Discussions of matn criticism can be traced back to Rashid Rida. Rida contends, in an answer to a question sent to Al-Manar about, among others, some of the hadiths in Al-Bukhari (d. AH 256/870 CE) and Muslim (d. AH 261/875 CE) that the muhaddithun (scholars of Hadith) seldom scrutinized the matn of hadiths with regard to their meanings and rulings. They focused much on the isnad and the context of the matns.¹⁶ Rida maintained the view that many hadiths of sound isnad should be submitted to criticism of their contents.¹⁷ Based on this view, he rejected hadiths if they appeared to him to be rationally or theologically objectionable, or if they conflicted with broad principles of the Shari`ah.

To recant his views, Rida stated that Al-Bukhari and Muslim had compiled their most authentic collections with special attention to investigating their isnad and matns.

Abu Rayyah adduced many arguments from different sources to undermine the position of Hadith literature. The result of his research was a book which, as Juynboll noted, tore the Hadith literature to pieces.¹⁸ In the beginning of his career, Abu Rayyah devoted his attention to Arabic belles lettres. Then he read some hadiths narrated by Abu Hurairah, but the interpretation of the hadiths bewildered him. He spent some time investigating these hadiths and came to the conclusion that “the entire Tradition literature should be submitted anew to an extensive examination as to its textual reliability.”¹⁹

The book referred to above on the Sunnah was entitled Adwa’ `ala as-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah.²⁰ In this book Abu Rayyah argues that the method of investigating and studying the Hadith was unchangeable. The early traditionists formulated these methods restricting themselves to knowing, as much as they could, the character of the transmitters and their biography. They did not care about whether what they transmitted is correct or not, reasonable or unreasonable.²¹ Moreover, Abu Rayyah contends that the traditionists did not go beyond the isnad; the text was not of much importance. The late traditionists, as well, did not go beyond these limits forwarded by early traditionists. The sequence of such commitment to the early criteria of testing the authenticity of traditions was that the science of transmission became rigid since the early centuries of Islam and it was not subjected to change.²²

In his book Fajr al-Islam, Ahmad Amin devoted a chapter to the study of Hadith. Amin stated that

The scholars laid down various meticulous rules for criticizing and evaluating the Hadith which are too detailed to deal with here. But the significant point is that they have devoted more attention to evaluating the reporter rather than to the report itself. Only rarely do they argue, for example, that what had been attributed to the Prophet Muhammad could not have been authentic because it did not seem reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the Prophet would have said such a thing or that the reported thing was in contradiction with well-known and established facts: or that what had been reported as having been said by the Prophet Muhammad was strange having regard to what is known about the background and character of the Prophet. Very little of this type of argument was used and emphasis was placed mainly on attacking personalities and impugning their truthfulness.²³

Adham was another transmitter of orientalists’ views on the Muslim Tradition. After he had settled in Egypt in 1935, Adham published a book entitled Min Masadir at-Tarikh al-Islami.²⁴ Among the opinions expressed in this treatise is that the scholars of Hadith and its critics did not criticize the texts of hadiths scientifically. This stems from the fact, asserts Adham, that such criticism contradicts their primary principles and their established realities about Hadith. This also, according to Adham, draws doubts on the characters of the hadiths’ transmitters including the Companions.²⁵

Muhammad Abdul Rauf of the Islamic Center, Washington, pointed that the remarks about the classical books of Hadith and certain revered narrators made by a modern author²⁶ brought down on him the wrath of numerous essayists and journalists. Hundred of pages have been written on defending the Sunnah against its deniers, especially with regard to the question of matn criticism. However, the most frequently cited writings on defense of the Sunnah are the works of As-Siba`i, As-Sunnah wa makanatuha fi at-Tashri` al-Islami and the work of Abu Shuhba, Difa` `an As-Sunnah wa Radd Shubah al-Mustashriqin wa al-Kuttab al-Mu`asirin. The work of As-Siba`i is considered to be the best treatise on the subject of Sunnah and Hadith. Such writers asserted that the muhaddithun did not neglect criticizing the contents of hadiths while investigating the chain of transmission.

