Hadith

INTRODUCTION

The Muslims all over the world  agree that the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the second of the two revealed fundamental sources of Islam, after the Glorious Qur’an. The authentic Sunnah is contained within the vast body of Hadith literature.1.

A hadith (pl. ahadith) is composed of two parts: the matn (text) and the isnad (chain of reporters). A text may seem to be logical and reasonable but it needs an authentic isnad with reliable reporters to be acceptable; ‘Abdullah b. al-Mubarak (d. 181 AH), one of the illustrious teachers of Imam al-Bukhari, said, “The isnad is part of the religion: had it not been for the isnad, whoever wished to would have said whatever he liked.”2.

During the lifetime of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and after his death, his Companions (Sahabah) used to refer to him directly, when quoting his sayings. The Successors (Tabi’un) followed suit; some of them used to quote the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) through the Companions while others would omit the intermediate authority – such a hadith was later known as mursal. It was found that the missing link between the Successor and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) might be one person, i.e. a Companion, or two people, the extra person being an older Successor who heard the hadith from the Companion. This is an example of how the need for the verification of each isnad arose; Imam Malik (d. 179) said, “The first one to utilise the isnad was Ibn Shihab al- Zuhri” (d. 124).3.

The other more important reason was the deliberate fabrication of ahadith by various sects which appeared amongst the Muslims, in order to support their views (see later, under discussion of maudu’ ahadith). Ibn Sirin (d. 110), a Successor, said, “They would not ask about the isnad. But when the fitnah (trouble, turmoil, esp. civil war) happened, they said: Name to us your men. So the narrations of the Ahl al-Sunnah (Adherents to the Sunnah) would be accepted, while those of the Ahl al-Bid’ah (Adherents to Innovation) would not be accepted.”4.

A brief history of Mustalah al-Hadith (Classification of Hadith)

As time passed, more reporters were involved in each isnad, and so the situation demanded strict discipline in the acceptance of ahadith; the rules regulating this discipline are known as Mustalah al-Hadith (the Classification of Hadith).

Amongst the early traditionists (muhaddithin, scholars of Hadith), the rules and criteria governing their study of Hadith were meticulous but some of their terminology varied from person to person, and their principles began to be systematically written down, but scattered amongst various books, e.g. in Al-Risalah of al- Shafi’i (d. 204), the Introduction to the Sahih of Muslim (d. 261) and the Jami’ of al-Tirmidhi (d. 279); many of the criteria of early traditionists, e.g. al-Bukhari, were deduced by later scholars from a careful study of which reporters or isnads were accepted and rejected by them.

One of the earliest writings to attempt to cover Mustalah comprehensively, using standard (i.e. generally-accepted) terminology, was the work by al-Ramahurmuzi (d. 360). The next major contribution was Ma’rifah ‘Ulum al-Hadith by al- Hakim (d. 405), which covered fifty classifications of Hadith, but still left some points untouched; Abu Nu’aim al-Isbahani (d. 430) completed some of the missing parts to this work. After that came Al-Kifayah fi ‘Ilm al- Riwayah of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463) and another work on the manner of teaching and studying Hadith; later scholars were considered to be greatly indebted to al-Khatib’s work.

After further contributions by Qadi ‘Iyad al- Yahsubi (d. 544) and Abu Hafs al-Mayanji (d. 580) among others, came the work which, although modest in size, was so comprehensive in its excellent treatment of the subject that it came to be the standard reference for thousands of scholars and students of Hadith to come, over many centuries until the present day: ‘Ulum al- Hadith of Abu ‘Amr ‘Uthman Ibn al-Salah (d. 643), commonly known as Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah, compiled while he taught in the Dar al-Hadith of several cities in Syria. Some of the numerous later works based on that of Ibn al-Salah are:

• An abridgement of Muqaddimah, Al-Irshad by al- Nawawi (d. 676), which he later summarised in his Taqrib; al-Suyuti (d. 911) compiled a valuable commentary on the latter entitled Tadrib al-Rawi.
• Ikhtisar ‘Ulum al-Hadith of Ibn Kathir (d. 774), Al-Khulasah of al-Tibi (d. 743), Al- Minhal of Badr al-Din b. Jama’ah (d. 733), Al- Muqni’ of Ibn al-Mulaqqin (d. 802) and Mahasin al-Istilah of al-Balqini (d. 805), all of which are abridgements of Muqaddimah Ibn al- Salah.
• Al-Nukat of al-Zarkashi (d. 794), Al-Taqyid wa ‘l-Idah of al-’Iraqi (d. 806) and Al-Nukat of Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani (d. 852), all of which are further notes on the points made by Ibn al- Salah.
• Alfiyyah al-Hadith of al-’Iraqi, a rewriting of Muqaddimah in the form of a lengthy poem, which became the subject of several commentaries, including two (one long, one short) by the author himself, Fath al-Mughith of al-Sakhawi (d. 903), Qatar al-Durar of al- Suyuti and Fath al-Baqi of Shaykh Zakariyyah al-Ansari (d. 928).

Other notable treatises on Mustalah include:

• Al-Iqtirah of Ibn Daqiq al-’Id (d. 702). Tanqih al-Anzar of Muhammad b. Ibrahim al- Wazir (d. 840), the subject of a commentary by al-Amir al-San’ani (d. 1182).
• Nukhbah al-Fikr of Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, again the subject of several commentaries, including one by the author himself, one by his son Muhammad, and those of ‘Ali al-Qari (d. 1014), ‘Abd al-Ra’uf al-Munawi (d. 1031) and Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Hadi al-Sindi (d. 1138). Among those who rephrased the Nukhbah in poetic form are al-Tufi (d. 893) and al- Amir al-San’ani.
• Alfiyyah al-Hadith of al-Suyuti, the most comprehensive poetic work in the field. Al-Manzumah of al-Baiquni, which was expanded upon by, amongst others, al-Zurqani (d. 1122) and Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan (d. 1307). Qawa’id al-Tahdith of Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi (d. 1332).
• Taujih al-Nazar of Tahir al-Jaza’iri (d. 1338), a summary of al-Hakim’s Ma’rifah.

Mustalah al-Hadith (Classification of Hadith)

Mustalah books speak of a number of classes of hadith in accordance with their status. The following broad classifications can be made, each of which is explained in the later sections:

• According to the reference to a particular authority, e.g. the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), a Companion, or a Successor; such ahadith are called marfu’ (elevated), mauquf (stopped) and maqtu’ (severed) respectively .
• According to the links in the isnad, i.e. whether the chain of reporters is interrupted or uninterrupted, e.g. musnad (supported), muttasil (continuous), munqati’ (broken), mu’allaq (hanging), mu’dal (perplexing) and mursal (hurried).
• According to the number of reporters involved in each stage of the isnad, e.g. mutawatir (consecutive) and ahad (isolated), the latter being divided into gharib (scarce, strange), ‘aziz (rare, strong), and mashhur (famous).
• According to the manner in which the hadith has been reported, such as using the (Arabic) words ‘an (“on the authority of”), haddathana (“he narrated to us”), akhbarana (- “he informed us”) or sami’tu (“I heard”). In this category falls the discussion about mudallas (concealed) and musalsal (uniformly-linked) ahadith. [Note: In the quotation of isnads in the remainder of this book, the first mode of narration mentioned above will be represented with a single broken line thus: ---. The three remaining modes of narration mentioned above, which all strongly indicate a clear, direct transmission of the hadith, are represented by a double line thus: ===.]
• According to the nature of the matn and isnad, e.g. an addition by a reliable reporter, known as ziyadatu thiqah, or opposition by a lesser authority to a more reliable one, known as shadhdh (irregular). In some cases, a text containing a vulgar expression, unreasonable remark or obviously-erroneous statement is rejected by the traditionists outright without consideration of the isnad: such a hadith is known as munkar (denounced). If an expression or statement is proved to be an addition by a reporter to the text, it is declared as mudraj (interpolated).
• According to a hidden defect found in the isnad or text of a hadith. Although this could be included in some of the previous categories, a hadith mu’allal (defective hadith) is worthy to be explained separately. The defect can be caused in many ways; e.g. two types of hadith mu’allal are known as maqlub (overturned) and mudtarib (shaky).
• According to the reliability and memory of the reporters; the final judgment on a hadith depends crucially on this factor: verdicts such as sahih (sound), hasan (good), da’if (weak) and maudu’ (fabricated, forged) rest mainly upon the nature of the reporters in the isnad.

Rijal al-Hadith (the study of the reporters of Hadith)

Mustalah al-Hadith is strongly associated with Rijal al-Hadith (the study of the reporters of hadith). In scrutinising the reporters of a hadith, authenticating or disparaging remarks made by recognised experts, from amongst the Successors and those after them, were found to be of great help. Examples of such remarks, in descending order of authentication, are:

• “Imam (leader), Hafiz (preserver).”
• “Reliable, trustworthy.”
• “Makes mistakes.”
• “Weak.”
• “Abandoned (by the traditionists).”
• “Liar, used to fabricate ahadith.”5

Reporters who have been unanimously described by statements such as the first two may contribute to a sahih (“sound”, see later) isnad. An isnad containing a reporter who is described by the last two statements is likely to be da’if jiddan (very weak) or maudu’ (fabricated). Reporters who are the subject of statements such as the middle two above will cause the isnad to be da’if (weak), although several of them relating the same hadith independently will often increase the rank of the hadith to the level of hasan (good). If the remarks about a particular reporter conflict, a careful verdict has to be arrived at after in-depth analysis of e.g. the reason given for any disparagement, the weight of each type of criticism, the relative strictness or leniency of each critic, etc.

The earliest remarks cited in the books of Rijal go back to a host of Successors, followed by those after them until the period of the six canonical traditionists, a period covering the first three centuries of Islam. A list of such names is provided by the author in his thesis, Criticism of Hadith among Muslims with reference to Sunan Ibn Majah, at the end of chapters IV, V and VI.

Among the earliest available works in this field are Tarikh of Ibn Ma’in (d. 233), Tabaqat of Khalifa b. Khayyat (d. 240), Tarikh of al- Bukhari (d. 256), Kitab al-Jarh wa ‘l-Ta’dil of Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327) and Tabaqat of Muhammad b. Sa’d (d. 320).

A number of traditionists made efforts specifically for the gathering of information about the reporters of the five famous collections of hadith, those of al-Bukhari (d. 256), Muslim (d. 261), Abu Dawud (d. 275), al- Tirmidhi (d. 279) and al-Nasa’i (d. 303), giving authenticating and disparaging remarks in detail. The first major such work to include also the reporters of Ibn Majah (d. 273) is the ten-volume collection of al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi (d. 600), known as Al-Kamal fi Asma’ al-Rijal. Later, Jamal al-Din Abu ‘l-Hajjaj Yusuf b. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Mizzi (d. 742) prepared an edited and abridged version of this work, punctuated by places and countries of origin of the reporters; he named it Tahdhib al- Kamal fi Asma’ al-Rijal and produced it in twelve volumes. Further, one of al-Mizzi’s gifted pupils, Shams al-Din Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Uthman b. Qa’imaz al- Dhahabi (d. 748), summarised his shaikh’s work and produced two abridgements: a longer one called Tadhhib al-Tahdhib and a shorter one called Al-Kashif fi Asma’ Rijal al-Kutub al- Sittah.

A similar effort with the work of al-Mizzi was made by Ibn Hajar (d. 852), who prepared a lengthy but abridged version, with about one- third of the original omitted, entitled Tahdhib al-Tahdhib in twelve shorter volumes. Later, he abridged this further to a relatively-humble two- volume work called Taqrib al-Tahdhib.

The work of al-Dhahabi was not left unedited; al- Khazraji (Safi al-Din Ahmad b. ‘Abdullah, d. after 923) summarised it and also made valuable additions, producing his Khulasah.

A number of similar works deal with either trustworthy reporters only, e.g. Kitab al-Thiqat by al-’Ijli (d. 261) and Tadhkirah al-Huffaz by al-Dhahabi, or with disparaged authorities only, e.g. Kitab al-Du’afa’ wa al-Matrukin by al- Nasa’i and Kitab al-Majruhin by Muhammad b. Hibban al-Busti (d. 354).

Two more works in this field which include a large number of reporters, both authenticated and disparaged, are Mizan al-I’tidal of al- Dhahabi and Lisan al-Mizan of Ibn Hajar.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF HADITH: According to the reference to a particular authority

The following principal types of hadith are important:

• Marfu’ – “elevated”: A narration from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), e.g. a reporter (whether a Companion, Successor or other) says, “The Messenger of Allah said …” For example, the very first hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is as follows: Al- Bukhari === Al-Humaidi ‘Abdullah b. al-Zubair === Sufyan === Yahya b. Sa’id al-Ansari === Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Taymi === ‘Alqamah b. Waqqas al-Laithi, who said: I heard ‘Umar b. al- Khattab saying, while on the pulpit, “I heard Allah’s Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) saying: The reward of deeds depends on the intentions, and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended; so whoever emigrated for wordly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he migrated.”
• Mauquf – “stopped”: A narration from a Companion only, i.e. his own statement; e.g. al-Bukhari reports in his Sahih, in Kitab al-Fara’id (Book of the Laws of Inheritance), that Abu Bakr, Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn al-Zubair said, “The grandfather is (treated like) a father.” It should be noted that certain expressions used by a Companion generally render a hadith to be considered as being effectively marfu’ although it is mauquf on the face of it, e.g. the following:
  “We were commanded to …”
  “We were forbidden from …”
  “We used to do …”
  “We used to say/do … while the Messenger of Allah was amongst us.”
  “We did not use to mind such-and-such…”
  “It used to be said …”
  “It is from the Sunnah to …”
  “It was revealed in the following circumstances: …”, speaking about a verse of the Qur’an.
• Maqtu’- “severed”: A narration from a Successor, e.g. Muslim reports in the Introduction to his Sahih that Ibn Sirin (d. 110) said, “This knowledge (i.e. Hadith) is the Religion, so be careful from whom you take your religion.”

