A Review of the Compilation and Authenticity of Hadith (Part 10)
As long as the door to action based on the Holy Quran remains open, this path will also continue to be open, and all means of making this path known will remain available to Muslims. Therefore, apart from the “Collections of Hadith,” “Books of Classes,” “Names of Men,” and “Books of Biography and History,” what other means can be employed to convey the detailed paths and methods of the early believers? If there exists another means, it should be stated; if not, then discrediting the aforementioned matters is tantamount to closing the door to action based on the Holy Quran. Additionally, the privilege and superiority that Islam and Muslims hold over other religions is undermined by this assumption, as it implies that the Muslim nation has neither history nor a brilliant scientific and practical record, nor a means to convey the legacy of the early Muslims. Can any Muslim genuinely assert such a thing?
The approach of some hadith deniers is both strange and incomprehensible; they place their trust in history, yet do not regard hadith narrations as reliable. Not all historians and chroniclers have committed themselves to declaring the chain of transmission for every historical event and incident. Furthermore, they do not require narrators to meet the conditions of justice and trustworthiness in the same way that hadith narrators are scrutinized. Historians are less stringent about this, yet they still consider history to be valid and acceptable.
In contrast, the “collections of hadith” maintain rigorous standards concerning every word and deed of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as well as the actions and circumstances of the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them). Each narrator in these chains is named in succession, with no omissions, and all must be credible, just, and trustworthy, backed by evidence of their integrity. Therefore, to claim that such collections are not credible and acceptable is a statement far removed from justice.
Rejecting these hadiths, which have been transmitted through strong and reliable chains, implies that the authors of the hadith books have merely compiled baseless statements supported by fabricated and imaginary chains. Those who deny this should ponder scientifically and logically how such a feat could be possible. Was there not a single Muslim with understanding at the time of the compilation of hadiths who would oppose these forgeries? For instance, consider the book “Muwatta,” which was compiled around 120 or 130 AH, roughly 110 to 120 years after the death of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Until a few years before its compilation, many companions of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) were still alive, spanning about 13 to 23 years.
The Tabe’een, who had the privilege of visiting and meeting the honorable Sahaba, were numerous and spread across regions like Hijaz, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. For example, in the city of Medina, where “Muwatta” was written, there were so many Tabe’een that enumerating them seems infeasible. Below are a few notable examples:
1. Ishaq ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Kalma (died 136 AH)
2. Isma’il ibn Muhammad ibn Zuhri (died 134 AH)
3. Rabi’ah bin Abi Abd al-Rahman (died 129 AH)
4. Zayd bin Aslam (died 136 AH)
5. Salim bin Abi Umayya (died 129 AH)
6. Sa’d bin Ishaq (died after 140 AH)
7. Sa’id bin Abi Sa’id al-Maqbari (died 123 AH)
8. Salamah bin Dinar (died after 140 AH)
9. Sharik bin Abdullah bin Abi Nimr (died after 140 AH)
10. Salih bin Kaysan (died after 140 AH)
11. Safwan bin Sulaym (died 124 AH)
12. Abdullah bin Abi Bakr bin Abi Hazm (died 140 AH)
13. Abdullah bin Dinar (died 127 AH)
14. Abu al-Zinad (died 130 AH)
15. Abd Rabbah bin Saeed (died 139 AH)
16. Muhammad bin al-Munkadir (died 131 AH)
17. Mukhzamah bin Sulayman (died 130 AH)
18. Musa bin Uqbah (died 141 AH)
19. Wahb bin Kaysan (died 127 AH)
20. Yahya bin Saeed (Judge of Medina) (died 143 AH)
21. Yazid bin Ruman (died 130 AH)
22. Yazid bin Abdullah bin Laithi (died 139 AH)
23. Hisham ibn Urwa (died 145 AH)
24. Maswar ibn Rifa’ah (died 138 AH)
25. Abu Tawalah (Judge of Medina), died during the last Umayyad period (132 AH).
In addition to their scholarly lineage, the honorable Tabe’een were chronologically linked to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in the same way grandchildren are to their grandfathers. Consequently, even without formal education, they were aware of the circumstances surrounding the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), similar to how grandchildren know their grandfathers’ situations in a family. Therefore, the people of that time were well-informed about the circumstances and actions of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), which is clear and self-evident.
Given these considerations, it is reasonable to reflect upon the fact that in a place where the last ten years of the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were spent, and where no family was untouched by his influence or did not have the privilege of serving him, someone named Imam Malik compiled a collection of hadiths and Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and recited them openly to the public. Thousands from Islamic countries traveled to Medina to hear this collection, and many narrated it upon returning home; yet there was not a single person in Medina who spoke against the authenticity of all or part of those hadiths.
Can any wise and informed person believe that in such a context, if—Allah forbid—Imam Malik were a forger, he would assert such claims? And if he dared to do so, would the people of Medina remain silent while he fabricated and disseminated hadith?
Moreover, Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, listed the twenty-five individuals mentioned above and others from Medina in his book, stating: “We have heard these hadiths from these great people.” If Imam Malik had fabricated or made errors, it would not have been possible for scholars and prominent figures of that era to stay silent and not refute him.
In summary, to consider the “Muwatta” and other hadith compilations as forgeries is not merely misguided and erroneous but also reflects a grave misunderstanding. “وَمَنْ لَمْ يَجْعَل اللَّهُ لَهُ نُوْراً فَمَالَهُ مِنْ نُوْر” (“And whoever Allah does not make light for, he has no light”). For this reason, in the past, no one dared raise such issues; on the contrary, from the time these collections were compiled until today, they have been recognized as accurate and truthful. Throughout history, thousands of hadith scholars have transmitted these books from their teachers.
Approximately a thousand people heard “Muwatta” directly from Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), as recorded by Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlavi in his book “Bustan al-Muhaddithin: 9”, while Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in the introduction to “Tanwir al-Hawalik” the names of fifty individuals who heard and narrated “Muwatta” from Imam Malik. Since then, this book has continued to be transmitted with increasing frequency.
It is surprising that the deniers of hadith, when voicing their delusions, do not consider that every nation and people has a natural claim and motivation to preserve the works of their great ones and to keep alive the memory and accomplishments of their heroes and poets.
How is it possible that the Muslim nation, which is the best in the world—one that values science and knowledge and possesses the most virtues—would not preserve the Sunnah of the character and manners of its Prophet and not convey it to future generations? Does any wise and informed person truly believe this and make such statements? Many of the contents of the verses of the Quran cannot be understood without hadiths and narrations.
It should be noted that if we had no documented sources beyond the Holy Quran, and if narrations, hadiths, and scholarly works were not reliable, the meanings of many Quranic verses would remain vague and ambiguous. For instance, the Quran states: «فلما قضى زَيْدٌ مِنْهَا وَطَراً زَوجَنكَها» (“So when Zayd had fulfilled his need from her, We married her to you”). Without narrations, can we ascertain the truth of this incident from this verse alone? Can we identify who Zayd was, who his wife was, or understand the sequence of the events?
