FALSE HADITH, IDENTITY, AND CONTESTATION OF THOUGHT: The Analysis of hadith on the division of Muhammad’s Ummah in the Historical Dimension

Abstract: This study positioning false hadiths (mawdhû‘) as historical documents and historical data, not just past information, which is considered wrong and must be avoided. The hadith used as the object of study was the Prophet’s words, “All will go to heaven except the al-Zanâdiqa group.” The main issue that we want to explore is what matters behind the hadith’s emergence. Using a historical approach, normative analysis, and historical, this study shows: first, that the hadith is considered a false hadith, both from its sanad and matan aspects. However, the assessment of these two aspects does not co-occur. Second, the diction of “al-Zanâdiqa,” which is interpreted with the al-Qadariyyah sect, appeared in the verbal form before the 4th century AH/10 AD as a form of resistance to the al-Qadariyyah sect. However, since the 4th century AH/10th AD, the hadith has entered into various hadith literature as a form of resistance to the hadith’s existence as a false hadith. Third, in the 6th century AH/12th AD, this hadith became a new discourse, namely as an authentic hadith but without the addition of the diction of “al-Qadariyyah.” In the 10th century AH/16th AD or the 12th century AH/18th AD, and in the 14th century AH/20th AD, it also appeared to the public. This finding also shows that hadith was one of the authoritative tools to corner groups considered the opposite of the mainstream, causing contestation and discourse shift.


Introduction
The hadith "All will go to heaven except the al-Zanâdiqa group" since its inception is referred to as a problematic hadith, both from its sanad (the chain of transmission) and matan (the content or text) aspects.The downbeat assessment from the sanad aspect is narrated by narrators who do not meet the qualifications as acceptable narrators.
The matan aspect is considered to violate other hadiths believed to be accountable whose matans are contradictory to that hadith. 1 The | 32 general assessment of this hadith ends with the conclusion that it is a false hadith (mawdhû').This assessment implies that the hadith in various works of literature is nothing more than an example of a hadith that must be avoided because it does not meet the criteria as authentic hadith (shahîh; valid) hasan, or weak(dha'if), which can still be tolerated.From this point, the false hadith has only been seen ethically that it is not feasible, and the perpetrator is threatened with the torments of hell. 2 If there is also an important work on false hadith on the title al-Wadh'u fî al-Hadîts by al-Du'ailaj, but, he only presents the hadith as an example of a false hadith. 3 far, there has not been a specific study of the hadith except the hadith's scientific aspectsas mentioned above -namely, from the aspects of sanad and matan.The monodisciplinary approach to false hadith is a common phenomenon by scholars of false hadith, even in current studies.A simple example can be seen in Istianah, Kuswandi, Marfuah, and Darwisyah; Ali Sati and Yahya, who tend to dwell only on the terminology of false hadith the law is narrated and put into practice. 4tudies of false hadith with this model tend only to repeat the studies of the scholars.Nur Afrizal and Abd Wahid conducted another example of a study and focused on how the ulama's contribution, role, and strategy in preventing and anticipating the spread of false hadiths in the Muslim community; 5 This includes studies conducted by Sakat (et al.), and Aslamiah, which examine false hadiths and their implications for Muslim life. 6wever, the hadiths that have been recorded well in various works or literature have become historical data.For this reason, it is not sufficiently relevant to examine only that those who have committed lies on behalf of the Prophet have committed grave sins.Likewise, a study is not sufficient to provide a comprehensive description if it is only limited to how scholars have used various methods to ward off the development of false hadith, both in the past and in the present, including other normative-monodisciplinary studies.As historical data, it needs to be approached with a historical approach, in addition to the hadith scientific approach itself.Thus, the main question that needs to be answered is "What event triggered the emergence of this hadith?"considering the question is related to events, which means more than just a religious issue.In this case, al-Du'ailaj did mention this hadith's existence due to the forgery by al-Abrad to dispel the al-Qadariyyah thought in his time.However, there is no further explanation other than that. 7e main question above will accommodate an important aspect that was not present in previous studies.One such aspect is the historicity of the false hadith.In this case, the main question will be specified in three derivative questions: first, why is the hadith "All will go to heaven except one group" called a false hadith?This question affirmed that the discourse of the hadiths of the ummah's division is not necessarily considered a false hadith.In other words, there must be a fundamental reason why these judgments surface.Second, how did the discourse on al-Zanâdiqa understood as al-Qadariyyah , exist in early Islam to trigger the emergence of this hadith?This question was asked to see more clearly the correlation between the emergence of the hadiths of the ummah's division and the al-Qadariyyah sect's existence.Third, how can the hadiths about the ummah divisions appear again in various discourses across history?This question will look further at how the hadith's discourse has shifted from one time to another.
