Sample Translation(Hadeeth article):
On the other hand, the hadīths that an author will record into his book are
first of all at his discretion. Consequently, one author may open a section with
the name of "The Sin of Lie" and may narrate many hadīths there, but he may
not transmit the " ......... " hadīth due to his preference. For instance,
while this hadīth was not found among the narrations forbidding lying in
Wakī' b. Jarrāh's az-Zuhd,
91
it was extensively mentioned in the Hannād's az-Zuhd.92
But the hadīthin question does not appear with its famous form in the
published parts of Kitāb Dzamm al-kidzbof Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, who was a
pupil of Ibn Abī Shayba, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Bukhārī and other contemporary scholars. Hence because he was their pupil, he was expected to know it.
93
Besides, although Kharāitī -who lived in a relatively later era-, had allocated a
chapter for hadīths forbidding lies in his book, he did not put this hadīth in his book.95
So, we may not reach a sound conclusion if we expect that the "....
... hadīth must be found in every section where hadīths forbidding lies
are mentioned.
As a result, Juynboll's claim that the hadīth in question began to circulate in
the second half of the second century A.H. and his other conclusions seem to
be unacceptable because sources like Ma'mar b. Rāshid and Rabī' b. Habīb
transmitted the same hadīth, and because of the methodological criticisms that
were put forward against argument um e silentio. This does not mean that "e
silentio" is useless for the sciences of narration. "E silentio" can be used as further
support without forgetting its shortcomings, along with the employment other
methods.
Abstract:The aim of this article is to investigate the "e silentio" principle that has been used in
the West and whether it is in conformity with the principles of hadīth narration during the
first three centuries, in addition to how it can be supported by currently available data. The
experiment of dating the hadīth of "man kadhaba." with this principle by Juynboll gives us
an idea about its usefulness. Thus, in this article the "man kadhaba." the hadīth is investigated
in the context of at-Tabarani's Turuq Man kadhaba 'alayya. as well as the other fundamental hadīth
literature and Juynboll's findings about the hadīthis examined. This research also provides
opportunities to determine how the isnād and the text of a hadīth were treated in the first
centuries.
On the other hand, the hadīths that an author will record into his book are
first of all at his discretion. Consequently, one author may open a section with
the name of "The Sin of Lie" and may narrate many hadīths there, but he may
not transmit the " ......... " hadīth due to his preference. For instance,
while this hadīth was not found among the narrations forbidding lying in
Wakī' b. Jarrāh's az-Zuhd,
91
it was extensively mentioned in the Hannād's az-Zuhd.92
But the hadīthin question does not appear with its famous form in the
published parts of Kitāb Dzamm al-kidzbof Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, who was a
pupil of Ibn Abī Shayba, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Bukhārī and other contemporary scholars. Hence because he was their pupil, he was expected to know it.
93
Besides, although Kharāitī -who lived in a relatively later era-, had allocated a
chapter for hadīths forbidding lies in his book, he did not put this hadīth in his book.95
So, we may not reach a sound conclusion if we expect that the "....
... hadīth must be found in every section where hadīths forbidding lies
are mentioned.
As a result, Juynboll's claim that the hadīth in question began to circulate in
the second half of the second century A.H. and his other conclusions seem to
be unacceptable because sources like Ma'mar b. Rāshid and Rabī' b. Habīb
transmitted the same hadīth, and because of the methodological criticisms that
were put forward against argument um e silentio. This does not mean that "e
silentio" is useless for the sciences of narration. "E silentio" can be used as further
support without forgetting its shortcomings, along with the employment other
methods.
Abstract:The aim of this article is to investigate the "e silentio" principle that has been used in
the West and whether it is in conformity with the principles of hadīth narration during the
first three centuries, in addition to how it can be supported by currently available data. The
experiment of dating the hadīth of "man kadhaba." with this principle by Juynboll gives us
an idea about its usefulness. Thus, in this article the "man kadhaba." the hadīth is investigated
in the context of at-Tabarani's Turuq Man kadhaba 'alayya. as well as the other fundamental hadīth
literature and Juynboll's findings about the hadīthis examined. This research also provides
opportunities to determine how the isnād and the text of a hadīth were treated in the first
centuries.
على الشق الآخر, الأحاديث التى يوردها المصنف
فى كتابه حسب تقديره ابتداء. و بناء على ذلك قد يبدأ المصنف (المؤلف) القسم
(الكتاب فى اصطلاح المحدثين) بمسمى خطيئة الكذب و و يروى أحاديثاً كثيرة هنالك, و
لكنه قد لا ينقل حديث"................" بسبب اختياره\تفضيله. فعلى سبيل
المثال ,مع أن هذا الحديث لم يوجد ضمن المرويات المحرمة للكذب فى كتاب الزهد لوكيع
بن الجراح, فقد ذكرت على نطاق واسع فى
كتاب الزهد لهناد بن السرى.
لكن الحديث محل البحث لا يظهر بصورته
المشهورة فى الأجزاء المطبوعة من كتاب ذم الكذب لابن ابى الدنيا, الذي كان تلميذا
لابن ابى شيبة و أحمد ابن حنبل و البخارى و غيرهم من العلماء المتأخرين (المتأخرين
اطلاحاً بالنسبة للنص). من هنا, لكونه تلميذا لهم كان من المتوقع أن يعرفه.
علاوة على ذلك, فبالرغم من أن الخرائطى الذى
عاش فى مرحلة متأخرة نسبيا, خصص فصلاً للأحاديث المحرمة للكذب فى كتابه, فانه لم
يضمن هذا الحديث كتابه.
لذا, فاننا قد لا نصل الى استنتاج مقنع, لو
توقعنا أن حديث"..................." يجب أن يوجد فى كل قسم يذكر فيه
الأحاديث المحرمة للكذب.
و كنتيجة, فإن زعم جوينبول بأن الحديث محل
البحث بدأ يستفيض فى النصف الثانى من القرن الثانى بعد الهجرة, و استنتاجاته
الاخرى تبدو غير مقبولة لأن مصادر مثل معمر بن راشد و حبيب بن الربيع نقلوا الحديث
ذاته, و بسبب الانتقادات المنهجية التى طرحت ضد حجاج سيلينتيو (النتائج المستنبطة
من غياب الأدلة). هذا لا يعني أن حجج سيلينتو لا نفع منها بالنسبة لعلوم الرواية,
حجج السيلينتو من الممكن ان تستخدم كدعم اضافى مع عدم اغفال أوجه قصورها, جنبا الى جنب مع توظيف وسائل اخرى.
lملخص: هدف هذه المقالة هو تحقيق مبدأ السيلينتو (النتيجة
المستنبطة من غياب الأدلة) الذى قد استعمل فى الغرب و ما اذا كان فيه توافق مع
قواعد رواية الحديث فى القرون الثلاثة الاولى. بالاضافة الى كيفية دعمها
بالمعلومات المتوافرة حالياً. تجربة تأريخ حديث "من كذب......" باستخدام
هذا المبدأ بواسطة جوينبول يعطينا فكرة عن فائدته. من ثم, ففى هذه المقالة, حديث
من كذب قد تم تحقيقه في سياق كتب الطبرانى "طرق حديث من كذب على...." بالاضافة
الى مصادر اساسية اخرى للحديث ,و مكتشفات جوينبول حول الحديث تختبر(قيد الاختبار). هذا البحث
يقدم أيضا فرصا لتحديد كيف كان يعالج الاسناد و المتن فى القرون الاولى.
Translated by, Mostafa Deraz
