The discourse of the most fundamental in the study of hadith is Problems authenticity and reliability of hadith authentication methodology. Some doubt on the role of Muslim scholars of hadith as a source of authority second only to al-Qur'an, not entirely related to their resistance to the authority of the Sunnah, but rather on their doubts over the accuracy of the methodology used in determining the originality of the hadith. If the methodology used authentication problems, then all the results obtained from these methods are not sterile re-verification of the possibility of possibility, even the results of historical criticism can be a collapse.
This paper does not intend to sue the position of Islamic tradition as a source of authority. Hadith are regarded as the verbalization sunna by most Muslims are too important to ignore in religious life, social and political. Tradition is not only a source of Islamic law that stands alone, but also as an invaluable source of information for understanding God's revelation. He is also the source of the early history of Islam. In sum, there legal traditions, traditions and interpretations of history and tradition as a source of moral. In the anatomy of Islamic law, hadith is one of if not the most important source for consulted.
The question is: is it true Hadith. Really it is a tradition of verbal utterance prophet, the prophet's behavior or perceptions about the prophet of Islam? Is the book of hadith which we inherited from the third century such as Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, is a reflection of the sunna prophet. Is the methodology used by Bukari and mukharrij Muslim and the other to select tradition the prophet is accurate enough so that all the traditions contained therein are considered valid so that the criticism of history do not need anymore? What about the accuracy of the method of criticism of hadith (traditions Ulumul)? Intriguing questions are quite specific and likely to be among this profokatif.Tulisan try to discuss openly the issues above
2. Discourse in the West
When Western scholars entered the domain of research on the sources and origins of Islam, they are faced with the question of whether and to what extent traditions of hadith or history history of the prophet and the first generation of Muslims can be trusted hisroris. Western scholarship on the early phases, they showed high confidence in the literature about the history of tradition and history of the prophet and the generation of early Islam. But since the second half of the nineteenth century, skepticism about the authenticity of the source appears. Even since then the debate on the issue in Western scholarship is dominated by a group of skeptics. Scholars like Ignaz Goldziher contribution, Joseph Schacht, Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook and Norman Calder dramatic effect on the works of Western scholars.
However, not all Western scholars can be classified in a stream or a "sect" skeptical. Scholars such as Joseph Van Ess, Harald Motzki, Miklos Muranyi, MJ Kister, Fueck, Schoeler reacted strongly against a number of premises, conclusions and methodology of the group of skeptics. They can be classified as non-skeptical group. The debate between the two groups is very sharply during the last two decades.
In short, the discourse of tradition in the West always refers to the name of Ignaz Goldziher (Honggaria) and Joseph Schacht (Austria), and for surviving Juynboll GHA (Netherlands), Harald Motzki (Germany) and several other names. Orientalist eyes of the first two names are considered as Ibn al-One (Warriors ulum al-Hadith Muslim) Ibn Hajar or in the Islamic world. While GHA Juynboll and Harald Motzki, is considered (approximately) like Muhammad Shakir, al-Albani and al-Saqqaf Gumari or al-Islam in the world. Both the first name (Goldziher and Schacht) had died, but left the global influence and create skepticism in the West madhhab. Future Goldziher (Mohammedanische Studien, 1890) and Schacht (The Origins 1950), the majority of Western scholars for not saying all, skeptical of Islamic literature, including the hadith. Discourse Islampun early (first century both) is considered untouchable because of the minus resources available to it. In general, madhab skeptics argue that the knowledge and information about the early days of Islam (the first century Hijra) Perceptions of the Muslim community is just the third century. Literature that there is no more than a reflection of our conflict that can not reflect the reality as described by the source itself.
The last few decades have established schools of skepticism in the West is no longer the only the only trend that dominated the discourse of Islamic studies in the West. Non-skeptical schools of that caliber, commanded by a number of Orientalist Motzki, Fuec, Scheoler, Schoeler, etc., helped enliven the discourse of the early days of Islam. Methodology through which they develop, they do the reconstruction of history to see how far the third century literature can provide accurate information about the first century of the Hijra.
Muslim scholars Fuat Sezgin, Turkey's national scholar who wrote a masterpiece Geschichte des arabishen Schrifftums, and Muhammad Azmi has been involved in the discourse of tradition in the west, but the radiation effect was very marginal in the West .. In a study is quite serious, Sezgin and Azmi concluded that the transmission of hadith the prophet in writing started since the days of friends until the time of collection of hadith in the mid-third century Hijra. In other words, literary tradition inherited from the mid-third century are the result of a written narration of the companions, so quality is assured without a doubt historicity. Conclusion Sezgin and Azmi dikukung by Prophet Abbott. The third weakness of this degree according to their critics are using the source or third-century literature to reconstruct the events of the first century. And the method used is a method of reliance or isnad. By the Orientalists, the arguments he advanced is considered circular.
