The Origins of Early Sunni Hadith Criticism, Part 1: The Traditional Narratives

Artwork by Terron Poole

In two previous articles, I outlined the basic method of proto-Sunnī Hadith criticism (here) and summarised the notable figures involved in its articulation, application, and transmission from the turn of the 9th Century CE onward (here). Both of these articles skirt around a fundamental historical question, however: when exactly did proto-Sunnī Hadith criticism originate or emerge? Who was the founder—or who were the founders—of Hadith criticism? Who was the first Hadith critic, or alternatively, who were the first Hadith critics? It is this question that the present article attempts to address.


Given the volume of material on this subject (in terms of both primary and secondary sources), it was necessary to split this article into three parts:

  • Part 1: The Traditional Narratives; in which I variously translate and summarise the relevant reports, statements, and lists in the traditional Sunnī Hadith-related sources.
  • Part 2: The Modern Debate; in which I summarise the last century of the secular, critical scholarship on this issue, including a recent debate between traditionalist and revisionist scholars.
  • Part 3: A Critical Analysis; in which I attempt to adjudicate on the recent scholarly debate thereon, giving my own interpretation of all of the relevant evidence and arguments.


Once again, it must be clarified that the subject here is not merely the origins of the transmission or evaluation of Hadith, but rather, the origins of the authentication (taṣḥīḥ) and impugning (taḍʿīf) of hadiths, and the impugning (jarḥ) and accrediting (taʿdīl) of tradents, specifically using the method of those known as “Hadith critics” (al-jahābiḏah and nuqqād al-ḥadīṯ) within the broader proto-Sunnī Hadith movement (ʾaṣḥāb al-ḥadīṯ). In other words, when and where did the basic method shared by the compilers of the canonical Sunnī Hadith collections (“the six books”, al-kutub al-sittah) originate or emerge?



Lists of the First Hadith Critics


To begin with, traditional Sunnī Hadith scholarship has produced various lists of major Hadith critics or those involved in the development of Hadith criticism, often including the first generations of Hadith critics, if not the first Hadith critic per se. Some of these lists were originally expressed in prose form and/or interspersed with reports, but have been simplified here—and placed in strict chronological order—for the sake of concision and accessibility.



ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234/849)


The Basran Hadith critic ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī reportedly outlined the following list of those who would “scrutinise” (yufattišu) isnads to his student Yaʿqūb b. Šaybah, as recorded by the Levantine Hadith scholar ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʾAḥmad b. Rajab (d. 795/1393) in his Šarḥ ʿIlal al-Tirmiḏiyy.[1]

  • Ibn Sīrīn; Basran; d. 110/729.
  • ʾAyyūb al-Saḵtiyānī; Basran; d. 131-132/748-750.
  • Ibn ʿAwn; Basran; d. 150-151/767-768.
  • Šuʿbah; Basran; d. 160/777.
  • Mālik; Madinan; d. 179/795.
  • Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān; Basran; d. 198/813.
  • Ibn Mahdī; Basran; d. 198/814.


Of immediate interest is the fact that Ibn al-Madīnī’s list is dominated by Basrans; this could be explained either by the fact that Ibn al-Madīnī—as a Basran himself—was focused on the history and affairs of his home city, or else by the fact that Hadith criticism truly originated in Basrah.



Muslim (d. 261/875)


In the introduction to his Kitāb al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, the Khurasanian Hadith critic Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī cited two overlapping lists of those whom he seems to have regarding as his Hadith-critic forebears: a list of “the leaders of the People of Hadith” (ʾaʾimmat ʾahl al-ḥadīṯ) who “censured transmission from [certain tradents] (ḏamma al-riwāyah ʿan-hum),”[2] and a list of “the leading scholars of the preceding generations (min ʾaʾimmat al-salaf), from amongst those who would utilise reports and investigate the soundness and weakness of isnads (mimman yastaʿmilu al-ʾaḵbār wa-yatafaqqadu ṣiḥḥat al-ʾasānīd wa-saqama-hā).”[3] Taken together, the following list obtains:

  • ʾAyyūb al-Saḵtiyānī; Basran; d. 131-132/748-750.
  • Ibn ʿAwn; Basran; d. 150-151/767-768.
  • Šuʿbah; Basran; d. 160/777.
  • Mālik; Madinan; d. 179/795.
  • Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān; Basran; d. 198/813.
  • Ibn Mahdī; Basran; d. 198/814.
  • Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah; Kufo-Meccan; d. 198/814.


As in the preceding case, Muslim’s list is dominated by Basrans.



Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim (d. 327/938)


In the introduction to his Kitāb al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl, the Rāzī Hadith critic ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʾabī Ḥātim listed and cited reports from and about several generations of “expert Hadith-critical scholars” (al-ʿulamāʾ al-jahābiḏah al-nuqqād).[4]


  • al-ʾAwzāʿī; Syrian; d. 151-157/768-774.
  • Šuʿbah; Basran; d. 160/777.
  • Sufyān al-Ṯawrī; Kufan; d. 161-162/777-779.
  • Mālik; Madinan; d. 179/795.
  • Ḥammād b. Zayd; Basran; d. 179/795.
  • Ibn al-Mubārak; Marwazī; d. 181/797.
  • ʾAbū ʾIsḥāq al-Fazārī; Syrian; d. 185-188/801-804.
  • Wakīʿ; Kufan; d. 196-197/812.
  • Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān; Basran; d. 198/813.
  • Ibn Mahdī; Basran; d. 198/814.
  • Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah; Kufo-Meccan; d. 198/814.
  • ʾAbū Mushir; Syrian; d. 218/833.
  • Ibn Maʿīn; Baghdadian; d. 233/848.
  • Ibn al-Madīnī; Basran; d. 234/849.
  • Ibn Numayr; Kufan; d. 234/849.
  • Ibn Ḥanbal; Baghdadian; d. 241/855.
  • ʾAbū Zurʿah; Rāzī; d. 264/878.
  • ʾAbū Ḥātim; Rāzī; d. 277/890.


In contrast Ibn al-Madīnī and Muslim’s Basran-dominated lists, Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim’s list contains people from all across the central and Eastern lands of the Abbasid Caliphate, though still being dominated by Iraqians overall.



Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354/965)


At the beginning of his Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn min al-Muḥaddiṯīn, the Khurasanian Hadith critic Muḥammad b. Ḥibbān al-Bustī outlined the following genealogy for Hadith criticism.


Companions “who scrutinised tradents on [the issue of] transmission (man fattašā ʿan al-rijāl fī al-riwāyah) and investigated the transmission of reports (wa-baḥaṯā ʿan al-naql fī al-ʾaḵbār).”[5]

  • ʿUmar b. al-Ḵaṭṭāb; 2nd Commander of the Believers; d. 23-24/644.
  • ʿAlī b. ʾabī Ṭālib; 4th Commander of the Believers; d. 40/661.
  • ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās; the cousin of the Prophet; d. 67-68/686-688.


Madinan Followers who inherited from the Companions “caution towards transmissions (al-tayaqquẓ fī al-riwāyāt).”[6]

  • Sulaymān b. Yasār; Madinan; d. 84-107/703-726.
  • ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī; Madinan; d. 92-95/710-714.
  • Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab; Madinan; d. 93-95/711-714.
  • ʿUrwah b. al-Zubayr; Madinan; d. 93-95/711-714 or 101/719-720.
  • ʾAbū Bakr b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān; Madinan; d. 94-95/712-714.
  • ʾAbū Salamah b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān; Madinan; d. 94/712-713 or 104/722-723.
  • ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUtbah; Madinan; d. 98-99/716-718.
  • Ḵārijah b. Zayd; Madinan; d. 99-100/717-719.
  • al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad; Madinan; d. 105-107/723-725.
  • Sālim b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar; Madinan; d. 106-108/724-727.


