IN THE DEFENSE OF ABU HURAIRAH

Muslim in his Saheeh in Volume 1, writes that during the time of the Prophet (PBUH) Umar bin Khattab beat Abu Hurairah for fabricating lies.

In Volume 2 of Saheeh Muslim, he quotes Aa’ishah as” Abu Hurairah is a great liar who fabricates Ahaadeeth and attributes them to the holy Prophet (PBUH).

In Volume 4 of Saheeh Muslim, Nadwi says “Imam Abu Hanifa said, ‘The companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were generally pious and just. I accept every Ahaadeeth narrated by them, but I do not accept the Ahaadeeth whose source is Abu Hurairah, Anas ibn Malik, or Samra bin Jundab.”

I have the following comments:

(1) It is obvious from the initial post that the information quoted is a poor rephrasing of some well known incidents surrounding Abu Hurairah’s life – Radiyallaahu’anhu – which have been addressed by the scholars. These events are often used to discount Abu Hurairah’s veracity and thereby negate a large section of the Sunnah.

The two prominent sources in contemporary times for raising these allegations against Abu Hurairah are the Shi’ahs and the students of the orientalists.

As for the former, many of these allegations are to be found in the work, Abu Hurairah, by the Lebanese Shi’ahs author, Abdal-Husain Sharaf al-Din al-‘Amali.

Aspects of this work were refuted by Dr. Muhammad Ajaj al-Khatib (Professor at the University of Damascus, Colleges of Sharia and Education) in his Master’s thesis, al-Sunna Qabl al-Tadwin (Cairo: 1483/1963) and also in his work, Abu Hurairah Rawiya al-Islam (Cairo: 1962).

Regarding the latter, most of the arguments of the Orientalists were summarized by Mahmud Abu Rayya of Egypt. In his work, Adwa’ ‘ala al-Sunna al-Muhammadiya (Cairo: 1377/1958), Abu Rayya attempted to show that the Sunnah is fabricated in the whole and toward that aim he raised questions on Abu Hurairah’s veracity.

When Abu Raya’s book first appeared, a number of scholars addressed his arguments. The most prominent responses were 
a) Dr. Mustafa al-Siba’i (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria), in his thesis, al-Sunna wa Makanatuha fi l-Tashri’ al-Islami, (Cairo: 1380/1961); 
(b) ‘Abd al-Razzaq Hamza (the head of Dar al-Ahaadeeth in Makka and Imam of Masjid al-Haram),Zulumat Abi Raya amam Adwa’ al-Sunna al-Muhammadiya, (Cairo: n.d.); and 
(c) the definitive response by ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya al-Mu’allami al-Yamani (the Librarian of Masjid al-Haram), al-Anwar al-Kashifa lima fi Kitab Adwa’ ‘ala al-Sunna min al-Zallal wa l-Tadlil wa l-Mujazafa, (Cairo: 1378) – may Allah have mercy with them all.

(2) It should be noted that pertaining to most of the objections raised against Abu Hurairah, there exists a definitive defense written by the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood scholar, ‘Abd al-Mun’im Salih al-‘Ali al-‘Izzi, entitled Dif’a ‘an Abi Hurairah (Baghdad: 1393/1973). In this work, al-‘Izzi reviewed, page by page, over 110 classical works (most of which are in a number of volumes, extending thousands of pages) with the aim of collecting everything related to Abu Hurairah.

With regards to the three specific objections raised against Abu Hurairah in the post, the response is as follows:

(3) ‘Umar never beated Abu Hurairah during the lifetime of the Prophet – Sallallaahu’alaihiwasallam – for lying against the Prophet.