Regardless of the conclusion of the quality tradition of Western scholars who are less sympathetic in the eyes of Muslims, their methodology is very fruitfull learn from the academic perspective. Because he is not only Islam but also to appreciate literature shows weaknesses that can open our eyes. As far as the author, this methodology is less accessible, to say nothing, absolutely untouched by the penstudi tradition in this country. Islampun world failed to follow the development of this methodology. Islamic scholars may be traumatized by the ideas of Goldziher and Joseph Schacht, so they are a priori of the methodology developed in the West. In fact, the discourse of tradition in the West is developing very dynamically. Premise and conclusion Goldziher and Schacht and his supporters who generally deny the historicity of reliance hadith to the Prophet and Companions has undergone significant revision. In addition, methods for determining the quality of a dynamically evolving hadispun.
The author does not favor the Western method (method of dating a particular hadith) the method of hadith criticism (takhrij al-hadith) or vice versa. Both methods have advantages of each to come along to reach a conclusion about the historicity of the reliance of hadith to the Prophet, Companions or Successors. Therefore, the author humbly like to suggest to the high perguan institutions that make the substance of tradition as one of the studies, especially post-graduate program, in order to open up for the future development of academic quality. However, the method of hadith criticism well developed in the Islamic world and the West are the result of a serious intellectual work. Letting go is not accessible in the world of Islam is an academic is very unfortunate omission.
Problems Ulumul traditions
The method used by classical Muslim scholars to rely to a hadith to the Prophet did not have significant challenges of modern Muslim scholars. Indeed there are a number of modern scholars who tried to show resistance to Ulumul Hadith, but they failed to gain the sympathy the majority of Muslim scholars.
Information about the prophet recorded in the books of Hadith like shards of glass that must be reconstructed in order to reflect the accurate news about the prophet. Although these traditions have been selected by the collector (eg al-Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, Nasa'i, etc.). However, the fact that the collectors are living in the third century Hijra (two hundred years after the prophet's death), epistemological questions arise: to what extent the accuracy of this methodology in the selection of the collector of hadith, Hadith? Are they the same methodology to the methodology that we are familiar with the popular ulum al-hadith?
Al-Bukhari, known as the man of tradition, for example, is never explained its methodology in detail. Ulum al-Hadith by the majority of Islamic scholars keep a very accurate epistimilogis questions are not answered empirically. Ulum al-Hadith accepted and considered something taken for granted.
Tendency most of us is to reject or accept a hadith without examining historicity. If a hadith mentioned in Sahih al-Bukahi or Muslim, especially if they mention it, even more so if the pole is mentioned in al-Sitta, al-tis'a, then no doubt the tradition according to the majority of Islamic scholars, valid, so the analysis Historically no longer important to them. Is it true that such an attitude? The presence of a tradition in some books of hadith are not guarantees of historicity, it may be that the hadith is narrated by a massive in certain generation (the second half of the second century onwards up to the mukharrij), but the previous generation (the first half of the second century and earlier until the Prophet) narrated by Munday (single strand).
There are a number of inconsistencies method of hadith criticism. There are quite a gaping gap between theory and fact, between theory Ulumul tradition with state of objective literary tradition. If the theory is applied Ulumul hadith closely, it could be the quality of the hadith literature is significantly decreased. A simple example, the theory Ulumul tradition teaches us that history can not serve as a mudallis hujja if he did not come clean or he does not state clearly the source informantnya, for example by saying 'an or the like, but if history is corroborated by other narrators history thiqa . Let's test this theory in practice in the Hadith literature by taking the example of Abu Zubayr. Abu Zubayr, a Successors to the claim by the majority of critics as mudallis hadith. [1] By referring to the theory mentioned above, all the traditions that diriwayatkannya indirectly (eg by using the words' an and the like) can not be hujja ( strong arguments), unless there is another tradition that sustain her. In the books of hadith, al-Sitta poles, for example, found hundreds of hadith by Abu Zubayr diriwatkan, where he did not explain how his acceptance of his informant whether directly or not. In polar al-Sitta, Abu al-Zubayr narrated 360 hadiths from Jabir b Companions. Abdullah alone, [2] not including the hadith narrated by Abu al-Zubayr from another friend. That number will increase again if the observed history of Abu al-Zubayr in the other books of hadith. Of the 360 tradition, the Muslim record 194, Abu Dawud 83, 52 Tirmidhi, Nasa'i and Ibn Maja 78 141 ahadith. Actually, the path of Abu Zubayr - Jabir al-Sitta in the pole as much as 548, but some of them repeated the hadith traditions. Of the 194 hadith narrated by Abu al-Zubayr found in Sahih Muslim, Abu Zubayr 125 of them use the words' an and the like, only 69 hadith in which he uses the word haddathana and the like. According to the theory Ulumul tradition, a history like this can not be made in hujja. If so, then according to Ulumul traditions, we must reject that there are hundreds of hadiths in the sahih hadith including Buhari and Muslim.