The important assumption of the questions: first, the hadith above is questioned; it should not be separated from two main possibilities: problematically from sanad aspects or its matan, or both at once.However, one or two of these fundamental aspects form the basis for assessing the hadith's quality, whether it is worthy of being called a false hadith or just a weak hadith, and so on.Second, the emergence and efforts to bring back the above hadith in the religious discourse were never separated from the situation and conditions at that time.This also applies to the existence of a group called al-Zanâdiqa mentioned in the hadith's matan.With this assumption, the hadith about the division of the ummah, who are all considered safe except for the al-Zanâdiqa group does not rule out the possibility of being a form of concrete resistance by some religious elites to groups; that is considered "deviant."Third, the hadith's existence concerning the ummah division is considered problematic by one generation and maybe judged differently by another.This happens because of the different paradigms used by each generation.

Method
This study is a literature study using a historical approach.Thus, the entire analysis process is based on written data and correlates with situations and conditions in the past, especially when the hadith about the ummah divisions were raised.The situations and conditions referred to include when the hadith appeared, who was involved, and what other situations and conditions were involved, including about the development of the science of kalam; considering the al-Zanâdiqa, which is then interpreted as al-Qadariyyah as an inseparable part of the discourse of kalam science itself.In particular, important works or literature in the field of hadith science ('ulûm alhadîts), history of hadith narrators (rijâl al-hadîts,  târîkh al-ruwâh, al-jarh wa al-ta'dîl), and literature containing codification the relevant hadith will be the primary literature.Outside of these main works or literature, the position is secondary literature.
Applicatively, the analysis method used in this study is mapped into three.First, normative analysis.It has based on hadith science, namely the takhrîj method, sanad criticism, and matan criticism.This method is used in order to trace the existence of related hadiths in various primary works and to ascertain whether the narrators involved in the sanad and their hadith matans can be accepted or not.Second, historical -hermeneutical analysis.In this case, the paradigm used is that the hadith appears in a specific historical space."Al-Zanâdiqa" or "al-Qadariyyah" will be the main keywords in the analysis.Simply put, the hadith about the ummah division will be correlated with the situation and conditions that were developing at that time, namely in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th century AH.The historical analysis in this section is carried out diachronic.Third, historical analysis of related hadiths as part of the discourse can shift under the paradigms that develop every time and generation.

