Modern research by Muslim and early European scholars takes it for granted that Hadith criticism as documented by classical textbooks of muṣṭalaḥ al-ḥadīth represents how early Hadith criticism worked. In this essay I examine the standards of Hadith criticism established by two prominent scholars whose writings are the earliest known extant works on the theories of Hadith criticism, Muḥammad b. Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820) and Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī (d. 261/875). In doing so, I determine the extent to which Hadith criticism as defined by Muslim is consistent with the system outlined by al-Shāfiʿī. A comparison of their works reveals that there is little difference between al-Shāfiʿī and Muslim on the principles of Hadith criticism, despite differences in their respective frameworks and agendas. Early Hadith critics appear to have adhered to a consistent system of criticism that likely developed in the generation before al-Shāfiʿī.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Leonard T. Librande, “The supposed homogeneity of technical terms in Hadith study”, Muslim World 72 (1982), 37.
Christopher Melchert, “Traditionists-jurisprudents and the framing of Islamic law”, Islamic Law and Society 8:3 (2001), 393-4.
Also see Wael Hallaq, “Was al-Shāfiʿī the master architect of Islamic jurisprudence?”, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 25:4 (1993), 587-605.
Al-Shāfiʿī, Jimāʿ al-ʿilm, 41. See also Ikhtilāf al-ḥadīth, where al-Shāfiʿī reports the same verses in his own wording, saying “and [God] made it a condition that witnesses be upright and satisfy us [as witnesses]” (al-Shāfiʿī, Ikhtilāf al-ḥadīth, 6).
Al-Shāfiʿī, al-Risāla, 465. Al-Shāfiʿī refers to the practice of attributing the opinions of Companions and Successors to the Prophet. On this phenomenon, see Jonathan A.C. Brown, “Critical rigor vs. juridical pragmatism: how legal theorists and Hadith scholars approached the back-growth of isnāds in the genre of ʿilalal-ḥadīth”, Islamic Law and Society 14:1 (2007), 1-41.
Al-Shāfiʿī, al-Risāla, 216. On inconsistent hadith-reports, see, for example, ʿAbd Allāh b. Qutayba, Kitāb taʾwīl mukhtalif al-ḥadīth: fī al-radd ʿalā aʿdāʾ ahl al-ḥadīth wa-l-jamʿ bayna al-akhbār allatī iddaʿaw ʿalayhā al-tanāquḍ wa-l-ikhtilāf, ed. Muḥammad Zuhrī al-Najjār (Cairo, 1966).
Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, 7. ‘…an yakūna qad shāraka al-thiqāti min ahli al-ʿilmi wa-l-ḥifẓi fī baʿḍi mā rawaw wa-amʿana fī dhālika mina al-muwāfaqati lahum.’ Juynboll translates this text as ‘[this one transmitter] will have to devote all his efforts to having his traditions (hadith-reports) correspond with theirs’ (Juynboll, “Muslim’s introduction,” 269). According to his translation, this transmitter should seek corroboration from other transmitters. However, Muslim’s statement means that the critic should examine the hadith-reports of such a transmitter and accept them if they agree with what other transmitters report.
Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, 7. Muslim appears to add a condition to this rule: one may accept additions from trustworthy transmitters who are not known for inaccuracies in transmission (al-Tamyīz, 189).
Muslim, al-Tamyīz, 199. Note that al-Bukhārī also accepts the additions of reliable transmitters (al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī et al, 4 vols. [Cairo, 1980], Kitāb 24: Bābs 55, 56).
Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, 7. ‘…wa-ḥadīthuhumā ʿinda ahli al-ʿilmi mabsūṭun mushtarakun’.Juynboll translates this as ‘Traditions from both are scattered in, or [at least] correspond with, [the collections made by] the experts’ (Juynboll, “Muslim’s introduction,” 269-70). The text means that their hadith-reports are widespread and shared by almost all Hadith experts.
Muslim, al-Tamyīz, 198-200. On the exclusion of sectaries from the Sunni community, see Christopher Melchert, “Sectaries in the Six Books: evidence for their exclusion from the Sunni community”, Muslim world 82:3-4 (1992), 287-95.
Muslim, al-Tamyīz, 172; also, for examples of Muslim’s isnād-analysis, 181-7, 190-1.
Muslim, al-Tamyīz, 172; also, for examples of Muslim’s isnād-analysis, 218.
Muslim, al-Tamyīz, 172; also, for examples of Muslim’s isnād-analysis, 218-9.
Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, 30. Note that Muslim’s reference to a consensus among Hadith experts tends to confirm Abū Dāwūd’s observation that al-Shāfiʿī’s argument against the mursal report was successful.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1600 | 205 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 107 | 18 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 149 | 37 | 1 |
Modern research by Muslim and early European scholars takes it for granted that Hadith criticism as documented by classical textbooks of muṣṭalaḥ al-ḥadīth represents how early Hadith criticism worked. In this essay I examine the standards of Hadith criticism established by two prominent scholars whose writings are the earliest known extant works on the theories of Hadith criticism, Muḥammad b. Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820) and Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī (d. 261/875). In doing so, I determine the extent to which Hadith criticism as defined by Muslim is consistent with the system outlined by al-Shāfiʿī. A comparison of their works reveals that there is little difference between al-Shāfiʿī and Muslim on the principles of Hadith criticism, despite differences in their respective frameworks and agendas. Early Hadith critics appear to have adhered to a consistent system of criticism that likely developed in the generation before al-Shāfiʿī.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1600 | 205 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 107 | 18 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 149 | 37 | 1 |