Talk:Hadith sciences

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahid1099.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Section 1

A hadith with numerous transmitters at every level of the isnad (mutawatir) was deemed to be beyond doubt of forgery, while one with three or more at each level (mashhur), one with just one at a particular level (gharib), or one with one transmitter at each level (fard) was considered binding but with less weight. On these three bases, a particular hadith would be classified as sahih (sound or authentic), hasan (good), da`if (weak), or saqim (spurious). [1]

--Striver 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Section 2

I found this interesting:

It is essential to remove one of the serious misgivings under which so many Orientalists and Westernized Muslim scholars are laboring. When they are told that Imam Muslim selected 4,000 hadiths out of a total collection of 300,000, they think that since quite a large number of hadiths were unreliable, they were therefore rejected. They then jump to the conclusion that the whole stock of Hadith is spurious and should be rejected outright. This betrays utter ignorance of the critics, even about the elementary knowledge of hadith. Matn (text) is not the basis on which the number of hadiths is calculated. Hadiths are counted on the chain of transmission. Thus when we say that Imam Muslim collected 300,000 hadiths and included only 4,000 in his compilation, it does not imply that he rejected the rest of the whole lot of the Prophet’s sayings as being unreliable. What this means is that the words and deeds of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were transmitted to Imam Muslim through so many chains of transmission, out of which he selected 4,000 chains as most authentic and narrated the text on their authority. A text (matn) that is transmitted through one hundred isnads is in Hadith literature treated as one hundred traditions. For example, the text of the first hadith in Al-Bukhari (The Actions Are Based on Intention) is counted as a selection of one out of 700 hadiths since it has been transmitted through such a large number of isnads. [2]

--Striver 12:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Striver: Both Bukhari and Muslim explicitly stated that they did not intend to include all authentic hadith in their collection. Althought the proper place for this an in depth discussion of this would perhaps be on the respective page for the book of each scholar, I think it suffices to cite a few evidences to support my claim. First, I must apologize for the lack of references, it is late and I am writing from my tired memory. Bukhari included numerous hadith in his other works, often citing them as validation for a topic he was discussing, which would of course necessitate the authenticity of that hadith. Tirmithi, a student of Bukhari, mentions questions he addressed to his teacher about particular hadith throughout his Sunan, declaring some not found in his sahih to be sahih. Of course this requires a reference on my part. Again, there is a better place for this discussion, including referencing from say, Tadrib al-Rawi, where Suyuti discusses this issue.

Also, one of the two references provided on this page is simply to web page as USC. Perhaps this is sufficient in terms of ethics, but the relevant info on the site is taken, it appears exclusively from Suhaib Hasan's book. Would it not have been better to have cited this book itself as a reference directly?

The depth of the info provided at this page and those related to itseem much too sparse to justify having a page for every individual hadith term. Unless those pages are expanded, which seems unnecessary as more central pages are incomplete at best, why not combine at least the pages for individual terms on this page? Any thoughts? Does anybody read this stuff? Hello? Supertouch 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)SupertouchSupertouch 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Science of hadith"

What is the origin of the term "Science of Hadith"? It sounds very Western. The textual analysis that Muslim scholars apply is not a "science" as is widely understood in the Western sense (science involves looking at the world). For the Christian Bible the term uses is "exegesis" which is more accurate here. Or maybe something clarifying that "Science of Hadith" is a term of art used by Islamic scholars. 71.198.211.141 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the term 'science of hadith' is an attempt to translate into English the term ilm al-hadith.' Another translation could be 'knowledge of hadith.' The plural is often used: uloom al-hadith' which is actually the title of early books on the subject, such as that of al-Hakim al-Naysaburi. Perhaps an appropriate translation of this is 'disciplines of hadith studies' or just 'hadith studies.' It would seem that what is intended by 'science of hadith' is simply the applied study of hadith. Exegesis would not be accurate as this is only one aspect of many disciplines or categories of hadith studies of which Ibn al-Salah counted 65 in his book on the subject. Supertouch (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to use the proper notation to put this in a format that conforms with the standards used here but I would like it noted that I agree with the points raised above. How on earth does this have anything to do with science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.37.185 (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

400,000 hadith?

