Dirar ibn Amr’s Understanding of Hadith in His Kitab al-TahrishAbdulhameed Majeed Ismael Al Sheesh
Dirar ibn Amr’s book Kitab al-Tahrish is the oldest resource regarding the religious groups or factions. The book contains sources from the 2nd century AH and includes many hadith narrations these groups used as evidence to support their opinions against their opponents. In his book Ḍirar lists a given controversy and then provides the ḥadith of each faction cites to support their position regardless as it sound or fabricated. But what approach did the author of the book use when including these narrations? How accurately did he transmit the narrations in his book? Is there a similarity between the author’s uses of hadith and modernists’ understanding of hadith? This research seeks to answer these and other questions that are necessary to reveal the approach of the book and its author. After probing and classifying these texts, the book clearly is not including the same category of hadith in terms of accuracy. It contains sound, weak (i.e., incomplete sanad or with transmitters of questionable authority), and even fabricated narrations, some of which are not found in other sources. In addition, the author’s approach when referring to these narrations is considered inaccurate compared to the methods of modern sources and sometimes contains words that have been distorted from what is factual.
Dirar B. Amr’in Kitabu’t-Tahrîş’ndeki Hadis MetoduAbdulhameed Majeed Ismael Al Sheesh
Dırar b. Amr’ın Kitabu’t-Tahrîş’i, İslamî fırkalar hakkında bilgi veren en eski kaynaklardan biridir. Kitap, hicri II.asırda fırkalar arasındaki polemiklerde kullanılan çok sayıda hadis rivayetini ihtiva etmektedir. Kitabın müellifi bu rivayetleri hangi metoda göre kullanmıştır? Kullanılan rivayetlerin sıhhat değeri nedir? Müellifih hadis kullanma metodunun hadisçilerin rivayet kurallarına uygunluğu açısından anlamı nedir? Elinizdeki çalışma bu soruların cevabından yola çıkarak müellifin hadis konusundaki yaklaşımını ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmamızda müellifin metodunun ortaya konulmasının yanı sıra kitapta yer alan rivayetler, kaynakları ve sıhhat durumları açısından tasnif edilerek bu konuda genel bir bilgi verilmeye çalışılmıştır. Kitapta bulunup da temel hadis kaynaklarında yer almayan rivayetlere ayrıca işaret edilmiştir. Çalışmamızda müellifinin rivayetleri kullanma metodunun zayıf olduğu, rivayetleri manayla aktararak hadisçilerin rivayet için belirlediği kurallara uyulmadığı, bu yüzden aslı sahih olan bir çok hadisin lafız ve mana değişikliğine uğradığı sonucuna varılmıştır.
منهج إيراد األحاديث عند ضرار بن عمرو في كتابه التحريش الدكتور عبد الحميد مجيد إسماعيل الشيشAbdulhameed Majeed Ismael Al Sheesh
الم ّ لخص: َ من ُعدّ ّ كتاب التحريش لضرار بن عمرو من المصادر المتقدمة ”فرق أهل القبلة والصالة«، فالكتاب من مصادر القرن الثاني الهجري، وقد ضم ُ الكتاب العديد ي ّة نقله لها في الروايات الحديثية كأدلة تستدل بها تلك الفرق في دعم آرائها لمواجهة مخالفيهم، ولكن ما هو منهج صاحب الكتاب في إيراده لهذه الروايات؟ وما دق كتابه؟ وما درجتها في ميزان القبول والردّ وقوانين الرواية التي اعتمدها المحدثون؟ جاء هذا البحث لإلجابة عن هذه األسئلة وغيرها مما البد منه للكشف عن منهج الكتاب وصاحبه، وقد تبين من بعد سبر هذه النصوص وتصنيفها؛ أنها ليست على درجة واحدة من حيث قوتها، ففيها الصحيح وفيها الضعيف بل والموضوع، وفيها روايات لم نقف عليها في المصادر األخرى، فضال على أننا توصلنا بأن منهج صاحب الكتاب في إيراده لهذه الروايات لم يكن دقيقا، فالغالب عليها النقل ّ ّ قته المصادر الحديثية، وأحيانا بألفاظ محرفة عما هو ثابت منها. بالمعنى، أو ببعض األلفاظ المختلفة عما و
The companions and generations who came after them busied themselves with the narrations of the Sunnah, studying them and protecting them from fabricators. They also were concerned with misinterpretation and thus shared fabricated narrations that supported the positions where they differed. Despite all that, some of them distorted parts of the wording within authentic narrations to bring them in line with their own theological or jurisprudential positions, or even to have fabricated whole narrations outright.
