Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!zahle.wpi.edu!shari
From: zama@midway.uchicago.edu (iftikhar uz zaman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Hadith (an FAQ?)
Message-ID: <1991May24.150835.1852@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 24 May 91 15:08:35 GMT
Sender: news@wpi.WPI.EDU (News)
Organization: U of Chicago
Lines: 192
Approved: shari@zahle.wpi.edu
Originator: shari@zahle.wpi.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zahle.wpi.edu


(Every so often someone asks what "hadith" is--every so often I am
tempted to write...but as the article gets longer and longer with no
conclusion insight, I give up.  So this time, I will suffice with
posting what I have and at the end give an outline of other things
which maybe someday, Insha allah ("God willing") I will fill out.
If anyone has questions of suggestions, e-mail would be welcome.)

A. Definition
=============

Classical Islamic scholars define hadith as: records of the saying and
actions of the Prophet, and of his implicit approvals of actions (ie
records of actions done in front of him which he did not dissaprove
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 in 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 (who is HE?) send down an angel
(ever seen one of those?) 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 Collection
=============================================

	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.  I do not
remember where I saw this but 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 (eg 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 collection 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 Maja 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 know 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--eg the
same hadith scholar could loosen his standards a bit and end up with a
very large collection of hadiths which fit those standard; 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 collection are also subsumed under the
title "sahih"--since when one refers to the six books one says "the
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"-- tranlsated 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 find 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 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
the 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 allthe 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.

(insha allah ("God willing") I will complete this if there is
interest...maybe next week.  The following are topics I have in mind.
Again, if you have suggestions please e-mail me)

D. History
==========

1. The question of writing:

2. The "science of the qualities of narrators":

E. Bibliography: Auxiliary Literature
=====================================

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

2. Usul al hadith (principles of hadith criticism)