About this entry
In
the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Here
is a paper I wrote for a history module entitled ‘Rulers, Rebels and Scholars
in Early Islam’ as part of my final year for a joint honours BA in History and
the Study of Religions at SOAS, University of London.
This
paper seeks to investigate, critically, the nature of ḥadīth collected by
al-Bukhārī, especially lending concern to a possible, deliberate neglect of the
ahl al-bayt. The reader is reminded
that this is an academic paper based on Sunnī sources pertaining to various
disciplines. It is also recommended that the evaluation of this paper should
only be considered once one has read the complete paper. Opinions formed about
the paper and/or author, otherwise, would be most unjustified. Questions are
welcome, if they concern the topic at hand.
This
piece is by no means free from error. A university word limit of 10,000 words
cannot do justice to such a rich and complicated issue. Indeed, a more thorough
investigation could result in an entirely different conclusion. It is possible
that one may find discrepancies in either dates, names and religio-political
contexts, I ask that suggestions for correction be put forward. If the reader
simply disagrees, such disagreements will, of course be taken into
consideration, if responded with an, equally, academic response.
Jazākallāh
khair.
 |
| FB | T | IG @hqmaasim |
@hqmaasim
Presenting the Field:
An Introduction
Since its canonisation al-Bukhārī’s collection of
Prophetic Traditions (aḥādīth al-nabawī)
has enjoyed a unique status amongst the Sunni Muslim community and is revered
as ‘the soundest book after the book of God’ (aṣaḥ al-kutub baʾd kitāb Allāh).[1] That said,
scholars such as Ibn Ḥajr al-ʿAsqalānī have questioned al-Bukhārī’s insertion
of certain Prophetic Traditions, suggesting that scholarly critique of such a
text is not uncommon. It is said of al-Bukhārī that he compiled his Ṣaḥīḥ from
six hundred thousand Traditions but only included approximately seven thousand
of which four thousand three hundred and ninety eight are repeat narrations. [2] Concerning
this matter, Christopher Melchert writes, “He would not have thought the other 593,000
unsound; rather, he omitted many sound ḥadīth
reports in order to keep the work to a reasonable length.”[3] Whilst
remaining within the limits of his self-imposed reasonableness, al-Bukhārī was
still able to compile a book that covered a variety of topics such as Private
and Public Law, Religious and Social Law, Theology and Qurʾānic Exegesis. Of
these various subjects, one that is uncharacteristic of contemporary ḥadīth collections is his ‘Section on
Virtues’ (bāb al-manāqib). In this
section, al-Bukhārī relates Traditions that mention the virtues of various
factions of the companions in specific as well as individual companions in
general. Upon observation, however, there exists a vivid imbalance in the
quantity of Traditions that have been collected, especially concerning the more
popular of companions as well as the family members of the Prophet Muḥammad. In
specific, there are more virtuous Traditions extant about Abū Bakr (ʿAbdu
l’-Lāh Ibn Abī Quḥāfah – d. 634CE) than there are ʿAlī Ibn Abī Ṭālib (d.
661CE). Similarly Fāṭimah Bint Muḥammad (d. 632CE) is awarded marginal
importance not only in terms of virtuous Traditions collected about her but also in terms of
Traditions collected from her. On the
other hand, not only does al-Bukhārī relate more virtuous Traditions about
ʿĀʾishah (d. 678CE) than Fāṭimah, he also collects substantially more from her.
Finally, there are just over half a dozen Traditions related about Ḥasan (d.
670CE) and Ḥusayn (d. 680CE) and even less narrated from them.
Al-Bukhārī
was born in a period where many changes were taking place not only politically
but religiously as well. With the decline of the central government came
provincial autonomy and adding to these problems was the rise of Shīʿī revolts
against the ʿAbbāsid regime. To what extent can it be said that al-Bukhārī was
affected by the milieu in which he lived and did this have a profound impact on
the methods and motives of his Ṣaḥīḥ collection? Why was al-Bukhārī reluctant
to narrate Traditions about or take Traditions from the family of the Prophet?
Is it because he was aware of the ʿAbbāsid’s anti-ahl al-bayt sentiments and was afraid of possible persecution? Or
did al-Bukhārī know that in order for his collection to gain acceptance he
would have to compile a Ṣaḥīḥ that
was politically correct? This paper will attempt to answer some of these
questions by critically analysing various
primary sources and some secondary sources. In specific, a quantitative survey
of al-Bukhārī’s bāb al-manāqib will
feature quite prominently as well as an investigation of the historical context
in which al-Bukhārī studied and gathered his Traditions. In addition to this,
or rather as a preface to the aforementioned, a brief discourse will also be
included about the ahl al-bayt in
respect to who they are and how the narrowing of its members can be
substantiated from sources belonging to the formative and classical periods of
Islam. Considering al-Bukhārī spent much of his life in Khorasan and
Transoxiana (mā warā al-nahr), a
study of his life under the Ṭāhirids and Sāmānids will also determine the
relationship he had with the state and whether this may have affected his Ṣaḥīḥ collection, if at all. It will be
concluded that although al-Bukhārī lived under the ʿAbbāsid regime, the regions
in which he resided and studied in, remained semi-autonomous from the central
ʿAbbāsid government. As such, the lack of essential primary sources that deal
with al-Bukhārī’s relationship with the Ṭāhirids and Sāmānids prevents any
attempts to formulate a decisive opinion concerning the possible political
pressures and/or influences he may have been subjected to. In addition to this,
although there is evidence supporting al-Bukhārī’s religious piety, the sources
are not enough, however, to answer questions concerning the imbalance that is
present within his bāb al-manāqib.
Finally, that al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (d. 1014CE) appeared sixty three years
after al-Bukhārī and was able to collect numerous Traditions in relation to the
ahl al-bayt on the same premise and
conditions as al-Bukhārī, leaves only more questions unanswered. In light of
all of this, perhaps the safest opinion would be to revert back to the notion of
concision that al-Bukhārī has been associated with in relation to his Ṣaḥīḥ by both classical Islamic and
contemporary scholars.
Narrowing the Field:
Determining Who the Ahl
al-Bayt Are
The
term ahl al-bayt is applicable upon
both the immediate and extended family of the Prophet Muḥammad. However, it is
necessary to narrow down the field by specifying exactly which members of the ahl al-bayt are conceived to have been
neglected in al-Bukhārī’s Section on Virtues. For this, attention is drawn to
Qurʾān [33:33] where it states, “Allāh desires to remove all impurity from you,
People of the House and to purify you completely.” The term of interest here is
‘People of the House’ (ahl al-bayt).
That there is a difference of opinion concerning who the Qurʾān addresses as
the ahl al-bayt here, indicates that
early Islamic Tradition accepts that there may be various types of ahl al-bayt. In determining this matter,
it should be made clear first that the ahl
al-bayt, does, in fact, generally include the wives of the Prophet Muḥammad.
This application is understood from another Qurʾānic verse [11:73] which
states, ‘They said, “Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and
His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised,
Glorious.”’ In relation to this verse, exegetes (mufassirūn) are of a unanimous opinion that the term ahl al-bayt is referring to Prophet
Ibrāhīm’s wife. Thus by precedent, this term would also apply to the wives of
the Prophet Muḥammad. Despite this clarity, applying this principle to Qurʾān
[33:33] is not as simple as there exists a difference of opinion amongst some
Islamic scholars in light of the Traditions that are connected with this verse,
as well as the verse’s contextual emplacement. As such, in his exegetical
commentary, al-Ṭabarī relates nineteen Traditions in relation to this verse.
