|
|
|
|
|
|
Modern Historical Methodology vs. Hadeeth Methodology (part 1 of 5): Western Historical Methodology
|
 
Description: A comparison between modern methods of recording history and that used in hadeeth. Part One: Modern, Western Historical Methodology and external criticism.
By Reem Azzam
- Published on 14 Jan 2008 - Last modified on 19 Feb 2008
Viewed: 1602 - Rating: 4.7 from 5 - Rated by: 3
Printed: 64 - Emailed: 0 - Commented on: 1
Category: Articles
> The Prophet Muhammad
> About His Sayings
|
|
 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.
|
Modern Historical Methodology vs. Hadeeth Methodology (part 2 of 5): Internal Criticism
|
Description: A comparison between modern methods of recording history and that used in hadeeth. Part two: Modern, Western Historical Methodology and internal criticism.
By Reem Azzam
- Published on 21 Jan 2008 - Last modified on 19 Feb 2008
Viewed: 1236 - Rating: none yet - Rated by: 0
Printed: 56 - Emailed: 0 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> The Prophet Muhammad
> About His Sayings
|
Internal Criticism
_-_Internal_Criticism_001.jpg) Internal criticism is concerned with the content of the
source and naturally follows its external criticism (Lucey 24). The goal in
this step is to establish the credibility of the testimony. To start with, the
historian must be sure to understand what the witness meant by his testimony. Only
then can the historian be able to properly determine the credibility of the
witness under question. Establishing the credibility of the witness means
establishing both his competence (that he speaks out of knowledge) and veracity
(that he is truthful). In practice, some testimonies are rejected on the basis
of the aforementioned tests, though a considerable amount of testimonies are
established as reliable (Lucey 24).
Given that language is constantly in a state of change,
determining the true meaning of a testimony is not an easy task. Oftentimes
words are not used literally and new meanings become attached to them. The
historian needs to figure out the meaning which the author or witness attaches
to particular words in order to properly understand the testimony. He also
needs to be familiar with the idioms used at the time of the sources origin. Obviously
the historian must be fluent in the language used in the source and trained in
philology to undertake this task.
In order to properly understand a source or testimony,
it is also necessary to know what kind of person or people created the source;
in other words, what their attitudes and interests were (Marwick 223). One
should inquire into their education, position in life, political views, and
character (Lucey 73). Also important is their age and temperament (Lucey 78).
This knowledge will also prove useful in determining the credibility of the
witness. Furthermore, it is important to know how and why the particular
source came about as well as for whom it was intended. After the historian has
correctly understood the content of the testimony and what the witness intended
to say, he can move on to examine the credibility of the witness.
The next step is to establish if the person or people
behind the source were indeed in a position to know first-hand about the matter
under investigation and whether they were honest. It is said that the proper
attitude at this juncture is to be neither gullible nor skeptical in order to
do justice to the source in question (Lucey 73). A witness’s testimony should
not be discounted unless he has been completely discredited. It is acceptable
for a witness to make some mistakes so long as his testimony remains
substantially true. In the words of one historian,
“The
credibility of testimony, then, derives from the competence and veracity of the
witness, and these two qualifications must not be taken for granted. His
ability to observe must be established, the opportunity to observe verified,
his honesty ascertained, his testimony compared with that of other witnesses to
discount the errors any one witness may make” (Lucey 73-4).
Also among the items that help establish the credibility
of a source is knowledge of the type of source, including its nature and
purpose (Lucey 77). Each type of source will have its own criteria of
evaluation. For example, a political platform would not be looked at in the
same way as an editorial (Lucey 77). In addition, certain witness’ veracity,
moral character, and competence are already well established, particularly
those in public life (Lucey 78). Therefore, the testimonies of such witnesses
need not be challenged unless proven otherwise.
There are a few matters that the historian must be
careful of at this step. He should be careful not to assume that a witness’s
opportunity to observe means that he is competent. Not only does it need to be
established that the opportunity was real, but it also must be established that
a competent witness took advantage of it. Another matter to note is the common
sources of error. At the top of the list are faulty memory and prejudices,
though weaknesses such as a defective sense of observation also pose a serious
challenge (Lucey 75). Such weaknesses on the part of the witness or author of
a source can easily lead to misunderstandings on the part of the historian.
