The Muslim ummah has accomplished an
unparalleled work. The great muḥaddithūn have, even in the early period of
Islamic history, to all possible human extent, strove to safeguard the prophetic
knowledge, sifted and separated it from the weeds of fabrication. They stored it
in reliable compilations. This proves that the Hadīth compilation was done under
the firm principles set by the experts in the science. It was accomplished
between the middle of the second century Hijrah to the middle of the third. This
period can be called the prime of Hadīth compilation. It was during this period
that the treasure of prophetic Hadīth was recorded in the books. The appearance
of the books and written record marks the end of the oral tradition. The books
compiled during this period earned acceptance and fame both among common people
as well as scholars.
It is a known fact that during the
period of oral transmission and narration of the prophetic Hadīth, the practice
of fabricating lies and ascribing them to the Prophet (sws) was done on a great
scale. I have presented a thorough analysis of the practice of Hadīth
fabrication elsewhere. We learned that Aḥādīth were fabricated for pious as
well as impious purposes. Though this evil design was carried out in a
systematic way on a large scale, yet, the Muslim scholars, who engaged
themselves in the science of jarḥ wa ta‘dīl, followed the fabricators closely
and exposed them. The fabricators were out to carve lies and ascribe them to the
Prophet (sws). This they did. However, the tireless efforts of the expert
muḥaddithūn made sure that such inventions were not included in the prophetic
traditions. The satanic fabrications could not become part of the religion of
God which generally remained pure of these assaults. The fabrications that were
successfully added to the prophetic knowledge are not hidden so as not to be
detected by a man of sound knowledge and religious vision. The only condition,
however, is that the student of the prophetic traditions and religion
appreciates his duty to discern falsehood included in the prophetic knowledge.
Such vigilance is, in fact, required in every science however mundane it may be
in its nature. It is not peculiar to the proper analysis of the prophetic
Aḥādīth.
We know that the Hadīth literature is
very vast and spans over thousands of pages making up dozens of works. It is an
ocean of knowledge. A very large number of Aḥādīth was compiled by different
people in those times. These narratives were obtained from various sources.
Thus, the work accomplished by different scholars in different times cannot be
expected to be of the same degree of soundness. All cannot be expected to be
obtained from the same source or from different sources of the same authority.
This is why the muḥaddithūn have categorized the Hadīth works considering the
soundness and weakness of the narratives of the Aḥādīth mentioned in them. They
put Muwaṭṭā of Imām Mālik, Ṣaḥīḥ of Imām Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ of Imām
Muslim in the first category. These three sources include all types of reliable
narratives including saḥīḥ (sound), mutawātir (concurrent) and ḥasan (sound
but next to saḥīḥ). The second category consists of the sunan-i arba‘ah (the
four sunan) i.e. Sunan of Tirmidhī, Sunan of Abū Dāwūd, Sunan of Nisā’ī and
Sunan of Ibn Mājah. All the Aḥādīth contained in this group of works are not
equally sound. They do not match the authenticity characteristic of the
narratives contained in the works of the first category named above. Though we
cannot say that the compilers of these books have shown laxity in gauging
Aḥādīth on the principles set by them, yet, however, the narrators of the
Aḥādīth in these books are not meticulous and good memorisers. The scholars of
the later generations declared these works as widely accepted by the ummah in
spite of their weakness. These works too are now considered a source of
religious knowledge. There are sound Aḥādīth in other works which pass the
criteria for acceptable Aḥādīth. These sound narratives contained in various
other works of lesser reliability are pearls scattered and mixed in weeds. It is
only experts in the science who can make use of them. The muḥaddithūn consider
the above mentioned books of the first and second category as generally sound
and reliable. These books are considered the basic sources. I believe that every
work among these has a distinctive feature and characteristic.
Natural Approach of Ḥadīth Study
In order to best utilize Aḥādīth, one
has to critically analyze and ponder over the entire corpus of the Hadīth
literature. The first thing one must learn in this regard is to appreciate the
natural way of studying Aḥādīth. It is not understandable and natural to start
studying Aḥādīth from anywhere. This removes the use of the whole exercise. One
does not gain anything. Take, for example, the study of the Qur’ān. We know that
there are various commentaries on the Book. However, there are only three
exegetical works that can be termed as the primary and fundamental sources of
the Qur’ānic commentary. These include Al-Ṭabarī, al-Kashshāf and Tafsīr al-Kabīr.