Hadith in Historical Dimensions
Hadith refers to all things originating from the Prophet, whether in words, deeds, provisions, etc. 8 8 Abd al-Rahmân ibn Ibrâhîm Al-Khamîsî, Mu'jam 'Ulûm Al-Hadîts Al-Nabawî, (Jeddah: Dâr Ibn Hazm, n.d.), p. 91; Syaraf  al-Dîn al-Husain Al-Thîbî, Syarh Al-Thîbî' Alâ Misykâh Al-Mashâbîh,  ed.Abd al-Hamîd Hindâwî, (Riyad: Maktabah Nazâr Mushthafâ  al-Bâz, 1997), II, p. 371; Amr 'Abd al-Mun'im Salîm, Al-Mu'allim  Fî Ma'rifah 'Ulûm Al-Hadîts, (Arab Saudi: al-Dâr al-Tadmuriyyah,  2005), p. 13; Abû al-Fadhl Ahmad ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalânî, Fath Al-Bârî Syarh Shahîh Al-Bukhârî, (Bairut: Dâr al-Ma'rifat, n.d.), I,  p. 193; Alî Nâyif Biqâ'î, Al-Ijtihâd Fî 'Ulûm Al-Hadîts Wa Atsaruh  Fi Al-Fiqh Al-Islâmî, (Bairut: Dâr al-Basyâ'ir al-Islâmiyah, n.d.), p.  34; Syuhudi Ismail, Pengantar Ilmu Hadits, (Bandung: Angkasa,  | 34   However, a false hadith (Arabic: hadîts mawdhû') refers to a hadith which the Prophet never actually said, did, or ordained.In this term, the word "hadith" is only because of his conversion to the Prophet and not because it originated from him. 9In simple terms, the falsity of a hadith comes from sanad, matan, or both.There are specific criteria related to this.From the aspect of sanad, for example, false hadith is seen from several aspects: sourced from a narrator known to be a liar, based on his confession, and so on.Meanwhile, from the aspect of matan, it can be seen from: the sentence structure that does not show the characteristics of the Prophet's words; contrary to the text of the Quran, or an authentic hadith (mutawatir), contradicts historical facts, and so on.More than that, political interests, the goal of gaining popularity, group fanaticism, and so on triggered the fabrication or falsity of hadith. 10n broader history, hadith's existence is also used for specific purposes which have triggered contestations between religious groups, especially in the past. 11Ibn Qutaiba (d.276 AH/889 AD), as a hadith scholar and Islamic history, recorded how this contestation took place in his time, the 3rd century AH/9 AD.At that time, the Khawârij, Murji'a, Qadariyya, Râfidha, and others were widely recognized as sects with large followers.They contested each other, even using the Prophet's hadiths.These hadiths then became synonymous with their movements.The Khawârij sect, for example, is identical with the hadith, which affirms that Muhammad's ummah will always be in the truth.The Murji'a sect is identical with the hadith about tawheed.The Qadariyya sect is identical to the hadith about the nature of mankind as Muslims, but it can change due to his parents' actions to cause him to become a Jew or a Christian.Simultaneously, the Râfidha sect is identical to the hadith about Alî as the person who is considered the most entitled to become caliph after the Prophet's death.12More than that, each adherent of a religious group in the early falsified the Prophet's hadith to support their group or attack other groups of people who were considered different. 13n Qutaiba describes how these groups contest each other and how they identify themselves -one of which uses hadith -as a specific group.This identification is then transformed into an identity that continues to stick.However, the Prophet's hadith, which tends to be diverse, opens space for the birth of various understandings and pdf; Marpuah and Ahmad Zamree, "Kesan Hadis Maudhu' Dalam Amalan Umat Islam"; Sati, "Hadis Palsu Dan Hukum Meriwayatkannya"; Sakat et al., "The Fabricated Hadith: A Review on Its Implication to Society"; Yulanda, "Kajian Hadis-Hadis Palsu Yang Populer Oleh Ustadz Adi Hidayat: Studi Atas Fenomena Hadis Di YouTube"; Aslamiah, "Hadis Maudhu Dan Akibatnya"; Ali Mustafa Yaqub, Kritik Hadis, (Jakarta: Pustaka  Firdaus, 2011), 6th ed,; Teungku Muhammad Hasbi Ash-Shiddieqy,  Sejarah & Pengantar Ilmu Hadits, (Semarang: Pustaka Rizki Putra,  2009), 3rd ed.
