A Study of the Musnad Ahmad – 2

Muti Syed: Imam Ahmad collected narrations from about seven hundred Companions in the Musnad, whereas the books on Rijal (biographical works) mention approximately twelve thousand Companions by name. The total number of Companions is reported to be around one hundred and twenty-four thousand. Where are the remaining Companions’ accounts?

Ammar Nasir: The rest are not preserved in historical records, nor are all of their narrations, naturally, transmitted to us. Imam Abu Zurah was once asked how many Companions narrated directly from the Prophet (PBUH), and he replied: “Who could possibly count them?” Similarly, when asked about the total number of hadiths, he said: “How can one count them?” He further explained that, in total, the number of those who saw and heard the Prophet (PBUH)—whether from among the people of Makkah, Madinah, the Bedouins, or those present at the Farewell Pilgrimage—was around one hundred and fourteen thousand (Al-Jami li Akhlaq al-Rawi wa Adab al-Sami‘, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi 2/293). In other words, we neither possess personal details about every Companion nor have all the hadiths narrated by each of them been preserved.

Muti Syed: You mentioned that Imam Ahmad intended to compile a comprehensive collection of hadiths to which scholars could refer. Did he aim to include all kinds of narrations, or was he selective, like other hadith scholars, recording only authentic ones?

Ammar Nasir: His purpose was somewhat in between. His goal was neither to indiscriminately include every narration regardless of its strength, nor to limit himself strictly to those he considered sahih (authentic). Rather, he intended to compile a collection from which scholars could benefit for research and analysis. Therefore, he avoided completely baseless reports but did include weak ones—believing that such narrations were still worth knowing for scholars. In some instances, he also pointed out the weaknesses present in those narrations.

Muti Syed: So, Musnad Ahmad contains weak narrations but not fabricated (mawdu) ones?

Ammar Nasir: Yes, there are indeed many weak narrations in terms of chain reliability, and modern researchers have identified them. However, narrations that can be declared entirely false or fabricated are exceedingly rare. Ibn al-Jawzi labeled about two dozen narrations as fabricated, either due to weak narrators or problematic content. Yet, Hafiz Ibn Hajar disagreed with him and authored a treatise titled Al-Qawl al-Musaddad fi al-Dhabb an al-Musnad lil-Imam Ahmad, where he collected alternate chains and variants to show that those narrations were not baseless.

Muti Syed: Did Imam Ahmad also employ dirayah-based criteria—rational and contextual evaluation of narrations—besides the examination of isnad (chains)?

Ammar Nasir: Yes, the use of dirayah principles is found among other leading hadith scholars as well. The term refers to cases where a chain appears sound, yet the content of a narration contradicts established evidence or reason. For example, in Sahih Muslim, there is a narration by Abu Hurayrah (RA) describing the creation of the heavens and earth over seven days. Several aspects of this report conflict with the Quran’s account. Imam Bukhari remarked that Abu Hurayrah (RA) actually narrated this from the Jewish scholar Kab al-Ahbar⁹⁸—thus, it was not a marfu (Prophet’s) narration but rather an Israiliyyat report.

We find similar examples in Imam Ahmad’s approach. For instance, in the narrations of Abu Hurayrah (RA), Abdullah ibn Ahmad (RA) recorded a report that when the rulers of Quraysh become corrupt, the Prophet (PBUH) advised people to withdraw from them.⁹⁹ Abdullah ibn Ahmad then wrote that his father, during his final illness, instructed him to remove this narration, because it contradicted all other authentic reports in which the Prophet (PBUH) had commanded obedience and patience even under unjust rulers.

Muti Syed: In your PhD thesis, you also mentioned that Imam Ahmad applied a dirayah-based principle: if a hadith is attributed to a Companion but that Companion’s own practice or opinion contradicts it, this indicates that the attribution is likely incorrect.

Ammar Nasir: Yes, Ibn Rajab documented several such cases in his writings on Imam Ahmad’s views. For example, narrations about mash ala al-khuffayn (wiping over leather socks) are attributed to Abu Hurayrah (RA) and Ibn Umar (RA), yet Imam Ahmad observed that Abu Hurayrah (RA) actually denied mash, and Ibn Umar (RA), upon seeing Sad ibn Abi Waqqas (RA) performing it, objected to him. This suggests that the attribution of such narrations to them is unreliable. Similarly, there is a well-known hadith attributed to Ayshah (RA): “Any woman who marries without the permission of her guardian, her marriage is invalid.” Imam Ahmad reportedly said that Ayshah’s own practice contradicted this—hence, if she truly narrated it, she would not have acted otherwise.¹⁰⁰ Interestingly, this same objection is raised by Hanafi jurists as well.

Muti Syed: In usul al-fiqh, Hanafi scholars also discuss manawi (content-based) criticism of hadith, and Ibn Khaldun mentioned principles of historical criticism. Are these all essentially the same methodology of dirayah, or do they differ?