All other tafsīr works have been compiled in the light of these major works.
Similarly, in my view, the sound method of understanding Aḥādīth is that, at
first, one selects the primary sources in the discipline. Then, one proceeds on
to thoroughly ponder over the narratives contained in these books. He should be
able to grasp everything. If one finds in them something doubtful however tiny,
he should mark it. Then one should collate all the material that deals with the
issue under study from the entire literature. He would, thus, be able to set
before him all the relevant material for study. This way a scholar continues
pondering over a doubtful narrative until he is able to give a clear and
decisive verdict regarding its origin and teachings. This process will not only
prove helpful in deciding on the Hadīth in question but also provide the
researcher with an opportunity of acquainting himself with the entire corpus of
the Hadīth literature.
The Primary Sources
By the primary sources, I mean works in
a discipline that are original contributions. Such works are acknowledged as the
foundation and primary source in that particular discipline. It is utterly
impossible for a researcher in a discipline to neglect or ignore the view of the
primary sources. If he is able to select the proper sources and has thoroughly
studied them, it means that he has set on the right direction. However, only
experts in the discipline may select the primary sources. It is not for a
commoner or an initiate to decide which works are primary sources in a given
discipline.
What are then the primary sources of the
prophetic traditions? Different answers can be given to this question for there
is a room to differ over it. After the lifelong study of the Hadīth literature,
I have formed the view that the following three works form the primary source in
this discipline: Muwaṭṭā of Imām Mālik, Ṣaḥīḥ of Imām Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ
of Imām Muslim.
When the student of the Hadīth
literature thoroughly studies and critically analyzes these three works, he can
be said to have studied the primary sources of the Hadīth literature. An
in-depth study of these works does not leave the student of the Ḥadīth in need
to study rest of the kind.
If we study these three works in such a
way that everything is on our fingertips, then we may learn the major
difficulties in this discipline. We learn the basic questions in the Hadīth
criticism and identify its major problems. We learn which narratives are
original prophetic teachings and which ones give rise to doubts and require
further research. We can then mark the problematic narratives and discuss them
in detail before forming an opinion. Some issues, no doubt, call for a long
study and thorough analysis. Such issues will need in-depth analysis. This will
take us to study rest of the Hadīth literature.
Suppose, for example, we find a
narrative, which creates some doubts in our mind. We will need to look for all
the narratives discussing this issue in other works. We will study the chain of
narrators of all the relevant narratives. Then we will study the wordings of the
different versions. We will also need to observe the difference in the wording
of the first narrative and the others. We will try to ascertain to what extent
the collated material can prove helpful in solving the relevant questions. As a
result, we are forced to study the entire Hadīth literature in order to assess
and understand a single narrative. Consequently, we are able to grasp all the
works of the Hadīth literature. We also come to learn in what respect a
particular Hadīth work is helpful. After going through this process in a couple
of issues, we will have enabled ourselves to fully comprehend importance of
different Hadīth works.
Why have I given the above mentioned
Hadīth works primary importance? I have selected them from the entire literature
because the ummah has always preferred them over the rest of the compilations.
This preference is indeed an acknowledgement by the ummah of the greatness and
extraordinary importance of these works. This is not an accidental choice. There
are certain solid and understandable reasons for which the ummah has preferred
these three works over the rest. The reasons which account for this preference
for these books are given below. This will also help us understand the salient
and distinguishing features of these works.
Distinguishing Qualities of Muwaṭṭā
Muwaṭṭā is the first effort to compile
Aḥādīth. This work earned fame and eternal acknowledgment. The book is
attributed to a leading Madinan jurist and muḥaddith, Imām Abū ‘Abd Allāh Mālik
ibn Anas ibn ‘Āmir (93-179 AH). He compiled this book after carefully selecting
one thousand traditions from almost one hundred thousand narratives before him.
