AUTHORSHIP of SHARH AL-SUNNAH & RESPONSE TO YASIR QADHI, JARRAR & GUNTHER
FB : Hanbali Farra'i
[Authorship of Sharh al-Sunnah & response to Yasir Qadhi, Jarrar & Gunther]
The following contains my findings and also my response to the respected Dr. Yasir Qadhi, as well as Maher Jarrar & Gunther on their arguments that this was authored by Ghulam Khalil & not al-Barbahari - I've found majority of their points to be erroneous and problematic.
I also wrote hypothetical responses to my own arguments and responded to them as unbiasedly as I could. I also numbered the points so readers can highlight specific areas they wanna discuss.
(The most important point is # 17 which tarnishes YQ's entire basis of the claim). Feel free to criticize as much as you like, I'd appreciate it.
1. To start, there are many evidences indicating that the actual error was in the isnad (chain) of our manuscript itself, where it was misattributed to Ghulam Khalil instead of al-Barbahari in the chain. Multiple factors indicate this.
One must first look at how traditional scholars ascribe books to authors: They did not merely rely on the isnad of the book rather corroborated it with how others historically ascribed them to the respective authors. Part of the reason in-book isnads were not solely considered evidence is that forgery was quite common. Hence historians say that hadith scholars (like Abd Allah B. Mubarak) used to hide or bury their books and only take them out when narrating or granting ijazah.
2. The 4th century bibliographer, Ibn al-Nadim - who was a contemporary of Ghulam Khalil - listed down all books authored by Ghulam Khalil, yet he doesn't mention Sharh al-Sunnah among them. He writes in his famous book, «Kitab al-Fihrist»:
ويعرف بغلام خليل وتوفي وله من الكتب كتاب الدعاء كتاب الانقطاع إلى الله جل اسمه كتاب الصلاة كتاب المواعظ
❝..and he's known by 'Ghulam Khalil' who died. And the books he had were: Kitab al-Du'a, Kitab al-Inqita' ila Allah Jalla Ismuhu, Kitab al-Salah and Kitab al-Mawa'izh❞
Where's Sharh al-Sunnah here? The author even managed to cite rare books of Ghulam Khalil that we never heard of, yet missed out the apparently famous one? This indicates it didn't belong to him ever.
3. Another piece of evidence is that the manuscript mentions 3rd & 4th centuries in words. The text reads:
وجميع ما وصفت لك في هذا الكتاب فهو عن الله تعالى وعن رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم وعن التابعين وعن القرن الثالث إلى القرن الرابع
❝Everything that I have described to you in this book is from Allah, Allah’s Rasul ﷺ, from his companions, from the Tābi’een and from the 3rd and 4th centuries AH. ❞
Whereas Ghulam died in 275 hijri (3rd century), on the other hand al-Barbahari died in 329 hijri, so had lived to witness the 4th Century. This clue adds to the likelihood that al-Barbahari was indeed the author and that there was an error in the isnad of the manuscript causing contemporaries to attempt revision.
Although, one can explain away that 3rd & 4th centuries was referring to generations and not literally centuries, because the passage mentions 3rd century just after citing the Tabi'in, implying that the era of the Tabi'in is the second generation. From that sense the 4th century would mean the generation of Ahmad, Shafi'i and others which was also when Ghulam Khalil lived.
So let's assume that is the correct interpretation, it still leaves a problem: Ghulam was then from the 4th generation, and scholars never say their own generation is amongst the blessed generation, they always maintain piety and say along the lines of, "Those who came before us", this would imply it was authored by someone who came * after * the 4th generation, which was al-Barbahari.
I still agree this is not a convincing point itself at all. Which brings me to the next points.
