Talk:Science of hadith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hadith, a WikiProject related to the Hadith. It has been rated - on the quality scale. |
 |
Science of hadith is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
- A hadith with numerous transmitters at every level of the isnad (mutawatir) was deemed to be beyond doubt of forgery, while one with three or more at each level (mashhur), one with just one at a particular level (gharib), or one with one transmitter at each level (fard) was considered binding but with less weight. On these three bases, a particular hadith would be classified as sahih (sound or authentic), hasan (good), da`if (weak), or saqim (spurious). [1]
--Striver 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I found this interesting:
- It is essential to remove one of the serious misgivings under which so many Orientalists and Westernized Muslim scholars are laboring. When they are told that Imam Muslim selected 4,000 hadiths out of a total collection of 300,000, they think that since quite a large number of hadiths were unreliable, they were therefore rejected. They then jump to the conclusion that the whole stock of Hadith is spurious and should be rejected outright. This betrays utter ignorance of the critics, even about the elementary knowledge of hadith. Matn (text) is not the basis on which the number of hadiths is calculated. Hadiths are counted on the chain of transmission. Thus when we say that Imam Muslim collected 300,000 hadiths and included only 4,000 in his compilation, it does not imply that he rejected the rest of the whole lot of the Prophet’s sayings as being unreliable. What this means is that the words and deeds of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were transmitted to Imam Muslim through so many chains of transmission, out of which he selected 4,000 chains as most authentic and narrated the text on their authority. A text (matn) that is transmitted through one hundred isnads is in Hadith literature treated as one hundred traditions. For example, the text of the first hadith in Al-Bukhari (The Actions Are Based on Intention) is counted as a selection of one out of 700 hadiths since it has been transmitted through such a large number of isnads. [2]
--Striver 12:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Striver: Both Bukhari and Muslim explicitly stated that they did not intend to include all authentic hadith in their collection. Althought the proper place for this an in depth discussion of this would perhaps be on the respective page for the book of each scholar, I think it suffices to cite a few evidences to support my claim. First, I must apologize for the lack of references, it is late and I am writing from my tired memory. Bukhari included numerous hadith in his other works, often citing them as validation for a topic he was discussing, which would of course necessitate the authenticity of that hadith. Tirmithi, a student of Bukhari, mentions questions he addressed to his teacher about particular hadith throughout his Sunan, declaring some not found in his sahih to be sahih. Of course this requires a reference on my part. Again, there is a better place for this discussion, including referencing from say, Tadrib al-Rawi, where Suyuti discusses this issue. Also, one of the two references provided on this page is simply to web page as USC. Perhaps this is sufficient in terms of ethics, but the relevant info on the site is taken, it appears exclusively from Suhaib Hasan's book. Would it not have been better to have cited this book itself as a reference directly? The depth of the info provided at this page and those related to itseem much too sparse to justify having a page for every individual hadith term. Unless those pages are expanded, which seems unnecessary as more central pages are incomplete at best, why not combine at least the pages for individual terms on this page? Any thoughts? Does anybody read this stuff? Hello? Supertouch 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)SupertouchSupertouch 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
