QuranCourse.com
Need a website for your business? Check out our Templates and let us build your webstore!
The methods of judging transmitters and determining their reliability are diverse and the final judgment on a given transmitter is usually the result of applying several of these methods to the transmitter and not sufficing with only one method. This diversity in application lends the results a great deal of credibility. When multiple methods lead us to believe a transmitter is reliable, it probably means we are on to something. The opposite applies as well; when multiple methods lead us to believe a transmitter to be dishonest or unreliable, we should be confident in these results. For the purpose of this book, we will only survey two of these methods. Before we do that, the reader should note that the implications of these methods differ. For some methods, the results would be indicative of honesty but nothing else. For other methods, the results would indicate accurate retention and precision as well as honesty by implication The first method used by hadith critics in determining the reliability is the cross-examination of a transmitter’s transmission to that of others. A collection of all or most of a certain transmitter’s transmission may be termed as a “pool of transmission.” A hadith critic would choose a specific transmitter and begin cross-examining the transmitter’s pool of transmission to what others transmit. What the hadith critic looks for is, in effect, how this particular transmitter’s pool of transmission interacts with other pools of transmission. Is the pool of transmission consistent with other pools of transmission? Does this particular pool of transmission contain much unique transmission, exclusive to it, to the exclusion of others? Or worse yet, does this specific pool of transmission contradict other pools of transmission? The hadith critics will even look at a specific pool of transmission and observe how the transmission contained therein to interact with each other. Is the transmission contained in this particular pool consistent with each other? Or are their inconsistencies contained therein? If it can be shown that there is a level of corroboration, such that the pool of transmission in question is in agreement with its sister pools on the common transmission between them and the pool is internally intact from inconsistencies, this is a clear indication that the transmitter responsible for this pool of transmission is both accurate in their retention and honest in their transmission. What preceded isn’t an ad hoc explanation of the rulings by early hadith critics, where modern ideas of authenticity are projected on unclear practices or ambiguous quotes by early scholars. On the contrary, these ideas are found expressly in the words as well as practices of the early hadith critics.
Al-Shafi'i (d. 204) said while explaining the prerequisites to accepting the reliability of a transmitter, "If he participates in the transmission of a hadith along with those of accurate retention (ahl al-hifz), it [should] match their transmission.7” Al-Shafi’i isn’t alone in this theory. In fact Muslim b. Al-Hajjaj (d. 261), one of the most famous hadith critics and compilers of hadith said, " He participates along with reliable transmitters, those of knowledge and retention, [in transmitting] a portion of what they transmit and [in doing so] is predominantly in agreement.8” Thus it is clear that this meaning was understood by early critics, at least in theory.
In practice, the application of this theory can be observed with clarity. For example, Ahmed b. Hanbal (d. 241) relayed that, “Yahya b. Sa'id was skeptical of Hammam until Mu'adh b. Hisham arrived and corroborated Hammad in his transmission.9” Yahya b. Sa’id was suspicious of Hammam, due to what he presumed to be an undue amount of unique transmission exclusively transmitted by Hammam. It was only after Yahya b. Sa’id realized that, in fact, these particular reports were corroborated by Mu’adh b. Hisham and not really exclusive to Hammam did he relent.