4. The first narrator of the book, Ahmad Ibn Kamil b. Khalaf (d. 350 Hijri) who is described to have transmitted this book from Ghulam al-Khallal, was described by the famous critic Hafidh al-Darqutni as someone who's upright but narrates things not present in the actual text. In al-Darqutni's words:
كان متساهلا ربما حدث من حفظه ما ليس عنده في كتابه
Shaykh Badr B. Ali al-Utaibi notes that based on this it's possible that Ibn Kamil confused "al-Barbahari" with "al-Bahili" (al-Bahili was Ghulam's nickname). One can counter this by pointing out that he wrote Ghulam's entire name and not just the nickname which would indicate he was well aware. To this, the Shaykh further notes that Ibn Kamil was only 15 years of age when Ghulam died. If he was then given Sharh al-Sunnah by al-Barbahari, it's possible he may have confused between al-Barbahari & attributed it to al-Bahili instead - since he was too young to be precise - this combined with his preexisting imprecision that al-Darqutni mentioned, raises the likelihood of his misattributing it to Ghulam very plausible.
There's another hint. The 5th century scholar, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (r) narrates lots of narrations of Ghulam by way of Ibn Kamil, yet not once did he ever narrate anything from Sharh al-Sunnah by this route, implying it wasn't from Ghulam at all.
[Contents of the book reflect al-Barbahari persona & not Ghulam]
5. Contents of the book don't really match Ghulam Khalil's personality and have far more similarity to al-Barbahari's personality, life events and his modus operandi:
On the tone of the book & behavior: Ghulam as described by historians, was extremely staunch against sufis and oppressed them by inciting the authorities, whereas historians hardly mention anything about him regarding bid'ah or amr bil maruf.
On the other hand, the manuscript barely talks about the sufis, it only mentions them once in a passing, very far into the book. Instead it starts off with harsh tones against innovators and even has explicit statements like amr bil maruf should be undertaken by the hand & tongue (which was specifically what al-Barbahari was famous for, contrary to Ghulam who operated via the authorities).
The majority of the book talks about bid'ah & the controversial Creedal issues - which matches how al-Barbahari and his followers used to go around condemning people with dissenting Creeds, undertaking vigilantic actions like beating up sinners & innovators, breaking into homes looking for haram materials to destroy, attacking shiites, burning markets funded by innovators etc.
Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi (r) , the one who heavily influenced al-Barbahari (r), would preach from Ahmad (r) about discouraging inciting the ruler to correct a wrong, and historical incidents show al-Barbahari mainly operating in person and not via rulers, unlike Ghulam Khalil. The book's content agrees with al-Barbahari's style here too.
6. The language of the book is simplistic & straightforward. Something meant to incite the laity. Which fits how al-Barbahari operated: through the populace, unlike Ghulam, who operated via government.
The historian Ibn Athir (r) even writes regarding an incident in 296 Hijri, about a person inciting the people just by mentioning al-Barbahari, he then remarks that it was because of his fame among the populace:
وَلَمَّا رَأَى ابْنُ الْمُعْتَزِّ ذَلِكَ رَكِبَ وَمَعَهُ وَزِيرُهُ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ وَهَرَبَا، وَغُلَامٌ لَهُ يُنَادِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ: يَا مَعْشَرَ الْعَامَّةِ، ادْعُوا لِخَلِيفَتِكُمُ السُّنِّيِّ الْبَرْبَهَارِيِّ، وَإِنَّمَا نُسِبَتْ هَذِهِ النِّسْبَةُ لِأَنَّ الْحُسَيْنَ بْنَ الْقَاسِمِ بْنِ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ الْبَرْبَهَارِيَّ كَانَ مُقَدَّمَ الْحَنَابِلَةِ وَالسُّنَّةِ مِنَ الْعَامَّةِ، وَلَهُمْ فِيهَا اعْتِقَادٌ عَظِيمٌ، فَأَرَادَ اسْتِمَالَتَهُمْ بِهَذَا الْقَوْلِ
7. The passages of the book also reflect events in his time. One prominent example is the incitement by his contemporary Shiites on publicly cursing Mu'awiyah (r) in the mosques, in relation to the fitna between Ali, Mu'awiyah & A'isha, and al-Barbahari' subsequent violent outburst to this - Sharh al-Sunnah includes a paragraph addressing a similar issue, it reads:
والكف عن حرب علي ومعاوية وعائشة وطلحة والزبير رحمهم الله أجمعين ومن كان معهم لا تخاصم فيهم وكل أمرهم إلى الله تعالى فإن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال إياكم وذكر أصحابي وأصهاري وأختاني وقال إن الله تعالى نظر إلى أهل بدر فقال اعملوا ما شئتم فقد غفرت لكم
(Yes point # 7 isn't really strong, because one can argue any shiite content can go parallel with any Sunni vs Shii event across history, that therefore doesn't mean the book is from that timeline).