The authenticity of each of the above three types of hadith depends on other factors such as the reliability of its reporters, the nature of the linkage amongst them, etc. However, the above classification is extremely useful, since through it the sayings of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) can be distinguished at once from those of Companions or Successors; this is especially helpful in debate about matters of Fiqh.

Imam Malik’s Al-Muwatta’, one of the early collections of hadith, contains a relatively even ratio of these types of hadith, as well as mursal ahadith (which are discussed later). According to Abu Bakr al-Abhari (d. 375), Al- Muwatta’ contains the following:

• 600 marfu’ ahadith,
• 613 mauquf ahadith,
• 285 maqtu’ ahadith, and
• 228 mursal ahadith; a total of 1726 ahadith.6

Among other collections, relatively more mauquf and maqtu’ ahadith are found in Al-Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah (d. 235), Al-Musannaf of ‘Abd al- Razzaq (d. 211) and the Tafsirs of Ibn Jarir (d. 310), Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327) and Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 319).7

THE CLASSIFICATION OF HADITH: According to the links in the isnad

Musnad

Al-Hakim defines a musnad (“supported”) hadith as follows: “A hadith which a traditionist reports from his shaikh from whom he is known to have heard (ahadith) at a time of life suitable for learning, and similarly in turn for each shaikh, until the isnad reaches a well- known Companion, who in turn reports from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).”8

By this definition, an ordinary muttasil hadith (i.e. one with an uninterrupted isnad) is excluded if it goes back only to a Companion or Successor, as is a marfu’ hadith which has an interrupted isnad.

Al-Hakim gives the following example of a musnad hadith: We reported from Abu ‘Amr ‘Uthman b. Ahmad al-Sammak al-Baghdadi === Al-Hasan b. Mukarram === ‘Uthman b. ‘Amr === Yunus — al-Zuhri — ‘Abdullah b. Ka’b b. Malik — his father, who asked Ibn Abi Hadrad for payment of a debt he owed to him, in the mosque. During the ensuing argument, their voices were raised until heard by the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who eventually lifted the curtain of his apartment and said, “O Ka’b! Write off a part of your debt” – he meant remission of half of it. So he agreed, and the man paid him.

He then remarks,

“Now, my hearing from Ibn al-Simak is well- known, as is his from Ibn Mukarram; al- Hasan’s link with ‘Uthman b. ‘Amr and the latter’s with Yunus b. Zaid are known as well; Yunus is always remembered with al- Zuhri, and the latter with the sons of Ka’b b. Malik, whose link to their father and his companionship of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) are well- established.”9

The term musnad is also applied to those collections of ahadith which give the ahadith of each Companion separately. Among the early compilers of such a Musnad were Yahya b. ‘Abd al- Hamid al-Himmani (d. 228) at Kufah and Musaddad b. Musarhad (d. 228) at Basrah. The largest existing collection of ahadith of Companions arranged in this manner is that of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241), which contains around thirty thousand ahadith. Another larger work is attributed to the famous Andalusian traditionist Baqi b. Makhlad al-Qurtubi (d. 276), but unfortunately it is now untraceable.

Mursal, Munqati’, Mu’dal, & Mu’allaq

If the link between the Successor and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is missing, the hadith is mursal (“hurried”), e.g. when a Successor says, “The Prophet said …”.

However, if a link anywhere before the Successor (i.e. closer to the traditionist recording the hadith) is missing, the hadith is munqati’ (“broken”). This applies even if there is an apparent link, e.g. an isnad seems to be muttasil (“continuous”) but one of the reporters is known to have never heard ahadith from his immediate authority, even though he may be his contemporary. The term munqati’ is also applied by some scholars to a narration such as where a reporter says, “a man narrated to me …”, without naming this authority.10

If the number of consecutive missing reporters in the isnad exceeds one, the isnad is mu’dal (“perplexing”). If the reporter omits the whole isnad and quotes the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, directly (i.e. the link is missing at the beginning, unlike the case with a mursal isnad), the hadith is called mu’allaq (“hanging”) – sometimes it is known as balaghah (“to reach”); for example, Imam Malik sometimes says in Al-Muwatta’, “It reached me that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said …”

Example of a munqati’ hadith

Al-Hakim reported from Muhammad b. Mus’ab === al- Auza’i — Shaddad Abu ‘Ammar — Umm al-Fadl bint al-Harith, who said: I came to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, “I have seen in a vision last night as if a part of your body was cut out and placed in my lap.” He said, “You have seen something good. Allah Willing, Fatimah will give birth to a lad who will be in your lap.” After that, Fatimah gave birth to al- Husain, who used to be in my lap, in accordance with the statement of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). One day, I came to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and placed al- Husain in his lap. I noticed that both his eyes were shedding tears. He said, “Jibril came to me and told me that my Ummah will kill this son of mine, and he brought me some of the reddish dust of that place (where he will be killed).”

Al-Hakim said, “This is a sahih hadith according to the conditions of the Two Shaykhs (i.e. Bukhari & Muslim), but they did not collect it.” Al-Dhahabi says, “No, the hadith is munqati’ and da’if, because Shaddad never met Umm al-Fadl and Muhammad b. Mus’ab is weak.”11

Example of a mu’dal hadith

Ibn Abi Hatim === Ja’far b. Ahmad b. al-Hakam Al- Qurashi in the year 254 === Sulaiman b. Mansur b. ‘Ammar === ‘Ali b. ‘Asim — Sa’id — Qatadah — Ubayy b. Ka’b, who reported that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “After Adam had tasted from the tree, he ran away, but the tree caught his hair. It was proclaimed: O Adam! Are you running away from Me? He said: No, but I feel ashamed before You. He said: O Adam! Go away from My neighbourhood, for By My Honour, no-one who disobeys Me can live here near Me; even if I were to create people like you numbering enough to fill the earth and they were to disobey Me, I would make them live in a home of sinners.”

Ibn Kathir remarks, “This is a gharib hadith. There is inqita’, in fact i’dal, between Qatadah and Ubayy b. Ka’b, may Allah be pleased with them both.”12

Authenticity of the Mursal Hadith

There has been a great deal of discussion amongst the scholars regarding the authenticity of the Mursal Hadith (pl. Marasil), since it is quite probable that a Successor might have omitted two names, those of an elder Successor and a Companion, rather than just one name, that of a Companion.

If the Successor is known to have omitted the name of a Companion only, then the hadith is held to be authentic, for a Successor can only report from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) through a Companion; the omission of the name of the Companion does not affect the authenticity of the isnad since all Companions are held to be trustworthy and reliable, by both Qur’anic injunctions and sayings of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

However, opinions vary in the case where the Successor might have omitted the names of two authorities (since not all the Successors were reliable in matters of Hadith). For example, two widely-differing positions on this issue are:

1. the Marasil of elder Successors such as Sa’id b. al-Musayyab (d. 94) and ‘Ata’ b. Abi Rabah (d. 114) are acceptable because all their Marasil, after investigation, are found to come through the Companions only. However, the Marasil of younger Successors are only acceptable if the names of their immediate authorities are known through other sources; if not, they are rejected outright.
2. the Marasil of Successors and those who report from them are acceptable without any investigation at all. This opinion is supported by the Kufi school of traditionists, but is severely attacked by the majority.

To be precise in this issue, let us investigate in detail the various opinions regarding the Mursal Hadith:

1. The opinion held by Imam Malik and all Maliki jurists is that the Mursal of a trustworthy person is valid as proof and as justification for a practice, just like a musnad hadith.13 This view has been developed to such an extreme that to some of them, the mursal is even better than the musnad, based on the following reasoning: “the one who reports a musnad hadith leaves you with the names of the reporters for further investigation and scrutiny, whereas the one who narrates by way of Irsal, being a knowledgeable and trustworthy person himself, has already done so and found the hadith to be sound. In fact, he saves you from further research.”14
2. Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150) holds the same opinion as Malik; he accepts the Mursal Hadith whether or not it is supported by another hadith.15
3. Imam al-Shafi’i (d. 204) has discussed this issue in detail in his al-Risalah; he requires the following conditions to be met before accepting a mursal hadith:
   1. In the narrative, he requires that one of the following conditions be met: that it be reported also as musnad through another isnad; that its contents be reported as mursal through another reliable source with a different isnad; that the meaning be supported by the sayings of some Companions; or that most scholars hold the same opinion as conveyed by the mursal hadith.
   2. Regarding the narrator, he requires that one of the following conditions be met: that he be an elder Successor; that if he names the person missing in the isnad elsewhere, he does not usually name an unknown person or someone not suitable for reporting from acceptably; or that he does not contradict a reliable person when he happens to share with him in a narration.16

   On the basis of these arguments, al-Shafi’i accepts the Irsal of Sa’id b. al-Musayyab, one of the elder Successors. For example, al- Shafi’i considers the issue of selling meat in exchange for a living animal: he says that Malik told him, reporting from Zaid b. Aslam, who reported from Ibn al-Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the selling of meat in exchange for an animal. He then says, “This is our opinion, for the Irsal of Ibn al-Musayyib is fine.”17

4. Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241) accepts mursal and (other) da’if (weak) ahadith if nothing opposing them is found regarding a particular issue, preferring them to qiyas (analogical deduction). By da’if here is meant ahadith which are not severely weak, e.g. batil, munkar, or maudu’, since Imam Ahmad classified ahadith into sahih and da’if rather than into sahih, hasan and da’if, the preference of most later traditionists. Hence, the category da’if in his view applied to ahadith which were relatively close to being sahih, and included many ahadith which were classed as hasan by other scholars.18 Overlooking this fact has caused misunderstanding about Imam Ahmad’s view on the place of da’if ahadith in rulings of Fiqh and in matters of Fada’il al-A’mal (virtues of various acts of worship).
5. Ibn Hazm (d. 456) rejects the Mursal Hadith outright; he says that the Mursal is unacceptable, whether it comes through Sa’id b. al-Musayyib or al-Hasan al-Basri. To him, even the Mursal which comes through someone who was not well-known to be amongst the Companions would be unacceptable.19
6. Abu Dawud (d . 275) accepts the Mursal under two conditions: that no musnad hadith is found regarding that issue; or that if a musnad hadith is found, it is not contradicted by the mursal hadith.20
7. Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327) does not give a specific opinion about the Mursal Hadith. However, he did collect an anthology of 469 reporters of hadith, including four female reporters, whose narratives were subjected to criticism due to Irsal. This collection is known as Kitab al-Marasil.
8. Al-Hakim (d. 405) is extremely reluctant to accept the Mursal Hadith except in the case of elder Successors. He holds, on the basis of the Qur’an, that knowledge is based on what is heard (directly), not on what is reported (indirectly). In this regard, he quotes Yazid b. Harun who asked Hammad b. Laith: “O Abu Isma’il! Did Allah mention the Ahl al-Hadith (scholars of Hadith) in the Qur’an?” He replied, “Yes! Did you not hear the saying of Allah, If a party from every expedition remained behind, they 21 could devote themselves to studies in religion and admonish the people when they return to them, that thus they may guard themselves (against evil)’ (Qur’an, 9:l22). This concerns those who set off to seek knowledge, and then return to those who remained behind in order to teach them.”22 Al-Hakim then remarks, “This verse shows that the acceptable knowledge is the one which is being heard, not just received by way of Irsal.”23
9. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 462) strongly supports the view of those who reject the Mursal except if it comes through an elder Successor. He concludes, after giving a perusal of different opinions about this issue, “What we select out of these sayings is that the Mursal is not to be practised, nor is it acceptable as proof. We say that Irsal leads to one reporter being ambiguous; if he is ambiguous, to ascertain his reliability is impossible. We have already explained that a narration is only acceptable if it comes through a reporter known for reliability. Hence, the Mursal should not be accepted at all.”24
   Al-Khatib gives the following example, showing that a narrative which has been reported through both musnad and mursal isnads is acceptable, not because of the reliability of those who narrated it by way of Irsal but because of an uninterrupted isnad, even though it contains less reliable reporters:
   The text of the hadith is: “No marriage is valid except by the consent of the guardian”; al- Khatib gives two isnads going back to Shu’bah and Sufyan al-Thauri; the remainder of each isnad is:
   Sufyan al-Thauri and Shu’bah — Abu Ishaq — Abu Burdah — the Prophet.
   This isnad is mursal because Abu Burdah, a Successor, narrates directly from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). However, al-Khatib further gives three isnads going back to Yunus b. Abi Ishaq, Isra’il b. Yunus and Qais b. al-Rabi’; the remainder of the first isnad is:
   Yunus b. Abi Ishaq — Abu Ishaq — Abu Burdah — Abu Musa — the Prophet.
   The other two reporters narrate similarly, both of them including the name of Abu Musa, the Companion from whom Abu Burdah has reported. Al- Khatib goes on to prove that both al-Thauri and Shu’bah heard this hadith from Abu Ishaq in one sitting while the other three reporters heard it in different sittings. Hence, this addition of Abu Musa in the isnad is quite acceptable.25
10. Ibn al-Salah (d. 643) agrees with al-Shafi’i in rejecting the Mursal Hadith unless it is proved to have come through a musnad route.26
11. Ibn Taimiyyah (d. 728) classifies Mursal into three categories. He says, “There are some acceptable, others unacceptable, and some which require further investigation: if it is known that the reporter does so (i.e. narrates by Irsal) from reliable authorities, then his report will be accepted; if he does so from both classes of authorities, i.e. reliable and unreliable, we shall not accept his narration (on its own, without further investigation), for he is narrating from someone whose reliability is unknown; all such mursal ahadith which go against the reports made by reliable authorities will be rejected completely.”27
12. Al-Dhahabi (d. 748) regards the Mursal of younger Successors such as al-Hasan al-Basri, al- Zuhri, Qatadah and Humaid al-Tawil as the weakest type of Mursal.28

