NISFU-SHA’BAN:BARAKA OR BID’AH ?

In a recently published book that supposedly points out mistakes common among today’s Muslims, one of the ‘mistakes’ is the middle night of Sha’ban as blessed for optional/nafl worship. On page 44 it states, “Specifying this night with worship has no proof, so it is an innovation. The narrations mentioning specifying this night are not authentic according to the scholars. Specifying this night is among the innovations prohibited by the evidence”. However looking at the information cited as proof for this will lead to a different assessment and conclusion.

1)      The statement “specifying this night with worship has no proof”, is the first lie/deception as it is in one of the Sahih—Sitta (six authentic) collections, namely the Sunan of Ibn Majah.    

2)      The narrations mentioning specifying this night are not authentic according to the scholars.” According to which scholars? On the contrary, one scholar writes, “Though the line of narrators of none of these is reliable, as judged by the criteria laid down by the scholars of the traditions (Hadith), the number of such narratives is quite large and these have been related on the authority of different Companions, and as such, some scholars like Ibn-is-Salah are disinclined to hold them as wholly unfounded.” The Meaning and Message of the Traditions, By Mohammad Manzoor Nomani, Translated from Urdu by Mohammad Asif Kidwai Vol 3, Pg.92

The scholar’s statement “the number of such narratives is quite large and these have been related on the authority of different Companions, and as such, some scholars like Ibn-is-Salah are disinclined to hold them as wholly unfounded.” Obviously Ibn-is-Salah is among the scholars who held the view of this night having a special character and status. His assertion, “…a large number of narratives have been related on the authority of different Companions”, raises the question of where the narratives came from? How is the large number of narrations from the Sahabi (rah) reconciled with “specifying this night is among the innovations prohibited by the evidence.” Aren’t the narratives, legal pronouncements and knowledge from the Prophet’s (pbuh) Ashab evidences for a variety of religious practices that have reached us? Clearly the above statement is another lie/deception the gravity of which moves one dangerously close to sectarian deviation if not complete deviation from the way of Islam. Does this imply the Prophet’s (pbuh) blessed Sahaba (rah) were Ah-oozo—billah-he, innovators or deceivers? Isn’t the above statement the equivalent of throwing aspersions on them despite the 100+ ayats of Allah’s Holy Book and the numerous authenticated ahadith reports on their virtue and status as the best of this Ummah which is among the stated beliefs of the Ahle-sunnah-wal-Jammah. Isn’t any view or belief challenging or worse rejecting the words of the Qur’an and Hadith tantamount to unbelief, hypocrisy or Bi’da? The word most often regurgitated by the anti-Sunnah gang in their accusation of practically everyone in the Muslim Ummah? Is the established status of the Sahaba as sources of guidance to be negated or ‘revoked’ because of the rantings of a few uneducated morons masquerading as scholars?

3)      In the Sahaba’s capacity as guides for this Ummah related to the issues under discussion was their well-known fear of misquoting or falsifying anything attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The late scholar Dr. Taha Jabir Al-Alwani writes, “...when the great Mujtahid Imams’ would seek source material from the Sahabi (rah) or Tabi’un (successors) for legal rulings they would often cite an opinion of a Sahaba or Tab’iun as evidence that was actually a hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) that was stated as an opinion of theirs rather than misquote the Prophet (pbuh). It was this same reverential fear (taqwa) that prompted Abu Bakr (rah) to burn a personal collection said to contain 500 or more Hadith.” From an article by the author “Sunnah and Hadith” Al-Minhaj Vol 7, No. 3  In light of this information is it even conceivable that the Prophet’s companions (rah) would have adopted  and then passed on a weak or innovated practice? Is this consistent with the Prophet (pbuh) directing the Muslims to follow Him and His Companions to the extent of describing the rightly guided group or sect of Muslims as those who follow this way?

