What do you think?
Rate this book
تقسيم الأخبار ودلالتها عند السادة الحنفية
تقسيم الأخبار ودلالتها عند السادة الحنفية
66 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 6, 2018
I have mixed feelings about this book. For starters, the book did not come cheap and is only 66 pages, of which 34 pages are lost to an extortionate number of endorsements, references and contents page. To be precise there are a total of 9 endorsements, which I do not believe to be commensurate with the size of the work.
Then there's the content itself, which makes up for less than half of the book. As someone interested in Hanafi approaches to the Hadith literature and having read al-Jassas not long ago, I can attest to inconsistencies and misconceptions, which are at best the result of a poor choice of language and arrangement.
For example, it would have helped to get an appreciation of the origins and wider context from which usuli discussions on reports have ensued. It was never (meant to be) restricted to the Hadith literature (though it wants to conclude with it), which explains why a) Akhbaar is the preferred term and not Hadith, b) examples of Mutawatir are never Hadiths, but concepts and c) Tawatur or Mutawatir reports are not in need of isnaads. For if they were, it would render the Mutawatir investigative and demonstrative (nazari istidlaali) and that would undermine its status as Mutawatir.
The impetus behind this essay we are told is to investigate a claim, an unreferenced claim might I add, that since Imam al-Jassas considered the Mashur a sub-category of Mutawatir, and not a separate independent category, this necessitates Takfir, as denial of Mutawatir results in this. But this is simply not the case because al-Jassas divides the Mutawatir into a) certain/definitive, self-evident (yaqini/qat'i, badahi) and b) theoretical, argumentative (nazari istidlaali). Takfir cannot take place in this latter category, instead he seconds Isa ibn Aban's conclusion: "denier of this category of reports is dubbed a deviant, innovator and will incur sin. However, he is not to be excommunicated."
If I remember correctly, examples cited are those of wiping over leather socks, possibly alcohol, a form of usury and the successorship of Abu Bakr as Caliph after the Prophet (SAW).
There are claims here attributed to Imam al-Jassas and Isa Ibn Aban, however, we are not told whom these jurists are whom Dr. Muhyiddin seeks to challenge, and are guilty of such readings. Perhaps the only exception is a footnote. This is not good practice. Perhaps it would have been better if the essay title was changed to something along the lines of "later Hanafi conceptions/readings of early Hanafi categorisations of reports" or "comparison of pre-Bazdawi/Dabusi classifications of reports". Allah knows best.
Apart from the need to revisit Jassas myself, there are a couple of things I take away from the book: a) always reference claims, b) verify claims by going back to the original sources, c) rely on original works and not second-hand sources and d) the need for cohesive/systematic readings and a strong methodology.
To that extent, I do not particularly recommend this work and instead encourage serious students to pick up the Jassas for themselves, paying attention to his arguments and claims. They would do better to peruse Allamah Tahir al-Jaza'iri's discussion on Mutawatir in his Tawjih al-Nazar.
Then there's the content itself, which makes up for less than half of the book. As someone interested in Hanafi approaches to the Hadith literature and having read al-Jassas not long ago, I can attest to inconsistencies and misconceptions, which are at best the result of a poor choice of language and arrangement.
For example, it would have helped to get an appreciation of the origins and wider context from which usuli discussions on reports have ensued. It was never (meant to be) restricted to the Hadith literature (though it wants to conclude with it), which explains why a) Akhbaar is the preferred term and not Hadith, b) examples of Mutawatir are never Hadiths, but concepts and c) Tawatur or Mutawatir reports are not in need of isnaads. For if they were, it would render the Mutawatir investigative and demonstrative (nazari istidlaali) and that would undermine its status as Mutawatir.
The impetus behind this essay we are told is to investigate a claim, an unreferenced claim might I add, that since Imam al-Jassas considered the Mashur a sub-category of Mutawatir, and not a separate independent category, this necessitates Takfir, as denial of Mutawatir results in this. But this is simply not the case because al-Jassas divides the Mutawatir into a) certain/definitive, self-evident (yaqini/qat'i, badahi) and b) theoretical, argumentative (nazari istidlaali). Takfir cannot take place in this latter category, instead he seconds Isa ibn Aban's conclusion: "denier of this category of reports is dubbed a deviant, innovator and will incur sin. However, he is not to be excommunicated."
If I remember correctly, examples cited are those of wiping over leather socks, possibly alcohol, a form of usury and the successorship of Abu Bakr as Caliph after the Prophet (SAW).
There are claims here attributed to Imam al-Jassas and Isa Ibn Aban, however, we are not told whom these jurists are whom Dr. Muhyiddin seeks to challenge, and are guilty of such readings. Perhaps the only exception is a footnote. This is not good practice. Perhaps it would have been better if the essay title was changed to something along the lines of "later Hanafi conceptions/readings of early Hanafi categorisations of reports" or "comparison of pre-Bazdawi/Dabusi classifications of reports". Allah knows best.
Apart from the need to revisit Jassas myself, there are a couple of things I take away from the book: a) always reference claims, b) verify claims by going back to the original sources, c) rely on original works and not second-hand sources and d) the need for cohesive/systematic readings and a strong methodology.
To that extent, I do not particularly recommend this work and instead encourage serious students to pick up the Jassas for themselves, paying attention to his arguments and claims. They would do better to peruse Allamah Tahir al-Jaza'iri's discussion on Mutawatir in his Tawjih al-Nazar.
Displaying 1 of 1 review