Alsiraj Official Website
Sayings (Hadiths) of Prophet Muhammad
Canons of criticism of Hadith as accepted by Muslims
There is no doubt that the collectors of Hadith attached the utmost importance to the trustworthiness of the narrators. As Guillaume says: “Inquiries were made as to the character of the guarantors, whether they were morally and religiously satisfactory, whether they were tainted with heretical doctrines, whether they had a reputation for truthfulness, and had the ability to transmit what they had themselves heard. Finally, it was necessary that they should be competent witnesses whose testimony would be accepted in a court of civil law" (Tr. Is., p. 83). More than this, they tried their best to find out that the report was traceable to the Holy Prophet through the various necessary stages.
Even the Companions of the Holy Prophet did not accept any hadith which was brought to their notice until they were fully satisfied that it came from the Holy Prophet. But Muhaddithin went beyond the narrators, and they had rules of criticism which were applied to the subject-matter of hadith. In judging whether a certain hadith was spurious or genuine, the collectors not only made thorough investigation regarding the trustworthiness of the transmitters but also applied other rules of criticism which are in no way inferior to modern methods.
Shah ‘Abd ‘Aziz has summarized these rules in the ‘Ujala Nafi and according to them a report was not accepted under any of the following circumstances:
1. If it was opposed to recognized historical fact
2. If the reporter was a Shia and the hadith was of the nature of an accusation against the Companions the Holy Prophet, or if the reporter was a Khariji and the Hadith was of the nature of an accusation against member of the Prophet’s family. If, however, such report was corroborated by independent testimony, it was accepted.
3. If it was of such a nature that to know it and upon it was incumbent upon all, and it was reported by single man.
4. If the time and the circumstances of its narrator contained evidence of its forgery.(14)
5. If it was against reason(15) or against the plain teachings of Islam.(16)
6. If it mentioned an incident, which, had it happened, would have been known to and reported by large numbers, while as a matter of fact that incident was not reported by any one except the particular reporter.
7. If its subject-matter or words were rakik (i. e. unsound or incorrect); for instance, the words were not in accordance with Arabic idiom, or the subject-matter was unbecoming the Prophet’s dignity.
8. If it contained threatenings-of heavy punishment for ordinary sins or promises of mighty reward for slight good deeds.
9. If it spoke of the reward of prophets and messengers to the doer of good.
10. If the narrator confessed that he fabricated the report.
Similar rules of criticism are laid down by Mulla ‘Ali Qari in his work entitled Maudzu’at, and by Ibn al-Jauzi for which see the Fath al-Mugith as well as by Ibn Hajar for which see Nuzhat al-Nazar.
|
|
|