One of these traditions explains what is meant by ‘impurity’ (rijs), whilst the other does the same
for the term ‘purify’ (wa yuṭahhira kum
taṭhīrā). From the remaining seventeen Traditions, only one that is
narrated by ʿIkrimah states, ‘[…] this was revealed especially for the wives of
the Prophet […]’ whilst the remaining sixteen refer to occurrences which
directly imply that the People of the Household being referred to in this verse
are ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (d. 661CE), Fāṭimah bint Muḥammad (d. 632CE), Ḥasan bin
ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib (d. 670CE), Ḥusayn bin ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib (d. 680CE) and the
Prophet Muḥammad himself.[4]
Similarly, al-Suyūṭī relates twenty two Traditions in relation to this verse,
of which three refer to the Tradition of ʿIkrimah. Of the remaining nineteen,
only one Tradition narrated by ʿUrwah states that this verse was exclusively
revealed in favour of ʿĀʾishah whilst all other eighteen Traditions state
either directly or indirectly that the term ahl
al-bayt refers to ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, Ḥasan, Ḥusayn and the Prophet Muḥammad, as
mentioned by al-Ṭabarī.[5]
In addition to this, although Maḥmūd al-Baghdādī also relates the Tradition
narrated by ʿIkrimah, he divides the ahl
al-bayt into two categories: i) ahl
al-bayt al-nasab (People of the House by Blood); and ii) ahl al-bayt al-suknā (People of the
House by Residence). As such, in his concluding remarks, al-Baghdādī states
that he is of the opinion that this, latter part of the verse, is concerned
with the ahl al-kisāʾ (the People of
the Shroud).[6]
It is reassuring then that the majority of Traditions related by both al-Ṭabarī
and al-Suyūṭī refer to the Prophet ‘enshrouding’ ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, Ḥasan and Ḥusayn
within his cloak (kisāʾ), thus
establishing that the ahl al-kisāʾ are
indeed those mentioned above.
Considering
that the Tradition narrated by ʿUrwah was only related by al-Suyūṭī, renders it
insignificant enough to be excused in this instance. However, the narration by
ʿIkrimah is problematic as it does not allow for a successful narrowing of the
term ahl al-bayt without, at least an
attempt at, its refutation. For this reason it is necessary to investigate this
Tradition by analysing its narrator and his level of credibility. That neither
of the aforementioned sources clearly quote exactly which ʿIkrimah they are
narrating from makes it difficult to ascertain the value of this Tradition.
That said, all but one of nine ʿIkrimah considered by al-Dhahabī are deemed
unreliable[7]
and so the likelihood of him being a reliable source is quite unlikely,
especially when compared to al-Ṭabarī’s sixteen and al-Suyūṭī’s eighteen,
contradictory narrations. Likewise, the aforementioned texts also do not make
clear exactly which ʿAlqamah took this Tradition from ʿIkrimah and considering
that the former narrates it from the latter while he was ‘calling out in the
marketplace’ (yunādī fi al-sūq)
certainly raises some questions about the reliability of this narration.
Logically, a marketplace is usually a noisy, busy, cramped and confusing place.
One would simply need to visit the bazaars of the Near and Middle-East, even
today, to experience this. That said, exactly how far was ʿAlqamah standing
from ʿIkrimah? What was the former doing when he heard the latter shouting out
his opinion? These questions are of a legitimate nature and are clearly
unanswered, and so, it would be unwise to base the exegesis of such an
important verse, relating to the family of the Prophet Muḥammad, on such a fragile
foundation. In addition to this analysis, G.H.A. Juynboll writes:
“The
notorious mawlā of Ibn ʿAbbās is so
well-known that he needs no further introduction. Beside him we find in the Tahdḥib six more ʿIkrimas of whom one is
a Companion, the son of Abū Jahl, and the other five are all Successors who
lived at the same time. […] It is my contention that the majority of these were
fictitious or represent different stages in the development of fictitious
pedigrees around one historical figure. It is indeed difficult to maintain that
the ʿIkrimas listed here are all separate, historical individuals.
ʿIkrima
b. Khālid b. al-ʿĀṣ b. Hishām b. al-Mughīra b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Umar b. Muḥammad
ʿIkrima
b. Salama b. al-ʿĀṣ b. Hishām
ʿIkrima
b. Salama b. Rabīʿa
ʿIkrimah
b. ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥārith b. Hishām b. al-Mughīra b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Umar b.
Muḥammad [.]”[8]
This
particular discourse is further enhanced by analysing the chronological
placement of this verse as well as its syntactical genius, both of which are a
contradiction to one another. Interestingly, however, these findings support
the present thesis: that the term ahl
al-bayt, here, exclusively refers to ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, Ḥasan and Ḥusayn. As
such, the former part of the verse [33:33], which has not been quoted above, as
well as previous verses are directly addressing the ‘women of the Prophet’ (yā nisāʾ al-nabī) which would lead the
reader to assume that the subsequent verses also relate to the Prophet Muḥammad’s
wives. Although this is an acceptable assumption to make, it is not, however, a
perfect assessment of the verse as there are two points of grammar yet to be
considered. Firstly, the part of the verse being assessed here begins with the
term innamā, which in Arabic, is used
for ‘restriction’ (ḥaṣr al-kalām),
i.e. the intention of the reader is being limited to one specific
interpretation or definite persons whilst excluding all others. Secondly, how
it may be concluded that the subject matter has changed after this particular
use of innamā is determined by the
personal pronouns that are present. The Qurʾānic text uses the ‘masculine,
plural, personal pronoun’ (kum) as
opposed to the ‘feminine, plural, personal pronoun’ (kunna). The question arises, if the verse is only concerned with
the wives of the Prophet, then why use a masculine term? What this suggests is
those Traditions that are in favour of the exclusiveness of ahl al-bayt are supported by the syntax
and grammar of the verse in question.
From
the above analysis we understand five things: firstly, there exists a
difference of opinion concerning who the term ahl al-bayt refers to, especially in relation to the Prophet Muḥammad;
secondly, in discussing Qurʾān [33:33], scholars such as al-Ṭabarī, al-Suyūṭī and
al-Baghdādī relate various Traditions that imply that the term ahl al-bayt is purposely specific,
whilst al-Baghdādī quite openly concludes that ahl al-bayt refers to the People of the Shroud; thirdly, there exists
in theory two varying forms of ahl
al-bayt, that of ‘blood’ (nasab) and that of ‘residence’ (suknā); fourthly, the Traditions in
favour of the specific use of ahl al-bayt
by far outnumber those of any other opinion; finally, the Traditions in connection
with the syntax and grammar of the verse are also indicative of the idea of
exclusivity. With these considerations in mind, in pursuit of narrowing the
field of this study, it is concluded that the term ahl al-bayt shall refer to ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, Ḥasan and Ḥusayn.
A Critical Observation
of al-Bukhārī’s bāb
al-manāqib
According
to Ibn Manẓūr, the term manāqib is
used to describe a person’s beauty or character (wa qawlihim: fī fulānin manāqibi jamīlatun ay akhlāqun),[9]
and it is most probable that al-Bukhārī had, at least, one of these definitions
in mind. It is astonishing, however, how inconsistently this word is used. Under
his two major sections on virtuous Traditions — one
which deals with the migrating companions (muhājirūn)
and the other with the settled helpers in Madīnah (anṣār) — al-Bukhārī employs the use of
three other terms in addition to the one above. The first of these terms is manqabah, which is used three times for
Usayd Bin Ḥuḍayr, ʿAbbād Bin Bishr and Saʿd Bin ʿUbādah. Although different, the
choice to discard manāqib for manqabah is not astonishing as they have
the same triliteral root and meaning. The second term al-Bukhārī uses is faḍl. In describing this term, Ibn Manẓūr
writes that it is the opposite of naqṣ (shortage)
or naqīṣah (shortcoming), i.e. it is
defined by what it is not.[10]
That the opposite of one’s shortcoming is often related to one’s
characteristics means that the term faḍl
(pl. faḍāʾil) can be considered to
mean one’s ‘completeness’ or ‘greatness in character’. As such, it is peculiar
that al-Bukhārī only uses faḍl, in
this context, twice: once for Abū Bakr and once for ʿĀʾishah, who are, in fact,
related to one another as father and daughter. Does this mean that al-Bukhārī
does not consider anyone else complete in character? The last term al-Bukhārī uses
is dhikr which is mentioned with nine
companions: ʿAbbās Bin ʿAbdu ‘l-Muṭṭalib, Ṭalḥah Bin ʿUbayd Allāh, Usāmah Bin
Zayd, Muṣʿab Bin ʿUmayr, Ibn ʿAyyās, Muʿāwiyah Bin Abī Sufyān, Jarīr Bin ʿAbdu
‘l-Lāh, Ḥudhayfah Bin Yamān and Hind Bint ʿUtbah. This term is rather
interesting as it may have three implications to its use. Ibn Manẓūr writes
that dhikr either means ‘to memorise
something’ (al-ḥifẓu li al-shayʾ), or
‘something running on the tongue’ (al-shayʾu
yajrī ʿala al-lisān), meaning that its remembrance is invoked upon one’s
tongue.[11]
Ibn Manẓūr also suggests that the term dhikr
has a special relationship with Islamic worship and is often associated
with the remembrance of God, prophets and messengers in the Qurʾān.[12]
This could suggest then, that al-Bukhārī is either encouraging us to remember
these names, is encouraging their remembrance or is suggesting that their
mention is as important as the mention of God, His prophets and messengers.
