The Right Pathway to Studying Ḥadīth
The right pathway to studying Prophetic ḥadīth is the subject of much debate, especially in light of the sheer volume and complexity of the ḥadīth corpus. Dr. Akram points out that there was a historical duality that occurred around the 5th Ḥijrī century, with ḥadīth being transformed from being treated as historical reports that required scrutiny to sacred texts requiring due reverence. This led to a laxity in the community which undermined sound knowledge, and continues to do so today.
They asked: Why is it that you vociferously denounce the manner of teaching the noble Prophetic ḥadīth in most of the religious seminaries today?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do criticize this approach quite heavily for its mistakes in turning away from the expected aim.
They asked: And what is that expected aim?
Historical Pathways to Ḥadīth Study
The Companions of the Prophet received the Noble Qurʾān from him as well as his Sunnah (religious practice) directly without intermediary. They supported these two sources, understood them deeply, and practiced them. When the next generation of Successors came, they took the Qurʾān just as the Companions had done so, preserving it and establishing it. Yet they explicitly differed from the Companions in their treatment of the Sunnah, for the simple reason that the Sunnah had now become reduced to transmissions of reports and circulation of chronicles, prior to it becoming an implemented practice. So they strove first to verify the truthfulness, uprightness, accuracy and precision of the transmitters of ḥadīth; and only after that, to understand and practice these ḥadīth. Successive generations followed this practice of theirs up until the fourth century. As the Prophetic era was becoming more distant and the levels of intermediaries were increasing even further, adding to the sheer number of transmitters, the task of scrutiny and investigation became more dire. So the expected aim in teaching ḥadīth is two basic matters: determining the veracity of reports and then, understanding and practicing them.
I also said:
In latter generations people became lax and negligent in the first task, and even for the first time began to strip the texts of ḥadīth from their isnād chains. In doing that, they removed the contents from the very sources upon which they rested and which determined their veracity. So their treatment of the Qurʾān and Sunnah became the same as that of the era of the Companions, with the difference being that the Companions had combined two similar matters, while these latter generations were combining two conflicting matters. The earlier ones were correct while the latter were mistaken.
They asked: Can you clarify that further?
Ḥadīth as Sacred Texts
The fifth century saw the rise of the new practice of treating the ḥadīth reports like sacred texts rather than historical reports, especially when Imām Muḥy al-Sunnah Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn b. Masʿūd b. Muḥammad al-Farrāʾ al-Baghawī (433—516 AH) authored his book al-Maṣābīḥ stripped from isnād. Initially those who were lazy accepted that, and then the scholars followed suit, until stripped books began to multiply and the damage became grave. Ḥadīth now began to be taught as texts that were similar to the Qurʾānic text. Ḥadīth students and their teachers focused only on the ḥadīth contents and their meanings, while deeming their isnāds cumbersome and forgetting their critical role. They were less concerned with verifying authenticity, and did not distinguish between ḥadīth texts and the Noble Qurʾān, whose verses were clear and whose text was free of the need for verification.
They said: This was actually a way of making things easier for the beginners, who would then further their studies by examining the Sunan works of Abū ʿĪsā, Abū Dāwūd and others along with their chains, and then move on to the two Ṣaḥīḥ collections and the Muwaṭṭaʾ.
This pathway of study was not the correct one for them, because they had studied those ḥadīth without verifying their weakness or authenticity, until these reports had