8. There are other subtle hints. For instance, on the mas'ala of Qada' of salah (making up missed Prayers): The overwhelmingly vast majority of the scholars say Qada should be done. Whereas al-Barbahari's foremost student, Ibn Battah al-Hanbali (304-387 Hijri) takes the position that there's no Qada' (compensation). And Sharh al-Sunnah of al-Barbahari also happens to champion the same position. It should also be noted that Ibn Battah was a staunch supporter of his Shaykh, as evidenced by his statement that only those who love al-Barbahari are rightly guided - then it can't be a coincidence that the book ascribed to the teacher also champions the same minority position as the student.
9. I find it strange that one of the reasons Shaykh YQ (& others) doubted the attribution was due to its extremely harsh tone - whereas it's well known that Hanbalis of Baghdad were extremely harsh - especially students of Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi, who was the foremost companion of Imam Ahmad. Also if al-Barbahari can burn shops & houses, writing harsh words on a book is hardly unusual.
The historian al-Dhahabi even notes that students of al-Marrudhi had violent fights with other scholars due to the mutually perceived bid'ah. And al-Barbahari just happened to be a staunch student of al-Marrudhi, coincidence? I think not. Also anyone who reads through books & narrations of early Hanbalis of Baghdad, like Harb al-Kirmani, Ibn al-Jawzi and others - would notice the harshness in tone and the reckless tabdi'- Hanbalis were strongly criticized for this as well, a trait inherited from some of the salaf who developed that from their ghirah for the Din.
[On obedience to rulers]
10. Shaykh YQ's argument about the pro-ruler stance is also quite problematic. The Hanbali school is specifically known for being strict in forbidding rebellion & protests against even the corrupt rulers, they even had it inscribed in their other Creedal works. Out of the 4 Imams, only Ahmad was known for never raising a finger against the ruler who oppressed him, whereas Abu Hanifa, Malik & al-Shafi'i all had attempted anti-ruler endeavours at least once throughout history.
The opinion of rebelling was so weak in the Hanbali school that the Hanbali scholar al-Mardawi only managed to find three Hanbalis leaning towards this opinion from the total number of 4000+ Hanbali scholars, and of course he doesn't mention al-Barbahari amongst them in his encyclopaedia "al-Insaf" that documents opinions of various Hanbalis in history.
11. Sh. YQ also overlooked the information that al-Barbahari was highly patronised by the first two Abbasid rulers, namely al-Muqtadir, who reigned for almost 24 years and then al-Qahir for two more years. Under al-Muqtadir's reign only the Vizier Ibn Muqlah oppressed him, so al-Barbahari temporarily left for Basrah, then very soon the Caliph al-Muqtadir exiled Ibn Muqlah, and then al-Barbahari returns bsck to Baghdad. So he had their strong support and he used that privilege to dish out his understanding of enjoining the good & forbidding the evil by himself & the populace.
It was only in 323 Hijri after the third Abbasid Caliph, al-Radi ascended the throne that al-Barbahari lost support and had to resort to hiding. As in the entry by Ibn Athir:
فركب بدر الخرشَنيُّ وهو صاحب الشُّرطة عاشر جمادى الآخرة ونادى في جانبَيْ بغداد في أصحاب أبي محمّد البربهاريّ الحنابلةَ ألاّ يجتمع منهم اثنان ولا يتناظروا في مذهبهم ولا يصلّي منهم إمام إلاّ إذا جهر ببسم الله الرحمن الرحيم في صلاة الصبح والعشاءَين
In other words, he had govt backing for the vast majority of his life except for the last 6 years. So any pro-ruler stance in the book would be understandable as the authorities had his back majority of the time.