That said, it is unlikely that al-Bukhārī would suggest this, however, what
this analysis has demonstrated is that al-Bukhārī does not give any particular
importance to the consistency of his choice of words. This raises various
questions as to why he uses the term manāqib
twenty-eight times,[13]
whilst also using other terms as well. Why is there a difference at all? Does
the difference in term denote difference in rank or importance? Unfortunately,
the answer to these questions is perhaps impossible to ascertain as there is no
evidence to suggest that al-Bukhārī made his intentions clear on this matter.
That said, for pragmatic reasons, all these words are being united in this
paper under the term manāqib,
assuming that al-Bukhārī proposed to use them for the same purpose: that is to discuss
the ‘virtues’ of companions. Henceforth, the terms manqabah, faḍl and dhikr will be not mentioned
individually, rather collectively as manāqib
— meaning
that the term manāqib is being
considered an umbrella term and includes manqabah,
dhikr and faḍl — hence bāb al-manāqib, section on virtues.
In
his bāb al-manāqib, al-Bukhārī
records one hundred and sixty-nine Traditions. Of these Traditions, the ahl al-bayt are awarded only a marginal
position, constituting a mere sixteen narrations in total. Of the remaining one
hundred and fifty-three, twenty unrepeated Traditions are associated to Abū
Bakr alone, making him the only companion to have been awarded such prestige.
In contrast to this, al-Bukhārī only narrates eight traditions about ʿAlī – in
this instance, Tradition 1=(a), Tradition 2=(b), 3=(c), 4=(d), 5=(e), 6=(f) and
7=(g). Thus (a) and (b) are repetitions as are (c) and (e), leaving behind (d),
(f), (g) of which (g) states, ‘[…] most traditions copied from ʿAlī are based
on lies,’ which clearly, is not indicative of virtuousness. This data suggests
that if we remove (g), for the reason stated above, and cancel (b) and (e) as
they are repetitions of (a) and (c) respectively, ʿAlī is left with four
virtuous Traditions in his favour.[14] As tempting as it may seem, this data cannot
be deemed conclusive enough to suppose that al-Bukhārī was anti-ʿAlīd[15]
in any respect as when comparing the data of narrations taken from either of these companions the
results are quite different. In light of this, ibn Muṣṭafā Tūqādī writes that
the total number of narrations taken from Abū Bakr, according to the
compilation of al-Qasṭalānī (d. 1517CE) in his Irshād al-Sārī fī Sharḥ
al-Bukhārī is twenty-two, whereas he states that al-Bukhārī has included
twenty-nine Traditions that have ʿAlī either in or at the top of the of the
‘chain of transmission’ (isnād).[16]
That said, this data is based on Traditions that have not been repeated, it is quite possible that a survey of all
original and repeated narrations may result in a different conclusion. It is
also essential to consider that different editions of al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ could
quite possibly present different data, for instance, according to Taqī al-Dīn
Bin al-Ṣalāh, the total number of Traditions in the Ṣaḥīḥ, including repeated
Traditions is seven thousand two hundred and seventy-five, of which three
thousand seven hundred and thirty are not repeated.[17]
This is different to the aforementioned statistics that were presented about
the Ṣaḥīḥ.
Upon
comparing ʿĀʾishah and Fāṭimah, it is found that al-Bukhārī relates eight
Traditions of which only one is a repetition. In comparison, al-Bukhārī only
relates three Traditions about Fāṭimah, two of which cannot be found in the
same dedicated section where the first is written. Whereas in Abū Bakr’s and
ʿAlī’s case the issue of the lack of virtuous Traditions in relation to the
latter can be reconciled upon comparing how many Traditions have been narrated from them, the same cannot be said about
the data available for ʿĀʾishah and Fāṭimah. Tūqādī writes that the total
number of Traditions narrated from ʿĀʾishah are two hundred and forty-six
whereas al-Bukhārī only includes one Tradition that has Fāṭimah at the top of its isnād.[18]
In addition to this, in comparing the next generation, nine virtuous Traditions
can be found in favour of Ḥasan and Ḥusayn, compared to the seven for ʿAbdu
‘l-Lāh Bin Masʿūd (d. 650CE) ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Bin ʿAbbās (d. 687CE) and ʿAbdu
‘l-Lāh Bin ʿUmar (d. 693CE). However, this balance is disturbed when compared
to the number of Traditions taken from each of the aforementioned individuals.
As such, there are no Traditions taken from Ḥasan and nine are extant from Ḥusayn
in the whole of al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ. Comparatively, eighty-five Traditions were
taken from Ibn Masʿūd, two hundred and seventy from Ibn ʿUmar and two hundred
and seventeen from Ibn ʿAbbās.[19]
As far as the data is concerned, it is difficult to conclude why exactly such
an imbalance is present in the Ṣaḥīḥ. It could be suggested that al-Bukhārī had
politicised his book by adding Traditions from Ibn ʿAbbās in order to appeal to
the ʿAbbāsid regime, however, if his narrations are compared with Ibn ʿUmar
then the data suggests that the latter had fifty-three more related from him,
which nullifies the ‘politicisation of the Ṣaḥīḥ’ theory. Furthermore, based on
the data available, if it is to be hypothetically accepted that al-Bukhārī was
pro-ʿAbbāsid, it can be equally argued that al-Bukhārī was trying to agitate
them by including two hundred and forty six Traditions from ʿĀʾishah in
competition to Ibn ʿAbbās, thus portraying himself as anti-ʿAbbāsid and
pro-Muʿāwiyah. This consideration is drawn from the fact that ʿĀʾishah fought
in the Battle of the Camel against ʿAlī with Muʿāwiyah and ʿAlī is by extension
family to the ʿAbbāsids, as Lewis writes:
“The
ʿAbbāsid party that won power from the Umayyads was known as Hās̲h̲imiyya.
According to the later chronicles, this name referred to Hās̲h̲īm, the common
ancestor of al-ʿAbbās, ʿAlī and the Prophet, and it has been taken as asserting
a claim to the succession based on kinship with the Prophet […]”[20]
Concerning
the aforementioned analysis, it is not appropriate to simply jump to any
conclusions about al-Bukhārī’s political leaning, that is, if he had any at all.
As will be discussed later below, although al-Bukhārī lived during the ʿAbbāsid
period, there is no apparent evidence that suggests that he had any particular
or direct interaction with any of the ʿAbbāsid caliphs. That al-Bukhārī and the
Sunni jurist, Aḥmad Bin Ḥanbal (d. 855CE) were contemporaries could suggest
that al-Bukhārī was aware of the ‘tests’ (miḥna),
that lasted until the reign of al-Mutawakkil,[21]
and in turn could have had some affect on al-Bukhārī, especially when it was
towards the end of al-Wāthiq’s reign that he completed this compilation of his Ṣaḥīḥ.
That said, only later observation will conclude whether this could have been a persuading
factor.
Attention
is now drawn to Muḥammad bin ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (b. 933CE – d.
