Exposing the Scheming of the Orientalists Against the Muslim Ummah and Presenting the Rebuttal to Them from Several Angles

The Shaykh : When the Orientalists realized that one of the strongest causes of the dispute that arose between the Islamic sects is what concerns the hadith and some of the details I mentioned earlier, they sought to make Muslims doubt this second foundation, which is the Prophetic hadith. How do they cast doubt? The matter is as the saying goes in some proverbs, "The drowning man clings to anything, even the threads of the moon," or "even a straw," as they say in some lands. These Orientalists do exactly this: they cling to certain texts and, through their style and subtle scheming, suggest to Muslims that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) forbade writing down the hadith. Therefore, Muslims must respond to this prohibition because their Prophet forbade it, and they are undoubtedly commanded to follow him. So, Muslims did not write down the hadith. By raising this point, they cast a doubt, saying: Since the hadith was not written down during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) but only afterwards, it is possible that things not belonging to the hadith entered it. We Muslims, first of all, have foundations that we must follow and refer to when disputes become intense due to problems or doubts raised by those with desires or fitnah, such as these Orientalists and their followers among the Westernizers. Among these foundations is what Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) mentioned in His saying, the Mighty and Majestic: Thus, the path of the believers is the source and reference from which religious knowledge is taken. The path of the believers means the guidance and way that Muslims followed. Therefore, these Muslims must follow the path of those before them. From here, Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) used this noble verse as evidence for ijma' (scholarly consensus). Ijma' has many categories, some of which are proof and some are not. We also refrain from discussing this point further so as not to stray too far from the answer to the question raised earlier. If it is obligatory for us to follow the path of the believers, then we must look at what the early Muslims did: Did they write down the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), or did they neglect writing? And if they neglected writing, when did they begin writing? Our answer to this is that the writing of the hadith is not as the Orientalists claim, that it was written in the era... what do they say?

