|
 The study of hadeeth is one that goes back centuries and
has been the subject of much discussion among both Muslims and non-Muslims
alike. Some scholars deem the collections of hadeeth as unauthentic and
something to be disregarded, while others claim the opposite. Where exactly
does the truth lie? As a starting point, it is helpful to examine criticism
according to hadeeth methodology compared to criticism according to modern,
western historical methodology. Therefore the purpose of this paper shall be
to first explain the general guidelines for authenticating and verifying
historical sources, then to explain the general guidelines used in
authenticating and verifying hadeeth, and finally to compare the two processes.
Modern, Western Historical Methodology
When events occur, they can be known by contemporaries
who then pass on their knowledge and understanding (Lucey 20).
In daily life, people accept that knowledge of events can be passed on from the
witnesses of those events, and that they can be transmitted exactly. Indeed,
in a court of law, through the testimonies of witnesses to a particular event,
facts are established beyond a reasonable doubt (Lucey 22). According to one
historian, “Testimony, sufficient, reliable testimony, is a source of
unimpeachable, indisputable knowledge of historical events” (Lucey 20). It is
from the reliable testimony of contemporaries of events that historical
knowledge is derived (Lucey 18). Therefore, the aim of historical methodology
is to determine if the various testimonies that reach us today can be accepted
as sound evidence.
Once a historian has collected his sources anything that
directly or indirectly provides information about a particular event (e.g. a
book, a scroll, a broken piece of pottery, a picture, a radio clip, an oral
tradition)he must then evaluate them using the techniques of criticism. These
historical sources or “witnesses” provide information or testimony. It is the
role of external criticism to establish the authenticity of a source (the fact
of testimony) and its integrity (the freedom from corruption during
transmission). In comparison, internal criticism is concerned with
establishing the true meaning of a testimony and the credibility of a witness
(Lucey 23). Ultimately, the basic principles of source criticism are what lead
to the establishment of facts, or to the debunking of previously established
ones (Marwick 196).
External Criticism
External criticism involves investigating the origin of
a particular source – as opposed to its content, which is the concern of
internal criticism. The historian needs to seek out all possible information
regarding the sources origin, as well as possibly restore the source to its
original form (Lucey 23). This is in order to establish the authenticity of
the source. Determining the authenticity of a source means establishing that
the testimony is indeed that of the person to whom it is attributed, or that it
belongs to the period to which it claims to belong, and that it is what it
claims itself to be. Seeking out all possible information regarding the sources
origin is also necessary for establishing the integrity of the source; i.e.,
that it has not been corrupted during its transmission to the present time, and
if it has, that the changes are identified.
There are many different kinds of questions that need to
be answered in order to establish the fact of testimony, the first step of
external criticism. One needs to determine the origin of the source as well as
where it was originally found (Marwick 222). For example, if one finds
Egyptian pottery in excavations in Yemen, then where it was found would be of
great significance in that it would hint at trade between the two countries. Additionally,
one needs to know the date of the source and determine how close its date is to
the dates pertaining to the topic under investigation (Marwick 222). Another
important matter to determine is how it relates to other important dates. All
this information pertaining to the origin of the source will also prove useful
in determining its credibility by way of internal criticism later on.
It is worth noting here that historians distinguish
between authorship and authenticity, even though “identifying the author is the
first step in establishing authenticity” (Lucey 47). It is possible for an
anonymous document to be authentic, such as the early writings that appeared
under pseudonyms, as long as it is known to what year or period and place the
document belongs. However, in certain cases the author of a document must be
established in order to determine the authenticity of a source.
The second and last step in external criticism consists
of an examination of the sources integrity. In other words, it must be
ascertained that the source or testimony has reached the historian uncorrupted.
Only then is the fact of testimony absolutely established (Lucey 62). If
changes have been made in the testimony, he must be able to distinguish the
original from the changes in order for the source to remain authentic. Although
there may be unintentional or intentional additions and deletions made to the
original source or its copies, it must be established that the source or
testimony is at least substantially integral. It is worth noting here that
corruption resulting from careless copying is quite a common occurrence and can
potentially lead to great misunderstanding (Lucey 62). With this much being
established, the historian can now move on to evaluate the testimony.
|
