Conclusion

Prophetic Ahadith: From the solidity of the discourse of Hadith criticism to the instability of modern reception

We have concluded from what has passed, that the narration of Hadith was transmitted in the first three centuries with clear naturalism and under a high critical umbrella, which scrutinised, examined, and distinguished between the ranks and degrees of narrations.

Naturalism was evident in many aspects, perhaps the clearest of which is; that which was evident in the reception of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and their narration from him, in the reasons for some of them narrating more frequently than others, and the influence of time, place, and personal circumstances in that. It was evident in the reception of the Tabi’in from the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum, the abundance of familial isnad, the abundance of personal relationships, and the scarcity of writing in comparison to oral narration. It was evident in the era of the Atba’ al Tabi’in with the abundance of tasnif when paper became widespread, and in the new tasnif system when the need arose. It was evident in the era of the compiled books when scholars paid attention to compiling Hadith in Sahih and Sunan books.

Criticism accompanied all the stages of narration, following it and scrutinising its paths. It was evident in the era of the senior Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum through the authority and warning of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Then in the era of the middle-class Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum through the criticisms of Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha and others. Thereafter, in the era of the junior Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum through their criticism of each other and the criticism of the Tabi’in. This displayed a distinguished critical society in that era.

Then criticism expanded a little in the time of the Tabi’in. The statements of Ibn Sirin, al Nakha’i, and others had an important impact on the rulings on the narrators and Hadith. Then it spread extensively in the first half of the second century when the narrations spread and the number of narrators increased. Shu’bah had the greatest share in establishing the critical methodology. His critical views spread and his firm stance had an important effect in warning groups of narrators about criticism.

Then his students Yahya al Qattan and ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi followed him, then their students such as Ibn Ma’in, ‘Ali ibn al Madini, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, and others, reaching al Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim, and others.

Those critics who lived with the narrators and the narrations used high critical tools to test, examine, and scrutinise. I do not see any tools that suited their era that surpassed those tools in the intensity of examining narrators and the narrations. Among those tools were: testing the narrators over the years, making talqin of mistakes to test them, examining their books and scrutinising the types of writings, the places of changes, and additions and subtractions. Then the system of comparing the narrator’s narrations with the narrations of others, examining the number of the narrator’s reports that were isolated from others or his conformance with them and disagreements with them, and the effect of every hadith wherein the narrator makes a mistake in his judgement. All of this took place in order to enable the critic to extract a clear result about the number of the narrator’s reports, the number of mistakes, and the number of sahih ones.

Then, that criticism was not criticism in a naïve society that accepted whatever was said. The society was often ignited by a number of critics who differed, pondered, scrutinised, and openly declared their differences, which formed a ‘critical society’ wherein there is no flattery or favouritism.

The criticism was not based on the critic’s subjectivity and personal impressions, as it was evident that a number of critics made tawthiq of some of those who opposed them in mazhab and some of the extremists while they made tad’if of some of the righteous and pious narrators. The matter in that goes back to a historical methodology, wherein the critic looks at the narrator’s Hadith and issues his ruling on him, without favouring him due to personal familiarity or social relationship.

Al Bukhari inherited all those narrations and criticisms. He made a great effort in investigation, scrutiny, and distinction. He travelled, collected, and compiled. He produced before them a book that is one of the most prominent books of Islam, from the historical tawthiq methodology point of view. Scholars of al Bukhari’s era and those after them acknowledged his insight in this book, based on his high standards that he stipulated for each hadith and based on great selection and compilation.

In this book, al Bukhari was a man of indication, not a man of expression. He included in it many hidden indications related to the selection of Hadith, the (verb) forms of narration and sima’, the ‘illah for some narrations, and some chapters wherein he displayed criticism of narrations. This is what occupied many scholars, tracking down those indications, clarifying and explaining them, while acknowledging his high status in this tawthiq and the importance of those indications.

It is as if al Bukhari did not address the common Muslims of his time with that book, as those indications, the system of precise selection, and indications to the ‘ilal (defects) are only addressed to the senior critics and scholars. They are the ones who understood al Bukhari’s objectives and acknowledged him.

It is as if al Bukhari was saying to the scholars of criticism of his time, “Before you is this book I have compiled and I intended compiling sahih narrations of the highest degree of authenticity in it. I indicated in it to what I intended and aimed for, and in those indications, I placed important and subtle benefits that show the accuracy of what I intended from the compilation, arrangement, and selection. If you have any criticism, expose it, as I claimed what no one before me claimed, which is the authenticity of everything in it.”