Madinan Followers of the Followers who inherited from the Followers “the avoiding of [certain] tradents (intiḥāʾ al-rijāl).”[7]

  • Ibn Šihāb al-Zuhrī; Madino-Syrian; d. 124/741-742.
  • Saʿd b. ʾIbrāhīm; Madinan; d. 125-127/742-745.
  • Yaḥyá b. Saʿīd al-ʾAnṣārī; Madinan; d. 143/160.
  • Hišām b. ʿUrwah; Madino-Iraqian; d. 146-147/763-765.


Traditionists who inherited from the Followers of the Followers “the criticising of tradents (wa-intiqād al-rijāl)” and “the denunciation of weak tradents (wa-al-qadḥ fī al-ḍuʿafāʾ).”[8]

  • al-ʾAwzāʿī; Syrian; d. 151-157/768-774.
  • Šuʿbah; Basran; d. 160/777.
  • Sufyān al-Ṯawrī; Kufan; d. 161-162/777-779.
  • Ḥammād b. Salamah; Basran; d. 167/784.
  • al-Layṯ b. Saʿd; Egyptian; d. 175/791.
  • Mālik; Madinan; d. 179/795.
  • Ḥammād b. Zayd; Basran; d. 179/795.
  • Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah; Kufo-Meccan; d. 198/814.


Traditionists who inherited from the previous traditionists “the investigation of tradents (al-tanqīr ʿan al-rijāl)” and “the investigation of weak tradents (al-taftīš ʿan al-ḍuʿafāʾ).”[9]

  • Ibn al-Mubārak; Marwazī; d. 181/797.
  • Wakīʿ; Kufan; d. 196-197/812.
  • Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān; Basran; d. 198/813.
  • Ibn Mahdī; Basran; d. 198/814.
  • al-Šāfiʿī; Hijazo-Egyptian; d. 204/820.


Traditionists who inherited from the previous traditionists “selectivity towards the transmitters of reports (intiqāʾ al-rijāl fī al-ʾâṯār),” travelled widely, “and scrutinised [the residents of] the cities and the regions (wa-fattašū al-mudun wa-al-ʾaqṭār) and repudiated objectionable tradents (wa-ʾaṭlaqū ʿalá al-matrūkīn), to the point that they became luminaries whose example in [the domain of] reports is emulated (ḥattá ṣārū ʾaʿlāman yuqtadá bi-him fī al-ʾâṯār), and leaders whose approach to reports is followed (wa-ʾaʾimmah yuslaku maslaku-hum fī al-ʾaḵbār).”[10]

  • Ibn Maʿīn; Baghdadian; d. 233/848.
  • Ibn al-Madīnī; Basran; d. 234/849.
  • ʾAbū Ḵayṯamah; Khurasanian-Baghdadian; d. 234/849.
  • Ibn ʾabī Šaybah; Kufan; d. 235/849.
  • ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿUmar al-Qawārīrī; Basro-Baghdadian; d. 235/850.
  • Ibn Rāhwayh; Marwazī-Iraqian; d. 238/853.
  • Ibn Ḥanbal; Baghdadian; d. 241/855.


In contrast to most of the other lists under consideration, Ibn Ḥibbān’s does not confine itself to proper Hadith critics, but instead—somewhat confusingly—places them in a lineage of proto-critics, to the point that it is unclear where the proto-critics end and the proper critics begin. Additionally, in stark contrast to the others, Ibn Ḥibbān solidly roots the origins of Hadith criticism in Madinah, not Basrah.


Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1201)


In the introduction to his Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-al-Matrūkīn, the Baghdadian Hadith scholar ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAlī b. al-Jawzī outlined the following list of “the leading scholars” (al-ʾaʾimmah al-kibār) who “impugned” (jarraḥa) “weak tradents and fabricators” (al-ḍuʿafāʾ wa-al-wāḍiʿīn).[11]

  • Ibn Maʿīn; Baghdadian; d. 233/848.
  • Ibn al-Madīnī; Basran; d. 234/849.
  • Ibn Ḥanbal; Baghdadian; d. 241/855.
  • al-Buḵārī; Transoxanian; d. 256/870.
  • Muslim; Khurasanian; d. 261/875.
  • al-Saʿdī; Jūzajānī-Damascene; d. 256-259/870-873.
  • al-Fallās; Basran; d. 249/863-864.
  • ʾAbū Zurʿah; Rāzī; d. 264/878.
  • ʾAbū Ḥātim; Rāzī; d. 277/890.
  • ʿAlī b. al-Junayd; Rāzī; d. 291/904.
  • al-Sājī; Basran; d. 307/919-920.
  • al-ʿUqaylī; Meccan; d. 322/933-934.
  • Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim; Rāzī; d. 327/938.
  • Ibn ʿAdī; Jurjānī; d. 365/976.
  • ʾAbū al-Fatḥ al-ʾAzdī; Mawṣilī-Baghdadian; d. 374/985.
  • al-Dāraquṭnī; Baghdadian; d. 385/995.


Ibn al-Jawzī’s list does not include the founders of Hadith criticism per se, but rather seems to commence with its first systematic or most prolific practitioners. In fact, upon closer inspection, it seems as though this is really a list of (alleged or actual) authors of books of Hadith criticism, rather than merely a list of Hadith critics per se, since every person cited therein is credited or associated with an ʿilal work, a biographical dictionary of tradents, a collection of ṣaḥīḥ hadiths, or the like. We can thus remove this list from further consideration, since it is orthogonal to the immediate subject at hand.



al-Ḏahabī (d. 748/1348)


In his Siyar ʾAʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, the Syrian Hadith scholar Muḥammad b. ʾAḥmad al-Ḏahabī identified the founder of the discipline of “impugning [tradents] and the establishing of [their] reliability” (al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl) and his primary students; and in his Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl fī Naqd al-Rijāl, he further elaborated the sequence of subsequent Hadith critics who received and carried on this discipline from these founders.[12] Taking these two sources together, the following list obtains.

  • Šuʿbah; Basran; d. 160/777.
  • Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān; Basran; d. 198/813.
  • Ibn Mahdī; Basran; d. 198/814.
  • Ibn Maʿīn; Baghdadian; d. 233/848.
  • Ibn al-Madīnī; Basran; d. 234/849.
  • ʾAbū Ḵayṯamah; Khurasanian-Baghdadian; d. 234/849.
  • Ibn Ḥanbal; Baghdadian; d. 241/855.
  • al-Fallās; Basran; d. 249/863-864.
  • al-Buḵārī; Transoxanian; d. 256/870.
  • al-Saʿdī; Jūzajānī-Damascene; d. 256-259/870-873.
  • Muslim; Khurasanian; d. 261/875.
  • ʾAbū Zurʿah; Rāzī; d. 264/878.
  • ʾAbū Ḥātim; Rāzī; d. 277/890.
  • al-Tirmiḏī; Transoxanian; d. 279/892.
  • al-Nasāʾī; Khurasanian; d. 303/915-916.
  • al-Dawlābī; Rāzī; d. 310/923.
  • Ibn Ḵuzaymah; Khurasanian; d. 311/924.
  • al-ʿUqaylī; Meccan; d. 322/933-934.
  • Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim; Rāzī; d. 327/938.
  • Ibn Ḥibbān; Khurasanian; d. 354/965.
  • Ibn ʿAdī; Jurjānī; d. 365/976.
  • ʾAbū al-Fatḥ al-ʾAzdī; Mawṣilī-Baghdadian; d. 374/985.
  • al-Dāraquṭnī; Baghdadian; d. 385/995.
  • al-Ḥākim; Khurasanian; d. 405/1014.
  • Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī; Palestinian; d. 507/1113.
  • Ibn al-Jawzī; Baghdadian; d. 597/1201.


