What's So Scientific About Hadith?
-
Peace d,
Off course Quran is a criterion. it would be silly to assume that the whole sunni/shia world do not use Quran at all unless with reference with hadith. They DO use QURAN as a criterion.
There is alot of 'fiqh' rules in regards to translation etc i don't know it though i know they use tafsir from quran i.e. use quran source to understand quran verse (cross references), they also use hadith to 'further' understand quran and they also use scholarly thought and opinion to come with conclusions.
They got the ideas from the Quran in the first place.. not 'oh this a nice ideology let's adopt it make sure it's not contradictory.. sweet, let's add it!'
Remember everyone (generally) thinks/believes they're right and each have their own justifications. it's up to the individual to distinguish and reason what is or isn't right.
Post your research on the appropriate forum topics, create a new thread. you could pm a moderator to share/add your findings into the article section
peace.
-
Mazhar, I like your treatment of the subject, I had totally forgot 3353, great one.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/23.65.gif
"Do not groan today. Indeed you people will not be helped by Us.http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/23.66.gif
Indeed My Aa'ya'at were recited upon you people, word by word, whereupon you people used to turn back on your heels
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/23.67.gif
as self obsessed of pride arrogant about it/the Book-Grand Qur'aan, you people at night discussed-devised conjectures/random talks for roping away/limiting efficacy.http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/023.%20Al%20Momenoon/023.D%20%20Al%20Momenoon.htm
And let us watch a video clip of Hereafter,
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/025.%20Al%20Furqan/25.28.gif
Woe to me, alas I had not taken such and such person as intimate friend.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/025.%20Al%20Furqan/25.29.gif
Of course he made me forgetful and strayed from the Reminder/Admonition/the Book-, after that it had reached to me;
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/025.%20Al%20Furqan/25.29a.gif
and Shai'taan for man has always been a deserter.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/025.%20Al%20Furqan/25.30.gif
And the Messenger said, "O My Sustainer Lord! It is true that My Nation had made this Grand Qur'aan restricted "http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/025.%20Al%20Furqan/025.%20B%20%20Al%20Furqan.htm
Decision has to be taken today.
-
My bro was telling me a man by the name Zamakhshari is a famous tafsir scholar but he is a Mutazilate. He was telling me his tafsir is the best or is considered the best in the sunni school of thought however they recognise him as a deviant but consider his work as gold because of his arabic and knowledge..
sounds conflicting but anyway thought it interesting because Mutazilites don't take traditional hadiths like mainstreamer's..
Peace
In Muhammad Asad's English translation he mentions Zamakhshari quite a bit in the footnotes.
-
I think 'thegod' answered the question to the title of this thread quite well.
The Arabic '3uloom' has been rendered into English as 'science'. Our understanding of science would differ, I reckon, from the understanding of those people who first started to use the word '3uloom' in this context.
If by science we mean 'the testing of hypotheses by experimental work' then clearly the works of the oral tradition collators do not fall under this definition.
If by science we mean 'the corroboration of oral reports by other oral reports' then the works of the oral tradition collators falls, in my opinion, quite nicely under this definition.
It's a matter of definition.
The question then lies; how valid were the techniques and skills used by these collators/historians when they went about seeking to corroborate or negate a statement concerning the generations that came before them, and especially concerning Muhammad the prophet?
-
Peace Uq and all.
I've been reading a few books on hadith. What i have noticed is they all claim the faults of hadith started from the "first fitna" Ali vs Muawaiya (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna).
