narrator.

some examples would help here!


prefereably from your own research using the resources you looked into....as opposed to a "cut n paste"

[Salahudin]

prefereably from your own research using the resources you looked into....as opposed to a "cut n paste"

The burden of proof is on those who state the Aqeedah can be built upon the Ahad...
Since Allah (swt) forbids it, then it is impossible for the sahaba to agree on something haram...

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

The burden of proof is on those who state the Aqeedah can be built upon the Ahad...
Since Allah (swt) forbids it, then it is impossible for the sahaba to agree on something haram...

you say that the sahaaba(raa) can agree upon an error for a non-sharee' matter in shaksiyyah vol 3. Right or wrong?

[Salahudin]

you say that the sahaaba(raa) can agree upon an error for a non-sharee' matter in shaksiyyah vol 3. Right or wrong?

let me double check...but let me ask..can Muhammed (saw) or more accurately, did Muhammed (saw) get things wrong when it came to non Sharia matters such as the advise he gave on agriculture (thinking from the top of my head)?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

from what I have heard the Rasul(sallahu 'alayhi was-sallam) himself said he is not an expert to ask in this field or something like that.

[Mansoor Ali]

Salahuddin said The burden of proof is on those who state the Aqeedah can be built upon the Ahad...
Since Allah (swt) forbids it.....

No, the burden of proof is on those who say that hadeeth ahad can't be believed in. Also, to lie against Allaah is one of the greatest sins a person can commit.

The rightly guided scholars stated that it is compulsory for us to believe in everything that Allaah or his messenger, salaallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, have told us, that has been received via a saheeh isnaad.

[Salahudin]

Salahuddin said

No, the burden of proof is on those who say that hadeeth ahad can't be believed in. Also, to lie against Allaah is one of the greatest sins a person can commit.

The rightly guided scholars stated that it is compulsory for us to believe in everything that Allaah or his messenger, salaallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam, have told us, that has been received via a saheeh isnaad.

So why muhaditheen establish different categories and conditions for the hadith?
You also seem to forget the science of hadith is not from sharia per se but subjective and that's why many differed over the same hadith in terms of its categorisation...however they all agreed that the Mutawatir or Tawatur of Hadith yeilds the decisiveness...
As I listed many scholars who said the Ahad does not yeild decisive cognisance then i am not sure why you are making statements that are in simple terms untrue...
what scholars or some muhaditheen did was to put many ahad hadith together (even though they were not linked by any authority or isnad) but because a common meaning was found in them they stated it was 'Mutawatir in meaning' though the reality of transmission was ahad!
thus in the subject matter of belief (Iman) we know from the decisive texts in al -Quran that it is forbidden to take doubt in the Aqedah and because its is a fact that ahad does not yeild the decisive knowledge then how is it we can take the ahad into Iman...
who do we follow: Allah (swt) or the Scholars?

[Mansoor Ali]

A group of people rejected the idea of using saheeh aahaad hadeeth as evidence in matters of 'aqeeda. They refer only to the Quraan and mutawaatir hadeeth, and claim such a text has a definite meaning. This was the view of people of 'ilm al-kalaam. Some scholars of usool followed them.

This misguided principle is followed by HT.

HT claim that hadeeth aahaad contain conjecture, and conjecture can't be used as evidence. They use the Quraan, soora 53, ayah 23, as proof. It means "...They follow only a guess and what they desire", as well as the 28th ayah, " They follow only a guess, and verily guess is no substitute for the truth."

HT don't seem to understand that the conjecture which Allaah condemns is mere speculation. In Al-Lisaan it states that zann refers to when you have doubts about something but accept it and judge according to it.

Allaah condemns the mushrikeen for follwing any kind of doubt, not just the case of beliefs but also the matter of rulings or action.

Allaah has mentioned in soora 6, ayah 148, "Those who took partners in worship with Allaah will say 'If Allaah had willed, we wouln't have taken partners with Him, nor would our fathers...and we wouldn't have forbidden anything against His will." This ayah includes both 'aqeeda and rulings. Allaah has condemned the mushrikeen for zann in beliefs and rulings.

The hadeeths which were transmitted in the books of Sunnah and classed as saheeh reach the level of certainty. The rightly guided scholars accept the saheeh aahaad hadeeths concerning both 'aqeeda and ahkaam.

[sultanmuradII]

The hadeeths which were transmitted in the books of Sunnah and classed as saheeh reach the level of certainty.
You are saying that there is no possibility of a transmitting of an error from the narrators in a sahih hadith? How did you remove the fallibility of the narrators?