In al-Ḏahabī’s list we have a return to the early domination of Iraqians, and especially Basrans, that we saw in the earliest lists.



Summary


There is considerable variation between the traditional lists of Hadith critics, both in terms of what is being tracked thereby (i.e., Hadith criticism proper versus some kind of proto-criticism) and who is included therein. In terms of the earliness of the figures cited therein: Ibn Ḥibbān’s list begins with Companions; Ibn al-Madīnī and Muslim’s lists begin with Followers; and Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim and al-Ḏahabī’s lists begin with mid-to-late 8th-Century traditionists. In terms of the geographical provenance of those cited therein: the earliest figures in the lists of Ibn al-Madīnī, Muslim, and al-Ḏahabī are overwhelmingly Basran (and then Baghdadian); those in Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim’s list hail from all of the early major regions; and those in Ibn Ḥibbān’s list are overwhelmingly Madinan. And finally, in terms of the subject being tracked thereby: Ibn al-Madīnī’s list covers critics of isnads; Muslim’s list covers critics of both isnads and tradents; Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim’s list covers proper Hadith critics; Ibn Ḥibbān’s list vaguely encompasses all manner of critics of tradents, reports, and transmissions; and al-Ḏahabī’s list strictly covers practitioners of tradent criticism proper (i.e., proper Hadith critics).



Reports and Statements on the First Hadith Critics


The above-cited lists leave considerable ambiguity regarding the precise origins of proto-Sunnī Hadith criticism (i.e., the specific method under consideration), so it may be helpful to turn to more specific reports and statements concerning “the first” Muslim to criticise hadiths, isnads, and/or tradents.



The Companions (al-Ṣaḥābah)


According to al-Ḏahabī in his Taḏkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ, the Companion ʾAbū Bakr “was the first of those who were cautious in accepting reports (kāna ʾawwal man iḥtāṭa fī qubūl al-ʾaḵbār).”[13] This statement is quite vague, however, and as we saw previously, al-Ḏahabī believed that Hadith criticism proper (especially al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl) only emerged later.


According to Ibn Ḥibbān in his Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn (in a list that was already summarised above, but which will be given here in more detail), the first to engage in the critical examination of Hadith were the Companions ʿUmar b. al-Ḵaṭṭāb (d. 23-24/644) and ʿAlī b. ʾabī Ṭālib (d. 40/661), who are depicted in some reports as investigating certain ascriptions to the Prophet:


These two were the first of those who scrutinised tradents on [the issue of] transmission (hāḏān ʾawwal man fattašā ʿan al-rijāl fī al-riwāyah) and investigated the transmission of reports (wa-baḥaṯā ʿan al-naql fī al-ʾaḵbār), then the people followed them in that.[14]


Thereafter, Ibn Ḥibbān cited a report about ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās (d. 67-68/686-688) to the same effect (namely, that he rejected hadiths from liars),[15] thus identifying at least three Companions as critics of some kind. According to Ibn Ḥibbān, the Companions then passed on a “caution towards transmissions (al-tayaqquẓ fī al-riwāyāt)” to the Followers in Madinah (such as Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab),[16] who in turn passed on “the avoiding of [certain] tradents (intiḥāʾ al-rijāl)” to the Followers of the Followers in Madinah (such as Ibn Šihāb al-Zuhrī),[17] who in turn passed on “the criticising of tradents (wa-intiqād al-rijāl)” and “the denunciation of weak tradents (wa-al-qadḥ fī al-ḍuʿafāʾ)” to the next generation of traditionists (such as Šuʿbah b. al-Ḥajjāj),[18] who in turn passed on “the investigation of tradents (al-tanqīr ʿan al-rijāl)” and “the investigation of weak tradents (al-taftīš ʿan al-ḍuʿafāʾ)” in particular to the next generation of traditionists (such as Yaḥyá b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān),[19] who in turn passed on “selectivity towards the transmitters of reports (intiqāʾ al-rijāl fī al-ʾâṯār)” to the next generation of traditionists (such as ʾAḥmad b. Ḥanbal), who thereby “became luminaries whose example in [the domain of] reports is emulated (ṣārū ʾaʿlāman yuqtadá bi-him fī al-ʾâṯār), and leaders whose approach to reports is followed (wa-ʾaʾimmah yuslaku maslaku-hum fī al-ʾaḵbār).”[20] Thus, according to Ibn Ḥibbān, Hadith criticism ultimately began with the critical examination (taftīš) and investigation (baḥṯ) of the Companions.


Finally, according to the Khurasanian Hadith critic Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (d. 405/1014) in his Maʿrifat ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīṯ, the first to engage in “the impugning [of tradents] and the establishing of [their] reliability (al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl)” were the Companions:


As for the first generation (fa-al-ṭabaqah al-ʾūlá), amongst whom [were the following]: ʾAbū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿAlī, and Zayd b. Ṯābit. Verily they impugned [tradents] and established [their] reliability (fa-ʾinna-hum qad jarraḥū wa-ʿaddalū) and researched the soundness and weakness of transmissions (wa-baḥaṯū ʿan ṣiḥḥat al-riwāyāt wa-saqīmi-hā).

And as for the tenth generation (fa-al-ṭabaqah al-ʿāširah), amongst them [were the following]: ʾAbū ʾIsḥāq ʾIbrāhīm b. Ḥamzah al-ʾAṣbahānī, ʾAbū ʿAlī al-Naysābūrī, ʾAbū Bakr Muḥammad b. ʿUmar b. Sālim al-Baḡdādī, and ʾAbū al-Qāsim Ḥamzah b. ʿAlī al-Kinānī al-Miṣrī.[21]


In contrast to Ibn Ḥibbān’s depiction of some kind of progression of increasing criticism from the Companions to the 9th-Century master-practitioners of Hadith criticism, al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī seemingly collapses or effaces any such development by describing the activity of the Companions as straightforward al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl (the technical name for the Hadith-critical discipline of tradent criticism) and then immediately mentioning thereafter the generation of his own Hadith-critic masters. At the very least, al-Ḥākim gives the impression, at least in this instance, that Hadith criticism—or at least, the core Hadith-critical discipline of tradent criticism—came into being already amongst the Companions.


However, in his al-Madḵal ʾilá Kitāb al-ʾIklīl, al-Ḥākim seems to distinguish between the activities of the Companions and that of the later generations:


The first of those who safeguarded the Messenger of God from falsehood (ʾawwal man waqá al-kaḏib ʿan rasūl allāh) was ʾAbū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, when the grandmother came to ask him about her share of an inheritance; the story thereof is famous.

Later, ʿUmar b. al-Ḵaṭṭāb detained a group of the Companions and said: “You have increased the number of Hadith (ʾakṯartum al-ḥadīṯ) from the Messenger of God!”