interpretations.This difference in understanding and interpretations has led to the birth of such an attitude.Ibn Qutaiba himself admitted this. 14However, efforts to affirm identity through religious texts are often carried out by making a bad image or giving a negative label to different groups.The label "hashwiyya" or "hashawiyya," for example, was assigned to a group of Hadith Scholar groups by Khawarij, Rafida and others."Hashwiyya" or "hashawiyya" itself can be understood as an inferior or despicable expression, including the label "pharaohyya/fir'auniyya," which means the pharaoh group pinned by the Jahmiyya sect to a group of Hadith scholars. 15 The Hadith "All will go to heaven except al-Zanâdiqa" as a False Hadith The hadith of the Prophet, which states that his ummah will be divided into more than 70 sects and only one will be harmed, is a hadith marginalized in the hadith discourse about the division of the ummah (hadith al-iftiraq).This hadith can only be traced in secondary literature, namely al-'Uqailî (d.322 AH/934 AD), al-Jûraqânî (w.543 AH/1148 AD), Ibn al-Jauzî (d.597 AH/1201 AD), al-Suyûthî (d.911 AH/1505 AD) and Ibn 'Irâq (d.963 AH/1556 AD).The matan of this hadith states that only one will be harmed, namely the al-Zanâdiqa group. 16The matan of the hadith by al-'Uqailî (d.322 AH/934 AD) referred to is as follows: 14 'Abd Allâh ibn Qutaibah al-Dînawarî, Ta'wîl Mukhtalif  See, Ahmad Sardâr Muhammad Mahr Al-Dîn, Al-Mabâhits Al-'Aqdiyyah Fi Hadîts Iftirâq Al-Umam, (Madinah: Maktabah al-Malak Fahd, 2009), II, 1st ed., pp.099-1119.16 Abû Ja'far al-'Uqailî Al-Makkî, Al-Dhu'Afâ' Al-Kabîr,  ed. Ab al-Mu'thî Amîn Al-Qal'ajî, (Bairut: Dâr al-Maktabah  al-'Ilmiyyah, 1984)    p. 201. 18 All off the sanad of these hadith scholars is almost the same, emptying al-Abrad and Yâsîn al-Zayyât.They differ only slightly in the sanad under the two narrators.However, the difference in names or the addition of narrators in the series of hadiths is understandable.Given that they are not one generation and do not live in the same place. Inthis case, it needs to be reiterated; several names in the chain of sanad have received special attention, namely, al-Abrad ibn al-Ashras, who is considered a liar.Khalaf ibn Yâsîn al-Zayyât, a weak narrator (dha'îf) and his hadith is munkar -in this case, Yâsîn narrated this hadith via the al-Abrad; sometimes he mentions as from Yahyâ ibn Sa'îd, sometimes also mentions from Sa'îd ibn Sa'îd-; Mu'âż ibn Yâsîn al-Zayyât, is called an unknown narrator (majhûl) and his hadith is judged to be unguarded (gair mahfûzh).Khalaf ibn Yâsîn al-Zayyât referred to as an unknown narrator; Hafsh ibn 'Umar is called a liar; whereas 'Utsmân ibn' Affân is known as a narrator whose hadith is abandoned (matrûk al-hadîth).See, Abû Ja'far al-'Uqailî Al-Makkî, Al-Dhu'Afâ ' Al-Kabîr…, p. 201 At the beginning of its appearance, namely, in the 4th century AH/10 AD, the assessment that the hadith was false was emphasized on the sanad aspect.Since the 6th century AH/12th AD, the same assessment has also been strengthened by explaining the problem from the aspect of its matan, besides still confirming the scholar's assessment from the sanad aspect.In this regard, al-Jûraqânî mentioned that the observations of the related hadith are different and chaotic.In the 8th century AH/14th AD, criticism with the same pattern also appeared.Ibn Taimiyyah (d.728 AH/1328 AD) highlighted the diction "al-Zanâdiqa" in the hadith's matan. Acording to him, this word is not found in the Prophet's hadith, as is not found in the Quran.19 Al-Żahabî (d.748 AH/1347 AD) is another scholar who reiterates that the hadith is problematic and considers it a contradictory hadith.20 The statement of al-Żahabî is quoted by Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalânî (d.852 AH/1448 