Later scholars such as Ibn Kathir (d. 744), al- ‘Iraqi (d. 806), Ibn Hajar (d. 852), al-Suyuti (d. 911), Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Wazir (d. 840), Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi (d. 1332) and Tahir al- Jaza’iri (d. 1338) have given exhaustive discussions about this issue, but none of them holds an opinion different to those mentioned above.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF HADITH: According to the number of reporters involved in each stage of the isnad

Mutawatir & Ahad

Depending on the number of the reporters of the hadith in each stage of the isnad, i.e. in each generation of reporters, it can be classified into the general categories of mutawatir (“consecutive”) or ahad (“single”) hadith. A mutawatir hadith is one which is reported by such a large number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, all of them together.29

Al-Ghazali (d. 505) stipulates that a mutawatir narration be known by the sizeable number of its reporters equally in the beginning, in the middle and at the end.30 He is correct in this stipulation because some narrations or ideas, although known as mutawatir among some people, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, originally have no tawatur. There is no precise definition for a “large number of reporters”; although the numbers four, five, seven, ten, twelve, forty and seventy, among others, have all been variously suggested as a minimum, the exact number is irrelevant (some reporters, e.g. Imams of Hadith, carry more weight anyway than others who are their contemporaries): the important condition is that the possibility of coincidence or “organised falsehood” be obviously negligible.31

Examples of mutawatir practices are the five daily prayers, fasting, zakat, the Hajj and recitation of the Qur’an. Among the verbal mutawatir ahadith, the following has been reported by at least sixty-two Companions from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and has been widely-known amongst the Muslims throughout the ages: “Whoever invents a lie and attributes it to me intentionally, let him prepare his seat in the Fire.”

Ahadith related to the description of the Haud Kauthar (the Basin of Abundant Goodness) in the Hereafter, raising the hands at certain postures during prayer, rubbing wet hands on the leather socks during ablution, revelation of the Qur’an in seven modes, and the prohibition of every intoxicant are further examples of verbal mutawatir ahadith.32

A hadith ahad or khabar wahid is one which is narrated by people whose number does not reach that of the mutawatir case. Ahad is further classified into:

Gharib, ‘Aziz & Mashhur

A hadith is termed gharib (“scarce, strange”) when only a single reporter is found relating it at some stage of the isnad. For example, the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace),

“Travel is a piece of punishment” is gharib; the isnad of this hadith contains only one reporter in each stage: Malik — Yahya b. Abi Salih — Abu Hurairah — the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). With regard to its isnad, this hadith is sahih, although most gharib ahadith are weak; Ahmad b. Hanbal said, “Do not write these gharib ahadith because they are unacceptable, and most of them are weak.”33

A type of hadith similar to gharib is fard (“solitary”); it is known in three ways:

1. similar to gharib, i.e. a single person is found reporting it from a well-known Imam;
2. the people of one locality only are known to narrate the hadith;
3. narrators from one locality report the hadith from narrators of another locality, such as the people of Makkah reporting from the people of Madinah.34

If at any stage in the isnad, only two reporters are found to narrate the hadith, it is termed ‘aziz (“rare, strong”). For example, Anas reported that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “None of you (truly) believes until I become more beloved to him than his father, his son, and all the people.”

Two reporters, Qatadah and ‘Abdul ‘Aziz b. Shu’aib, report this hadith from Anas, and two more reporters narrate from each of them: Shu’bah and Sa’id report from Qatada, and Isma’il b. Ulayyah and ‘Abd al-Warith from ‘Abd al-’Aziz; then a group of people report from each of them.35

A hadith which is reported by more than two reporters is known as mashhur (“famous”). According to some scholars, every narrative which comes to be known widely, whether or not it has an authentic origin, is called mashhur. A mashhur hadith might be reported by only one or two reporters in the beginnning but become widely-known later, unlike gharib or ‘aziz, which are reported by one or two reporters in the beginning and continue to have the same number even in the times of the Successors and those after them. For example, if only one or two reporters are found narrating hadith from a reliable authority in Hadith such as al-Zuhri and Qatadah, the hadith will remain either gharib or ‘aziz. On the other hand, if a group of people narrate from them, it will be known as mashhur.36

According to al-’Ala’i (Abu Sa’id Khalil Salah al-Din, d. 761), a hadith may be known as ‘aziz and mashhur at the same time. By this he means a hadith which is left with only two reporters in its isnad at any stage while it enjoys a host of reporters in other stages, such as the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), “We are the last but (will be) the foremost on the Day of Resurrection.” This hadith is ‘aziz in its first stage, as it is reported by Hudhaifah b. al-Yaman and Abu Hurairah only. It later becomes mashhur as seven people report it from Abu Hurairah.37

THE CLASSIFICATION OF HADITH: According to the manner in which the hadith is reported

Mudallas hadith & Tadlis

Different ways of reporting, e.g. (he narrated to us), (he informed us), (I heard), and (on the authority of) are used by the reporters of hadith. The first three indicate that the reporter personally heard from his shaikh, whereas the fourth mode can denote either hearing in person or through another reporter.

A mudallas (“concealed”) hadith is one which is weak due to the uncertainty caused by tadlis. Tadlis (concealing) refers to an isnad where a reporter has concealed the identity of his shaikh. Ibn al-Salah describes two types of tadlis:

1. tadlis al-isnad. A person reports from his shaikh whom he met, what he did not hear from him, or from a contemporary of his whom he did not meet, in such a way as to create the impression that he heard the hadith in person. A mudallis (one who practises tadlis) here usually uses the mode (“on the authority of”) or (“he said”) to conceal the truth about the isnad.
2. tadlis al-shuyukh. The reporter does mention his shaikh by name, but uses a less well-known name, by-name, nickname etc., in order not to disclose his shaikh’s identity.38Al-’Iraqi (d. 806), in his notes on Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah, adds a third type of tadlis:
3. tadlis al-taswiyyah. To explain it, let us assume an isnad which contains a trustworthy shaikh reporting from a weak authority, who in turn reports from another trustworthy shaikh. Now, the reporter of this isnad omits the intermediate weak authority, leaving it apparently consisting of reliable authorities. He plainly shows that he heard it from his shaikh but he uses the mode “on the authority of” to link his immediate shaikh with the next trustworthy one. To an average student, this isnad seems free of any doubt or discrepancy. This is known to have been practised by Baqiyyah b. al-Walid, Walid b. Muslim, al-A’mash and al- Thauri. It is said to be the worst among the three kinds of tadlis.39

Ibn Hajar classifies those who practised tadlis into five categories in his essay Tabaqat al- Mudallisin:

• Those who are known to do it occasionally, such as Yahya b. Sa’id al-Ansari.
• Those who are accepted by the traditionists, either because of their good reputation and relatively few cases of tadlis, e.g. Sufyan al-Thauri (d. 161), or because they reported from authentic authorities only, e.g. Sufyan Ibn ‘Uyainah (d. 198).
• Those who practised it a great deal, and the traditionists have accepted such ahadith from them which were reported with a clear mention of hearing directly. Among these are Abu ‘l- Zubair al-Makki, whose ahadith narrated from the Companion Jabir b. ‘Abdullah have been collected in Sahih Muslim. Opinions differ regarding whether they are acceptable or not.
• Similar to the previous category, but the traditionists agree that their ahadith are to be rejected unless they clearly admit of their hearing, such as by saying “I heard”; an example of this category is Baqiyyah b. al- Walid.
• Those who are disparaged due to another reason apart from tadlis; their ahadith are rejected, even though they admit of hearing them directly. Exempted from them are reporters such as Ibn Lahi’ah, the famous Egyptian judge, whose weakness is found to be of a lesser degree. Ibn Hajar gives the names of 152 such reporters.40

Tadlis, especially of those in the last three categories, is so disliked that Shu’bah (d. 170) said, “Tadlis is the brother of lying” and “To commit adultery is more favourable to me than to report by way of Tadlis.”41

Musalsal

A musalsal (uniformly-linked) isnad is one in which all the reporters, as well as the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), use the same mode of transmission such as ‘an, haddathana, etc., repeat any other additional statement or remark, or act in a particular manner while narrating the hadith.

Al-Hakim gives eight examples of such isnads, each having a different characteristic repeated feature:

• use of the phrase sami’tu (I heard);
• the expression “stand and pour water for me so that I may illustrate the way my shaikh performed ablution”;
• haddathana (he narrated to us);
• amarani (he commanded me);
• holding one’s beard;
• illustrating by counting on five fingers;
• the expression “I testify that …”; and
• interlocking the fingers.42

Knowledge of musalsal helps in discounting the possibility of tadlis.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF HADITH: According to the nature of the text and isnad

Shadhdh & Munkar

According to al-Shafi’i, a shadhdh (“irregular”) hadith is one which is reported by a trustworthy person but goes against the narration of a person more reliable than him. It does not include a hadith which is unique in its contents and is not narrated by someone else.43 In the light of this definition, the well-known hadith, “Actions are (judged) according to their intentions”, is not considered shadhdh since it has been narrated by Yahya b. Sa’id al-Ansari from Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Taimi from ‘Alqamah from ‘Umar, all of whom are trustworthy authorities, although each one of them is the only reporter at that stage.44

An example of a shadhdh hadith according to some scholars is one which Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi transmit, through the following isnad:
‘Abdul Wahid b. Ziyad — al-A’mash — Abu Salih — Abu Hurairah === the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): “When one of you offers the two rak’ahs before the Dawn Prayer, he should lie down on his right side.”

Regarding it, al-Baihaqi said,
“‘Abdul Wahid has gone against a large number of people with this narration, for they have reported the above as an act of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and not as his saying; ‘Abdul Wahid is alone amongst the trustworthy students of al-A’mash in narrating these words.”45

According to Ibn Hajar, if a narration which goes against another authentic hadith is reported by a weak narrator, it is known as munkar (denounced).46 Traditionists as late as Ahmad used to simply label any hadith of a weak reporter as munkar.47 Sometimes, a hadith is labelled as munkar because of its contents being contrary to general sayings of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Al-Khatib (d. 463) quotes al-Rabi’ b. Khaitham (d. 63) as saying,
“Some ahadith have a light like that of day, which we recognise; others have a darkness like that of night which makes us reject them.”

He also quotes al-Auza’i (d. 157) as saying,
“We used to listen to ahadith and present them to fellow traditionists, just as we present forged coins to money-changers: whatever they recognise of them, we accept, and whatever they reject of them, we also reject.”48

Ibn Kathir quotes the following two ahadith in his Tafsir, the first of which is acceptable, whereas the second contradicts it and is unreliable:

1. Ahmad === Abu Mu’awiyah === Hisham b. ‘Urwah — Fatimah bint al-Mundhir — Asma’ bint Abi Bakr, who said, “My mother came (to Madinah) during the treaty Quraish had made, while she was still a polytheist. So I came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said to him, ‘O Messenger of Allah, my mother has come willingly: should I treat her with kindness?’ He replied, ‘Yes! Treat her with kindness’.”
2. Al-Bazzar === ‘Abdullah b. Shabib === Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaibah === Abu Qatadah al- ‘Adawi — the nephew of al-Zuhri — al- Zuhri — ‘Urwah — ‘A’ishah and Asma’, both of whom said, “Our mother came to us in Madinah while she was a polytheist, during the peace treaty between the Quraish and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). So we said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, our mother has come to Madinah willingly: do we treat her kindly?’ He said, ‘Yes! Treat her kindly’.”

