THE VERIFICATION OF THE HADITH

The Verification of the Hadith
Assailed from all sides by the propaganda of the warring sects and parties, the Muslims were uncomfortably aware that many false hadiths were in circulation.
Muhammad b. Sirin (d. 110 H/728 M) said, "This information one is collecting is religion. So consider from whom you accept your religion."
As ‘Abdallah b. al-Mubarak is reported as saying, "The isnad is a part of religion. But for it, anyone could say whatever he pleased."
Ibn Sirin also said, "They used not to bother to ask for the isnad. But when civil dissension broke out, they would say, "Name your men", then examine which were people of the sunna and accept their reports, and which were people of the new ways and reject their reports".
The reference is clearly to transmitters of the later times, since it is characteristic that the following is reported, not only from the caliph 'Umar and the companion 'Abdallah b. Mas'ud, but even from the Prophet himself in identical words:
It is sufficient to make any man a liar that he transmits all that he hears.
A variant, from as late an expert as Malik b. Anas, is worded: 'No man who transmits all that he hears is safe'.
The Prophet is reported as having said, 'There will come in later days men who will transmit what neither you nor your fathers have ever heard. Beware them, lest they mislead you and seduce you.'
Attributed to 'Abdallah is the warning: 'Devils can assume human form and spread lies. One man will say, "A person whose face I know, although I do not know his name, told me so-and-so."
One man came to 'Abdallah b. 'Abbas and began, 'The Prophet said this; the Prophet said that'. Ibn 'Abbas paid no attention, so the man said, 'I'm telling you from the Prophet and you're paying no attention to my reports'. Ibn 'Abbas replied, 'There was a time, before lies were being fathered on the Prophet, when we exchanged hadith from him. But, when people started going in this direction and that, we gave up reporting hadiths from him.'
'If we heard anyone say, "The Prophet said", we would be all ears and eyes. But, since the people started going off in this and that direction, we have accepted from men only what we recognized."
After 'Ali's death, they invented all manner of things which wrang from one of his associates, 'Damn these people ! They have perverted so much religious information."
Ibn Sirin himself states that the bulk of what has been fathered on 'Ali is untrue. Another man claimed that the only sound information from 'Ali was that transmitted by the disciples of 'Abdallah b. Mas'ud. Abdallah b. al-Mubarak warned the people to avoid the hadiths of those who insulted the pious forebears. Abu 'Abdul Rahman al-Sulami warned the young to avoid popular preachers, except one man he named. One he especially warned against was known for Kharijite views. Another man to be avoided was one who held extreme views on 'the second coming of 'Ali’. For that reason alone, some of the people abandoned his reports. Others claimed to have heard his reports before he had fallen into that appalling heresy. One elderly fellow transmitted reports purporting to come from Companions who had accompanied the Prophet at his first major victory. But he was recognized as having been formerly a beggar by profession who took up the profession of reporting hadiths only late in life. Even the great Basran expert, Hasan, had heard no hadiths from anyone who had fought in that battle, while the acknowledged Madinan expert, Sa'id b. al-Musayyab, had perhaps only one.
Hasan reported from several Companions, as from the Prophet, that use of the cupping-glass breaches the fast of both the patient and the cupper. This question divided the scholars. Pressed as to whether his hadiths did come down from the Prophet, Hasan at first insisted that it did. Later, he merely said, "God knows best."
Close examination of the isnads disclosed that there must be some name omitted between Hasan and the Companion who could have reported this from the Prophet. Comparison with other hadiths of Hasan's on other questions led scholars tentatively to suggest who that missing intermediary might have been. The process leads to presumptive restoration of the missing link. Others, aware of the gap, but not knowing how to fill it, had accepted Hasan's report, but as incomplete. Similarly, a report to the effect that ibn 'Abbas had demanded from the Basrans the alms payment on the termination of the Ramadan fast, and his silencing their protests that they had never heard of such a tax by referring them to a statement made by the Prophet, was described as 'a Basran hadith of incomplete isnad’. Neither Hasan, nor his contemporary, ibn Sirin, who both relayed this report, had ever met ibn 'Abbas. In the case of ibn Sirin, the defect in the isnad was easily remedied. His other reports from ibn 'Abbas had been acquired from 'Ikrima, the freedman and 'pupil' of ibn 'Abbas.
Isnad criticism was essentially a statistical study. One amassed all known versions of a report and, comparing their isnads, reached conclusions, as can be illustrated.
Ibn Ishaq reports from Sa'id b. abi Sa’id, 'I heard Abu Hurayra from the Prophet.
