The 5 Main Works

The 5 main works have been the most popular.

Al-Bukhari’s Sahih occupies the highest rank among them.

People found it difficult to comment on the Sahih and have found it rather complicated. This is because:

• it requires:
  • a knowledge of numerous recensions and personages from the Hijaz, Syria, and the ‘Iraq
  • a knowledge of their conditions and of the different opinions of scholars about them.
• constant study is also required to understand the subject headings.

Al-Bukhari would make a chapter heading and mention under it a tradition with a certain chain of transmitters or in a certain recension.

Then, he would make another subject heading and mention the very same tradition under it, because it (also) deals with the subject of that chapter.

This applies to every chapter heading, so that the tradition may be repeated in separate chapters according to the various different subjects.

A study of the chapter headings should clearly indicate the relation that exists between them and the traditions the chapter contains.

However, in many cases, this relation is obscure. People have lengthily tried to explain it.

This happened with the chapter heading in the book on “Disturbances” (fitan): “The House will be destroyed by an Abyssinian with two little legs.”

Then, al-Bukhari quotes the Qur’an: “When we made the House a meeting place for the people and a place of safety.”

Nothing is said of the matter mentioned in the chapter heading.

The relationship between the chapter heading and the chapter has remained obscure to scholars. Some have said that the author wrote all the chapter headings down in his draft and wrote the traditions under each chapter heading later, whenever he had the opportunity.

He died before he was able to fill in all the chapter headings, and his work was transmitted in this (incomplete form).

However, as I learned from the companions of Judge Ibn Bakkar, the judge of Granada who died in the battle of Tarifa in the year 741 [1340], and who was well versed in the Sahih of al-Bukhari, the chapter heading (quoted) was intended by al-Bukhari to interpret the verse of the Qur’an in the sense that it dealt with “something established by law,” and not with “something appointed by divine decree.”

The difficulty results from interpreting “we made” in the sense of “we appointed by divine decree.”

If (the word in question) is interpreted in the sense of “we established by law,” there is no confusion (or contradiction) in the (chapter heading saying that) a man with two little legs will destroy (the House).

I learned this explanation from our teacher, Abul-Barakat al-Ballafiqi, who had it on the authority of (Ibn Bakkar). Al-Ballafiqi was one of his most important pupils.

Commentators who do not exhaust such problems do not completely fulfill their duties as commentators.

Commentators of this sort include:

• Ibn Battal,
• Ibn al-Muhallab,
• Ibn at-Tin, etc.

Our teachers say: “The Muslims still have the obligation to write a commentary on al-Bukhari.”

They meant that no Muslim scholar has completely fulfilled that task.

The Sahih of Muslim has been given much attention by Maghribi scholars. They applied themselves to it and agreed that it was superior to the work of al-Bukhari.

The imam al-Mazari was a Malikite jurist. He dictated a commentary on the Sahih of Muslim which he entitled al-Mu’lim bi fawa’id Muslim. It contains much important source material from the science of tradition and solid juridical knowledge.

The work was later on perfected by Judge ‘Iyad. 155 He called his work Ikmal al-Mu’lim. The two of them were followed by Muhyi-ad-din an-Nawawl with a commentary containing all the material of the two works and adding to it, thus becoming a complete commentary.

The other three collections of traditions contain the most extensive source material for jurists. Most comment on (that material) is found in the law books, except for those things that are peculiar to the science of tradition.

Scholars wrote on (that material) and exhaustively presented in this respect as much as was needed of the sciences of tradition, their subjects, and the collections which contain traditions considered (norms) for action.

It should be known that, at this time, traditions are classified in grade as “sound,” “good,” “weak,” “ill,” and so on. The classification was fixed and made known by the leading hadith authorities. It is no longer possible to declare a tradition sound, that had not been (known as) sound before.

The hadith authorities made known the traditions in their various recensions and with their chains of transmitters. They were so thorough in this respect that, if a tradition had been transmitted with a chain of transmitters or in a recension not belonging to it, they would have realized that it had been tampered with.

Something of the sort happened to the imam Muhammad b. Ismail 156 al-Bukhari. He came to Baghdad, and the hadith scholars wanted to examine him.