He took forty years in accomplishing this work. After its completion, he
presented it to seventy scholars of repute from Madīnah. Imām Shāfi‘ī is
reported to have said that no book is sounder than Muwaṭṭā of Imām Mālik
except the Qur’ān.
Over one thousand disciples of the said
imām have transmitted this work from him. This has resulted in differences in
the text in various instances. There are thirty known versions of the work of
which the most famous is the one transmitted by Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā Laythī
Undulusī.
I believe that the principles of
accepting Aḥādīth which the imām has followed in this book are very reliable.
This makes his work very distinct. The care he has shown in this process of
Hadīth selection becomes obvious to every reader.
The first distinguishing characteristic
of the compilation is its comprehensiveness and briefness. In spite of the fact
that this is a short work in relation to other works of the kind, it has proved
comprehensive and covers all the necessary issues.
The second distinguishing characteristic
of Muwaṭṭā is that its author has shown great care in taking only verbatim
narratives. He adopted a very well balanced approach regarding accepting the
narratives which preserve only meaning. He does not, at least, accept a
narrative containing the prophetic statement if it is not reported verbatim. He
insists that the words of the Prophet (sws) must be reported verbatim. This
means that he does not accept a marfū‘ ḥadīth (ascribed to the Prophet (sws)
himself) if it is not a verbatim transmission of the words of the Prophet (sws).
He was so conscious regarding the marfū‘ ḥadīth reports that he even gave
consideration to letters, prepositions and particles like wāw, tā, bā etc. in
them.
The third distinguishing feature of
Muwaṭṭā is that its author is more careful in accepting narratives from the
innovators than the generality of muḥaddithūn. He does not consider it
allowable to accept a narrative transmitted by innovators even if they do not
confess and invite others to their innovations. He generally declares such to be
unworthy and unreliable narrators.
The fourth distinguishing feature of
this book is its literariness. It contains highly literary form of the classical
Arabic. This helps readers develop the ability to understand the language of the
prophetic traditions.
Here it would not be out of place to
mention that there still are weak and unreliable narratives in the book. These
narratives have not been included by the author himself. They, on the contrary,
have been added to the original. Thus, they are mere exceptions to the sound
original content of the book. We know that the book has been transmitted from
the imām by many people and has reached us through many chains of narrators.
This made it possible for those on the lookout to incorporate spurious things in
the genuine content. Still, however, a scholar with a sound knowledge can easily
discern fabrications and weak narratives and distinguish them from sound ones.
It is also important to note that some
of the ‘Abbāsī caliphs were involved in persuading Imām Mālik to compile this
extraordinary work. Their blessed intentions thus have a part in this great
accomplishment. Their efforts are really commendable. They intended to make Imām
Mālik write a book which could help in curbing the ever-increasing current of
juristic differences in the ummah.
We learn that during the second century
hijrah, the juristic differences among the ummah increased. Apprehending the
evil consequences of such tendencies, the caliph Abū Ja‘far Manṣūr, during his
visit to Ḥijāz in the year 148 AH, brought it to the notice of Imām Mālik that
juristic differences were increasing among the ummah. He apprehended an immanent
disorder arising out of this situation. He requested Imām Mālik that he should
be permitted to issue a caliphal decree binding all the people to follow his
opinions on juristic matters. Imām Mālik, however, did not approve it. He said
that every group follows different imāms. Their views are based on the
understanding and views of the pious elders. He requested the caliph to leave
those people on what they were inclined to follow in these matters. At this
response from the Imām, Abū Ja‘far Manṣūr kept silence. He, however, did not
let go of the thought that the imām should compile a book which could work as a
basis for the legal code of the country and work as a unifying force for all
believers. In 163 AH, he went to offer pilgrimage again. He met Imām Mālik and
presented his wish before him. This time, he was persuasive. He presented his
view forcefully and in detail. He said: “O Abū ‘Abd Allāh, take up the reign of
the discipline of fiqh in your hands. Compile your understanding of every issue
in different chapters for a systematic book free from the extremism of ‘Abd
Allāh ibn ‘Umar (rta), concessions and accommodations of ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abbās (rta)
and unique views of ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mas‘ūd (rta). Your work should exemplify the
following principle statement of the Prophet (sws): “The best issues are those
which are balanced.” It should be a compendium of the agreed upon views of the
Companions (rta) and the elder imāms on the religious and legal issues. Once you
have compiled such a work, then we would be able to unite the Muslims in
following the single fiqh worked by you. We would then promulgate it in the
entire Muslim state. We would order that no body acts contrary to it.”