However, both ‘Abd al-Husain al-‘Amali (p. 268) and Abu Rayya (pp. 163, 171) report that ‘Umar struck Abu Hurairah with a shield for relating too many Ahaadeeth upon the Prophet – sallallaahu`alaihiwasallam – and accused him of lying. The source of this incident is not Saheeh Muslim, but rather a Shi’a text, Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, by the Shiite Mu’tazilite Ibn Abi al-Hadid who quotes Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi. Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi is a third century, Shiite Mu’tazalite. Al-Iskafi relates this incident with no chain or authorities (isnad). And thus this is an unverified historical incident that appears centuries after the deaths of ‘Umar and Abu Hurairah. And moreover it is found in the works of those who harbor religious animosities against Abu Hurairah and adverse theological positions toward the Sunnah. (See: al-Mu’allami, al-Anwar al-Kashifa, pp. 152-153, al-Khatib, al-Sunna Qabl al-Tadwin, p. 457, al-‘Izzi, Difa’ ‘an Abi Hurairah, p. 123)

Historically, the Jahmite, Bishr al-Murisi was perhaps the first to claim that ‘Umar said that “the greatest liar among the narrators of Ahaadeeth is Abu Hurairah.” To this fabrication, Imam al-Daarimee responded, “How could ‘Umar accuse him of lying against the Messenger of Allah – Sallallaahu’alaihiwasallam – and [at the same time] place his in charge of important posts. Had [Abu Hurairah] been thought of by ‘Umar – Radiyallaahu’anhu – as [al-Murisi] claimed, ‘Umar would not have entrusted [Abu Hurairah] with the affairs of the Muslims, placing him in charge, time and time again.”

Also, al-Daarimee rhetorically asks al-Murisi, “If you were truthful in your claim, then expose [to us] who narrated such. You will not be able to expose a trustworthy narrator.” (See al-Daarimee, Radd al-Imam al-Daarimee ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id ‘ala Bishr al-Murisi al-‘Anid, pp. 132-135.)

Interestingly, al-‘Izzi shows that a number of grandsons of ‘Umar related Ahaadeeth from Abu Hurairah from the Prophet-Sallallaahu’alaihiwasallam. Among whom: 
(a) Salim ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar, who in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree alone relates three Ahaadeeth; 
(b) and Hafs ibn ‘Asim ibn ‘Umar, who in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree alone relates eleven Ahaadeeth. al-‘Izzi comments (p. 123), “Did they not hear from their fathers that their grandfather considered Abu Hurairah a liar?”

(4) ‘Aa’ishah – Radiyallaahu’anha- never accused Abu Hurairah of lying. However, there do exist a number of incidents where she corrected Abu Hurairah for erring in the Ahaadeeth he transmitted. This was not unique for Abu Hurairah, but rather ‘Aa’ishah corrected a number of the Companions. Imam al-Zirkashi (794 A.H.) has gathered and commented upon all the statements wherein which ‘Aa’ishah corrected another of the Prophet’s companions in his al-Ijaba li Irad ma Istadrakahu ‘Aa’ishah ‘ala al-Sahaabah.

Of these criticisms by ‘Aa’ishah, there exists one in Saheeh Muslim (Cairo: Vol. 3, p. 137). Specifically that Abu Hurairah related that the individual who at dawn (fajr) is in a state of sexual defilement, he is not permitted fast. When ‘Aa’ishah and Umm Salama were questioned regarding this they informed that the Prophet – sallallaahu`alaihiwasallam – during the month of Ramadan would awake at dawn in a state of sexual defilement not due to a dream (i.e. due to having sexual relations) and fast. When Abu Hurairah was later questioned as to his source, he informed that he heard that from al-Fadl ibn ‘Abbaas and not the Prophet – Sallallaahu’alaihiwasallam – directly.

Al-Zirkashi (Cairo: p.57) informs that the ruling delivered by Abu Hurairah was initially the ruling given by the Prophet -Sallallaahu’alaihiwasallam – but was later abrogated. This abrogation it seems did not reach Abu Hurairah. That the ruling was abrogated is echoed in the verses regarding the permissibility of sexual relations with one’s women during the night of Ramadan.