1014CE). Al-Ḥākim was by no means contemporary to al-Bukhārī, in fact, there is
a sixty-three year gap between his birth and the latter’s death, however, scholars
such as Jonathan Brown, suggest that his subsequence to al-Bukhārī and Muslim,
perhaps worked in their favour, as he holds al-Ḥākim responsible for the
increased, if not successful canonisation of their texts.[22]
On the other hand, al-Ḥākim has received criticism by credible classical
Islamic scholars, as Robson writes:
“Though
he was held in high esteem for his scholarship and was visited by many
scholars, his writings have met with criticism. He has been called a S̲h̲īʿī,
but al-Subkī stoutly denies this. Al-D̲h̲ahabī who, in Tad̲h̲kirat al-ḥuffāẓ,
calls him “the great ḥāfiẓ and imām of the traditionists”, also includes him in
his Mīzān al-iʿtidāl where he says that he made mistakes in his book
al-Mustadrak ʿala ’l-Ṣaḥīḥayn. Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar, in the parallel passage in Lisān
al-mīzān, remarks that he is too distinguished to be mentioned among weak
traditionists, but that some say he became careless in old age. In spite of
criticism he holds an honoured place among traditionists.”[23]
There
are, however, those who revere him from the classical period. One such
individual was Ibn Khallikān (d. 1282CE), who’s historical compendium is deemed
by modern Western academics as a, “[…] mine of information, especially in those
parts where he speaks of contemporaries […]”[24]
He is especially revered for quoting sources of earlier biographies that are no
longer extant. As such, concerning al-Ḥākim, he writes:
“He
was the leader (imām) of ḥadīth of his age and he wrote such
books about ḥadīth that have not been
outranked. He was a scholar (ʿālim),
gnostic (ʿārif) and was immense in
his knowledge (wasīʿ al-ʿilm). He
studied the Shāfiʿī fiqh under Abū Sahl Muḥammad Bin Sulaymān Ṣaʿlūkī then went
to Iraq […] Then he sought ḥadīth and
this is what took over him [that he enjoyed this more than the other normative
sciences] and in this he became popular. […] and in this field he has written
more than fifteen hundred volumes.”[25]
Why al-Ḥākim
is significant in this discourse is because in his ḥadīth compilation he took into consideration the conditions of
al-Bukhārī and Muslim as well as gave attention to the milieu in which he
belonged. He was aware that his readership would include, “[…] both the Sunnī ḥadīth scholars as well as the ḥadīth-wary Muʿtazilites who rivalled
them.”[26]
Whilst introducing his work, al-Ḥākim writes:
‘“A
group of innovators has sprung up in our time who abuse the trasmitters of
traditions stating: ‘the sum total of those you consider to be sound hadith is
not more than 10,000. These collected isnāds
contain about 1,000 parts, more or less, all of which are defective and not
sound.’ A group of noted people of knowledge in this city and elsewhere asked
me to compile a book which contains hadith transmitted with isnāds like those considered
authoritative by Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl and Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj since there is
no way to exclude that which has no defect. They, may Allah have mercy on them,
did not claim for themselves. A group of the scholars of their time and those
after them verified the hadith which they transmitted and removed those which
were faulty. I strove to defend them by including in the Ṣaḥīḥ that with which the people of the craft are pleased. I seek
the help of Allah Almighty to verify the hadith of their transmitters who are
trustworthy whose like are used as authoritative by the two shaykhs, may Allah
be pleased with them, or by one of them. This is the precondition of the Ṣaḥīḥ according to most of the fuqahā of the people of Islam.”’[27]
As
such, in his Mustadrak ʿAlā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn, he exclusively relates two hundred and
fifty-seven narrations that are associated to the ahl al-bayt. He first mentions virtues of ʿAlī, then Fāṭimah, then Ḥasan
and Ḥusayn. What is astonishing here is the sheer number of virtuous Traditions
that have been collected in favour of the ahl
al-bayt alone. What is more striking is that Traditions relating to the
virtues of Abū Bakr, ʿUmar (d. 644CE) and ʿUthmān (d. 656CE) are one hundred
and sixty-seven in number. There are three things to note here: firstly, the number
of Traditions concerning the ahl al-bayt not
only outnumber those related about the Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and ʿUthmān in al-Ḥākim’s
Mustadrak, in fact they outnumber the total bāb
al-manāqib of al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ; secondly, these Traditions are in
addition to those that are extant in al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ, they are referenced
but not quoted entirely, at all times; finally, if al-Ḥākim uses the same
premise and conditions to narrate as al-Bukhārī does, then why did the latter
not include more in favour of the ahl
al-bayt? In light of this, it may be asked of al-Ḥākim, exactly how did he relate so many pro-ahl al-bayt narrations? In considering
this question, it is of interest that Ibn Khallikān writes that al-Ḥākim was
born and buried in Naysābūr. It seems then, that whilst he travelled in the
pursuit of knowledge he did so only to Iraq and the Hijaz twice in his life time,
he spent the rest of his life in Naysābūr. As such, al-Ḥākim was born in a
period where the Sāmānids had enjoyed at least six generations of hereditary
control in all or various parts of Khorasan.[28]
It is of interest that during the latter years of Naṣr (II) Bin Aḥmad’s reign
(914-943CE), there was substantial Ismāʿīlī influence over the Sāmānids, as Bosworth
writes:
“The
later part of Naṣr’s reign was noteworthy for the appearance in Transoxania of
an extensive Ismāʿīlī S̲h̲īʿī daʿwa,
with converts made up to the highest level at court before an orthodox Sunnī
reaction and purge of these heretics set in; this episode was an exception to
the normally firm upholding of Sunnī orthodoxy by the amīrs […]”[29]
Since
Bosworth is concerned with the ‘latter’ years of Naṣr’s reign, let us take this
to hypothetically mean the last ten (933-943CE). By the end of 943CE, al-Ḥākim
had just turned ten years old which means that the milieu in which he was
brought up in may be considered Shīʿah dominated or at least heavily influenced
by Shīʿah doctrine. That he may have been subconsciously obliged to add pro-ahl al-bayt Traditions in his Mustadrak
cannot be deduced from any evidence, especially since he focused more on fiqh in his earlier years. Some Muslim
scholars have accused him of being Shīʿah, but this too is an unfounded
accusation as there is not enough evidence, if any at all, to suggest this.
That said, this analysis only proves that al-Ḥākim included more virtuous
Traditions about the ahl al-bayt, it
does not, however, give any clear indication as to why or how exactly this was
possible.
The Banū ʿAbbās and ʾĀl ʿAlī:
From al-Maʾmūn (d. 833CE) to
al-Muhtadī (d. 870CE)
During
the period of al-Bukhārī’s life (b. 810CE – d. 870CE), the ʿAbbāsid caliphate
saw the rise and fall of nine caliphs. Of all the caliphs, al-Maʾmūn is one
whose reign ran parallel to al-Bukhārī’s formative years, yet there is no
evidence to suggest that either had contact with one another. That said, in
order to understand the milieu in which al-Bukhārī was growing up it, is
important to establish the sentiments of the ʿAbbāsid caliphs, concerning the ahl al-bayt, that were contemporary to al-Bukhārī. In light of this, it is
generally considered by Classical scholars such as al-Ṭabarī and al-Masʿūdī
that al-Maʾmūn had a good relationship with the progeny of the ahl al-bayt — those
are the children of Ḥasan and Ḥusayn. In fact, al-Maʾmūn even once declared
himself Shīʿah[30]
to his uncle.[31]
In addition to this, he also had good relations with ʿAlī Bin Musā Ridā, as
al-Masʿūdī writes:
“Abū
al-Ḥasan ʿAlī Bin Musā Riḍā came to Maʿmūn, at the time the latter was in Marv,
Maʿmūn respected ʿAlī Mūsā a lot. He spoke with his close friends and said to
them that he has thought about the children of ʿAbbās and ʿAlī and he did not
find anyone more worthy of the caliphate than ʿAlī Riḍā. He then announced for
ʿAlī Riḍā to be next in line for caliphate, put his name on the currency and
gave his daughter’s hand in marriage to him. He changed the colour of the flags
from Black to Green.”[32]
From
the aforementioned it is clear that the relationship between al-Maʿmūn and ʿAlī
Riḍā — that
of the House of ʿAbbās and the House of ʿAlī — were
exceptional. Despite al-Maʾmūn’s pro-ahl
al-bayt sentiments, not everyone was so welcoming of this idea as they
preferred that leadership remain in the hands of the sons of ʿAbbās (Banū ʿAbbās), not transferred to the
children of ʿAlī (ʾĀl ʿAlī). In light
of this, Ibn Khaldūn writes:
“When
the people of Baghdad found out that the caliph al-Maʾmūn had appointed ʿAlī
Bin Mūsā Kāẓim as the next in line for the caliphate, gave him the title of al-riḍā min ʾālī Muḥammad, changed the
uniform from black to green and announced this within all the regions […] at
that time some followed orders whilst others clearly rejected, arguing that
they would never accept such a decision where the leadership of banū ʿAbbās is transferred over to ʾāl ʿAlī.”[33]
Despite
these sentiments, al-Maʾmūn continued to support the ahl al-bayt. He even demonstrated this by wedding his daughter to
ʿAlī Riḍā and appointed his brother the leader of the pilgrims (amīr al-ḥujjāj). Ibn Khaldūn writes:
“During
the travel to Madāʾin in 202AH, the caliph al-Maʾmūn wed his daughter to ʿAlī
Riḍā and appointed his brother, Ibrāhīm Bin Mūsā Kāẓim as leader of the
pilgrims (amīr al-ḥujjāj) and sent
him off for the pilgrimage. He also made him [the latter] governor of Yemen. In
those days, Jūdiyah Bin ʿAlī Bin ʿĪsā Bin Hāmān was in control of Yemen.”[34]
Ibn
Khaldūn adds that Maʿmūn also wed his other daughter to Muḥammad Bin ʿAlī Riḍā
when the latter came to visit the former in Tikrīt. Muḥammad Bin ʿAlī then
moved back to Madīnah and remained there with his family.[35]
These excerpts clearly demonstrate al-Maʾmūn’s pro-ahl al-bayt attitude. Why exactly he was of this leaning is not
quite clear and neither do the sources at hand explain in detail of any
occurrences that would have encouraged him to attempt a reconciliation between
the ʿAbbāsids and ʿAlīds. After al-Maʾmūn, the relationship between the two
houses changed and the, once strong, unity began to dwindle. Although there is
no evidence to suggest that the miḥna had
a profound affect on the ʾāl ʿAlī,
there are instances recorded in history which would lead the reader to assume
that the ʿAbbāsid were less concerned with maintaining family relations than
they were with other contemporary issues. This loss of interest led to a series
of events that portray the ʿAbbāsids in an anti-ahl al-bayt light. As
such, al-Masʿūdī writes:
“In
the year 219AH Muʿtaṣim threatened Muḥammad Bin Qāsim Bin ʿAlī Bin ʿUmar Bin
ʿAlī Bin Ḥusayn Bin ʿAlī. He [the latter] was a very God-fearing and devout
individual. When he heard of the threat on his life, he fled to Khurasān and
many of his followers fled to places like Marv, Sarkhas, Ṭāliqān and Nisā.