It is said that Imām Mālik fulfilled
this wish of the caliph and compiled the Muwaṭṭā. He, however, did not agree
to the caliphal view that the book should be promulgated as the national law.
Historical reports attest that another ‘Abbāsī caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd too
expressed similar wishes before Imām Mālik who remained unmoved.
Apparently, Imām Mālik thwarted the
caliphal wish. He, however, compiled Muwaṭṭā, a great favour to the Muslims.
He kept before his eyes the target of removing the juristic differences between
the scholars of the ummah. He targeted a book that comprehensively treats all
pertinent issues.
Shāh Walī Allāh (1703-1763) attached
great importance to Muwaṭṭā during his efforts to serve the prophetic
traditions. It is, perhaps, considering the importance of the work in the Hadīth
literature that he penned two commentaries on it written in two major languages
of the Muslims in that time, Urdu and Persian. Those exposed to the views and
thoughts of Shāh Walī Allāh know that he has exerted his every effort in saving
the Muslims from harms of juristic disputes. He intended to bring the discipline
of Islamic fiqh on a path that helps remove disputes. He pursued the great cause
started by Imām Mālik. Taking light from the works of Shāh Walī Allāh and
inspired by his blessed wishes I have written the book Islāmī Riyāsat Mēn Fiqhī
Ikhtilāfāt kā Ḥal (Resolving Juristic Differences in the Muslim State).
The Status of the two Ṣaḥīḥs
A few thousand Aḥādīth contained in
Ṣaḥīḥ of Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ of Muslim have been selected from hundreds of
thousands of traditions. One can easily understand the level of scholarship the
authors of these works showed and the extent of hardships they might have
suffered in the process of sifting the sound narratives from a huge mix of
fabrications and unsound Aḥādīth. As a result of the efforts of these great
scholars, we find genuine narratives compiled in proper books. All the
narratives contained in these books are reported through isnāds consisting of
reliable narrators in all the layers. Thus, the chain of guarantors of each
Hadīth contained in these two books leads us directly to the Prophet (sws).
Generally we do not doubt that isnāds in these narratives would be suffering
from discontinuity or any of the narrators in the chains would be committing
irsāl
or tadlīs.
We must appreciate and acknowledge the
extraordinary efforts of these imāms. Their services, in this discipline, are so
great that we shall ever remain indebted to them. Considering the soundness of
these two books, the ummah has acknowledged them as the most important and
primary sources of the prophetic Hadīth from the classical times. Their status
is not shared by any other work with the only exception of Muwaṭṭā of Imām
Mālik. All the other works produced later are a mere imitation of the excellent
scholarship exhibited by these two scholars.
It is important to note that Imām
Bukhārī and Imām Muslim have not recorded in their books all that can be termed
as ṣaḥīḥ Hadīth by the experts in the science. There is a limited number of
narratives which both of these imāms acknowledged as ṣaḥīḥ yet they did not
include them in their compilations. Such narratives are recorded either in the
remaining four works usually called sunan-i arba‘ah or some other compilations.
A group of scholars of the ummah
acknowledges superiority of Ṣaḥīḥ of Bukhārī over Ṣaḥīḥ of Muslim while
another group attaches more importance to the latter work. The majority
considers Ṣaḥīḥ of Bukhārī superior to Ṣaḥīḥ of Muslim in status and
soundness. However, most of the scholars from the western part of the Islamic
world prefer Ṣaḥīḥ of Imām Muslim. I believe that both of these works enjoy
equal status. Both are equally important. Both have distinctive qualities and
features and it is not necessary to prefer one over the other. The truth of the
matter is that each is matchless in its own right. Now I wish to explain this
point in the following pages.
