In Defense Of Hadith Method by Abdullah Moataz

Moving on from the objectivity of Hadith Critics, we will take a look at something of equal importance: the sincerity and honesty of Hadith Critics. Were the hadith Critics sincere to the field of hadith? Did they uphold the integrity of the hadith field? Were they honest in contributing to the field? Or was their personal resume and fame as Critics more important than the field of hadith? In this chapter, we will observe two practices which are indicative of their sincerity and honesty to the field of hadith. The first practice will show the Critics opting for honesty in a scenario where they could have increased their personal hadith resume and claimed more teachers than they really had. The second practice will show that when faced with a question they didn’t know the answer to, they would let the questioner know, as opposed to making up information.

While reading through Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib by Ibn Hajar, I began to notice a recurring theme among several hadith critics. Essentially, a critic would mention a hadith transmitter - either as an answer to a question or by their own accord - and while affirming the transmitter’s reliability, they would also admit that either he never met the other transmitter, or if he did, that he never acquired hadith from him directly. The only viable explanation for a critic doing this (i.e deny learning from a transmitter who is otherwise sought out due to their reliability) is honesty. These critics were not willing to sacrifice their honesty, not the integrity of their field to increase their teachers and bolster their hadith resumes. Let’s consider a few examples.

1. Abul-Azhar said about himself, “I saw Sufyan b. „Uyaynah but he didn’t transmit to me.43” Sufyan b. „Uyaynah is a famous authority, whom a connection with would be a source of pride and honor for a hadith transmitter like himself. Yet, Abul-Azhar admits that, even though he met Sufyan b. „Uyaynah, he never actually acquired any hadith from him.

2. Abu Zur’ah Al-Razi said about Ahmed b. Ishkab, “A person of hadith (Sahib Hadith), I had the chance to meet him (adraktuh), but I didn’t write from him.44” Ahmed b. Ishkab’s reliability is unanimously endorsed and his own colleague and partner Abu Hatim Al-Razi, as well as Al-Bukhari and others are counted amongst his students who acquired hadith from him. In this case, not only is Abu Zur’ah admitting not have taken from a transmitter though it would have been possible to take from him, it is a transmitter that his other contemporaries are acquainted with and have taken from.

3. Ibn Abi Hatim said about Ahmed b. Harb Al-Mawsili, “I had the chance to meet him (adraktuh) but I didn’t write from him; and he was truthful.45” In this case, Ibn Abi Hatim is endorsing the honesty of a transmitter from the students of Sufyan b. „Uyaynah and Abu Mu’awiyyah, whom he possibly could have taken from but did not. Sufyan, as stated before is an authority and Abu Mu’awiyyah is one of the more important transmitters from Al-A’mash.

4. Abu Hatim Al-Razi said about Ahmed b. „Abdir-Rahman b. Bakkar Al-Dimashqi, “I saw him transmitting but I didn’t write from him and he was truthful.46” In this case, Abu Hatim Al-Razi endorses a transmitter whom he met and had a chance to acquire hadith from, yet he never actually wrote from him as he stated.

5. Abu Dawud (d. 277) said about Ahmed Al-Khallal, “Reliable; I didn't hear from him.47” Once again, another hadith critic, this time Abu Dawud, the author of the Sunan compilation affirms the reliability of the transmitter at hand, yet admits not acquiring hadith from him.

6. Al-’Ijli said about Habban b. Hilal Al-Bahili, “Reliable. I didn't hear from him; he was difficult.48” In this quote, Al-’Ijli affirms the reliability of a transmitter and then negates acquiring hadith from him while pointing out that he used to give students a hard time. This last point is interesting, as I imagine acquiring hadith from a transmitter who was known to be difficult would be a resume booster. Furthermore, lying about such an incident would be relatively easy to get away with. If the transmitter is so difficult how many students does he actually have who could deny Al-’Ijli’s presence in the hadith sittings?

7. Abul-Walid Al-Tayalisi said about Harb b. Surayj, “He was our neighbor; there is no problem with him but I didn't hear from him.49” Abul-Walid Al-Tayalisi affirms the reliability of the transmitter, yet denies acquiring hadith from him, despite the fact that they are neighbors.

A noticeable theme throughout the books on transmitters of hadith is that the hadith critics are not shy to express uncertainty about or ignorance of a hadith or a particular transmitter of hadith. To quote examples of this would be a disservice, as there are hundreds of examples. Suffice it to say that because of their honesty in expressing their ignorance on who transmitters may be, a special term was even developed to accommodate this practice. Transmitters that are unknown are termed as Majhul by later hadith critics and writers.

Yet, if the critics were dishonest and their rulings arbitrary, why not simply fabricate information about the transmitter? In fact, this would be a perfect way to show superiority over another hadith critic. One could claim exclusive information on a transmitter, to the exclusion of the other critics, further boosting his hadith credibility. But, as noted, this does not happen and the hadith critics preferred the integrity of the field of hadith to any personal gains to be gotten by feigning knowledge or falsely increasing the number of their teachers.