The problem for those seeking the truth on this matter and several others is centered around a singular point: The issues in question are connected to the science of Usul-al-fiqh that many Muslims may not fully appreciate because of the lack of education on the subject and several interconnected topics. This is essentially the ‘achilles heel’ of the rank and file to whom the deviants consistently push their wares. The point raised by Dr. Taha Jabir Al-Alwani regarding the source material for the Mujtahid Imam’s to make various rulings includes the practice or living tradition of the early Muslims that was also viewed as a legal precedent in addition to the authentic ahadith by Imam Malik and some of the other Mujtahid Imams. "The Syrian Jurists attached great importance to the practice of the Muslims (sunnat al-Muslimin). Al-Awza'i, their chief representative, incessantly and recurrently invoked the practice of the Muslims of his time. This practice, according to him, had its starting point with the Prophet (pbuh) and was followed by the Caliphs after him and verified by scholars.” Abu Hanifa and his companions are said to have accepted Sunnah as authoritative only when it is accompanied or backed up by the general practice of the Muslims.” This way of approaching Juristic issues by Imam Malik and the other Mujtahids were credible attempts to determine the actual Sunnah in light of abrogated Hadiths and practices that may have been in vogue in an earlier part of the prophetic Mission/movement and later abrogated. In addition to resolving new legal questions and cases that hadn't arisen during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Sahabi (rah).

Imam Malik Ibn Anas (rmtll) was an acknowledged master of the sciences of Hadith, Fiqh and sunnah, meaning that he possessed a through grasp of the ahadith and its Isnad.  The context and meaning of  Hadith (matn) from the interpretative aspect, the legal texts and principles of the Qur'an, the legal decisions of the Prophet (pbuh), the legal opinions (fatwa) of the Sahabi (rah) and their collective legal decisions (Ij'ma).  The fatwa of a group of ataba-Tabieen fiqh Jurist-consult lawyers, the acknowledged masters of Medinan Jurisprudence collectively known as the seven jurists of Al-Medina (although some authorities say there were at least ten) and the living tradition (sunnah) of the early Muslims. It is from all of these sources Imam Malik was able to competently make Itjihad, fatwa and establish the Juristic methodology and codification for the school/Math’hab that would eventually bear his name.

In certain cases Imam Malik would set aside a ahadith of the Prophet (pbuh) in favor of a practice or fatwa attributed to a Companion or a group of Companions (rah) based on the argument that the precedents of the Sahabi (rah) actually represented the genuine Sunnah as the Companions were in a better position to know the authentic Sunnah because of their long association with the Prophet (pbuh). This view cannot be undervalued or ignored as the Mujtahid scholars among the Sahabi (rah) initiated practices and made fatwa after the Prophet (pbuh) in light of new situations that arose during their time, an action they were competently trained for by the master himself (pbuh). Imam Malik also considered the practice of the people of Medina to be a source of law and would reject a solitary (ahad) ahadith that conflicted with it. “In his opinion the Madinese practice [amal] represents the narration of thousands upon thousands of people from ultimately, the Prophet. It is, in other words, equivalent to a Mushhur[well known] or even Mutwatir" classification of Hadith.  Principles of Islamic jurisprudence by Mohammad Hashim Kamali pg.76  This information adequately demonstrates that one of the first and most enduring elements of Usul-al-Fiqh initiated by the Prophet (pbuh) and handed down from the Sahaba (rah) to their successors was the “living Sunnah or practice.”

It is in light of these facts that we see several things: 1) the difference between the terms sunnah and ahadith whereas the first is the practice and the latter its documentation (ahadith/ riwayah). Although the two terms are synonymous today practice was first. 2)  Contrary to the view that only authenticated ahadith determines the authentic Sunnah, the legal fatwa both individually and collectively (I’jma) of the Sahaba is also an integral part of it so that when this primary source material was authoritatively passed on to the succeeding jurists/Mujtahid Imams it became part of the foundation for what is known today as the Ahle-Sunnah-wal-Jammah Math’habs.    

What has to be the biggest stumbling block for most Muslims on the issues in question that provides an entrance way for the deviated to ply their deception is expressed in the following words, “…Practice was stressed because being in conformity with the ideal conduct of the Prophet did not require documentation …it was a proof by itself. But when in the first place this practice lost its resemblance with the ideal Sunnah because of the gap in time, the need of Hadith became more and more acute. Hence the early schools emphasized the practice (‘amal) of the community more than al-Shafi. Even among the pre-Shafi fuqaha’ those who were nearer to the time of the Prophet laid more stress on practice than those who were farther from his time. The latter, despite their occasional reference to the practice, frequently quote Hadith for its proof.” The early Development of Islamic Jurisprudence by Ahmad Hasan Pg.91  

               Muhaddith and Fuqaha/Muj’tahid

       The scholars mention of the ‘gap in time’ and the need of Hadith because of it is significant. “In Allah's wisdom, the age of the Fuqaha had to precede the era of the Muhadditheen because the formulation of the Shariah required fiqaahat (spiritual insight and understanding), not staggering powers of memory.  There was no need for classification of Hadith in the age of the early Fuqaha because the Ahadith were acquired from the highest authorities, namely, from the Sahaabah themselves or from the illustrious Ulama and Fuqaha who were Students of the Sahaabah. The words and views of the Fuqaha are therefore, final and binding, not the classification of the Muhadditheen. Clearly, “the classification of Hadith by the Muhadditheen cannot be cited in negation of Fatwa (verdict) issued by the Fuqaha. Islam did not begin with the age of Hadith compilation by the Muhadditheen two centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).  Islam which was acquired by the Sahaabah from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was passed on by these Sahaabah to the Taabieen who in turn transmitted it on. In this manner it reached us in a chain of unbroken and authoritative transmission, independent of the compilations of the Muhadditheen. Hadith categorization and classification by the later Muhadditheen are not any hujjat (proof) against the earlier Fuqaha.  Thus, if a Muhaddith has classified a Hadith as Dha-eef (weak/forged) while the Fuqaha and Aimmah Mujtahideen had formulated a hukm (Shar'i ruling) on the basis of that same Hadith, the classification of the Muhadditheen cannot be cited to negate the ruling of the Fuqaha.” The Fuqaha and Hadith Classification The Majlis, Voice of Islam Vol. 5, No.4     This is because “…a hadith which has been classified dha-eef by the Muhadditheen some 200 years later could have been Saheeh during the age of the Sahaabah and the Taabieen on account of the source of authenticity from which the fuqaha had acquired the Hadith. With the passing of time, a weak link could have crept into the sanad (chain of narrators).” The Fuqaha and Hadith Classification The Majlis, Voice of Islam Vol. 5, No.4 Thus, the canonical collections of ahadith by the Muhadditheen (i.e. Sahih Sitta and others) centuries later had little or no impact on the authority and status of the fiqh schools and their rulings. Instead of providing proof of the ‘error’ of the math’hab’s as some assert if a legal fatwa or hukm conflicted with a ahadith the very opposite was often proven true. One scholar explaining the function of the Math’habs’ in the early period of Islam writes,“…If we were asked to define them, we might sum up as ‘sophisticated techniques for avoiding innovation.”  It should also be known that the Math’hab’s and their founders not only laid down the criteria for transmission (Isnad) and interpretation of various reports (riwayah/ahadith) but issued rulings/Hukm from these primary texts as stated above. Again we witness the misguided twisting the function of the schools/Math’habs’ when accusing them of what they protected the Ummah from, Bi’dah/deviant beliefs and practices.

       Another fact to consider is what is known in the ahadith sciences as the golden chain (isnad) used by Imam Bukhari and others: Ibn U’mar, to Nafe’ to Imam Malik to Imam Shafi to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal to Imam Bukhari. After the Sahaba is the Tabi’un, three of the Math’hab Imam’s are next showing the inseparable connection of the Fiqh and Hadith scholars and the sciences they laid the foundation for. It is from this standpoint that a sign of deviation is to take fiqh out of the equation and rely only on the ahadith as many of the early fuqaha were ahadith scholars themselves or in the case of Abu Hanifa possessed extensive knowledge of the subject. “…His standard of criticism has been considered as extremely rigorous…Ibn Khaldun writes: Why Abu Hanifa has so few traditions is because he imposed strict conditions on narration and transmission.”. “The idea, although it failed to meet with popular acceptance, did not fail to exert its influence in determining the future development of Hadith. Its influence is clearly visible in the principles of personal judgment laid down by Malik and Shafi”.  Secondly, as the above quote shows the standards of the Imam’s of fiqh were adopted and later became among the foundations of the ahadith sciences. Thus,“the classification of ahadith by the Muhadditheen (Hadith Authorities) is not applicable to the earlier Fuqaha and the Aimmah-e-Muujtahideen such as Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam Maalik.” The Fuqaha and Hadith Classification: The Majlis, Voice of Islam Vol. 5, No.4