12. This can also explain the reason for al-Barbahari saying القائم من آل محمد which now we see isn't remotely related to Ghulam Khalil being an Abbasid-Shia propagandist like how Maher, Gunther & YQ put it.
The statement itself is also not very problematic. It simply means "the descendant from family of the Prophet ﷺ", less to do with being a shia quote and more to do with the Mahdi. The shiites tend to highlight ahl al-bayt in everything hence the statement appearing in their works more frequently.
Yasir Qadhi oddly tying this to be a pro-shii attempt by the author of Sharus Sunnah while simultaneously dismissing the same book attacking shiism elsewhere is nothing more than symptoms of confirmation bias.
13. Shaykh Joe Bradford thus aptly remarked:
"...the idea of obedience to the rulers is not possibly written by Barbahari due to having been jailed, arrested, and in hiding at different times, is not a reasonable one. Ahmad himself was jailed, arrested, etc but still maintained that civil obedience was necessary despite the rulers oppression. Additionally, Barbahari himself limits the obediance to the rulers "Obediance to the rulers (aʾimma) is an obligation, in whatever pleases God and merits His approval." It was not blind obeisance as Yasir states it, and I don't see much difference here between the author mentions and that stated in numerous other books of doctrine."
[On Shawq & Sufism]
14. Sh. YQ's point (and also Maher & Gunther's) about Sufism is also problematic. Just because there's condemnation of شوق (shawq) that appears in the text, they assumed it must be referring to sufis that Ghulam Khalil fought against since Ghulam's main cause of opposition against them was on the issue of شوق. Unfortunately, this argument doesn't hold up much. Because the book addresses this issue extremely far into the book, and only once, whereas it was Ghulam's principal concern and the main thing he actively fought for.
Had he authored it, the book would have tackled the issue at the beginning or at least very early into the book and in great details.
Instead the book only mentions this in a passing in an extremely small single paragraph even though Ghulam in his life actually went against 9-10 specific sufis and named them to the authorities, this book doesn't even name them.
Instead the book names Mu'tazila and deviants from other sects (sects that al-Barbahari clashed with) but never names any sufi extremist.
[Ghulam's pride in fabricating VS the book condemning fabrication]
15. Ghulam permitted lying on the Sunnah openly, he considered it halal and a good thing, whereas the book explicitly warns against it. This is a blatant refutation to those who claim he's the author. Because why'd anyone preach something and then write against that in his own book.
The passage in Sharus Sunnah reads:
ولا تقبلوا الحديث الا ممن تقبلون شهادته فانظر إن كان صاحب سنة له معرفة صدوق كتبت عنه وإلا تركته .
❝And they did not accept the hadith except from one whose shahadah is accepted, so look at whether the person of Sunnah is truthful then write (narrations) from him, or else reject him❞
Meanwhile Ghulam Khalil proudly tells al-Nahawandi:
وضعناها لنرقق بها قلوب العامة
"We fabricated them to soften the hearts of the laity"
No one who is loud and proud of his ideals would try to hide that from a book written to propagate his ideology.
On the other hand al-Barbahari was strict & over the top when it came to these things. The passage agrees fully with his persona here.
[Ghulam fabricated isnads while the ahadith in the book completely lack any isnad]
16. Rijal critics noted that Ghulam used to fabricate hadith and attribute them to the Prophet ﷺ. More precisely, he used to fabricate both isnads and mutun, as Abu Dawud (r) noted after checking about 400 narrations of Ghulam.
Whereas this book doesn't cite any isnad for any of the hadith, which is * unlike * how hadith fabricators used to operate (they used to add chains to convince people that it came via reliable narrators).
Yet, majority of the ahadith in the book start with, "The Prophet ﷺ said..." - these are not the traits of an isnad fabricator, rather it reflects the mindset of an orator or someone writing for the laity to influence them: al-Barbahari..
(The book does contain fabricated narrations without isnad, however all of them are also found to be collected by at least some hafidh throughout history i.e the fabricated ones were traditionally being narrated for having correct meaning or secondary/tertiary purposes. No hadith exists that was unique and absent from other early collections, which would mean the book has nothing that was 'newly' fabricated by Ghulam in the 3rd century, none of them ever made their way into the book, further making its ascription to Ghulam doubtful.)
