Introduction to the Study of Hadith:
by Maulana Muhammad Ali

Table of Contents: Chapter 1: Origin and Growth of Hadith Literature: | Sunnah and Hadith | Transmission of Hadith in Prophet's Lifetime | Writing of Hadith in Prophet's Lifetime | Why Hadith was not Written Generally | Memory could be Trusted for Preservation of Knowledge | Collection of Hadith: First Stage | Collection of Hadith: Second Stage | Collection of Hadith: Third Stage | Collection of Hadith: Fourth Stage | Collection of Hadith: Fifth Stage | Bukhari | Chapter 2: Criticism of Hadith: | Method of Counting Different Reports | Reports in Biographies and Commentaries | Storytellers | European Criticism of Hadith | Canons of Criticism of Hadith as Accepted by Muslims | How far did the Muhaddithin Apply these Tests | Different Classes of Hadith |

Chapter 1: ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF HADITH LITERATURE:

Sunnah and Hadith:

Transmission of Hadith in Prophet's Lifetime:

Writing of Hadith in Prophet's Lifetime:

Why Hadith were not Generally Written:

Memory could be Trusted for Preservation of Knowledge:

Collection of Hadith: First Stage:

'A'ishah, the Prophet's wife, was also one of those who tried to preserve the Sunnah of the Prophet. She had a wonderful memory, and was in addition gifted with a clear understanding, and she did not accept anything which she did not understand. There is a report about her according to which "she never heard anything she did not recognise but she questioned about it again" (Bkh. 3: 35). In other words, she did not accept anything even from the lips of the Holy Prophet until she was fully satisfied. 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar and 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas are two other companions who were specially engaged in the work of preserving and transmitting the knowledge of the Quran and the Hadith, and so was 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr who was in the habit of writing sayings of the Holy Prophet. And besides those who were specially engaged in this work, every companion of the Holy Prophet tried to preserve such of his words and deeds as came to his knowledge. 'Umar who lived at about three miles from Medina had made arrangements with a neighbour of his to be in the company of the Holy Prophet on alternate days, so that the one reported to the other what happened in his absence. And most important of all, the Holy Prophet had repeatedly laid an obligation on every one of his followers to transmit his words to others. "Let him who is present deliver to him who is absent" are the concluding words of many of his important as utterances. All this affords clear proof that the work of the preservation and transmission of the Sunnah had begun in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, and this was the first stage in the collection of Hadith.

Collection of Hadith: Second Stage:

Yet this was not the only factor that gave impetus to a dissemination of the knowledge of Hadith. The influx into Islam of a large number of people who had not seen the Holy Prophet himself but who could easily witness the wonderful transformation brought about by him, and to whom therefore his memory was sacred in the highest degree, was in itself an important factor that brought about a search of what the great man had said or done. It was natural that every new convert should be anxious to know everything about the great Prophet who had given quite a new life to a dead world. Everyone who had seen him would thus be a centre to whom hundreds of enquirers would resort, and as the incidents were so fresh in the memories of those who had seen him, these were intimated with fair accuracy to the new generation. It must be borne in mind that the wonderful success which Islam achieved within so short a time, and the rapidity with which the reputation of the Holy Prophet advanced, were the very reasons which led to the preservation of facts about him. Not only had he and his religion assumed an unparalleled importance in Arabia within twenty years of the day on which he began the work of a reformer, but within ten years of his death they were the most important world factors and everything relating to him was a matter of discussion among the Arabs and the non-Arabs, among friends as well as foes. If he himself remained in a corner of oblivion for a century or so, and then rose to prominence, probably much of what he said or did would have been lost to the world, and the exaggerations of a later generation would have been handed down to posterity instead of facts. But his case was quite different. From the humblest position he had risen to the highest eminence to which man can rise within less than a quarter of a century, and therefore every incident of his life had become public property before it could be forgotten. Such were the needs of the new times upon which Islam had entered after the death of the Holy Prophet.