There, he fought many battles, many things occurred and many people pledged
their allegiance to him. Then ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Ibn Ṭāhir [of the Ṭāhirids][36]
took him [Muḥammad Bin Qāsim ʿAlawī] to Muʿtaṣim who had him imprisoned […]
some say he was given poison and killed.”[37]
Why
al-Muʿtaṣim (d. 842CE) threatened Muḥammad Bin Qāsim ʿAlawī is unclear but it may
be assumed that this report in indicative of waning relations between the two
houses. In contrast, although al-Wāthiq
(d. 847CE) is connected with the intensification of the miḥna,[38]
nothing can be found[39]
in the kutub al-taʾrīkh of Ṭabarī,
Ibn Khaldūn and Ibn Kathīr that suggest that al-Wāthiq was particularly anti
ʿAlīd or ahl al-bayt, in fact, al-Masʿūdī
writes that it was al-Wāthiq that led Muḥammad Bin ʿAlawī’s funeral prayer.
This changed under al-Mutawakkil (d. 861CE) who is noted to have had miḥna-like encounters with the ahl al-bayt and/or their supporters. In
light of this, al-Masʿūdī writes:
‘Mutawakkil
asked Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī Bin Muḥammad Bin ʿAlī Bin Mūsā Bin Jaʿfar Bin Muḥammad
Bin ʿAlī Bin Abī Ṭālib, “What does your brother say about ʿAbbās Bin ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib?”
To which ʿAlī replied, “O leader of the faithful, what can my brother say about
the man whose sons’ obedience is made obligatory upon us by God?” Upon hearing
this, Mutawakkil gave order for a thousand dirham to be given to ʿAlī Bin Muḥammad.
What Abū al-Ḥasan, in fact, meant that his [ʿAbbās Bin ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib]
children were obliged to follow the commands of God. He used
innuendo/insinuation (taʿrīḍ) for
this.’[40]
Had ʿAlī
Bin Muḥammad given a less diplomatic answer, it is quite possible that
al-Mutawakkil would have persecuted him which substantiates the claim that
al-Mutawakkil’s reign brought about a miḥna-like
period over the ahl al-bayt. In
support of this, al-Masʿūdī further writes:
“A
report was made about ʿAlī Bin Muḥammad that he had within his home weapons,
books and people of his party [his shīʿah]. At night, Mutawakkil sent some
Turks and others to raid ʿAlī’s house and attack his companions, when the time
is right. They saw that he was on his own, door shut, was wearing a jubba[41]
made of hair[42]
and there is no mat on the floor except that of sand and stones. He had a cloak
over his head, was directed towards God and was reciting the Qurʾān in melody.
In this state, during the middle of the night, he was taken to the Caliph […]”[43]
That he
was later released upon proving his innocence is perhaps less significant than
why he was there to begin with. Al-Mutawakkil was reported to, albeit falsely,
about weapons, books and supporters of ʿAlī, so it is arguable that
al-Mutawakkil was in fear of a possible rebellion. The idea that al-Mutawakkil
did not see the ahl al-bayt or the
ʿAlīds favourably is further supported by two instances where Aḥmad Bin Ḥanbal
(d. 855CE) was brought in for question having been accused for pro-ʿAlīd
intrigues. Concerning this matter, Walter M. Patton writes:
“In
the year 237 A. H., information was given to the Khalif charging Aḥmed with
having sent one of his companions to meet an ʿAlyite who was coming to him from
Khorasān. On hearing this, the Khalid wrote a letter to Abdallah ibn Isḥāk […]
asking him to enquire of Aḥmed as to the truth of the charge laid against him,
and, also, to search his remises and make sure in the matter.”[44]
About
the second instance, Patton further writes:
“After
Aḥmed’s return to Baghdād (the date of which we do not know) some talebearer
reported to al-Mutawakkil the old slander that Aḥmed was horboring an ʿAlyite.
The Khalif sent word to Aḥmed of the report, and told him that he had imprisoned
the man who made it and he should advise him as to what truth there was in the
report, and direct him what to do to the man. Aḥmed answered asserting his
ignorance of the whole matter, but advised that the man should be set free, as
to visit him with death might bring affliction to many others who were no
sharers in his crime.”[45]
From
these excerpts it is clear that al-Mutawakkil harboured anti-ʿAlīd and ahl al-bayt sentiments. The cause of
frustration in this matter is the lack of material in the primary sources that
would explain exactly why these feelings existed to begin with. It is possible
that al-Mutawakkil like his predecessors, al-Wāthiq and al-Muʿtaṣim, knew what
impact the ahl al-Bayt could possibly
have. That al-Maʾmūn was almost successful in handing over the caliphate to
ʿAlī Riḍā, was perhaps too stern a reality for the proceeding caliphs to
withstand and took every measure they could to, at least, make circumstances
difficult for the ʿAlīds to live under. In essence, they subjected the ahl al-bayt to their very own style of miḥna. That said, this particular miḥna was not only tied to the ahl al-bayt, in fact, anyone found
favouring them could also have been questioned and persecuted, as was the case
with Aḥmad Bin Ḥanbal. In addition to
this, unlike his predecessors, al-Mutawakkil went a step further by destroying
areas that were related to the ahl
al-bayt. In support of this statement, al-Ṭabarī writes:
“The
very same year, Mutawakkil gave orders that the grave of Ḥusayn Bin ʿAlī and
the houses in the vicinity [in Mashhad, Karbala] be razed to the ground. He
also ordered that the land be ploughed, watered and people be prohibited from
visiting the area. It is said that the officer in charge made a general
announcement that if anyone returns to visit this place after three days, they
will immediately be imprisoned, so people fled and did not return.”[46]
These
circumstances, however, were not to last for the remainder of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate.
Although al-Muntaṣir (d. 862CE) did not reign for long, his character towards
the ahl al-bayt bears a stark
contrast to that of his predecessors. It is related of him that his
considerations of the ʿAlīds were pleasant, that he returned various lands
claimed by them (the ahl al-bayt) and he once more allowed pilgrimage to
their graves and shrines.[47]
Through observation of subsequent successions to the caliphate by al-Mustaʿīn
(d. 866CE), al-Muʿtazz (d. 869CE) and al-Muhtadī (d. 870CE), it would be
acceptable to assume, based on the lack of information found in the primary
sources, that the ʿAbbāsids did not trouble themselves much with the ahl al-bayt, in this respect, any
longer. In fact, Western academics suggest that this latter period marked the
decline, or dilution of the ʿAbbāsid dynasty. In light of this, one may ask, to
what extent did the ʿAbbāsid reign from 813CE to 870CE have an affect on
al-Bukhārī’s compilation of his Ṣaḥīḥ, particularly in relation to the Section
on Virtues? Considering the aforementioned evidence and its analysis, it is
possible to conclude that al-Bukhārī could have pro-ahl al-bayt sentiments, especially since the first two decades of
his life were under al-Maʾmūn’s reign, who was clearly pro-ahl al-bayt. However, since it is held that he compiled his Ṣaḥīḥ
collection over fifteen/sixteen years, a period which coincides with the reigns
of al-Muʿtaṣim, al-Wāthiq and al-Mutawakkil, it may be assumed that he was
perhaps too reluctant to appear pro-ʿAlīd. That al-Bukhārī was a contemporary
to Aḥmad Bin Ḥanbal could also suggest that the former was aware of the
persecution that the latter was subjected to, especially the random house
searches and interrogations. Perhaps al-Bukhārī was aware that in order to
attain acceptance and subsequent canonisation, his text had to appeal both to
the public and the ruling dynasty. Another possible assumption is that
al-Bukhārī was not concerned with the politics that surrounded him but knew
that in order to spread the Traditions of the Prophet Muḥammad, he would need to
be tactful, yet tasteful about the matter. As mentioned above, it is ‘possible’
to conclude the points that have been made above, however, a fact if considered
could debunk all claims made so far, which leaves us exactly where we started.