As-Siba`i mentioned, for instance, 15 criteria forwarded by early Hadith critics to sift the authentic hadiths from the spurious as to their contents. For example,

Hadith reports must not conflict with fundamental principles of reason, general principles of wisdom and morality, facts known by direct observation, or fundamental principles of medicine. They must not contain absurd statements or statements contrary to the teaching of more authoritative sources as the Qur’an. They should coincide with historical conditions during the time of the Prophet, and reports of events that have been widely known should be rejected if only a single witness reports them. Finally, they should not encourage vice, contradict reason, or promise large rewards or grave punishments for insignificant acts.²⁷

Abu Shuhba criticized both Abu Rayyah and Rida for giving the reason of neglecting the criticism of the contents of the hadiths to the fact that it was not the task of theologians and jurists. Early muhaddithun were well informed in both riwayah (the science of the chain of transmission) and dirayah (the science of the contents of the Hadith). The fact that some jurists attacked some hadiths and refuted them is not because they were more knowledgeable than the muhaddithun, but because of their lack of the knowledge of the science of riwayah and its criteria and their little practice of it.²⁸ If there were, proceeds Abu Shuhbah, some transmitters who had been more concerned with compiling and learning by heart the hadiths than understanding the contents, they were very few in number and the muhaddithun condemned them for doing so.²⁹

Abdul Rauf criticized also the orientalists’ allegation and argued that the main purpose of scrutinizing the isnad was to preserve the credibility of the matn.³⁰ Therefore, early muhaddithun collected the authentic hadiths with utmost care and refused to accept the hadiths which contradicted reason.

Subhi as-Salih devoted a chapter of his interesting study on Hadith to the issue of the form and content of hadiths. He stresses that the early Hadith critics believed that their study of the contents of hadiths and their preservation of Hadith collections were insignificant if they were not corroborated by dirayah.³¹ It is the science which entails the analytical and historical study of the sayings and doings of the Prophet. It was meant to investigate the conditions of the rawi (transmitter) and the marwi (transmitted). He excluded the notion which might come out to the beginning researcher that they scrutinized the isnad more than the matn.³²

He went on to show that the classification of Hadith into different categories is based primarily of the isnad and the matn. He referred to the role of the matn in sifting out the forged hadiths, since such hadiths are figured out on the basis of the matn, for example, weak language, contradicting reason and sense, and expressions of later periods.³³ The same manner of defending the Muslim thesis on matn criticism has been followed by As-Siddiq Bashir Nasr of the Faculty of Islamic Da`wah, Tripoli.³⁴

Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali (1917–1996), a prominent spokesman for moderate Islamic revivalism in Egypt, published a book on the Sunnah entitled As-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah bayna Ahl al-Fiqh wa Ahl al-Hadith.³⁵ To show his commitment to classical Hadith criticism, Al-Ghazali cites the following two principles of Hadith matn criticism: First, the matn must be free from shudhudh, which he interprets to mean contradictions with more reliable sources. Second, the matn must be free from `illah qadihah (serious defect)³⁶ These conditions, Al-Ghazali asserts, are eminently trustworthy and a fully sufficient guarantee of the soundness of Hadith, but only if they are rightly applied.

We have seen in the preceding discussion that many orientalists and some modern Muslim writers and critics have argued that the early muhaddithun placed emphasis on the chain of transmission while criticizing the hadiths and devoted their concern to serve this purpose, and that they ignored criticizing the contents of hadiths themselves. As I have shown, their views did not find general acceptance and many rejected their propositions and endeavored to show their fallaciousness. We have seen also the reaction of orthodox scholars who tried their best to prove the opposite thesis of such orientalists and modern scholars—that is, that the muhaddithun devoted as much attention to the study of the quality of the contents of the hadith as to the chain of reporters.

** Mohsen Haredy is the editor of Shari`ah Special Pages at IslamOnline.net. He graduated from Al-Azhar University and earned his MA in Hadith literature from Leiden University, the Netherlands. You can reach him at mohsen.haredy@iolteam.com.