I looked at the detailed criticisms and compared against the defences on detail but they criticisms overall are not persuasive to me when read critically and against the defence.
That's because:
1) the marfu Hadiths on the issue are so many, varying between sahih, hasan, weak and very weak. This includes the addition about all being in hell except one.
The critics don't allow the weak ones to strengthen each other but actually many can be. It is unrealistic to expect that they're all forged even though many narrators are differed upon or only had weak memory, not accused of fisq or lying.
2) not all marfu hadiths were considered by the critics but if they had, that would have weakened their overall argument
3) similarly, not all mawquf hadiths were considered
4) sometimes a marfu hadith was rejected by claiming the sahih one is mawquf. But that is not persuasive because it at least shows there's a basis with the sahaba and they can't have got it from their ijtihad.
5) major Hadith scholars authenticated the Hadiths, like Ibn Hajar and Iraqi etc. Generally critics will ignore this.
6) often the critics will only quote one side of the criticism of the narrators, giving a biased impression. Sometimes one finds that actually the criticism was wrong when deeply investigating the jarh
7) often the critics have a lot of harshness/tashaddud in their criticisms
8) it appears that the Hadith has been accepted by lots of different sects: Sunnis, Ibadis, Shias and Salafis. Some of the modern critics have criticised narrators for being part of a certain sect (like Nasibi or Shi'i- opposite group!), hence rejected the Hadiths but we know that that it is not that simple and sectarianism isn't a reason to reject a narrator, since Imam Bukhari included Hadiths of Shias etc. I think no one has gathered all the versions from even the other sects.
Note: I think weakening Hadiths is easier and can be done by so many people. Strengthening them requires more skill and is more difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment