A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Appendix B/18

←

A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'
by Moulavi Gerágh Ali

Appendix B/18

→

183741A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád' — Appendix B/18Moulavi Gerágh Ali

[Sidenote: The story when fabricated.]

18. The currency of the story did neither take place during the time of Mohammad, its proper age, nor during the lifetime of the companions. It was fabricated and imposed on some of the Tabaee of weak authority in the second century.^[1] There is no doubt that the whole story is a sheer fabrication from beginning to end.

Footnotes edit

↑ Zeid bin Aslam (in Tabrani), who narrates the story, though he does not mention Maria, is a Tábaee (died A.H. 136), and does not quote his authority. Besides, his authority itself is impeached; vide Ibn Adi in his Kámal. Masrook (in Saeed bin Mansoor) only came to Medina long after Mohammad's death; therefore his narration, even if it be genuine, is not reliable. Zohak Ibn Muzahim (in Tabrani), also a Tábaee and of impeached authority, narrates it from Ibn Abbás, but he never heard any tradition from him, nor had he even seen him (vide Mzàn-ul-Etedal, by Zahabi, and Ansáb, by Sam-áni). His narration must be hence considered as apocryphal. The ascription of Ibn Omar's (died 73 A.H.) story, not strictly to the point, is untrustworthy. Abu Hurera's narration is also admitted as apocryphal; vide Dur-rul-mansoor, by Soyutí. All these traditions are noted by Soyutí in his Dur-rul-mansoor. The tradition by Nasáee (died 303 A.H.) from Anas (died 90 A.H.) regarding the affair of a slave is equally contradicted by the tradition from Ayesha, the widow of the Prophet, narrated by the traditionist Nasáee in the same place of his collection of traditions. This is the story of the honey. vide para. 16, ubi supra. Ayesha's tradition is more trustworthy than that of Anas. Hammád bin Salma, a narrator in the ascription of Anas, has been impeached owing to the confusion of his memory in the later days of his life (vide Tekreeb). Sabit, another link in the same chain, was a story-teller by profession (vide Zahabi's Tabakát,) and cannot be depended upon. And Nasáee himself has rejected the tradition ascribed to Anas, and is reported to have said that Ayesha's tradition has good ascription, while there is nothing valid in that regarding Maria; vide Kamálain's Annotations on Jelálain in loco.

[1] Zeid bin Aslam (in Tabrani), who narrates the story, though he does not mention Maria, is a Tábaee (died A.H. 136), and does not quote his authority. Besides, his authority itself is impeached; vide Ibn Adi in his Kámal. Masrook (in Saeed bin Mansoor) only came to Medina long after Mohammad's death; therefore his narration, even if it be genuine, is not reliable. Zohak Ibn Muzahim (in Tabrani), also a Tábaee and of impeached authority, narrates it from Ibn Abbás, but he never heard any tradition from him, nor had he even seen him (vide Mzàn-ul-Etedal, by Zahabi, and Ansáb, by Sam-áni). His narration must be hence considered as apocryphal. The ascription of Ibn Omar's (died 73 A.H.) story, not strictly to the point, is untrustworthy. Abu Hurera's narration is also admitted as apocryphal; vide Dur-rul-mansoor, by Soyutí. All these traditions are noted by Soyutí in his Dur-rul-mansoor. The tradition by Nasáee (died 303 A.H.) from Anas (died 90 A.H.) regarding the affair of a slave is equally contradicted by the tradition from Ayesha, the widow of the Prophet, narrated by the traditionist Nasáee in the same place of his collection of traditions. This is the story of the honey. vide para. 16, ubi supra. Ayesha's tradition is more trustworthy than that of Anas. Hammád bin Salma, a narrator in the ascription of Anas, has been impeached owing to the confusion of his memory in the later days of his life (vide Tekreeb). Sabit, another link in the same chain, was a story-teller by profession (vide Zahabi's Tabakát,) and cannot be depended upon. And Nasáee himself has rejected the tradition ascribed to Anas, and is reported to have said that Ayesha's tradition has good ascription, while there is nothing valid in that regarding Maria; vide Kamálain's Annotations on Jelálain in loco.

[1]