However, despite all of this, no criticism appeared from the great critics of his time, neither from the class of his sheikhs, nor from the class of his peers and students. Nothing appeared from Muslim, al Tirmidhi, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim, al Dhuhali, or anyone else. This, despite the fact that criticism in the scholarly community at that time was easy and accessible to every critic, and some of them had sharply disagreed with al Bukhari on the issue of theology and denounced him for that. Thus, the awe of al Bukhari or their desire to compliment him did not prevent them from criticising his theological view, so it is more likely that criticising his narrations would be easier.

Confirming that ‘awe’ or ‘compliment’ was not an obstacle to criticism is the fact that some scholars of his time criticised other books of al Bukhari. Ibn Abi Hatim al Razi (d. 327 AH) arranged the texts of his father Abu Hatim al Razi (d. 277 AH) and his sheikh Abu Zur’ah al Razi (d. 264 AH)—who were among al Bukhari’s peers and among the greatest Imams of criticism in their time—in a book he called Bayan Khata’ Muhammad ibn Ismail al Bukhari fi Tarikhihi (Explaining the error of Muhammad ibn Ismail al Bukhari in his al Tarikh).” If they had anything to criticise in al Sahih—which is more important and greater—they would have announced it and shouted out about it.

This is also confirmed by the fact that some scholars who acquired knowledge from al Bukhari’s students embarked on criticising al Bukhari. Perhaps the most important of them in this context was Hafiz Imam Abu Hatim Ibn Hibban, as he criticised al Bukhari regarding his system in al Sahih and denounced his strictness and not narrating from some of the narrators who were thiqah in his opinion—the most prominent of them being Hammad Ibn Salamah, the great thiqah Imam, as mentioned previously. However, that criticism was a motive for the scholars to prefer Sahih al Bukhari to Sahih Ibn Hibban, as that criticism showed the high status of al Bukhari and his strictness in his conditions and Ibn Hibban’s leniency, as he narrated from some narrators whom al Bukhari did not rely on.

The matter was not limited to the scattered criticism of Ibn Hibban. Sahih al Bukhari was criticised by one of the most prominent critics of his time, Imam al Daraqutni, as mentioned previously. However, his criticism was directed at a small percentage of the ahadith narrated in Sahih al Bukhari and it was a type of tracking from him of some of the narrations without it being criticism of the entire hadith, although the result of that tracking was al Daraqutni’s agreement with al Bukhari in his ruling on the hadith. This means that al Daraqutni’s criticism resulted in raising the status of Sahih al Bukhari, not decreasing the strength of his methodology and the solidity of his tawthiq.

It is as if Sahih al Bukhari was the fruit of the narrators and criticism in the early years, and as if the critics acknowledged that al Bukhari’s methodology in historical tawthiq of ahadith was a high and distinguished methodology.

The scholars settled on this for a long period of time, as they repeatedly declared their acceptance of the two Sahihs of al Bukhari and Muslim, deliberating on some of their ahadith and methodologies and scrutinising them. Praise and reliance were not limited to the group of Muhaddithin and critics. In fact, it included many groups of jurists, fundamentalists, theologians, and others.

Then, in the seventh century, Ibn al Salah arranged and clarified the rules of the sciences of Hadith in a methodical study book. Great scholars and Muhaddithin followed him in their works. They abridged Ibn al Salah’s ‘Ulum al Hadith, arranged it, commentated or it, organised it, or tracked it. This resulted in a great fundamental critical wealth. Most of those rules were extracted from the statements and actions of the early Imams. Thus, the methodology of the Muhaddithin remained strong, solid, reliable, and established in the souls of Muslims for many centuries. The last sheikh of Islam in the Ottoman Empire, Sheikh Mustafa Sabri, expressed that reverence, and regarded those critical efforts a miracle from the miracles of Islam.^[1]

Then, a series of cultural, social, political, and economic changes changed the world order in the twelfth century AH—nineteenth century CE—and had a profound impact on the Muslim countries. This led to the colonisation of many countries in the Islamic world, a strong expansion of European culture and Western ideology, and an upheaval in the souls of Muslims regarding their beliefs and heritage in the face of military, technical, cultural, intellectual, and political progress that they witnessed in Western countries. Experimental science became a powerful ruler over all the world’s cultures and man became the focus point, whereas previously, the focus point had been Allah and Din. One of the most important changes that took place in the Islamic countries was the emergence of new laws that marginalised the role of the class of Muslim scholars in the Islamic world, whereas prior to that, they had been the actual rulers of societies. Perhaps the most important of these laws was the Ottoman ‘Tanzimat’ law, which clearly marginalised the role of scholars. Thus, the tools of influence in community groups were no longer in their hands.^[2]

The tools of influence, with the spread of the print press and the new secular education system in schools and universities, fell to a new class of ‘intellectuals’ who had acquired some western sciences and it’s system in their universities and educational institutions. During their stay in the West, they saw the huge political, technical, economic, and cultural gap between the Muslim countries and the Western countries. They had not acquired any significant Islamic knowledge, nor had they studied the systems of Islam, its heritage, principles, and ideologies in a deep, systematic way. They returned from those lands ‘preaching’ the necessity of achieving ‘progress’ and ‘renaissance’, which in their opinion could only be achieved by following the modern Western method of thought, skill, and culture.

