Some thoughts on Islamic Traditions

The word “tradition” is generally used to describe a set of values or customs that is passed on for a number of generations, and honored specifically because of its endurance. In Islam, the term is used ubiquitously and appears to have several meanings, including a movement based on a return to pure Islamic values, such as Wahhabism (Lewis 2004, 120) or “authoritarian and quietist” versus “radical and activist” traditions (Lewis 2004, 10). An alternate meaning refers to the “sayings and acts attributed to Muhammad and transmitted orally” (Webster's New World College Dictionary 2002, 1517). After Muhammad’s death, a number of stories, or traditions (hadith) ascribed to the prophet were compiled and used to interpret his intent, so as to guide the Muslim community in understanding  his standards and expectations (Berkey 2003, 116). As time passed, these traditions have taken on a life of their own, in that their meanings, reliability and relative strength or weakness have been the focus of ongoing debate and study. Just as “Islamic Traditions” as a term has different connotations, the hadith are stratified according to their authenticity and content, adding incredible complexity to the issue. As it appears impossible to establish any truly stringent guidelines for their legitimacy and reliability, it would seem that basing a movement upon the guidance of hadith would be a dubious venture based more on faith than scriptural authenticity.

Hadith have generally been categorized as belonging to one of at least four categories:  Sahih (sound), Hasan (good), Da’if (weak), or Maudu’ (fabrications) (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith 2010).  The Sahih hadith are considered authoritative in that they came from trustworthy sources; Hasan hadith have some reliability issues, perhaps due to being second hand stories, but their sources are yet considered dependable (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith 2010). The last two categories are reserved for those traditions whose veracity is in doubt, due to several factors including “political differences, factions based on issues of creed...fabrications by story-tellers or ignorant ascetics, prejudice in favor of a particular imam, personal motives or proverbs turned into hadiths...” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith 2010). The task of reviewing and certifying the reliability of hadith, as well as publishing the collections of those considered Shahih or Hasan, has been the focus of  scholars since the 9^th century (Berkey 2003).

Content criticism of the hadith as an early scholarly discipline has been a source of speculation. Western scholars had assumed that early studies were focused on their genealogy with little attention paid to the content, and that the innate faith of the Muslim was such that they were more intent on preserving the linearity of transmission than in critically examining the substance within (Brown 2008). There is a growing belief however that early hadith scholars did indeed analyze content and reject those which did not agree with predetermined criteria including whether or not the report contradicted the Qu’ran, established sunna or the “verdict of reason,” that is, whether or not an event could have occurred historically (Brown 2008, 152).  In his  review of  Mohammad Kamali’s work A Textbook of Hadith Studies: Authenticity, Compilation, Classification and Criticism of Hadith (2005), Gavin Picken (2006) comments that although the noted scholar feels that the study and review of hadith has indeed been completed over the centuries and is now redundant, there are “neo-traditionalists” who would revive this practice inasmuch as they feel that pure knowledge can only be achieved in this “classical way” (Picken 2006, 132). This idea is similar to that of  many evangelical Christians, who insist that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only way to achieve a true understanding of God’s intent.

It appears that “Islamic Traditions” is a fluid term with a number of connotations; it evolves and mutates depending upon the person or group using it and cannot be firmly attributed to any one specific item, agenda or story. Those movements that wish to return to what they deem to be ‘pure” Islam are constricted by the indeterminate source of the hadith they use as foundational principles. If however they rely upon the determination of their Imam, they are taking a leap of faith that he indeed is an infallible source. Either way, there does not appear to be any firmly rooted absolutism in the minds of the scholars; the community itself, however, not having the background of the  ulama, has to rely upon them for interpretation and verification of authenticity. That also can be seen as a leap of faith.

 

"An Introduction to the Science of Hadith." Islamic Awareness. October 2010. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/asb7.html (accessed October 21, 2010).

Berkey, Jonathan. The Formation of Islam. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Brown, Jonathan. "How We Know early Hadith Critics Did Matn Criticism and Why It's So Hard to Find." Islamic Law and Society 15, 2008: 143-184.

Lewis, Bernard. The Crisis of Islam. New York: Random House, 2004.

Picken, Gavin. Review of “A Textbook of Hadith Studies by Mohammad Kamali." Journal of Qu'ranic Studies, Vol. 8 No 6, 2006: 131-38.

Webster's New World College Dictionary. Cleveland: Wiley Publishing Inc., 2002.