[Ibn Abi Ya'la quote Shar al-Sunnah from an alternate manuscript]
17. Ibn Abi Ya'la (let's call him IAY) wrote a large portion of the book in his biographical dictionary, Tabaqat al-Hanabilah.
Now, YQ, Maher & Gunther argued that IAY when quoting the book had entirely borrowed from the controversial manuscript that we have - but this is clearly absurd as readers will see ahead.
IAY's passages have lots of altered words & sentences compared to our manuscript.
Such as:
• the word للناس appears in the passage ويبين للناس قصته in the manuscript, whereas IAY's version uses لهم instead i.e ويبين لهم قصته.
• At another place, IAY writes وهكذا قال مالك بن أنس والفقهاء قبله وبعده whereas our manuscript says وهكذا قال مالك بن أنس واحمد بن حنبل والفقهاء قبلهما وبعدهما i.e it adds the name Ahmad B. Hanbal and even the ضمير of the words قبل & بعد are switched from ه to هما.
• Next, IAY's version writes يرون الله باعين رءوسهم while the manuscript writes يرون الله بابصار رؤوسهم.
• Some paragraphs later IAY writes الخاطئين يوم القيامة but the manuscript writes الخاطئين في القيامة.
• IAY writes تفضل الكثير على من يشاء but the manuscript uses فيمن instead of على من.
• In the definition of Iman, IAY's version does not have the word واصابة while the manuscript does.
•Right after this point, there's a marginal difference found. In IAY's version it writes:
وافضل هذه الامة َالامم كلها بعد الأنبياء صلوات الله عليهم
While the manuscript writes:
وخير هذه الأمة بعد وفاة نبيها
• After this one, the manuscript cites a full hadith of Ibn Umar (r) on preference of Abu Bakr > Umar > Uthman, whereas IAY's version doesn't mention the hadith at all.
There are lots of more examples like this across the rest of the book.
All these minor textual differences strongly raise the likelihood that IAY was citing from an entirely different manuscript.
And he also wouldn't have ascribed it to al-Barbahari if he had found our manuscript because it mentions Ghulam Khalil to be the author - why would then IAY think of al-Barbahari out of nowhere?
It's thus more plausible that he had access to an untampered manuscript correctly attributed to al-Barbahari.
18. Now, one can argue "Maybe IAY is the person who originally misattributed it to al-Barbahari" - to this I object with the following arguments:
- 3 scholars before IAY quoted parts of the book and attributed it to him.
- Why would IAY misattribute it to specifically al-Barbahari and not anyone else? Given that al-Barbahari has no other well known book and more famous vocal Hanbalis existed back then, it'd have been more likely that IAY would misattribute it to someone more famous that time who wrote plenty of books (which would then increase the likelihood of IAY getting confused), like say, al-Khallal, or al-Khiraqi? Therefore, what's more likely is that he was sure it's from al-Barbahari which is why he'd ascribe it to a relatively more 'rare author'.
- If IAY's confusion can be so easily entertained, it'd be more befitting that Ibn Kamil would err more easily by misattributing the book to Ghulam Khalil by confusing. Not to mention IAY is a known hafidh, and is known for being very precise in his transmissions, and no documented history of criticisms regarding his precision exist. As opposed to Ibn Kamil, against whom at least one criticism exists that also coincidentally explains the possible cause of misattribution to Ghulam instead of al-Barbahari.
For Yasir Qadhi to prefer the less likely of the two in order to conform to his goal of disattributing the book, is a sign of confirmation bias: "I don't believe that something so obsessively championed by salafis can have backing from a venerated historical figure, therefore I'll select far fetched possibilities from information to deny the very backing".
19. It's also a bit far fetched (I'd even say ridiculous) to think that over 20+ classical scholars who attributed the book to al-Barbahari simply relied on that one passage from Ibn Abi Ya'la. If we already have a manuscript with a chain from 4th Century with transmitters being from Baghdad, how is it possible that all of them missed out checking this manuscript itself?
