The beginning of hadith fabrication
The earliest known hadith fabricator was a Shi’i leader called Al Mukhtaar ath-Thaqafi. He asked the Companion Rabi al Khuzai to fabricate a hadith for 700 deenar.( Zarabozo) The latter refused, and although Al Mukhtaar tried to convince others to fabricate hadith, he was unsuccessful. In fact he killed Muhummad ibn Amaar ibn Yaasir for refusing to fabricate hadith. (al-Bukhari in Al-Tareekh al-Sagheer).
Hence fabrication first occurred in the last third of the first century (70H onwards). However, by this time, the isnad system was already in use and the science of jarh was ta’deel had began. Therefore the fabrication of hadith did not affect the preservation of the sunnah, as the sciences of hadith needed to counter (intentional or unintentional) fabrication, were already in place. When the fabricators appeared, the scholars already had the weapons (the isnad, jarh wa ta’deel, ilm and ar-rijaal) to repeal them.
Imaam Dhahabi said: ‘There was hardly anyone who was considered of little authority (da’if) during the first century in which the Companions and the outstanding Followers died out – except isolated individuals. However when the second century began, they were to be found among the later circle of the Followers’.
The early defence of hadith
Dhahabi also mentioned that excessive mistakes in narrating only began to appear among the minor (i.e. latter) Followers and those who came after them. It was at this point that the ulema took great care regarding accepting reports. The first research into the narrator who had cited a hadith, and whether he was free of faults, began in the latter part of the second century (150H onwards). As the number of narrators in the chain was greater than before, there was more need for scrutinising the reporters. Hence there were more critics found in this period.
As well as examining each narrator in the isnad, the text of the narration would be compared to other narrations that were established to have come via a Companion. Hence there were two types of verification; naqd al matn and naqd al isnad. Az-Zuhri (d.124) was the most vigilant, and most careful amongst the scholars who examined the narrations in Madinah. Ibn Sirin (d.110) was the foremost in Iraq to subject the narrators to critical verification, and to discriminate the trustworthy from the rest.
Early hadith specialists
The early specialists who wrote on jarh wa ta’deel were Shu’ba ibn al Hajjaj (82 – 160H), al Layth ibn Sa’d (d 175H), and Yahya ibn Said al Qattan (d.198H). Shu’ba ibn al Hajjaj. a senior atba at tabi’in, was the first scholar to truly devote himself to the critique of narrators. Ibn Hibban said that Shu’ba was the “first to broaden the scope of jarh wa ta’deel”.
Then this knowledge was passed down to their students from the generation after the atba at tabi’in. From them were Ahmed ibn Hanbal (164-241H), Yahya ibn Ma’in (158 -233H) and Ali ibn al Madini (161-235H).
This knowledge was then passed on to the likes of Abu Zur’ah ar Razi (d263), ad-Darimi (d.255), al-Bukhari (d.256), Muslim (d.261) and Abu Dawood (d.275) . These last two generations represent the culmination of this science.
The weak impact of fabricators
Once a hadith fabricator had been identified, (or even an honest narrator with a weak memory for that matter) none of his narrations would be accepted, even though some of his narrations may have been correct. There was no fear of an authentic hadith being lost however, as it would have been preserved through a different, correct chain.
Many fabricators avoided going too public. This was partly due to fear of the great scholars, and the rulers. Many fabricators were condemned to death after being caught. The fabricators, after being caught, would claim that they had fabricated thousands of hadith. This claim itself was a deliberate lie in order destroy faith in hadith.
The writing and classification of hadith in the middle of the first century by Ibn Juraij (d150). Malik (d179), Ibn Ishaq (d 151), Awza’ee (d157) and Sufyan al-Thawri (d161) further reduced the impact of the fabricators. This was followed by the compilation of hadith books in the third century. Of the six books in the Kutub Sittah, only one (Ibn Majah) contains a few fabricated reports without the author mentioning that it is fabricated.
