It occurred to me while studying the development phases of the Hadith tradition: ibn Hajar al-Asqalani lived a whole 600 years after al-Bukhari whose work ibn Hajar wrote the most authoritative commentary for. Bukhari himself lived 200 years after the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. For perspective, when ibn Hajar was writing his commentaries, Muslims were still ruling Spain!

That’s like me writing a commentary today on a book from 1425 about events from 1225. I’m actually closer in time to al-Asqalani than he was to the Prophet ﷺ. This doesn’t invalidate Hadiths – not at all – but it does mean we inevitably conceptualize them differently than scholars from centuries past.

For context, here’s how the tradition developed¹:

• Collection Phase (94-124 AH): Urwa ibn Zubayr, Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri gathering narrations
• Compilation Phase (150-179 AH): Imam Malik, Ibn Jurayj, Sufyan al-Thawri organizing materials
• Canonization Phase (241-303 AH): The heavy hitters – Imam Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, ibn Majah, al-Nasa’i creating the collections we know today
• Categorization Phase (354-458 AH): ibn Hibban, al-Bayhaqi sorting and classifying
• Commentary Phase (852-911 AH): al-Asqalani, al-Suyuti explaining and interpreting

The canonization period especially shapes our understanding today. Think about it – the time between the Hijra and the end of canonization roughly equals the time between now and America’s founding. We understand the Constitution differently than the Founders did, right? So why wouldn’t understanding of Hadiths evolve too?

Dr. Jonathan Brown (whose work I deeply respect) has argued that controversial Hadiths were addressed and reconciled by classical scholars. That’s partly true, but oversimplified. Take the genuinely problematic Hadith where Umar mentions the stoning verse² being removed from the Quran. The “reconciliations” offered by classical scholars are fascinating but hardly satisfying.

Al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH) suggested its recitation was abrogated but ruling maintained – essentially creating a two-Quran problem. Ibn Majah reported the verse was eaten by a goat (along with the breastfeeding verse). And Imam Suyuti argued that Quran 15:9’s promise of preservation only applies to what Allah intended to preserve – convenient, but circular reasoning.

These aren’t truly “reconciled” problems. Ibn Hazm (d. 456 AH) outright rejected this Hadith, arguing any Quranic verse would have been mutawatir lafzi (widely-transmitted verbatim). Al-Baqillani himself expressed doubts about “missing verses.” Ibn al-Wazir (d. 840) suggested narrators misunderstood Umar’s statement. Modern scholars from Muhammad Abduh to Rashid Rida have similarly rejected it on theological grounds.

The real question isn’t about authenticity but rather: why did many scholars accept such problematic narrations? Brown himself acknowledges in his “Canonization of Bukhari and Muslim” that the authority of these collections “was an illusion conjured up in the dialogic space of debate and exposition.”

We shouldn’t pretend all Hadith problems were neatly resolved by our predecessors. That’s not how scholarship works. The tradition includes acceptance AND criticism. Many serious Hadith scholars treat problematic narrations as data points – you don’t discard them, but you might exclude them from practical application.

Let’s stop assuming scholars from 600 years ago understood events from 800 years before them flawlessly. We could easily cite medieval scholars who rejected problematic Hadiths and claim a 1100-year tradition of criticism!

Next time, I’ll explore how our conception of Hadiths differs from our predecessors – and why that matters for contemporary Islamic thought.

1. The dates I’ve added reflect the years in which the mentioned authors lived. The actual dates of these phases are longer, particularly those of the commentary phase spanning from the 6th – 10th century AH or 12th – 16th century AD. ↩︎
2. Sahih Bukhari 68:29 `Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” `Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” ↩︎