AD) with the addition of information that the matan of the hadith destroys meaning.For Ibn Hajar, the well-known hadith about this explains the opposite.He also mentioned that the hadith is messy, both in terms of sanad and matan, and what is certain is that the structure of the matan is reversed.21 It is also clearly and conscientiously find the pattern of criticism to this hadith in modern scholars exposure, such as Ahmad Sardar.22 However, these two types of hadith about it.In terms of matan, they are contradictory to each other.The first hadith confirms that only one group survived.In some narrations, it is stated that this group is the majority (aljamâ'a or al-sawâd al-a'zam) or following the Prophet and his companions (mâ ana 'alaih wa ashhâbî).The second Hadith states that there are more than 70 survivors, and only one will be harmed, namely the al-Zanâdiqa group.The difference also occurs in terms of the sanad.The first hadith is suspected to be a narration of the mainstream; sourced from many senior companions of Prophet and mentioned in the various primary literature, such as the six main hadith literature (al-kutub al-sittah)

Al-Zanâdiqa as a Group that Will harmed: the Social History of Its Emergence
Al-Zanâdiqa is the plural form of the Arabic word: al-zindîq.Al-Zanâdiqa, in this context, is an essential keyword in the whole matan of the hadith about the division of the Prophet Muhammad's ummah.In the various narrations that have been mentioned, al-Zanâdiqa is called a group that is sure to be harmed.The variety of matan in the various sanad confirms that what is meant by al-Zanâdiqa is ahl al-Qadar or al-Qadariyyah 24 If we refer to the narration from the al-Abrad, it is clear that the interpretation of al-Zanâdiqa as al-Qadariyyah indicates that it is part of the hadith itself.However, when referring to the narration of Mukram ibn Yûsuf from Yâsin al-Zayyât-in al-Jûraqânî-, the interpretation comes from Yahyâ ibn Sa'îd.In this case, he emphasized that one | 38 group that did not survive was the al-Zanâdiqa group, namely those who denied the existence of destiny from Allah. 25 Whereas in the sanad that goes through the path of Hafs ibn 'Umar, the mention of al-Zanâdiqa is al-Qadariyyah as a group that will be harmed is Anas ibn Mâlik's interpretation. 26is word in the above hadith further strengthens the assumption that the hadith is problematic in its matan.As this word is not mentioned in the Quran, it is not mentioned in the authentic hadiths. 27Initially, this word was a borrowed form of Persian and always referred to one of two things.First, it refers to the identity of certain beliefs or religions, namely Manâwiyya and others.Second, it refers to people who believe in the immortality of the universe, deny God's existence, and do not recognize the day of resurrection (al-Dahriyya). 28These two associative understandings were widely known before the existence of Islam.However, after the existence of Islam, this word experienced a significant expansion of its meaning.It is also pinned to specific groups considered to have violated the majority group or pinned to specific individuals considered to be carrying out practices that deviate from sharia. 29e interpretation of al-Zanâdiqa as ahl al-Qadar, al-Qadariyyah, or a group that denies the existence of Allah's destiny is a form of the meaning of the word al-Zanâdiqa for specific purposes.In the statement of al-Da'ailij, al-Abrad became a figure accused of making the hadith dispel the al-Qadariyyah sects.The efforts made 25 See, Abû 'Abd Allâh al-Hamżânî al-Husain Al-Jûraqânî, Al-Abâthîl Wa  See, Abû 'Abd Allâh al-Hamżânî al-Husain Al-Jûraqânî,  Al-Abâthîl Wa Al-Manâkîr…, pp.162-65; Jamâl al-Dîn ibn Al-Jauzî,  Al-Maudhû'Ât…, pp. 26-68.Haidar Bagir, Islam Tuhan, Islam Manusia: Agama  Dan Spiritualitas Di Zaman Kacau, ed.Azam Bahtiar and Ahmad  Baiquni, (Bandung: Mizan, 2019), 2nd ed, p. 142.   