by Iftikhar uz Zaman

What does it mean to record the words and deeds of a Prophet? For ordinary history, the standard is plausibility — does the account make sense to us? But this standard breaks down entirely when the events in question are divine: the descent of an angel, the day of judgment, the nature of the hereafter. The secular historian solves the problem by explaining such reports away. The hadith scholars of classical Islam proposed a different solution: forget whether the event "makes sense." Ask instead whether the person reporting it can be trusted. This epistemological shift — from content-plausibility to narrator-reliability — is the foundation of the entire science of hadith.

This primer was posted to soc.religion.islam in May 1991 by Iftikhar uz Zaman, a scholar at the University of Chicago. Written as an introduction for the group — "every so often someone asks what hadith is" — it covers the definition of hadith, the structure of the chain-of-narration (isnad), the epistemological argument at the heart of hadith methodology, and a survey of the major canonical collections. Sections D and E (History and Auxiliary Bibliography) were outlined but left for a promised follow-up; they are preserved here as the author left them.

It is a rare thing: a genuine scholar, writing for a curious public, making difficult methodology accessible without condescension. The epistemological analysis in Section B — tracing how the hadith sciences emerged as a response to the problem of recording divine events — remains one of the clearest short treatments available.

A. Definition

Classical Islamic scholars define hadith as: records of the saying and actions of the Prophet, and of his implicit approvals of actions (i.e. records of actions done in front of him which he did not disapprove of).

Hadiths are formed of two parts: a "chain of narration" (Arabic: isnad, or sanad), followed by a text. For example:

(A) Bukhari says that he heard Humaydi say that he heard Sufyan say that he heard Amir say that he heard Sa'd b Abi Waqqas say that he heard the Prophet say:
(B) "And you will be rewarded for whatever good deed you do; even for the morsel of food which you put in your wife's mouth."

(A) is the isnad ("chain of narration"), (B) is the text (known in Arabic as: matn).

B. Interpretation

So much for definitions. Interpretation: a problem which modern historiography has had to face is that of recording "unlikely" or "improbable" events. In other words, consider the modern historian as he tries to evaluate "what really happened" in the past. What can he do? He can read the accounts of these events (in books, inscriptions on stone tablets, or whatever "sources" he has) and then he can try to construct a story which would explain all that he finds in the sources. The "proof" of the validity of his reconstruction of events is little more than his story sounding like a "plausible" explanation. If the story he constructs seems "likely" then one would credit him with having come up with a good account. In other words, fundamentally, the only criterion we have for judging the truth of a historical account is our own understanding of what is likely or not.

Working within a positivist framework, there is a slight logical problem to this position. It makes the recording of an unlikely or improbable event unlikely and improbable. It makes the recording of an event which seems impossible to us absolutely impossible. In other words, our own beliefs about the way the world is made up absolutely cannot be altered by history — since we will only accept as good history that which "makes sense" to us.

This slight problem becomes a major headache for the religious historian. How likely is it that God send down an angel to inform a Prophet about what He wants of us, and about numerous things of which we at least, do not have any "hard" evidence (the day of judgement, the hereafter, things which happen after death, the effects of good deeds and sins etc.)? So since this is either unlikely, improbable or impossible, except to someone who already believes all of this, according to the secular historian's world-view all this simply could not have happened — it cannot be taken at face value. Thus, we must try to explain this in terms which we can understand: so, for example, one can speak of "hallucinations" or think of other ways of explaining these reports away. Thus, the secular historian solves his problem.

To anyone who is open to the religious experience, and is willing to believe that perhaps there is a God and He might have done all of the above (not necessarily someone who actually believes this, but just someone who is willing to consider it) the problem remains unsolved. Naturally, we don't want to believe what people have said in this regard simply because it doesn't make sense! So if "making sense to us" is not going to be the foundation of validating historical accounts, what is?

I see the hadith as the solution proposed by Muslims to this problem. The idea is that one should look at the "track record" of the person giving you the account of what happened. If you find that he doesn't usually exaggerate, usually seems to remember what happened accurately, is not prone to deceit or lying, etc. — in short, if he can be trusted, you believe that his account is reliable — then you go ahead and listen to the substance of what he is saying.

C. Bibliography: Well-Known Hadith Collections

As we stand today there are numerous collections of hadith texts still extant, and there are numerous unedited manuscripts, along with many works which are known to have been lost. As I recall I read it in a fairly reliable source that there are roughly 90,000 different texts. However, when the very same text is related through two different chains of narration, it is considered "two" texts and not as one — so the total number of hadiths, then, is many many times more than 90,000.