Is this number really correct? This would mean dozens of hadith per every single day of the Prophet's life. -- 92.229.229.83 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not that number of hadith. As above, it's the number of recorded traditions, with many for each hadith. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"science"

On talk:hadith, someone asked back in 2007 in what way this is a "science". It is, of course, not a science, just a calque from the Arabic, and since for the past 3 years no-one has bothered to justify the terminology, I've moved the article. "Evaluation of the hadith" is perhaps not the best title; I'm open to suggestions. "Analysis" comes to mind (looking at the hadith article). — kwami (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While you speak with such authority about a subject you clearly have no formal education in, it shocks me that you would claim that no one has responded to the above post when my response is right there — you could have at least used your admin "powers" to remove the obvious. As you are responding to technical questions would you mind providing a reference stating that there are even 400,000 spurious hadith? I am undoing your move as it based upon nothing but your personal opinion. Religious scholars, Muslim and otherwise, refer to 'ilm al-hadith as the Science of Hadith, for just one convenient example see: Introduction to the Science of Hadith#Translations. Whoops, are you going to change the name of that article too as it is clearly at odds with you personal philosophy? Supertouch (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a title. We could have a book called "The Science of Astrology", but that doesn't make astrology a science. This is not a science either. That is not my philosophy, but the meaning of the word "science". Do you have any indications that the preferred phrasing for this in English is "science"?

As for the "obvious" response, I must be going blind, because I only see a blank space. Could you link to the response? — kwami (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

#Origin of the term "Science of hadith. Supertouch (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a science , if your western history itself is considered such. And if you want to find constants in Islam, then they will be the prohibitions of Allah, so we also have non-western Law. 2A02:8440:A201:B45E:50CB:7843:DDF7:2A6F (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Science of hadith → Hadith studies

As several people have noted, this is not a science, and as Supertouch noted above, the phrase is due to translation from the Arabic. Although "science of hadith" is common on Google Books, most of the hits are Muslim and esp. Arab-Muslim texts, which of course are likely to be influenced by Arabic; "analysis of hadith" turns up a more balanced coverage of both Muslim and general sources. I doubt that English usage has been established, which IMO would be required to override the factual inaccuracy of the current title. For example, Asma Afsaruddin (2002) Excellence and precedence: medieval Islamic discourse on legitimate leadership mentions the ‘ilm al-hadith multiple times but never translates it as "science"; he instead refers to it as analysis. Other titles may be better than "analysis", such as "evaluation" or "studies"; "hadith studies" for example is as common as "science of hadith" at Google Books. — kwami (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support to either title as nominator. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to Hadith studies. This has been on my list of things to address for a while, but it seems to have slipped my mind. "Hadith studies" is a term in very common use, and perfectly consonant with other English-language terms like "Bible studies" "Torah studies", and so forth. "Science of Hadith" appears less common to me, though it is in use, but it has a potential POV problem (implying that this is a "science" rather than a body of knowledge and study techniques). I don't think the present title, or any title, is firmly established in English in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the standard for page names should not be mere opinion but convention. As I have produced the only precedent for a particular name, the Science of Hadith, than the other names suggested above should be disregarded. Unfortunately, it seems rather obvious that those who object to this name do so based upon the understanding that science and religion are polar opposites and therefore to find a religious topic using the science science would be difficult to bear. Here are some examples of Western, non-Muslim translators using the term "Science of hadith" (I did the underlining):

1. Robson, James: An Introduction to the Science of Tradition, being Al-Madkhal ila ma'rifat al-Iklil by Al Hakim Abu 'Abdallah Muhammad b. Abdallah al Naisaburi , London, 1953. (from: [3] under Robson in Secondary)
2. An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, published by Garnet Publishing Limited Reading, 2006, 356 pgs., ISBN 185964158X.
3. Salisbury, Edward E., "Contributions from original sources to our knowledge of the science of Muslim tradition," Journal of the American Oriental Society, Volume 7, 1862,pp. 60-142. (from: [4] under Secondary as well)