They asked him about several traditions, transposing the chains of transmitters (cited). He said: “I do not know those traditions, but I was told by so-and-so . . .” and then he repeated all the traditions in the correct order, supplying each text with the chain of transmitters to which it belonged.

The hadith scholars (in Baghdad), in consequence, acknowledged (al-Bukhari’s) leadership. 157

Religious leaders of independent judgment differed in the extent of their knowledge of traditions.

The number of traditions that Abu Hanifah transmitted came to only 17 or so. 158 Malik accepted as sound only the traditions found in the Muwatta’.

They are at most 300 or so.

Ahmad b.Hanbal has 50,000 traditions in his Musnad.

Each (authority) has as many traditions as his independent judgment in this respect allowed him to have.

A certain biased, unfair person dared to say that some (of the authorities) knew little about traditions and, therefore, did not transmit many. It is impossible to believe such a thing about the great religious leaders.

The religious law is derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and those who know little about traditions definitely have to study and transmit them with eagerness and zeal, in order to be able to derive the religion from (its) sound basic principles and to get the laws from their Master (Muhammad) who brought them from God.

Therefore, the great religious leaders who transmitted only a few traditions, did so (not because they knew little about traditions but) because they might have been attacked with regard to the traditions they transmitted, and because their transmission might have been accused of defects, especially since the majority (of scholars) gives preference tonegative (as against positive) personality criticism.

Therefore, their independent judgment induced them to leave aside traditions and chains of transmitters in which such (defects) might occur and which are numerous. Therefore, they transmitted few traditions, because of the weakness of the ways of transmission.

Furthermore, the Hijazis transmitted more traditions than the ‘Iraqis. Medina was the place to which Muhammad emigrated and where the men around him made their home. Those of them who moved to the ‘Iraq were more occupied with the holy war (than with the transmission of traditions).

The imam Abu Hanifah transmitted only a few traditions, because he was very strict in applying the conditions governing the transmission and retention of traditions. He declared traditions weak when they were contradicted by decisive logical (arguments).

Therefore, it was difficult for him to transmit traditions, and his traditions are few. However, it can by no means be assumed that he purposely omitted to transmit traditions. He would not have done such a thing.

He was one of the greatest scholars of independent judgment in the science of tradition. This is proven by the fact that the hadith scholars follow his school and refer to it and take it into consideration in rejecting or accepting (arguments).

Other hadith scholars, that is, the great majority, permitted a certain latitude in applying the conditions (governing the soundness of traditions).

They transmitted many traditions, everyone relying on his own independent judgment. The later (Hanafites) permitted a certain latitude in applying the conditions and transmitted many traditions. At-Tahawi 160 was a transmitter who transmitted many traditions.

He wrote his Musnad, which is an important work.

However, it does not have the same value as the two Sahihs, because the conditions applied by al-Bukhari and Muslim in their works are those accepted by the general consensus of all Muslims, as has been said.

The conditions applied by at-Tahawi, on the other hand, are not generally agreed upon. For instance, he transmits traditions on the authority of persons whose condition is obscure, and other things. Therefore, the two Sahihs, as, indeed, the other well-known collections of traditions, are preferable to (at-Tahawi), because his conditions are inferior to theirs.

Therefore it is said that the two Sahihs are accepted by general consensus, as there is general consensus concerning the soundness of the conditions applied in them and generally agreed upon. No one should be in any doubt about this. Of all people, scholars most deserve that one have a good opinion of them and that one be eager to find sound excuses for them.

Another of the sciences of traditions is the application of this canon to the discussion of the traditions, one by one, according to their various chapters and headings, by interpreting these collections of traditions.

This was done by:

• the hadith expert Abu Umar b. Abd-al-Barr
• Abu Muhammad b. Hazm
• Judge ‘Iyad
• Muhyi-ad-din an-Nawawi
• Ibn al-‘Attar
• Iyad and anNawawi
• many other leading religious scholars of the West and the East.

Their discussions of the traditions contain other things:

• things that have to do with the text,
• the lexicography, and
• the grammar (i’rab) of the traditions.