It must be remembered that although al-Bukhārī lived during the reign of the ʿAbbāsid dynasty, this does not mean he
lived under it.
The Ṭāhirids, Sāmānids
and al-Bukhārī
It has
already been established that al-Bukhārī lived during the ʿAbbāsid caliphate
and that he lived contemporarily with nine caliphs starting from al-Maʾmūn to
al-Muhtadī. It has also been mentioned above that although al-Bukhārī lived during the ʿAbbasid caliphate, this does
not mean that he lived under it. This
touches upon the nature and style of government that was prevalent during this
period. That al-Bukhārī was born in Bukhārā and studied in and around Khorasan
and Transoxiana until the age of sixteen (826CE) means that his formative years
were spent under, a) an ʿAbbāsid, central government that was generally ‘tolerant’[48],
and b) a Ṭāhirid and Sāmānid ruled, series of semi-autonomous provinces. Although
the ʿAbbāsid caliphs were in charge of the central government and maintained
communications with their provinces — some
less than others — there was no set bureaucracy
that could establish sustainable or regular control over them. It is thus
inferable that some governors enjoyed loose suzerainty over their provinces.[49]
The Ṭāhirids fall under this understanding, as Lapidus writes:
“Outside
the directly administered provinces were affiliated regions that were scarcely,
if at all, controlled by the central government. […] In other cases, the
Caliphate merely confirmed local dynasties as “governors of the Caliphs.”
Khurasan, which until 820 was directly ruled by Caliphal appointees, came under
the control of the Tahirid family (820-873). Officially, the Tahirids were
selected by the Caliphs, but the Caliphs always confirmed the family heirs to
the office. The Tahirids paid very substantial tributes, but no one from the
central government intervened to assure the payments or to inspect their
administration.”[50]
From
this excerpt, it is understood that al-Bukhārī lived in regional provinces that
may be considered semi-autonomous in nature. That the central government did
not intervene in provincial matters raises the question as to exactly how much
influence did al-Maʾmūn really have over al-Bukhārī. That said, considering the
Sāmānids — having been favoured for their support
during the rebellion of Rāfiʿ b. al-Layth b. Sayyār[51]
— held
power in Transoxiana, ‘[…] which was also governed in the same way [as the Ṭāhirids
did their provinces]’[52]
implies that al-Bukhārī would have had minimal contact with the ʿAbbāsid
caliphs. As such, there are no instances in the primary sources, at hand, that
would suggest that al-Bukhārī even visited any of the caliphs. That said, the
question still remains, considering that al-Bukhārī may well have enjoyed
intellectual freedom, what would have motivated and/or influenced him to
compile the manāqib section in the
way that he did? In an attempt to answer this question, it is worth
investigating how the Ṭāhirids first came into power. The Sāmānids need not be
analysed in this manner as, later, it was the Ṭāhirids who appointed the
Sāmānid successors for some time.[53]
As such, Lapidus writes:
“Al-Ma’mun
also adopted a new military policy. To win control of the Caliphate, he had
depended on the support of a Khurasanian lord, Tahir, who in return was made
governor of Khurasan (820-22) and general of ‘Abbasid forces throughout the
empire, with the promise that the offices would be inherited by his heirs.”[54]
This,
of course, presented a new set of problems. One such problem was that the Ṭāhirids
gained a stronger sense of independence and any hopes of integrating them, perhaps
as subordinates, under the central government seemed unlikely. Amongst others,
this particular problem was identified by al-Maʾmūn and, his successor,
al-Muʿtaṣim and in order to, “[…] offset the Tahirids and regain direct control
of the provinces the Caliphs were eager to create new military forces.”
However, this tactic backfired on them as Lapidus writes:
“For
the sake of efficiency and morale, and a balance of power between the
regiments, each lived in its own neighbourhood, had its own mosque and markets,
and was trained, supplied, and paid by its commander. Thus slave regiments also
became self-contained units which gave their primary loyalty to their officers
rather than to the caliphs.”[55]
The
aforementioned evidence then substantiates two things. Firstly: al-Bukhārī
would have enjoyed relative, scholarly, freedom as he lived in regions that
were not under the direct control of the ʿAbbāsid central government. This also
means that al-Bukhārī would have continued to enjoy this freedom even though he
finished compiling his Ṣaḥīḥ towards the end of al-Wāthiq’s reign. Secondly: if
it were argued that al-Bukhārī was, indeed, connected to the ʿAbbāsid caliphs
or their central government through provincial rule of the Ṭāhirids or
Sāmānids, then, as it has been established above, despite the formers best
efforts, the latter two dynasties practiced an increasing amount of control
over their regions to the effect of suzerainty. It should also be mentioned
that there is no evidence of official Shīʿī influence or activities[56]
documented during al-Bukhārī’s life time which means that neither the Ṭāhirids
nor the Sāmānids would have exerted any pressure on him to remove Traditions
the were pro-ahl al-bayt in nature.
This also suggests that the tyranny the ahl
al-bayt lived through from al-Muʿtaṣim to al-Mutawakkil’s reign would not
have affected al-Bukhārī directly. Then it may be asked once more, if
al-Bukhārī enjoyed relative intellectual freedom, why does analysis of his text
indicate favouritism towards non ʿAlīds or the ahl al-bayt?
Dispelling Myths:
The Piety of al-Bukhārī
Upon
investigating the relationship that al-Bukhārī may have had with the ʿAbbāsids,
the Ṭāhirids and Sāmānids, no evidence has been found that would suggest that
al-Bukhārī could have been under any particular duress that would pressure him
in compiling a section on virtues that would be dishonourable or unfavourable
to the ahl al-bayt. This has raised
further questions as to why the compilation exists as it does. Concerning this
matter two important considerations are presented. Firstly: over the years,
through the various forms of copying that have taken place, it is possible that
either deliberate or unintentional textual corruption may have taken place,
which has been responsible for the results that are evident today. That there are
no manuscripts extant today, written either by him or any of his direct
students or ‘listeners’, complicates the matter as there are no forms of documentation
to rely on. Perhaps, there were those who could have confirmed the reliability
of later texts through their oral knowledge, however, with the current
restrictions of this paper, this assumption would have to be investigated on
another occasion. Secondly: although some may argue that al-Bukhārī’s failure
in compiling a balanced bāb al-manāqib, despite his freedom from
government and politics, is evidence of his anti-ʿAlīd tendencies, what
distances him, however, from these accusations are the various accounts of his
piety that are extant in his biographical accounts as well as within
compendiums of biographical dictionaries such as Ibn Khallikān’s Wafāt al-Aʿyān
wa Abnāʾ al-Zamān. Concerning his piety, Melchert writes:
“A
number of stories indicate al-Bukhārī’s devotion to ritual observances.