Although historians are reluctant to accept the
testimony of one witness, they are justified in doing so as long as the witness
is qualified. Naturally more than one witness is preferred, and the more the
better. Of course the witnesses should be competent and honest, and should
have been near the reported event or at least took their knowledge from those
who were (Lucey 79). The more qualified witnesses there are, the easier the
task of the historian. He can then compare testimonies and eliminate errors in
them, as well as use his reliable sources in determining the reliability of any
new witnesses.
In comparing one source with others to determine
credibility, there are three possibilities. They can agree with the source in
question, they can disagree, or they can be silent. Agreement between the
sources is not enough to establish the credibility of a source in question. It
needs to be determined if the sources are independent, as otherwise one can
suspect a conspiracy or dependence on one original source (Lucey 80). Especially
if an event was public, then there should be many independent accounts of it. However,
if the sources disagree or contradict, then one needs to examine the degree of
the difference and the nature of the sources. Differences on minor points and
details are not enough to discredit the source in question, and in fact they
are common and expected (Lucey 81). One should be careful not to confuse
between flat or apparent contradictions and real ones, and realize that
carefully and patiently sticking to the rules of criticism will probably
resolve an apparent contradiction (Lucey 83). However if there is a real
contradiction, then none of the sources can be used until one of them gains
credibility on some other grounds. If the subject happens to be a
controversial problem, then the testimonies of interested parties and
extremists must be handled with great care.
The third possible scenario is that of the sources being
silent on the testimony in question. The attitude towards such a testimony is
negative, though it is not immediately rejected. In order to reject the
testimony, it must be established that the silent witnesses were capable of
knowing about the event and were in a position where they needed to report it
(Lucey 84). However, these are hard to establish matters.
After the historian has sifted through his sources and
rigorously applied the rules of external and internal criticism, he is ready to
write. The ordering and synthesizing of all the materials into the correct
reconstruction of an event is a challenging task that involves interpretation
on the part of the historian. The manner in which he interprets his reliable
sources shapes his reconstruction of a particular event.
|
Modern Historical Methodology vs. Hadeeth Methodology (part 3 of 5): Hadeeth Methodology
|
Description: A comparison between modern methods of recording history and that used in hadeeth. Part Three: The methodology of hadeeth.
By Reem Azzam
- Published on 28 Jan 2008 - Last modified on 01 Apr 2008
Viewed: 1226 - Rating: none yet - Rated by: 0
Printed: 61 - Emailed: 1 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> The Prophet Muhammad
> About His Sayings
|
|
_001.jpg) A Prophetic hadeeth is a narration from or about the
Prophet Muhammad (may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him), and it is
through the ahadeeth (plural of hadeeth) that Muslims know about the Prophet’s
way of life, the Sunnah. Such knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for
fulfilling the Muslim’s most basic religious requirements, and the Prophet
naturally made it a point to spread this knowledge about himself during his
lifetime.
The Prophet sought to teach his Companions through
different ways such as repetition, questioning, dictation, and practical
demonstration. After teaching them he would listen to what they had learnt. Along
with his Companions, deputations from outside were educated in both the Quran
and the Sunnah. The Prophet would question them as well to see what they had
learnt (Azami 9). Furthermore,
the letters sent by the Prophet, some of which were quite lengthy and dealt
with a wide range of legal matters, also constituted a means of teaching his
Sunnah. Apparently there must have been a great deal of writing in general as
it is said that he had at least forty-five scribes at one time or another
(Azami 10). He also would dictate to different companions such as Ali b. Abu
Talib, and he is known to have sent copies of his sermons to certain people. Last
but not least was the practical example he lay for his followers with his clear
instructions to do as he does (i.e., “Pray as you see me praying” [Bukhari,
Vol. 1, Book 11, No. 604] and “Learn from me the rituals of pilgrimage” [Sahih
Muslim, Book on Hajj, No. 310]). He was known to advise a questioner to stay
with him and learn by observing him (Azami 10).