Apart from these there was another factor of the utmost importance which gave impetus to the knowledge of Hadith at this stage. To the companions of the Holy Prophet, the religion which he had brought was a priceless jewel; it was a thing which they valued above everything else in the world. For its sake they had given up their relations, their business, their very homes; to defend it they had laid down their very lives; to carry this Divine blessing, this greatest gift of God, to other people was the very object of their lives. Hence a dissemination of its knowledge was their first and foremost concern. In addition to this, the Great Master had laid on those who saw him and listened to his words the duty of carrying what they saw and heard to those who came after him. Li-yubaligh ul shahid ul gha'iba was the phrase which on account of the frequency of its repetition rang in their ears: Let him who is present carry this to him who is absent. And they were faithful to the great charge which was laid on them. They went eastward and they went westward and they went northward, and in whichever direction they went, and to whichever country they went, they carried the Quran and the Sunnah. Every one of them who had the knowledge of but one incident relating to the Prophet's life deemed it his duty to deliver it to another. And individuals like Abu Hurairah, 'A'ishah, 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar, 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, Anas ibn Malik and many others who had made the preservation of Sunnah the very object of their lives, had become as centres to whom people resorted from different quarters of the kingdom of Islam to get their knowledge of the Prophet and his religion. Their places of residence became in fact so many colleges for the dissemination of the knowledge of Hadith. Abu Hurairah alone had eight hundred disciples. 'A'ishah's house too was resorted to by hundreds of ardent pupils. The reputation of 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas was equally great, and, notwithstanding his young age, he had a foremost place among the counsellors of 'Umar on account of his knowledge of the Quran and the Sunnah. Thus the residences of a large number of the companions of the Holy Prophet became the centres for the dissemination of religious learning. And such was the zeal of the new generation for the possession of religious knowledge that students would travel from one place to another to complete their knowledge of the Sunnah, and some of them would travel long distances to obtain firsthand information about one hadith only. [Bukhari (3: 19) records the case of Jabir ibn 'Abdullah who travelled from Medina to Syria for the sake of a single hadith. It was a month's journey, as Jabir himself states. Bukhari's famous commentary, Fath al-Bari, relates several incidents of the same type. Abu Ayyub Ansari, for instance, is related to have undertaken a long journey to hear a saying of the Holy Prophet from 'Aqaba ibn 'Amir. Sa'id ibn Musayyab is reported to have said that he used to travel for days and nights in search of a single hadith. Another companion of the Holy Prophet is said to have undertaken a journey to Egypt for the sake of one hadith. The zeal of the next generation was equally great. Abul 'Aliya is reported to have said: "We heard of a hadith of the Holy Prophet, but we were not satisfied until we went to the companion concerned in person and heard it from him direct." AD relates that Abu Darda was sitting in a mosque in Damascus when a man came to him and questioned about a hadith, saying at the same time that he had come for no other object but the verification of a hadith which he (Abu Darda) related.]

Thus arrangements existed for both, the collection of the knowledge of Hadith in different centres of learning and the spread of it far and wide, through the disciples who gained their knowledge at such centres.

Collection of Hadith: Third Stage:

Collection of Hadith: Fourth Stage:

Collection of Hadith: Fifth Stage:

Bukhari:

Chapter 2: Criticism of Hadith:

Method of Counting different Reports:

[Writing of Bukhari, Guillaume says: "Tradition reports that this remarkable man took cognisance of 600,000 hadith, and himself memorised more than 200,000. Of these he has preserved to us 7,397 or, according to other authorities, 7,295, if one adds to these the fragmentary traditions embodied in the tarjamah, the total is 9,082. When one reflects from these figures furnished by a Muslim historian that hardly more than one per cent of the Hadith said to be openly circulating with the authority of the Prophet behind them were accounted genuine by the pious Bukhari, one's confidence in the authenticity of the residue is sorely tried. Where such an enormous preponderance of material is judged false, nothing but the successful application of modern canons of evidence can restore faith in the credibility of the remainder" (Traditions of Islam, pp. 28, 29). And Muir says: "It is proved by the testimony of the collectors themselves, that thousands and tens of thousands of traditions were current in their times which possessed not even the shadow of authority. … Bukhari came to the conclusion after many years, sifting that out of 600,000 traditions ascertained by him to be then current, only 4,000 were authentic" (Intr. to Life of Mahomat p. xxxvii).]

It must be clearly understood that those who were engaged in the dissemination and study of Hadith looked upon every report as a different hadith when even a single transmitter of the hadith was changed. Let us, for instance, take a hadith for which the original authority is Abu Hurairah. Now, Abu Hurairah had 800 disciples in hadith, and the same hadith may have been reported by ten of his disciples with or without any variation. Each of these reports would according to the collectors of hadith form a separate hadith. Again, suppose each of the transmitters of Abu Hurairah's hadith had two reporters, and the same hadith will count, say, twenty different reports, and the number would thus go on increasing as the number of reporters increased. Now at the time when Bukhari applied himself to Hadith in the first decade of the third century of Hijrah, there were schools of Hadith at different centres, and hundreds of students learned hadith at these schools and reported them to others. In a chain of ordinarily four or five transmitters, consider the number of reports that would arise from the same hadith on account of the variation of transmitters, and it is easy to understand that 600,000 hadith did not mean so many reports relating to various subjects but so many reports coming through different transmitters, many of them referring to the same incident or conveying the same subject matter with or without variation of words. That this was the method of Bukhari's counting of reports is clear from his book, the Sahih Buhhari, which with the change of even one transmitter in a chain of say four or five transmitters, considers the report to be distinct. ["On the other hand, some tradition is often repeated more than once under different chapters (abwab) so that if repetitions are disregarded, the number of distinct Hadith is reduced to 3763" (Traditions of Islam, p. 28).] What is called repetition in Bukhari is due to this circumstance.