Ibn Kathir then remarks:
“This (latter) hadith, to our knowledge is reported only through this route of al- Zuhri — ‘Urwah — ‘A’ishah. It is a munkar hadith with this text because the mother of ‘A’ishah is Umm Ruman, who was already a Muslim emigrant, while the mother of Asma’ was another woman, as mentioned by name in other ahadith.”49

In contrast to a munkar hadith, if a reliable reporter is found to add something which is not narrated by other authentic sources, the addition is accepted as long as it does not contradict them; and is known as ziyadatu thiqah (an addition by one trustworthy).50 An example is the hadith of al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Ibn Mas’ud: “I asked the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), ‘Which action is the most virtuous?’ He said, ‘The Prayer at its due time’.” Two reporters, Al-Hasan b. Makdam and Bindar, reported it with the addition, “… at the beginning of its time”; both Al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban declared this addition to be sahih.51

Mudraj

An addition by a reporter to the text of the saying being narrated is termed mudraj (interpolated).52 For example, al-Khatib relates via Abu Qattan and Shababah — Shu’bah — Muhammad b. Ziyad — Abu Hurairah — The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said,

“Perform the ablution fully; woe to the heels from the Fire!”

Al-Khatib then remarks,
“The statement, ‘Perform the ablution fully’ is made by Abu Hurairah, while the statement afterwards, ‘Woe to the heels from the Fire!’, is that of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The distinction between the two is understood from the narration of al- Bukhari, who transmits the same hadith and quotes Abu Hurairah as saying, “Complete the ablution, for Abu ‘l-Qasim (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: Woe to the heels from the Fire!”.”53

Such an addition may be found in the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, often in explanation of a term used. Idraj (interpolation) is mostly found in the text, although a few examples show that such additions are found in the isnad as well, where the reporter grafts a part of one isnad into another.

A reporter found to be in the habit of intentional idraj is generally unacceptable and considered a liar.54 However, the traditionists are more lenient towards those reporters who may do so forgetfully or in order to explain a difficult word.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF HADITH: According to a hidden defect found in the isnad or text of a hadith

Before discussing ma’lul (defective) ahadith, a brief note on mudtarib (shaky) and maqlub (reversed) ahadith would help in understanding ma’lul.

Mudtarib

According to Ibn Kathir, if reporters disagree about a particular shaikh, or about some other points in the isnad or the text, in such a way that none of the opinions can be preferred over the others, and thus there is uncertainty about the isnad or text, such a hadith is called mudtarib (shaky).55

For example with regard to idtirab in the isnad, it is reported on the authority of Abu Bakr that he said, “O Messenger of Allah! I see you getting older?” He (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) replied, “What made me old are Surah Hud and its sister surahs.” Al-Daraqutni says,

“This is an example of a mudtarib hadith. It is reported through Abu Ishaq, but as many as ten different opinions are held about this isnad: some report it as mursal, others as muttasil; some take it as musnad of Abu Bakr, others as musnad of Sa’d or ‘A’ishah. Since all these reports are comparable in weight, it is difficult to prefer one above another. Hence, the hadith is termed as mudtarib.”56

As an example of idtirab in the text, Rafi’ b. Khadij said that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the renting of land. The reporters narrating from Rafi’ give different statements, as follows:

1. Hanzalah asked Rafi’, “What about renting for gold and silver?” He replied, “It does not matter if it is rent for gold and silver.”
2. Rifa’ah — Rafi’ — the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said, “Whoever owns a piece of land should cultivate it, give it to his brother to cultivate, or abandon it.”
3. Salim — Rafi’ — his two uncles — the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who forbade the renting of farming land.
4. The son of Rafi’ — Rafi’ — the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who forbade the renting of land.
5. A different narration by Rafi’ from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said, “Whoever owns a piece of land should either cultivate it or give it to his brother to cultivate. He must not rent it for a third or a quarter of the produce, nor for a given quantity of the produce.”
6. Zaid b. Thabit said, “May Allah forgive Rafi’! I am more aware of the hadith than he; what happened was that two of the Ansar (Helpers) had a dispute, so they came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said after listening to their cases, ‘If this is your position, then do not rent the farms.’ Rafi’ has only heard the last phrase, i.e., ‘Do not rent the farms’.”

Because of these various versions, Ahmad b. Hanbal said,
“The ahadith reported by Rafi’ about the renting of land are mudtarib. They are not to be accepted, especially when they go against the well-established hadith of Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) gave the land of Khaibar to the Jews on condition that they work on it and take half of the produce.”57

Maqlub

A hadith is known as maqlub (changed, reversed) when its isnad is grafted to a different text or vice versa, or if a reporter happens to reverse the order of a sentence in the text.

As an example relating to the text, in his transmission of the famous hadith describing the seven who will be under the shelter of Allah on the Day of Judgment, Muslim reports one of the categories as, “a man who conceals his act of charity to such an extent that his right hand does not know what his left hand gives in charity.” This sentence has clearly been reversed by a reporter, because the correct wording is recorded in other narrations of both al-Bukhari and Muslim as follows: “… that his left hand does not know what his right hand gives …”58

The famous trial of al-Bukhari by the scholars of Baghdad provides a good example of a maqlub isnad. The traditionists, in order to test their visitor, al-Bukhari, appointed ten men, each with ten ahadith. Now, each hadith (text) of these ten people was prefixed with the isnad of another. Imam al-Bukhari listened to each of the ten men as they narrated their ahadith and denied the correctness of every hadith. When they had finished narrating these ahadith, he addressed each person in turn and recounted to him each of his ahadith with its correct isnad. This trial earned him great honour among the scholars of Baghdad.59

Other ways in which ahadith have been rendered maqlub are by replacement of the name of a reporter with another, e.g. quoting Abu Hurairah as the reporter from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) although the actual reporter was someone else, or by reversal of the name of the reporter, e.g. mentioning Walid b. Muslim instead of Muslim b. Walid, or Ka’b b. Murrah instead of Murrah b. Ka’b.60

Ma’lul or Mu’allal

Ibn al-Salah says, “A ma’lul (defective) hadith is one which appears to be sound, but thorough research reveals a disparaging factor.” Such factors can be:

1. declaring a hadith musnad when it is in fact mursal, or marfu’ when it is in fact mauquf;
2. showing a reporter to narrate from his shaikh when in fact he did not meet the latter; or attributing a hadith to one Companion when it in fact comes through another.61

Ibn al-Madini (d. 324) says that such a defect can only be revealed if all the isnads of a particular hadith are collated. In his book al- ‘Ilal, he gives thirty-four Successors and the names of those Companions from whom each of them heard ahadith directly. For example, he says that al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110, aged 88) did not see ‘Ali (d. 40), although he adds that there is a slight possibility that he may have seen him during his childhood in Madinah.62 Such information is very important, since for example, many Sufi traditions go back to al- Hasan al-Basri, who is claimed to report directly from ‘Ali.

Being a very delicate branch of Mustalah al- Hadith, only a few well-known traditionists such as Ibn al-Madini (d. 234), Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (d. 327), al-Khallal (d. 311) and al-Daraqutni (d. 385), have compiled books about it. Ibn Abi Hatim, in his Kitab al-’Ilal, has given 2840 examples of ma’lul ahadith about a range of topics.

An example of a ma’lul hadith is one transmitted by Muslim on the authority of Abu Hurairah, who reports the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as saying,
“Allah created the land on Saturday; He created the mountains on Sunday; He created the trees on Monday; He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday; He created the light (or fish) on Wednesday; He scattered the beasts in it (the earth) on Thursday; and He created Adam after the afternoon of Friday, the last creation at the last hour of the hours of Friday, between the afternoon and night.”63

Regarding it, Ibn Taimiyyah says,
“Men more knowledgeable than Muslim, such as al-Bukhari and Yahya b. Ma’in, have criticised it. Al-Bukhari said, ‘This saying is not that of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), but one of Ka’b al-Ahbar’.”64

THE CLASSIFICATION OF HADITH: According to the reliability and memory of the reporters

The final verdict on a hadith, i.e. sahih (sound), hasan (good), da’if (weak) or maudu’ (fabricated, forged), depends critically on this factor.

Among the early traditionists, mostly of the first two centuries, ahadith were classified into two categories only: sahih and da’if; al- Tirmidhi was to be the first to distinguish hasan from da’if. This is why traditionists and jurists such as Ahmad, who seemed to argue on the basis of da’if ahadith sometimes, were in fact basing their argument on the ahadith which were later to be known as hasan.65

We now examine in more detail these four important classes of ahadith.

Sahih

Al-Shafi’i states the following requirement in order for a hadith which is not mutawatir to be acceptable:

“Each reporter should be trustworthy in his religion; he should be known to be truthful in his narrating, to understand what he narrates, to know how a different expression can alter the meaning, and report the wording of the hadith verbatim, not only its meaning. This is because if he does not know how a different expression can change the whole meaning, he will not know if he has changed what is lawful into what is prohibited. Hence, if he reports the hadith according to its wording, no change of meaning will be found at all. Moreover, he should be a good memoriser if he happens to report from his memory, or a good preserver of his writings if he happens to report from them. He should agree with the narrations of the huffaz (leading authorities in Hadith), if he reports something which they do also. He should not be a mudallis, who narrates from someone he met something he did not hear, nor should he report from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) contrary to what reliable sources have reported from him. In addition, the one who is above him (in the isnad) should be of the same quality, [and so on,] until the hadith goes back uninterrupted to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) or any authority below him.”66

Ibn al-Salah, however, defines a sahih hadith more precisely by saying:

“A sahih hadith 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).”

By the above definition, no room is left for any weak hadith, whether, for example, it is munqati’, mu’dal, mudtarib, maqlub, shadhdh, munkar, ma’lul, or contains a mudallis. The definition also excludes hasan ahadith, as will be discussed under that heading.

Of all the collectors of hadith, al-Bukhari and Muslim were greatly admired because of their tireless attempts to collect sahih ahadith only. It is generally understood that the more trustworthy and of good memory the reporters, the more authentic the hadith. The isnad: al- Shafi’i — Malik — Nafi’ — ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar — The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), is called a “golden isnad” because of its renowned reporters.67

Some traditionists prefer Sahih al-Bukhari to Sahih Muslim because al-Bukhari always looked for those reporters who had either accompanied or met each other, even if only once in their lifetime. On the other hand, Muslim would accept a reporter who is simply found to be contemporary to his immediate authority in reporting.68

The following grading is given for sahih ahadith only:

1. those which are transmitted by both al- Bukhari and Muslim;
2. those which are transmitted by al-Bukhari only;
3. those which are transmitted by Muslim only;those which are not found in the above two collections, but
4. which agree with the requirements of both al-Bukhari and Muslim;
5. which agree with the requirements of al- Bukhari only;
6. which agree with the requirements of Muslim only; and
7. those declared sahih by other traditionists.69

Hasan

Al-Tirmidhi means by hadith hasan: a hadith which is not shadhdh, nor contains a disparaged reporter in its isnad, and which is reported through more than one route of narration.70

Al-Khattabi (d. 388) states a very concise definition, “It is the one where its source is known and its reporters are unambiguous.”

By this he means that the reporters of the hadith should not be of a doubtful nature, such as with the mursal or munqati’ hadith, or one containing a mudallis.

Ibn al-Salah classifies hasan into two categories:

1. one with an isnad containing a reporter who is mastur (“screened”, i.e. no prominent person reported from him) but is not totally careless in his reporting, provided that a similar text is reported through another isnad as well;
2. one with an isnad containing a reporter who is known to be truthful and reliable, but is a degree less in his preservation/memory of hadith in comparison to the reporters of sahih ahadith.

In both categories, Ibn al-Salah requires that the hadith be free of any shudhudh (irregularities).71

Al-Dhahabi, after giving the various definitions, says, “A hasan hadith is one which excels the da’if but nevertheless does not reach the standard of a sahih hadith.”72 In the light of this definition, the following isnads are hasan according to al-Dhahabi:

1. Bahz b. Hakam — his father — his grandfather;
2. ‘Amr b. Shu’aib — his father — his grandfather;
3. Muhammad b. ‘Amr — Abu Salamah — Abu Hurairah.

Reporters such as al-Harith b. ‘Abdullah, ‘Asim b. Damurah, Hajjaj b. Artat, Khusaif b. ‘Abd al- Rahman and Darraj Abu al-Samh attract different verdicts: some traditionists declare their ahadith hasan, others declare them da’if.73

Example of a hasan hadithMalik, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim reported through their isnads from ‘Amr b. Shu’aib — his father — his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said,

“A single rider is a devil (i.e. disobedient), two riders are two devils, but three makes a travelling party.”

Al-Tirmidhi declares this hadith to be hasan because of the above isnad, which falls short of the requirements for a sahih hadith.74

Several weak ahadith may mutually support each other to the level of hasan

According to the definitions of al-Tirmidhi and Ibn al-Salah, a number of similar weak ahadith on a particular issue can be raised to the degree of hasan if the weakness found in their reporters is of a mild nature. Such a hadith is known as hasan li ghairihi (hasan due to others), to distinguish it from the type previously-discussed, which is hasan li dhatihi (hasan in itself). Similarly, several hasan ahadith on the same subject may make the hadith sahih li ghairihi, to be distinguished from the previously-discussed sahih li dhatihi.