Other measures were taken by the Prophet to spread
knowledge of his Sunnah, such as the establishment of what may be regarded as
schools. It is known that these were established in Madinah soon after his
arrival, and that he would send teachers to various places outside of the city.
He emphasized to his Companions to pass on knowledge about him, and among his
sayings are “Pass on knowledge from me even if it is only one verse” (Azami 10).
In his famous farewell sermon he is reported to have said, “Those who are
present (here) should convey the message to those who are absent.” [Bukhari,
Vol. 2, Book 26, No. 795] Consequently it was a common practice among his
Companions to inform those who were absent about the Prophet’s sayings and
actions. Additionally, the Prophet would specifically instruct delegations to
teach their people what they had learnt upon their return. He encouraged all
this activity by informing on the great rewards for teaching and learning, as
well as the possible punishment for refusing to do so (Azami 12).
On the part of the Prophet’s Companions, it should be
remembered how people take care to watch and imitate the actions and sayings of
one they love and admire. It is well known the extent of love the Prophet’s
Companions had for him and that many would unhesitatingly die to protect him. Given
this and their excellent memories, as well as the various methods the Prophet
himself employed to teach his Sunnah, it would seem safe to assume that they
did indeed know his Sunnah. In fact, reports show that they not only tried to
learn it, but they tried to preserve it through various means such as memorization
and recording. There are various examples of the Companions of the Prophet
memorizing together and cultivating what they had just learned from the Prophet
(Azami 13). Many of them are known to have recorded the hadeeth, and following
the Prophets instruction, they would emulate him based on what they had learned.
After the Prophets death, there are several reports showing that they continued
in their efforts to memorize, practice, and preserve what they had learned from
him. Furthermore, there are reports showing Companions such as Ali b. Abu
Talib, Ibn Masud, and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri advising the people who came after
them (the Successors) to memorize the hadeeth, which they would do either
individually or collectively in groups (Azami 15).
After the Prophets death, Islam spread beyond Arabia to distant lands. As the Companions of the Prophet were the ones who pioneered the
expansion, it follows that the knowledge of hadeeth that they had went with
them, and that not all of it remained in Madinah. Therefore, it is possible
that a certain Sunnah was known to particular Companions who had left to settle
in some distant land. As was previously mentioned, the Companions saw to it
that those who came after them, the Successors, continued in the learning and
preservation of hadeeth so that the knowledge would not be lost. However, now
that the knowledge of the Sunnah was not concentrated in one place but had
spread to different parts of the Muslim world, the likelihood of making errors
arose, and consequently techniques for criticism had to be developed,
especially after the first fitnah (Azami 49). Additionally, with the spread of
the Sunnah, new techniques had to be developed for learning hadeeth.
Though all the techniques were important in preserving
the hadeeth, the practice of a teacher reading to their students was a
particularly significant technique that was developed very early. This
included reading by the teacher from the students book, which was either a
complete or partial copy of the teachers book (Azami 17). Students and
scholars would test their teachers knowledge by inserting hadeeth throughout
the book before giving it to their teacher for reading. Teachers who didnt
recognize the additions were “denounced and declared untrustworthy” (Azami 17).
Additionally, it is said that from the beginning of the second century, the
technique of reading by the students to their teachers became the most common
practice (Azami 19). This was done in the presence of other students who would
then compare with what they had in their books or listen carefully. In
copying, it is said that they would usually make a circular mark after every
hadeeth, and that once the hadeeth had been read to the teacher a mark would be
made in the circle or elsewhere to indicate so. Also, every additional time a
hadeeth was read to the teacher another mark would be made indicating so, and
at times scholars would read the same book many times. The reason probably was
to counter-act the challenges presented by the Arabic scriptthe reporter had to
hear a particular hadeeth from the person from whom he is transmitting, and
transmit exactly what he heard (thus the grading of reporters became necessary
to know who did this best) (Burton 110-111).