Reports in Biographies and Commentaries:

"Their books and their reports contain what is bad and what is good and what may be accepted and what should be rejected, and the reason of this is that the Arabs were an ignorant race without literature and without knowledge, and desert life and ignorance were their chief characteristics, and whenever they desired, as mortals do desire, to obtain knowledge of the cause of existence and the origin of creation and the mysteries of the universe, they turned for information to the followers of the Book, the Jews and such of the Christians as followed their faith. But these people of the Book were like themselves and their knowledge of these things went no further than the knowledge of the ignorant masses. ... So when these people embraced Islam, they retained their stories which had no connection with the commandments of the Islamic law, such as the stories of the origin of creation, and things relating to the future and the wars etc. These people were like Kab Ahbar, and Wahb ibn Munabba and Abdullah ibn Salam and others.

Commentaries of the Holy Quran were soon filled with these stories of theirs. And in such like matters, the reports do not go beyond them, and as these do not deal with commandments, so their correctness is not sought after to the extent of acting upon them, and the commentators take them rather carelessly, and they have thus filled up their commentaries with them" (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddama, Vol. I, ch. 'Ulum-ul-Quran).

Shah Waliullah writes in a similar strain:

"And it is necessary to know that most of the Israelite stories that have found their way into the commentaries and histories are copied from the stories of the Jews and the Christians, and no commandment or belief can be based upon them" (Hujjatullah, Ch. I'tisam bil Kitab).

In fact, in some of the commentaries the reports cited are puerile nonsense. Even the commentary of Ibn Jarir (the famous historian, Tabri), with all its value as a literary production, cannot be relied upon as to its reports. Ibn Kathir's commentary is, however, an exception as it contains chiefly the hadith taken from the reliable collections of Hadith.

Storytellers:

European Criticism of Hadith:

"A most significant recognition within Hadith itself of the untrustworthiness of guarantors is to be found in Bukhari. Ibn 'Umar reports that Muhammad ordered all dogs to be killed save sheepdogs. Abu Hurairah added the word au Zar'in whereupon Ibn 'Umar makes the remark, 'Abu Hurairah owned cultivated land.' A better illustration of the underlying motive of some hadith can hardly be found" (p.78).

The conclusion is preposterous. In the first place, Abu Hurairah is not alone in reporting that dogs may be kept for hunting as well as keeping watch over sheep or tillage. Bukhari reports a hadith, (No. 1127), in the Kitab ul-wakala (ch. 41) from Sufyan ibn Abi Zubair in the following words: "I heard the Messenger of God, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, saying, Whoever keeps a dog which does not serve him in keeping watch over cultivated land or goats, one qirat of his reward is diminished every day. The man who reported from him said, Hast thou heard this from the Messenger of God? He said, Yes, by the Lord of this Mosque." Now this report clearly mentions watchdogs kept for sheep as well as those kept for tillage, while there is no mention in it of dogs kept for hunting which the Holy Quran allows in plain words (5:4). Abu Hurairah's report in the same chapter preceding the one cited above expressly mentions all these kinds: watchdogs for sheep or tillage and dogs for hunting. It only shows that Abu Hurairah had a more retentive memory. And as regards Ibn 'Umar's remark, there is not the least evidence that there was any insinuation in it as to Abu Hurairah's integrity. It may be simply an explanatory remark or the suggestion may be simply this that Abu Hurairah preserved that part of the saying because he had to keep watchdogs for his cultivated land. With all the mistakes that Abu Hurairah may have made in reporting so many hadith and he had an exceptionally retentive memory, no critic has ever questioned his integrity. In fact, the critics of Hadith are unanimous that no companion of the Holy Prophet ever told a lie. Thus Ibn Hajar says in the introduction to his Isaba: "The Ahl Sunnah are unanimous that all (the companions) are 'adul, that is, truthful." The word 'adala as used regarding transmitters of reports means that there has been no intentional deviation from truthfulness. This is not simply due to the respect in which the companions of the Holy Prophet are held, for the critics of the transmitters of Hadith never spared any one simply because he had a place of honour in their hearts. Further on, in the same chapter, Guillaume asserts that independent thinkers in the second and third century not only questioned the authority of Hadith altogether but that they derided the very system.