by al-Abrad were verbal.30 In the 4th century AH/10 AD, these meanings were written and entered into the literature codification of hadith, that is, it was only confirmed that there were works written by al-'Uqailî (d.322 AH/934 AD), and so on -such as already mentioned in advance.However, applicatively, apart from the use of this hadith, this label has been known and embedded in certain people and models of belief since the time of the Prophet's companions of the last generation and the time of the early generation of tabiin (post-Prophet's companions' generation).This label was primarily attached to Gailân and his followers.Rejection of al-Qadariyyah ideology at this time tends to be done through personal religious fatwas.In the next generation, the rejection of al-Qadariyyah began to vary, even involving state intervention.31 In the 4th/10th century AD and the 5th century AH/11th AD, the rejection of the antidestiny group began to flourish, especially from the Sunnis through their great works.In this case, al-Shibgî

The Hadith and the Shifting Discourse of the Salvation of the Ummah
What can be ascertained is that the group that deviates from the mainstream is always referred to as al-Zanâdiqa and has been a discourse since the generation of the Prophet's junior companions.However, al-Abrad, by this false hadith against the al-Qadariyyah sect, became the initial discourse about al-Qadariyyah as al-Zanâdiqa.This discourse has been sticking out again since the appearance of the work of al-'Uqailî (d.322 AH/934 AD), which contains the hadith.However, like hadith scholars tendency in general, the emergence of this hadith is nothing more than a preventive measure so that it is not spread except for reasons of explaining to the public that the hadith is false.This principle was still a single principle at that time and received support from hadith scholars, such as al-Jûraqânî (d.543 AH/1148 AD), Ibn al-Jauzî (d.597 AH/1201 AD), al-Suyûthî (d.911 AH/1505 AD), and Ibn 'Irâq (d.963 AH/1556 AD). 33wever, in the 6th century AH/12 AD, there was a shift in perspective in viewing the hadith.It appears in Islamic discourse not only as a part that must be avoided because of its falsehood, conveyed by al-'Ajlûnî was then quoted back in modern-contemporary, as was done by Saqqâf 'Alî al-Kâf (born 1946 AD ...) in Haqîqah al-Firqah al-Nâjiyah and 'Abd al -Halîm Mahmûd (d.1397 AH/1978 AD) in al-Tafkîr al-Falsafî fî al-Islâm. 38The quotations made by these two figures also include information that al-Hakim gave an authentic assessment of the hadith.

The Hadith of Divisions of the Ummah: Interests, Contestations, and Identities
The hadith about the ummah division, which explains that all will go to heaven except the al-Zanâdiqa group, is a false hadith.At first, the hadith's falsity was correlated with the narrators accused of being liars; however, over time, the falsity was also correlated with the matan, which was considered contradictory with other hadiths considered authentic.Also, the diction of "al-Zanâdiqa," which is then interpreted explicitly as the al-Qadariyyah sect, is a meaning that is deliberately raised to oppose the religious understanding of the al-Qadariyyah sect.At first, allegedly raised by al-Abrad verbally and in the 4th century AH/10 AD, this interpretation also existed in writing.This fact was followed by the proliferation of works written by hadith scholars against the al-Qadariyah.However, in the 6th century AH/12th AD, this hadith became a new discourse.Al-Gazalî emphasized that it is a authentic hadith.The same discourse was found in the 10th/16th century or the 12th century AH/18th AD and returned to the public in the 14th century AH/20th AD.
