Alsiraj Official Website

Alsiraj Banner Image

Sayings (Hadiths) of Prophet Muhammad

European criticism of Hadith

Among all European critics, almost without exception, there is a prevalent idea that the Muslim critics of hadith have never gone beyond the transmission line, and that the subject-matter of Hadith has been left quite untouched. Suggestions have also been made that even the Companions of the Holy Prophet were at times so unscrupulous as to fabricate Hadith, while it should be common knowledge that the strictest Muslim critics of the transmitters are all agreed that when a Hadith is traced back to a Companion of the Holy Prophet, its authenticity has been placed beyond all question.

In the chapter on ‘Criticism of Hadith by Muslims,’ Guillaume makes the suggestion that Abu Huraira was in the habit of fabricating hadith “A most significant recognition within hadith itself of the untrustworthiness of guarantors is to be found in Bukhari. Ibn ‘Umar reports that Muhammad ordered all dogs to be killed save sheep-dogs and hounds. Abu Huraira added the word zar’in; whereupon Ibn ‘Umar makes the remark, ‘Abu Huraira owned cultivated land!’ A better illustration of the underlying motive of some hadith can hardly be found" (Tr. Is., p. 78).

The word zar’in in the above quotation means cu1tivated land, and the suggestion is that Abu Huraira added this word for personal motives. In the first place, Abu Huraira is not alone in reporting that dogs may be kept for hunting as well as for keeping watch over sheep or tillage (zar’). Bukhãri reports a hadith from Sufyan ibn Abi Zubair in the following words: “I heard the Messenger of Allah, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, saying, Whoever keeps a dog which does not serve him in keeping watch over cultivated land or goats, one qirat of his reward is diminished every day. The man who reported from him said, Hast thou heard this from the Messenger of Allah? He said, Yea, by the Lord of this Mosque" (Bu. 41: 3).

Now this report clearly mentions watch dogs kept for sheep as well as those kept for tillage, but not dogs kept for hunting, which the Holy Qur’an explicitly allows (5:4). Abu Huraira’ s report in the same chapter, preceding that cited above, expressly mentions all these kinds, watch dogs for sheep or tillage and dogs for hunting, which only shows that Abu Huraira had the more retentive memory. And as for Ibn ‘Umar’ s remark, there is not the least evidence that it contained any insinuation against Abu Huraira’s integrity. It may be just an explanatory remark, or a suggestion that Abu Huraira took care to preserve that part of the saying, because he himself had to keep watch dogs for his cultivated land.

With all the mistakes that Abu Huraira made in reporting so many hadith no critic has ever yet questioned his integrity; in fact, critics are unanimous in maintaining that no Companion of the Holy Prophet ever told a lie. Thus Ibn Hajar says: “The Ahl Sunna are unanimous that all (the Companions) are Adul i.e. truthful" (Is. I, p. 6).

The word ‘adala, as used regarding transmitters of reports, means that there has been no intentional deviation from the truth, and this is not due merely to the respect in which the Companions are held, for the critics of the transmitters of Hadith never spared any one simply because he held a place of honour in their hearts.

Further on in the same chapter Guillaume asserts that independent thinkers in the second and third century not only questioned the authority of Hadith altogether, but derided the very system: “However, there was still a large circle outside the orthodox thinkers who rejected the whole system of hadith. They were not concerned to adopt those which happened to fit in with the views and doctrines of the doctors, or even with those which might fairly be held to support their own view of life.

So far from being impressed by the earnestness of the traditionists who scrupulously examined the isnad, or by the halo of sanctity which had gathered round the early guarantors of traditions, the dependent thinkers of the second and third centuries openly mocked and derided the system as a whole and the persons and matters named therein" (Tr. Is., p. 80).

And as evidence in support of these sweeping statements, he adds: Some of the most flagrant examples of these lampoons will be found in the Book of Songs, where indecent stories are cast into the form in which tradition was customarily handed down to posterity" (Tr. Is., p. 80).

Thus the “independent thinkers" who rejected the system of Hadith and “openly mocked and derided the system as a whole" are only the lampooners mentioned in the concluding portion of the paragraph.

The Aghani (12) the Book of Songs, which is referred to as if it were a collection of lampoons directed against Hadith is an important collection of ballads by the famous Arabian historian, Abu-l-Faraj ‘Ali ibn Husain, commonly known as Isfahani (born in 2S4 A. H.). I am at a loss to understand why the learned author of the Traditions of Islam should look upon it as an attempt to mock and deride the system of Hadith. There may be some indecent stories connected with these songs, but the presence of such stories does not alter the essential character of the work which is in the nature of an historical collection.(13)

Neither in the book itself nor in any earlier writing is there a word to show that the collection was made in a spirit of mockery; and as to the fact that with the songs collected are given the names of those through whom the songs were handed down, that was the common method adopted in all historical writings and collections of the time, as may be readily seen by reference to the historical writings of Ibn Sa’d, or Ibn Jarir; and it was chosen not to insult the method of transmission of Hadith but simply on account of its historical value.

Guillaume has also mentioned the names of two great Muslim thinkers, Ibn Qutaiba and lbn Khaldun in this connection, but they neither rejected the Hadith system as a whole, nor ever mocked or derided that system or the persons and matters mentioned therein. Ibn Qutaiba rather defended the Qur’an and Hadith against skepticism, and Guillaume has himself quoted with approval Dr. Nicholson’s remarks that “every impartial student will admit the justice of Ibn Qutayba’s claim that no religion has such historical attestations as Islam— “laysa li—umatin mina l-umamiasnadun ka-asnUdihim" (Tr. Is., p. 77). The Arabic word asnad used in the original, and translated as historical attestations, is the plural of sanad which means an authority, and refers especially to the reporters on whose authority Hadith is accepted. Thus Ibn Qutaiba claims for Hadith a higher authority than any other history of the time, and the claim is admitted by both Nicholson and Guillaume.

In the Encyclopedia of Islam it is plainly stated that Ibn Qutaiba “defended the Qur’an and Tradition against the attacks of philosophic skepticism." Ibn Khaldun, too, never attacked Hadith itself, and his strictures are applicable only to stories which have generally been rejected by the Muhaddithin.