REASONS TO PREFER SANAD CRITICISM FOR HADITH IDENTIFICATION

Abstract

It has been one of the most important issues of hadith sciences to resolve the belonging issue in rivayats (reporting) by distinguishing sahih (sound-authentic) hadiths from saqim (ailing-defective) one. Researcher hadith scholars invested a great effort on this issue and established two critical scientific principles. One of those is sanad criticism (the chain of hadith transmitters) focusing on narrator more than khabar (report), while the other one is matn criticism (actual text of hadith) assessing the consistency of content with Islam and scientific experiences. In the historical process, the priority in giving verdict on khabars, which are clearly against Islam and scientific experiences, of being mau'du (forged or fabricated) was attributed to matn criticism. On the other hand, sanad criticism is mostly preferred in other cases. The works authored to resolve hadith related problems reveal that sanad and matn criticism systems have not been exerted to the same extent. The review of related works shows that critics regard the scrutiny of rijal (the narrators of hadith) as required and often employ sanad criticism. In this context, it is well-known that hadith scholars prefer sanad criticism and refrain from matn criticism. There are various reasons leading them to prefer that way. Besides, the presence of certain states which can be interpreted in favor of their rightfulness is undeniable. In assessing the authenticity of khabars, it is regarded as reasonable to prefer primarily sanad criticism and the intense use of isnad (plural form of sanad) analysis with respect to matn one, because of multiple factors. Although there are various factors compelling hadith scholars to employ sanad criticism, it is possible to specify what seems more prominent such that: Sanad criticism, despite its difficulty, is considered significant by critic hadith scholars since it is more adequate and productive than matn criticism. It becomes required to use it in any case. As the belief that the problems arise mostly from sanad prevails, the presence of direct relationship between the authenticity of hadith and righteousness of narrators is accepted. Sometimes the authenticity of sanad is considered to be the most important assurance of hadith authenticity. Even, it is accepted as the guaranty for matn authenticity. Matn criticism procedures are not feasible in detecting the khabars consistent with the basic references of Islam in terms of content. The result is achieved only through the weaknesses of narrators. A case in point, there is no way but sticking to isnad if a mau'du (fabricated) narration is not against Islamic thought; such kind of khabars can be only identified by isnad analysis. Hence, it is regarded as necessity to criticize rijal in identifying the khabars which are contrary to neither reason nor religious principles. Cerh and ta'dil scholars chose for making explanations about khabars including various truths by believing the authenticity of certain meanings which seem problematic, in other words, seeking different ways by the means of tawil (allegorical interpretation) in identifying khabars. Accepting the existence of tawil entails prioritizing sanad analysis, because any problem on matn is resolved by tawil. It is well-known that certain scholars led ideological obsessions to unfold in the society by producing khabars regarding rightness of their opinion, concealing the rivayats against their belief, thus, manipulating khabars, as fitnah events (heretical uprisings) emerged in the Islamic world. In this context, hadith scholars accepted the analyses based on sanad more objective and convincing with respect to those based on matn. The fact that khabars regarding the opinions of i'tiqadi (theological) and amali (law) schools were accepted or rejected without paying attention to its sanad due to partisanship instinct compelled hadith scholars to isnad analysis. Matn analysis was prudently approached by pointing out that hadith could be mutashabih (allegorical and unclear), metaphorical, about the invisible world or nabawi miracle in future; it was defended that the criticism based on reason cannot be carried out. Furthermore, the idea that reason cannot be mistake-free prevailed, and it was advocated that the khabars which seem unreasonable should be assessed cautiously. Hence, an absolute domination area was not attributed to reason for the scrutiny of rivayat, yet reason is required to a limited extent. The problem resolution over sanad was primary, because the dominant power of matn criticism is reason and hadith scholars trust reason to a certain extent. The fact that content analysis can change as circumstances change is taken into consideration since hermeneutical and interpretive qualities are inherent in matn criticism, and it is deemed that certain matns may have a theme beyond comprehension. After focusing on such kind of problems regarding matn criticism rather than the weaknesses of sanad criticism, the idea about the objectivity of sanad criticism prevailed in identifying rivayat. Because of the reasons specified above, sanad criticism has become an inseparable part of hadith with its position and the value attributed to it. The scrutiny of sanad, which was developed to prevent hadith from being fabricated and to distinguish fabricated one and exerted in order to investigate the capability and credibility of narrators, appeared in the midst of first century Hijri and became the primary factor in identifying rivayats. This choice led sanad analyses to become widespread and systematized. After making sanad analysis pivotal, the content analysis of matn from various perspectives has been referred to faqihs (Islamic jurists). It is essentially aimed to establish exactly sayings and circumstances of Hz. Prophet (P.B.U.H) and pass it down to future generations. However, excessive emphasis on one of two main hadith principles has come to the fore and the concern about the exertion of content analysis in identifying rivayat has been raised. The criticism on this issue is not directed to hadith scholars' great effort or interest into sanad criticism but to whether adequate matn analysis is done after the establishment of sanad authenticity. The present study aiming to reveal why sanad analysis is preferred is expected to bring a new understanding for classical usul al-hadith concept which was criticized because of its focus on isnad, and to contribute to the current discussions based on matn and sanad.