However, in case the weakness is severe (e.g., the reporter is accused of lying or the hadith is itself shadhdh), such very weak ahadith will not support each other and will remain weak. For example, the well-known hadith, “He who preserves forty ahadith for my Ummah will be raised by Allah on the Day of Resurrection among the men of understanding”, has been declared to be da’if by most of the traditionists, although it is reported through several routes.75

Da’if

A hadith which fails to reach the status of hasan is da’if. Usually, the weakness is one of discontinuity in the isnad, in which case the hadith could be mursal, mu’allaq, mudallas, munqati’ or mu’dal, according to the precise nature of the discontinuity, or one of a reporter having a disparaged character, such as due to his telling lies, excessive mistakes, opposition to the narration of more reliable sources, involvement in innovation, or ambiguity surrounding his person.

The smaller the number and importance of defects, the less severe the weakness. The more the defects in number and severity, the closer the hadith will be to being maudu’ (fabricated).76

Some ahadith, according to the variation in the nature of the weakness associated with its reporters, rank at the bottom of the hasan grade or at the top of the da’if grade. Reporters such as ‘Abdullah b. Lahi’ah (a famous judge from Egypt), ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Zaid b. Aslam, Abu Bakr b. Abi Maryam al-Himsi, Faraj b. Fadalah, and Rishdin b. Sa’d attract such types of varying ranks as they are neither extremely good preservers nor totally abandoned by the traditionists.77

Maudu’

Al-Dhahabi defines maudu’ (fabricated, forged) as the term applied to a hadith, the text of which goes against the established norms of the Prophet’s sayings (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), or its reporters include a liar, e.g. the forty ahadith known as Wad’aniyyah or the small collection of ahadith which was fabricated and claimed to have been reported by ‘Ali al-Rida, the eighth Imam of the Ithna ‘Ashari Shi’ah.78

A number of traditionists have collected fabricated ahadith separately in order to distinguish them from other ahadith; among them are Ibn al-Jauzi in al-Maudu’at, al-Jauzaqani in Kitab al-Abatil, al-Suyuti in al-La’ali al- Masnu’ah fi ‘l-Ahadith al-Maudu’ah, and ‘Ali al- Qari in al-Maudu’at.

Some of these ahadith were known to be spurious by the confession of their inventors. For example, Muhammad b. Sa’id al-Maslub used to say, “It is not wrong to fabricate an isnad for a sound statement.”79 Another notorious inventor, ‘Abd al-Karim Abu ‘l-Auja, who was killed and crucified by Muhammad b. Sulaiman b. ‘Ali, governor of Basrah, admitted that he had fabricated four thousand ahadith declaring lawful the prohibited and vice-versa.80

Maudu’ ahadith are also recognised by external evidence related to a discrepancy found in the dates or times of a particular incident.81 For example, when the second caliph, ‘Umar b. al- Khattab decided to expel the Jews from Khaibar, some Jewish dignitaries brought a document to ‘Umar apparently proving that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had intended that they stay there by exempting them from the jizyah (tax on non-Muslims under the rule of Muslims); the document carried the witness of two Companions, Sa’d b. Mu’adh and Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan. ‘Umar rejected the document outright, knowing that it was fabricated because the conquest of Khaibar took place in 6 AH, whereas Sa’d b. Mu’adh died in 3 AH just after the Battle of the Trench, and Mu’awiyah embraced Islam in 8 AH, after the conquest of Makkah!82

The author, in his Criticism of Hadith among Muslims with reference to Sunan Ibn Majah, has given more examples of fabricated ahadith under the following eight categories of causes of fabrication:83

1. political differences;
2. factions based on issues of creed;
3. fabrications by zanadiqah (enemies-within spreading heretical beliefs);
4. fabrications by story-tellers;
5. fabrications by ignorant ascetics;
6. prejudice in favour of town, race or a particular imam;
7. inventions for personal motives;
8. proverbs turned into ahadith.

Similar to the last category above is the case of Isra’iliyat (“Israelite traditions”), narrations from the Jews and the Christians84 which were wrongly attributed to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

SECTION C

FURTHER BRANCHES OF MUSTALAH AND RIJAL AL-HADITH (classification of hadith and their reporters)

The above-mentioned classification of ahadith plays a vital role in ascertaining the authenticity of a particular narration. Ibn al- Salah mentions sixty-five terms in his book, of which twenty-three have been discussed above. Two further types not included by Ibn al-Salah, mu’allaq and mutawatir, have been dealt with from other sources. The remaining forty-two types follow in brief, which help further distinguish between different types of narrations.

1. Knowledge of i’tibar (“consideration”), mutaba’ah (“follow-up”) and shawahid (“witnesses”). Traditionists are always in search of strengthening support for a hadith which is reported by one source only; such research is termed i’tibar. If a supporting narration is not found for a particular hadith, it is declared as fard mutlaq (absolutely singular) or gharib. For example, if a hadith is reported through the following isnad: Hammad b. Salamah – — Ayyub — Ibn Sirin — Abu Hurairah — the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), research would be done to ascertain whether another trustworthy reporter has narrated it from Ayyub; if so, it will be called mutaba’ah tammah (full follow-up); if not, a reporter other than Ayyub narrating from Ibn Sirin would be sought: if so, it will be called mutaba’ah qasirah (incomplete follow-up). Whereas mutaba’ah applies to the isnad, i.e. other narrations from the same reporters, a narration which supports the text (meaning) of the original hadith, although it may be through a completely different isnad, is called a shahid (“witness”).85
2. Afrad (singular narrations).
3. The type of character required in an acceptable reporter.
4. The way a hadith is heard, and the different ways of acquiring ahadith.
5. How a hadith is written, and punctuation marks used.
6. The way a hadith is reported.
7. The manners required in traditionists.
8. The manners required in students of Hadith.
9. Knowledge of a higher or lower isnad (i.e. one with less or more reporters respectively).
10. Knowledge of difficult words.
11. Knowledge of abrogated ahadith.
12. Knowledge of altered words in a text or isnad.
13. Knowledge of contradictory ahadith.
14. Knowledge of additions made to an isnad (i.e. by an inserting the name of an additional reporter).
15. Knowledge of a well-concealed type of mursal hadith.
16. Knowledge of the Companions.
17. Knowledge of the Successors.
18. Knowledge of elders reporting from younger reporters.
19. Knowledge of reporters similar in age reporting from each other.
20. Knowledge of brothers and sisters among reporters.
21. Knowledge of fathers reporting from their sons.
22. Knowledge of sons reporting from their fathers.
23. Knowledge of cases where e.g. two reporters report from the same authority, one in his early life and the other in his old age; in such cases the dates of death of the two reporters will be of significance.
24. Knowledge of such authorities from whom only one person reported.
25. Knowledge of such reporters who are known by a number of names and titles.
26. Knowledge of unique names amongst the Companions in particular and the reporters in general.
27. Knowledge of names and by-names (kunyah).
28. Knowledge of by-names for reporters known by their names only.
29. Knowledge of nicknames (alqab) of the traditionists.
30. Knowledge of mu’talif and mukhtalif (names written similarly but pronounced differently), e.g. Kuraiz and Kariz.
31. Knowledge of muttafiq and muftariq (similar names but different identities), e.g. “Hanafi”: there are two reporters who are called by this name; one because of his tribe Banu Hanifah; the other because of his attribution to a particular Madhhab (school of thought in jurisprudence).
32. Names covering both the previous types.
33. Names looking similar but they differ because of the difference in their father’s names, e.g. Yazid b. al-Aswad and al-Aswad b. Yazid.
34. Names attributed to other than their fathers, e.g. Isma’il b. Umayyah; in this case Umayyah is the mother’s name.
35. Knowledge of such titles which have a meaning different from what they seem to be, e.g. Abu Mas’ud al-Badri, not because he witnessed the battle of Badr but because he came to live there; Mu’awiyah b. ‘Abdul Karim al- Dall (“the one going astray”), not because of his beliefs but because he lost his way while travelling to Makkah; and ‘Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Da’if (“the weak”), not because of his reliability in Hadith, but due to a weak physique.
36. Knowledge of ambiguous reporters by finding out their names.
37. Knowledge of the dates of birth and death of reporters.
38. Knowledge of trustworthy and weak reporters.
39. Knowledge of trustworthy reporters who became confused in their old age.
40. Knowledge of contemporaries in a certain period.
41. Knowledge of free slaves (mawali) amongst the reporters.
42. Knowledge of the homelands and home towns of reporters.86

