Between Hadith and Philosophy
By this link:
They said: Clarify for us the real difference between ḥadīth and philosophy.
I replied: Success from your Lord has drawn close to you if you are indeed concerned with this question. It is a dangerous but worthy pursuit. Its neglect has led many into gross absurdity, leaving them in confusion and exposing them to serious falsehood and error. They treat ḥadīth as philosophy, and place philosophy in the position of ḥadīth, weighing each by the standards of the other. Consequently, they can no longer distinguish authentic reports from philosophical speculation. How can the truth become clear, with firm foundations and sound principles, when the scales are confused, the standards muddled, and the proper criteria forgotten?
They said: We are confused about this matter and are, in our enthusiasm, searching without clear direction. Please explain to us the reality of ḥadīth and philosophy, guiding us to certainty and making the truth clear.
The nature of hadith and philosophy
I replied: Ḥadīth is essentially a report, a person’s account of what he personally saw with his own eyes or heard with his own ears. Reports convey realities, and those realities are perceived through the senses.
Philosophy, on the other hand, is reached through analogical reasoning or deductive thought. The philosopher does not inform others of what he has personally seen or heard. Rather, he presents what he has “seen” through reasoning and intellectual reflection.
They said: Explain to us the difference between verifying the truthfulness of a report and establishing the correctness of a philosophical view.
Reporting and reasoning
I replied: The soundness of a report is established by confirming two qualities in the person conveying it:
- That he is truthful and trustworthy regarding what he has seen or heard.
- That he is accurate and precise in transmitting it.
A sound report is therefore the faithful transmission of reality, free from falsehood, error, and personal whim.
The correctness of a philosophical position, however, is established by determining whether it follows logically from sound premises arranged in a valid sequence of reasoning. What the philosopher presents is not reality itself, but his understanding of that reality and the conclusions he has drawn from it.
They asked: Give us examples that will remove all confusion.
I replied: When someone says, “Allah says in the Qur’an, He, Allah, is One,2 or Is not Allah the best of judges?3” he is simply reporting what he has read from the Book of Allah. All that is required of him is truthfulness in his report.
When another says, “Allah is necessarily existent,” or “Existence is one and cannot be divided into necessary and possible,” or “The exclusive right to rule is the most particular characteristic of divinity,”4 these are philosophical statements. Their validity depends upon logical reasoning and intellectual proof.
Likewise, when someone says that the Prophet ﷺ migrated from Makkah to Madinah, this is a report. But if another says that he migrated in order to establish a state, this is a philosophical interpretation, and the evidence required for it is entirely different from the evidence required for the historical report.
Similarly, when someone narrates the saying of the Prophet ﷺ:
“By the One besides Whom there is no god, one of you performs the deeds of the people of Paradise until there remains only an arm’s length between him and it, then what has been written overtakes him, so he performs the deeds of the people of Hellfire and enters it. Likewise, one of you performs the deeds of the people of Hellfire until there remains only an arm’s length between him and it, then what has been written overtakes him, so he performs the deeds of the people of Paradise and enters it.”5
This is a report. However, if someone claims that human beings are entirely compelled and possess no will or choice of their own, that is philosophy.
The danger of confusing hadith and philosophy
They asked: What is the absurdity to which you referred?
I replied: It is the absurdity committed by many scholastic theologians, numerous Sufis and jurists, most rationalist followers of the Orientalists,6 and those who sit at their stained and corrupted tables.
They reject authentic ḥadīth because they consider them illogical, despite those narrations fulfilling the stringent criteria established by the scholars of ḥadīth. Some reject narrations concerning the Divine Attributes and matters of the unseen because they conflict with principles they themselves have invented. Others reject reports that contradict their own deductions, theories, or intellectual systems. Still others abandon ḥadīth because they conflict with their sectarian doctrines, personal desires, invented forms of monasticism, or ideas borrowed from outside the Muslim community.
At the same time, they authenticate certain reports merely because they approve of their meanings, even when their chains are weak or fabricated.
Among the worst examples of this philosophical approach is the statement:
“This ḥadīth is weak in chain but sound in meaning.”7
This is to weigh reports by the scales of philosophy. It is a foolish and dangerous statement. No one has the right to attribute words to the Prophet ﷺ except through a sound chain accepted by the recognised masters of the science of ḥadīth.
A statement may indeed contain profound wisdom, but that does not make it a saying of the Prophet ﷺ. Many wise sayings have been transmitted from philosophers, sages, and even previous Prophets and Messengers, yet our Prophet ﷺ never uttered them. We do not attribute such statements to him merely because they contain truth.
It has been narrated abundantly from him that he said:
“Whoever deliberately attributes to me what I did not say, let him take his seat in the Fire.”8
And Allah says in His Book:
“And who is more unjust than the one who invents a lie against Allah?”9
Whoever lies about the Messenger ﷺ has indeed lied against Allah.
Textual criticism and the hadith scholars
They asked: What do you say about textual criticism?
I replied: It is a true expression by which falsehood is often intended.
Orientalist scholars popularised this concept, and many misguided or naïve Muslims accepted it knowingly or unknowingly. They philosophised ḥadīth and used textual criticism as a means of rejecting whatever conflicted with their personal inclinations or unhealthy intellectual tastes.
Moreover, they disagree among themselves. One thinker rejects one collection of narrations, while another rejects an entirely different collection, each following his own assumptions and methodology. Thus they diminish knowledge and guidance while misleading both themselves and others.
They asked: Did not historians and scholars of reports reject certain narrations because they were impossible or highly improbable?
I replied: Certainly.
They asked: Then why did the scholars of ḥadīth not adopt this principle?
I replied: They knew it thoroughly and practised it with such remarkable precision that it inspired extraordinary confidence in both their principles and their discipline.
They rejected reports because of contradictions or solitary irregularities, yet they remained objective and avoided philosophical speculation.
Very few narrations possess sound chains while simultaneously containing strange or contradictory meanings. Whenever such cases occur, they are generally due to mistakes or misunderstandings by individual transmitters. Who among human beings is completely free of error? Such mistakes are exceedingly rare, and in many cases satisfactory explanations have been offered by the scholars.
They said: Explain further the methodology of textual criticism among the scholars of ḥadīth.
I replied: If Allah, the Exalted, wills, I shall explain that in another article. For now, absorb what I have presented with careful reflection, and do not rush ahead if you are truly among those who sincerely seek the truth and follow its path.
Notes
1 These correspond to the two principal conditions required for accepting a ḥadīth narrator according to the principles of ḥadīth studies: moral integrity (ʿadālah) and precision (ḍabṭ). In this context, they refer to the narrator’s truthfulness and reliability, together with accurate preservation and transmission of what he reports.
2 Qur’an 112:1.
3 Qur’an 95:8.
4 Ulūhiyyah, or “Godhood,” refers to Allah’s exclusive right to be worshipped.
5 A well-known ḥadīth narrated by al-Bukhārī and Muslim.
6 “Orientalist” refers to Western scholars who studied the Muslim and Arab world, often through a Eurocentric perspective.
7 A common expression found among some contemporary Muslim writers and teachers.
8 This is regarded by the scholars of ḥadīth as one of the most widely transmitted and rigorously authenticated narrations.
9 This verse appears in numerous places in the Qur’an, including 6:21, 6:93, 6:144, 7:37, 10:17, 11:18, 18:15, 29:68, and 61:7.
10 Ṣaḥīḥ is the technical term used by the scholars of ḥadīth to describe an authentic narration.
