Abstract
Western scholarship on the methods developed by Muslim critics for evalu-
ating the authenticity of hadith reports have focused predominantly on isnād
criticism as opposed to matn criticism.1 Through the mediating influence of
Muslim modernists, the question of matn criticism in classical hadith schol-
arship and its sufficiency or lack thereof became a hotly debated topic in
Muslim scholarship over the course of the twentieth century, and served as
an important proxy for the broader question of the extent to which the Islamic
tradition may or may not need far-reaching internal reform. Advocates of
sweeping reform have pointed to the lack of matn criticism as an instance
of the fideism and irrationality of the traditional culama', while defenders of
tradition have sought to prove that hadith critics did in fact apply matn criti-
cism in their evaluation of hadith reports.2 Efforts to substantiate the pedi-
gree of matn criticism have often focused on the criteria for matn criticism
('alamat wadc al-hadīth) found in post-formative manuals on culum al-hadīth
and on the different chapters related to matn in these manuals.3 Other works
have focused on the applications of matn criticism through a smattering of
examples drawn from the generation of the Companions themselves4 and on
forged hadith literature, especially the works of Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1201)
and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzīyah (d. 751/1350).5
ating the authenticity of hadith reports have focused predominantly on isnād
criticism as opposed to matn criticism.1 Through the mediating influence of
Muslim modernists, the question of matn criticism in classical hadith schol-
arship and its sufficiency or lack thereof became a hotly debated topic in
Muslim scholarship over the course of the twentieth century, and served as
an important proxy for the broader question of the extent to which the Islamic
tradition may or may not need far-reaching internal reform. Advocates of
sweeping reform have pointed to the lack of matn criticism as an instance
of the fideism and irrationality of the traditional culama', while defenders of
tradition have sought to prove that hadith critics did in fact apply matn criti-
cism in their evaluation of hadith reports.2 Efforts to substantiate the pedi-
gree of matn criticism have often focused on the criteria for matn criticism
('alamat wadc al-hadīth) found in post-formative manuals on culum al-hadīth
and on the different chapters related to matn in these manuals.3 Other works
have focused on the applications of matn criticism through a smattering of
examples drawn from the generation of the Companions themselves4 and on
forged hadith literature, especially the works of Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1201)
and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzīyah (d. 751/1350).5
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Modern Hadith Studies |
Subtitle of host publication | Continuing Debates and New Approaches |
Publisher | Edinburgh University Press |
Pages | 129-150 |
Number of pages | 22 |
ISBN (Electronic) | 9781474441810 |
ISBN (Print) | 9781474441797 |
Publication status | Published - 31 Jul 2020 |
Externally published | Yes |