Distinctive Qualities of Ṣaḥīḥ of
Bukhārī
Ṣaḥīḥ of Bukhārī is the work by a
great scholar of the Hadīth criticism, Imām Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl
al-Bukhārī (194-256 AH). He selected a few thousand Aḥādīth from five hundred
thousand narratives. He spent sixteen years in sifting, selecting, researching
on and compiling the traditions in this excellent work. He states that he
benefited from more than a thousand teachers and narrators of Aḥādīth. Almost
seventy thousand students learnt this book from Imām Bukhārī.
The first distinctive quality of Ṣaḥīḥ
of Bukhārī is the quality and soundness of the chain of narrators of the
selected Aḥādīth. In this respect, it outmatches all other works with the only
exception of Muwaṭṭā of Imām Mālik. The criterion Imām Bukhārī sets for the
analysis and critical investigation of the isnād reaches the point of
excellence. He has set before him two principle criteria for the sound
narratives. First, the lifetime of a narrator should overlap with the lifetime
of the authority from whom he narrates. Second, it should be verifiable that
narrators have met with their source persons. They should also expressly state
that they obtained the narrative from these authorities. Imām Muslim, on the
contrary, considers the possibility of the meeting of a narrator with the
authority as sufficient proof for his obtaining Aḥādīth from him. If it can be
historically established that the narrator and the authority lived in the same
period of time, Imām Muslim would consider it a sufficient proof for their
exchange of knowledge. He would not insist that the meeting of the narrator and
the authority he quotes should be independently established. Imām Bukhārī, we
have seen, insists on the meeting of the narrator and the source. To him,
meeting of the both must be established independently or a reliable narrator
should expressly state that he obtained Aḥādīth from a particular authority.
Imām Muslim, however, is so much confident on and strongly committed to his view
in this regard that he has severely criticised the view of Imām Bukhārī in his
introduction to his Ṣaḥīḥ. However, a careful analysis of the views of both
the scholars would lead one to conclude that the view of Imām Muslim is not well
grounded. His confidence in his viewpoint and his severe criticism of Imām
Bukhārī’s view does not affect the reality of the matter. The view held by Imām
Bukhārī is sounder, established and well argued.
The second distinctive quality of
Ṣaḥīḥ of Bukhārī is that in spite of the fact that the author has benefited
from the knowledge of more than a thousand scholars and narrators of the
prophetic Hadīth, he accepted the narratives from only those who, according to
his knowledge, not only believed in Islam but practiced its teachings. With a
theological view, this aspect adds to the prominence of the work. A careful
reading of the book shows that Imām Bukhārī has considered this aspect in the
arrangement and ordering of the topics. He specifically targeted rooting out the
evil of secession introduced by the Murjites and their brotherly groups.
In spite of his efforts, however, we see
that the beliefs held by the Murjites have been practically adopted by the
majority of the Muslim world. Importance of practicing the religious teachings
has vanished from the Muslim mind. It is considered sufficient for success in
the Afterlife that one has faith in the fundamental beliefs of Islam and
ceremonially follows some basic commands. Whereas the truth of the matter is
that, in Islam, belief is of no use unless it is reflected in one’s actions. If
beliefs are not corroborated by actions of the believer, they would not avail
him anything. Belief without practice is like a dead stem of a tree from which
no shoots and branches of good and pious deeds spring. It is only through
practical adherence that beliefs of a believer is set firm, nourished and
strengthened. It is only practical adherence to the beliefs that is accepted by
God. It grants the person excellence and high status in the sight of God. In his
Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Bukhārī has fully clarified this fact in the light of the
prophetic aḥādīth.
The third distinguishing quality of
Ṣaḥīḥ of Bukhārī is its particular arrangement and ordering of chapters. This
expresses the profound knowledge of the author and his understanding of the
religion. This has made the book more useful guide in training and nourishing
the proper thought and understanding of the religious disciplines. Its
excellence, thus, rests in the fact that it moves the heart, stirs the mind and
forces the reader into pondering over the fundamental religious issues.
Consequently, the book develops proper understanding of the religion in the
reader.