A similar case occurred in the narrators Hasan al-Basri. By the majority of critics of hadith, Hasan al-Basri considered the mudallis. [3] Although there is also praised as a jurist and murua, but he still claimed to have done tadlis. [4] Regardless of what is conveyed by the critics of hadith about this figure, its emergence as a narrator of traditions that are so often in books of hadith making it as a figure that is too important to ignore. In polar al-Sitta only Hasan al-Basri narrated the hadith of not less than 281. 43 hadith found in Sahih Bukari them and Muslim (the most highly appreciated hadith collections). 31 hadith found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim found in 12. [5] Of the 31 hadith found in Sahih al-Bukhari, only eight times Hasan al-Basari said haddathana and the like, which by tradition is considered by critics to hear directly of informantnya. In the 17 hadith, Hasan al-Basri had 'an'ana, which by hadith critics deemed not accept directly. Moreover, the Hadith Hasan al-Basri in Sahih al-Bukhari is mursal. In Sahih Muslim only twice Hasan al-Basri said haddathana of 12 diriwayatkannya traditions. What conclusions can be drawn from these data the data? By applying the theory to the case Ulumul Hadith Hasan al-Basri, the 17 hadith in al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim in eight hadith must be rejected, or at least kehujjahannya be in "suspended" until there is another tradition that thiqa that can strengthen it.
Ulumul tradition also teaches that the transmission (transmission) of a narrator of hadith should thiqa (reliable). How to determine kethiqahan narrators is to refer to books by comparing the biographies of narrators and history with the history of others. The question, as far as the accuracy assessment of the author of a biography of the narrators, while their lifetimes are very far apart? Penulusuran of biography indicates that the assessment is often inaccurate, so the determination of the quality of narrators is based solely on a biography of sometimes less convincing. However, the biography is not important to be consulted. Empirispun research proves that the information in the biography of narrators are very valuable, although it remains to be approached critically. [6]
Furthermore, the method compares the version of history is not always applied Ulumul hadith by the hadith collector. It is unknown if the history of the narrators other than history. This fact shows how important it is to find an alternative methodology in addition to Ulumul tradition in determining the quality tradition, because tradition to lean to this author the true prophet is never uttered by him as his sin to deny the hadith the prophet. So that a study of the historicity and authenticity have always done. Again, for the purpose of the development methodology becomes extremely urgent demands.
Matan isnad and analysis
Is it true that leaning to thousands of hadith of Abu Hurayra, [7] Aisha, Abd Allah b. Umar, Anas b. Malik, Abdullah b. Abbas, Jabir b. Abdullah and other companions narrated by the Sahaba or just leaning to them by later generations of the tradition is really nothing to do with the friend. A very challenging question is raised by a number of Western scholars, in which Islamic scholars as if allergic to answer, and this question we never find in Ulumul tradition. This question should be answered, because it is possible friend is quoted is not responsible for the tradition that was based on him. To answer this question matn cum isnad analysis approach found urgency.
Among the characteristics of cum matn isnad analysis approach is the quality of a narrator is not only based on the cleric's comments on the narrator. Comments about the clergy into the secondary. The quality is determined primarily by the narrators primarily matn or text from these transmitters.