They claim hadiths were written in the time of the prophet as scrolls/booklets however none of them "lasted". let me quote some things i found interesting
"The early students and workers on hadith were followed by many hadith specialists (now known as muhaddithun) who carried on the work begun by their predecessors in various provinces of the Muslim world. Of these major collectors of hadith,
Abd al-malik ibnaruba (d.157/774) in Mesopotamia, al-Awzai (d.159/774) in syria, Muhammad ibnAbd al-rahman (d.159/775) at Medina, Za`ida ibn Qudama (d.160/776) and Sufyan al-Thawri (d.161/777) at Kufa, and Hammad ibn salama (d.165/781) at Basra. As almost all these works are lost, no opinion can be expressed on their plan, method or spirit." (Siddiqi, p.7) however a man by the name Ibn al-Nadim gives a recount about them. who he is no idea but even his work is said to be lost..i emphasis the lack of preservation because it's a common excuse sunni's use that these books of hadith existed but they just wiped out.
Another concerning issue amongst the Sunni scholars is that there is differing opinions on how many ahadith are actually "ahkam" rulings/legal issues or just traditional historical/events (Maghazi). If scholars can't agree on what's a ruling and what's just a practice tradition then what's the point in ahadith and adopting them if consensus is weak? surely God wouldn't want us to forsake our own heritages to adopt another (4913).
This is also interesting.. Ignaz Goldziher studied Muwatta, this is Imam Maliks famous work although he isn?t the most popular in the sunni world he is still one of the 4 ?imams?. He (Ignaz) calls his work ?a corpus juris, not a corpus traditionum.. its intention is not to sift and collect the ?healthy? elements of traditions circulating in the Islamic world but to illustrate the law, ritual and religious practice, by the ijma recognised in Medinian Islam, by the sunna current in Medina, and to create a theoretical corrective, from the point of view of ijma and sunna, for things still in a state of flux.? (p.7-
to me it was basically saying the practices held by muslims there, were what were agreed upon through ijma. Not solely a law found in ahadith but rather portraying the practices of muslims in Medina. Ignaz further criticises the work of Imam Malik by stating that hadiths he has used show no or weak isnad or isnad that gets cut off at companions. Yet muslims.. sunnis blindly adhere to the works of these scholars and limit it to the 4 imams.. without even studying the work.. it baffles me.
Uq as you say all a matter of definition, they can call it a science if they like but when will they back it up with measurable evidence other than "chain"..
Peace
p.s the book is called "Hadith literature its origin, development and special features by Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi" it's in positive light of ahadith, i haven't finished it though.
-
Peace Sarah,
Modern historians and archaeologists draw heavily on physical and tangible evidence in establishing historical facts, or at least to support ideas they might have of history.
A good example is the hieroglyphics in Egypt which can give us a good idea about the time in which they were written, tangible evidence like this allows history to be 'set in stone' as it were.
An even better example is that of the Magna Carta which sets out in much detail the conditions of England in the 13th century; using this document we can gain real insight into those times and the people of those times.
But even these are subject to human subjectivity and maybe even distortion. Therefore such evidence, as far as I can see, can only support an idea we have about history, I don't see how it can conclusively and absolutely prove it.
Not forgetting that artifacts can also be used as evidence, example, vases with drawings, or plates with inscriptions etc..
This is what I personally would classify as evidence for the purpose of establishing a good idea about people and historical events.
Now, compare that with the oral traditions which we have concerning Muhammad and his generation. These oral traditions were only 'set in stone' a few hundred years after the prophet's death. The oldest documentary evidence we have about Muhammad is not the hadith, but it is in fact the Quran, the oldest manuscripts of which date to a few decades after his death, and some even earlier. Beyond that we have nothing.
If anything, the hadith serve as very good evidence to give us an idea of the time in which they were written, that is, the 8th and 9th centuries.
-
Peace uq
Ok well I have no idea what or where the earliest books/booklets/documentation of ahadith exists because now we can easily access ahadith via internet there seems no need to actually look up some museum/library/trust with the ?rare/original? sources.
It wouldn?t be odd to find or rather attribute that ahadith were written in earlier times. Though I think they would be different than what they are now.
I remember a while ago going to an islamic art expedition and there was a collection of Quran?s (over 50) and art work encrypted with verses (on paintings, on metal, on cutlery on bowls etc) though not ahadith. I think it would be difficult to access and even if early booklets were found it would probably be under a trust or someone?s possession. I mean who has the original Sahih Bukhari? Etc?