The questioner : In the beginning of the second century

The Shaykh : The matter is not as these Orientalists claim, because the writing of the hadith began while the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was among his Companions. The hadith was written down during his lifetime (peace be upon him). From this, it appears that the Orientalists are not as they appear or claim, because when they research, they do so for the sake of knowledge, free from bias toward a school of thought or religion or the like. In reality, they are not sincere in this. Why? Because we see that when they find a hadith, and any hadith in their claim that was not recorded during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), they use it as evidence. This use of the hadith as evidence is either because its authenticity has been established by a scientific method they believe in, or they do not believe in it. If it is the first case, that they establish this hadith and use it as evidence against Muslims that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) forbade writing the hadith, then if this hadith is established with them by the chain of narration, as is the method of the scholars of hadith, then their fussing around that doubt that the hadith was not written during the time of the Messenger does no harm, because they have reached knowledge of this authentic hadith by their agreement with the scholars of hadith through the method of... what is the chain? And if they do not acknowledge chains of narration and claim, and this is the truth of their claim, that things have been inserted and smuggled into the hadith between what the Messenger said and the time of its writing, and that what was done to the hadith was done to their Torah and their Gospel, namely additions and omissions, if they adopt this school of thought, then it is not fitting for them to use as evidence against Muslims who differ from them in their scientific approach. This is the first rebuttal to them, blocking the path of casting doubt on the Sunnah by doubting that it was not recorded during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him). This is first. And second, we say that the Prophetic hadith began to be recorded and written down during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), as I mentioned earlier. Of course, we make this claim based on the scientific path followed by the imams of hadith, both past and present, in identifying authentic hadiths, disregarding their doubts about this method of narrating or establishing hadith, as I mentioned earlier. Thus, we say that the Prophetic hadith began to be documented and recorded during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him). We have many proofs, not just one hadith or one narration. First of these, for example, and I believe some of these Orientalists want the story of the Messenger's (peace be upon him) letters to Heraclius, the King of the Romans, and to al-Muqawqis, the ruler of Egypt, and to other kings, such as Kisra, and so on. These letters are known to be authentic according to the scholars of hadith, and I think they do not deny that. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) wrote to Heraclius, writing to him: "From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), to Heraclius, the Great of the Romans," after the Basmala. Of course, he said to him: This letter was sent to him with Yahya al-Kalbi. Therefore, the general statement that the hadith was not written is false, because this is a letter written by the Messenger to Heraclius, and then to other kings. Then, in Sahih al-Bukhari, the most authentic book after the Book of Allah, we have the testimony of a noble Companion, and also the son of a great Companion, namely Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As. Abdullah ibn Amr testifies that Abu Hurayrah narrated more hadith than he did, because he was free (from the burden of writing), or rather, on the contrary, Abu Hurayrah testifies for Abdullah ibn Amr that he narrated more hadith than he did, saying: "Because he used to write and I did not." So, Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As was writing down the hadith during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him). This writing made Abu Hurayrah, who was the most memorizing of the Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him) without exception, and there is no disagreement among the scholars of hadith on this scientific fact that Abu Hurayrah was the most memorizing of the Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him). The reason for this goes back to two things. The first is that he was a man of contentment, satisfied with a few bites to keep his back straight. Then, his habit was to follow the Messenger (peace be upon him) and listen to hadiths from him, then he would go around the other Companions and pick up hadiths from them that he had missed hearing directly from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). For this and the other reason, which is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) prayed for him when he spread out the mat for him, that he would be a preserver of the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). He says: "I have not forgotten anything I memorized after that." My intention with this hadith, which is in Sahih al-Bukhari as I mentioned, is that Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As was writing down the hadith during the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). So, in it is also a rebuttal to the Orientalists. Then there are other hadiths that testify that this Ibn Amr was writing down the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Among them is what came in Musnad Imam Ahmad and other books of the Sunnah with a strong chain of narration, that this Ibn Amr was gathered in a council with the polytheists, and they doubted him about what he was writing down from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) of hadith. They said to him: "You are writing down the hadith." The point is: "You are writing down the hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and he is a human being, how can you write it down?" They doubted him. So Abdullah came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) to convey to him this doubt that the polytheists had raised against him. What the Messenger (peace be upon him) did was say to him:
So here the command to write came; the command to write came. So we say, after we have presented the last hadith regarding this topic, let us return to the hadith prohibiting writing. As for the last hadith, it contains a strong indication that it was not only Ibn 'Amr who was writing the hadith, but other Companions with him were also writing it. Then in this hadith is a very great glad tidings for Muslims in the present age, in which some of them are on the verge of despairing of the spirit of Allah and despairing of the victory of Allah, namely that the victory of Allah is near. That hadith, as narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf and al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, through his chain and others, with a sound chain, from 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He said: "While we were sitting with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) writing the hadith from him, a man said to him: 'O Messenger of Allah, will we conquer Constantinople first, or Rome?' Constantinople is known to you as Istanbul, the capital of Turkey, while Rome is Rome, the capital of the Pope today and before today. He asked..."The questioner : "Will we conquer Constantinople first, or Rome?" This question raises a meaning in the mind: where did he receive this from?The questioner : That there are two conquests: a conquest of Constantinople and a conquest of Rome. Where did he receive these two conquests from, such that he was eager to ask which of the two would happen first? There is no doubt that he received that from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), because