Ḥadīth was regularly taught in schools in different centres, as already known, and its teachers were in the first instance well-known Companions of the Holy Prophet, such as Abū Hurairah, Ibn ‘Umar, and ‘Ā’ishah, whose place was later taken by equally well-known masters of Ḥadīth from among the successors of the Companions (Tābi‘īn). No story-teller, whose sphere of action was limited to some street corner, where he might attract the attention of passers-by, and perhaps gather round him a few loiterers, could aspire even to approach a school of Ḥadīth. As a writer says: “They collect a great crowd of people round them: One Qāṣṣ stations himself at one end of the street and narrates ḥadīth about the merits of ‘Alī, while his fellow stands at the other end of the street exalting the virtues of Abū Bakr. Thus they secure the pence of the Nāṣibī as well as the Shī‘ī, and divide their gains equally afterwards.”37 It is difficult to believe that such story-mongers could be mistaken for reporters of Ḥadīth by any sensible person; yet scholars like Sir William Muir and other famous Orientalists often try to confound the two and speak of these stories as though they had some connection with Ḥadīth. Even if it be true that some of them have found a place in certain commentaries, whose authors had a love for the curious and gave but scant heed to the sifting of truth from error, the collectors of Ḥadīth (Muḥaddithīn) would never dream of accepting a story from such a source. They knew the story-tellers and their absurdities well enough, and indeed so scrupulous were they in making their selections that they would not accept a report if one of the reporters was known ever to have told a lie or fabricated a report38 in a single instance. This much every European critic of Ḥadīth must needs admit; how then could such people accept the puerile inventions of the street story-teller who followed his vocation merely for the few coins it might bring? That there are some incredible stories even in the collections of Ḥadīth is true, but they are so rare that not the least discredit can justly be thrown on the collections themselves on that account, the reason for their existence being something quite different.
Among European critics, almost without exception, there is a
37 Quoted by Guillaume, Tr. Is., p. 82.
38 While speaking of ta‘n (i.e., accusation against a transmitter), Ibn Ḥajar in his Sharḥ Nukhbāt al-Fikr, says, that if a transmitter is shown to have told a lie in transmitting a ḥadīth, or even if he is accused of having told a lie, he is discredited (p. 66).