If we examine a tradition, then the first one we did was. Looking for the whole book of hadith traditions that exist. Not only in Sahih Buhari or Muslim, but in addition to the poles al-Sitta (canonical collections), also Muwatta Malik, Musnad al.Tayalisi, Musnad Ibn Rahawayh, Razzaq Abd Musannaf, Sunan al-Darimi, Ibn al-Jad and others ( pre-canonical collections), al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Hibban, al-Tabarani, Ibn Khuzayma and others (post-canonical collections), even if necessary in Shia hadith collections, such as Musnad al-Allama al-mujlisi, al-Shamiyyin etc. . Do traditions we find that there are in the book. Having collected all the required data, then created a diagram to see who received hadith narrators of nowhere. Thus it would seem who the madar or common link of each generation. Who is the source of these traditions captivate the generations that. Diagram isnad must be made verifiable through analysis matn. Because the narrator claims to have received from the informant that he might have mentioned only a mere acknowledgment. In this case comparing matn between the narrators and seperguruan segenarasi be absolute. Is the only outstanding tradition in the third or second century have been circulating in the first century only in this way can we know whether these traditions came from the Prophet, Companions, Successors or thereafter. In addition, a history of independence and interdependence of all we have to prove, also by examining matannya. Is it true that the tradition of A accept B as he claims, did B receive the tradition from which he quotes such as C, C receives from D true as he put it, dstnya. Analysis sanad and matn be crucial. How does the process of isnad cum matn analysis method works, of course this page is limited to mengurainya in detail. [8]
Conditions of scholarship in the 21st century today, where scholars have inherited our predecessors masterpiece works of great value, has edited the works of the past, memunkinkan us to reconstruct the history of the Prophets, Companions, Successors and the generation after that, knowing the real source of news . Our present condition is far better than the condition of al-Bukhari who must find and collect pieces of pieces of information about the prophet of an city to another. Al-Bukhari has left the pearl collection of information about the prophet. A number of scholars before and after al-Bukhari has done the same. Scholars of this century can compare the history of al-Bukhari with other history to see the accuracy of any transmission. By having available news sources, the human condition physically 21st century better than the condition of the second and third century Hijra. In fact, with all humility and without intent to create a sensation can be said that by using the methodology of isnad cum matn analysis, more authoritative scholars of this century to determine the quality of the hadith than al-Bukhari and the other mukharrij. For example, when al-Bukhari found a tradition from four sources say, a say from Abu Nuaym, Adam, Ibrahim b. Musa and Jabir. These four were received from different people came to the prophet. At the time of al-Bukhari, Hadith number of books not exist, as now, so that al-Bukhari Hadith are accepted only from the four above. At this time, the books of Hadith that are available allow us to find another path apart from the four sources of al-Bukhari. We also can compare the history of al-Bukhari anatara with a history of other lines to see the accuracy of any history. With this comparison, we can see the level of each transmitter kedabitan captivate the generations that. Even in the particular case of al-Bukhari transmitters can be different with other narrators are corroborated by the history of others, so the history of al-Bukhari that without the support can be considered to be weaker with another report that is supported by the history of others. Once again with cum matn isnad analysis, we know exactly which one of the narrators who have strayed, menanmbah and reduce any transmission of the original. Thus we too can see the keadabitan narrator of the text.
Theoretically, the method of analysis matn cum isnad is not something new, but in practice, these methods are barely applied in the study of hadith. This is reflected in our hadith literature. This is what I mean by the gap between theory and practice.
Conclusion
In the history of Muslims, the reliability of hadith Ulumul never challenged means of Islamic scholars. There are some scholars who doubt the reliability, but does not mean sympathy from Muslims. Even this article does not intend to sue Ulumul traditions in general, but there are some substantive element in the traditions Ulumul be rethought. Although the criticism of hadith there were differences of opinion, there is generally no substantive differences; quality is determined primarily by the quality tradition sanad, though not ignoring matnnya consideration. Method of estimating the isnad cum matn analysis based on the tradition of quality matnnya, even quality can be assessed through matnnya sanadpun. Analysa matn matn is not whether it is contrary to the Koran or the history that is considered more powerful, but the extent to which the history of the text of a flawed narrator, in contrast to the textual history of the others. But before analyzing the textual mapping is done first who received a history from which, starting from the last mukharrij to transmitters (friend) or the owner of the news (prophet).
footnote
- [1] Al-Razi, al-Jarh wa al-tadil, vol. 8. thing. 75; Ibn Hajar, al-tahdhib Tahdhib, vol. 9, p. 441
- [2] The author has researched the whole tradition, See, Kamaruddin Amin, The Reliability of Hadith Transmission, A Critical Reexamination of Hadith Methods, Bonn 2005)
- [3] Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani mudallis include it in the group. See Ibn Hajar, al-mudallisisn Tabaqat, Cairo 1322, p. 8, 14.
- [4] Al-Mizzi, al-kamal Tahdhib, vol. 6, p. 109, 125; Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, vol. 7, p. 161, 157-8.
- [5] The author has examined all these traditions, see Amin Kamaruddin, The Relibility of Hadith Transmission ... Bonn 2005.
- [6] On the reliability of the book of biography, see Amin Kamaruddin, The Relibility
- [7] The check writer, Abu Hurayra narrated only 3370 in the polar al-Sitta, Aisha, 1999, Abdullah b. 1979 Umar, Anas b. Malik 1584, Abdullah b. Abbas and Jabir 960 1243, 13 Companions narrated from 100 to 500, 18 Friends of between 50 to 100, 68 Friends of between 10 and 50, the remaining friends of friends of the other meriyatkan only one to ten hadith (See Kamaruddin Amin, The Reliability of the Hadith Transmission . A Reexamination of Hadith Critical Methods, Bonn 2005)
- [8] For the workings, procedures, mechanisms and testing of this methodology see Kamaruddin Amin, The Reliability of Hadith Transmission ..., Bonn 2005
| If you are interested to copy this paper, you may copy this paper, but I hope my friend put my link ya .. I'm sure a good friend. other than paper Meaning of the story in the history of Quran, you can read the other paper in the paper Athletics . and If You Want to Share your paper to my blog please click here . |
:.