The Principles of Hadith Criticism in the Writings of al-Shāfiʿī and Muslim
In: Islamic Law and SocietyModern 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
-
2
Leonard T. Librande, “The supposed homogeneity of technical terms in Hadith study”, Muslim World 72 (1982), 37.
-
12
Christopher Melchert, “Traditionists-jurisprudents and the framing of Islamic law”, Islamic Law and Society 8:3 (2001), 393-4.
-
14
Also see Wael Hallaq, “Was al-Shāfiʿī the master architect of Islamic jurisprudence?”, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 25:4 (1993), 587-605.
-
31
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).
-
57
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.
-
62
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).
-
86
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.
-
87
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).
-
88
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).
-
89
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.
-
97
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.
-
110
Muslim, al-Tamyīz, 172; also, for examples of Muslim’s isnād-analysis, 181-7, 190-1.
-
111
Muslim, al-Tamyīz, 172; also, for examples of Muslim’s isnād-analysis, 218.
-
112
Muslim, al-Tamyīz, 172; also, for examples of Muslim’s isnād-analysis, 218-9.
-
118
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 | 1612 | 186 | 12 |
| Full Text Views | 107 | 18 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 149 | 35 | 0 |
The Principles of Hadith Criticism in the Writings of al-Shāfiʿī and Muslim
In: Islamic Law and SocietyModern 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 | 1612 | 186 | 12 |
| Full Text Views | 107 | 18 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 149 | 35 | 0 |