Later, ʿAlī b. ʾabī Ṭālib said: “Whenever I heard a hadith from the Messenger of God, God would benefit me how he willed; and whenever someone else related to me from him, I would make him swear an oath [of truthfulness]; and whenever he swore [such an oath] to me, I would judge him to be truthful. [In one such instance,] ʾAbū Bakr related [the same hadith] to me, and ʾAbū Bakr was truthful.

Later, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās said: “We used to memorise Hadith. The Hadith of the Messenger of God were memorised [without issue] until [some of] you rode the obstinate [camel] and the docile [camel] [i.e., straying far and wide from the truth].”

Later, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar said to his servant Nāfiʿ: “Do not falsely ascribe things to me (lā taḏkib ʿalayya), as ʿIkrimah falsely ascribed things (kaḏiba) to Ibn ʿAbbās.”

As for the Followers, and the Followers of the Followers, and those leading scholars of the Muslims who came after them: they [variously] declared to be reliable and impugned transmitters of Hadith (fa-qad ʿaddala wa-jarraḥū ruwāt al-ḥadīṯ), and their pronouncements [thereon] were written down in historical works (wa-duwwina kalāmu-hum fī al-tawārīḵ) and conveyed to us via the transmission of successive reliable persons (wa-nuqila ʾilay-nā bi-naql al-ʿadl ʿan al-ʿadl).[22]


In this schema, it seems that the Companions merely engaged in sporadic or occasional investigations, whereas proper tradent criticism (al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl) is associated with the Followers and those who came after them. In light of this more elaborate account, we might interpret al-Ḥākim’s previous account as an instance of telescoping or simplification.


In short, it seems as though Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Ḥākim, and al-Ḏahabī all believed that the ultimate roots of Hadith criticism lay with the Companions (or in other words, that the Companions were proto-critics of a kind), but that Hadith criticism proper—above all, the discipline of tradent criticism (al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl)—arose later. That said, it possible that al-Ḥākim in particular believed that tradent criticism (al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl) had already emerged with the Companions.



The Followers (al-Tābiʿūn)


According to a famous report, the Kufan Follower ʿĀmir b. Šarāḥīl al-Šaʿbī (d. 103-106/721-725 or 110/728-729) interrogated his fellow Kufan Follower al-Rabīʿ b. Ḵuṯaym (d. 65/684-685) regarding the latter’s source for an eschatological claim, as recorded by the later Persian Hadith critic al-Ḥasan b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Rāmahurmuzī (d. 360/970-971) in his al-Muḥaddiṯ al-Fāṣil bayn al-Rāwī wa-al-Wāʿī:


Mūsá b. Zakariyyāʾ related to us: “Naṣr b. ʿAlī related to us: “ʿAṯṯām b. ʿAlī related to us, from ʾIsmāʿīl…”” And ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad b. Maʿdān al-Ṯaḡrī related to us (and the wording [cited here] is his): “ʾIbrāhīm b. Saʿīd al-Jawharī related to us: “Yaḥyá b. Saʿīd related to us, from ʾIsmāʿīl b. ʾabī Ḵālid, from al-Šaʿbī, from al-Rabīʿ b. Ḵuṯaym, who said: “Whoever says, “There is no God but God alone. He has no partner. To him belongs dominion and to him belongs praise. He is the giver of life and the taker of life. He has power over everything,” he will have such and such [as a reward in Heaven],” and he designated [some kind of] blessing. Al-Šaʿbī said: “Then I said: “Who related [this] to you?” He said: “ʿAmr b. Maymūn.” And I said [to ʿAmr thereafter]: “Who related [this] to you?” Then he said: “ʾAbū ʾAyyūb, the Companion of the Messenger of God.””””[23]


Thereafter, al-Rāmahurmuzī cited the following commentary from the Basran Hadith critic Yaḥyá b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198/813): “This was the first instance when the Isnad was scrutinised (hāḏā ʾawwal mā futtiša ʿan al-ʾisnād).”[24]


Alternatively, Ibn Rajab claimed in his Šarḥ that the Basran Follower Muḥammad b. Sīrīn (d. 110/729) was the first Muslim to criticise tradents:


Ibn Sīrīn was the first of those who criticised tradents and distinguished reliable tradents from their opposites (huwa ʾawwal man intaqada al-rijāl wa-mayyaza al-ṯiqāt min ḡayri-him).

It has been transmitted from him from more than one transmission path that he said: “Verily this knowledge is [essential for the] religion, so examine [carefully] those from whom you take your religion.” And in another transmission from him, he said: “These Hadith are the religion, so examine [carefully] the men from whom you take your religion.”

Yaʿqūb b. Šaybah said: “I said to Yaḥyá b. Maʿīn: “Do you know of anyone [else] amongst the Followers who used to be selective with tradents (kāna yantaqī al-rijāl) like Ibn Sīrīn used to be selective therewith?” Then he shook his head, i.e., “No.””

Yaʿqūb said: “I heard ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī say: “He was amongst those who would examine and scrutinise the Isnad (kāna mimman yanẓuru fī al-ḥadīṯ wa-yufattišu ʿan al-ʾisnād), and we do not know of anyone earlier than him—Muḥammad b. Sīrīn. Then [after him] there was ʾAyyūb [al-Saḵtiyānī] and [ʿAbd Allāh] b. ʿAwn. Then [after them] there was Šuʿbah [b. al-Ḥajjāj]. Then [after him] there was Yaḥyá b. Saʿīd [al-Qaṭṭān] and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān [b. Mahdī].” Then I said to ʿAlī [b. al-Madīnī]: “And Mālik b. ʾAnas?” Then he said: “Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah reported to me—he said: “How intense was Mālik’s selectivity towards tradents (mā kāna ʾašadd intiqāʾ mālik al-rijāl)!”””[25]


To justify the proposition that Ibn Sīrīn was the first Muslim to criticise tradents, Ibn Rajab cited: (1) a famous report from him regarding the rise of isnads and the necessity to be cautious regarding sources; (2) a report from the Basro-Baghdadian Hadith critic Yaʿqūb b. Šaybah (d. 262/875), from the earlier Baghdadian Hadith critic Yaḥyá b. Maʿīn (d. 233/848), to the effect that Ibn Sīrīn was unparalleled amongst the Followers in his selectiveness regarding tradents; and (3) another report from Yaʿqūb, from his Basran master Ibn al-Madīnī, to the effect that Ibn Sīrīn was the earliest Muslim who was known to have examined and scrutinised isnads.


In short, there are multiple identifications of the Followers as either proto-critics or even full-blown Hadith critics in traditional Sunnī scholarship: (1) Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān reportedly identified al-Šaʿbī as the first to scrutinise an isnad; (2) Ibn Maʿīn reportedly identified Ibn Sīrīn as somehow unique amongst the Followers in being selective towards tradents; (3) Ibn al-Madīnī reportedly identified Ibn Sīrīn as the first to scrutinise an isnad; (4) Ibn Rajab identified Ibn Sīrīn as the first to criticise tradents; (5) Ibn Ḥibbān (cited in the previous section) identified the Followers of Madinah as critics of tradents; and (6) al-Ḥākim (also cited in the previous section) identified the Followers in general—together with those who came after them—as practitioners of proper tradent criticism.