Ilm ar-Rijaal
The science of ilm rijaal was developed in a significant way after 150H. Malik (d.179H), ath-Thawri (d.162) and Shu’bah (d.160) were the most outstanding scholars of this science. Through this science detailed biographies of hundreds of thousands of narrators were compiled. Yahya ibn Sa’d al Qattan was the first to collect written records of the biographies of men.
The biographies included:
- birth and death dates,
- names of his teachers and how long he was in their company,
- his students,
- which books he had studied and with whom,
- did he rely on written material or memory,
- if he relied on written material, did he have access to them when narrating, where he had travelled,
- was he influenced by any innovated ideas,
- level of memorisation at the time of narrating,(youth, manhood, old age)
- was he prone to confuse narrations or isnads,
- whether he was resident or travelling at the time of narration,
- his accuracy, was he a qualified jurist,
- and his moral character.
Example of such remarks are: ‘Imaan’, ‘Trustworthy’, ‘Makes mistakes’, ‘Weak’, ‘Abandoned’, ‘Liar’.
The German Orientalist Dr. Sprenger said:
‘There has never been a people or nation of former times, just as there does not exist now among contemporary peoples or nations, people who had such mastery of the tremendous science of men’s names (and biographies) like that possessed by the Muslims, a science that dealt with the status and circumstances of five hundred thousand men and their activity.’ (taken from Bihar 2004:461).
Sometimes a fabricated hadith would be detected purely on the basis of examining birth and death dates. For example Abdullah ibn Ishaq claimed to have narrated from Muhummad ibn Yaqoob. He was told, “Muhummad ibn Yaqoob died 13 years before you came into this world” (Zaheer 2002:xxvi)
Sufyan at Thawri said: “When the narrators forged narrations, we used the tarikh (chronology) against them”. (Muqadamah, Ibn Salah).
Rihlaa
Rihlaa (travelling) to hear and confirm hadith started in the time of the Companions. As the Islamic Empire grew rapidly, the Companions travelled to the various parts of the empire for jihad and dawah. They took the narrations of the Prophet (sallahu alaihi wa sallam) with them. Jabir ibn Abdullah travelled a months journey to hear a single hadith from Abdullah ibn Unais. (Bukhari). Al Khateeb al Bagdadi has written an entire work on the subject of travelling in search of hadith.
Travelling became widespread in the time of the atba at tabi’in. Ma’mar ibn Rasheed (96-54H) spent many years travelling to hear hadiths. Az- Zuhri (d 124H) also made many lengthy journeys. By travelling they were able to detect forgers, weak narrators and untrustworthy chains. The great journeys of the scholars meant that they were able to collect and share information from all of the experts of verification (of men) from all the centres of the Islamic world.
Thus the discussion of the narrators was not restricted to the men of one particular region alone, but encompassed all of the narrators in general. Scholars would not narrate a hadith, unless they were 100% it was from the Prophet (sallahu alaihi wa sallam). By travelling often long distances they were able to confirm the words of the Messenger of Allah (sallahu alaihi wa sallam).
For example Yahya ibn Ma’een travelled to hear the same narrations from over 17 of Hammad ibn Salamah’s students. He did this in order to distinguish between the mistakes of Hammad ibn Salamah and that of his students (Azami 1977:53). Thus Rihlah was an important tool in the verification of hadith.
The criteria for accepting hadith
As time passed the number of reporter involved in the isnad increased, and the number of liars and weak narrators also increased. Hence scholars laid down strict criteria in the acceptance of hadith. The terminologies differed from scholar to scholar, this partly reflected the difference in criteria used.
Each hadith was independently scrutinised, both the matn and isnad were subjected to a number of tests to judge the authenticity of hadith. Much of the focus was on judging the narrators of the hadith in terms of their honesty, integrity, memory, reliability and their method of narrating from their sources. Any narrator who held deviant beliefs and was known to call to those beliefs would have his narrations rejected even if he was known to be honest and of good memory. However some scholars would accept his narrations as long as they did not pertain to his beliefs, and he fulfilled the other criteria of narrating.
Imaan Malik mentioned that he did not report from four types of people; those who were incompetent, those known to lie in every day speech, heretics, and ascetics.
