Hadith Criticism – it’s all about the timing

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.” ↩︎

Towards a Shuhudi Method

Most animals cannot recognize their reflection in a mirror. They can see the glass, they can see the image, but they don’t understand it, or rather cannot interpret what they’re seeing. It’s as if the image doesn’t reach their sense of self – assuming they have one. 

Most humans – except for those with rare neurological disorders – can see both the glass and recognize the image as our own. In fact, that’s the focus of all our attention to the exclusion of the glass itself. I would  argue that we are created in such a way to be more attentive to any image reflected in the mirror than the glass itself. It is one of our most defining and innate endowments to be able to perform second level thinking of this kind. 

Looking at the mirror to see only the glass is like looking in the creation to see only world, and not the reflection of the Creator’s attributes. This is the difference between a scientific method and a shuhudi method. First order and second order reflection. A scientific method principled on naturalism and materialism observes the world for the sake of the world, while the shuhudi method observes it for the sake of knowing its Owner. We can’t take the human propensity for asking innate questions out of our equation.

Looking at the mirror to see only the glass is like looking at the creation to see only the world, and not the reflection of the Creator’s attributes.

Scientism asks that we remove ourselves from the system to be able to observe “objectively” – as if we were gods above the world looking over our dominion to judge it, not intimately and irreversibly tied to it. Scientism looks for answers with no concern of meaning or purpose failing to see the most primordial needs of every human; needs which do not originate in this world, but are given to each and everyone of us. Without purpose and meaning we fall ill, depressed, neurotic, panicked, or worse. Scientism asks that we not care about the observer’s state or well-being. 

From the moment of a person’s creation, he is created in a state of need. Recognizing this perpetual state of need is fundamental to Iman, but wholly insignificant to scientism. A shuhudi method acknowledges the centrality of mankind and his need for not only knowing his purpose, but the need to fulfill it1. That purpose is to recognize his Lord in His creation2, just as the purpose of the mirror is to recognize what is reflected in it. The scientific method – while efficient in achieving its purpose – is rudimentary at best for mankind. Like animals looking at the mirror. Like pointing at the moon but they’re looking at your finger. The moon is likewise pointing to something other than itself, because it – like all of creation – is an ayah that points to something truly meaningful and  significant beyond itself. This is the second critical concept in the shuhudi method: that what is observed points to something of a second order. It points to the Rububiya or Lordship over that thing. Recognizing the ayat in the creation, we can fulfill our need of recognizing and knowing our Lord. 

The challenge of seeing ayat before the materiality of anything is the same for every human being. It is our fitra to see all things as miraculous signs reflecting the Face of Allah, and it is the role of prophets to help remind us how to do this. The last critical step of the shuhudi method is acknowledging we are created to desire eternal life and that the One who gave us this primordial need for eternal life certainly would not neglect it while fulfilling our secondary needs.

Surah al-Duha3 describes this shuhudi method very succinctly. Allah first calls our attention to the testimony of the morning light and the night as it becomes silently still. As if to acknowledge how this silence would fill mankind with fear of abandonment, Allah immediately explains this is not the case – your Lord has not forsaken you, nor is He showing contempt for you, His most beloved creation. In fact, the life to come is certainly made better for you than the first. And your Lord will certainly fulfill all your needs so that you’ll be pleased. 

Then Allah asks you to center your relationship with Him: didn’t He find you with nothing and gave you this world? And He found you directionless with no purpose and guided you to Him through ayat in the creation, and He found you in need and satisfied those needs. Understand that He created you to need Him so that you can know Him. Mankind’s state of need is perhaps the greatest gift, because it is our direct and unmediated path to recognizing His Attributes reflected in His creation. 

Allah then reminds: Do not oppress those in need, or you’ll obstruct their witnessing of His ayat.  And do not chastise the beggar, because his Lord created him in need so that he may recognize Him. And tell others about the Grace your Lord bestows on His creation4.

Following the guidance of this surah and applying its wisdom, I believe, prepares the mu’min for  witnessing and recognizing the face of His Lord in the creation.

Surah al-Ḍuḥa
By the morning light
and the night when it becomes quiet
Your Lord has not forsaken you, nor does He hate you.
But the next life is certainly better for you than this one.
And your Lord will certainly give so much to you that you will be satisfied.
Didn’t He find you as an orphan and shelter you?
Didn’t He find you lost and guide you?
Didn’t He find you needy and satisfy your needs?
So do not oppress the orphan.
Nor repulse the one asking for help.
But proclaim the blessings of your Lord!

  1. Imam Nursi discusses in his Risale-i-Nur the proper understanding of how Allah fulfills all our needs, and therefore it would be unbefitting that He does not fulfill our greatest need for purpose and meaning. Interestingly, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs puts this after all other needs, recognizing it is the greatest need, but simultaneously considering it a secondary need after shelter, sustenance, care, and attention. ↩︎
  2.  Surah al-Dhariyat 56 – “I did not create the jinn or mankind except to worship Me.” Most commentators explain that to worship Allah means to know or recognize Him. ↩︎
  3. My commentary here is interwoven with the surah’s message. ↩︎
  4.  Interestingly, the scientific method begins with observing the material world, hypothesizing some causal relationship with some other phenomenon, testing for this causal relationship, then communicating the results. The surah however starts with recognizing our needs and ends with communicating the bounties that fulfill our needs to know Allah.  ↩︎