Many Hadith books have existed that collect authentic Hadiths through a multitude of approaches, and scholars have also classified books to clarify the names and opinions of theological groups, comparing those opinions and the evidence for each with multiple efforts. However, a large part of the opinions of some theological groups were not written down, especially regarding the evidence and proof they had inferred, and Dirar bin Amr as a pillar of some groups was unique in collecting many texts that were inferred by the rest of the groups in the early centuries. As such, his book Al-Tahrish combines two things: the names and opinions of the ideological (i.e., faith-based) Kalam and political groups who differed from one another, and the legal texts, especially the Hadiths upon which these groups relied for their opinions.
Kitab al-Tahrish by Dirar ibn Amr is considered a classical resource for the differences between various groups due to being written in the 2nd century AH. The work contains several narrations of hadith that groups of the time used as proofs against their opponents. The book’s premise is that Satan causes problems among people and provokes discord. One of the tools Satan uses is those who interpret texts according to their whims, twisting them to conform with their own creed and positions. Therefore, Dirar ibn Amr created a character he calls al-Faqih, who transmits fabricated hadiths or interprets them according to his desires. Dirar’s intended conclusion is that differences of opinion can be attributed to following one’s arbitrary views based on whim and opinion, and this is the true reason for differences in the interpretation of existing texts.
However, what methodology did the author use when presenting these narrations? How accurately did he transmit them in his work? What standard do they hold in terms of acceptance or rejection relative to the rules of hadith criticism specialists have previously relied upon? This article was written as a response to these questions and others necessary to examine and uncover this work and its author’s methodology.
After examining these texts and their classification, what has been made clear is that they don’t all have the same level of authenticity. Some are sahih whereas others are weak, or even fabricated if not unavailable in other sources. Besides the fact that the author clearly is not precise in his presentation of the narrations, most are transmitted according to their general meaning, with verbiage differing from what reliable sources of hadith have authenticated, or at times even with distorted wording from what is known to be accurate.
One of the most important observations noticed when writing this research and studying Kitab al-Tahrish is that Dirar ibn Amr did not rely on the methods of hadith scholars in criticizing hadith accounts in this book, despite his living in the period the hadith transmission, the emergence of the the science of the hadith criticism (al-jarh wa al-ta’dil). However, we did not find Dirar ibn Amr using standart terminology of hadith transmission or their rules of criticism regarding the transmitters.
One important question arises here that cannot be answered with certainty. Did Dirar ibn Amr ignore this because he was not recognize the methods of hadith scholars for criticizing hadith accounts and wanted to present an alternative method of his own that he stipulated at the end of his book? Or was it because of his lack of knowledge regarding this transmission-based method and his reliance on the approach of abstract mental understanding. This is why the work requires a detailed and precise study to compare its narrations with what is considered acceptable, and the work is definitely worthy of several studies as well as in-depth, expansive research.
Despite the popularity of the book and the multiple studies done on it, I did not find anyone who objected to the issues discussed in this study, in particular the narrations, the way it was presented, or the authenticity and accuracy of its transmission. For example, the first edition of the book, with no other version having yet appeared as of the date of this research, lacked an introduction to these problems, and the two virtuous editors of the book did not criticize these narrations when they appeared within the pages of the book.