Moreover, it should be noted that a number of the leading scholars among the second generation (tabi’in), held the same opinion of Abu Hurairah. Among them was ‘Aa’ishah’s nephew, ‘Urwa ibn al-Zubayr. It seems that ‘Urwa interpreted ‘Aa’ishah’s statement to indicate a ruling specific to the Prophet -Sallallaahu’alaihiwasallam – and not general for the Ummah. This opinion was also held by Tawus, ‘Ata’, Salim ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar, al-Hasan al-Basri, and Ibrahim al-Nakha’i. And thus we see this opinion among the scholars of the tabi’in in the cities of Makka, al-Madina, al-Basra, and al-Kufa.

Moreover, there are incidents which show that ‘Aa’ishah did not consider Abu Hurairah to be a liar even if she corrected him at times. Among which is that ‘Aa’ishah confirmed a Ahaadeeth related by Abu Hurairah regarding the reward for following a funeral bier which was questioned by Ibn ‘Umar. This is reported by al-Bukhaaree and Muslim. (See al-‘Izzi, pp. 234-235)

Al-‘Izzi (p. 110) also shows that when ‘Aa’ishah and Hafsa died Abu Hurairah led the funeral prayers and Ibn ‘Umar was among the attendees. This is reported by al-Bukhaaree in his Tarikh al-Saghir, p. 52. Al-Hakim reports in al-Mustadrak (Vol. 4, p. 6), that Ibn ‘Umar was among the people and had no objections.

Al-‘Izzi remarks, “We know that the Muslims choose the best among them to lead funeral prayers, how much more so when it is the wife of their Prophet – Sallallaahu’alaihiwasallam – in this world and the next?”

One may sumarise that had ‘Umar considered Abu Hurairah to be a liar and beat him for that, how would Ibn ‘Umar allow (indeed, have no objections) Abu Hurairah to lead the funeral prayer for his sister and Prophet’s wife, Hafsah? If ‘Aa’ishah considered Abu Hurairah to be a liar, would the Muslims permit Abu Hurairah to lead the funeral prayers over her?

(5) As for Abu Hanifa’s rejecting the narrations of these three companions.

However, what does exists is a principle of Usul al-Fiqh among the Hanafi scholars that those narrations of Abu Hurairah which are in agreement with analogy (al-qiyas) are adopted, and what is in disagreement with analogy, one sees if the Ahaadeeth has been accepted by the umma, only then it is adopted; otherwise analogy is adopted in preference to Ahaadeeth. (See Usul al-Sarkhasi, Vol. 1, p. 341)

The source of this principle is the Kufan scholar of the tabi’in, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, who would not adopt all the Ahaadeeth of Abu Hurairah. Al-Dhahabi in his Mizan al-I’tidal (Vol. 1, p. 35) reports that al-Nakha’i explained his motivations by arguing that Abu Hurairah was not a scholar of Fiqh (faqih).

In response, it should be noted: 
(a.) a number of scholars have objected to al-Nakha’i’s position. Among whom al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir and Ibn ‘Asakir. (See al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’, Vol. 2, p. 438 and Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Vol. 8, pp. 109-110); 
(b.) Ibn ‘Abbas who is recognized as a faqih, once in a gathering says to Abu Hurairah, “Give a fatwa O Abu Hurairah;” 
(c.) For 23 years, after the death of ‘Uthmaan – Radiyallaahu’anhu – Abu Hurairah would deliver fatawa in al-Madina. (See Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, Vol. 2, p. 372). There are no objections by anyone to Abu Hurairah’s knowledge of Fiqh. Moreover, most of Abu Hurairah’s students among the tabi’in where accomplished scholars and judges. 
d.) In comparing, the instances where al-Nakha’i did not adopt the narration of Abu Hurairah, we find that Abu Hurairah’s narration is stronger than the opinion forwarded by al-Nakha’i. (see al-‘Izzi, pp. 237-248)

I hope this response will be satisfying. Again al-‘Izzi’s defense is the definitive work and it is in 500 pages.

One final note, al-‘Izzi also goes under the pen name Ahmad al-Rashid. You might remember a couple of years ago he was arrested in the U.A.E (his place of residence) after returning from the MAYA conference. Just recently, he was released.

TAKEN FROM: http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/in_defense_of_abu_hurairah.htm