Ammar Nasir: The fundamental idea behind all three—hadith criticism, juristic reasoning, and historical evaluation—is the same: a report’s content must be examined critically using all available knowledge, rather than relying solely on the narrators’ reliability. However, their methods and criteria differ significantly. Hadith scholars usually compare multiple chains and parallel reports to detect possible errors. Jurists go further, evaluating hadiths in light of the Quran, the established practice of the community, and analogical reasoning (qiyas). Historical criticism widens the scope even more—considering the general conditions, motives, and contextual factors surrounding events. Ibn Khaldun discussed these principles in his Muqaddimah, and some aspects were later elaborated by Shibli Numani in his introduction to Sirah al-Nabi. Western scholars, meanwhile, developed their own distinct approach to historical criticism, widely evident in the Orientalists’ studies of Islamic sources.

Muti Saeed: I was reading that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal issued a fatwa that spurious (raddi) ahadith should be burned. My question is: which kind of hadith were these that he wanted to have burned?

Ammar Nasir: Essentially, his aversion was toward reports that contained criticisms or disparagements of certain Companions, or which were used by some sectarian groups to demean them. Imam Ahmad’s position was that such reports should neither be narrated nor written down after hearing them. His reasoning was that they yield no religious benefit, while various groups were using them to spread aversion against the Companions, so one should avoid assisting them in that.¹⁰¹

Muti Saeed: This attitude is perhaps also found among some Companions. I think a similar incident is narrated about Salman al-Farsi (RA).

Ammar Nasir: Yes. It is reported about Salman al-Farsi (RA) that when he learned that Hudhayfah (RA) was conveying to people certain statements of the Prophet (PBUH) which he had said in anger about some Companions, Salman (RA) told him: “By doing so you will plant love for some Companions and hatred for others in people’s hearts.” Then he warned him that if he did not stop, he would write to Umar (RA) to complain.¹⁰²

Muti Saeed: In Musnad Ahmad, there are places where he says, qala Ahmad: hadha Hadith munkar—so he still included “rejected” (munkar) reports, while elsewhere he called for burning some.

Ammar Nasir: As I said, his stance was specifically regarding reports containing disparagement of the Companions, not a general ruling that every weak narration should be destroyed. Obviously, burning them would not erase their existence from the world. Since the reports already existed, the practical course was to record them along with his own critical judgment, thereby discharging scholarly responsibility.

Muti Saeed: Usually, however, we do not find that hadith scholars tried to erase weak reports; they simply pointed out their weakness. You also once said that the compilers of the Six Books preserved even spurious hadith, and that this was a good thing. Yet Imam Ahmad seems to have deliberately advocated their destruction.

Ammar Nasir: We must distinguish between the collective scholarly trend of the hadith scholars and the individual inclinations of some scholars that diverged from it. There is weight to the individual concern that unreliable reports—if they spread—would cause confusion and should therefore be eliminated. That could be an individual tendency, and it makes historical sense only during the period of hadith compilation. Once the material had been fully collected and recorded, it was no longer feasible. Imam Ahmad belonged to that very formative period. When the corpus was later codified and made accessible, the dominant scholarly approach became to preserve the entire body of material together with critical analysis, so that future generations could have both.

Muti Saeed: Meaning there was once a time when this could be acted upon, but not anymore.

Ammar Nasir: Historically it was a theoretical possibility, but even then perhaps not truly feasible. Compare this with Christian history: in early centuries many Gospels circulated among the people—dozens of them. The Church Fathers eventually selected some as authentic and suppressed or destroyed the rest. That was possible because the Church functioned as an institutional authority capable of deciding doctrinal matters.

Among Muslims, however, in the case of the Quran, the official preservation of its text was indeed ensured under state supervision, since the Companions were extremely sensitive about potential textual disagreements. But with hadith, no such institutional authority arose. Hence, the hadith scholars could not convene a council empowered to decree which reports must be preserved or destroyed. They simply had no ecclesiastical hierarchy comparable to the Church.

Political rulers could theoretically have done so, but very early in our tradition a clear distinction was established: political power would not interfere in religious and scholarly matters. Whenever it did—like under al-Ma’mun, influenced by the Mutazilites, or later al-Mutawakkil in favor of the Hanbalis—it was viewed unfavorably. Maintaining that separation was seen as a positive feature of Islamic civilization. You could say that within the Islamic tradition there existed its own form of “secularism”—meaning that political authority leaves the scholarly and religious tradition to evolve independently, without interference.

Muti Saeed: So did this separation arise spontaneously, or were there particular reasons behind it? It wasn’t something formally decided, was it?

Ammar Nasir: Indeed, it wasn’t formally legislated, but neither was it a mere accident. Within a civilization, various social and intellectual forces operate simultaneously, and through their combined influence history naturally takes a particular direction.

[To be continued]