Source: TW
After years of studying hadith science, I’ve come to the conclusion that isnad science is indeed a joke, isnads are essentially meaningless—an illusion. Here are a few reasons why:
-Transformation of Reports: Interrupted (mursal/mawquf) reports are often transformed into marfu’ by later transmitters, with selection bias acting as a canonization tool for reports with connected isnads.
-Widespread Tadlis: Tadlis (concealing true sources) was practiced by nearly everyone in the second generation and some companions.
-Influence of Non-Muslim Sources: Some companions took Ka’b al-Ahbar, a pseudo-rabbi from Yemen, as their sheikh. His words were sometimes transformed into prophetic hadith, with at least one documented case in Imam Muslim’s Tameez, and many more in other books especially Daraqutni’s ‘ilal.
-Truncated Citations by Hadith Compilers: Compilers of hadith sometimes take a brief, anecdotal hadith and remove its context, allowing preachers and the general populace to ascribe a broader meaning to it. An example is the hadith of Ibn Umar regarding the five pillars, which is actually just a response to the insistence of an Iraqi urging him to perform jihad. To dismiss him, Ibn Umar said, “Islam is prayer, zakat…”
Another example includes hadiths where certain companions, who were the subject of a rebuke or even a prophetic curse, have been anonymized. Although I don’t believe in any of these hadiths (not the personality of the Prophet), the compilers’ methods are certainly noteworthy.
-Lack of Scholarly Consensus: Traditional scholarship struggles to explain how hadiths were narrated and propagated, especially with unsupervised books circulating throughout the empire via the diwan, or ijazat given without any prior proper verification.
-Conflicting Hadiths: Resolving conflicting hadiths is nearly impossible without intense intellectual gymnastics. Understanding their origins often reveals them as ideological warfare between conflicting regions.
-Documented Corruption: There are documented cases of corruption in hadith books, including scribes adding people to isnads, hence strengthening and connecting them.
-Inconsistency in Isnad Strength: Scholars weaken an isnad in one case because a stronger conflicting isnad is available, yet the same isnad becomes sahih when it’s the only one available. Beyond the assault on reason and the methodological crime this represents, with 95% of hadiths being single reports, comparison is often impossible.
-Extended Isnads: Long isnads started appearing frequently towards the end of the Umayyad period and during the Abbasid era to reinforce hadith by adding sources. These extended isnads are often impossible and raise serious questions about their authenticity.
-Delayed Appearance of Hadiths: Hadiths that conflict with common practices in a region, or the existence of intense debates on a question where the protagonists are unable to cite the ultimate authoritative argument (i.e., the hadith), suddenly appear in the same region a few decades later as if by magic.
-Sahabas and authorities appearing ignorant of basics: Sometimes, there are hadiths that are all sahih, but the mawquf versions contradict the marfu’ version. Hadith science tends to ignore the mawquf versions, which indirectly insults the companions.
This is evident in the numerous hadiths that present different numbers of pillars of Islam/faith compared to the famous hadith of Ibn Umar (“Islam is built on five”). For instance, hadiths from ‘Ali mention four pillars of faith, and Hudayfa mentions eight pillars. Are we to believe that these companions were ignorant of what everyone else, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, consider the very basics of Islam nowadays?
Another example is Ata ibn Abi Rabah, who was completely unaware of the practice of Tahiyat al-Masjid. Or consider the divergences regarding what seems to be a fundamental aspect of prayer, such as the Takbir (Ibn Zubayr only said the Takbir just before prostrating). Are they all ignorant? Or do the hadiths appear out of thin air later on as authoritative arguments to close a debate and canonize a practice?
-Fake Sahaba Scammers: There were individuals pretending to be companions. The only proof we have that some were indeed companions is their own word (“I saw the Prophet on such and such a day,” “He touched my head,” “I remember his gaze”).
-War-Wager Hadith Paradox: As described by @MuftiAbuLayth , the clearest and most mutawatir hadith requires extensive explanations and circumstances from scholars.
Conclusion: believing that hadith and isnad provide any kind of certainty is wishful thinking. I prefer to rely on indirect sources that help us reconstruct some semblance of reality up to the time of the younger companions and the tabi’un.