[Mansoor Ali]

I don't know the answer to your first question, so please explain - are you saying that saheeh hadeeths can't be believed in?

[arabic_courses]

Assalaamu alaikum

I have read this thread and I firstly offer this sincere advice to you all. It is not befitting that these issues be dealt with on forums as it spreads un-necessary doubt to those who misunderstand or have been made to misunderstand. Also, many issues in Islaam cant be fully understood unless one knows the Arabic language, so I find it sad that some people bring up this issue to the general public when they themselves don’t know Arabic, or they know some arabic but those whom they are speaking to don’t. What is upon us all is to believe in Islaam, all of it and not to spend valuable time debating the validity of the foundations of Islaam. If you believe in Islaam, believe in it in its entirety and don’t pick and choose what one likes. My last bit of advice is that one should reframe from spreading doubt about our scholars. I don’t mean anyone specifically; I am talking about the general scholars of Islaam from the time of the sahaabah until now. Once an individual has doubt in the very people who transmitted Islaam to us they have surly fallen into misguidance. Anyone who claims to be upon the truth and that those before them were not upon the truth is 100% wrong without exception. It is impossible for this Ummaah to agree upon misguidance and then someone years later find it. As Allaa says in the Qur’aan:

“and whoever goes against the Rasool after guidance has been made clear to him, and follows other than the path of the believers, We will leave him to the (path) he has chosen, and then burn him in Hell fire, and how evil is his destination”

So whoever claims a path other than the path of the believers (and that includes every believer from the beginning of Islaam until now) then he is wrong by Ijmaa’ (consensus) of the Muslims.

As for the issue of Aahaad, then one should not confuse the issue with other things and understand Islamic contexts in accordance to the raw language. So in dealing with this issue I will try break it down into subsections.
1) What does mutawaatir means in the language,
2) What does mutawaatir means in the science of hadeeth,
3) What does mutawaatir means in the science of usool al fiqh,
4) What does aahaad means in the language,
5) What does aahaad means in the science of hadeeth,
6) What does aahaad means in the science of usool al fiqh,
7) What is the difference between the two, and why have difference categories of hadeeth
8) Can on act upon a hadeeth that is aahaad? And can belief be taken from Aahaad?

What does mutawaatir means in the language,
The first thing everyone should try to understand when studying any islamic terminology is to understand the root meaning in the language because in most cases there is a connection between it and the Islamic meaning. So the meaning of mutawaatir in the Arabic language mean “to recur again and again, or to follow in succession”. So if I were to say that ‘car accidences in saudi Arabia tawaatara’ that would mean that it keeps on re-occurring over and over again in close succession.

What does mutawaatir means in the science of hadeeth,
As for the scholars of hadeeth, then they took this word in the Arabic language and gave it a new meaning which is close to the original meaning but more specific. To the scholars of hadeeth, a mutawaatir hadeeth is when those narrating it at each level have reached a specific number. Once they have reached that particular number then there is no need to even look at the reliability of the narrators as it is impossible for them to agree upon a single hadeeth. Now, what is meant by ‘each level’ is each stage of the narration. So the sahaabah would be the first level, and then the taabi’een would be the next level, and those who narrated from them would be the next level and so on. So at each level, there has to be a specific number for it to be considered ‘mutawaatir’.
An example of that is the hadeeth:

((Whoever lies on me deliberately then let him take his seat in the hellfire))

That hadeeth was narrated by over 70 sahaabah with the EXACT wording. This is what is known by the scholars of haddeth as ‘mutawaatir in wording’.
There is another category of mutawaatir which is referred to as ‘mutawaatir in meaning’. This is when the hadeeth did not come in the same wording, and sometimes it is even a different hadeeth altogether, however when put together one can understand that the meaning of some part of them would be mutawaatir. For example, raising the hands in making du’aa. There are over 100 hadeeth that mention that the messenger of Allaah raised his hands in du’aa but they were all in different situations. So although each individual hadeeth might not be mutawaatir there is a part in all of them that show that it is impossible for it all to be a lie. That is mutawaatir with the scholars of hadeeth.

What does mutawaatir means in the science of usool al fiqh
As for what is means with the scholars of Usool al Fiqh, then it is close to the idea the scholars of hadeeth have. They say that it is:

“When a group of people narrate upon a another group of people so that it is impossible for them all to have agreed upon a lie, and they all ascribed their narrations back to the senses”.