Still, their discussions of the chains of transmitters of the traditions in accordance with the hadith technique, are more comprehensive and longer (than their discussions of other matters).

These are the various sciences of tradition current among leading contemporary authorities. 166 God guides toward the truth and helps to (find) it.

Another of the sciences of tradition is that concerned with the chains oftransmitters and with knowledge of the traditions in accordance with which one must act because they are provided with chains of transmitters fulfilling all the conditions (of trustworthiness).

One must act only in accordance with those traditions of Mohammad.

How is it possible to assume that probability be investigated by independent study?

One gets to (the assumption of probability) through knowledge of the probity and accuracy of the transmitters of traditions.

Such knowledge is established through information obtained on the authority of religious leaders, which declares a transmitter to be reliable and free from unreliability or negligence. This shows us whether we should accept their (traditions) or reject them.

Knowledge of the transmitters includes knowing and distinguishing the different ranks of the individual transmitters among the men around Muhammad and the men of the second generation.

The chains of transmitters also differ in respect to continuity or lack of continuity, in that a transmitter may not have known personally the transmitter on whose authority he transmits a tradition.

They also differ in respect to their freedom from weaknesses which may affect them adversely. These differences lead to (the designation of) two kinds of chains, and the rule is that the “highest” 115 chain is to be accepted, and the “lowest” chain to be rejected.

There are differences of opinion with regard to the intermediate kind, according to the transmitted statements of authorities on the subject.

They have invented technical terms for (classifying) the various grades (of reliability), such as “sound,” “good,” “weak,” “skipping the first transmitter on Muhammad’s authority” (mursal), “omitting one link” (munqati’), “omitting two links” (mu’dal), “singular” (shadhdh), “unusual” (gharib), and the other terms in use among them. Each term has been treated by itself, and the existing disagreements or agreements among linguistic authorities concerning each term have been noted.

Further, there is the study of how the transmission took place. It may have taken place by reading (gira’ah), by writing (kitabah), by getting the approval of the authority for written material (munawalah), or by obtaining the permission of the authority to teach certain traditions (ijizah). One must study the difference in grade assigned to these different types of transmission, and one must also study the differences of opinion among scholars about what is to be accepted here and what to be rejected.

Then, there follows the discussion of terms applying to the texts of traditions.

A text may be “unusual” (gharib), or “difficult” (ambiguous, mushkil), or “(affected by some) misspelling (or misreading),” or “(containing) homonyms” (muftariq), or “(containing) homographs” (mukhtalif), or something else of this sort.

This constitutes the largest and preponderant part of the studies of hadith scholars.

The conditions of the transmitters of traditions in early Muslim times, the men around Muhammad and the men of the second generation, were known to the people of their respective countries. There were transmitters in the Hijaz, in the Iraq in al-Basrah and al-Kufah, and in Syria and Egypt.

All of them were well known and famous in their day.

The people of the Hijaz in these (early) times had fewer links in their chains of transmitters than others, and they were sounder (transmitters), because they insisted upon probity and accuracy as (necessary) conditions of transmission.

They were reluctant to accept (as a reliable transmitter) anyone whose condition in these respects was not known.

These are the collections of traditions that are famous in Islam. They are the chief orthodox works on traditions. Though hadith works are numerous, reference isas a rule made to the (books mentioned).

The knowledge of all these conditions and technical terms is the science of tradition. The subject of abrogating and abrogated traditions is occasionally taken out and treated as a discipline by itself. The same applies to “unusual” traditions.

There are famous works by scholars on that subject. Then, there are the homonyms. Scholars have written a great many works on the science of traditions. An outstanding hadith scholar was Abd ‘Abdallah al-Hakim.

His works on the subject are famous. He improved the science of tradition and presented it to its best advantage.’

The most famous work by a modern scholar on the subject is the book by Abu ‘Amr b. as-Salah.

• He lived in the early part of the 13th century.
• His example was followed by Muhyi-ad-din an-Nawawi.

The purpose of the discipline is a noble one. It is concerned with the knowledge of how to preserve the traditions (sunan) transmitted on the authority of the Master of the religious law.