Arabic and Islamic studies and Semitic languages departments were established in Europe and America, featuring prominent Orientalist professors, both Christian and Jewish, who were intensely opposed and prejudiced against Islam. The general stance of Orientalism towards the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is to cast doubt on his prophethood, claiming that the Holy Qur'an was his own creation, derived from the prevailing culture of his time.
This idea is a given among them. Goldziher views the Qur'an as merely a selected blend of religious knowledge and opinions Muhammad acquired through contact with Judaism and Christianity. He also sees it as a product of global literature, deeply influenced by it, thus placing Muhammad (peace be upon him) among the series of prophets as the last and final one (1).
Montgomery Watt supports this by asserting that Muhammad (peace be upon him) regarded his mission as being from God and that the Qur'an is a collection of surahs revealed to him by God, as he believed. He suggests that before the revelation, Muhammad may have heard some stories mentioned in the Qur'an from other people (2).
This perspective on Islam, its Prophet, and the Qur'an is prevalent, fueled by their strong ties to missionary institutions and a colonialist mentality in their studies of Islam—covering history, jurisprudence, doctrine, exegesis, hadith, literature, civilization, and philosophy. Their aim was to cast doubt on Islam as a belief system, law, heritage, and civilization, advocating for Arab societies to imitate the Western model in all aspects, including customs, traditions, and social behaviors.
They left no field of Arabic and Islamic studies untouched, contributing extensively, even delving into highly intricate topics. Their writings, particularly the "Encyclopaedia of Islam," filled with suspicions and distortions, became a reference for many Arab intellectuals who were significantly influenced by them, leading them to echo their statements and present their doubts using a critical methodology that does not recognize any sacred text.
The Spread of Fabrication in Hadith Due to Personal Biases
Goldziher claims that the majority of hadiths are not authentic, considering them products of Islam's maturation period. He argues that fabricated hadiths cannot be attributed solely to later generations but also include ancient ones crafted by early Muslims. He believes that any group, faction, or sect could support its views by fabricating supportive hadiths, and the opposition had the same right (3).
He further asserts that the compilers of hadith borrowed from other civilizations, stating that some phrases were taken from the Old and New Testaments, rabbinical sayings, apocryphal gospels, Greek philosophical teachings, and proverbs from the Persians and Indians, all of which found their way into Islam through hadith (4).
MacDonald (5) provides an example of hadith fabrication by pointing out contradictory hadiths. Some hadiths explicitly state that Muhammad disapproved of religious debate, while others portray him as engaging in it fervently. Both types are equally questionable, with the first likely fabricated by those who rejected rational judgment in religious matters, preferring transmitted knowledge. He cites the hadith "My mercy prevails over My wrath" (6), which he claims contradicts the hadith "These are for Paradise, and I do not care; and these are for Hell, and I do not care" (7).
Criticism of Trustworthy Hadith Narrators
Orientalists accuse hadith scholars of leniency in accepting narrations, suggesting that a narrator could be suspect yet remain honorable, without detracting from their personal dignity or religious respect. They dismiss the efforts of hadith scholars in scrutinizing narrators, as seen in their works titled "The Trustworthy," "The Ranks of the Memorizers," "The Weak and Abandoned," "Criticism and Praise," and "The Balance of Moderation in Criticizing Men." Sunni scholars have clearly established the status of the Companions, with explicit statements in their writings. For example, Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi (d. 463 AH) dedicated a chapter to the commendation of the Companions by God and His Messenger, asserting that they need no further validation, unlike those below them, whose integrity must be established, as the Companions' integrity is already confirmed (8).
Despite this, Orientalists question the narrations of Companions like Abu Hurairah and trustworthy narrators like Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. Guynbel argues that some hadiths attributed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) concerning the virtues of various locations not conquered by Muslims until later periods are fabricated. He also finds it impossible to consider figures like Abu Hurairah as liars (9).
