The Companion and Their `Adala

The Companion and Their `Adala
Ahmad Mubarok, Pasca UIN Suka, Yogyakarta
The word sahaba is originated from the word subhah which means accompanying someone else in a particular time. Muhammad `Ajjal al-Khatib defenis sahaba as people who accompany or follow someone else for a while or long time.
Among Muslim scholars, there are various opinions about the definition of sahaba. Some Muslim scholars define sahaba by focusing on the time in wich they meet the Prophet for a while, or for a specific period as in one month or one year. The others argue that the most important thing in the definition of sahaba is the acceptance of hadith from the prophet or the participation in a battle lead by the prophet.
The following are some opinions of the ulama about sahaba.
a.al-Bukhari argues that sahaba is a Muslim who accompanied or met the Prophet.
b.Ahmad bin Hanbal says that everyone who meets the Prophet for a while or for some period (one year, one month, or one day) is claimed sahaba.
c.Quating opinions of some scholars, Ibn Sala states that sahaba is everyone who accepts the hadith or the doctrines of Islam from the Prophet.
d.Sa`id ibn Musayyab says that sahaba is a people who live in the period of the Prophet for one or two years and involyed him/herself in a battle lead by the prophet.
e.Ibn Hazm defines sahaba in the following way-by arguing that everyone who sat together in a majlis ( cirle of discussion) with the Prophet and accepted his teachings can be claimed as sahaba.
f.Al-Waqidi says that sahaba is an adult person who met prophet and accepted Islamic teachings by his logic.
g.Ibn al-Jawzi argues that Jarir ibn Abdillah al-bajali was considered sahaba although he became a Muslim in 10 H. he says that every one who mwt or saw the Prophet without involving him/herself in the battle lead by the Prophet, or if he/she was a child when the prophet died is considered sahaba.
h.Ibn Hajar argues that sahaba is everyone who met the Prophet and believed in his teachings and died as a Muslim. This opinion is the opinion of the majority of Muslim scholars (jumhur al-`ulama). The definition covers a wide range of some aspects: everyone who met the prophet, whether he transmitted the the hadith from the Prophet or not, wis involved in the battle or not, was seated together with the Prophet or not. This definition also covers any person who has never seen the prophet due to his blind.
From the definitions above, it can be concluded that everyone who lived in the period of the Prophet, whether he or she was an infant or an adult, who met the prophet for a while, whether or not he or she had time to sit together with the Prophet, who transitted a hadith from the Prophet or not, who joined in the battle with the Prophet or not, or even if he or she has done an apostasy and came back to be Muslim and died as a Muslim, he or she is a sahaba. Meanwhile, a person who lived in the period of the Prophet and never met the Prophet, although he believed in Islamic teachings like Ashamah al-Najasyi, was not considered as sahaba.
Al-Nawawi and al-`Iraqi says that a child who had an ability to understand a story an believed in Islamic teachings and lived in the period of the Prophet was considered sahaba. Al-hasan and al-Husain, the two sons of `Ali and Mahmud ibn al-Rabi` were children and can be considered as belonging to this classification.
A. How to Know the sahabat of the prophet?

There are some wasy to know if a person is sahaba.
a.There is a khabar mutawatir (continuous hadith): Abu Bakar, Umar ibn al-Khattab, `Uthamn ibn `affan and `Ali ibn Talib were sahabat. Another hadith said that 10 people who were guaranteed as the tenants of heaven were sahaba. They were Sa`ad ibn Abi Waqas, Sa`id ibn Zaid, Talhah ibn Ubaidillah, al-Zubair ibn al-`awwam, Abdurrahman ibn `Awf and Abu `Ubaidillah `Amir ibn al-jarrah and the four Caliphs.
b.There is a khabr masyhur (well known hadith) stating that Damam ibn Tha`laba and `Akasyah ibn muhassin were sahaba.
c.A khabar stating that someone is sahaba like the report of Abu Musa al-Asy`ari saying that Hummah ibn Abi Hummah al-Dausi was a sahaba.
d.A. Confession from a good Muslim saying that he or she was a sahaba living in the period of the Prophet.