APPENDIX

Verdicts on the ahadith mentioned in the Foreword

1. Mutawatir, as declared by many scholars, including Ibn Taimiyyah, al-Suyuti, Najm al-Din al-Iskandari (d. 981) and al-’Ijlouni (d. 1162). About this hadith, al-Daraqutni said, “It is the most authentic one regarding the virtues of any surah.” It is related by al-Bukhari, Muslim and others.
2. The following is the sahih hadith of al- Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Ibn ‘Asakir: “Verily, Allah has Ninety-Nine Names which if a person safeguards them, he will enter the Garden.” In some narrations of this hadith found in al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, al-Hakim and others, the names are listed at the end; however, at least three different listings are given, e.g. one list being, “He is Allah, besides whom there is no other deity, the Merciful, the Compassionate, …, the Forbearing” while another is “Allah, the Unique, the Absolute, …, the One who has nothing like unto Him.” It is agreed that these latter narrations are da’if, and this is why al-Bukhari and Muslim did not include them in their Sahihs. Al-Tirmidhi says in his Sunan, “This (version of the) hadith is gharib; it has been narrated from various routes on the authority of Abu Hurairah, but we do not know of the mention of the Names in the numerous narrations, except this one.” Ibn Taimiyyah says, “Al-Walid (one of the narrators of the hadith) related the Names from (the saying of) one of his Syrian teachers … specific mention of the Names is not from the words of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), by the agreement of those familiar with Hadith.”87 Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsir, under verse 180 of Surah al- A’raf, that these narrations are mudraj. Ibn Hajar takes a similar view in his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari. Various scholars have given different lists of 99 Names from their study of the Qur’an and Sunnah, including Ja’far al- Sadiq, Sufyan b. ‘Uyainah, Ibn Hazm, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Hajar and Salih b. ‘Uthaimin.
3. Ibn Taimiyyah says, “It is not from the words of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and there is no known isnad for it, neither sahih nor da’if”; al-Zarkashi (d. 794), Ibn Hajar, al-Suyuti and others agreed with him. Al-Qari says, “But its meaning is correct, deduced from the statement of Allah, I have not created the Jinn and Mankind, except to worship Me, i.e. to recognise/know me, as Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) has explained.” These statements are mentioned by al-’Ijlouni, who adds, “This saying occurs often in the words of the Sufis, who have relied on it and built upon it some of their principles.”88
4. Al-’Ijlouni says, “Al-Saghani (d. 650) said: Maudu’. I say: But its meaning is correct, even if it is not a hadith.” no. 2123. ‘Ali al- Qari says, “But its meaning is correct, for al- Dailami has related from Ibn ‘Abbas as marfu’: ‘that Jibril came to me and said: O Muhammad! Were it not for you, the Garden would not have been created, and were it not for you, the Fire would not have been created’, and in the narration of Ibn ‘Asakir: ‘Were it not for you, the world would not have been created’.” Al- Albani also quotes al-Saghani’s verdict, and comments on al-Qari’s words thus, “It is not appropriate to certify the correctness of its meaning without establishing the authenticity of the narration from al-Dailami, which is something I have not found any of the scholars to have addressed. Personally, although I have not come across its isnad, I have no doubt about its weakness; enough of an indication for us is that al-Dailami is alone in reporting it. As for the narration of Ibn ‘Asakir, Ibn al-Jauzi also related it in a long marfu’ hadith from Salman and said, ‘It is maudu’, and al-Suyuti endorsed this in al-La’ali.”89
5. Sahih – related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.
6. Al-’Ijlouni says, “Al-Ghazali mentioned it in Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din with the wording, Allah says, “Neither My heaven nor My earth could contain Me, but the soft, humble heart of my believing slave can contain Me.” Al-’Iraqi said in his notes on Al-Ihya’, “I do not find a basis (i.e. isnad) for it”, and al-Suyuti agreed with him, following al-Zarkashi. Al-’Iraqi then said, “But in the hadith of Abu ‘Utbah in al-Tabarani there occurs: … the vessels of your Lord are the hearts of His righteous slaves, and the most beloved to Him are the softest and most tender ones.” Ibn Taimiyyah said, “It is mentioned in the Israelite traditions, but there is no known isnad from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) for it.” Al-Sakhawi said in Al- Maqasid, following his shaykh al-Suyuti in Al- La’ali, “There is no known isnad from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) for it, and its meaning is that his heart can contain belief in Me, love of Me and gnosis of Me. But as for the one who says that Allah incarnates in the hearts of the people, then he is more of an infidel than the Christians, who specified that to Christ alone. It seems that Ibn Taimiyyah’s mention of Israelite tradition refers to what Ahmad has related in Al-Zuhd from Wahb b. Munabbih who said that Allah opened the heavens for Ezekiel until he saw the Throne, so Ezekiel said, ‘How Perfect are You! How Mighty are You, O Lord!’ So Allah said, ‘Truly, the heavens and the earth were too weak to contain Me, but the soft, humble heart of my believing slave contains Me’.” He also quoted from al- Zarkashi’s writing that one of the scholars said that it is a false hadith, fabricated by a renegade (from the religion), and that it is most-often quoted by a preacher to the masses, ‘Ali b. Wafa, for his own purposes, who says at the time of spiritual rapture and dance, “Go round the House of your Lord.” He further said that al-Tabarani has related from Abu ‘Utbah al- Khawlani as marfu’, “Truly, Allah has vessels from amongst the people of the earth, and the vessels of your Lord are the hearts of his righteous slaves, and the most beloved of them to Him are the softest and most tender ones”; in its isnad is Baqiyyah b. al-Walid, a mudallis, but he has clearly stated hearing the hadith.”90 Al-Albani rates this last hadith mentioned as hasan.91
7. Al-Nawawi said, “It is not established.” Ibn Taimiyyah said, “Maudu’.” Al-Sam’ani said, “It is not known as marfu’, but it is quoted as a statement of Yahya b. Mu’adh al-Razi.” Al- Suyuti endorsed al-Nawawi’s words, and also said, “This hadith is not authentic.” Al- Fairozabadi said, “It is not a Prophetic statement, although most of the people think it is a hadith, but it is not authentic at all. In fact, it is only related in the Israelite traditions: O Man! Know yourself: you will know your Lord.” Ibn al-Gharas said, after quoting al-Nawawi’s verdict, “… but the books of the Sufis, such as Shaykh Muhi al-Din Ibn ‘Arabi and others, are filled with it, being quoted like a hadith.” Ibn ‘Arabi also said, “This hadith, although it is not proved by way of narration, is proved to us by way of Kashf (‘unveiling’, while in a trance).”92 Regarding this methodology, al-Albani says, “Authenticating ahadith by way of Kashf is a wicked innovation of the Sufis, and depending upon it leads to the authentication of false, baseless ahadith … This is because, even at the best of times, Kashf is like opinion, which may be right or wrong – and that is if no personal desires enter into it! We ask Allah to save us from it, and from everything with which He is not pleased.”93
8. Sahih. Related by Malik in Al-Muwatta’, al- Shafi’i in Al-Risalah (p. 110, Eng. trans.) and Muslim (1:382; Eng. trans. 1:272). This was the first of two questions which the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) put to a slave-girl to test her faith, the second one being, “Who am I?” She answered, “Above the heaven” and “You are the Messenger of Allah” respectively, to which he said, “Free her, for she is a believer.” Her first answer, which is found in the Qur’an (67:16-17, the word fi can mean ‘above/on’, as in 6:11, 20:71 & 27:8), means that Allah is above and separate from His creation, not mixed in with it, the erroneous belief which leads to worship of creation.
9. Maudu’, as stated by al-Saghani and others. Scholars differ as to whether its meaning is correct or not, in what way, and to what extent.94 It is sometimes used to justify divisive, anti- Islamic nationalism and patriotism!
10. Sahih. Related by Malik as mursal/mu’allaq/balaghat (depending on choice of terminology), and related twice as musnad by al- Hakim. The meaning of the hadith is contained in the Qur’an, in the mention of the Book and Wisdom (2:129, 2:151, 2:231, 3:164, 4:113, 33:34 & 62:2); al-Shafi’i says, “I have heard the most knowledgeable people about the Qur’an say that the Wisdom is the Sunnah” (Al-Risalah, Eng. trans., p. 111).
11. Sahih. Related by al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Ibn Abi ‘Asim, al-Hakim, al-Tabarani, al-Dailami and al-Tahawi.95 The phrase Ahl al-Bayt (members of the house) refers: (i) primarily to the Prophet’s wives (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), from the clear context of the relevant verse of the Qur’an (33:33); (ii) to ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan & Husain, from the “hadith of the garment” (cf. Sahih Muslim, Book of the Virtues of the Companions). It is imbalanced and unjust to exclude either of these categories from the hadith.
12. A sahih hadith related by Abu Dawud, al- Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah & Ahmad, and well-known amongst the people. The fullest narration is, “Abu Bakr will be in the Garden; ‘Umar will be in the Garden; ‘Uthman will be in the Garden; ‘Ali will be in the Garden; Talhah will be in the Garden; al-Zubair will be in the Garden; ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Auf will be in the Garden; Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas will be in the Garden; Sa’id b. Zaid will be in the Garden; Abu ‘Ubaidah b. al-Jarrah will be in the Garden.”
13. Related by Ishaq b. Rahawaih and al-Baihaqi with a sahih isnad as a statement of ‘Umar. It is also collected by Ibn ‘Adi and al-Dailami from Ibn ‘Umar as marfu’, but in its isnad is ‘Isa b. Abdullah, who is weak. However, it is strengthened by another narration of Ibn ‘Adi, and also supported by the hadith in the Sunan that a man saw in a dream that Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was weighed against Abu Bakr, and was found to be heavier; then Abu Bakr was weighed against everyone else …96
14. Related by al-Hakim, al-Tabarani and others. It is also related by al-Tirmidhi with the wording, “I am the House of Wisdom, and ‘Ali is its Door”. Al-Daraqutni labelled the hadith as mudtarib, both in isnad and text; al-Tirmidhi said it is gharib and munkar; al-Bukhari said that it has no sahih narration; Ibn Ma’in said that it is a baseless lie. Similar dismissals of the hadith are reported from Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim and Yahya b. Sa’d. Al-Hakim declared the original hadith as sahih in isnad, but Ibn al- Jauzi regarded both versions as maudu’, and al- Dhahabi agreed with him. Several of the later scholars, including Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, Ibn Hajar al-Makki and al-Suyuti declared it hasan due to its various routes of narration. Al- ‘Ijlouni says, “… none of this devalues the consensus of the Adherents to the Sunnah from the Companions, the Successors and those after them, that the best of the Companions overall is Abu Bakr, followed by ‘Umar …”, and quotes this view from Ibn ‘Umar and ‘Ali himself, as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari.97 Al-Albani declares the hadith to be maudu’.98
15. A da’if or maudu’ hadith, as stated by Ahmad b. Hanbal, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Bazzar and many others. Ibn Hazm states that not only is the isnad unsound, but the hadith cannot be true for two further reasons: (i) the Companions were not infallible, and hence made mistakes, so it would be wrong to say that following any of them leads to guidance; (ii) the comparison with the stars is wrong, for not every star guides one through every journey! There is a different, authentic comparison with the stars given in Sahih Muslim: the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “The stars are the custodians of the sky, so when the stars depart, there will come to the sky what is promised for it (i.e. on the Day of Judgment). I am the custodian of my Companions, so when I depart, there will come to my Companions what is promised for them (i.e. great trials and tribulations). My Companions are the custodians for my Ummah, so when my Companions depart, there will come to my Ummah what is promised for it (i.e. schisms, spread of innovations, etc.).” (4:1961, Eng. trans. IV:1344)
16. No isnad exists for this hadith: al-Subki (d. 756) said, “It is not known to the scholars of Hadith, and I cannot find an isnad for it, whether sahih, da’if, or maudu’.” It, along with the previous one, is often used to justify the following two extremes: (i) blind following of the views of men, with no reference to the Qur’an and Sunnah; (ii) conveniently following whichever scholar holds the easiest view, or that most agreeable to one’s desires, again without reference to the fundamental sources.
17. Numerous narrations of this hadith are found in the collections of Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, al-Hakim, Ahmad and others: they vary in being sahih, hasan, or da’if, but the hadith is established. Among those who have authenticated this hadith are al-Tirmidhi, al- Hakim, al-Shatibi, Ibn Taimiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar and al-’Iraqi. Most narrations mention the splitting-up of the Jews and the Christians into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, all being in the Fire except one, prior to mention of the Muslims dividing even more. In some of the narrations, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) describes the Saved Sect variously as “the Jama’ah (community, congregation, main body)”, “the largest body (al-sawad al-a’zam)” and “that which follows what I and my Companions are upon.” The hadith does not mean that the majority of Muslims will be in the Hellfire, for most of them (“the masses”) are not involved in intentional, divisive innovation; further, mention of the Fire does not necessarily imply that the seventy-two sects will remain there forever, or that those sects are disbelievers.
18. Although the Mahdi is not mentioned explicitly in the collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, numerous sahih ahadith, which are mutawatir in meaning, speak of the coming of the Mahdi, a man named Muhammad b. ‘Abdullah and a descendant of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) through Fatimah, who will be the Leader (Imam, Khalifah) of the Muslims, rule for seven years and fill the world with justice and equity after it had been filled with tyranny and oppression. He will also fight the Dajjal along with Jesus son of Mary. The author, in his The Concept of the Mahdi among the Ahl al-Sunnah, has named 37 scholars who collected ahadith about the Mahdi with their own isnads and 69 later scholars who wrote in support of the concept, compared to 8 scholars who rejected the idea. The ahadith prophesying the Dajjal (False Christ), a one-eyed man who will have miraculous powers and will be followed by the Jews, and the return of Jesus Christ son of Mary (peace be upon them), who will descend in Damascus and pray behind the Mahdi, kill the Dajjal at the gate of Lod in Palestine, break the Cross, kill the Pig, marry and have children and live for forty years before dying a natural death, are mutawatir in meaning. They have been collected by al-Bukhari and Muslim, as well as other traditionists.
19. Mutawatir in meaning, and collected by al- Bukhari, Muslim and others.
20. Mutawatir in meaning, and collected by al- Bukhari, Muslim and others. Mention of the inadmissibility of intercession on the Day of Judgment in the Qur’an, e.g. 2:48 2:123, must be understood in the light of other verses, e.g. 20:109 and sahih ahadith. The reward of seeing Allah for the believers is referred to in the Qur’an, e.g. 75:22-23 and 83:15. These ahadith and those of the previous two categories were generally rejected by the classical Mu’tazilah (Rationalists), as well by those influenced by them today, on one or more of the following bases: (i) they contradict the Qur’an (in their view); (ii) they contradict Reason (in their view), and (iii) they are ahad, not mutawatir, and hence not acceptable in matters of belief (a flawed argument). Hence, the scholars who wrote the ‘aqidah (creed) of the Ahl al-Sunnah included these concepts in it, to confirm their denial of the wrong ideas of the Mu’tazilah. Other authentic ahadith rejected by the Mu’tazilah are many, and include those describing the Prophet’s Mi’raj (ascension to the heavens), which are again mutawatir in meaning.
21. The hadith with this wording is da’if, but its meaning is contained in the hadith of Ibn Majah and al-Nasa’i that a man came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, “O Messenger of Allah! I intend to go on a (military) expedition, but I have come to ask your advice.” He said, “Is your mother alive?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “Then stay with her, for the Garden is under her feet.” This latter hadith is declared to be sahih by al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and al-Mundhiri.99
22. A sahih hadith, collected by al-Bukhari, Muslim and others.
23. This hadith has many chains of narration on the authority of more than a dozen Companions, including twenty Successors apparently reporting from Anas alone. They are collected by Ibn Majah, al-Baihaqi, al-Tabarani and others, but all of them are da’if, according to Ahmad b. Hanbal, Ishaq b. Rahuwaih, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al- Bazzar and others, although some scholars authenticated a few of the chains. Al-Baihaqi said that its text is mashhur while its isnad is da’if, while al-Hakim and Ibn al-Salah regarded it as a prime example of a mashhur hadith which is not sahih. However, it is regarded by later scholars of Hadith as having enough chains of narration to be strengthened to the level of hasan or sahih, a view which is stated by al- Mizzi, al-’Iraqi, Ibn Hajar, al-Suyuti and al- Albani.100
24. This additional statement is found in a few of the (weak) narrations of the previous hadith, and is declared as maudu’ by Ibn Hibban, Ibn al- Jauzi, al-Sakhawi and al-Albani.101
25. Mentioned by al-Manjaniqi in his collection of ahadith of older narrators reporting from younger ones, on the authority of al-Hasan al- Basri. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi said that it is maudu’ as a narration from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), but that it is a statement of al-Hasan al-Basri.102
26. Related as marfu’ by al-Baihaqi with a da’if isnad, according to al-’Iraqi. Ibn Hajar said that it is actually a saying of Ibrahim b. Abi ‘Ablah, a Successor.103

*NB: The scholars of Hadith agree that a da’if or maudu’ hadith must not be attributed to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), e.g. by saying, “The Prophet said: …”, even if the meaning is considered to be correct or if it is actually the saying of a Muslim scholar, for that would be a way of lying about the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