I don?t think I need the tangible evidence of an old script indicating the existence of hadith to believe of their existence. Also in many books they say a lot of ahadith were burnt as to refrain from misguiding people into believe it as Quran or due to the uncertainty of authority i.e. whether it was actually said that way or not.
Traditionalists support that ahadith is not purely an oral ?science? there is physical evidence however I am not sure how far back this evidence goes... I?m not an archaeologists nor historian but if you find out, do share.
peace )
-
Peace All
I finished reading the book (Hadith literature, its origin, development and special features by Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi) some points I found interesting
Hadith compilers seem to have been treated badly by the caliph/public or were exiled/imprisoned. (makes you think why).
Sahifas are said to be the earliest records of hadith. There?s different names/categories given to hadiths like masnad, sunnan etc. Sahifa?s are said to have come about during the time of the prophet, but nothing of it exists today.
Then comes the Musnad
?the Musnad of Abu Daud al-Tayalisi? (of Persian origin) is considered the earliest musnad still extant though he didn?t compile the work. Yunus ibn Habib his student compiled it. It?s preserved today in the Oriental Public library of Patna. (p.44-45)Then Musannaf (theses include the sahih?s bukhari/muslim) the earliest work is said to be lost but made reference in other work which is the ?musannaf of Waki?. But the earliest that exists is ?musannaf of abu Bakr Abd Al-razzaq ibn humam? from Yemen, edited and published by an Indian scholar Habib Alrahman Alazami. (p.52)
I thought this was interesting, imam bukhari is said to have committed more errors compared to imam Muslim ?unlike imam Bukhari, he appears not to have committed any mistake of confusion in the text or isnad of any tradition? (p.60)
Sahih muslim is considered more sahih/superior over sahih bukhari although others dispute otherwise.
After the musannaf, Sunan come to play. The sunan of Aldarimi is said to be the earliest sunan (p.6 the original manuscript of sunan Abu Daud can be found in the state library of Berlin (p.83)
The most important traditions are said to be 3
- The muwatta of malik (this is interesting because earlier in the book it briefly mentioned that rulings from malik school of thought were based on ijma)
- Sahih bukhari
- Sahih muslim
(refer to page 73)
Notice the earliest records of hadith are not the ?most important? you?d think they?d be the least corrupt and hence be way better..
About classification of hadith the origin/appearance of isnad is said to be disputed. however it?s commonly known to evolve in writing during the fitna (civil war Ali vs Muawayia). So this would indicate people would have said things which were doubtful/devious.
Totally unrelated
Arabs followed lunar months before islam (p.92) I didn?t know that.
Zoroastrians seem to have been much more popular, muslims took jizya tax from them according to Shafi. (p.111)The most important thing I got from the book is the apparent matn classification techniques and criticism
?the following general principles for the criticism of the texts of the traditions have been laid down
a) A tradition must not be contrast to the other traditions which have already been accepted by the authorities on the subject as authentic and reliable. Nor should it contradict the text of Quran, a mutawatir hadith, the absolute consensus of the community (ijma qati), or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
b) A tradition should not be against the dictates of reason, the laws of nature, or common experience.
c) Traditions establishing a disproportionately high reward for insignificant good deeds, or disproportionately severe punishment for ordinary sins, must be rejected
d) Traditions describing the excellent properties of certain sections of the Qur`an may not be authentic.
e) Traditions mentioning the superior virtue of a persons, tribes, and particular places should be generally rejected.
f) Traditions which contain detailed prophecies of future events, equipped with dates, should be rejected.
g) Traditions containing such remarks of the Prophet as may not be a part of his prophetic vocation, or such expressions as are clearly unsuitable for him, should be rejected.
h) A matn should not violate the basic rules of Arabic grammar and style.?
P.114Unfortunately while they have this lofty looking criterion it doesn?t seem to be executed justly.
-
Thanks for updating us Sarah.