Šuʿbah b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/777)


Perhaps the most-commonly-identified founder of Hadith criticism proper was the Basran traditionist Šuʿbah b. al-Ḥajjāj. To begin with, Šuʿbah himself identified his approach to criticising Hadith as a novel one, at least according to a report recorded by the Balḵī rationalist ʾAbū al-Qāsim ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad al-Kaʿbī (d. 329/941) in his Qabūl al-ʾAḵbār wa-Maʿrifat al-Rijāl:


Al-Mubarrid related to me—he said: “Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Muhallabī related to me—he said: “Šuʿbah said to me: “Verily, you can barely find anyone [before me] who scrutinised these Hadith [whose investigation was comparable to] my investigation (ʾinna-ka lā takādu tajidu ʾaḥadan fattaša hāḏā al-ḥadīṯ taftīšī), nor [anyone] whose search [for Hadith was comparable to] my search (wa-lā ṭalaba-hu ṭalabī). I have examined it [i.e., Hadith in general] and discovered that not [even] a third thereof is sound (wa-qad naẓartu fī-hi fa-wajadtu-hu lā yaṣiḥḥu min-hu al-ṯulṯ).”””[26]


Another version of this report was recorded by the Baghdadian Hadith scholar ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Ḵaṭīb (d. 463/1071) in his al-Jāmiʿ li-ʾAḵlāq al-Rāwī wa-ʾÂdāb al-Sāmiʿ:


Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Mattūṯī reported to me: “ʾAbū Sahl ʾAḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ziyād al-Qaṭṭān reported to us: “ʾAbū al-ʿAbbās al-Mubarrid related to us: “Yazīd b. Muḥammad b. Muhallab al-Muhallabī related to us—he said: “Al-ʾAṣmaʿī related to me—he said: “I heard Šuʿbah say: “I do not know of anyone who scrutinised Hadith [whose investigation was] comparable to my investigation (mā ʾaʿlamu ʾaḥadan fattaša al-ḥadīṯ ka-taftīšī). I discovered that three quarters thereof are false (waqaftu ʿalá ʾanna ṯalāṯat ʾarbāʿi-hi kaḏib).””””””[27]


Even more explicitly, al-Ḵaṭīb al-Baḡdādī also recorded the following, citing the earlier Baghdadian Hadith critic Jazarah Ṣāliḥ b. Muḥammad (d. 293/906):


It is said: verily, the first of those who spoke about the conditions of transmitters (ʾawwal man takallama fī ʾaḥwāl al-ruwāt) was Šuʿbah b. al-Ḥajjāj. The judge ʾAbū al-ʿAlāʾ al-Wāsiṭī reported to us: “ʾAbū Muslim ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Mihrān reported to us: “ʿAbd al-Muʾmin b. Ḵalaf al-Nasafī who said: “I heard ʾAbū ʿAlī Ṣāliḥ [Jazarah] b. Muḥammad say: “The first of those who spoke [critically] about tradents (ʾawwal man takallama fī al-rijāl) was Šuʿbah b. al-Ḥajjāj; then Yaḥyá b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān followed him; then after him, ʾAḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Yaḥyá b. Maʿīn, and those [like them].””””[28]


This claim was reiterated by al-Ḏahabī in his Siyar ʾAʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, as follows:


ʾAbū Bisṭām [Šuʿbah b. al-Ḥajjāj] was: a leading scholar (ʾimām); reliable (ṯabt); a proof (ḥujjah); a critic [of Hadith] (nāqid); an assayer [of Hadith] (jihbiḏ); a pious man (ṣāliḥ); a renunciant (zāhid); someone who was content with what he had (qāniʿ bi-al-qūt); a leader in knowledge and [putting knowledge into] practice (raʾs fī al-ʿilm wa-al-ʿamal); and unmatched (munqaṭiʿ al-qarīn). He was the first of those who criticised and established the reliability [of tradents] (wa-huwa ʾawwal man jarraḥa wa-ʿaddala). Yaḥyá b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān, Ibn Mahdī, and a group [of scholars] took this [method] from him.[29]


In short, Šuʿbah: (1) reportedly described himself as the creator of a novel critical approach to Hadith; (2) was reportedly described by Jazarah as the first to speak critically about tradents, and as the teacher of Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān et al. in that respect; and (3) was described by al-Ḏahabī was the first to engage in proper tradent criticism, and as the teacher of Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān et al. in that respect.



Šuʿbah and His Peers (Mid-to-Late 8th C. CE)


According to other statements and reports, however, Šuʿbah was not the first Hadith critic per se, but rather, one amongst several. This is implied in the following statement by Ibn Ḥibbān in his Kitāb al-Ṯiqāt:


He was the first in Iraq who scrutinised the issue of traditionists (huwa ʾawwal man fattaša bi-al-ʿirāq ʿan ʾamr al-muḥaddiṯīn) and avoided weak and rejected tradents (wa-jānaba al-ḍuʿafāʾ wa-al-matrūkīn), until it became a discipline modelled upon his example (ḥattá ṣāra ʿilman yuqtadá bi-hi). The People of Iraq after him followed him on [this].[30]


In other words, whilst Šuʿbah was the first Muslim in Iraq to scrutinise tradents and reject the weak ones, he was—by implication—either precedented or accompanied by other critics in other regions. This is stated explicitly by Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim in the introduction to his al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl, as follows:


Amongst the expert Hadith-critical scholars (al-ʿulamāʾ al-jahābiḏah al-nuqqād)—whom God made to have knowledge of Islam, and to be exemplary in the religion, and to be critics of the transmission of reports—of the first generation are: Mālik b. ʾAnas and Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah, in the Hijaz; Sufyān al-Ṯawrī, Šuʿbah b. al-Ḥajjāj, and Ḥammād b. Zayd, in Iraq; and al-ʾAwzāʿī, in Syria.[31]


In other words, according to Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, the first proper Hadith critics (jahābiḏah or nuqqād) were none other than the greatest traditionists of each of the major regions in the mid-to-late 8th Century CE: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAmr al-ʾAwzāʿī (d. 151-157/768-774), the undisputed greatest traditionist of the Levant in his generation; Šuʿbah b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/777), probably the greatest traditionist of Basrah in his generation; Sufyān al-Ṯawrī (d. 161/777-778), probably the greatest traditionist of Kufah in his generation; Mālik b. ʾAnas (d. 179/795), the undisputed greatest traditionist of Madinah in his generation; Ḥammād b. Zayd (d. 179/795), one of the greatest traditionists of Basrah in his generation; and Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah (d. 198/814), one of the greatest traditionists of both Kufah and Makkah in his generation.


Mālik’s status as the first Hadith critic of Madinah seems to be reiterated by Ibn Ḥibbān in his Kitāb al-Ṯiqāt, as follows:


Mālik was the first of those who were selective towards tradents (kāna mālik ʾawwal man intaqá al-rijāl), amongst the jurists in Madinah (min al-fuqahāʾ bi-al-madīnah), and [the first who] excluded anyone who was unreliable in Hadith (wa-ʾaʿraḍa ʿamman laysa bi-ṯiqah fī al-ḥadīṯ). He would only transmit [hadiths] that were authentic (wa-lam yakun yarwī ʾillā mā ṣaḥḥa), and he would not relate [even] from a reliable tradent unless he also possessed [knowledge of] jurisprudence and the religion, along with virtue and piety (wa-lā yuḥaddiṯu ʾillā ʿan ṯiqah maʿa al-fiqh wa-al-dīn wa-al-faḍl wa-al-nask).[32]


Likewise, as we saw already in an anecdote cited above, Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah reportedly declared: “How intense was Mālik’s selectivity towards tradents (mā kāna ʾašadd intiqāʾ mālik al-rijāl)!”[33] Clearly, Mālik was envisaged as a leading Hadith critic, akin to Šuʿbah and others of that generation.