---

ENDNOTES

1. Ar. Sunnah: Way, Path, Tradition, Example. See An Introduction to the Sunnah by Suhaib Hasan (Understanding Islam Series no. 5, published by Al-Quran Society), for Qur’anic proofs of revelation besides the Qur’an, the importance of the Sunnah, and a brief history of the collections of Hadith. See also Imam al- Shafi’i’s al-Risalah for the authoritative position of the Sunnah (Eng. trans., pp. 109- 116).
2. related by Imam Muslim in the Introduction to his Sahih – see Sahih Muslim (ed. M.F. ‘Abdul Baqi, 5 vols., Cairo, 1374/1955), 1:15 & Sahih Muslim bi Sharh an-Nawawi (18 vols. in 6, Cairo, 1349), 1:87. The existing English translation of Sahih Muslim, by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, does not contain this extremely valuable Introduction.
3. Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi, Al-Jarh wa l-Ta’dil (8 vols., Hyderabad, 1360-1373), 1:20.
4. Sahih Muslim, 1:15. See Suhaib Hasan, Criticism of Hadith among Muslims with reference to Sunan Ibn Maja (Ta Ha publishers / Al-Quran Society, London, 1407/1986), pp. 15-17 for discussion of this statement of Ibn Sirin.
5. Remarks like these are exceptions from the basic Islamic prohibition of backbiting (ghibah) another Muslim, even if the statement is true. Such exceptions are allowed, even obligatory in some cases, where general benefit to the Muslim public is at stake, such as knowing which ahadith are authentic. See e.g. Riyad al- Salihin of al-Nawawi, Chapter on Backbiting, for the justification for certain types of backbiting from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
6. Muhammad Adib Salih, Lamahat fi Usul al-Hadith (2nd ed., al-Maktab al-Islami, Beirut, 1389), p. 143.
7. Tahir b. Ahmad al-Jaza’iri, Taujih al-Nazar ila Usul al-Nazar (Maktaba ‘Ilmiyyah, Madinah, N.D.), p. 68.
8. Muhammad b. ‘Abdullah al-Hakim, Ma’rifah ‘Ulum al-Hadith (ed. Mu’azzam Husain, Cairo, 1937), p. 17.
9. ibid.
10. Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Tadrib al-Rawi (ed. A.A. Latif, 1st ed., Cairo, 1379/1959), 1:197.
11. Al-Dhahabi, Talkhis al-Mustadrak (printed with Mustadrak al-Hakim, 4 vols., Hyderabad), 3:176.
12. Abu ‘l-Fida’ ‘Imad al-Din Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim (4 vols., Cairo, N.D.), 1:80.
13. Yusuf b. ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abdul Barr, Tajrid al- Tamhid lima fi l-Muwatta’ min al-Asanid (Cairo, 1350), 1:2.
14. ibid.
15. al-Suyuti, 1:198.
16. For the discussion in detail, see al-Shafi’i, al-Risalah (ed. Ahmad Shakir, Cairo, 1358/1940, pp. 461-470; English translation: M. Khadduri, 2nd ed., Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 279-284, where the mursal hadith has been translated as “interrupted tradition”).
17. al-Suyuti, 1:199; Muhammad b. Mustafa al- Ghadamsi, Al-Mursal min al-Hadith (Darif Ltd., London, N.D.), p.71.
18. Ibn al-Qayyim, I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in (2nd ed., 4 vols. in 2, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1397/1977), 1:31.
19. Ibn Hazm, Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam (Matba’ah al-Sa’adah, Cairo, 1345), 2:135.
20. Al-Hazimi, Shurut al-A’immah al-Khamsah (ed. M.Z. al-Kauthari, Cairo, N.D.), p. 45.
21. According to the different interpretations of this verse, “they” here could refer to those who stay behind, or those who go forth.
22. al-Hakim, p. 26.
23. ibid.
24. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Al-Kifayah fi ‘Ilm al- Riwayah (Hyderabad, 1357), p. 387.
25. ibid., pp. 411-413.
26. Zain al-Din al-’Iraqi, Al-Taqyid wa ‘l-Idah Sharh Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah (al-Maktabah al- Salafiyyahh, Madinah, 1389/1969), p. 72
27. Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj al-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah fi Naqd Kalam al-Shi’ah wa ‘l-Qadariyyah (al- Maktabah al-Amiriyyah, Bulaq, 1322), 4:117.
28. Al-Dhahabi, Al-Muqizah (Maktab al-Matbu’at al- Islamiyyah, Halab, 1405), p. 40.
29. al-Jaza’iri, p. 33.
30. ibid.
31. Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, Sharh Nukhbah al-Fikr (ed. M. ‘Aud & M.G. Sabbagh, Damascus, 1410/1990), pp. 8-9.
32. al-Jaza’iri, p. 49; Muhammad b. Isma’il al- Amir al-San’ani, Taudih al-Afkar (2 vols. ed. M.M. ‘Abdul Hamid, Cairo, 1366), 2:405.
33. al-San’ani, 2:409.
34. al-Hakim, pp. 96-102.
35. al-San’ani, 2:455.
36. al-’Iraqi, p. 268.
37. al-San’ani, 2:406.
38. al-’Iraqi, p. 96.
39. ibid.
40. Ibn Hajar, Tabaqat al-Mudallisin (Cairo, 1322), p. 7f.
41. al-’Iraqi, p. 98.
42. al-Hakim, pp. 30-34.
43. ibid., p. 119.
44. Ibn Kathir, Ikhtisar ‘Ulum al-Hadith (ed. Ahmad Shakir, 2nd imp., Cairo, 1951), p. 57.
45. al-Suyuti, 1:235; M. A. Salih, p. 260.
46. al-San’ani, 2:3.
47. ibid., 2:6.
48. al-Khatib, p. 431.
49. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, 4:349.
50. Ibn Kathir, Ikhtisar, p. 62.
51. al-Suyuti, 1:248.
52. al-Hakim, p. 39.
53. al-’Iraqi, p. 129f.
54. al-Suyuti, 1:274.
55. Ibn Kathir, Ikhtisar, p. 72.
56. ibid.
57. Ibn ‘Abdul Barr, Al-Tamhid, 3:32, as quoted by Luqman al-Salafi, Ihtimam al-Muhaddithin bi Naqd al-Hadith, p. 381f.
58. Ibn Kathir, Ikhtisar, p. 88.
59. ibid., p. 87.
60. Shams al-Din Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman al- Sakhawi, Fath al-Mughith Sharh Alfiyyah al- Hadith li ‘l-’Iraqi (Lucknow, N.D.), 1:278.
61. ‘Uthman b. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Dimashqi Ibn al- Salah, ‘Ulum al-Hadith (commonly known as Muqaddimah, ed. al-Tabbakh, Halab, 1350), p. 116.
62. ‘Ali b. ‘Abdullah b. Ja’far Ibn al-Madini, Kitab al-’Ilal, p. 58. Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani mentions that the Imams of Hadith have agreed that al-Hasan al-Basri did not hear a single word from ‘Ali.
63. Sahih Muslim, 4:2149 (English transl., IV:1462, Sharh Nawawi, 17:133).
64. Ibn Taimiyyah, Majmu’ Fatawa (37 vols., ed. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Qasim & his son Muhammad, Riyad, 1398), 18:18f. Ibn Taimiyyah mentions that Imam Muslim’s authentication of this hadith is supported by Abu Bakr al-Anbari & Ibn al- Jauzi, whereas al-Baihaqi supports those who disparaged it. Al-Albani says that it was Ibn al-Madini who criticised it, whereas Ibn Ma’in did not (the latter was known to be very strict, both of them were shaikhs of al-Bukhari). He further says that the hadith is sahih, and does not contradict the Qur’an, contrary to the probable view of the scholars who criticised the hadith, since what is mentioned in the Qur’an is the creation of the heavens and the earth in six days, each of which may be like a thousand years, whereas the hadith refers to the creation of the earth only, in days which are shorter than those referred to in the Qur’an (Silsilah al-Ahadith as-Sahihah, no. 1833).
65. al-Dhahabi, p. 27.
66. al-Shafi’i, p. 370f (Eng. trans., pp. 239- 240).
67. al-Dhahabi, p. 24.
68. al-Nawawi, Muqaddimah, p. 14.
69. al-Tibi, al-Husain b. ‘Abdullah, al-Khulasah fi Usul al-Hadith (ed. Subhi al-Samarra’i, Baghdad, 1391), p. 36.
70. ibid., p. 38.
71. al-Nawawi, Muqaddimah, p. 43.
72. al-Dhahabi, p. 26.
73. ibid., pp. 32-33.
74. al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, no. 62.
75. al-Jaza’iri, p. 149.
76. al-Sakhawi, 1:99.
77. al-Dhahabi, pp. 33-34.
78. ibid., p. 36.
79. al-Sakhawi, 1:264.
80. ibid., 1:275.
81. al-Nawawi, Taqrib, 1:275.
82. see Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Manar al-Munif fi ‘l- Sahih wa ‘l-Da’if (ed. A.F. Abu Ghuddah, Lahore, 1402/1982), pp. 102-105 for a fuller discussion. Ibn al-Qayyim mentions more than ten clear indications of the forgery of the document, which the Jews repeatedly attempted to use to deceive the Muslims over the centuries, but each time a scholar of Hadith intervened to point out the forgery – such incidents occurred with Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310), al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463) and Ibn Taimiyyah (d. 728), who spat on the document as it was unfolded from beneath its silken covers.
83. Suhaib Hasan, Criticism of Hadith, pp. 35-44.
84. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) allowed such narrations, but they are not to be confirmed nor denied, except for what is confirmed or denied by the Qur’an and Sunnah. See e.g. An Introduction to the Principles of Tafseer of Ibn Taimiyyah (trans. M.A.H. Ansari, Al-Hidaayah, Birmingham, 1414/1993), pp. 56-58.
85. ibid., p. 156.
86. see Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah.
87. Fatawa Ibn Taimiyyah, 6:379-382.
88. Isma’il b. Muhammad al-’Ijlouni, Kashf al- Khafa’ (2 vols. in 1, Cairo/Aleppo, N.D.), no. 2016.
89. Al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Da’ifah, no. 282.
90. Kashf al-Khafa’, no. 2256.
91. Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghir, no. 2163; Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, no. 1691.
92. Kashf al-Khafa’, no. 2532; Al-Da’ifah, no. 66.
93. Al-Da’ifah, no. 58.
94. Kashf al-Khafa’, no. 1102; Al-Da’ifah, no. 36.
95. Al-Sahihah, no. 1761.
96. Kashf al-Khafa’, no. 2130.
97. Kashf al-Khafa’, no. 618.
98. Da’if al-Jami’ al-Saghir, nos. 1410, 1416.
99. Kashf al-Khafa’, no. 1078; Al-Da’ifah, no. 593.
100. Kashf al-Khafa’, no. 1665; Sahih al-Jami’ al- Saghir, nos. 3913-4.
101. Al-Da’ifah, no. 416; Da’if al-Jami’ al- Saghir, nos. 1005-6.
102. Kashf al-Khafa’, no. 2276.
103. Kashf al-Khafa’, no. 1362.

The Science of Hadith

---

In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate the Most Merciful

We have, Without doubt, sent down the message: and we will assuredly guard it (from corruption). (Qur’an 15:9)

The promise made by Allah (SWT) in Qur’an 15:9 is obviously fulfilled in the undisputed purity of the Qur’anic text throughout the fourteen centuries since its revelation. However, what is often forgotten by many Muslims is that the divine promise also includes, by necessity, the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH), because the Sunnah is the practical example of the implementation of the Qur’anic guidance, the wisdom taught to the Prophet (PBUH) along with the scripture, and neither the Qur’an nor the Sunnah can be understood correctly without the other.

Allah (SWT) preserved the Sunnah by enabling the companions and those after them to memorize, write down and pass on the statements of the Prophet (PBUH), and the descriptions of his way, as well as to continue the blessings of practicing the Sunnah.

Later, as the purity of the knowledge of the Sunnah became threatened, Allah (SWT) caused the Muslim Ummah to produce individuals with exceptional memory skills and analytical expertise, who travelled tirelessly to collect thousands of narrations and distinguish the true words of prophetic wisdom from those corrupted by weak memories, from forgeries by unscrupulous liars, and from the statements of the large number of Ulama (scholars), the companions and those who followed their way. All of this was achieved through precise attention to the words narrated, and detailed familiarity with the biographies of the thousands of reporters of hadith.

The methodology of the expert scholars of hadith in assessing the narrations and sorting out the genuine from the mistaken and fabricated, for ms the subject matter of the science of hadith. In this article a brief discussion is given of the terminology and classifications of hadith.

Components of Hadith

A hadith is composed of three parts (see the figure [below]):

Matn (text), isnad (chain of reporters), and taraf (the part, or the beginning sentence, of the text which refers to the sayings, actions or characteristics of the Prophet (PBUH), or his concurrence with others action). The authenticity of the hadith depends on the reliability of its reporters, and the linkage among them.

Classifications of Hadith

A number of classifications of hadith have been made. Five of these classifications are shown in the figure [below], and are briefly described subsequently.

1. According to the reference to a particular authority
   Four types of hadith can be identified.
   • Qudsi – Divine; a revelation from Allah (SWT); relayed with the words of the Prophet (PBUH).
   • Marfu – elevated; a narration from the Prophet (PBUH), e.g. I heard the Prophet (PBUH) saying …
   • Mauquf- stopped: a narration from a companion only, e.g., we were commanded to …
   • Maqtu’ – severed: a narration from a successor.

