Title: Regarding Manipulating the Principles of Accepting Hadith Question: I have a doubt about something related to Usool al hadith. Firstly, for example let me say that there are times we find some scholars quoting Ibn hajar and then saying that he has authenticated one hadith it as saheeh and then some other scholars quote ibn hajr itself related to what he says about the narrator in a different book and if he says that the narrator is unreliable. Then they use this saying of ibn hajar and then the hadith which ibn hajar himself would have authenticated if that narrator is found in that hadith then they say that the hadith is unauthentic based on the point that ibn hajar has said the narrator as unreliable himself. Irrespective of it sounds to be a contradiction it seems for me that in spite of ibn hajar knowing that the narrator is unreliable if he has accepted that narration as authentic then it can be due to the fact that other narrations with a text support that narration with a similar text. So here the unreliability of the narrator is forgotten to term this as authentic on the basis of support from other texts. Some scholars even say that other text with different chain of narration which gives much strength to this type of narrations due to which they have taken up to a degree of they being authentic from they being weak first. I am worried with this saying of the scholars, because there are many superstitious information coming from some traditions which can be proved to be unreliable on the basis of analyzing their text but then the scholar they somehow by bring some more traditions that tally the text raise its authenticity to saheeh or hasan irrespective of they might be some flaws in the chain of narration. I want to know that by Fann Dharayah anyhow we can trash this traditions to avoid any superstitious concepts from entering Islam, but what are the tips by which we can trash it by Fann riwayah process even? Can't we just if we find some doubtful narrator in the chain trash that tradition as unreliable without considering how many such narrations are brought as support with it to raise its status? If this can be done or any other tip can be handled then please can you give me the full details as to which scholars agree with such methods of scrutiny? Lastly, I have MANY hadiths of sunan abu dawud whose chain verification I wish to find out as to whether they can be said as saheeh or Daeef etc. So can I mail those hadith and can you please provide some help for me related to that? Since there are many hadiths, so it is time consuming, so if you have some other id where I can email you to get such help, then I would be much grateful to you, alhamdulillaah. The reason for selecting your site is because I find your site much being against closed ideology and much open to truth even so much so that time barrier based accepted theories are thrashed for truth that is accepted and agreed and confirmed by inherent nature and its logic. Hope you would provide me with the answer and the help I need. Muhammad Zabeeh India Answer: Scholars of the science of Hadith could declare a particular narrator reliable at one time and unreliable at another. This is because we are always fed with new information, which can lead us to a different conclusion. One can even reconsider his opinion after reanalyzing the previous one with a new perspective. Another important aspect of variance in opinion regarding the various reports of the same person may arise from the principle that a particular narrator may be considered unreliable when reporting from a specific narrator, while his other narrations may be considered adequately reliable. Furthermore, it should also be borne in mind that the application of the principles of accepting or rejecting reports is in fact an art rather than a science. It is, in fact, the combined effect of a number of factors relating to the honesty, reliability and memory of the narrator as well as the subject matter reported on the basis of which an expert of the field forms an opinion regarding a particular narrative. Thus, it is not strange that Ibn-e-Hajar or any other scholar may have different opinions regarding two or more narratives of the same narrator. Coming to your specific question regarding the matter of declaring weak traditions Hasan or Sahih merely on the ground of their being supported by other, corroboratory traditions, I think declaring a narrator or a report reliable is a matter strictly of personal observation and, because of its subjective nature, cannot be brought under hard and fast rules. Most of the compilers of the traditions have set their own principles regarding the analysis of the chain of the reporters. You see that different scholars such as Muslim, Bukhari and many others have slightly different criteria for acceptance of the traditions. Many a times, scholars have accepted traditions, which were rejected by other scholars. This difference of opinion may occur regarding the application of the Dirayah 1 principles as well. This difference of opinion in application of the principles is inevitable. A certain Hadith may be able to be reconciled with the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah in the eyes of one scholar, while another scholar may decide otherwise. You write: I want to know that by Fann Dharayah anyhow we can trash this traditions to avoid any superstitious concepts from entering Islam, but what are the tips by which we can trash it by Fann Riwayah process even? Can't we just if we find some doubtful narrator in the chain trash that tradition as unreliable without considering how many such narrations are brought as support with it to raise its status? If this can be done or any other tip can be handled then please can you give me the full details as to which scholars agree with such methods of scrutiny? I could not come across any such principle formed in the past. However, it should be appreciated that the principles relating to the acceptance or rejection of Hadith are, in fact, based on common sense. There is nothing sacrosanct about these principles. Nevertheless, it seems that the problem that you are referring to is not due to any illogical principles, but due to the subjectivity entailed in the application of these principles. As for the principles themselves, I personally feel that they generally serve the purpose quite adequately. The matter of acceptance or rejection of a certain tradition is not scientific in nature that we bring it under hard and fast rules. To tackle the problem of corroboratory reports of a weak narrative we could analyze all the chains of reporters involved and find if there really exists a corroboratory report or not. Sometimes it is said that a certain report has been reported through that many chains but this is not always true. A little analysis reveals that there are only one or two reporters in the beginning. These one or two reporters conveyed the report to many people. The reports of these narrators later came to be known as independent corroboratory chains, but in fact all depend on a single person or a couple of people only. Another possible cause of difference on accepting or rejecting these reports, which you render superstitious in nature, is that they are not always objected to by all. Thus a certain thing, which you do not accept, may be acceptable to another person because of necessary difference of understanding and paradigm. A certain narrative that you declare to be very superstitious and unbelievable may be well explained and perceivable to another person. As regard the analysis of the reports you could send these one by one. We will InshaAllah try to comment on them 2 . Tariq Mahmood Hashmi June 4, 2003 1 That is, an analysis of the content reported in the narrative. 2 Edited by Moiz Amjad.