That definition is quite clear insha Allaah except the last part

“and they all ascribed their narrations back to the senses”

That last part is the distinguishing factor that separates a mutawaatir narration to what is known as ‘hearsay’ or a rumor as rumors are widespread but no one can pinpoint where it started and or how it started. However in a mutawaatir hadeeth, everyone knows who said it and how they came to hear about it. So for example, if we had 100 hadeeth all saying the same things but in each hadeeth there was one person that was unknown (for example they all said “I heard it from a man at the shop”) then it would be a rumor due to the possibility that the missing man in all the narrations is the same person. Also, it should be also noted that in the first part of the definition it said

“When a group of people narrate upon another group of people…”. This is a very important condition because it excludes those narrations that started with a few people (or even one person) and then spread to many.

That is what mutawaatir is with the scholars of usool al fiqh, and as you can see, there is not much difference with regards to what the scholars of hadeeth say.

What does aahaad means in the language,
Aahaad is the plural of the word “waahid” ie one. One may be asking “how can you have the plural of one?” Well the Arabic language is a wide language, so with this issue I will explain with an example.

In Arabic a house is called ‘bait’, and the plural of that is ‘buyoot’. My point is that the plural of ‘buyoot’ is ‘buyootaat’. Ie, here is on house, over that are houses, but in the borough of hackney, London, there are many different pockets of houses. So there would be maybe 5 on this road, and 4 on the next road and 7 on the other road. So those three groups of houses are called ‘buyootaat’, ie the plural of the plural. So with regards to the word ‘aahaad’ then an example of it is in animals. I can say that I have one cat and one horse and one sheep and one goat and all together they are aahaad.

What does aahaad means in the science of hadeeth
In the science of hadeeth, the word ‘aahaad’ is a wide category with subdivisions. So in the science of hadeeth, aahaad refers to everything that is not ‘mutawaatir’. Inside the catergory of aahaad there is ‘ghareeb’, ‘azeez’ and ‘mash.hoor’.

‘ghareeb’ refers to all those hadeeths that along some point of that chain of narrators there is only one person in it. So if one sahaabah narrated a hadeeth to 100 people, and they all narrated it to 100 people each and so on, it would still be ghareeb even though thousands of people narrated it, because at one point only 1 person narrated it.

‘azeez’ refers to any hadeeth that has only two people at some point in the chain of narration. So it is the same as a hadeeth that is ‘ghareeb’ except that it has two people instead of one.

‘mash.hoor’ refers to every other type of hadeeth other than ‘mutawaatir’, ‘ghareeb’ and ‘azeez’. So if there are three people or more at any point of the hadeeth then it is called ‘mash.hoor’, as long as it does not reach the level of ‘mutawaatir’. It is important to know that the majority of hadeeth in islaam are of this type.

What does aahaad means in the science of usool al fiqh
To the scholars of usool al fiqh, they don’t really care too much about whether a hadeeth is ‘ghareeb’, ‘azeez’ or ‘mash.hoor’ as that is not their science. That kind of things would interest a scholar of hadeeth as the role of a scholar of hadeeth is only to establish if the hadeeth is true or not whereas the role of an usoolee and a faqeeh is to extrapolate from the hadeeth a ruling. So to them ‘aahaad’ is every hadeeth other than ‘mutawaatir’ and that is the end of it.

What is the difference between the two, and why have difference categories of hadeeth
It may cross our minds “why distinguish between the two types?”. Well, each science has their own benefits and reasons for separating the ahaadeeth into different types.
To a scholar of hadeeth it would be important because he would not need to study the chain of narrators nor see if they are reliable as it would be impossible for them all to have lied, even if some of them were accused of being liars or even kuffaar. So once the hadeeth is determined as being ‘mutawaatir’ it is automatically accepted without condition. Also, it can never be contradicted nor ‘shaath’ (shaath is when another hadeeth more authentic totally contradicts it in every way, which is not common anyway).
However, when a hadeeth is aahaad, then the chain of narrators would need to be studied. Every narrator would have to be known, have a good memory, and so on. It would not be permissible to act or believe in a hadeeth that is aahaad unless it is established as being authentic.
So that is some of the benefits of the different categories of hadeeth to a scholar of hadeeth.

With regards to an Usoolee (a scholar of Usool al fiqh) or even a faqeeh (a scholar of fiqh who uses the knowledge of usool al fiqh to derive rulings) then there are many different topics under the discussion of aahaad and mutawaatir that it would help them in making Islamic rulings. This is not the place to discuss these issues, however to give the reader an idea I will cite some examples.
a) Can a hadeeth mutawaatir abrogate the Qur’aan?
b) Can the Qur’aan abrogate a hadeeth mutawaatir?
c) Can a hadeeth aahaad abrogate a hadeeth mutawaatir? And the opposite?
d) If a hadeeth aahaad contradicts Qiyaas which one do we act upon?
e) If a hadeeth aahaad contradicts the fataawaa of the scholars of madeenah which one do we act upon?

And so on. So to a faqeeh and an usoolee knowing if a hadeeth is aahaad would be very important, especially when issues like the above occur.

Can on act upon a hadeeth that is aahaad? And can belief be taken from Aahaad?
With regards to acting upon a hadeeth that is aahaad, then the opinion of the ahlus Sunnaah is that if it is saheeh or hasan, then it can be acted upon in issues of fiqh and aqeedah. The proofs are many, but I will only mention some of the strongest ones so as not to make this post longer than needed.

Many ahaadeeth have come to us that show that it was a consensus (ijma’) that the sahaabah acted upon ahaadeeth aahaad. There are so many hadeeth on this that together it points to being mutawaatir. Here are but a few.

1- The hadeeth of the sahaabah who turned in their salaah from the old qiblah to the new one based upon one persons narration.
2- When the sahaabah disagreed about who should be the khaleefah and the ansaar wanted there to be a khaleefah from their side and another khaleefah from quraish, abu bakr narrated the hadeeth that the khulafaa are from quraish. It was accepted and the khilaaf (differing) was over.
3- When the messenger of Allaah used to send people to other societies to teach them about Islaam he would send one, not 10 or 20, but only one.
4- When abu moosaa was asked about the inheritance of a person who died and left behind a daughter, and grand daughter, and a sister he said “the daughter gets a half and the sisters gets a half. Go and ask ibn Mas.ood and he will agree with me”. So the questioner went to him and he did not agree and told him that the messenger of Allaah judged that the daughter will get half, the grand daughter will gets a sixth and the rest if for the sister”. So when they went back to abu Moosaa he said “don’t ask me as long as the ‘ink’ is with you”. (the ink is a nickname used to describe ibn mas.ood due to his extensive knowledge)
5- When a sahaabee married another sahaabeeya, a black woman came and said that she breast feed them both, so the sahaabee went to the messenger of Allaah to find out what was the ruling, and he replied “how (are you gonna stay with her) and it has been said?!”.
6- Another hadeeth is when Mu’aath ibn Jabal was riding behind the Messenger of Allaah on a donkey. Allaah’s Messenger said “do you know what Allaahs right is over his servants and what His servants rights are over Allaah?” and Mu’aath said “Allaah and his rasool know best” so he صلى الله عليه و سلم said “His right is that He is worshipped alone without any partners, and their right over Allaah is that they are not punished if they do so”. So upon hearing this exciting news Mu’aath said “should I not give the people the good news?” and Allaah’s Messenger said “don’t tell them as they will depend upon it”. So if hadeeth aahaad could not be taken why would he ask permission to tell the people? If it could not be taken he would have known that telling the people would have been a waste of time unless 20 other sahaabah came and said the same thing.

So as you can see, from the few examples it was not known amongst the sahaabah that they would differentiate between a narration that was mutawaatir or not, rather this terminology what not even known by them. So we can understand and know that it is mutawaatir in meaning that aahaad is accepted as there are too many examples of it being accepted for someone in the 21st century to claim that it can’t be accepted. This would lead to most of Islaam being rejected and denied due to the rarity of ahaadeeth mutawaatir. Not to mention that it would mean that every muslim on this planet would have to have more than 20 people tell him the same thing before he could believe in it or act upon it.

As for some of the verses of the Qur’aan that were mentioned about following dhann, then again they seem to have taken the verse out of context and if we were to follow them with upon their interpretation it would mean that there was no point behind the messenger of Allaah sending individuals to far off lands to teach Islaam as those who would have followed them would have entered into those verses of the Qur’aan that criticize the mushrikeen of following dhann. However the mushrikeen followed speculation and assumptions that was not based upon any proof or revelation. None of them ever claimed to have received revelation, they just made it up. And also, it has never been transmitted from the beginning of Islaam until today that ulamaah made it a condition upon the scholars to teach Islaam or aqeedah in large groups so that the people could accept what they say.

This is all I think I should write on this subject at the moment as I think I have written too much already, but because the subject was brought up and some doubts were mentioned I felt is necessary to clarify the issue.

Assalaamu alaikum

[sultanmuradII]

I don't know the answer to your first question, so please explain - are you saying that saheeh hadeeths can't be believed in?
Most people would say that a hadith saheeh, ie a sunnah that has been transmitted by a chain of reliable and trustworthy individuals with good memory are most probably true, but not certain, which is what you get with hadith mutawatir. Since although the narrators are trustworthy, they are still fallible and can narrate something by error.

