posted
Wednesday, November 10th, 2010 | Posted by Ibn Kammuna What Makes a “Hadith” “Sahih” Introduction
In this short article, I discuss the issue of the authenticity of Hadith, or Hadiz (or Hadeeth) since the terminology is written in many different ways in the English language. In a sense, I’ll be challenging the concept of rejecting a Hadith, any Hadith.
What is a Hadith
Wikipedia says that a Hadith ( aḥādīth; lit. “Narrative”) are narrations concerning the words and deeds of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Qur’an and in matters of jurisprudence.[2] Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections mostly during the reign of Umar ibn AbdulAziz during the 8th and 9th centuries. These works are referred to in matters of Islamic law and history to this day. The two main denominations of Islam, Shi`ism and Sunnism, have different sets of Hadith collections.
I will not discuss the different sets of Hadith for Sunni and Shi’a Islam. Rather, my discussion will focus of the concept of the authenticity of the Hadith. The first observation that the reader may have noticed is that Hadith was collected no less than 200 years after Prophet Muhammad tread this earth. So, it is easy to see that a Muslim, any Muslim, can justifiably reject all Hadith. However, this is a rejectionist attitude I do not ascribe to. Hadiths do provide stories about how Prophet Muhammad did things, and let us know how Muslims lived during the time of the prophet. Hadiths are also important to let Muslims know many things about their religion, and give them guidance on “How to” in many aspects of the faith.
Important historical details regarding the development of hadith
There are two important concepts in the study of Hadith. One is called “Riwayat”(Narration), and the other is “Dirayat” (Knowledge or “Sufficient Qualification”).
Let me clarify those two important concepts:
Riwayat (Narration): This has to do with the continued chain of narrators from the most recent, all the way to the time of the prophet, including a complete list of the persons who told the Hadith from the prophet’s time up to the last narrators. If some discontinuity exists along the way, then the Hadith itself is considered “weaker” than it would have been if no continuity gaps exists.
Dirayat (Knowledge or “Sufficient Qualification”): This has to do with the reliability of all persons involved in the chain of narrations from the prophet’s time up to the last person in the chain. That is to say that those narrators had to be of good character (honest, trustworthy, pious, moral,etc.). If a blemish exists in one of them, then this translates to a “weaker” Hadith
Please note that such standards for hadith do not stand critical scrutiny. They appear good, but appearance is so deceptive. How can anyone know that all those narrators never lied? How can anyone know that someone who lied before was telling the truth about the specific Hadith? It is in fact impossible to judge the qualification of every narrator with a 100% degree of confidence. In addition, human memory of those narrators is like ours. How many times did our memory fail us. How many times did I think I put the dishes on the shelf, only to discover they were still on the sink or in the dishwasher! We all have our memory failing. We think we put something (i.e. keys) in a certain place. Then we look everywhere, and we just can’t find them. There is no reason to assume that those narrators were any better. If this is the case, then they may have remembered things in a different way. This may seem simple, but when you have four or five or six people in the chain of narrations, the problem gets more pronounced very quickly.
Do we need to reject Hadith:
I do not think a rejection of Hadith is a good strategy. After all, Hadith gives us a window as to how Prophet Muhammad and the people surrounding him lived. However, my above analysis shows that no Hadith is trustworthy 100%. One has to use common sense in judging if a Hadith is acceptable or not. This is the best we can do. I do realize that “common sense” is not understood by everyone in the same way, but it is still the case that this is the best we can do. One good common sense is that if the same story of a Hadith is repeated many times, it must be true. For example we can be almost 100% sure that Muhammad married Ayesha when she was six years old and slept with her when she was eight years and nine months old. The reason for that is very simple: there are numerous Hadiths narrating the same story. Hence, it must be true.
Some Historical Notes about Hadith
Please note that Muslim scholars do not agree on which Hadith is authentic or not. The problem is more pronounced between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims as they prefer to rely on different collections of Hadith for the most part. But even within the same Islamic sect, there is no group of Hadiths that all scholars agree on them being “Sahih”. This is due to the fact that each scholar (Alem) has his own criteria of acceptance. This criteria is usually highly influenced by the ideological as well as the political beliefs of that scholar. Whether Muslim scholars like it or not, the Hadith “acceptance” criteria ends up being subjective and highly influenced by the ideological/political/historical situation in the Muslim scholar’s environment.
When the Mu’tazilah lost the battle of “reason” in Islam, irrationality and following the letter of the Qur’an and Hadith ruled the day. Al-Ghazaly’s book “Tahafut Al-Falasifa” was the straw the broke the Camel’s back of rationality in Islamic history. After the Mu’tazilah, a group following Islamic tradition called “Ahl Al-Sunna WalJama’ah” enjoyed the support of the political authority. They became the authority on what to accept and what to reject regarding Hadith.
Concluding Remarks
It is obvious that Muslim groups as well as Muslim scholars do not agree on which Hadith is authentic or not. They do not agree on the what criteria to use to judge the degree of strength or weakness of Hadiths. But even so, Hadiths are important in understanding Muhammad and Islam. In fact, without Hadith, Muslims won’t be able to practice some the basic tenets of their faith.
