|
_-_Early_Hadeeth_Criticism_and_Evaluation_of_Narrators_001.jpg) Another important aspect in the preservation of hadeeths
was the early development of hadeeth criticism and evaluation of narrators. Even
during the lifetime of the Messenger of God, the Companions would often go to
him to confirm some report that they had heard related on his authority. Professor
Azami, referring to examples in the hadeeth collections of Ahmad, al‑Bukhari,
Muslim and al‑Nasaai, writes:
“If criticism is the effort to distinguish between what
is right and what is wrong, then we can say that it began in the life of the
Prophet. But at this stage, it meant no more than going to the Prophet and
verifying something he was reported to have said…
“We find this sort of investigation or verification
was carried [sic] out by Ali, Ubai ibn Kaab, Abdullah ibn Amr, Umar,
Zainab wife of ibn Masud, and others. In the light of these events, it can be
claimed that the investigation of hadeeth or, in other words, criticism of hadeeth
began in a rudimentary form during the life of the Prophet.”
Obviously this practice of confirming reports directly
with the Messenger of God had to cease with the death of the Prophet, may the
mercy and blessings of God be upon him. At that time the Companions, led by
notables such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, ibn Umar and others, used to confirm hadeeth
with each other. Umar, for example, was strict in safeguarding the proper
dissemination of hadeeth. In Sahih Muslim one can find the example of
Abu Moosa al‑Ashari. Umar threatened to have him punished if he did not
present a witness for a hadeeth that he had narrated to Umar. Commenting on
this hadeeth, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi stated that Umar did not doubt Abu Moosa but
he only meant to keep a strict supervision over the transmission of hadeeth.
Many examples of this kind may be given. Abu Hurairah,
Aishah, Umar and ibn Umar would verify hadeeth. Sometimes they would verify
the hadeeth by “cross‑reference” (like Umar and Abu Moosa above) and at
other times they used what could be termed “time‑series” checking. Imam
Muslim records that Aishah heard a certain hadeeth narrated from Abdullah ibn
Amr. A year later she had her servant go to Abdullah ibn Amr to hear the hadeeth
again from him to make sure that he had narrated it exactly as he had heard it
from the Prophet and that he had not made any mistakes or additions in its
narration.
This investigation of narrators led to the development
of the most fascinating and unique science of al-jarh wa al-tadeel,
wherein the lives, academic qualities and moral qualities of literally
thousands of narrators are discussed in detail. Every narrator must meet both
moral and academic qualifications for his hadeeth to be accepted. One, without
the other, is simply not sufficient. An individual may have a great memory or
be able to record material very accurately but if he is not considered a
completely honest and trustworthy person, his narrations of hadeeth, the most
important information an individual can pass on, will not be accepted. Similarly,
a person may be a very pious and honest individual but if he does not posses
the literary or academic qualities to be able to pass on information accurately
and correctly, his narrations also cannot be relied on.
Thus, the scholars developed many means by which to test
the proficiency and accuracy of the narrators of hadeeth. Azami states that
there are four basic ways to check the proficiency of a narrator. He has given
examples of each type. The four
are:
(1) Comparison between the hadeeth of different
students of the same scholar. An example is that of Yahya ibn Maeen who read
the books of Hammad ibn Salama to seventeen of Hammad's students. He said that
by doing so he would be able to spot the mistakes that Hammad made (by
comparing them to what other scholars had narrated) and the mistakes that each
individual student made (by comparing them with the other students of Hammad).
(2) Comparison between the statements of a single
scholar at different times. Mention was made earlier of the Hadeeth of Aisha
in which she had Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al‑As asked about a hadeeth that he
had narrated a year earlier. When she found that he had not made any change in
the hadeeth she knew that he had memorized it exactly as he heard it from the
Prophet.
(3) Comparison between oral recitation and written
documents. Azami gave the following example:
Abdur Rahman b. Umar transmitted a hadeeth through Abu
Huraira concerning Dhuhr prayer [the noon prayer], which may be delayed in
summer [sic] from its early time. Abu Zurah said that it is incorrect.
This hadeeth was transmitted on the authority of Abu Said. Abdur Rahman b. Umar
took it very seriously and did not forget it. When he returned to his town, he
checked in his book and found himself mistaken. Then he wrote to Abu Zurah,
acknowledging his mistake, asking him to take trouble [sic] and inform
such and such person and other people who had asked about it from his students,
and to tell them about his mistake, and, he said God would give him the reward,
for shame is much better than Hell.
(4) Comparison between the hadeeth and the text of
the Quran. This practice started with the Companions. The Quran was the first
test that the hadeeth would have to pass. The Companions would not accept any hadeeth
that contradicted the Quran; instead they would conclude that the Companion
must have been mistaken or had misunderstood what the Prophet had narrated. They
knew that the Quran and Sunnah were essentially one revelation and it was not
possible for one to contradict the other.
Azami only mentions the above four methods of checking
the proficiency of a narrator but there were others. The following were quite
common: comparing what one narrator related to what others narrated (that is,
not students of the same teacher), comparing one Sunnah with another and
comparing the text of the hadeeth with well‑known historical events.
|