[Ummatun Wasata]

Most scholars will say their understanding is in line with the past great scholars, so you end up having to evaluate or accept the scholars argument. Also there seems that there are many matter over which disagreemnts arose, take Abu Hanifa's and other's definition of iman as an example.



no, I don't know, was he a top scholar who seized the so called innovation of the qadriya and mu'tazila, if so how is he a top scholar then?

Imam Abu Haneefah (rh) retracted the above opinion. Refer to at-Tamheed (9/247) of Ibn 'Abdul-Barr, and Sharhul-'Aqeedatit-Tahaawiyyah (p. 359) of Ibn Abil-'Izz al-Hanafee.

Let's say for argument sake that he did hold the above opinion... and? Did he hold the opinions that your Hizb allows its members to hold in regards to Aqeedah, whereas he (rh) agreed with the rest? Clutching on straws brv.

[sultanmuradII]

You missed the point, brv, you argued that we can't/shouldn't evaluate these topics, we must follow the big shot scholars.

To this I argue that we must evaluate to know which are the big shot scholars and in which matters since there have been disagreements.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

You missed the point, brv, you argued that we can't/shouldn't evaluate these topics, we must follow the big shot scholars.

To this I argue that we must evaluate to know which are the big shot scholars and in which matters since there have been disagreements.

brother who do you see as the scholars of 'aqeedah?

I personally would go with the ijmaa' of the salaf and then those who followed their path.

Re abu hanifah, it was reported there was ijmaa' on the issue of Imaan before he stated what he did, so in that case can we say that to follow His position (rahimahullah) is valid?

[sultanmuradII]

brother who do you see as the scholars of 'aqeedah?

I personally would go with the ijmaa' of the salaf and then those who followed their path.

Re abu hanifah, it was reported there was ijmaa' on the issue of Imaan before he stated what he did, so in that case can we say that to follow His position (rahimahullah) is valid?
For me scholar of Islam are all the muslims scholars gone by, with all their differences, I give them the respect for their knowledge. Maybe some had their specialities in fiqh, others in Usool, others in discussing the unseen matters. If they went off the track a bit, I judge by what I understand to be the stronger opinion, otherwise I reserve my opinion until I understand.

The salaf have been praised by the texts, and being closer in time to the source they have a greater weight, but ultimately the arbitrator for me is Allah and his Messenger.

RE: Abu Hanifah, Please inform me of whose ijmaa' are you refering to and what issue of Imaan?

[Ummatun Wasata]

Asalaamu'alaikum, I think Abu Imaan and your self have answered the question you asked me.

Brother I can confidently say that you and I both are not able to weigh up evidences nor usool.

You should rather admit that you take Nabahani (rh) as an authority over the 'big shots' of this ummah. You even say that there is praise of the Salaf in the texts and they are closer to the source. Yet you still want to follow someone like Nabhani, when there is even dispute of his qualifications?

I give up brv, I can only conclude that this just due to blind partisanship. May Allah azza wa-Jall open our eyes to the truth.

[Mansoor Ali]

I think your confused between conveyance (tabligh) and establishing the proof for aqeedah matters.

Using khabar al-ahad as a proof in 'aqeeda.

Collected by Muslim (1297) and Haakim (3/267) and Ahmad (3/125) and Aboo Ya’la (2/831), “The people of Yemen came to the Messenger - sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam – and said : Send a man with us who will teach us the Sunnah and al-Islaam.

Then the Messenger sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam took the hand of Abu Ubayda and said : “ This is the trustworthy one of this Ummah. ” Then he mentioned him. This wording is from Muslim, and from the wording of Haakim, ‘teach us the Qur’aan.’

And Haakim said : ‘Authentic according to the conditions of Muslim, but Muslim & Bukhari did not narrate this hadeeth with mentioning the word: ‘Qur’aan.’

I say : in this hadeeth there is an important benefit, the Khabar al-ahad is used as a proof in ‘aqeedah, like it is used as a proof in fiqh rulings, since we know – out of necessity that the Prophet - sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam – did not send Aboo 'Ubayda to the people of Yemen just to teach them fiqh rulings, but also to teach the ‘Aqeedah. So if the khabar al-ahad did not necessitate knowledge of the sharia in ‘aqeedah, then sending Aboo 'Ubayda to teach them by himself would be similar to mockery. And this is what the One who established the sharia’ is free from. So it is certain that the khabar al-ahad necessitates knowledge.

--- Imaam Al-Albaanee