Similarly, Yahya bin Ma'in, the famous hadith critic of the late second and early third century of Islam relates an incident that occurred between him and Ibn 'Ulayyah, a well-known Hadith transmitter. Ibn 'Ulayyah came to him, inquiring about Yahya's opinion on his level of accuracy in transmitting Hadith.10 When Yahya replied, confirming Ibn 'Ulayyah's precision in Hadith transmission, Ibn 'Ulayyah prodded Yahya further, asking, "How did you know that?" Ibn Ma'in explained, "We compared it to the reports of others, and we found it accurate.11” Here, Ibn Ma’in is justifying his endorsement of Ibn „Ulayyah’s reliability by the cross-examination that he did. When it comes to the internal consistency of a transmitter’s pool of transmission, Al-Tirmidhi writes:
It is mentioned of Yahya bin Sa'id that if he were to see a person transmitting [an account] from his memory, once like this, and once like that, not remaining consistent on one version, he would abandon him.12 It is clear from this quote that Yahya b. Sa’id was worried about how consistent a transmitter was in their transmission. If the transmitter didn’t remain consistent, he would reject him as a transmitter. Internal inconsistency is a sign that the transmitter has not accurately and precisely retained the information they are reporting. The second method requires examination of a transmitter’s pool of transmission, but instead of looking for how the pool of transmission interacts with itself and other pools, the hadith critics look for other types of indicators which may be termed as: transparent practices in transmission. When found, this type of indicator alludes to both the honesty as well as the accuracy and precision of the transmitter. What are these transparent practices in the transmission? It is any practice where the transmitter exerted more effort, to be honest, and precise, even though had they not been so honest, they may have been able to get away with it. Since this is a bit theoretical at the moment, let’s consider a scenario.
Let’s say transmitter A used to constantly attend a weekly gathering of hadith where he would learn from his teacher B ten hadith reports. After several months of regular attendance, transmitter A missed the weekly gathering, thereby missing ten hadith. So as to not lose the benefit, he went to two of his classmates C and D on a separate occasion and each transmitted half of the hadith he missed from that session (five hadith from each). When it comes time to transmit, transmitter A has several hundred reports that he directly took from teacher B, but is stuck with the ten hadith that he missed, five of which he heard from his classmate C and the other five which he heard from classmate D. What does transmitter A do in this case? If he wanted to, he probably could get away with dishonestly transmitting the ten hadith he missed, directly from his teacher B, and none would be the wiser since he was known to regularly attend the gathering. On the other hand, if he is both honest and precise, he will make a clear distinction between the several hundred hadith he heard directly from his teacher B versus the ten hadith he learned from his classmates C and D, who in turn had taken it from their mutual teacher B. If he does this, it shows honesty, since he could have gotten away with dishonestly dropping his classmates from the chain yet did not and it shows precision since he is able to distinguish between the reports which he heard directly from his teacher B as opposed to the reports he heard from his classmates C and D who took them from teacher B. As was the case with the other method, this reasoning is found among the early hadith critics, and they readily use it when judging transmitters. For example, Ibn „Adiyy (d. 365) writes about Suhail b. Abi Salih:
Suhail transmits from a number of people from his father13, and this shows the reliability of the man. Suhail transmits from Sumay from Abu Salih; Suhail transmits from Al-A’mash from Abu Salih; Suhail transmits from Abdullah b. Muqsim from Abu Salih. This shows the discernment of the man and [his ability to] discern what he [directly] heard from his father without any intermediary between them, and what he heard from Sumay and Al-A’mash and authorities other than them.14 In this passage, Ibn „Adiyy is impressed with Suhail b. Abi Salih due to his precision. Firstly, Suhail is admitting that he didn’t hear a certain amount of hadith from his father, even though he could have easily gotten away with dishonestly transmitting had his personal integrity not stopped him. Secondly, he is able to distinguish between multiple things:
1. What he heard directly from his father 2. What he took indirectly from his father through Sumay 3. What he took indirectly from his father through Al-A’mash, etc.
The theoretical scenario presented first and then the practical scenario presented secondly are not the only types of scenarios that would fall under transparent practices in transmission.
7 Al-Risalah (371) .
8 Sahih Muslim (10).
9 Al-’Ilal wa Ma’rifah Al-Rijal li Ahmed - Riwayah Al-Marrudhi wa Ghayrih (43) .
10 As my brother commented, “This is the ancient equivalent of googling your own name.”.
11 Tarikh Ibn Ma’in - Riwayah Ibn Muhriz (2/39) .
12 Sharh „Ilal Al-Tirmidhi (1/104).
13 His father being: Abu Salih .
14 Al-Kamil (4/526).
Reference: In Defense Of Hadith Method - Abdullah Moataz
Build with love by StudioToronto.ca