Alsiraj Official Website
Sayings (Hadiths) of Prophet Muhammad
Story-tellers
Yet another thing to beware of in a discussion on Hadith is the mixing up of hadith with stories related by story-tellers.
As in every other nation, there had grown up among the Muslims a class of fable-mongers whose, business it was to tickle the fancies of the masses by false stories. These were either taken up from the Jews, Christians and Persians, with whom the Muslims came in contact, or they were simply concocted.
The professional story-tellers were called the qussas (pl. of qass, and derived from qassa, meaning he related a story), and they seem to have sprung up early, for as Razi says, the Caliph Ali ordered that whosoever should relate the story of David as the story-tellers (qussas) relate it (the reference being to the story taken from the Bible as to David having committed adultery with Uriah’s wife), should be given 160 stripes, that being double the punishment of the ordinary slanderer (Rz. VII, p. 187, 38: 2 1-25).
This shows that the story-teller had begun his work even at that early date, but then it must be remembered that the story-teller was never confounded with the reporter of hadith even by the ignorant masses. His vocation, being of a lower status, was necessarily quite distinct. Hadith was regularly taught in schools in the different centres, as I have already shown, and its teachers were in the first instance well-known Companions of the Holy Prophet, such as Abu Huraira, Ibn Umar, ‘A’isha whose place was later on taken by equally well-known masters of Hadith from among the Tabi’in (the successors of the Companions).
No story-teller, whose sphere of action was limited to some street corner, where he might attract the attention of passers-by and perhaps gather round him a few loiterers, could aspire even to approach a school of hadith.
As a writer quoted by Guillaume (on p. 82 of his book) says: “They collect a great crowd of people round them: one Qass stations himself at one end of the street and narrates traditions about the merits of Ali, while his fellow stands at the other end of. the street exalting the virtues of Abu Bakr. Thus they secure the pence of the Nasibi as well as the Shi’i, and divide their gains equally afterwards." It is difficult to believe that such beggars and braggarts could be mistaken for reporters of hadith by any sensible person; yet even scholars like Sir William Muir and other famous Orientalists often try to confound the two, and speak of these stories as though they had some connection with hadith. Even if it be true that some of them have found a place in certain commentaries, whose authors had a love for the curious and gave but scant heed to the sifting of truth from error, the Muhaddithin that is, the collectors of Hadith, would never dream of accepting a story from such a source.
They knew the story-tellers and their absurdities well enough, and indeed so scrupulous were they in making their selections that they would not accept a report if one of the reporters was known ever to have told a lie or fabricated a report in a single instance.
This much every European critic of Hadith must needs admit; how then could such people accept the puerile inventions of the street story-teller who, it was well-known, followed his vocation merely and openly for the few coins it might bring.
That there are some incredible stories even in the collections of hadith is perfectly true, but they are so rare that not the least discredit can justly be thrown on the collections themselves on that account, the reason for their existence being something quite different.
|
|
|