this conquest and that one are among the matters of the unseen that are absolutely beyond the capacity of humans to know except through the revelation that descends upon the heart of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And from here, it is necessary to draw attention to this Islamic creedal reality, which is as Allah the Exalted said: Even the chosen Messenger, who is the master of the messengers and prophets, says: This is a discussion that has another scope, but it is a reminder so that you may be aware that knowledge of the unseen is an impossible matter, its door is closed, and no one of the chosen, noble messengers knows it except by the revelation of the sky. So if a Muslim knows that there are two conquests, he could not have known it except from the one upon whom revelation descends, who is our Messenger, may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him. From here, the launch...The questioner : With that question, do we conquer Constantinople first, or Rome? He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The conquest of Constantinople is well known to you and has become part of history, as it was conquered by that famous Ottoman king, 'Uthman al-Fatih. So, there remains for the Muslims one last conquest, which is the greatest conquest: the conquest of the Christians' capital, the capital of Italy, which is Rome today. This conquest must certainly take place, but I am sorry to say that it will not be in our hands; perhaps it will be in the hands of a generation or generations that come after us. This generation must be characterized by two traits. Our present religion has entered the path of one of these traits, while, unfortunately, it is far from the other. The first trait is what is known today as the Islamic awakening. We do not doubt that Muslims today are better in terms of this awakening than they were a quarter of a century ago. You know that it has become known to many of the general public, let alone students of knowledge, that there is a Book and a Sunnah, and that knowledge is what came in the Book and the Sunnah, not that someone says, "So-and-so said,"The Shaykh : or "the scholar so-and-so said," or "Doctor so-and-so said." That has become a thing of the past. Among the evidence for this is the statement of Imam Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), to whom, and after his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, the merit of this true awakening is attributed, because he lived in a purely pre-Islamic age of ignorance when he called upon those around him—scholars, students of knowledge, and the common people—to return to the Book and the Sunnah, as you know. Now, we are living in the beginning of this awakening. I say "beginning" because the majority of Muslims are still in their old habit of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence). They still say, when I tell them, "My brother, this is not permissible; this contradicts the hadith," they confront you by saying, "This is my madhhab (school of jurisprudence); this is the madhhab of my imam," and so on. But, praise be to Allah, openness now exists among many Muslims. I do not mean the scholars, or some of the scholars, nor do I mean the students of knowledge, but even the common people among them. One of them will say, "Is there evidence for this?" even though he does not understand the evidence. But he has become aware and alert. As for the second thing, which I say must involve purification and education: we are now in a cycle of purification. As for education, unfortunately, we are far, far away from it, and this is apparent even in some students of knowledge who rush to write theses and publish them to appear before people as authors. This is also a long and very long discussion. So, this hadith gives us good news that there is a very great conquest ahead for the Muslims, which is the conquest of Rome, the capital of Italy. Who will conquer Rome? The Muslims who combine purification and education and return, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the well-known hadith whose authenticity is established: ... to the end of the hadith: "At that time, the believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah." If we know these texts, which clearly indicate that the Prophetic hadith began to be recorded in his (peace and blessings be upon him) time, and not as the Orientalists and their followers claim, then we return to say a truth that does not harm us: Was the hadith entirely written down in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? The answer is no, and that does not harm us. I only wanted to refute the false claim of those Orientalists when they rely on his (peace and blessings be upon him) statement: to say that this hadith is authentic and that it is indeed, as came in the question,The questioner : narrated as mawquf (a report stopping at a Companion) and also as marfu' (a report traced to the Prophet), and both the mawquf and the marfu' are authentic. The fact that it is mawquf does not harm its being marfu', because the ultimate criterion is: did the marfu' become anomalous, or did its narrator become anomalous? If his narrator did not become anomalous and he preserved it, then at that time, the jurists of hadith say regarding the hadith: there is no harm in the hadith being narrated as mawquf and marfu', and in it being authentic as mawquf and marfu'. For the narrator sometimes feels inclined to raise the hadith to the Prophet, and sometimes he does not. Sometimes he is content to mention the hadith without raising it, not because he is not inclined to raise it, but because he is in an environment that dispenses with the need to explicitly state the raising, namely an environment of knowledge and students of knowledge. For example, it is said that Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, who is the narrator of this hadith, said, "Do not write down hadith from me." Second, what confirms that the hadith is marfu' is that its wording suggests it is marfu'. And if it is necessary to say that either the one who raised it or the one who stopped it made a mistake, the most likely view is to say that the one who stopped it made a mistake. Because who is it that says, "Do not write down hadith from me": Zayd, Bakr, and 'Umar, or is it the one whom all Muslims must accept his hadith with good acceptance? In conclusion, the raising of this hadith is authentic from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). But this hadith does not mean that the prohibition continued after his (peace and blessings be upon him) death, and that the erasure commanded in the hadith continued among the Muslims after his (peace and blessings be upon him) death. Why? Because, first, we have known that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) commanded the writing of hadith in the hadith: So, the command for the thing that was previously prohibited lifts this prohibition and abrogates it and cancels it, as is well known in many legal rulings. For example: "The sale is prohibited when the call is made for the Friday prayer," but he said afterwards: Similarly, for example, His saying, the Exalted: meaning that the one in a state of ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage) was prohibited from hunting, so he commanded hunting, thereby canceling the command that implied the prohibition of hunting for the one in a state of ihram. Thus...

Another questioner : Peace be upon you

The Shaykh : ...and upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Thus, in the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, there is the prohibition of writing the hadith, and it was lifted by his (peace and blessings be upon him) command, and consequently the command to erase it was also lifted. Because, as we presented at the beginning of the answer to this question, the Orientalists tried to cast doubt on the hadith because they know that the Qur'an is not interpreted as Allah intended except through the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).