Summary


In short, it seems as though Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Ḥākim, and al-Ḏahabī believed that the ultimate roots of Hadith criticism lay with certain activities of the Companions; that Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān, Ibn Maʿīn, Ibn al-Madīnī, and Ibn Ḥibbān believed that some kind of criticism of tradents or isnads continued—or else commenced—with the Followers; that Šuʿbah, Jazarah, and al-Ḏahabī believed that Hadith criticism reached new heights—or else commenced with—Šuʿbah; and that Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim believed that Šuʿbah was part of the first generation of Hadith critics, alongside several of his notable contemporaries operating in the mid-to-late 8th Century CE.



A Critical Analysis of the Traditional Material


Who was the first Hadith critic, and when did Hadith criticism arise? It should be obvious by now, at the end of this survey, that the traditional Sunnī lists, reports, and statements thereon constitute a welter of contradictions that are largely beyond reconciliation. Such contradictions are revealed most clearly by the fact that the very same terms and phrases are used over and over to variously describe the first practitioners or instances of certain Hadith-related activities—in particular:


  • taftīš, meaning “scrutiny” or “critical investigation” (especially of tradents).
  • intiḥāʾ, meaning “avoiding” or “avoidance” (i.e., of tradents).
  • mujānabah, meaning “avoiding” or “avoidance” (i.e., of tradents).
  • intiqāʾ, meaning “selectivity” or “selectiveness” (i.e., towards tradents).
  • intiqād, meaning “criticism” (i.e., of tradents).
  • al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl, meaning “the impugning [of tradents] and the establishing of [their] reliability” (i.e., the Hadith-critical discipline of tradent criticism proper).
  • takallum, meaning, “speaking” or “pronouncing” (i.e., making critical judgements on tradents).


Of course, not all of the relevant material is contradictory: for example, the proposition that Ibn Sīrīn was alone—or else unmatched—amongst the Followers in engaging in the intiqāʾ of rijāl (per Ibn Maʿīn) in no way contradictions the proposition that the first jurist in Madinah to engage in the intiqāʾ of rijāl was Mālik (per Ibn Ḥibbān). Likewise, the proposition that the Followers of Madinah were already engaging in the intiḥāʾ of rijāl (per Ibn Ḥibbān) in no way contradicts the proposition that Šuʿbah was the first in Iraq to engage in the mujānabah of ḍuʿafāʾ and matrūkīn (again per Ibn Ḥibbān). When we turn to the other propositions, however, many ostensible contradictions begin to emerge.


Who was the first to engage in taftīš in a Hadith context? From the material cited above, we learn that:


  • ʿUmar and ʿAlī were the first to engage in the taftīš of rijāl (per Ibn Ḥibbān).
  • al-Šaʿbī was the first to engage in the taftīš of al-ʾisnād (per Yaḥyá al-Qaṭṭān).
  • Ibn Sīrīn was the first to engage in the taftīš of al-ʾisnād (per Ibn al-Madīnī).
  • Šuʿbah’s taftīš of Hadith was unprecedented (per Šuʿbah himself).
  • Šuʿbah was the first in Iraq to engage in the taftīš of muḥaddiṯīn and the mujānabah of ḍuʿafāʾ and matrūkīn, and he made this an ʿilm (per Ibn Ḥibbān).


Who was the first to engage in intiḥāʾ, intiqāʾ, or mujānabah in a Hadith context? From the material cited above, we learn that:


  • The Followers of Madinah (such as Ibn al-Musayyab) were already engaging in the intiḥāʾ of rijāl, since it is from them that the Followers of the Followers in Madinah (such as al-Zuhrī) acquired this practice (per Ibn Ḥibbān).
  • Ibn Sīrīn was the first of the Followers to engage in the intiqāʾ of rijāl, or possibly just unmatched amongst the Followers in his intiqāʾ of rijāl (per Ibn Maʿīn).
  • The first jurist in Madinah to engage in the intiqāʾ of rijāl was Mālik (per Ibn Ḥibbān).
  • Šuʿbah was the first in Iraq to engage in the mujānabah of ḍuʿafāʾ and matrūkīn (per Ibn Ḥibbān).


Who was the first to engage in intiqād in a Hadith context? From the material cited above, we learn that:


  • Ibn Sīrīn was the first to engage in the intiqād of rijāl (per Ibn Rajab).
  • The Followers of the Followers in Madinah (such as al-Zuhrī) were already engaging in the intiqād of rijāl and the qadḥ of ḍuʿafāʾ, since it is from them that the next generation of traditionists (such as Šuʿbah) acquired these practices (per Ibn Ḥibbān).
  • al-ʾAwzāʿī, Šuʿbah, Sufyān al-Ṯawrī, Mālik, Ḥammād b. Zayd, and Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah were the first generation of nuqqād (according to Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim).


Who was the first to engage in al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl in a Hadith context? From the material cited above, we learn that:

  • ʾAbū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿAlī, and Zayd were the first to engage in al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl (per al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī).
  • The Followers engaged in al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl (per al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī).
  • Šuʿbah was the first to engage in al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl (per al-Ḏahabī).


Finally, who was the first to engage in takallum in a Hadith context? From the material cited above, we learn that:

  • Šuʿbah was the first to takallum about rijāl (per Jazarah).
  • Šuʿbah was the first to takallum about the ʾaḥwāl of ruwāt (per al-Ḵaṭīb al-Baḡdādī).


The contradictions within and between these various statements and reports should be clear by now, but to recapitulate and make them clearer still:

  • If Šuʿbah was the first who spoke critically (takallama) about tradents, how could the Followers and/or Companions before him be the first who scrutinised (fattašū), criticised (intaqadū), or impugned (jarraḥū) tradents?
  • If Šuʿbah was the first who impugned (jarraḥa) tradents, how could the Followers before him have already impugned (jarraḥū) tradents, and how could the Companions be the first who impugned (jarraḥū) tradents?
  • If Šuʿbah was the first in Iraq who avoided (jānaba) certain tradents, how could Ibn Sīrīn—a Basran Follower—before him be the first who was selective (kāna yantaqī) towards tradents?
  • If Mālik was the first jurist in Madinah who was selective (intaqá) towards tradents, how could the Followers of the Followers (including jurists like al-Zuhrī) and the Followers (including jurists like Ibn al-Musayyab) in Madinah have already avoided (intaḥaw) certain tradents?
  • If al-ʾAwzāʿī et al. were the first generation of critics (nuqqād), how could Ibn Sīrīn be the first who criticised (intaqada) tradents, and how could the Followers of the Followers in Madinah have already criticised (intaqadū) tradents?
  • If Ibn Sīrīn was the first who scrutinised (fattaša) isnads, how could al-Šaʿbī be the first who scrutinised (fattaša) isnads, and what would it mean for the later Šuʿbah to be the first who scrutinised (fattaša) traditionists?
  • If Šuʿbah was the founder of tradent criticism proper (al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl), how could his elder contemporary al-ʾAwzāʿī already be a nāqid (i.e., given that al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl was the core practice of the nuqqād)? Or, alternatively, given that al-ʾAwzāʿī was the senior and the teacher of Šuʿbah, how probable is it that he would have adopted this practice from his junior and student?