Goldziher accuses Imam al-Zuhri of fabricating hadiths to please the Umayyads, claiming that his association with them led to the creation of hadiths aligning with their views. The Umayyads and their followers, he alleges, were unconcerned with lying in hadiths that supported their perspectives, seeking individuals to whom such fabrications could be attributed. They exploited scholars like al-Zuhri for their cunning purposes.
Goldziher resorts to manipulation and distortion of texts to support his views. He quotes al-Zuhri as saying, "These rulers forced us to write hadiths," interpreting this to mean that al-Zuhri was willing to comply with state desires in writing certain hadiths, leveraging his name and reputation in scholarly circles (10). However, the correct text, as recorded by al-Dhahabi, states, "These rulers forced us to write the hadiths" (11), where the definite article "the" changes the meaning entirely. The term "hadiths" implies fabrications, while "the hadiths" indicates the recording of authentic hadiths.
Criticism of the Methodology of Hadith Scholars
Goldziher criticizes hadith scholars for recognizing the six major hadith collections as foundational, compiled by third-century scholars who selected various dispersed hadiths they deemed authentic. These collections, particularly those of Bukhari and Muslim, became authoritative references alongside the Qur'an, holding great importance in Islamic knowledge and life (12).
Orientalists also critique the hadith scholars' alleged neglect of textual criticism, focusing solely on the chains of transmission. Joseph Schacht claims that hadith scholars concentrated on scrutinizing the chains of narrators, ignoring the content and wording, leading to the validation of many texts that should have been rejected due to their reliance on this methodology. He argues that they concealed their criticism of the material behind their evaluation of the chains themselves (13).
Gustav Weit confirms this, stating that hadith scholars meticulously studied the chains of transmission and the knowledge of narrators' interactions and hearing from one another. He suggests that the hadiths were transmitted orally and later documented by memorization, without scrutinizing the text itself, leaving uncertainty about whether the hadiths reached us unchanged from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as narrators might have inadvertently added to them during transmission (14).
Given the prevalent Orientalist belief that the Qur'an was authored by Muhammad (peace be upon him) and falsely claimed to be from God, it is unsurprising that they view hadiths as fabrications by later authors, presented as the sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to achieve specific objectives. Thus, they cast doubt on even the most authentic hadiths found in Bukhari and Muslim, driven by their bias against Islam and their rationalist critical methodology, passing these ideas down through generations and influencing contemporary Arab intellectuals and critics of the Sunnah.
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. Goldziher, Ignaz: "Creed and Law in Islam: History of the Development of Islamic Belief and Jurisprudence," translated by Dr. Muhammad Yusuf Musa and others, Modern Book House, Cairo, 1959, pp. 15-16.
2. Montgomery Watt: "Muhammad at Mecca," translated by Shaaban Barakat, Al-Asriyya Library, Beirut, no date, pp. 7, 12, 205, 208.
3. Goldziher: "Creed and Law in Islam," p. 50.
4. Ibid (previous reference).
5. "Encyclopaedia of Islam," 7, p. 336.
6. Al-Bukhari: "Book of Monotheism," vol. 6, p. 2694 (6969).
7. Sahih Ibn Hibban: "Book of Righteousness and Manners," chapter on what is mentioned regarding obedience and its reward, vol. 2, p. 50 (338).
8. Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi: "Al-Kifaya fi Ma'rifat Usul al-Riwaya," p. 36.
9. "Encyclopaedia of Islam," 7, p. 333.
10. Mustafa al-Siba'i: "The Sunnah and Its Place in Islamic Legislation," p. 206.
11. Al-Dhahabi: "Siyar A'lam al-Nubala," vol. 5, p. 334.
12. Goldziher: "Creed and Law in Islam," p. 51.
13. Joseph Schacht: "The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence," translated by Ibrahim Khurshid and others, Lebanese Book House, Beirut, 1981, p. 64.
14. Muhammad Baha' Al-Din: "Orientalists and the Prophetic Hadith," Dar Al-Nafaes, Amman, 1999, p. 161.
Read the Article in Arabic