'abdul Rahman reports from Sa'id, 'I heard Abu Hurayra say, "The Prophet said…"
In no other report has Sa'id claimed to have heard Abu Hurayra. Ibn Ishaq and Layth b. Sa'd both report: Sa'id , from his father, from Abu Hurayra….
Following consideration of further reports, the conclusion is:
'Abdul Rahman's version cannot possibly be correct. He has made an error and one fears that his memory has betrayed him.
Qasim, qadi of Kufa, and grandson of 'Abdallah b. Mas'ud, had two reports from ibn 'Umar, but had never met him.
Questioned about a version of one of the two reports, now being carried back to the Prophet, an isnad expert declared that that extension was an error. The hadith did not come down from the Prophet, but only from ibn 'Umar.
One of the leaders of the Shi'a was suspected of fabrication. The content of his reports (matn) was authentic, but he used to allege that they were statements of the Prophet when they were not. Their attribution was unsound.
The internecine struggles between the Companions generated the notion that one side must have been in the wrong and, by taking arms against those in the right, must have sinned. This is seen as 'insulting the pious forebears'. A Khariji would say both sides were in the wrong and, in sinning, said they had ceased to be believers. A middle way was to argue that one side had sinned, although it was no longer clear which. One man who said this was accused of responsibility for circulating the report to the effect that the Prophet has said: 'He who takes up arms against us does not belong to us.'
The hadith party tended to argue: 'If you do not accept a man's theological views, there can be no justification for accepting his hadith reports. But such reports had, in many cases, long been accepted. Unwilling to give them up, some can be seen claiming to have acquired them before the man had fallen into heresy. Similarly, scholars were vigilant for the first signs of fading memory or of senility. Here, too, it was claimed that the reports had been acquired before the onset of the disability. In the case of heretics, it was also argued that only the reports of those known to have been active in the propagation of the heresy need be suspect. A man might be sectary, even a heretic, yet be aware of the penalties in the Hereafter reserved for liars-especially for lyingly imputing to the Prophet words that he had never uttered. One sometimes hears:
So-and-so was a Shi'I extremist, a really evil person, yet, for all that, scrupulously truthful in his hadith reports.
Some extolled the Khariji devotion to truthfulness, claiming that untruth were seldom to be encountered in their reports. Tales of reformed sectaries repenting in later life of their former beliefs and confessing that whenever they had had an idea that promoted those beliefs, they had dressed it up in suitable hadith attire, attached to it an acceptable isnad and launched it into circulation among the people, must be seen in perspective of a remark made by the outstanding scholar and leader of the hadith group, Yahya b. Sa'id: 'One does not see pious persons more prone to lie than when they transmit hadith.'
The isnad experts found it convenient that, in Arabic, the word often translated, as here, 'to lie', in fact means 'to get things wrong'.
Shu'ba has asked al-Hakam, 'Did the Prophet pray over those slain in the battle of Uhud?'. Hakam said he had not. Shu'ba warned Abu Daud against a particular scholar who had reported: Hakam- Miqsam- ibn 'Abbas: 'The Prophet prayed over those slain in the battle of Uhud'.
Shu'ba provided other examples of this man's behavior.
One man asked another about a hadith. He transmitted it with an isnad. On a second occasion, the man asked him about the same hadith. He transmitted it, using a different isnad. A third time he asked him about the same hadith and the man transmitted it with a third isnad.
Two of the hadith experts confronted some man who transmitted from a particular Companion. The man admitted he had never met him, and swore that he now repented. They had to confront him a second time, as he had reverted to his former practice. The man again repented, but he news came later that he was still continuing to recite the same reports.
One hadith collector heard of no hadith of Hasan's, but he checked it with a specialist on Hasan's hadiths. A colleague of his, who had acquired some 1.000 hadiths from that specialist, had the opportunity to check them all with the Prophet, whom he met one night in a dream. The Prophet recognized only five or six as his reports.
The Syrian scholar, Baqiyya, was criticized, 'Accept from him only when he reports from well-known transmitters' was the caution issued by the experts. Of another man, they advised, 'Do not accept what he reports from the well-known or from the unknown.'
Baqiyya had the trying habit of using only patronymics for men better known by their own names, and their own names for men better known by their patronymics or other soubriquets. He was suspected of trying to hide something, so his practice reduced his dependability as a transmitter.
Another man solemnly reported what 'Abdallah b. Mas'ud had said to the Muslims at the battle of Siffin, fought between 'Ali and Mu'awiya. He was challenged by some man who said: 'I suppose he was raised from the dead to tell you that?'.