of civil law.”48 More than this, they tried their best to find out whether each report was actually traceable to the Holy Prophet through the various necessary stages. Even the Companions did not accept any ḥadīth which was brought to their notice until they were fully satisfied that it came from the Holy Prophet. But the collectors went beyond the narrators, and they had rules of criticism which were applied to the subject matter. In judging whether a certain report was spurious or genuine, the collectors not only made a thorough investigation of the trustworthiness of the transmitters but also applied other rules of criticism which are in no way inferior to modern methods. Shāh ‘Abd al ‘Azīz has summarized these rules in Ujālah Nafi‘ah, and according to them a report was not accepted under any of the following circumstances:
—If it was opposed to recognized historical facts.
—If the reporter was a Shī‘ah and the ḥadīth was of the nature of an accusation against the Companions, or if the reporter was a Khārijī and the report was of the nature of an accusation against a member of the Holy Prophet’s family. If, however, such a report was corroborated by independent testimony, it was accepted.
—If it was of such a nature that to know it and act upon it was incumbent upon all, and it was reported by a single man.
—If the time and the circumstances of its narration contained evidence of its forgery.49
—If it was against reason50 or against the plain teachings of Islam.51
—If it mentioned an incident which, had it happened, would have been known to and reported by large numbers, while as a matter of fact that incident was not reported by any one except the particular reporter.
—If its subject-matter or words were unsound or incorrect; for instance, the words were not in accordance with Arabic idiom, or the subject-matter was unbecoming the Holy Prophet’s dignity.
—If it contained threats of heavy punishment for ordinary sins, or promises of mighty rewards for slight good deeds.
—If it spoke of the reward of prophets and messengers to the doer of good.
48 Ibid., p. 83.
49 An example of this is met with in the following incident related in Ḥayāt al-Ḥayawān. Hārūn al-Rashīd loved pigeons. A pigeon was sent to him as a present. Qādzī Abūl Bakhtārī was sitting by him at the time, and to please the monarch he narrated a ḥadīth to the effect that there should be no betting except in racing or archery or flying of birds. Now the concluding words were a forgery, and the Caliph knew this. So when the Qādzī was gone, he ordered the pigeon to be slaughtered, adding that the fabrication of this portion of the report was due to that pigeon. The collectors of Ḥadīth on that account did not accept any report of Abūl Bakhtārī.
50 Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d.463) and Al-Nawāwī (d.676) do not hesitate to assail ḥadīth which seem to them to be contrary to reason or derogatory to the dignity of the Holy Prophet (Tr.Is., p. 94)
51 Examples of this are the ḥadīth relating to Qadzā ‘Umri, i.e., going through the performance of the rak‘ahs of daily prayers on the last Friday in the month of Ramadzān as an atonement for not saying prayers regularly, or the report which says: Do not eat melon until you slaughter it.