   

2. According to the links of Isnad – interrupted or uninterrupted
   Six categories can be identified.
   • Musnad – supported: a hadith which is reported by a traditionalist, based on what he learned from his teacher at a time of life suitable for learning; similarly – in turn – for each teacher until the isnad reaches a well known companion, who in turn, reports from the Prophet (PBUH).
   • Mutassil – continuous: a hadith with an uninterrupted isnad which goes back only to a companion or successor.
   • Mursal – hurried: if the link between the successor and the Prophet (PBUH) is missing, e.g. when a successor says “The Prophet said…”.
   • Munqati – broken: is a hadith whose link anywhere before the successor (i.e., closer to the traditionalist recording the hadith) is missing.
   • Mu’adal – perplexing: is a hadith whose reporter omits two or more consecutive reporters in the isnad.
   • Mu’allaq – hanging: is a hadith whose reporter omits the whole isnad and quotes the Prophet (PBUH) directly (i.e., the link is missing at the beginning).
3. According to the number of reporters involved in each stage of Isnad
   Five categories of hadith can be identified:
   • Mutawatir – Consecutive: is a hadith which is reported by such a large number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, all of them together.
   • Ahad – isolated: is a hadith which is narrated by people whose number does not reach that of the mutawatir.
     It is further classified into:
   • Mash’hur – famous: hadith reported by more than two reporters.
   • Aziz – rare, strong: at any stage in the isnad, only two reporters are found to narrate the hadith.
   • Gharib – strange: At some stage of the Isnad, only one reporter is found relating it.
4. According to the nature of the text and isnad
   • Munkar – denounced: is a hadith which is reported by a weak narrator, and whose narration goes against another authentic hadith.
   • Mudraj – interpolated: an addition by a reporter to the text of the hadith being narrated.
5. According to the reliability and memory of the reporters
   This provides the final verdict on a hadith – four categories can be identified:
   • Sahih – sound. Imam Al-shafi’i states the following requiremetts for a hadith, which is not mutawatir, to be acceptable “each reporter should be trustworthy in his religion; he should be known to be truthtul in his narrating, to understand what he narrates, to know how a different expression can alter the meaning, and to report the wording of the hadith verbatim, not only its meaning”.
   • Hasan – good: is the one where its source is known and its reporters are unambiguous.
   • Da’if – weak: a hadith which fails to reach the status of hasan. Usually, the weakness is: a) one of discontinuity in the isnad, in which case the hadith could be – according to the nature of the discontinuity – munqati (broken), mu’allaq (hanging), mu’dal (perplexing), or mursal (hurried), or b) one of the reporters having a disparaged character, such as due to his telling lies, excessive mistakes, opposition to the narration of more reliable sources, involvement in innovation, or ambiguity surrounding his person.
   • Maudu’ – fabricated or forged: is a hadith whose text goes against the established norms of the Prophet’s sayings, or its reporters include a liar. Fabricated hadith are also recognized by external evidence related to a discrepancy found in the dates or times of a particular incident.

Modern Historical Methodology vs. Hadeeth Methodology

Reem Azzam

December 7, 1999

---

The study of ahadeeth 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 ahadeeth 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 ahadeeth, 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 sourcesanything 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.

Internal Criticism

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 witnesss 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 witnesss 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.

Introduction to Hadeeth Methodology

A Prophetic hadeeth is a narration from or about the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings upon him), and it is through the ahadeeth (plural of hadeeth) that Muslims know about the Prophets way of life  the Sunnah. Such knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for fulfilling the Muslims most basic religious requirements, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) naturally made it a point to spread this knowledge about himself during his lifetime.

The Prophet (p.b.u.h) 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 (p.b.u.h.) would question them as well to see what they had learnt (Azami 9). Furthermore, the letters sent by the Prophet (p.b.u.h.), 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 (p.b.u.h.) to spread knowledge of his Sunnah, such as the establishment of what may be regarded as schools. It is said 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 Prophets sayings and actions. Additionally,the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) would specifically instruct delegations to teach their people what they had learnt upon their return. He encouraged all this activity by informing of 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 (p.b.u.h.) 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 (p.b.u.h.) (Azami 13). Many of them are known to have recorded the ahadeeth, 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 Said al-Khudri advising the people who came after them (the Successors) to memorize the ahadeeth, 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 (p.b.u.h.) were the ones who pioneered the expansion, it follows that the knowledge of ahadeeth 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 ahadeeth 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 ahadeeth.

Though all the techniques were important in preserving the ahadeeth, 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 ahadeeth 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 hadith, even if the material was authentic. Hence it was critical that the ahadeeth 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.

The Classification of Hadeeth

The people involved in the transmission of a hadeeth constitute its isnad. The isnad informs us about the hadeeths 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 fitnah, 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 (p.b.u.h.) 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 hadeeths 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 (p.b.u.h.), a Companion, or a Successor. A marfu or “elevated” narration is one that back to the Prophet (p.b.u.h.), 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 Prophets 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 (p.b.u.h.) (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 ahadeeth 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 mudal 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 (p.b.u.h.), then the hadeeth is considered muallaq or “hanging” (Hassan 22).

Within the third category, ahadeeth 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 mashhoor (“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 mashhoor, although the term is also applied to those ahadeeth which start out as ghareeb or azeez but then end up with a larger number of reporters (Hasan 32).

In the fourth category, ahadeeth 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 “samitu” 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- p.b.u.h.) 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).

According to the fifth category, a hadeeth can also be classified with respect to the nature of its text and isnad. According to Al-ShafiI, if a hadeeth reported by a trustworthy person goes against the narration of someone more reliable than him, then the hadeeth is shadhdh 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 (p.b.u.h.). 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 doesnt 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 isnada 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, ahadeeth that contain hidden defects in their isnad or text are classified as malool or muallal (“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 ahadeeth 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., Kab b. Murra versus Murra b. Kab) or if the order of a sentence in the text is reversed (Azami 66). This also applies to those ahadeeth whose text has been given a different isnad or vice versa, or those in which a reporters 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. Ahadeeth reported by those known to be adil, hafiz, thabit, and thiqa are the highest ranked ahadeeth 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 ahadeeth 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 ahadeeth are judged as daeef (“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 doesnt reach the requirements for a hasan hadeeth is classified as daeef, and often this is due to discontinuity in the isnad. It can also be classified as daeef 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 Prophets 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 ahadeeth. All this was for the purpose of distinguishing between different types of narrations, especially for distinguishing the authentic from the inauthentic.

Comparison Between the Two Methods

Despite the fact that centuries separate the old scholars of hadeeth and the modern historians of today, they seem to share a great deal in common in the field of criticism. They both had to devise a manner by which to search for and establish truth in a sea of information. As was previously mentioned, through the methods of external and internal criticism, the historian investigates the origin of a particular source or testimony, whether or not it has been changed in the course of its transmission, the correct meaning of the testimony, and whether or not the witness is competent and truthful (Lucey 46). As far as the ahadeeth are concerned, the source may be either a Successor, a Companion, or the Prophet himself (p.b.u.h.). The manner in which scholars of hadeeth establish this information is through examination of the isnad, without with the hadeeth has no value. It is essential for the purposes of Islam that the source be known as this will determine whether the hadeeth will be of legal weight or incorporated into Islamic doctrine. Contrary to this is the practice of historians in accepting anonymous testimonies, which is understandable given the nature of their study. Scholars of hadeeth, like historians, also use knowledge of dates and places relating to particular ahadeeth to help in detecting faults in the isnad. Like the historians, they make a point to obtain as much information as possible regarding the hadeeths source.

In regards to the matter of integrity, it is important to both the historians and scholars of hadeeth. However, the historians have to deal with sources whose transmitters usually did not have in mind the interest of the historian. For example, it has been said “American historical documents have suffered more from incompetent editorial work than from deliberate interpolation” (Lucey 63). Careless copying is a common source of corruption, and as has been shown, those involved in the transmission of hadeeth went through pains to minimize its occurrence. Certain Companions would both commit to memory and record ahadeeth, and during the lifetime of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) they often would go back to the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) to verify something they had heard from someone else. The Prophet after teaching his followers would often question them to see what they had learned. Later on, it is said that students would read back what they had learned to their teachers, in the presence of other students with the same information. Also, upon the completion of a book, the teacher would sign the students copy, and the student was allowed to transmit only the ahadeeth contained in that certified copy (Azami 70). However, proof of direct verbal transmission was critical to ensure that the student had learned the hadeeth correctly, as merely writing a hadeeth did not ensure its correct transmission (due to the challenged posed by the Arabic language). In fact, in order for the students hadeeth to be accepted, he had to have it memorized (Burton 110). Furthermore, the isnad is also important in determining integrityas has been shown, knowledge of dates, places, and people was used in establishing whether or not the isnad for a hadeeth was indeed muttasil or continuous. Similarly, historians examine the pedigree of a source in order to determine if it reached them through a “line of well-known owners” (Lucey 58).

Both historians and scholars of hadeeth also recognize the importance of correctly understanding a testimony. To this end, both the historian and the scholar of hadeeth must be proficient in the appropriate languages and familiar with its nuances. In fact, there is an additional classification for hadeeth according to the reporters knowledge of difficult words (Hasan 52). For both the historian and the scholar of hadeeth, correct understanding of a testimony is essential for evaluating its credibility. A testimony can be rejected if it contains mistakes or views that do not befit the supposed author (Lucey 58). As has been mentioned, some ahadeeth are rejected on the basis of their matn or text if it shown to contradict Islamic norms or other facts. For the scholar of hadeeth, there is the added importance of properly understanding ahadeeth for the purposes of properly applying it in daily life and/or society at large.

The importance of the people who report any information is yet another similarity between the two methods. For the western historian, it has to be established that the witness is competent and truthful; a witnesss moral worth is very important. On the other hand, the conditions laid down by scholars of hadeeth are more strenuous or inclusive as the situation demands, as they are dealing with reports that can have major consequences on peoples lives. The importance given to this matter is represented in the volumes of works written on the reporters of hadeeth and the place of ilm al-rijal in the study of hadeeth. It is said that scholars had knowledge of almost all the narrators, how many ahadeeth they transmitted, and how many of their ahadeeth were confirmed or not confirmed by other narrators in different parts of the Muslim world (Azami 72). The accuracy of hadeeth reporters was determined through the tedious task of carefully comparing ahadeeth. A scholar would compare the ahadeeth of students of the same scholar with each other, compare statements of the same scholar at different times with each other, compare between what was transmitted orally and transmitted by writing, and compare between hadeeth and related Quranic text (Azami 52). The scholar thus not only discovers the mistakes made by the teacher and the students, but he is able to use this knowledge to grade them. This manner of cross-checking was also valuable in detecting fabricated ahadeeth.

There were other methods used by both historians and scholars of ahadeeth in detecting fraudulent material. Historians use chemical tests to date paper, as well as examine the ink or paint used (Lucey 58). Similarly, scholars of hadeeth have been known to examine the ink or paper used to determine if a writing was new or old, even if the hadeeth was well-known and authentic (to determine whether or not it was obtained through the proper methods) (Azami 72). Historians also examine handwritings to detect frauds.

Another similarity in principle can be seen in the historians acceptance of the testimony of one witness (so long as the witness is proved to be competent and honest). The status of ahad ahadeeth varies among the scholars of hadeeth, the disagreement being mainly over whether or not they can be accepted in matters of doctrine. However they are accepted in matters of law. Additionally, both the historian and the scholar of hadeeth favor those testimonies supported by many witnessesscholars of hadeeth have given a special name to such a testimony or report (i.e., mutawatir).

Yet another similarity can be observed in the attitude that certain peoples testimonies need not be challenged without due cause (whose competence, moral character, and veracity is known). Historians hold that the testimony of someone like George Washington need not be challenged unless there is compelling evidence (Lucey 78). Similar is the attitude of some scholars of hadeeth towards a hadeeth mursal (one narrated by a Successor who doesnt mention the Companions name). If it can be established that only the Companions name is left out of the isnad, then the hadeeth is regarded as authentic, as the Companions are held to be trustworthy and reliable by Quranic injunctions and other ahadeeth. Otherwise, the opinions differ if the Successor might have left out the names of two authorities (i.e., another Successor in addition to the Companion) (Hasan 24).

In Conclusion…

There are many similarities between the methods of the scholars of hadeeth in analyzing and criticizing ahadeeth and the methods of modern western historians in analyzing and criticizing their sources. The methods discussed in this paper are merely broad outlines of very detailed and complex processes. Furthermore, with respect to the classification of ahadeeth, there exist other categories that could not be represented here. However, the aim was to get an idea of the procedures involved in authenticating and verifying historical sources in general, among which ahadeeth can be counted. As a final point, the challenges facing both types of scholars are formidable, and perhaps one may claim that this is especially true with the scholars of hadeeth. In spite of any imperfections in their work, their efforts can not be ignored.

 

Works CitedAzami, Muhammad. Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature. Indiana: American Trust, 1977.Burton, John. An Introduction to the Hadith. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1994.

Hasan, Suhaib. An Introduction to the Science of Hadith. Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996.

Lucey, William. History: Methods and Interpretation. Chicago: Loyola UP, 1958.

Marwick, Arthur. The Nature of History. 3^rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1989

http://quransunnat.com/index.php/hadith/translation-of-sahih-bukhari-hadith/