Here are his words:

"However, there was still a large circle outside the orthodox thinkers who rejected the whole system of Hadith. They were not concerned to adopt those which happened to fit in with the views and doctrines of the doctors, or even with those which might fairly be held to support their own view of life. So far from being impressed by the earnestness of the traditionists who scrupulously examined the isnad or by the halo of sanctity which had gathered round the early guarantors of tradition, the independent thinkers of the second and third centuries openly mocked and derided the system as a whole and the persons and matters named therein."

And what is the evidence for these sweeping statements? It is added:

"Some of the most flagrant examples of these lampoons will be found in the Book of Songs, where indecent stories are cast into the form in which tradition was customarily handed down to posterity."

Thus the independent thinkers of Guillaume who rejected the system of Hadith and openly mocked and derided the system as a whole are the lampooners mentioned in the concluding portion of the paragraph! It is rather strange that such a learned scholar should make such irresponsible remarks. The Aghani, the Book of Songs to which he refers, as if it were a collection of lampoons directed against Hadith, is an important collection of songs by the famous Arabian historian, Abul-Faraj 'Ali-ibn-Husain, commonly known as Isbahani (born in 284 a.h.). I am at a loss to understand why the learned author of The Traditions of Islam should look upon it as an attempt to mock and deride the system of Hadith. [The Encyclopaedia of Islam speaks of Aghani in the following words: "His chief work, which alone has been preserved, is the great Kitab-ul-Aghani; in this he collected the songs which were popular in his time, adding the accounts of their authors and their origin which appeared of interest to him ... with every song there is indicated, besides the text, the air according to the musical terminology ... to these are added very detailed accounts concerning the poet, often also concerning composers and singers, of both sexes. In spite of its unsystematic order this book is our most important authority not only for literary history till into the third century of Hijrah but also for the history of civilisation" (Art. Abul Faradj).] There may be some indecent stories connected with these songs but the presence of such stories does not alter the nature of the work which is an historical collection, as indecent stories are met even in the books of the Bible. There is not a word, either in the book itself or in any earlier writing, to show that the collection was made in a spirit of lampoonery. And to draw such a conclusion simply from the fact that along with the songs collected are given the names of those through whom the songs were remitted is to show an entire ignorance of history. It was the common method adopted in all historical writings and collections of the time, as anyone can easily see by referring to the historical writings of Sa'd or Tabri. The object was not to insult the method of transmission of Hadith; it was simply adopted on account of its historical value.

Guillaume has also mentioned the names of two great Muslim thinkers, Ibn Qutaiba and Ibn Khaldun, in this connection, but these great thinkers neither rejected the Hadith system as a whole, nor ever mocked or derided that system and the persons and matters mentioned therein. What these great thinkers have said about Hadith is accepted by every serious Muslim thinker. Ibn Qutaiba, rather defended the Quran and Hadith against scepticism, and Guillaume has himself quoted Dr. Nicholson's remarks with approval that "every impartial student will admit the justice of Ibn Qutaiba's claim that no religion has such historical attestation as Islam … Laisa li ummat-in min al-umami asnadun ka-asnadihim." Now the Arabic word asnad used in the original, and translated as historical attestations, is the plural of sanad which means an authority, and refers especially to the reporters on whose authority Hadith is accepted. Thus Ibn Qutaiba claims for Hadith a higher authority than any other history of the time, and the claim is admitted by both Nicholson and Guillaume. In The Encyclopaedia of Islam it is plainly stated that Ibn Qutaiba "defended the Quran and Tradition against the attacks of philosophic scepticism." Ibn Khaldun also never attacked Hadith itself, and it has already been shown that his remarks apply only to stories which have generally been rejected by the collectors of Hadith.

Canons of Criticism of Hadith as accepted by Muslims:

01. If it was opposed to recognised historical facts.

02. If the reporter was a Shi'a and the hadith was of the nature of an accusation against the companions of the Holy Prophet, or the reporter was a Kharijite and the hadith was of the nature of an accusation against a member of the Prophet's family. If, however, such a report was corroborated by independent testimony, it was accepted.

03. If it was of such a nature that to know it and act upon it was incumbent upon all, and it was reported by a single man.