And so on, so forth. Of course, there are ways to easily explain away one or two of these contradictions: the term nāqid presumably picks out a systematic critic, whereas those who merely intaqada could well be unsystematic or pre-systematic. Likewise, rather than Mālik being the first of the Madinan jurists to criticise tradents, he may well have been the first of the Madinans to criticise tradents who were also jurists—the relevant text (kāna mālik ʾawwal man intaqá al-rijāl min al-fuqahāʾ bi-al-madīnah) can certainly be read either way. The same kind of easy resolution is not available for most of the other conflicting propositions, however, which are expressed in equivalent, synonymous, or even identical formulations.


How then are we to deal with this wild array of contradictions? One might suppose that some combination of exaggeration, simplification, telescoping, imprecision, and equivocation on the part of the scholars cited above has obscured what was otherwise a common, coherent account of the emergence of Hadith criticism—but if so, which reports and statements are the accurate ones? In other words, even if we charitably grant that words and phrases like taftīš, intiqād, and al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl each respectively pick out different phenomena at different times (thereby avoiding contradictions), which ones refer to which things at which times?


In my opinion, the most coherent and charitable interpretation of these seemingly-conflicting propositions—the interpretation that simultaneously preserves or retains as many of the relevant propositions as possible—would be the something like the following:


  • The Companions, including ʾAbū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿAlī, Ibn ʿAbbās, and Zayd, investigated some ascriptions to the Prophet and rejected some, and also sometimes criticised people making claims about the Prophet.
  • The Followers, above all al-Šaʿbī and Ibn Sīrīn, followed suit, criticised tradents even more frequently, and began to focus on investigating isnads (i.e., whole chains of tradents) in particular.
  • The major traditionists of the mid-to-late 8th Century CE, especially Šuʿbah, transformed the investigation of tradents and isnads into a systematic discipline, thereby establishing Hadith criticism proper.


Again, however, it must be stressed that such an interpretation flies directly in the face of the probable (i.e., face-value) meaning of many of the relevant propositions (especially those that straightforwardly identify “the first” to do something), requiring a whole battery of rationalisations and reinterpretations to work.[34] The far simpler explanation for this vast array of seeming contradictions, at least in general, is that different Hadith critics and scholars, from the 9th Century CE onward, variously remembered, inferred, or supposed different starting points for their discipline: some pointed back to the major traditionists of the mid-to-late 8th Century CE; some pointed farther back to the Followers; and some pointed all the way back to the Companions. In other words, reports about the first Hadith critic are no more reliable than any other in the dubious prosopographical genre of “firsts” (ʾawāʾil), in which contradictions and conflicting memories are ubiquitous.[35] Rather than making clear the origins of Hadith criticism, such specific or precise reports—when viewed all together—paradoxically only serve to obscure the matter.



Conclusion


There is no single, coherent, traditional narrative of the history of proto-Sunnī Hadith criticism expressed across the extant Sunnī sources: instead, we find a welter of competing claims about the identity of the first Hadith critics, each fitting into competing overarching genealogies of Hadith criticism. The candidates for the founders of Hadith criticism variously include: Companions, such as ʾAbū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿAlī; Followers, especially al-Šaʿbī and Ibn Sīrīn; and 8th-Century traditionists, especially Šuʿbah.


In other words, there is no single, traditional model that can be accepted or rejected: to accept any given report, statement, or list is simply to reject, ipso facto, several others. Only an extremely strained interpretation of all of the material together could avoid such an implicit judgement and rejection, but doing so would require the rejection of the obvious or face-value meanings of many of the relevant propositions therein. The far simpler explanation therefor is that conflicting or competing memories or assessments existed within traditional Sunnī Hadith scholarship regarding the origins and genealogy of Hadith criticism.


Finally, a major problem pervading all of the traditional material examined herein is an overarching lack of clarity or precision regarding different approaches to Hadith. The anecdotes about Companions double-checking claims about the Prophet or decrying falsehoods bear little-to-no resemblance to the method of the later Hadith critics—namely: (1) the collation of transmissions; (2) the comparison thereof, (3) the establishing of corroboration thereby; (4) the identification of subtle defects in both isnads and matns thereby; and (5) the consequent issuing of judgements on both hadiths and tradents using a specific technical vocabulary. And yet, despite this vast difference, Ibn Ḥibbān subsumes both together under the general rubric of taftīš, whilst al-Ḥākim goes farther by lumping both together under the technical label of al-jarḥ wa-al-taʿdīl, thereby collapsing all meaningful distinctions.


In short, the extant assessments of the Hadith critics themselves and later Hadith scholars—whether in the form of statements, reports, or lists—are insufficient by themselves to determine exactly when, where, and with whom proto-Sunnī Hadith criticism emerged. To resolve this historical question, additional analytical tools and forms of evidence will be required.

* * *


Thus ends Part 1 of my series on the origins of proto-Sunnī Hadith criticism. In Part 2, I will explore the recent scholarly debate thereon, and in Part 3, I will offer my own hypothesis and interpretation of the evidence.


I owe special thanks to Prof. Christopher Melchert, ʿAlī Jabbār, al-Firas, Qur’anic Islam, and Mahgraye, for reviewing this article and providing feedback; Terron Poole, for creating the artwork used herein; and Mehrab and especially Yet Another Student, for their generous support over on my Patreon.


[1] Cited in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʾAḥmad b. Rajab (ed. Hammām ʿAbd al-Raḥīm Saʿīd), Šarḥ ʿIlal al-Tirmiḏiyy (Zarqa, Jordan: Maktabat al-Manār, 1987), p. 355. Of course, we do not have these words expressed by Ibn al-Madīnī himself in an extant work of his—they are only quoted via transmission and are thus open to doubt. However, given that Ibn al-Madīnī and the other early Hadith critics quoted in this manner were operating in—or at least on the cusp of—the era of systematic written transmission, it is still plausible that their statements on this issue were (more or less) accurately recorded by their students and so on, unto the extant works of Hadith criticism. Of course, it is also possible that such quotations really represent the opinions of later students or scholars, retrojected unto earlier major figures; but even if that is so, we still have thereby the views of students or scholars within the Hadith-critical tradition, weighing in on the origins of their tradition. In that respect, such statements are in principle no different from any of the others under consideration.

[2] Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī (ed. Naẓar b. Muḥammad al-Fāryābī), Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, vol. 1 (Riyadh, KSA: Dār Ṭaybah, 2006), p. 4, col. 1.

[3] Ibid., p. 20, col. 2.

[4] Summarised in Eerik Dickinson, The Development of Early Sunnite Ḥadīth Criticism: The Taqdima of Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (240/854-327/938) (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2001), 49. Also see the statement from Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim cited below.

[5] Muḥammad b. Ḥibbān al-Bustī (ed. Ḥamdī ʿAbd al-Majīd al-Salafī), al-Majrūḥīn min al-Muḥaddiṯīn, vol. 1 (Riyadh, KSA: Dār al-Ṣamīʿiyy, 2000), p. 39.

[6] Ibid., pp. 39-40.

[7] Ibid., 40.

[8] Ibid., 41.

[9] Ibid., 49.

[10] Ibid., 51-52.

[11] ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAlī b. al-Jawzī (ed. ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī), Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-al-Matrūkīn, vol. 1 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1986), p. 7.