Stinging hornets could not make him curtail his prayer. He recited the Qurʾān
daily during Ramaḍān. He renewed his ritual ablutions and prayed two sets of
bowings before entering any ḥadīth report into his Ṣaḥīḥ. He said that he never
touched money, having someone else buy ink and paper for him.”[57]
Despite
the presence of such evidence, there are some reports that suggest al-Bukhārī
was an opportunist, seeking the middle ground in areas such as law and theology,
in order to perpetuate the positive reception of his Ṣaḥīḥ.[58] This
is perhaps too radical an assumption. That al-Bukhārī wished to remain
independent of any political affiliations and public or state favouritism is
substantiated by what al-Dihlawī writes:
“He
endured a trial, as is the custom with right-acting men. Amīr Khālid ibn Aḥmad
adh-Dhuhlī, the governor of Bukhara, […] sent a message to Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl
instructing him to read al-Jāmīʿ, the
History and other books to his
children. He told Khālid’s messenger, “I will not abase knowledge nor carry it
to people’s doors. If you have need of something from me, then send them to
me.” The governor sent a message that he should hold a gathering for his sons
which no one else would attend, but Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl refused, stating, “I
will not single out anyone.” So the Amīr sought the help of Ḥurayth ibn Abi
‘l-Warrāq and others until they spoke against his [al-Bukhārī’s] position and
they expelled him from his town.”[59]
The
above excerpt demonstrates al-Bukhārī’s disregard for stately position or
acceptance. It is possible that, had he accepted the invitation, he would have
been paid handsomely, however, in order to protect his objectivity and maintain
his intellectual freedom, he denied, which resulted in his expulsion. In
addition to the aforementioned, al-Bukhārī has also been accused of believing in
the ‘createdness of the Qurʾān’ as did his contemporary rationalists (muʿtazilūn).[60]
However, scholars, including Western academics suggest that this accusation has
been incorrectly ascribed to him.[61]
In light of this evidence, assuming that al-Bukhārī compiled his Ṣaḥīḥ with the
deliberate intention to widen its readership by keeping its material
‘politically correct’ is an unfair assessment of the sources.
Concluding the Field:
A Series of Questions, Unanswered
Throughout
this paper, various avenues have been explored and a series of approaches have
been taken to consider the multiple factors that may have caused al-Bukhārī to
compile his Ṣaḥīḥ in the way that he did. However, each avenue ventured,
presented yet more questions. Clearly, there is an imbalance present in the bāb al-manāqib but whether this was
deliberate or not is yet to be proved. Considering that al-Bukhārī did not take
any Traditions from members of the ahl
al-bayt that lived contemporarily to him, — for
instance ʿAlī Riḍā and Muḥammad Bin ʿAlī — some
argue that this is indicative of his anti ʿAlīd/pro-ʿAbbāsid sentiments.
Although this is valid assessment, it must not be forgotten that the ahl al-bayt scattered themselves
throughout various regions, whilst others went in hiding due to the persecution
under the ʿAbbāsids, and so, it is quite possible that none made themselves
aware to al-Bukhārī or perhaps neither were present in the same place at the
same time. As such, further quantitative analysis shows that although there are
no virtuous Traditions related about them
— and
this would be impossible as they did not live during Prophet Muḥammad’s time —
al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ does, however, take
Traditions with members of the ahl al-bayt
in their chains of narration. For instance, there are twenty-five Traditions
taken from ʿAlī Bin Ḥusayn Zayn
al-ʿĀbidīn (d. 713CE) and twelve from Muḥammad Bin ʿAlī al-Bāqir (d. 733CE).
Once again, why he did not take Traditions from Jaʿfar Bin Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq
(d. 765CE) or his son Musā Bin Jaʿfar al-Kāẓim (d. 799CE) is unexplained,
however, it cannot be ascribed to reasons that suggest that al-Bukhārī was
anti-ʿAlīd in any way. Furthermore, in the event of this paper, the sources at
hand do not provide complete answers to the questions asked which,
problematically, leaves the conclusion pending upon further research and analysis.
Perhaps an investigation into other contemporary Traditionists (muḥaddithūn) and their compilations could provide more decisive answers. It
would also be relevant to study the conditions (sharāʾiṭ) upon which al-Bukhārī collected and compiled his
Traditions. Until then, we are, perhaps, left with more questions than we
initially began with, and so, for now, we will have to rely on the assumption
that al-Bukhārī’s choice of Traditions in his bāb al-manāqib are based on his desire to keep his collection
concise.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Al-Baghdādī, Shihāb al-Dīn
al-Sayyid Maḥmūd al-ʾĀlūsī. Rūḥ al-Maʾānī
fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Aẓīm wa al-Sabʿ al-Mathānī. Pakistan: Maktabah
Rashīdiyyah, 2005.
Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad bin
Ismāʿīl.
Al-Dhahabī. Mīzān al-īʿtidāl. Lahore: Maktabah Raḥmāniyyah,
2011.
Al-Dihlawī, ʿAbdu ‘l-ʿAzīz. The Garden of the Hadith Scholars. Bustān
al-Muḥaddithīn. Trans. Aisha Bewley. London: Turath Publishing, 2007.
Al-Dīn, Fīrūz. Fīrūz al-Lughāt. Lahore: Fīrūz Sons
Limited, 1990.
Al-Jazarī,
ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī. Usd
al-Ghabbah fi Maʿrifah al-Ṣaḥābah. Lahore: Maktabah Khalīl, 2011.
Al-Kashmīrī, Anwar Shāh. Anwār al-Bārī Sharḥ Bukhārī. Multan: Idārah Taʾlīfāt Ashrafiyyah, 1997.
Al-Kattānī, Yūsuf. ʿAbqariyyah al-Imām al-Bukhārī. Morocco:
Manshūrat ʿIkāẓ, 2010.
Al-Masʿūdī, Abū al-Ḥasan bin Ḥusayn
bin ʿAlī. Murūj al-Dhahab wa Maʿādin al-Jawāhir.
Karachi: Nafīs Academy, 1985.
Al-Naysābūrī, Muḥammad bin ʿAbdu
‘l-Lāh al-Ḥākim. al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn.
Lahore: Shabbir Brothers, 2010.
Al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbdu
‘l-Raḥmān bin Abī Bakr. Durr al-Manthūr.
Lahore: Ḍiyāʾ al-Qurʾān Publications, 2006.
Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad
Ibn Jarīr. Taʾrīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk.
Karachi: Nafīs Academy, 2004.
———. Jāmīʿ al-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āyi al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 2005.
Ibn Kathīr, ʿImād al-Dīn. al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah. Karachi: Dāru
‘l-Ishāʿah, 2004.
Ibn Khaldūn, ʿAbdu ‘l-Raḥmān
bin Muḥammad. Kitāb al-ʿIbar wa Dīwān al-Mubtadā
wa al-Khabar fī Ayyām al-ʿArab wa al-ʿAjam wa al-Barbar wa man ʿĀṣara hum Minnā
Dhawī al-Sulṭāni al-Akbar. Lahore: al-Fayṣal Nāshirān wa Tājrān Kutub,
2004.
Ibn Khallikān, Aḥmad Bin Muḥammad
Bin Ibrāhīm. Wafāt al-Aʿyān wa Abnāʾ
al-Zamān. Karachi: Nafīs Academy 2000.
Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad. Lisān al-ʿArab. Beirut: Lebanon, 2008.
Tūqādī, Muḥammad al-Sharīf
Ibn Muṭāfā. Miftāḥ al-Ṣaḥīḥayn Bukhārī wa
Muslim. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1975.
Secondary Sources
Bosworth, C.E.. The Cambridge History of Iran, edited by
Richard Nelson Frye. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Brown, Jonathan A.C.. Hadith. Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval
and Modern World. Oxford: One World Publications, 2009.
———. The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim. The Formation and Function
of the Sunnī Ḥadīth Canon. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Bulyāwī, ʿAbdu ‘l-Ḥafīẓ. Miṣbāḥu al-Lughāt. Lahore: Progresso
Books, 1994.
Guillaume, Alfred. Traditions of Islam: An Introduction to the Study
of the Hadith Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924.
Ḥaddād, Gibrīl Fouād. The Four Imams and their Schools. London:
Muslim Academic Trust, 2007.
Hodgson, Marshall G.S.. The Venture of Islam. Conscience and History
in a World Civilization. Volume One:
The Classical Age of Islam. London: The University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Juynboll, G.H.A.. Muslim Tradition. Studies in Chronology,
Provenance and Authorship of Early Ḥadīth. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008.
Lapidus, Ira M.. A History of Islamic Societies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Patton, Walter M.. Aḥmed Ibn Ḥanbal and the Miḥna. A Biography
of the Imām Including an Account of the Moḥammedan Inquisiton Called the Miḥna.
Leiden: Brill, 1897.
Online Sources
Bosworth, C.E.. “al-Muntaṣir.”
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS). 01 May 2014.
———. “Rāfiʿ b. al-Layt̲h̲ b. Naṣr
b. Sayyār.” Encyclopaedia of Islam,
Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van
Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. Last accessed: 02 May
2014.
———. “Sāmānids.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 01 May 2014.
———. “Ṭāhirids.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 01 May 2014.
Brockelmann, C.. “al-Ḳasṭallānī.”
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 02 May 2014.
Fück, J.W.. “Ibn K̲h̲allikān.”
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 02 May 2014.