Furthermore, from a very early time, the necessity of reviewing copies became
evident, and it is reported that teachers would help their students in this
task to eliminate copying mistakes. It is important to know that one who did
not follow the proper methods in teaching or compiling his own book could be
accused of stealing hadeeth, even if the material was authentic. Hence it was
critical that the hadeeth were obtained properly. There are several other
techniques, but for the purpose of this paper it is important to know that the
scholars of hadeeth used special terms in the transmission of a hadeeth,
depending upon the technique employed in teaching it. Also worth pointing out
is that these special terms such as “haddathana,” “akhbarana,” and “an,” are
often mistaken to mean that the transmission was strictly oral, although it has
been shown that this was not the case.
|
Modern Historical Methodology vs. Hadeeth Methodology (part 4 of 5): The Classification of Hadeeth I
|
Description: The various categories of hadeeth based upon the strength of the chain of narrators.
By Reem Azzam
- Published on 04 Feb 2008 - Last modified on 01 Apr 2008
Viewed: 990 - Rating: none yet - Rated by: 0
Printed: 49 - Emailed: 0 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> The Prophet Muhammad
> About His Sayings
|
|
The people involved in the transmission of a hadeeth
constitute its isnad. The isnad informs us about the hadeeth’s
source, and this information later became an essential part of the hadeeth
(Azami 31). Abdullah b. Al-Mubarak, one of the teachers of al-Bukhari, is
reported to have said, “The isnad is part of the religion: had it not been
for the isnad, whoever wished to would have said whatever he liked”
(Hasan 11). There is
some indication that the isnad was used before the first tribulation,
though it was not until the end of the first century of the Hijrah that it was
fully developed (Azami 33). (However, John Burton in his An Introduction to
the Hadith says that the isnad did not yet exist in the first
century) The other part of the hadeeth that actually contains the specific
saying or action of the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him,
is its matn or text.
For the classification of hadeeth, there are several
broad categories, of which only seven will be very briefly discussed here. The
seven categories are classifications according to 1) the reference to a
particular authority, 2) the links in the isnad, 3) the number of
reporters involved in each stage of the isnad, 4) the technique used in
reporting the hadeeth, 5) the nature of the isnad and matn, 6) a
hidden defect found in the hadeeth’s isnad or matn, and 7) the
reliability and memory of the reporters (Hasan 14-16).
The first category, classification according to the
reference to a particular authority, pertains to whether it goes back to the
Prophet, a Companion, or a Successor. A marfu’ or “elevated” narration
is one that back to the Prophet, and this is regarded as the best grade (Burton 112). A mawqoof or “stopped” narration is one that goes back to a Companion,
while a maqtu’ or “severed” narration is one that goes back to a
Successor. This classification is significant in that it differentiates
between the Prophet’s sayings and actions and that of a Companion or Successor.
The second category, classification according to the
links in the isnad, makes several different distinctions. The musnad
or “supported” hadeeth is the best out of the group as it contains no break in
the chain of authorities reporting the hadeeth back to the Prophet (Burton 111). The mursal or “unattached” hadeeth is one that contains a gap of one
generation (according to both Azami and Hasan it is a hadeeth reported by a
Successor who drops the Companion from whom he learned it in the isnad).
The munqati’ or “broken” hadeeth is one which is missing a link closer
to the traditionalist reporting it (i.e., before the Successor). This applies
even if there appears to be no break in the chain, if it is known that one of
the reporters could not have heard hadeeth from the immediate authority given
in the isnad, even if they are contemporaries. The term munqati’
also is used by some scholars to refer to a hadeeth in which a reporter does
not name his authority and instead says, “a man narrated to me” (Hasan 22). A
hadeeth is mu’dal or “perplexing” if more than one consecutive reporter
is missing in the isnad. If the isnad is dropped altogether and
the reporter directly quotes the Prophet, then the hadeeth is considered mu’allaq
or “hanging” (Hassan 22).
Within the third category, hadeeth are classified
according to how many reporters are in each stage of the isnad, i.e. in
each generation of reporters. The two main classifications are mutawatir
(“consecutive”) and ahad (“single”), though ahad is further
divided into many subdivisions, among them ghareeb (“scarce” or
“strange”), ‘azeez (“rare” or “strong”), and mash’hoor (“famous”).
A mutawatir hadeeth is one that is reported by a large number of people
whose agreement upon a lie is not reasonably possible and in which the
possibility of coincidence is negligible. The minimum number of required
reporters differs among the scholars of hadeeth, and ranges from four to
several hundred (Azami 43). The hadeeth may be mutawatir in either
meaning or words, the former being the more common one. Al-Ghazali stipulated
that the hadeeth must be mutawatir in the beginning, middle, and last
stages of its isnad (Hasan 30). A hadeeth that is ahad is one
whose number of reporters does not come near to that required for a mutawatir
hadeeth. A hadeeth is classified as ghareeb if at any stage (or every
stage) in the isnad there is only one person reporting it. A hadeeth is
classified as ‘azeez if at every stage in the isnad there are at
least two people reporting it. If at least three people report a hadeeth in
every stage of its isnad, then it is classified as mash’hoor,
although the term is also applied to those hadeeth which start out as ghareeb
or ‘azeez but then end up with a larger number of reporters (Hasan 32).
In the fourth category, hadeeth are classified according
to manner in which they are reported. As was mentioned earlier, there is a
corresponding special term to denote a particular mode of learning or
transmission when a student or scholar learned a hadeeth. “Haddathana,”
“akhbarana,” and “sami’tu” all indicate that the reporter
personally heard the hadeeth from his own sheikh. “‘An” and “qaala”
are more vague and can signify either hearing from the sheikh in person or through
someone else. Actually, “‘an” is very inferior and can signify learning
the hadeeth through any one of various modes of transmission (Azami 22). A
hadeeth can be labeled as weak due to the uncertainty caused by using the
latter two terms, which respectively translate into “on the authority of” and
“he said” (Hasan 33). One who practices tadlees, “concealing”, reports
from his sheikh that which he did not hear from him, or reports from a
contemporary whom he never met. This violates the principle that a hadeeth
must be heard first-hand in order to be transmitted (Burton 112). Another type
of tadlees, which is considered the worst among them, is when a reliable
scholar reports from a weak authority who is in turn reporting from a reliable
scholar. The person who is reporting this isnad may show that he heard
it from his sheikh, but then omits the weak authority and simply uses the term
“‘an” to link his sheikh with the next trustworthy one in the isnad
(Hasan 34).
If throughout the isnad all the reporters
(including the Prophet) use the same mode of transmission, repeat an additional
statement or remark, or act in a particular way while narrating the hadeeth,
then it is called musalsal (“uniformly-linked”). This type of knowledge
is useful for discounting the possibility of tadlees in a particular
hadeeth (Hassan 35).
|
Modern Historical Methodology vs. Hadeeth Methodology (part 5 of 5): The Classification of Hadeeth II
|
Description: The various categories of hadeeth based upon the strength of the chain of narrators. Part 2.
By Reem Azzam
- Published on 11 Feb 2008 - Last modified on 19 Feb 2008
Viewed: 876 - Rating: none yet - Rated by: 0
Printed: 45 - Emailed: 1 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> The Prophet Muhammad
> About His Sayings
|
|
According to the fifth category, a hadeeth can also be
classified with respect to the nature of its text and isnad. According
to Al-Shafi’i, if a hadeeth reported by a trustworthy person goes against the
narration of someone more reliable than him, then the hadeeth is shadh
or “irregular”. According to Ibn Hajar, if a narration by a weak reporter
contradicts an authentic hadeeth, then that hadeeth is classified as munkar
(“denounced”), although some scholars would classify any hadeeth of a weak
reporter as munkar. A hadeeth could also be classified as munkar
if its text contradicts general sayings of the Prophet. If a hadeeth reported
by a reliable person contains some additional information not narrated by other
authentic sources, the addition is accepted so long as it doesn’t contradict
them, and the addition is known as ziyadatu thiqah (“an addition by one
trustworthy”). However, if a reporter adds something to the hadeeth being
narrated, then the hadeeth is classified as mudraj or “interpolated”. If
this occurs in a hadeeth, then it is usually in its text and often for the
purpose of explaining a difficult word. In a few examples this occurs in the isnad
- a reporter takes a part of one isnad and adds it to another isnad.
