In Defense Of Hadith Method by Abdullah Moataz

Objectivity in analyzing hadith and determining its authenticity means to study the hadith historically and judge according to the evidence surrounding each hadith; irrespective of the Critic’s personal biases and opinions. Establishing the objectivity and impartiality of the Hadith Critics is crucial in defending the Hadith Method. If they were not objective, their rulings would be arbitrary and thus, without value. How could Hadith Method be suitable to sift through transmission if it is not practiced objectively? As Sunnis, the objectivity of the Hadith Critics is taken for granted; a fact that needs no further research, hence if questioned about the justification for this position, some may falter even though there is ample reason to believe so. For this, the reason why it is taken for granted is not simply the result of Sunni dogma, but because it is quite apparent to whoever looks at the information impartially. The objective application of Hadith Method by Hadith Critics is exhibited through many examples and practices. I have chosen to only highlight three scenarios where their impartiality is most obvious. In the first scenario (Section A), we look at how Hadith Critics dealt with their theological opponents. In the second scenario (Section B), we look at how Hadith Critics dealt with some of those who shared their theological stances.

In the third scenario (Section C), we look at how Hadith Critics dealt with hadith reports that expressly support their theological biases.

These three scenarios where chosen, because they are contentious scenarios where true objectivity is tested. It is not hard for a person who has nothing at stake in an issue to be objective, but true objectivity is noted when a person must take a stand between personal bias and principle. Will a Critic undermine a reliable transmitter from a competing theological school? Will a Critic overlook the weakness of a transmitter who happens to be from his own theological persuasion? Will a Critic overlook impairing defects in hadith simply because it supports his own theological persuasion?

Yahya b. Ma’in (d. 233) is one of the most famous and influential Hadith Critics who spoke extensively on hadith transmitters, criticizing and endorsing them. Due to this, I have chose to use his rulings as lense by which the objectivity of hadith critics may be observed in applying the hadith method to a critic’s theological opponents. Yet, the objectivity exhibited by Yahya here is not exclusive to him, but can also be observed in the writings of many other Hadith Critics in the formative era of hadith transmission and Criticism. In my original work, I give dozens of similar examples from Ahmed b. Hanbal, the two Razis (Abu Zur’ah and Abu Hatim) and Al-Jawzajani.

When it comes to the superiority of the companions and the proper order they fall into, Yahya was very clear about his opinion. Yahya said, “And I say: Abu Bakr, „Umar, „Uthman and „Ali. This is our opinion and view.15” Furthermore, Yahya considered anyone who preferred „Ali over „Uthman to be a Shi’i16. From this, it is clear that the Shi’a are clearly in opposition to Yahya. The question that asks itself: How then does Yahya deal with their transmitters? Does he let his theological biases get the best of him? Or does he objectively rate them, irrespective of the differences?

In theory Yahya b. Ma’in admits that Shi’i transmitters can be reliable. He said, “A Shi’i can be reliable.17” This theory is further supported by Yahya’s practice. Let us consider the following quotes from Yahya b. Ma’in.

1. Yahya said, “Fatr b. Khalifah is reliable (thiqah) and he is a Shi’i.18” 2. Yahya said, “Muhammad b. Kathir Al-Kufi transmits from Layth. He was a Shi’i and there was nothing wrong with him (Lam yakun bihi ba’s).19” 3. Ibn Al-Junayd said: I asked Yahya b. Ma’in about Sa’id b. Khuthaym Al-Hilali and he said, “He is a Kufan Shaykh, there is nothing wrong with him (Laysa bihi ba’s), reliable (thiqah).” A man then said to Yahya, “He is Shi’i20?” He said, “A Shi’i can be reliable and a Qadari can be reliable.21” Yahya b. Ma’in and Qadari Transmitters Another group Yahya was diametrically opposed to was the Qadariyyah. Yahya said, “I don’t pray behind a Qadari if he proselytizes.22” He also used to say that if a person has no other choice but to pray behind a Qadari, he should redo his prayers23. Clearly, Yahya is opposed to this group, refusing to pray behind them, and commanding others to do so as well, something he didn’t practice with Shi’ah. Yet this didn’t prevent Yahya from impartially rating Qadari transmitters.