In this case, as a whole, the hadith about the division of the ummah: all will go to heaven except al-Qadariyyah appears in Islamic history in three discourse tendencies.The first discourse is in the form of verbal utterances through a narrative made by al-Abrad.This utterance was deliberately made as a form of resistance against al-Qadariyyah.The second discourse begins with the works of al-'Uqailî and the scholars of hadith after him.The tendency of this discourse is as an effort to prevent the spread of this false hadith.The third discourse starts from the appearance of Faishal al-Tafriqah, written by al-Gazâlî.The discourse that was raised by al-Gazâlî was relatively different from the mainstream discourse that had previously emerged.However, in this case, the hadith used by al-Gazâlî and subsequent generations appears to be relatively different from the hadith matan questioned by the mainstream.The hadith quoted by al-Gazâlî and assessed as authentic hadith does not mention "al-Qadariyyah" diction.It only reaches al-Zanâdiqa. 39 the third discourse above, discourse contestation occurs between scholars.However, al-Jûraqânî, Ibn al-Jauzî, and al-Gazâlî both lived in the 6th century AH/12th AD.Likewise, modern scholars such as Saqqâf 'Alî al-Kâf and Abd al-Halîm Mahmûd is one generation with Ahmad Sardar who has different judgments about this hadith. 40In addition, looking at each scholar's scientific field, this contestation tends to be a contestation between hadith scholar and outside, such as Sufism, philosophy, kalam, and so on.This finding also explains that using the label "alzânadiqah" in the al-Qadariyyah sect is concrete evidence of how these interests operate.However, a false assessment of the hadith is not the only assessment, even though, in this case, it also does not occur at one time and does not have the same hadith matan.These two discourses seem to be contradicting each other in the history of Islamic thought and civilization.
The findings above confirm that scholars in the past have provided specific criteria in tracing the falsity of a hadith, both in terms of sanad and matan, although not simultaneously. 41This means that the assumption that the scholars are too busy with sanad criticism to ignore matan criticism is incorrect.These two critical models are applied in a connected manner, according to developments and needs.Apart from that, this finding also strengthens the thesis conveyed by Ibn Qutaibah that the hadith of the Prophet in his time became the medium for the contestation between Islamic religious and political thought.Hadith is used as a justification tool for religious interpretation and specific interests. 42ven though, in this context, the al-Qadariyyah sect appears to be a common enemy through the label al-Zanâdiqa, who is accused of going to hell.
The designation al-Qadariyyah itself is a designation pinned by the Mu'azila opposition.They are called al-Qadariyyah because of their views on human freedom.Furthermore, they were also accused of denying the existence of Allah's destiny and qada over something.In this case, they ultimately rejected the accusation; they instead accused the opposition of being al-Qadariyyah.According to Sa'd Rustum, the term al-Qadariyyah for the Mu'tazilah sect arose from the al-Jabariyyah sect.The fact, the Mu'tazilah sect prefers to be called "experts or scholars of justice and tawheed" (Ahl al-'adl wa al-tauhîd) for their sect. 43In Islamic history, al-Qadariyyah and al-Jabariyyah were positioned side by side.If al-Qadariyyah is accused of denying the same fate and qada from Allah, al-Jabariyyah is accused of the opposite.These two sects are mutually contesting and resisting each other and are involved in the rulers political feud.In this case, the affiliation of al-Abrad, who gave rise to this discourse through a hadith, is not yet certain. 44 Al-Hadîts…, pp. 47-61. 43 Sa'd Rustum, Al-Firaq Wa Al-Mażâhib Al-Islâmiyyah, (Damaskus: al-Awâ'il, 2005), 3rd ed, pp.93-94. 44Saqqâf ibn 'Alî Al-Kâf, Haqîqah Al-Firqah…, pp.30-31;  Abd al-Halîm Mahmûd, Al-Tafkîr…, pp.145-55.was a form of resistance to the al-Qadariyyah sect or resistance to government policies from the Abbasid dynasty.This dynasty became an integral part of the al-Qadariyyah sect, especially in the 3rd century AH/9th AD.At this time, al-Qadariyyah thought had legality and received full support from the state and intimidation of people who were considered contradictory, especially from the hadith scholar.This period was widely known as the mihnah tragedy, a kind of intellectual violence.The tragedy forces a diversity of understanding with the full intervention of state policies. 45This hadith's emergence in the 4th century AH/10 AD indicates the loss of this intervention allowing open resistance, even though a false hadith.
