-:Hadees:-:-> Modern Historical Methodology vs. Hadeeth Methodology

The study of ahadeeth is one thatgoes back centuries and has been the
subject of much discussion among both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Some scholars deem the collections of ahadeeth as unauthentic and
something to be disregarded, while others claim the opposite. Where
exactly does the truth lie? As a starting point, it is helpful to
examine criticism according to hadeeth methodology compared to
criticism according to modern,western historical methodology.
Therefore the purpose of this paper shall be to first explain the
general guidelines for authenticating and verifying historical
sources, then to explainthe general guidelines used in authenticating
and verifying ahadeeth, and finally to compare the two processes.
Modern, Western Historical Methodology
When events occur, they can be known by contemporaries who then pass
on their knowledge and understanding (Lucey 20). Indaily life, people
accept that knowledge of events can be passed on from the witnesses of
those events, and that they can be transmitted exactly. Indeed, ina
court of law, through the testimonies of witnesses to a particular
event, facts are established beyond a reasonable doubt (Lucey 22).
According to one historian, "…Testimony, sufficient, reliable
testimony, is a source of unimpeachable, indisputable knowledge of
historical events" (Lucey 20). It is from the reliable testimony of
contemporaries of events that historical knowledge is derived (Lucey
18). Therefore, the aim of historical methodology is to determine if
the various testimonies that reach us today can be accepted as sound
evidence.
Once a historian has collected hissources—anything that directly or
indirectly provides information about a particular event (e.g. a book,
a scroll, a broken piece of pottery, a picture, a radio clip, an oral
tradition)—he must then evaluate them using the techniques of
criticism . These historical sources or "witnesses" provide
information or testimony. It is the role of external criticism to
establish the authenticity of a source (the fact of testimony) and its
integrity (the freedom from corruption during transmission). In
comparison, internal criticism is concerned with establishing the true
meaning of a testimony and the credibility of a witness (Lucey23).
Ultimately, the basic principles of source criticism are what lead to
the establishment offacts, or to the debunking of previously
established ones (Marwick 196).

--
:-:>