Hinds, M.. “Miḥna.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 02 May 2014.
Kennedy, H.. “al-Mutawakkil
ʿAlā ’llāh.” Encyclopaedia of Islam,
Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van
Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 01 May 2014.
Lewis, B.. “ʿAbbāsids.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 02 May 2014.
Lévi-Provençal, E.. “al-Muʿtaṣim.”
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 01 May 2014.
Melchert, Christopher. “al-Bukhārī.”
Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. Edited
by: Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. Brill Online,
2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 01
May 2014.
Rekaya, M.. “al-Maʾmūn.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.
Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 01 May 2014.
Robson, J.. “al-Ḥākim
al-Naysābūrī.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman,
Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014.
Reference. School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 02 May
2014.
“The Number of Authentic Ḥadīth.”
Last accessed April 2, 2014.
Zetterstéen, K.V.; Bosworth,
C.E.. "al-Muhtadī." Encyclopaedia
of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E.
Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School
of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). Last accessed: 01 May 2014.
[1] Yūsuf al-Kattānī, ʿAbqariyyah al-Imām al-Bukhārī (Morocco:
Manshūrat ʿIkāẓ, 2010) 88; Muḥammad Bin Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Jāmiʿ al-Musnad al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Mukhtaṣar
(Karachi: Qadīmī Kutub Khānah, 1961), 1.
[2] “The Number of Authentic
Ḥadīth,” accessed April 2, 2014, http://www.ibnamin.com/num_hadith.htm.
[3] Christopher Melchert,
“al-Bukhārī,” Encyclopaedia of Islam,
THREE, accessed May 01, 2014.
[4] Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad Ibn
Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Jāmīʿ al-Bayān ʿan
Taʾwīl Āyi al-Qurʾān (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 2005), 22:12.
[5] Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbdu ‘l-Raḥmān
bin Abī Bakr al-Suyūṭī, Durr al-Manthūr
(Lahore: Ḍiyāʾ al-Qurʾān Publications, 2006), 5:564.
[6] Shihāb al-Dīn al-Sayyid
Maḥmūd al-ʾĀlūsī al-Baghdādī. Rūḥ
al-Maʾānī fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Aẓīm wa al-Sabʿ al-Mathānī (Pakistan: Maktabah
Rashīdiyyah, 2005), 22:263-272.
[7] ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr
al-Jazarī, Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (Lahore:
Maktabah Raḥmāniyyah, 2011), 7:114-117.
[8] G.H.A. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition. Studies in Chronology,
Provenance and Authorship of Early Ḥadīth (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008), 140.
[9] Muḥammad Ibn al-Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab (Beirut: Lebanon, 2008),
14:252.
[10] Ibid., 10:280.
[11] Ibid., 5:48.
[12] Ibid., 5:50.
[13] ʿUmar Bin al-Khaṭṭāb;
ʿUthmānBin ʿAffān; ʿAl Bin Abī Ṭālib; Jaʿfar Bin Abī Ṭālib; Qurābatu Rasūl
Allāh (the close ones to the messenger of Alāh); Zubayr Bin a;-ʿAwwām; Saʿd Bin
Abī Waqās al-Zuhrī; Zayd Bin Ḥārithah; ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Bin ʿUmar; ʿAmmār, Ḥudhayfah;
ʿUbaydah Bin al-Jarrāḥ; Ḥasan Bin ʿAlī; Ḥusayn Bin ʿAlī; Bilāl Bin Rabāḥ;
Khālid Bin Walīd; Sālim (mawla Abī Ḥudhayfah);
ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Bin Masʿūd; Fāṭimah Bint Muḥammad; al-Anṣār (the settled helpers);
Saʿd Bin Muʿādh; Muʿādh Bin Jabal; Ubayy Bin Kaʿb; Zayd Bin Thābit; Abī Ṭalḥah;
ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Bin Salām.
[14] This data was collected
personally by analysing the Traditions individually.
[15] The terms ʿAlīd and ahl al-bayt will be used interchangeably
throughout this paper.
[16] Muḥammad al-Sharīf Ibn
Muṣṭafā Tūqādī, Miftāḥ al-Ṣaḥīḥayn
Bukhārī wa Muslim (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1975), 8.
[17] Ibid., 6.
[18] Ibid., 9.
[19] Ibid., 8.
[20] Bernard Lewis,
“ʿAbbāsids,” Encyclopaedia of Islam,
Second Edition, accessed May 2, 2014.
[21] Matthew Hinds, “Miḥna,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition,
accessed May 2, 2014.
[22] Jonathan Brown, The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim.
The Formation and Function of the Sunnī Ḥadīth Canon, (Leiden: Brill,
2007), 177.
[23] J. Robson, “al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition,
accessed May 02, 2014.
[24] J. W. Fück, “Ibn
K̲h̲allikān,” Encyclopaedia of Islam,
Second Edition, accessed May 2, 2014.
[25] Aḥmad Bin Muḥammad Bin
Ibrāhīm Ibn Khallikān. Wafāt al-Aʿyān wa
Abnāʾ al-Zamān (Karachi: Nafīs Academy 2000) 4:635-636.
[26] Brown, The Canonization of al-Bukhārī, 177.
[27] ʿAbdu ‘l-ʿAzīz al-Dihlawī,
The Garden of the Hadith Scholars. Bustān
al-Muḥaddithīn, trans. Aisha Bewley (London: Turath Publishing, 2007), 118.
[28] Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011), 113.
[30] One thing that must be
established, however, is that although al-Maʿmūn called himself Shīʿah, it is
not that he called himself a Shīʿah in response to what may be a Sunni, in
fact, such a Theological difference had not yet crystallised at the time. The
term Shīʿah is to be considered according to its lexical definition: that is,
of ‘association’. Hence if anyone called themselves a Shīʿah, this should not
be conceived a theological use of the term.
[31] Abū al-Ḥasan bin Ḥusayn
bin ʿAlī al-Masʿūdī. Murūj al-Dhahab wa
Maʿādin al-Jawāhir (Karachi: Nafīs Academy, 1985), 3:495.
[32] Ibid., 521.
[33] ʿAbdu ‘l-Raḥmān bin Muḥammad
Ibn Khaldūn. Kitāb al-ʿIbar wa Dīwān
al-Mubtadā wa al-Khabar fī Ayyām al-ʿArab wa al-ʿAjam wa al-Barbar wa man ʿĀṣara
hum Minnā Dhawī al-Sulṭāni al-Akbar (Lahore: al-Fayṣal Nāshirān wa Tājrān
Kutub, 2004), 3:148.
[34] Ibid., 3:153.
[35] Ibid., 3:161.
[36] There is an issue with
this source. The edition of al-Masʿūdī’s account accessible to me dates this
occurrence as 219AH, which in accordance to the Gregorian calendar occurs in
798CE. According to sources, ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Ibn Ṭāhir did not succeed his father
until 828CE. That said, instead of discarding this event, it is assumed that
either the typesetter made a mistake in the actual date, or perhaps the names.
We may take this instance to mean Ṭāhir himself.
[37] Al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-Dhahab, 3:545-546.
[38] M. Hinds, “Miḥna,”
accessed May 02, 2014.
[39] Based on my research of
the editions I have access to.
[40] Al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-Dhahab, 4:601.
[41] Traditional clothing of
the time.
[42] Exactly what hair, is
unclear from the text.
[43] Al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-Dhahab, 4:602.
[44] Walter M. Patton, Aḥmed
Ibn Ḥanbal and the Miḥna. A Biography of the Imām Including an Account of the
Moḥammedan Inquisiton Called the Miḥna (Leiden: Brill, 1897), 140.
[45] Ibid., 152.
[46] Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk (Karachi:
Nafīs Academy, 2004) 7:40-41.
[47] C.E. Bosworth, “al-Muntaṣir,”
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition,
accessed May 01, 2014.
[48] Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, 61.
[49] Ibid., 60-61.
[50] Ibid., 61.
[51] Bosworth, “Rāfiʿ b.
al-Layt̲h̲ b. Naṣr b. Sayyār,” accessed May 01, 2014.
[52] Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, 61.
[53] Bosworth, “Sāmānids,”
accessed May 01, 2014.
[54] Ibid., 103.
[55] Ibid., 104.
[56] As we understand Shīʿism
to be today.
[57] Melchert, “al-Bukhārī,”
accessed May 02, 2014.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Dihlawī, Bustān al-Muḥaddithīn, 77.
[60] Brown, The Canonisation of Bukhārī and Muslim,
78.
No comments:
Post a Comment