Principles for Evaluating Historical Narrations: The Reports of Sayf ibn 'Umar and Abu Mikhnafضوابط التعامل مع الروايات التاريخية: مرويات سيف بن عمر وأبي مخنف

Questioner: How should one deal with the historical narrations of Sayf ibn 'Umar al-Tamimi, which appear frequently in works such as al-Bidayah wa'l-Nihayah and other books?

Sayf ibn 'Umar is weak in hadith; his reports appear frequently in the Tarikh (history) of the hadith master Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, alongside another narrator, Abu Mikhnaf Lut ibn Yahya, who was a Rafidi liar and is not to be relied upon at all. The reports of narrators like him are only cited for the purpose of illustration, not for reliance or use as evidence, for such people are unconcerned with what they transmit. Sayf ibn 'Umar, however, is of a lesser degree than Abu Mikhnaf, both in terms of precision and in terms of doctrinal deviation, yet even so his narrations must still be verified and not accepted without qualification.

I have spoken with you more than once about historical narrations, and about the tendency of some to be excessively harsh in matters of censure while being lax in matters of merit, with the result that this leads to slandering others on the basis of weak narrations. How can one wrong a Muslim, or a group, or unjustly accuse a people, on the strength of weak reports? This is not permissible. If something similarly unjust were said about you, you would object to it — so why do you transmit reports about others without verifying them first? This is a general principle I have mentioned to you regarding all historical narrations concerning rulers, caliphs, and others: it is said of them that they drank wine, that they committed grave sins, that they delayed the prayer or even neglected it. Yet when you ask for the source, you are referred to history books that gather together everything that has been said, good and bad alike. One must therefore verify claims of moral failing before repeating them, so that we do not attribute to others what we do not know to be true, lest we wrong or transgress against anyone.

If you wish to live safe from harm, with your religion preserved and your honor unblemished, then let your tongue speak no evil of others, for just as every person has faults, so too do people have tongues. To the degree that you speak of others, so will they speak of you; to the degree that you report about people, so will they report about you; and to the degree that you deal justly with people, so will they deal justly with you. What, then, should we present to people? A message built on the wish to slander and pass judgment on others is not our purpose, and this is why a number of the earlier scholars have been spoken of unjustly — through the uncritical transmission of such accounts without verification. It is not correct to say that virtues alone should be scrutinized while history at large need not be: to slander people under the guise of "this is history" — accusing them in their religion, their creed, and their conduct — would you be pleased to have your own religion and creed slandered under that same label? Such claims must be verified.

This is the first matter. The second matter concerns pure virtues — praise and commendation and the like — and this is far lighter than what precedes it, and one may be lenient in such matters; though leniency here does not mean authenticating a weak report, nor treating an abandoned or fabricating narrator as reliable, under these labels. The third matter concerns what is narrated and reported about the Companions, such as the events of the Battle of Siffin and the Battle of the Camel and what occurred between them — this too requires verification and confirmation, for much of what is transmitted regarding these events is not authentic. When people hear such reports and what is said to have occurred between the Companions, something inevitably settles in their hearts, however minor — wondering why they acted thus, and why they were thus — for some of these stories give the listener the impression that the Companions were seekers of this world, enamored of bloodshed, or that fighting and quarreling were their habit and manner of life. Reality contradicts this, and the facts refute such claims. It is therefore necessary that people transmit only what is established. Ibn Taymiyyah says in al-'Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah that much of what is transmitted about these events is sheer fabrication, and that what is authentic of it is a small portion, and that I hold the Companions to have been striving in interpretation (mujtahidun) in these matters — the one who was correct has two rewards, and the one who erred has one reward. It is obligatory upon the Muslims to have a good opinion of sincere scholars, let alone of the rightly-guided Companions, who were a source of rage to the enemy and the supporters of the religion of the Lord of the worlds, whom none loves but a believer and none hates but a hypocrite — the bearers of the Sharia, the closest of people to the Prophet ﷺ, and the most beloved of creation to him after the Prophets and Messengers, unmatched in their like, and the best of creation absolutely after the Prophets and Messengers.

النص العربي الأصلي