Since those intellectuals were preoccupied with ideologies and the humanities, they occupied themselves in the Muslim heritage extensively, to show the problems that occurred in it and caused what they called the ‘degeneration’ of Muslims, attributing that to their heritage and intellectual system.

Among that heritage were the many ahadith scattered in the books of Hadith and Sunnah. Those intellectuals passed a cursory glance at it, without understanding the system of documenting them, nor the system of narrating and scrutinising them, nor the system of criticism that accompanied them, nor what distinguished that documentation system from all the systems in the world in past eras. The result of their cursory glance was that they only witnessed a simple system formed from mere isnad and text, wherein there was no criticism, reflection, or effort. Hence, they did not pay any attention to it.

This view, which belittles the science of Hadith and its criticism, was supported by the fact that the period prior to the era of ‘modernism’ was a period of absence of the science of Hadith criticism, whereas the later centuries were distinguished by a long period of consolidation of ideology and school in the Islamic Ummah. This resulted in many Muslim scholars not needing the intricacies of the science of Hadith criticism. Thus, it became a neglected science, which was not given any attention in teaching circles and writings.^[3]

It was also supported by the fact that the focal point in intellectual sciences was transferred to man, whereas previously it had been to Allah. Therefore, intellectuals did not see anything ‘holier’ than what they called ‘intellectual reasoning’, that rulings on texts only stems from the reader of the text and his intellect, and that reasoning was only dependant on the experimental mind, not the abstract mind.^[4]

Likewise, it was also supported by the spread of the terms ‘renaissance’, ‘progress’, ’reason’ and ‘civilisation’ in contrast to their stigmatisation of the era prior to that with ‘backwardness’, ‘degeneration’, ‘stagnation’ and ‘ignorance’. These terms greatly influenced the superiority of the intellectuals’ view when dealing with heritage, as it is an aerial view of the ancient times, which were full of ignorance and backwardness—according to their opinion. This gave them the right to criticise, without bothering to understand the previous heritage and intellectual systems, as they were essentially ‘backward eras’, hence, naturally, criticising them was extremely necessary.

The introduction of Sheikh Muhammad ‘Abduh’s intellectual school aided spread of the control and authority of the intellectuals, as his ideas—he was a scholar of al Azhar—criticising the heritage were a bridge that secularism crossed to occupy positions one after the other. It is no coincidence that a group of his followers would serve his beliefs in order to establish complete secularism.^[5] The affiliation and reliance of many intellectuals on his school is well-known and documented.^[6]

Due to all these reasons, Hadith criticism spread with this new view, without delving into the system of Hadith criticism, in Muslim countries—particularly Egypt, the centre of Arab culture—at the hands of intellectuals who did not receive a strong Islamic education. Perhaps one of the first important articles in criticism of the Sunnah was the article by Dr. Tawfiq Sidqi, al Islam Huwa al Qur’an Wahdah (Islam is the Qur’an only), published in the magazine of Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Rida called al Manar.^[7] Thereafter, many articles and books followed, perhaps the most prominent of which was what was written by the journalist Ahmed Amin—who was also one of Sheikh Rashid Rida’s companions—in Fajr al Islam and Duha al Islam. He was followed by the writer Mahmud Abu Rayyah—who was linked to Rashid Rida—in his books Adwa’ ‘ala al Sunnah al Muhammadiyyah (Lights on the Sunnah of Muhammad), and the political activist Muhammad Hussain Haykal—whose article was praised by Rashid Rida^[8]—in his book Hayat Muhammad. Each one of them looked at that heritage from outside and criticised it based on the new knowledge of the era, and on ‘the most recent forms of thinking in the world’.^[9] The most recent forms of thinking are nothing but the methods of Western Orientalists. Therefore, the goal of some of the writings of intellectuals, in their opinion, became ‘a scientific study in the modern Western way, purely for the sake of truth, and for the sake of truth only’.^[10] This is because the Western scholars, in those days, had embarked on ‘valuable research in the history of Islamic and Eastern studies, which paved the way for the sons of Islam and the sons of the East to acquire more from this research in those studies.^[11] Therefore, it was necessary to rely on the modern Western approach based on free thinking in substantiating historical events in History and Hadith, and there is no doubt that ‘the East today is in severe need of drawing from the roses of the West in ideology, literature, and skill.’ The reason for all of this is that the East has suffered from ‘centuries of stagnation and fanaticism that has clouded its old sound thinking with a thick layer of ignorance and suspicion for everything that is new.’^[12] It is not possible for the intellectual to adhere to ‘the approach and methods of ancient books’ in Hadith and History, because the distance between books of History and Hadith and the approach and methods in our present era, is great. The ‘criticism in ancient books was not permissible to the extent that it is permissible today.’ Many ancient books were written for the purpose of religion and devotion, whereas present-day writers adhere to the scholarly approach and scholarly criticism.^[13] In this view, there is great arrogance towards the heritage and great lack of knowledge of its methods, criticism, and approaches.