The apparent reason Sh. YQ and others are contemplating this absurdity is because of the preconceived erroneous notion that since the attribution to Ghulam must be (supposedly) correct with certainty, that must mean everyone who erred must have followed the first person who seemingly erred, which he believes to be Ibn Abi Ya'la, thus creating a chain of errors throughout generations while absurdly a single 'authentic' manuscript was also being subtly yet correctly transmitted through generations with no one else somehow not having knowledge of it. If readers look at the previous points, they'd see that the notion itself was based on an incorrect preconception and how absurd it appears (not to mention, scholars before IAY was ascribing it to al-Barbahari).
The bigger problem here is that the attribution to al-Barbahari even predates Ibn Abi Ya'la. Readers will find that his father, al-Qadi Abu Ya'la al-Farra (r) also attributed it to al-Barbahari.
Here are much better possibilities:
- At least several of them must have had alternate manuscripts with the correct attribution.
- They also didn't find any problems with the passages as evidenced by their quoting sections of it in their respective books regarding key topics and key chapters - implying they perfectly understood the polemical context of the statements therein.
[Significance of the book within scholarly circles]
21. Sh. YQ says the book wasn't very important within scholarly circles - yet anyone who inspects other books of scholars would notice that the book actually did have enough significance within the Hanbali circles.
If students look into the works of Hanbalis of Baghdad throughout history, notably around the 5th & 6th centuries, they'll find that the contents of the book (as well as the ascription to al-Barbahari) makes it's way into the book of Usul al-Fiqh, «al-Uddah» of the first official Hanbali jurist, al-Qadi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 Hijri). Then it's also cited by Abu Ya'la's foremost student, Abu-l Khattab al-Kalwadhini al-Hanbali (r) in his usul book titled «al-Tamhid». It also makes it's way into the book of the contemporary of Abu-l Khattab, the famous scholar Ibn al-Jawzi (r). The book is quoted almost in its entirety by Abu Ya'la's son, Ibn Abi Ya'la in his «Tabaqat al-Hanabilah». It even appears in one of the important Mu'tamad Creed book of Hanbalis, namely «Nihayat al-Mubtadi'in» of Ibn Hamdan (r), which rarely cites scholars beyond the Hanbalis that are relied for mainstream Hanbali Creed, like Abu Ya'la and others. It was also cited by the grandfather of Ibn Taymiyyah, Majd al-Din (r) in his Usul book, «al-Musawwadah», then by Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in his fatawa. Also three of his students, Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Dhahabi and Ibn Muflih cite it's contents and they all ascribe it to al-Barbahari. For Ibn Muflih, he cites from it in his «al-Furu», which is an extremely important reference for Hanbali Fiqh & ikhtilaf within the school, also in his «Adab al-Shariah». It's also cited by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali in his «Fath al-Bari» when discussing the Khilaf on Qada' of deliberately missed prayers. The Hanbali scholar al-Saffarini also cites him in his great Aqidah book, «Lawami al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah».
After all these, it's an exaggeration to say the book had little to no importance.
(I bet some of you are searching for point 20 above but can't find it, well don't bother, I deliberately omitted it to make readers re-read the texts again)
[On al-Maqam al-Mahmud]
Al-Barbahari not including al-Maqam al-Mahmud in the book can be explained by the following explanations:
It's a non-issue. For example the same argument can be used against Ghulam, he wad obsessed with attacking sufis and his life mission was to burn down sufism, so why is there barely any mention of sufis in the book except one small line very late into the book? If this possibility can be entertained, the same can be said for al-Barbahari not including al-maqam al-mahmud. Then this point doesn't make the book more likely to be from Ghulam than it cam be from al-Barbahari.
Combining all the points together it's possible to picture a coherent narrative of Barbahari authoring this, whereas Ghulam's authoring this runs contrary to lots of things he did.
All these led me to believe that YQ, Gunther and Jarrar's analysis on the attribution is flawed amd lacking in cross checking.
Comments
Post a Comment