04. If the time and the circumstances of its narration contained evidence of its forgery. [An example of this is met with in the following incident related in Hayat ul-Hayawan. Harun al-Rashid loved pigeons. A pigeon was sent to him as a present. Qazi Abul Bakhtari was sitting by him at the time, and to please the monarch he narrated a hadith to the effect that there should be no betting except in racing or archery or flying of birds. Now the concluding words were a forgery, and the Caliph knew this. So when the Qazi was gone, he ordered the pigeon to be slaughtered, adding that the fabrication of this portion of the hadith was due to the pigeon. The collectors of Hadith on that account did not accept any hadith of Abul Bakhtari.]

05. If it was against reason [Ibn 'Abdul Barr (d. 463) and Al-Nawavi (d. 476) do not hesitate to assail traditions which seem to them to be contrary to reason or derogatory to the dignity of the Prophet" (Traditions of Islam by Guillaume, p. 94.)] or against the plain teachings of Islam. [Examples of this are the hadith relating to Qadza 'Umri, that is, going through the performance of the rak'ats of daily prayers on the last Friday in the month of Ramadan as an atonement for not saying prayers regularly, or the hadith, which says, Do not eat melon until you slaughter it.]

06. If it mentioned an incident, which, if it had happened, would have been known to and reported by large numbers, while that incident was not reported by any one except the particular reporter.

07. If its subject-matter or words were rakik (i.e. unsound or incorrect); for instance, the words were not in accordance with Arabic idiom or the subject matter was unbecoming the Prophet's dignity.

08. If it contained threatenings of heavy punishment for ordinary sins or promises of mighty reward for slight good deeds.

09. If it spoke of the reward of prophets and messengers to the doers of good.

10. If the narrator confessed that he fabricated the report.

Similar rules of criticism are laid down by Mulla 'Ali Qari in his work entitled Maudzu'at and by Ibn-ul-Jauzi, for which see the Fath-ul-Mughith and by Ibn Hajar for which see Nazhatul Nazar.

The Quran as the Great Test for Judging Hadith:

'A'ishah used to repeat a verse of the Holy Quran on hearing words from the mouth of the Holy Prophet when she thought that the purport of what the Prophet said did not agree with the Holy Quran. The great Imam Bukhari quotes a verse of the Holy Quran whenever he finds one suiting his text, before citing a hadith, thus showing that the Quran holds precedence over Hadith. And by the agreement of the Muslim community, Bukhari which is considered to be the most reliable of all collections of Hadith, is looked upon only as asahh-ul-Kutub ba'da Kitab illah or the most reliable of books after the Book of God. This verdict of the community as a whole shows clearly that even if Bukhari disagrees with the Quran, it is Bukhari that must be rejected and not the Book of God. And as has already been stated at the commencement of this chapter, Hadith is only an explanation of the Quran, and hence also the Quran must have precedence over the Hadith. And last of all, both the Muslim and the non-Muslim historians are agreed that the Holy Quran has been handed down intact, every word and every letter of it, while Hadith cannot claim that purity, as it was chiefly the purport that was reported. All these considerations show that the saying that Hadith must be judged by the Quran is quite in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Prophet, and there is not the least ground for doubting its genuineness. And even if there were no such hadith, the test suggested in it would still have been the right test because the Holy Quran deals with the principles of the Islamic law while Hadith deals with its details, and it is just and reasonable that only such details should be accepted as are in consonance with the principles. And as the Prophet is plainly represented m the Holy Quran as not following "aught save that which was revealed" to him (6:50; 7: 203; 46: 9), and as not disobeying a word of that which was revealed to him (6: 15; 13: 15), it follows clearly that if there is anything in Hadith which is not in consonance with the Holy Quran, it could not have proceeded from the Prophet, and hence must be rejected.

How far did the Muhaddathin apply these Tests?

Another point to be borne in mind in this connection is that, however much the collectors of Hadith might have differed in their judgments as to the necessity of rigour in the rules of criticism, they set to work with minds absolutely free from bias or external influences. They would lay down their lives rather than swerve a hair's breadth from what they considered to be the truth. Many of the famous Imams preferred punishment or jail to uttering a word against their convictions. The fact is generally admitted as regards the Umayyad rule. As Guillaume says: "They laboured to establish the Sunnah of the community as it was, or as it was thought to have been, under the Prophet's rule, and so they found their bitterest enemies in the ruling house" (Traditions of Islam, p.42). The independence of thought among the great Muslim divines under the Abbaside rule had not deteriorated in the least. They would not even accept office under a Muslim ruler. "It is well-known," says Th. W. Juyuboll in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, "that many pious independent men in those days deemed it wrong and refused to enter the service of the Government or to accept an office dependent on it" (p. 91).

Different Classes of Hadith: