Non- Muslim Scholarship and Hadith: Weighing up the Pros and Cons of the Main Orientalist Critiques of Hadith (original) (raw)

In Pursuit of a Common Paradigm: Islamic and Western Hadith Studies

Hikma: Journal of Islamic Theology and Islamic Education, VI/10 (April 2015)

This article aims to determine the reasons for differences in approaches of Muslim and Western ḥadīṯ scholars to ḥadīṯ literature. Since it is recognised that Orientalists do not consititute a coherent group in this respect, they are classified into three groups embracing either skeptical , revisionist or middle-ground positions. A further question to be explored is what enables to identify an Orientalist and Islamic paradigm despite the existence of various groups in both scholarly traditons. For this purpose, the article attempts to determine the premises upon which Muslim and Western scholars base their studies.

Orientalist's Reaction on The Ḥadīth Literature: A Brief Study of the Contribution of Ignaz Goldziher

In the early twentieth century, Ḥadīth had been attacked by the orientalist's campaign of abuses and doubt in their attempt to take the Moslems away from their most important source of the Islamic doctrine. However, Allah brought to this nation men who preserved Ḥadīth from these abuses and biased fabrications. They showed the right and the wrong and distinguished the right Ḥadīth from the false one. Those men defended the pure Islamic Sunnah and refuted the Orientalists allegations with proofs and evidences. The Orietntalists believe the Ḥadīth was put and invented by the men of Islamic Jurisprudence and, unfortunately, the results of their studies are considered nowadays as reliable in the European and American universities in addition to the Middle East departments in the West. Recording Ḥadīth was made doubtful by the orientalists. They mainteined that most of the Prophet's Ḥadīth were not actually his, rather some others reported his ideas and thoughts. This paper is an attempt to highlight the views on Ḥadīth Literature by the Orientalist scholar Ignaz Goldziher. He has been familiar with the non-Muslim scholarship of Ḥadīth research. Yet, instead of following Orientalist scholars' approaches and premises on the early Ḥadīth literature, he severely criticized them and decided to follow the mainstream of Muslim scholars' belief in the historicity of Ḥadīth transmission and collection. Introduction:

Rational Foundations of Criticism on Ḥadīth & Sources: Comparative Study on Research Methodology of Moḥadithīns & Orientalists

Al-Azhār Research Journal , 2020

With the narration and compilation of the hadīth, Moḥadithīns made special efforts against the liars and in identification of unauthentic aḥādīth. As a result, such principles were developed that any ancient and modern nation of the world is unable to have its precedent. In particular, the narrations that have been examined on the basis of chain criticism (science of excavation) are their own example. Moḥadithīns determined that any ḥadīth narrated by the holy Prophet (pbuh) would be examined on some strict terms. Then, to achieve this target, numerous sciences of ḥadīth have been developed. In the beginning, some orientalists also praised these principles and sciences of the ḥadīth. Later on, most commentators came to the conclusion that the number of correct aḥadīth was far less than that mentioned by Muslim critics in the authentic collections of aḥādīth. Mostly orientalists criticized the principles of the aḥādīth, calling them inaccurate and incomplete rationally and logically. They claimed that the authenticity of a ḥadīth checked on the basis of these principles, is doubtful and they reviewed the ḥadīth on some self-made principles. This article is a comparative study on research methodology of Moḥadithīns and orientalists regarding foundations of criticism on ḥadīth. Key word: Orientalists, Moḥadithīns, Rationality, So

Ḥadīth, the Shī'a Cultural Memory: An Investigation of the Orientalists' Opinions on the Status of Ḥadīth and the Later Shī'a Collections of Ḥadīth with an Emphasis on Rainer Brunner's Views

Journal of Contemporary Islamic Studies (JCIS), 2018

One of the specialized Ḥadīth domains in the recent orientalist studies is the investigation of the reasons and factors of the appearance and advent of the Shī'a Ḥadīths and the reason behind the Shī'a followers and scholars in the learning and recording of the narrations and formation of "The Shī'a cultural memory" in the later years and so, the advent of the "later narration collections". The first question of the study at hand regards the points and issues considered by them in studying and analyzing this cultural memory as well as the goals they pursued. In this regard, it is argued that this consideration has not been away from harms and incorrect conclusions, and so, in some cases, it has challenged the origin and authenticity of Ḥadīth among the Shī'a. Moreover, from among the main Ḥadīth cultural memories of the Shī'a, the orientalist studies have mostly paid attention to Biḥār al-anwār. The extensive consideration of this work along with a criticism of it is the other question of this article. The article at hand presents and describes the main suggested orientalists' opinions regarding the two foregoing questions through an emphasis on Rainer Brunner's "The role of Ḥadīth as cultural memory in Shi'i history" so as to identify and analyze the discrepancies and commonalities of their thoughts.