In theory, Yayha admits that a “Qadari can be reliable.24” As was the case with the Shi’i transmitters, Yahya’s theory is supported and backed by his practice. Let us consider the following quotes from Yahya b. Ma’in.

1. Yahya b. Ma’in said, “„Abdul-Hamid b. Ja’far, there is nothing wrong with him (Laysa bihi ba’s) and he was a Qadari.25” 2. Yahya b. Ma’in said, “Muhammad b. Rashid is reliable (thiqah) and he was a Qadari.26” 3. Yahya b. Ma’in said about Abu Qatn, “There was nothing wrong with him (Lam yakun bihi ba’s), but he used to speak about Qadr; he was truthful (Saduq).27” In the preceding examples, we observed Yahya b. Ma’in objectively looking and rating the transmitters, even though, as we showed, they belonged to two opposing theological groups (Shi’ah and Qadariyyah), some of which he was particularly harsh about. What truly mattered to Yahya, in his capacity as a Hadith Critic, was the transmitter’s ability to honestly and accurately retain and subsequently reproduce transmission, and not their theological leanings or heresies.

Another important angle to look at this issue from is to see how Hadith Critics dealt with their own kind; those who were of the same theological leanings and orientation as them. Were they allowed to get away with forgery? Was their weakness ignored for the sake of the shared theology between the Critic and the transmitter?

Al-Jawzjani (d. 259) was a hadith critic who has a reputation of being strict, as well as being a theological bigot of sorts. In his book “Ahwal Al-Rijal” he makes several points on the subject. Besides showing that not all heretics are liars, but some are actually honest, he points out that there are some forgers who were not known to him for heresy, though he notes “lying is a sufficient heresy28.” This is an important quote, as it shows that in theory even someone who has a reputation for being a theological bigot and very strict was not willing to give those who may have the same theological orientation as him a free pass. This theory is backed up in practice by Hadith Critics, who did criticize their theological brethren as needed.

Let’s take a look at Kharijah b. Mus’ab b. Kharijah. He was important enough of a figure to be quoted by Al-Bukhari in his “Khalq Af’al Al-’Ibad” excommunicating the Jahmiyyah, and detailing the ways in which they disbelieved29. Yet Al-Bukhari himself wrote about him:

Yahya b. Yahya said, “He used to deceptively transmit (yudallis) from Ghiyath b. Ibrahim.” Ghiyath b. Ibrahim’s hadith was lost, and thus his authentic transmission is not known from his inauthentic transmission.30

While Al-Bukhari certainly doesn’t believe him to be a liar or dishonest, on the same token doesn't believe his transmission to be entirely acceptable. Others, including Abu Hatim Al-Razi, Al-Daraqutni both of whom are equally in agreement with his theology, criticize him expressly31.

Another transmitter known for his tough theological stances, in agreement with Ahl Al-hadith was Nu’aym b. Hammad Al-Khuza’i. His unwavering theological stances earned him a place in the prisons of the mihna, from which he inevitably passed away. Clearly, his stances earned him the admiration of many Hadith Critics, who either suffered as he did, or held the same unwavering theological stances. It is not surprising then when one finds much praise of him. At the same time, there is an express criticism of him, and many examples of his mistakes and objectionable reports. Abu Dawud said about him, “Nu’aym b. Hammad has about 20 hadith from the Prophet that is baseless.32” Salih Jazarah said, “Nu’aym used to transmit from his memory and he has many objectionable reports that no one corroborates him on.33” Salih Jazarah also quotes Yahya b. Ma’in as saying about him, “He is worthless in hadith, though was a person of sunnah (Sahib Sunnah).34” It should be noted that Yahya also has several instances where he praised Nu’aym, as well as several other instances where he pointed out various mistakes of Nu’aym, even once in Nu’aym’s presence, all of which can be found in Nu’aym’s biographical entry in Tahdhib Al-Kamal.