With some exceptions hadith texts are fairly brief: from one to ten or twelve sentences long (although there are some very long ones which go on for a few pages). Usually a hadith "book" is a collection of these texts — arranged sometimes thematically (all hadiths relating to one topic together in one chapter); sometimes by narrator (e.g. all the hadiths which "x" narrated to me; or all the hadiths which "y" companion of the Prophet relates which I know of); sometimes alphabetically by first word; sometimes in terms of "reliability" (thus, there are collections of hadiths which are all forged; or hadiths which, in the collector's opinion are the most sound he has heard) etc.

Six books of hadith have gained some fame — they are referred to by Muslims as the "sihah sitta" ("the six 'correct' ones") and by Orientalists as "the six canonical works." These are the collections made by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daud, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. Sometimes Ibn Majah is replaced by the collection of Malik known as "al-Muwatta." Others add the collection of Darimi to this list.

The first two of these collections (Bukhari and Muslim) are of a genre known as the "sahih" (translated above as "correct"). Basically the author of a "sahih" collection attempts to sift through all the hadiths known to him and uses his expertise with the material to gather together only those hadiths which he believes to be authentic. Thus his actual success in this depends on his own expertise along with the amount of latitude he allows himself — e.g. the same hadith scholar could loosen his standards a bit and end up with a very large collection of hadiths which fit those standards; if he were to make his standards a little more strict, he could end up with a much smaller "sahih" collection.

Bukhari and Muslim are only two among many who attempted this exercise composing a work consisting of only the best hadiths available to them. Ibn Khuzayma, much later Ibn al-Sakan, and many others tried this too. But both the reputation of Bukhari and Muslim as experts in the field, and the feeling that they maintained standards of verification which others were not able to, have led to a pretty much unanimous view among hadith scholars that these are the most reliable of all hadith collections.

The remaining four collections are also subsumed under the title "sahih" — since when one refers to the six books one says "sihah sitta" ("the six 'sahih' books"). One should realize, though, that this is a misnomer. These four books are actually not of the sahih genre but rather of the "sunan" genre (this is reflected in the titles of these books). The books of the "sunan" (plural of "sunnah" — translated as "the exemplary behavior of the prophet") attempt to collect those hadiths of the Prophet which have a bearing on the way we should act in our lives. Thus, though the attempt is certainly made to report only authentic hadiths, the focus is not on authenticity but on the use of hadiths. And, since "authenticity" is a relative matter, when the author of a sunan collection finds a hadith which is somewhat weaker than he might like, but it contains a significant point of the practice of the Prophet regarding some issue, he will include it in his collection.

The Muwatta of Malik

The Muwatta of Malik is a very special collection. First of all it is the earliest of the above mentioned collections — made in the second century whereas most of the above works are of the third century and later. Secondly, Malik is the founder of one of the four "schools of jurisprudence" which remain with us. In addition, Malik was himself a formidable hadith scholar — it is said that of all the people Malik relates hadiths from, only one individual has been found to be unreliable — and that because he was from "out of town" and Malik was deceived by his outward piety.

There are various speculations about why the Muwatta never really got included in the "six books" — the material in it is certainly more reliable than that in the last four of the six books. My own opinion is that the six books have not been identified as "the six" because they are the most reliable (this distinction is only for the first two); rather as a group they stand out because they are exceedingly useful to legal scholars. The Muwatta, on the other hand, is very useful to the follower of Malik's opinions; but to one who does not follow Malik's opinion, the book is not that useful — and only God knows best.

D. History

(The following sections were outlined but not completed in the original post. The author intended to expand them in a follow-up.)

1. The Question of Writing

2. The "Science of the Qualities of Narrators"

E. Bibliography: Auxiliary Literature

(Outlined but not completed.)

1. Rijal (the science of the qualities of the narrators)

2. Usul al-Hadith (principles of hadith criticism)

Colophon

Written by Iftikhar uz Zaman ([email protected]), University of Chicago. Posted to soc.religion.islam on 24 May 1991. Sections D and E were left as outlines, with the author noting he intended to complete them "if there is interest... maybe next week." Original Message-ID: [email protected].

Preserved from the UTZOO Usenet mirror (shiftleft.com) for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.

🌲