       But what has to be the most important proof of the difference between the muhhadith and the fuqaha and the knowledge and insight of the fuqaha having precedence is from the Prophet (pbuh) who made the distinction. “…For some of those who deliver (the hadith) do not understand the knowledge and they deliver it to some such persons who possess greater understanding than the deliverer.”   (Abu Daw’ud, Tirmidhi)  “This hadith shows very clearly that some narrators of hadith (Muhadith) inspite of being a Hafiz of hadith are men of little understanding in so far as the meanings and subtleties are concerned”. Taqleed wa-Ijtihad by Maulana Muhammad Masihullah Khan pg. 15. The scholars words are proven by several reports in the early fiqh works such as Imam Malik’s Muwatta where certain Sahaba corrected their brethren who could not make Ij’tihad or whose understanding of a particular fiqh issue was deficient. It is reports like this that prompted Imam Malik’s esteemed colleague, one of the seven Jurists of Medina, Ibn Uyayna to say, “Hadiths are a source of misguidance except for the fuqaha”.

       This important religious truth is showcased by the writer on the mistakes of contemporary Muslims who gives a ‘ruling’ on a practice many Muslims view as lawful and beneficial, deeming it bid’ah. This is a clear example of someone who has no idea of the value of one of the essentials of Usul-al-fiqh. I mention this in light of the many ayat and ahadith that warn of the sin of not following or adhering to the rules and beliefs of Islam based on accredited scholarship that protects one from misinterpreting the text sources or worse issuing ‘verdicts’ based on ignorance or fanciful assumption/imagination. In addition is the interpretation of the Prophet’s command to follow the community by Imam Shafi and others meaning what the main body holds as lawful and abandoning what the community holds as unlawful, for this is where Allah’s protection lies as stated in several ahadith. Therefore, every type of misguidance and deviation in belief or practice is outside of what the community holds as lawful, while the Mujtahid Imams are the Ummah’s only representatives.    

4)      “…The fact is a weak or solitary report (Ahadith) does not and should not become the basis of rejecting a good practice especially when the early generations (Salaf-Saliheen) have validated such practices by maintaining and then passing them on despite the strength or weakness of the Isnad. When commenting on a weak narrative (Ahadith) on not praying two ra’ka of attiyat-ul-masjid during Juma’s khutbah, we have, “One of the principles of Hadith (usul-al-Hadith) is that any narration supported by the constant practice of the Companions and Followers will acquire enough strength to be used as evidence. This means that the message of the above Hadith, despite the criticism leveled at its chain, can be accepted.” Fiqh al-Imam (Key proofs in Hanafi Fiqh) by Abdur-Rahman Ibn Yusuf, pg. 168. This is the same logic that is applied to accepting the middle night of Sha’ban as a sacred night and performing some acts of optional/nafl worship in it. Although it is not a strongly emphasized Sunnah of our Prophet (pbuh) it’s virtue was reported by various Sahabi (rah) despite its weak transmissional line. Thus many scholars and elders of this Ummah look upon it as a means of acquiring additional blessing, but none have called or referred to as a bid’ah or innovation because of the transmissional line.    

       To summarize, the rejection of a practice that comes from ‘weak’ ahadith despite many narratives from the Sahabi or Tabi’un is not a simple cut and dried matter as some people might like to believe. This is why one Mujathid would accept a particular ahadith while another would take an established practice going back to the Prophet (pbuh) despite in some cases based on a supposedly ‘weak’ ahadith. Or Imam Malik’s view of Medinan—amal as an acceptable source of law and religious practice. Suffice it to say the issues involved are essentially of a juristic nature belonging to the scholarly realm meaning the logic, evidence and subsequent rulings of the fiqh scholars are to be accorded the respect due to them as the Prophet’s (pbuh) inheritors. It is the myriad of issues involved that ensures numerous blunders when in the hands of the uneducated reinforcing the necessity of acquiring knowledge from religious scholars and their students as our Prophet (pbuh) directed.