In addition, al-Gazâlî, al-'Ajlûnî, 'Abd al-Halîm Mahmûd and Saqqâf al-Kâf who brought back these hadiths amidst the domination of hadith scholars related to the Prophet's hadiths, gives the impression of the need for awareness that the study of hadith always open and compatible with various approaches, including in order to assess whether it is authentic, weak or even false.The judgment that is authentic, weak, or even false seems that these scholars are fully aware that it is the result of ijtihad.They also made the hadith an essential basis for the emergence of a new discourse even though it was different from what most Muslims believed.In particular, al-Gazâlî brought up the hadith because he was aware of the sects growing fanaticism in his time.In this case, al-Zanâdiqa in the hadith is not understood as al-Qadariyyah but is specified for people who deny the Prophet and allow lying on behalf of the Prophet to benefit.(każżabat wa jawwazat al-każiba 'alâ Rasûl Allâh bi al-al-mashlahah). 81,100, | 42

Conclusion
Based on three questions: first, why is the hadith "All will go to heaven except for one group?" is called a false hadith?Second, how did the discourse on al-Zanâdiqa understood as al-Qadariyyah, exist in early Islam to trigger the emergence of this hadith?Third, how can the hadith about the ummah division be brought up again in various religious life discourses across history?This study finds three central answers: first, the hadith about the ummah division, which explains that all will go to heaven except the al-Zanâdiqa group is considered a false hadith, both from the aspect of sanad and its matan.However, the assessment of these two aspects does not co-occur.Second, the diction of "al-Zanâdiqa," which was then interpreted explicitly as the al-Qadariyyah sect, verbally appeared before the 4th century AH/10 AD.In writing, it only existed in the 4th century AH/10 AD and after that.Third, in the 6th/12th century AD, this hadith became a new discourse, namely as an authentic hadith; in the 10th century AH/16 AD or the 12th century AH/18 AD also appeared.In the 14th century AH/20 AD, it was sticking out again to the public-with in the discourses that had already existed before.
From the points above, three discourses accompany the existence of this hadith.First, at the beginning of its appearance, verbally, it was suspected as an attempt to dispel the religious understanding of the al-Qadariyyah sect.The word "al-Zanâdiqa" in the hadith is interpreted as al-Qadariyyah.This occurred before the 4th century AH/10th AD.Second, since the 4th century AH/10th AD, the hadith was included in various literature on hadith codification and was considered a false hadith.So, its existence in the hadith literature is nothing more than a preventive effort from hadith scholars.Third, since the 6th century AH/16 AD, the hadith has been assessed as authentic hadith, without the "al-Qadariyyah " diction.This is a new discourse in addition to the mainstream discourse, especially among hadith scholars.This also shows the contestation among these different scientific experts or scholars.
The above also shows that criticism of certain hadiths in the past did not occur at one time.This data also shows that at that time, the hadith of the Prophet was one of the authoritative tools used to corner sects that were considered to be opposite from the mainstream.These two discourses seem to be contradicting each other in the history of Islamic thought and civilization.In this case, the above hadith is used as a justification tool for certain religious views and interests; it became a form of resistance to the al-Qadariyyah sect and the government policies of the Abbasid dynasty, which had existed in the previous century and became the primary support for the Mu'tazilah sect.Their existence with state intervention has become a turning point for the marginalization of groups considered opposite, such as the hadith scholars.Thus, this hadith's appearance in the time is a sign of the loss of this domination.