Contemporary writers have continued in this manner. The matter has gone beyond limits. Anyone who holds a pen can look into the ahadith and criticise them based on his modern culture and new knowledge, without bothering to verify the Hadith as a historical event. The matter has led to great instability in culture and ideology.

Finally, some journalists have also entered into Hadith criticism. It has become their right—despite instability dominating the media and education in general—to flip through Sahih al Bukhari and criticise any hadith in it based on the apparent meaning of its text that does not conform to the ‘advanced knowledge’ and ‘taste’ that they see and live. It is as though the sciences of historical tawthiq undertaken by Muhaddithin and critics have no value in front of someone who has access to media, which enables him to look into any narration according to his taste. As if the science of history as a whole has no existence because any writer can criticise any historical event based on his culture, ideology, and taste. Therefore, history is subordinate to the culture of the intellectual and there is no real existence for that history.

In conclusion, I see two factors that will eliminate the excessive modern instability in dealing with Hadith heritage:

First: The necessity of rebuilding the method of historical tawthiq of events and narrations and the importance of building trust in the science of History itself, and in the method of documenting historical narrations and events, in general. Thereafter, building trust in the methodology of Hadith critics, as historical criticism cannot be subordinate to the taste of the intellectual, his view, and his ideology; otherwise, there will be no history in this case except what was in the impressions of the intellectual. History is a real science in itself, formed in reality, and the science of Hadith is fundamentally a science of History. Thus, establishing the methodology of historical criticism is the basis for establishing the methodology of criticism of the Muhaddithin, to prevent the cognitive instability that dominated the scholarly condition in the past two centuries, with the invasion of modernism over all knowledge, including Islamic knowledge in this discussion here.

Perhaps Sheikh Mustafa Sabri’s comparisons between the sciences of Hadith and the science of History in other nations flows into the same idea, as he displayed great reverence to the efforts of the Muhaddithin, in contrast to the attempts by the intellectuals to belittle them. He would repeatedly say:

إن ما قام به علماء الحديث من ضبط سنة نبي الإسلام أصح وأثبت من ضبط كتب أهل الكتاب

What the Muhaddithin accomplished in capturing the Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam is more authentic and established than the capturing of the books of the Ahl al Kitab (People of the Book).^[14]

He also mentions:

الطريقة المتبعة في الإسلام لتوثيق الأحاديث النبوية أفضل طريق وأعلاها لا تدانيها في دقتها وسموها أي طريقة علمية غربية اتبعت في توثيق الروايات

The method followed in Islam to document the Prophetic ahadith is the best and highest way, which cannot be matched in its accuracy and superiority by any Western scientific method that was followed in documenting narrations.^[15]

Likewise, ha states:

وأن علماء الإسلام اتخذوا في ضبط الروايات عن نبيهم وتوثيقها طريقة لم تر مثلها دنيا الشرق والغرب

The scholars of Islam have acquired a method in the capture and documentation of narrations from their Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the likes of which the Eastern and the Western world have not seen.^[16]

What I have mentioned in previous discussions clearly confirms this idea, as the historical tawthiq system undertaken by scholars of Hadith criticism is not known in any other nation over a very long time.

Second: The necessity of abandoning the view condescending the past through the eyes of ‘progress’, ‘enlightenment’, and ‘renaissance’ by describing it as ‘backwardness’, ‘degeneration’, and ‘stagnation’, without a true study of the heritage of that past. I specifically refer to the science of Hadith criticism here, as it was evident that a high critical methodology had become established in the Islamic scholarly community for centuries, which the modern intellectuals were not aware of and did not experience. Hence, they began to demand thinking ‘out of the box’ without knowing the ‘box’ itself, nor the knowledge it contains. Thus, the criticism was superficial, subjective, and ideological, rather than being cognitive and methodological.