The Science of hadith being a translation of `ilm al-hadith is sufficient to "allow" this page to be named as it is because this is the translation of the term. We do not need Kwami's approval to translate a word based upon its literal meaning. And, if it was in fact Muslims who initiated this term why should is that the basis of your argument against this name? It is truly a shame an administrator on Wikipedia has lost touch with the objectivity necessary to participate in an encyclopedia. Have you attempted to rename the article Christian Science yet? Supertouch (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if someone disagrees with you, they must be up to no good. It's a CIA plot, actually.

"Christian Science" is a proper noun. I would hope that the CS article make it clear that it isn't a science. (I haven't read it.) Similarly, I have no quibble with the book Introduction to the Science of Hadith. Since that's how it was translated into English, that's the title we use. But this is different: It is not an exclusive or established English term, there is no single convention, so we're free to apply other criteria, such as whether the title misrepresents the contents.

If you think it's only "opinion" that this is not a science, then you demonstrate that you have little understanding of what science is. Historical reconstruction is not a science, even if people sometimes use the phrase "the science of history", and the analysis of hadith is a historical discipline. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And, likewise, when someone disagrees with you, insult his intelligence. In spite of your claim that I have little understanding of what the word science means, I actually understand that a word can convey more than one meaning. According to the Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1992 edition), the word science can also mean: 4. a systemized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge.

Each of these three is clearly applicable to the subject of this article. Do you even have a passing knowledge of Arabic? Your selection of the title Evaluation of the hadith shows both an ignorance of Arabic and of the subject of this article — evaluation of the hadith is referred to as takhrij which is a separate discipline which represents only an aspect of this "science". Supertouch (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good argument against "evaluation". (My knowledge of Arabic is too passing to differentiate religious terminology, but then we deal with WP:English on English WP.)

If you can't take criticism, then don't dish out the insults.

The prototypical meaning of "science" in 21st-century English is a discipline which follows the scientific method. This clearly does not. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We "deal with" English in terms of syntax and so on, but when an English word stands in for another of foreign origin the standard becomes the meaning of that word in its original language. So your prototypical understanding of the English language supersedes a reputable dictionary and the translation of three published translators well versed in both Arabic and Islamic studies? Lastly, when did I insult you? Supertouch (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Kwamikagami is right. We are an English-language encyclopedia that must primarily deal with what is appropriate usage in English. Issues of what is correct in another language are only meaningful insofar as they do not contradict with clarity in the English-language encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point, which is precisely why I quoted an established dictionary as opposed to my own opinion — unless of course you consider Kwami to be more of an authority on the English language than a dictionary. Supertouch (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

By that definition, preparing for Trivial Pursuit is "science", as is studying your Boy Scout manual. Dictionaries have never been a good source for defending particular phrasings, unless the phrase itself appears in the dictionary. I just searched the OED: "science of hadith" does not appear in any of the entries, definitions, or quotations. (Nor do the other proposals.) — kwami (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to Hadith studies. Some may translate the original to "science of hadith", but in the current English-speaking world, the term "science" has a specific meaning that is not applicable to this topic. People studying something they say is a science does not make it a science. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality

I believed Wikpedia to be neutral, & hoped so, & still hope so

If this is the case then maybe some of these words need editing? They seem not in the least neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.7.85 (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

title

علم الحديث‎ ʻilm al-ḥadīth
seems closer to "science of hadith" than "hadith studies"

What does Google say?

• "hadith studies": "About 810,000 results"
• "science of hadith": "About 1,980,000 results" --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: I tend to agree, "Science of hadith" seems to be the closest possible translation of "علم الحديث". Shall we use WP:RFC?