Distinctive Qualities of Ṣaḥīḥ of
Muslim
The author of Ṣaḥīḥ of Muslim is a
great scholar of the third century, Imām Abū al-Ḥusayn Muslim ibn Ḥajjāj ibn
Muslim (206-261 AH). He investigated three hundred thousand narratives of which
he selected only a few thousands for his Ṣaḥīḥ. He was rightfully proud of
this great achievement for he showed great care and exerted great efforts in
selection and compilation of the material. He would boastfully say that if the
muḥaddithūn continued writing Aḥādīth for two hundred years, they would still
remain indebted to his work. He claimed that he had not selected or rejected any
Hadīth without thorough investigation.
The first distinctive quality of Ṣaḥīḥ
of Muslim is that the author recorded only such narratives as were reported by
two reliable successors from two Companions (rta) which subsequently travelled
through two independent unbroken isnāds consisting of sound narrators. Imām
Bukhārī, as we have seen, has not followed such strict criterion.
The second distinguishing feature of the
book is its scientific arrangement of themes and chapters. The author, for
example, selects a proper place for the narrative and, next to it, puts all its
versions. It is useful in that it collates all the relevant narratives together.
A researcher can study and take help from all related Aḥādīth put at a single
place. Imām Bukhārī has, as we saw earlier, not followed this method. He
scatters different versions of a narrative and the related material in different
chapters. He does not leave the reader with an opportunity to consult them
together. This arrangement of the narratives helps greatly in studying the
Aḥādīth which invite doubts and confusions and require great deliberation and
in depth study. Consequently, in the exercise of understanding Aḥādīth, Ṣaḥīḥ
of Imām Muslim offers the best material to the students.
The third distinctive quality of Ṣaḥīḥ
of Muslim is that the author informs us whose wordings among the narrators he
has used. For example he says: ḥaddathanā fulān wa fulān wallafẓ lifulān (A
and B has narrated this Hadīth to us and the wording used here is by A).
Similarly he mentions whether, in a particular Hadīth, the narrators have
differed over the wordings even over a single letter of zero semantic
significance. He also informs the readers if narrators have differed over a
specific quality, surname, relation or any other fact about a narrator in the
chain. This proves the trustworthiness, integrity and memory of the author. This
helps the student of the prophetic Aḥādīth to learn who among the narrators was
more careful in guarding the language of the earliest authorities.
It needs to be appreciated that Imām
Muslim has been accused of showing leniency in accepting Aḥādīth from
innovators. The same allegation, though in a lesser degree, has been put on Imām
Bukhārī. This information can prove helpful in explaining away the problems of
some difficult narratives.
Conclusion
These three books, the primary sources
in the Hadīth literature, contain sufficient material of the prophetic knowledge
that can be used to base and construct the entire system of the religion. I do
not hold that the other Hadīth compilations are dispensable. Yet, however, in
our effort to construct a proper structure of the religious teachings of Islam
and explain them, these three works, in addition to the Qur’ān- the word of God
- can suffice as the source material. No other work on the prophetic Hadīth can
equal these works.
A full command over these three works
makes one comfortably differentiate between sound and unsound narratives
contained in other works. A thorough knowledge of these renders it sufficient
for one to merely glance through remaining works. It is no more necessary for
the researches to study the rest in equal depth.
Those seeking to ponder over Aḥādīth
have to remain on guard. The condition of alertness and vigilance in studying
Aḥādīth is as important for the student of the prophetic knowledge as in any
other discipline. Our great scholars and muḥaddithūn have, using their
abilities, with utmost perfection and quality, accomplished the task of Hadīth
investigation. They have compiled the Hadīth works and established the
discipline of Hadīth criticism. The scholars in the present day can improve this
discipline in the light of the principles set by the muḥaddithūn. They can add
to them some other natural principles. The only obligation on the scholars,
however, is that they should not think that the process of Hadīth criticism and
analysis has been perfected and accomplished fully by these great pioneers and
that we have only to study the content of Aḥādīth. The scholars should, on the
contrary, target improving on the accomplishment of these great scholars of the
past.
|