Another important factor is that those early Muslims who collected Hadith were pious people, and did report Hadiths with a sincere academic honesty. Because of this factor, I find it necessary that Hadith should be accepted. In fact, one can accept all Hadith, and I daresay, no Muslim scholar can say such a policy is wrong. After all, who is to say what is the correct criteria to accept Hadith. We have already seen that the concept of “common sense” is not one agreed upon by everyone.
End
Ali Sina:
Let us examine more ahadith with our own Fann-i-Daraayat, unclogged from preconceived ideas.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 315 Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, “At every womb Allah appoints an angel who says, ‘O Lord! A drop of semen, O Lord! A clot. O Lord! A little lump of flesh.” Then if Allah wishes (to complete) its creation, the angel asks, (O Lord!) Will it be a male or female, a wretched or a blessed, and how much will his provision be? And what will his age be?’ So all that is written while the child is still in the mother’s womb.”
This hadith is a joke. Just the thought of this little angel that gets in there and stands in front of the womb each time a man become intimate with his wife watching the whole act and supplicating Allah for a drop of semen right on his face, is hilarious. Shall we discard this hadith as a fabrication? It certainly goes against our commonsense. But it was not against the commonsense of those who used to narrate it to each other 1200 years ago. It does not make sense to us, but it made perfect sense to them. A few hundred years ago, the commonsense dictated that the Earth is flat. All the philosophers and prophets agreed. Today it doesn’t? Can we say that the ahadith that go against our modern commonsense are false now, but they were true then because they were in accordance with the commonsense of the ancient folks?
The point is that we cannot dismiss the authenticity of a Hadith based on our commonsense. Muslims have taken for granted that Muhammad was the messenger of God and therefore he could not be wrong. So they reevaluate the ahadith as time goes by and keep discarding those that their newfound understanding of science proves unsound. This method is highly biased. Of course it is consistent with defendant’s approach and his defense council who (if unscrupulous) would deliberately hide, deny or dismiss all the evidence that would incriminate their client and present only those that find him an alibi and are in his favor. On the other hand, an unbiased jury would weigh all the evidences; the good and the bad, and pass their verdict after taking into account all the facts.
Posts: 213 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwvwv: Just the thought of this little angel that gets in there and stands in front of the womb each time a man become intimate with his wife watching the whole act and supplicating Allah for a drop of semen right on his face, is hilarious.
posted
The argument for accepting hadith is not clear, it seems to be 'since we can't disprove any, accept all' what about those of us who choose to accept the Quran and reject the stories surrounding it?
Posts: 195 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you reject the hadith you cannot quite make sense of the Quran.
For example Muhammad says in the Quran "follow my example", however those examples are not there in the Quran, they are in the hadith.
Also, the Quran cannot be understood on its own. To understand the Quran we must understand its context. In Arabic it is called “sha’ne nozool” or the circumstances in which the verses were “revealed” and the states of affair that they address. Without understanding the history behind each verse you can’t understand the Quran. Take the example of Sura 111
"Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he! No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame! His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel!- A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!"
This is the entire sura. It is a small sura consisting of five verses of cursing. If you do not know anything about the story behind this sura you do not understand it.
Let us take another example:
Sura 38:41-44 "And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he called upon his Lord: The Shaitan has afflicted me with toil and torment. Urge with your foot; here is a cool washing-place and a drink. And We gave him his family and the like of them with them, as a mercy from Us, and as a reminder to those possessed of understanding. And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with It and do not break your oath; surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent m returning (to Allah)".
Do these verses make any sense on their own? Examples abound.
How do we know the context of these verses? They are mostly in tafseer. Tafseer means explanation, clarification, interpretation, etc. The interpreters/commentators of the Quran (mofasserin) base their interpretations on the hadith and the books of history.
For example Sura 9 consists of two parts. The first part is called Bara’at (redemption) and the second part is called Tawbah (repentance). You can’t understand this Sura unless you know what they refer to. The Bara’at was written during the invasion of Mecca. It is called Bara’at because in this part of the Sura allegedly God is telling Muhammad that he is free to break his treaties with the pagans unilaterally. All the verses refer to that occasion. The Tawbah was written when Muhammad returned from the war of Tabuk and found a few Muslims had stayed behind and had not gone to war. He ordered the population of Medina to not talk to these deserters and even ordered that their wives move out of their homes. For forty days no one talked to these people and passed them by as if they were invisible. After forty days Muhammad accepted their repentance and in this Sura he laid the conditions of repentance.
These details are in the history and in hadith. You cannot understand this sura and any sura, properly without knowing the history behind it.
As you see the Quranonly people can’t even understand the Quran without the hadith and sira. What interpretation can they give us when they deny the background and the context of the Quran?
Posts: 213 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, you don't have any other choice than reject the hadith. You would probably end up in jail if you wanted to follow the Sunnah of the prophet. So perhaps it is better to reject the hadith, and while you are at it, why not reject the violent verses of Quran as well? You can pick up and practise only the good parts of the Quran. In fact that's what the majority of Muslims is doing. The point is that with hadith you believe in fallacies and without hadith you believe in fallacies, so you are only fooling yourself.
Posts: 213 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic