Alsiraj Official Website

But the question arises: Did all the collectors of hadith pay equal regard to the above canons of criticism? It is pretty clear that they did not. The earliest of them, Bukhari, is, by a happy coincidence, also the soundest of them. He was not only most careful in accepting the trustworthiness of the narrators of Hadith but he also paid the utmost attention to the last of the critical tests enumerated above, namely, the test of judging Hadith by the Qur’an. Many of his books and chapters are headed by Quranic verses, and occasionally he has contented himself with a verse of the Qur’an in support of his text.

This shows that his criticism of Hadith was not limited to a mere examination of the guarantors as every European critic seems to think, but that he also applied other tests.

The act of criticism was, of course, applied mentally and one should not expect a record of the processes of that criticism in the book itself. So with the other collectors of Hadith. They followed the necessary rules of criticism but were not all equally careful, nor did they all possess equal critical acumen or experience.

Indeed, they sometimes intentionally relaxed the ru1es of criticism, both as regards the examination of the narrators and the critical tests. They also made a distinction between Hadith relating to matters of jurisprudence and other Hadith such as those having to do with past history or with prophecies, or with other material which had no bearing on the practical life of man. We are clearly told that they were stricter in matters of jurisprudence than in other Hadith.

Thus Baihaqi says in the Kitab al-Madkhal: “When we narrate from the Holy Prophet in what is allowed and what is prohibited, we are strict in the chain of transmission and in the criticism of the narrators, but when we relate reports on the merits of people, and about reward and punishment, we are lax in the line of transmission and overlook the defects of the narrators." And Ahmad ibn Hanbal says: “Ibn Ishaq is a man from whom such reports may be taken, i.e., those which relate to sira (life of the Prophet), but when the question is about what is allowed and what is forbidden, we have recourse to a (strong) people like this, and he inserted the fingers of one hand amid those of the other," conjoining the hands, and thus pointing to the strength of character of the transmitters.

It must, however, be admitted that most of the collectors of Hadith paid more attention to the investigation of the narrators than to the other critical tests, and they were justified in this, for their object was to produce reliable collections of hadith and therefore, their first concern was to see that the hadith could be authentically traced back to the Holy Prophet through a trustworthy chain of narrators.

This part of the criticism was the more essential, as the longer the chain of narrators, the more difficult would it have been to test their reliability. Other tests - could be applied to any hadith at any time, and the lapse of a thousand years could in no way affect the value of these tests, but the passing away of another century would have rendered the task of the examination of the chain of narrators so difficult as to be for all practical purposes impossible. Hence the collectors of Hadith rightly focused their attention on this test. Nor did the work of collecting the hadith close the door to further criticism. The Muhaddithin contented themselves with producing collections reliable in the main, and left the rest of the work of criticism to future generations. They never claimed faultlessness for their works; even Bukhari did not do that. They exercised their judgments to the best of their ability, but they never claimed, nor does any Muslim claim on their behalf, infallibility of judgment.

In fact, they had started a work which was to continue for generation after generation of the Muslims. If possible, a hundred more canons of criticism might be laid down, but it would still be the judgment of one man as to whether a certain hadith must be accepted or rejected. Every collection is the work of one Muhaddith, and even if ninety-nine per cent. of his judgments are correct, there is still room for the exercise of judgment by others. The Western critic errs in thinking that infallibility is claimed for any of the collections of Hadith, and that the exercise of judgment by a certain Muhaddith precludes the exercise of judgment by others as to the reliability of a report.

We must also remember that however much the collectors of Hadith might have differed in their judgments as to the necessity for rigour in the rules of criticism, they set to work with minds absolutely free from bias or external influence. They would lay down their lives rather than swerve, a hair’s breadth from what they deemed to be the truth. Many of the famous Imams preferred punishment or jail to uttering a word against their convictions. The fact is generally admitted as regards the Umayyad rule. As Guillaume says: “They laboured to establish the sunna of the community as it was, or as it was thought to have been, under the prophet’s rule, and so they found their bitterest enemies in the ruling house" (Tr. Is., p. 42).

The independence of thought of the great Muslim divines under the Abbaside rule had not deteriorated in the least. They would not even accept office under a Muslim ruler: “It is well-known," says Th. W. Juynboll in the Encyclopedia of Islam, “that many pious, independent men in those days deemed it wrong and refused to enter the service of the Government or to accept an office dependent on it" (p.91).

For any feedback or suggestions please contact us at.

• feedback@alsiraj.net

For any Questions please contact us at.

• questions@alsiraj.net