The confession from a certain Muslim as a sahaba is accepted as long as he or she died before 110 H. Muslims from the clan of `Aus and khazraj living in the period of the Prophet were considered sahaba although they have never been discussed. This also happened to the people who lived in Medina and before 1o H and follwed the prophet and went to Mecca to perfom pilgrimage called hajj wada`. The were sahaba. But if a person claimed he or she was a sahaba and died in 200 H like Ja`far nathur al-Rumi, it is sure that he was liar.

B. `Adala al-Sahaba
`Adala is the good character of a person who insists on obeying the rules made by god (taqwa) by performing whatever God commands and leaving whatever God forbids. Ulamas said that a rawi is `adil if the rawi has a strong commitment to perfom his or her religious pratices and leaves whatever attitudes and practices which make him fall into being a bad person.
Commenting on this, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi argues tahat a person is considered`adil if he has a strong commitment to perform his religious activites and worries about saying any bad word and displaying any attitude which causes him to fall into becoming a bad person. This people is considered `adil and the hadith transmitted from and reported by him is considered valid and authoritative. This opinion is based on the hadith arguing that:
Whoever has never made zalim (cruelty) to other people, has never lied when he talked with them, has never ignored his promises with them, is the best person about whom everyone is forbidden to talk badly about.
Al-Shafi`I said that al-rawi al-`adil is a rawi who is trustworthy in his religious practices, Abu Yusuf argues that averyone who is free from sin punished by hell, and charity is much than his sin, he can be categorized as `adil.
One of the main requirements of the acceptance of the transmission is that it is transmitted by a good person, a person who has never lied. His honesty is a mirror of his piety which pursues him to have a good atcitude (amanah). Telling a lie in the transmission of hadith is a big sin and it is absolutely prohibited as stated by a hadith: The Prophet said; “Whoever says something in the name of me, whereas I have never said, he would be punished by hell”.
Moreover, Al-Shafi`I, Ahmad and Abu Bakar al-Humaidi said that whoever tells a lie in presenting one`s expression and then he or she repents for his sin, he is considered a good person, but if he lies in presenting hadith, although he repents for his sin, he is still considered a bad person. In this case, according to al-Shafi`I, Ibn Salah states: “Everyone who is considered as a person who transmits invalid transmission because of telling a lie, I will never accept his transmission although he repents for his sin.
The falsehood of a transitter in his transmission can be shown from his statement like the statement of a rawi who said that he has transmitted a hadith from his teacher, whereas the teacher had died before the rawi was born. Another example is a rawi who reports a hadith containing contradictory information from the other sources in hadith transmitted by rawi who is well known as a good and authoritative one. It is also possible that transmitted the hadith from a teacher, whereas the teacher has reported different hadith.
In deciding a valid rawi in the chain of the transmission of hadith ulamas have made a specific methodology called `ilm al-Jarh wa t al-ta`dil (the science of criticism of the reporters of hadith). Fachruddin and al-Amidi said that this methodology can be examined by only one person. If a rawi has been examined by a specialist, and the specialist claimed that the rawi is authoritative, the rawi is considered an authoritative ane.

C.Ulama`s view on adala al-Sahaba
The study of adala al-sahaba is one of the important things in ilm al-hadith because it is a decisive requisite of a valid hadith, mukallaf and dabit. Relating to adala al-sahaba, there is a controversial principle: a principle saying that: al-sahaba kulluhum udulun (all companion are `adil). In commenting on this statement, there are varying opinions.
Firstly, there are some `ulama arguing that not all sahaba are `adil, especially who were living after the death of the prophet and after the case of fitna. Sahaba who can be included in this category are:
a.The group of sahaba known as Shi`ite. They argued that all sahaba living in the period of the life of Muhammad are adil, but all sahaba who supported the doctrine of khilafa and involved themselves in the consensus in dar al-Nadwa after the death of Muhammad were not `adil because they seized the khilafa from `Ali ibn Abi Thalib. Sahaba like abu Bakar, `Umar, Uthman, `Aishah, Talhah, `Amr ibn `Ash were not considered `adil. The group of Zaidiyah even argues that Abu Bakar, `Umar and Uthman were infidels. While the group of imamiyya argues that most of sahaba follwing the death of the prophet are people who apostate from Islam except `Ali ibn Talib, his sons and thirteen other people.
b.Mu`tazila which was promoted by Wasil ibn Atha. They doubted `Ali`s capacity, his two sons, Ibn Abbas, Talhah. Al-Zubair, `Aishah and aal sahaba who involved themselves in the battle between `Ali and `Aisha because they have committed serious sin. But Mu`tazila did not know the precise position of these sahaba. Tlha and al-Zubair, especially because they were guranteed as ahl al-janna ( tenants of heaven).
c.Khawarij. They argue that sahaba who accepted arbitration (tahkim) in the battle of siffin ore not `adil, and even that some of them are infidels. Among them who were considered infidels are Ali and his two sons, Uthman, Aisha, Talha, al-Zubair, Ibn Abbas, Abu Ayub al-Ansari and all sahaba who were not willing to separate from `Ali and Muawiyyah. The group of-alKamiliyya argued that Ali was not `adil because he did an apostasy and became an infidel. He also did not want to punish the sahaba who involved themsenes in kelling Uthman.
Secondly, some `ulama argue that all sahaba cannot be considered `Adil. Whether sahaba lived in the time of Muhammad or after they may not have been considered adil. According to them, it is an obligation to examine the circumstances to determine if sahaba transmitted a hadith from the Prophet. Two different opinions can be derived from this group:
a.`Ulama who argues that basically, all sahaba should be examined their `adala except those who are known their `adala based on khabar mashur or mutawatir.
b.`Ulama who say that only sahaba who invoived themselves in the conflict of fitna and who lived after this time.
This opinion is based on the fact that some sahaba were not `adil some of them are fasiq, munafiq, drunker, commited adultery adultery and thievery. Some of then even involved themselves in killing Umar, `Uthman, `Ali and Husain.
It can be determined that if there is a prohibition, there are people who break it. It also happens to the prohibitions stated in the Qur`an. In the period of sahaba, there were some people who broke the law and they were then considered not adil. To explain the validity of sahaba in the transmission of hadith, futher examination is absolutely needed. This examination can be done by guidance of the kitab rijal al-hadith, the kitab of Quranic exegess in which asbab nuzul al-ayat were mentioned and in the kitab syarh al-hadith.
D. Conclusion
From the explanation above, it can be concluded that there are two major opinions among ulama in response to the principle: al-Sahaba kulluhum `udulun. These two opinions cannot be synchronized. Firstly, some ulama argue that not all sahaba were adil. Some of them are fasiq, munafiq and liars and if they reported a hadith from the prophet, their `adala should be examined. If there is evidence that they were not valid reporters, the hadith should be rejecred, let alone if the content of the hadith (matn al-hadth) contradicts the essence of the Qur`an or other more valid hadith. The examination of the validity of sahaba aims to accept the hadith carefully in order to keep the originality of Islamic doctrines. If the examination is conducted on the basis of the fanaticism of particular group, as for example Shi`ite who condemn some sahaba, the result should be rejected.
Secondly, the majority of `ulama (jumhur al-`ulama) say that all sahaba were `adil (al-sahaba kulluhum `udul). All sahaba were authoritative in reporting hadith from the prophet. They were the first generation of Muslim to whom the praise from Allah and His messenger address. It is impossible for them to speak lies in the dissemination of Islamic teachings, because they were the guardians of Islamic teachings and the generation who fully obeyed the Prophet. They disseminated the doctrines of Islam carefully. If mistake were made, they were made outside of their awareness, and not intended as lies.