The Impact of Different Schools of Thought on the Principles of Hadith: Criteria for Acceptance and Rejection of Narrations

Abstract

This paper brings about the critical examination of how different schools of thought in Islam affect the principles of Hadith. The Usul al-Hadith (Principles of Hadith) are the basic principles, according to which the authenticity, acceptance and rejection of the narrations are ruled. In the history of Islam, various schools of thought, such as Ahl al-Hadith, Hanafis, Shi a Imamiya, Ash aris and Maturidis have produced diverse methods of appraising Hadith, on the basis of theological, jurisprudential, and sometimes, even political and historical grounds. The study starts with a definition of the basic terms of Usul al-Hadith, such as the isnad (chain of transmission), matn (text) and the reporters themselves. It also details the systems of classifying the Hadith into distinct categories like sahih (authentic), hasan (reliable), da if (weak) and mawdu (fabricated). The paper then examines the specific methodological approaches that various schools assume. As an illustration, the Ahl al-Hadith stress the soundness and the continuity of the Isnad and only accept the most robust narrations, limiting the application of weak Hadiths to certain circumstances. Conversely, the Hanafi school places great emphasis on analogy (qiyas) and ijtihad, and sometimes does accept weak narrations provided they coincide with wider principles of jurisprudence. Narrations that are narrated by the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt are given the utmost importance by the Shi a Imamiya school, and the reliability and sectarian affiliation of reporters is believed to be a key part of their approach. They tend to criticize some of the companions and only listen to narrations by those who are loyal to the Ahl al-Bayt. Ash'ari and Maturidi schools try to find the middle way between reason and transmission, explaining Hadiths with references to rational theology but without the total rejection of transmitted reports.The paper examines the historical, political and epistemological causes of these differences. It points out that different schools of thought judged the same Hadith in different ways in accordance to their principles, e.g. the Hadith: Umaritu an uqatila al-naas... ((I have been ordered to war against the people…)) that has been taken in different senses on the spectrum. Additional practices such as raf - al -yadayn (raising hands during prayer) and amin bil jahr (saying amin loudly) show how the interpretive divergence affected the juristic ruling. In the end, the work comes to the conclusion that though Hadith methodology is greatly diverse, this pluralism is to be considered as intellectual abundance and not as sectarianism. The study insists that it is time to take recourse to the modern tools: digital databases, historical-critical methods etc. to re-assess the study of Hadith in the contemporary challenges. It also suggests cross-sect academic dialogue and common academic platforms to work out common standards in evaluating Hadith. Finally, it emphasizes the need to revise curricula in order to teach new generations about a balanced and informed perception of Hadith sciences.

Keywords: Usul al-Hadith, Schools of Thought, Acceptance and Rejection of Hadith

Ahl al-Hadith, Jurisprudential Differences. Reason and Revelation, Shi'a and Sunni Methodologies