A reporter found in the habit of intentional idraj or interpolation is
generally considered a liar, although scholars are more lenient with those
reporters who may do it to explain a difficult word (Hasan 37-39).
In the sixth category, hadeeth that contain hidden
defects in their isnad or text are classified as ma’lool or mu’allal
(“defective”). This could be due to such things as classifying a hadeeth as musnad
when it is actually mursal or attributing a hadeeth to a particular
Companion when it really comes from another one. In order to detect such
defects, all the isnads of a hadeeth have to be collected and examined.
For example,
“Some scholars wrote works on which Successors heard hadeeth
from which Companions. From this information is it known that Al-Hasan
Al-Basri did not meet Ali, although there is a slight chance that he may have
seen him during his childhood in Madinah. This is significant as many Sufi
traditions are said to go back to Al-Hasan Al-Basri who is said to have
reported directly from Ali.” (Hasan 42-43)
There can also be uncertainty about the isnad or
text, in which case the hadeeth is classified as mudtarib (“shaky”). This
occurs if reporters disagree about some points in the isnad or text in
such a way that no opinion prevails. A hadeeth may be classified as maqloob
(“changed” or “reversed”) if in the isnad a name was reversed (i.e., Ka’b
b. Murra versus Murra b. Ka’b) or if the order of a sentence in the text is
reversed (Azami 66). This also applies to those hadeeth whose text has been
given a different isnad or vice versa, or those in which a reporter’s
name was replaced with another (Hasan 41-42).
The seventh and last category to be discussed here is
classification according to the quality of the reporters, upon which the final
verdict on a hadeeth critically depends. Hadeeth reported by those known to be
adil, hafiz, thabit, and thiqa are the highest
ranked hadeeth and are classified as saheeh or “sound.” For someone to
be considered adil, he had to be a very pious Muslim, honest and
truthful in all of his dealings. Through careful comparison, verbal agreement
found in the text of a hadeeth among various transmitters indicated who was the
most accurate (thabit), the most reliable (thiqa), and who had
the best memory (hafiz). If any scholar falls less than this ideal in
one or more categories, but he is not criticized, then the hadeeth reported by
him are judged to be less sound, or hasan (“fair”). If a reporter was
known to have a weak memory or make mistakes due to carelessness, then his hadeeth
are judged as da’eef (“weak”) (Burton 110-111).
Of course, there are other factors which play into the
final verdict on a hadeeth, and in the words of Ibn Al-Salah, “A saheeh hadeeth
is the one which has a continuous isnad, made up of reporters of
trustworthy memory from similar authorities, and which is found to be free from
any irregularities (i.e. in the text) or defects (i.e., in the isnad).” According
to Al-Tirmidhi a hasan hadeeth is “A hadeeth which is not shadhdh, nor
contains a disparaged reporter in its isnad, and which is reported
through more than one route of narration” (Hasan 44-46). A hadeeth that doesn’t
reach the requirements for a hasan hadeeth is classified as da’eef, and
often this is due to discontinuity in the isnad. It can also be
classified as da’eef if one of the reporters does not have a good
reputation for whatever reason, be it because of his making many mistakes or
being dishonest. If the defects are many and severe, then the hadeeth is
closer to being classified as mawdu’ or fabricated. According to
Al-Dhahabi the mawdu’ hadeeth is the one whose text goes against
established norms of the Prophet’s sayings or whose isnad contains a
liar. A hadeeth can also be established as mawdu’ due to “external
evidence related to a discrepancy found in the dates or times of a particular
incident” (Hasan 49).
In conclusion, the aforementioned classifications
constitute only a fraction of the total number of classifications that exist. The
studies in hadeeth are very complex, and it seems that the scholars thought of
every imaginable angle from which to analyze hadeeth. All this was for the
purpose of distinguishing between different types of narrations, especially for
distinguishing the authentic from the inauthentic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Online daily:
From to
(according to your computer time)
|
| |
Your Favorites |
 |
|
Your favorites list is empty. You may add articles to this list using the article tools. |
| |
Your History |
|
|
Your history list is empty.
|
|
|