Al-Nasa’i is another hadith critic who praised him for his knowledge but expressly stated that he was weak and may not be used as an evidence.35

The last angle through which we will consider this issue is how hadith critics treated hadith reports in support of their biases. The following four examples all relate to theological biases. Al-Duri relates that Yahya b. Ma’in mentioned a specific transmitter and said about him:

He transmitted an objectionable (munkar) hadith from „Ali b. Thabit from Isra’il from Ibn Abi Layla from Nafi’ from Ibn „Umar who said: The Prophet said, “Two groups who have no claim to Islam: The Murji’ah and the Qadariyyah.36” In our first example, Yahya b. Ma’in rejects this hadith that strongly criticizes and rebukes his theological opponents: the murji’ah and qadariyyah. Yahya’s opposition to the Qadariyyah has preceded in Section B. With regards to the Murji’ah, Yahya is opposed to them as he explicitly states, in opposition to them, “Belief is speech and actions; it increases and decreases.37” Furthermore, he seems to have a quite unfavorable view of them, as he quotes Shareek saying about the Murji’ah, “The Murji’ah are the enemies of Allah.38” Yahya doesn’t comment on Shareek’s statement. In his compilation on defective hadith, Ibn Abi Hatim posed the following question to his father Abu Hatim Al-Razi:

I asked my father about a hadith transmitted by Baqiyyah from Habib b. 'Umar from his father from Ibn 'Umar from 'Umar from the Messenger of Allah that he said, "An announcer will announce on the Day of Resurrection, 'Let the opponents of Allah stand' and they are the Qadariyyah?" He replied, "This hadith is objectionable (munkar); Habib b. 'Umar is weak in hadith; unknown; none except Baqiyyah transmit from.39” If we look at the hadith Abu Hatim is questioned about all we see is a hadith discussing the happenings of the day of judgment, a well-known genre in hadith that in principle Abu Hatim has no qualms of authenticating. Furthermore, the hadith is in essence strongly rebuking the qadariyyah, a group Abu Hatim was in opposition to and considered heretical. Indeed, Abu Hatim and Abu Zur’ah both dictated to Ibn Abi Hatim in their text that became known as “Aqidah Al-Raziyyayn,” “And the heretical Qadariyyah are misguiders.40” Yet, in sticking to his hadith principles, he rejected the hadith due to Habib b. „Umar, and didn’t let the acceptability of the genre to himself or the contents in support of his biases against the qadariyyah affect his decision.

Abu Hatim was also asked about another hadith that reads, “Every Nation has a Majus and the Majus of my Nation are the Qadariyyah. If they get sick, don't visit them and if they die, don't pray over them.” He replied, “This hadith is false.41” In this second hadith Abu Hatim is asked about, note that the hadith support his biases against the qadariyyah. Furthermore, the hadith belongs to the Dala’il Al-Nubuwwah (Proofs of Prophethood) genre, as it foretells the existence of a heretical group known as the “qadariyyah.” Instead of accepting this hadith that falls in line with his bias, and hailing it as a miracle, due to the Prophet allegedly foretelling the Qadariyyah, he rejects the hadith report in accordance with his hadith principles.

When Abu Zur’ah was asked about the hadith, “The discourse of the Qadariyyah is disbelief,” he replied, “This is false in my opinion.42” The same that was said about Abu Hatim, may also be said about Abu Zur’ah as well. He has no qualms with the genre of prophecies, of which this hadith is from, and there is no love lost between him and the qadariyyah; his and Abu Hatim’s express statements on the qadariyyah have already been mentioned. In the four hadith examples presented, we observed that the rulings of the hadith critics on these reports were informed by their hadith principles, as opposed and in spite of their biases. While the Hadith Critics mentioned here were clearly not without strong opinions on issues and biases, through the examples given, their objective application of hadith method became apparent. When it came down to it, even though a transmitter was from a competing and opposing theological group, the Hadith Critic didn’t allow this to impair his judgment on the reliability of the transmitter. On the flip side of the coin, if one of their theological brethren was worthy of being criticized, their shared theological ascriptions and biases didn’t lead them to overlook the obvious problems in said transmitters. Additionally, as observed in the preceding examples, their theological biases didn’t cloud their judgment on hadith reports in express support of those same theological biases.