[12] Muḥammad b. ʾAḥmad al-Ḏahabī (ed. Šuʿayb al-ʾArnaʾūṭ et al.), Siyar ʾAʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 7, 2nd ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1982), p. 206; id. (ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bijāwī), Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl fī Naqd al-Rijāl, vol. 1 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Maʿrifah, n. d.), pp. 1-2.

[13] Muḥammad b. ʾAḥmad al-Ḏahabī, Taḏkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 3rd ed. (Hyderabad, India: Osmania Oriental Publications Bureau, 1958), p. 2.

[14] Ibn Ḥibbān (ed. Salafī), Majrūḥīn, I, p. 39.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., pp. 39-40.

[17] Ibid., 40.

[18] Ibid., 41.

[19] Ibid., 49.

[20] Ibid., 51-52.

[21] Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (ed. ʾAḥmad b. Fāris al-Sulūm), Maʿrifat ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīṯ wa-Kammiyyat ʾAjnāsi-hi (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2003), p. 225.

[22] Id. (ed. Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Munʿim ʾAḥmad), al-Madḵal ʾilá Kitāb al-ʾIklīl (Alexandria, Egypt: Dār al-Daʿwah, n. d.), p. 70.

[23] Al-Ḥasan b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Rāmahurmuzī (ed. Muḥammad ʿAjjāj al-Ḵaṭīb), al-Muḥaddiṯ al-Fāṣil bayn al-Rāwī wa-al-Wāʿiyy, 3rd ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Fikr, 1984), p. 208. It should be noted that other versions of this report depict another hidden intermediary, Ibn ʾabī Laylá; e.g., ʾAḥmad b. Ḥanbal (ed. Šuʿayb al-ʾArnaʾūṭ et al.), Musnad, vol. 38 (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, n. d.), pp. 555-556.

[24] Rāmahurmuzī (ed. Ḵaṭīb), Muḥaddiṯ, 3rd ed., p. 208.

[25] Ibn Rajab (ed. Saʿīd), Šarḥ, p. 355.

[26] ʾAbū al-Qāsim ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad al-Kaʿbī al-Balḵī (ed. al-Ḥusaynī b. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm), Qabūl al-ʾAḵbār wa-Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, vol. 1 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2000), p. 21. I have interpreted Šuʿbah here as saying that the majority of Hadith are unsound, but it is possible to read him as instead saying, “a third thereof is unsound”, which would mean that the majority are actually sound. However, in light of the other extant version of this report (“three quarters thereof are false”), which clearly indicates that the majority of Hadith are unsound, my initial interpretation seems stronger. Gautier H. A. Juynboll, Muslim tradition: Studies in chronology, provenance and authorship of early ḥadīth (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 20, supports this interpretation.

[27] ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Ḵaṭīb al-Baḡdādī (ed. Maḥmūd al-Ṭaḥḥān), al-Jāmiʿ li-ʾAḵlāq al-Rāwī wa-ʾÂdāb al-Sāmiʿ, vol. 2 (Riyadh, KSA: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1983), p. 295, # 1899. Also see Ḏahabī (ed. ʾArnaʾūṭ et al.), Siyar, VII, p. 226.

[28] ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Ḵaṭīb al-Baḡdādī (ed. Maḥmūd al-Ṭaḥḥān), al-Jāmiʿ li-ʾAḵlāq al-Rāwī wa-ʾÂdāb al-Sāmiʿ, vol. 2 (Riyadh, KSA: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1983), p. 201, # 1612.

[29] Ḏahabī (ed. ʾArnaʾūṭ et al.), Siyar, VII, p. 206.

[30] Muḥammad b. Ḥibbān al-Bustī (ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Muʿīd Ḵān) Kitāb al-Ṯiqāt, vol. 6 (Hyderabad, India: Osmania Oriental Publications Bureau, 1980), p. 446. Also see ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʾabī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Kitāb al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl, vol. 4 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār ʾIḥyāʾ al-Turāṯ al-ʿArabiyy, 1952), p. 370, # 1608: “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān related to us: “My father related to me: “Ḥarmalah [b. Yaḥyá] related to us—he said: “I heard al-Šāfiʿī say: “Were it not for Šuʿbah, Hadith would not be known (mā ʿurifa al-ḥadīṯ) in Iraq! He would go to a [bad] tradent and [threaten them by] saying: “You should not relate Hadith, lest I incite the authorities against you!”””””

[31] Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, I, p. 10.

[32] Ibn Ḥibbān (ed. Ḵān) Ṯiqāt, VII, p. 459.

[33] Ibn Rajab (ed. Saʿīd), Šarḥ, p. 355.

[34] Thus, the schema just outlined would require the following rationalisations, harmonisations, and reinterpretations, or something similar thereto: (1) Šuʿbah was the first who impugned or spoke critically about tradents systematically, whereas the Followers and Companions before him only scrutinised, criticised, or impugned tradents occasionally or sporadically; (2) Šuʿbah was the first in Iraq who avoided certain tradents systematically, whereas Ibn Sīrīn was only selective towards tradents occasionally or sporadically; (3) Mālik was the first Madinan jurist to be consistently selective towards tradents, whereas earlier Madinan jurists were selective to a lesser degree; (4) Šuʿbah and his contemporaries like al-ʾAwzāʿī were the first proper (i.e., systematic) Hadith critics, whereas earlier figures like Ibn Sīrīn and other Followers had only criticised tradents occasionally or sporadically; (5) al-Šaʿbī was the first who criticised an isnad, whereas Ibn Sīrīn was the first who criticised multiple isnads; (6) Šuʿbah was the first who systematically criticised professional traditionists, whereas earlier figures like al-Šaʿbī and Ibn Sīrīn were criticising more casual tradents; (7) Šuʿbah’s systematic approach spread extremely rapidly to his contemporaries in other regions, such that he was the founder of Hadith criticism proper and his contemporaries like al-ʾAwzāʿī were also proper Hadith critics.

For an analogous situation (involving an extremely strained interpretation of two texts that simply conflict with each other on a face-value reading), see the discussion between Bart Ehrman and Peter J. Williams on the Premiere Unbelievable? radio show, available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuZPPGvF_2I [@43:10].

[35] E.g., Marek M. Dziekan, ‘Quss Ibn Sa’ida al-Iyadi (6th–7th Cent. A.D.), Bishop of Najran: An Arabic and Islamic Cultural Hero’, Studia Ceranea, Volume 2 (2012), 129 ff.; John Burton, The Collection of the Qurʾān (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977), ch. 6; ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq b. ʿAṭiyya, translated in Norman Calder, Jawid Mojaddedi, & Andrew Rippin (eds.), Classical Islam: A sourcebook of religious literature (London, UK: Routledge, 2003), 82; Albrecht Noth & Lawrence I. Conrad, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-critical Study, 2nd ed. (Princeton, USA: The Darwin Press, Inc., 1994), 104-108; Harald Motzki (trans. Marion H. Katz), The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence: Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002), 15, 274-275; Scott C. Lucas, Constructive Critics, Ḥadīth Literature, and the Articulation of Sunnī Islam: The Legacy of the Generation of Ibn Saʿd, Ibn Maʿīn, and Ibn Ḥanbal (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2004), 12, n. 49. Cf. Juynboll, Muslim tradition, ch. 1, whose trust in post-Prophet ʾawāʾil was clearly misplaced, especially in light of what we have uncovered in the present article.