--CounterTime (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be willing. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hadith studies

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hadith studies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EMHME-80":

• From Criticism of Hadith: Lewis, Bernard (2011). The End of Modern History in the Middle East. Hoover Institution Press. pp. 79–80. Retrieved 28 March 2018.
• From Hadith: Lewis, Bernard (2011). The End of Modern History in the Middle East. Hoover Institution Press. pp. 79–80. ISBN 9780817912963. Retrieved 28 March 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Muhaddithats

Adding information about prominent muhaddithats using the following sources:

al-Muhaddithat:the Women Scholars in Islam by Mohammad Akram Nadwi

Women and the Transmission of Religious Knowledge in Islam by Asma Sayeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahid1099 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Madhab

I wonder if it also differs within different madhabs (islamic law schools). Or do they all agree whether a hadith is authentic, good or weak. Lindeqv (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Quotation marks needed for quotation from Sheikh Ahmad Kutty

The quotation by Sheikh Ahmad Kutty has an embedded quotation. Does the embedded quotation continue till the end of the paragraph? Also, the entire paragraph needs a citation source. If somebody knows or finds the citation for the paragraph, hopefully they will find out where the embedded quotation ends. Pete unseth (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"This article is about the religious science of the study and evaluation of the Islamic hadith"

This is part of the banner of the page. Why? There is no separate Wikipedia page for the academic study of hadith. What would it be called, if the page "Hadith studies" is at present reserved for the religious study of hadith? This should be removed and the page should be transformed to be about hadith studies in general. Pogenplain (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Western views of hadith in the lead

Hemiauchenia you recently added " Many Western scholars consider that few or no hadith can be confidently considered to be the authentic words of Muhammad." Which exact page or passage is that from? That seems to imply some Western scholars believing that all or almost all of the hadith are fabricated. The source on page 51 says "Melchert agrees that Motzki has shown beyond dispute that all isnāds "are not necessarily nonsense"". Admittely I haven't read the entire chapter so I may have missed the part you are referencing.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm using the entire chapter and abstract as a ref, though relevant quotes include: After Goldziher, for many scholars concerned with hadith, the likelihood that any given tradition can be confidently attributed to the Prophet approaches zero. Extraordinary efforts have been exerted, for example, to make the case that a particular tradition might plausibly be traced to within 50 or 60 years of the events it recounts, but establishing a given hadith report as authentically Prophetic is seldom in view. and ...Goldziher's broad premise won the day: the vast bulk of the hadith literature will be of little help as a source for seventh‐century Arabia or the career of the Prophet, rather it will provide evidence about the beliefs of the Muslim community and the development of Islamic law and piety. Even if an Isnad chain is authentic and dates to within a few decades of the prophets life (as some hadiths attributed ultimately to al‐Zuhrī might be), that doesn't necessarily mean that they are true. As the article notes "authentic" in this context doesn't mean "reliably attributed to Muhammad": Amidst the sometimes heated debates, it is easy to miss that we have left behind the question of authenticity in its usual sense, that is, the question of whether hadith reports are authentic to Muhammad or his companions. When Schoeler claims that sound method can recover “authentic” traditions he must redefine authenticity: traditions are authentic “which were demonstrably collected and disseminated in a systematic process of teaching, by historical individuals from approximately the last third of the first century A.H.” Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Move to 'Hadith sciences' and using 'Hadith studies' for the academic discipline

Hello all. I want to create a page for the academic study of hadith, analogous to Quranic studies, biblical studies and other pages. However Hadith studies is already occupied by what is labelled as a page for the traditional study of hadith. Likewise, 'Hadith science', which is a direct traditional way of referring to the traditional approaches to hadith, is a redirect to this page.

The only non trivial coverage academic hadith studies has on Wikipedia is in Criticism of hadith, but this discilpline is more than just a critique of hadith.

I propose we move the content on this page to Hadith sciences and use this namespace for the academic study of hadith (a page I can immediately create if this is agreed). I already suggested idea to @Louis P. Boog and he said he has no objection. Pogenplain (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

page was moved 23 July 2024. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding the controversy that lead to this move in 2010, I have added a sentence to the lead:

("Science" is used in the sense of a field of study, rather than following the principles of observation and experiment, developing falsifiable hypotheses, etc.)

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)