Regarding the necessity of abandoning this condescending view, Wa’il Hallaq believes that:

يواصلون إصرارهم على أن الماضي أدنى منزلة من الحاضر في كل الأحوال هم العباد المخلصون لهذه الثيولوجيا (يعني عقيدة التقدم) وبذلك لا يمكنهم أن يكونوا باحثين ومفكرين حقيقيين… واعتقادنا أن معارفنا أفضل من معارف جميع حكماء الماضي واعتقادنا أنا أفضل منهم يعنيان أننا غير متنورين وهذا يعني حتى عند كانت أننا قد أصبحنا أطفالا مرة أخرى وعبيدا لأفكار ليست لنا فإذا كانت ثيولوجيا التقدم ثمرة التنوير وهي كذلك فهذا التنوير إذن ليس سوى كذبة صدقناها نحن بسهولة أيضا

Those who continue to insist that the past is inferior to the present in all instances are the devoted worshippers of this theology (i.e. belief of progress), and thus, they cannot be true researchers and thinkers… Our belief that our knowledge is better than the knowledge of all the wise men of the past and our belief that we are better than them, means that we are not enlightened, and this means—even according to (Immanuel) Kant—that we have, once again, become children and slaves to ideas that are not ours. If the theology of progress is the fruit of enlightenment—and it is such—then this enlightenment is nothing but a lie that we accepted with ease.^[17]

^[1] The sheikh confirmed this in more than one place and added to the sciences of Hadith, the work of the Imams of Fiqh, who were mujtahids in Fiqh and its principles. (4/296, 1/154-155.)

^[2] See an important historical detail of the impact of that law on the Ottomans and its counterparts in Egypt in Wa’il Hallaq’s book al Shari’ah al Nazariyyah wa al Mumarasah wa al Tahawwulat (Shari’ah: Theory, Practice, and Transformations), pg. 705-750.

^[3] I discussed this stage in my research entitled Inhitat am Istiqrar Su’al al Hajah ila ‘Ilm Naqd al Hadith fi al ‘Asrayn al Mamluki wa al ‘Uthmani, Dirasah min Khilal Kutub al Tarikh (Decline or Stability, the Question of the Need for Hadith Criticism in the Mamluk and Ottoman eras, a Study through referencing books). It was printed in the book Osmanlida Ilm-i-Hadis published by ISAR Publishing House in 2020 CE.

^[4] Refer to the distinguished, extensive criticism by Sheikh al Islam Mustafa Sabri of the experimental mind that dominated intellectuals in the early twentieth century. Particularly his criticism of the book Hayat Muhammad, which based its rulings on Hadith, on the experimental mind, emphasising the necessity of relying on the abstract mind whose judgements are not taken from experience and the senses. See that in ‘the position of intellect, science, and the world,’ in the third volume.

^[5] Albert Hourani: al Fikr al ‘Arabi fi ‘Asr al Nahdah, pg. 153, 251.

^[6] Albert Hourani: al Fikr al ‘Arabi fi ‘Asr al Nahdah; Wa’il al Hallaq: al Shari’ah; Mustafa Sabri: Mawqif al ‘Aql wa al ‘Ilm wa al ‘Alim Min Rabb al ‘Alamin wa ‘Ibadihi al Mursalin.

^[7] Tawfiq Sidqi: al Manar Magazine, 9/515.

^[8] Rashid Rida: Kitab Hayat Muhammad, al Hakam Bayn al Mukhtafin Fihi, al Manar Magazine, 34/791, volume 10, edition 35, 3/5/1935.

^[9] Muhammad Hussain Haykal: Hayat Muhammad, pg. 23.

^[10] Muhammad Hussain Haykal: Hayat Muhammad, pg. 22.

^[11] Muhammad Hussain Haykal: Hayat Muhammad, pg. 22.

^[12] Muhammad Hussain Haykal: Hayat Muhammad, pg. 22.

^[13] Muhammad Hussain Haykal: Hayat Muhammad, pg. 39.

^[14] Mustafa Sabri: Mawqif al ‘Aql, 4/59.

^[15] Mustafa Sabri: Mawqif al ‘Aql, 4/87.

^[16] Mustafa Sabri: Mawqif al ‘Aql, 4/169.

^[17] Wa’il Hallaq: al Shari’ah, pg. 29-30. See an important criticism of the ‘belief of progress’ in modern times in his introduction, pg. 24–30.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents