Analysis on Al-Nawawi’s Criticism on Al-Daraqutni’s Methodology in ‘Ilal Al-Hadith

Introduction to the Discipline of Sciences of ‘Ilal al-Hadith

A discussion on the discipline of ‘ ilal al-hadith would be incomplete without the definition of the word illah itself. According to Ibn Manzur (n.d.) (d. 711 H), the word ‘ illah literally means al-marad, which means disease. From the point of terminology, ‘illah according to Ibn al-Salah ( 2002) and al-Nawawi ( 1985) means a phrase that appears to be authentic yet contains hidden defects affecting that authenticity. Accordingly, the defective hadith or al-mu’allal hadith would mean a hadith containing defects effecting its authenticity yet seemingly having a perfectly authentic appearance ( Ibn al-Salah, 2002).

Scholars often paid attention to discussions on the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith . Abdul Rahman bin Mahdi (d. 198 H), for instance, viewed that knowing the ‘illah of a hadith was more interesting than composing twenty hadiths from other narrators ( Ibn Abi Hatim, 2006). However, most hadith scholars admitted that the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith was not easy to master. This was because the defects or ‘illah in a hadith were sometimes hidden, resulting it being categorized as authentic. Therefore, scholars who were experts in this field certainly had keen eyes and broad knowledge on the intricacies of the narrations and narrators of hadiths. In furtherance to the above, according to Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 H) this discipline can only be mastered by scholars from among those who memorized the al-Quran who also had deep understanding (2002). Concurring with that view, Ibn Hajar (d. 852 H) believed that this discipline of knowledge is so hidden and so detailed that only those endowed by Allah with extensive and in-depth knowledge of maratib al-ruwah were able to conquer it ( Ibn Hajar, 1994). Thus, ‘Iwad Allah states that only a few scholars have had this expertise and most of them were from the mutaqaddimin era such as ‘Ali bin al-Madini (m. 231 H), Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 H), al-Bukhari (d. 254 H), Ya‘qub bin Syaybah (d. 262 H), Abu Hatim (d. 277 H) and Abu Zur‘ah (d. 263 H) while scholars from the muta’akhkhirin phase the likes of al-Daraqutni (d. 385 H), Ibn ‘Adi (d. 365 H), al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) and Ibn Hajar (d. 852 H) ( 2017). According to the researcher’s survey, the main issues involved in the debate or discussions of this discipline revolves around al-tafarrud , al-mukhalafah , ziyadah al-thiqah , tadlis etc.

Biodata of al-Daraqutni and his Scholastic Repertoire

The full name of al-Daraqutni is Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali bin ‘Umar bin Ahmad bin Mahdi bin Mas‘ud bin al-Nu‘man bin Dinar bin ‘Abd Allah al-Daraqutni (Ibn Khallikan, n.d.) al-Baghdadi (Al-Subki, n.d.). He was born in the month of Zulkaedah in 309 H in an area named Dar al-Qutn in the city of Baghdad ( Al-Zirikli, 2002). Therefore he is better known as laqab al-Daraqutni ( Ibn Kathir, 1998).

Al-Daraqutni’s leadership in the jurisprudence of hadith reached its pinnacle when he mastered the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith . This was mentioned by many later scholars such as al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 H) who said: “… ends at him the knowledge of athar and understanding of ‘ilal al-hadith , names of the narrators, and their conditions…” (Al-Khatib, 2001, pp. 487-488). Al-Dhahabi (d.748) also celebrated him with similar praise, “… ends at him al-hifz and the knowledge of ‘ilal al-hadith and the narrators” ( Al-Dhahabi, 1984, p. 450). The same was the case with Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H) in al-Bidayah , attributing al-Daraqutni as an Imam in his time mastering the names of the narrators, sina’ah al-ta’lil, al-jarh wa al-ta’dil (1998).

Al-Daraqutni’s expertise in this discipline is more pronounced with the writing of his book entitled al-‘Ilal al-Waridah fi al-Ahadith al-Nabawiyyah. This work is generally an explanation of al-mu‘al hadith proposed to him by his disciple named al-Barqani (d. 425 H). There are over four thousand hadiths recounted by al-Barqani in this work, all of which were answered by al-Daraqutni by providing various chain of narrators and explaining the existence of ‘illah that could be present in those hadiths. Al-Daraqutni’s prominence in this field became outstanding when al-Barqani stated that the latter answered and explained the matters in question by way of imla’ based on memory ( Al-Baghdadi, 2001). Al-Dhahabi in Siyar expressed admiration for al-Daraqutni’s exceptional ability. To al-Dhahabi, if it were true that the book of al-‘Ilal was conveyed by way of imla’ by al-Daraqutni based on his memorisation as told by al-Barqani, then it was astounding and proved al-Daraqutni to be the best memoriser in this world (1984). There are other works where discussions by al-Daraqutni demonstrated his mastery in the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith, two being al-Sunan and al-Ilzamat wa al-Tatatabbu‘.