Any isnad with an interrupted link would be rejected, although there was a difference of opinion with regards to mursal hadith. Some scholars would also give little credence to solitary reports, particularly gharib hadith. The way the hadith was reported was also scrutinised, for example using the word “an” (on the authority of) did not necessarily mean that the narrator heard it directly from his source, or had even met his source. If a mudalis (where a reporter is known to have concealed the identity of his Sheikh) used the term “an”, his narration kmwould be rejected. The matn of the hadith would also be examined, if it contradicted a hadith with a more authentic chain, then it would be rejected, even if its isnad was sahih. Finally, both the matn and the isnad were examined for hidden defects. For example, an authentic chain going back to a Companion (i.e. the narration is the saying of a Companion), may be mistakenly be attributed to the Prophet (sallahu alaihi wa sallam).
Ibn Salah states thata hadith would be accepted as Sahih if there was a “continuous chain made up of reporters of trustworthy memory from similar authorities and which is found to be free from any irregularities (in the text) or defects (in the text or chain) (taken from Sohaib Hasan: 1994: 32).
Detecting fabrication on the basis of the text alone
A person who studied a poet for a long time, and has become fully acquainted with his style, can easily detect a poem that does not belong to the author, Likewise, scholars who devoted their entire lives to collecting, classifying and studying hadith were often able to detect those statements which had been falsely attributed to the Prophet (sallahu alaihi wa sallam)
Certain narrations were automatically rejected if they fell into one of the following categories if the report is.
- containing language below a certain level of eloquence, or violates basic rules of Arabic grammar.
- totally nonsensical. e.g. ‘Nuh’s ark made tawaaf around the Kaaba’
- disproved by the turn of events.
- in opposition to an established principle of the religion – e.g. reports discouraging marriage.
- contradicts a verse in the Qur’an – e.g. “the child of a fornicator will not enter Paradise, up to seven generations” contradicts the verse: “No soul shall bear theburden of another”.
- favours the innovated beliefs of a heretical group such as the Shia,Qadariyyah,Jabariyyah, etc.
- offers a huge reward for a small deed – e.g. “whoever performs Salaat-ulDuha would receive the reward of seventy Prophets”.
Books on Ilm ar-Rijaal
Bihar states that one of the first books on this ilm-rijaal was at-Tarikh by Ibn Ma’in (d.233). Some books dealt exclusively with weak narrators such as ad-Du’afa by Bukhari. Others dealt only with trustworthy and reliable narrators such as al-Thiqaat by Ibn Hibban. Abdul Ghani al Maqdisi (d.273) wrote a large work on the reporters of the kutub sittah called Al Kamal fu Asma’ al Rijaal.
Later, al-Mizzi (d.742) edited and abridged it in a 12 volume work naming it Tadhib Al Kamal fu Asma’ al Rijaal, Ibn Hajar (d.852) further abridged al-Mizzi’s work, adding additional information. This was called Tadhib al-Tahdib. He further edited this to a two volume work entitled Taqrib al-Tadhib.
References
Zaheer, Syed Iqbal. (2002). Fake Pearls. A Collection of Fabricated Prophetic Sayings (Second Edition). Scarborough, Canada: Al-Attique Publishers Inc.
Zarabozo, Jamaal al-Din M. (2000). The Authority and Importance of the Sunnah. Denver, Colorado: Al-Basheer Company for Publications and Translations.
Ṣiddīqī, Muḥammad Zubayr. (1993). Hadith Literature. Its Origin, Development & Special Features. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society.
Bihar, Asraf ‘Alī Simsiti Pur. (2004). “The science of invalidation (jarh) and authentication (ta’dīl) of ḥadīth and its role in their protection and preservation”, in Y. Batha (Ed), The Muwatta of Imām Muhammad, (pp. 447-470). London: Turath Publishing.
Hassan, Sohaib (1986) Criticism of Hadith Among Muslim with Reference to Sunan Ibn Maja. Taha Publishers
Hasan, Sohaib (1996) An Introduction to the Science of Hadith
al-Azami , M. Mustafa. (1977). Studies Hadīth Methodology and Literature. Indiana: American Trust Publications.