While I agree with you that the criterion is praiseworthy, it makes a number of unwarranted assumptions.
There could very well be narrations which comply with all those mentioned criteria, but how does that prove that a narration was said by the prophet or someone else from that time?
All the criteria do is suppose that the prophet could have said something, or would not have said something; but they in no way demonstrate the validity of their claims.
Example, if I said "The prophet Muhammad used to wear a red shirt." This statement complies perfectly with all those criteria, but how can it possibly be validated?
What do you think?
-
Well you could never be sure that the prophet actually wore a red shirt. i know what you mean but with most history it is like that. the importance of red shirt or not isn't really important so we could just assume he did (or even that he didnt.)
The criterion just helps rid anything nonsensical, then it's just up to historical evidence/records to accept it or not. and that's well.. subject to scholars or individuals.
How do we accept the history of the time of the prophet? do we not rely slightly on seera/hadith?
I do think hadith would have been recorded at a point maybe even during the time of the prophet. I personally don't have a problem with that. today we video record our families, take photos, even write down interesting things we have learnt. it could be truth it could be my interpreted spin on things (i.e. photoshop/video ed, paraphrased story/words of wisdom plus adding my own points) Clearly 'evidence' can be manipulated even with no bad intention. although i think/believe hadith existed i dont believe they were taken as they are today. we hear accounts of people burning hadith because of fear of misguidance, possibly because people revered the prophet even loathed him people wanted to emulate him or make mockery of him, today people emulate others they look up to, even gossip and misinform others. When you go to a uni lecture you record info you learn, you may record what you understand that knowledge is your interpreted meaning and is basically just useful for you. we hear our parents relate stories to us of their parents or grandparents, the exact truth of it god knows best but there MAY be some truth in it. it's not a definite hence not a reliable source plus with all the forgery/fitna/political movements it just matters worse.
I can't guarantee anything from a hadith source but it's a supposed source, the way sunnis strengthen their surety is through the chain. BTW chain of transmission (isnad) has been used by others, Jews used it so did hindu's/bhuddist indians.
It's a system (even though they do it differently) which has been used as history or evidence. The evidence isn't strong we can argue and will always argue that. technology today isn't what it was so unless we create a time machine i can't guarantee anything
Peace
-
According to Daniel Brown's book
Scholars agree that forgery of hadith took place on a massive scale. The science of hadith developed gradually as a response to this problem. The early written compilations called suhuf were little more than random transcriptions or personal collections. Muslim sources identify the first systematic collection in recording of the hadith with the Ummad Caliph Umar and with the scholars Abu Bakr. No such collection has survived. The earliest systematic collection is the muttawata of Mailk bin Anas, 179 AH (168 years after Prophet Muhammad's death), p94. Isnad (checking of transmissions) was not applied until after the early 2nd century AH according to Schacht. The book studies in early hadith literature stated it was earlier than this. For middle ground see Juynboll "Muslim tradition". Major works of hadith (p161 footnote 70).
It seems pretty obvious to me what happened. They came up with a system that would help reduce/minimise errors, given the problem they had, and whilst they may have thought of it as a good system, it is not perfect and it is ultimately unverifiable.
-
Ah interesting thanks for that
Scholars agree that forgery of hadith took place on a massive scale. The science of hadith developed gradually as a response to this problem. The early written compilations called suhuf were little more than random transcriptions or personal collections.
Cool that verifies what i thought, that people wrote their own personal accounts of knowledge they sought.When the problem of hadith was recognised, a "science" seemed to come about. Exactly as the other book mentions, because of the civil war people were asked to verify their claims with an isnad. Kinda scary, people before the civil war could have easily adopting things claiming it is/was a practice of the prophet when in actually fact might probably be a bida... an innovation.
with Maliks mutawata, it's so subjective and was based on ijma that even today sunni scholars don't accept all hadiths in it as 'sound' and this is the closest documentation from the prophets time S
From the very start hadith had weakness and will forever have weaknesses.