The topic in ‘ilal al-hadith that is the subject of al-Nawawi’s dispute over al-Daraqutni’s methods

The findings of this study illustrate the topics in the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith disputed by al-Nawawi on the methods implemented by al-Daraqutni is about the issues of ziyadah al-thiqah . Al-Nawawi’s criticism, according to al-Wadi‘i ( Al-Daraqutni, 1985), ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ( 1988) and Ibrahim ( 2008), largely revolves around ziyadah al-thiqah that is in the preferential ( tarjih) hadith between marfu‘ and mursal or mawsul and mawquf (2008). To illustrate, the researcher provides a hadith narrated by Muslim through the narration of Ibn Wahab from Makhramah bin Bukayr from his father from Abi Burdah bin Abi Musa RA from Ibn ‘Umar RA ( Muslim, 2006). Apart from the issues of ziyadah al-thiqah, al-Nawawi also disputes al-Daraqutni’s methods in the al-tafarrud narration from a reliable narrator. This is evidenced by his commentary on a hadith reported by Muslim from the narrator’s chain of Ibn Abjar from Wasil from Abi Wa’il from ‘Ammar from the Prophet (pbuh):

Meaning: the length of a man’s prayer and the brevity of his sermons infer his shallow understanding. Hence, extend your prayers and shorten your sermon because part of bayan (beautiful phrases) becomes a spell to the listeners ( Muslim, 2006, p. 813).

According to al-Daraqutni ( 1985), this hadith was narrated by way of al-tafarrud by Ibn Abjar from Wasil. The former further explained that this narration conflicted with that of al-A‘mash and he was more ahfaz with the hadith by Abi Wa’il than Wasil. This review was objected by al-Nawawi who viewed that the above hadith review by al-Daraqutni exemplified rejected criticism because Ibn Abjar was a reliable narrator, thereby it was compulsory to accept his narrations. These two types of narrations namely ziyadah al-thiqah and al-tafarrud from reliable narrator are the main issues in the discipline of ‘ilal al-hadith. Hence al-Nawawi’s criticism of al-Daraqutni’s method on both indirectly affected his eminence in ‘ilal al-hadith discipline.

The ruling of al-Daraqutni and al-Nawawi in ziyadah al-thiqah and al-tafarrud.

It is found that the methods used by al-Nawawi and al-Daraqutni on the issues of ziyadah al-thiqah and al-tafarrud from reliable narrators were different. In the context of ziyadah al-thiqah , al-Nawawi opined that this type of hadith was admissible in total. Accordingly in the event of conflict between marfu‘ and mursal and mawquf and mawsul narrations, the correct stance is to give weight on marfu‘ and mursal even though the narrators of the conflicting hadiths are of the same number or more, or more ahfaz than the other. This assessment according to al-Nawawi was the practise of the muhaqqiqun from amongst the ahl al-hadith and the fuqaha and ashab al-usul and endorsed by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi ( Al-Nawawi, 2001). In the context of al-tafarrud narration by reliable narrators, the ruling espoused by al-Nawawi was to accept the hadith due to the attribute of the narrator which was reliable ( thiqah). This ruling is found in his work entitled al-Irsyad . He further explained that if al-tafarrud came from a narrator who was just (‘ adil ), a memoriser ( hafiz ) and his memory is believed to be of excellent state ( dabit) , then his narration would be classified as authentic ( sahih) . Furthermore, if the al-tafarrud came from a narrator who was not dabit , his hadith became hasan. However, if al-tafarrud came from a narrator who was far from dabit, and ‘adil, his narration became syadh, munkar and rejected ( Al-Nawawi, 2009). As for al-Daraqutni’s ruling on the two situations above, the question on accepting or rejecting depended on the strength of the evidence (qarinah) inherent in the hadiths. In other words, these two types of narrations were not outrightly accepted nor rejected. This was acknowledged by some researchers the likes of Kilani ( 2010) and Judah ( 2011). Since the ruling of both al-Nawawi and al-Daraqutni were different on the two issues mentioned above, therefore it was fitting for al-Nawawi to disagree with the assessment of al-Daraqutni.

The methodology practised specifically by al-Daraqutni.

Nonetheless, what remains to be answered is whether the methodology practised by al-Daraqutni is as weak and corrupted as al-Nawawi alleges. Through this research, it is found that al-Daraqutni’s method is no stranger to the scholars at large particularly from amongst the mutaqaddimin . In the matters of ziyadah al-thiqah , for example, the ruling of al-Daraqutni was in line with the ruling of ahl al-hadith mutaqaddimin. This observation coincided with the reality as pictured by al-‘Alla’i (d.761 H) where he said the Imams of mutaqaddimin such as Yahya bin Sa‘id al-Qattan, ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi, ‘Ali bin al-Madini, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma‘in, al-Bukhari, Abu Hatim, Abu Zur‘ah, Muslim, al-Nasa’i, al-Tirmidhi, al-Daraqutni and al-Khalili evaluated the element of al-ziyadah based on the stronger preference ( tarjih ) of each hadith. He further remarked that these group of scholars do not evaluate the element of al-ziyadah in a mass manner for all hadiths. Their method was the truth ( Kamil, 1986). In line with the views above, Ibn Hajar (d. 852 H) also stated that the mutaqaddimin hadith scholars such as ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi, Yahya al-Qattan, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma‘in, ‘Ali bin al-Madini, al-Bukhari, Abu Zur‘ah, Abu Hatim, al-Nasa’i, al-Daraqutni and others assessed the element of ziyadah al-thiqah based on qarinah. In addition, none of them accepted this element as absolute ( Ibn Hajar, 2000).

As for the issue of al-tafarrud narration from reliable narrators; as well as the ruling formulated by al-Daraqutni, both elements were no stranger in the discourse of criticism in sciences of hadith among the hadith jurists. In fact they were in line with the methods and policies already employed by the mutaqaddimin hadith scholars. The same observation is demonstrated by contemporary research similar to al-Durays ( 2005), al-Lahim ( 2012) and al-Malyabari ( 2001).