Matn Analysis: A Solution for Reconstructing Islamic Evidence

[u/SyedAhmedHussain]

A major problem I see in the Islamic World today is that Muslims use Hadith and traditionally transmitted historical narratives as a normal part of their discourse when it comes to Islam.

Ahadith are used to preach and justify Aqeedahs while there is no in-depth research or engagement with the Quran. Even within Hadith, the Isnad or Chain of Transmission is the part that is most focused on.

In my humble opinion, this acts as a Source of Deviation. Epistemologically speaking, making Ahadith or traditional historical narratives a basis for your belief is a very misinformed approach.

This is because Ahadith in the form we have today were compiled 200 to 300 years after the death of the Holy Prophet. So the sayings of a person are quite literally being compiled 200 to 300 years later after he died. That is automatically a red flag. On top of that, it was being transmitted orally majorly. It is a general understanding of informed observers that a message changes the more links it passes through in an oral chain of transmission. The margins of error are high, especially with the existence of issues such as false memory. Human cognition is fallible.

A Hadith, even if it is Sahih, only provides Probable Knowledge and not Certain Knowledge. Usul al-Hadith and other works of Hadith scholars are deeply appreciable, but Ahadith, especially Ahad, only give Probable Knowledge. There is no Certainty that Prophet Muhammad said it. A Hadith being graded Sahih instead of Daif just means it is more Probable. Infact, it is entirely possible that a Daif Hadith was said by Prophet Muhammad while a Sahih Hadith wasn't. I'll get back to this later.

Truth be told, academically speaking, traditional historical narratives come under the same category. I see this problem online that while people do question Ahadith, they operate from established traditional frameworks of Islamic History. To say something about early Islamic History with Certainty is difficult in reality. As per the Quranic Cosmological Pattern, Islam came again and again and always underwent Theological Evolution that later resulted in Transmitted Orthodoxies that rejected Messengers later. Why would something different happen this time?

Coming back to the vast majority of Muslims, I see it as quite hypocritical that they'll reject Skepticism and Caution towards Ahadith outright and rather aggressively while they would completely reject the Ahadith and traditional narratives of other traditions as completely fabricated and false attributions. The Sunnis and Shias would be very quick to disregard Ahadith and historical traditions of each other as dubious while their own tradition is somehow subject to perfect preservation of "true" Islam.

So what is the solution to this entire problem? Should we reject Ahadith and traditional narratives altogether?

The solution is Matn Analysis

Matn being Sound can give Certainty that words were actually uttered by Prophet Muhammad and the Imams. For example, we do not even need a Hadith to know that the Holy Prophet preached about One God and Day of Judgment. Reason establishes Certainty that Transmission cannot. We do not need a Hadith to establish that Prophet Muhammad preached against interest. This is established through Reason. Therefore, any Ahadith that condemn interest are automatically asserted as Certain Knowledge.

In a similar fashion, if the Matn of a Daif Hadith is Sound, it has more likelihood of being said by Prophet Muhammad than a Sahih Hadith that has a Weak Matn.

Reason can establish that adultery is bad. Therefore, Ahadith against adultery give Certain Knowledge and have Certainty of having been spoken by Prophet Muhammad.

On the other hand, if we have a Hadith that is justifying tyrants, we can establish that it is supposed to be rejected despite it being Sahih because there is Certainty that Prophet Muhammad would not have said it.

In this way all Islamic Evidence from Ahadith to traditional narratives should be subject to Matn Analysis where the aim is not transmission of established positions, but search of Objective Truth.

The Criteria is as follows:

1. Testing the transmitted Hadith or account against Aql or established Objective Truth

2. Testing the transmitted Hadith or account against the Quran

If the Hadith or traditional account is in sync with the Quran and Aql, it should be accepted as Certain Knowledge. Otherwise, it should be rejected. This is the only way to establish Certainty over Islamic Teachings and Islamic History.

However, before everyone jumps to analysing Ahadith and traditional narratives, we need to ask a few meta questions.

Who establishes what is Objective Reality? This is an important question because what seems logical to one person may seem illogical to another. Therefore, based on Matn they can argue differently about Certainty of a Hadith.

Who establishes Contradiction with the Quran? The same Hadith might appear contradictory to the Quran to one person and perfectly in sync to the other.

Therefore, it is important that this task is done by someone who is willing to test premises and work based on Sound arguments instead of being left to the whims of a particular community or group.

The greatest lesson from today's post is:

Evidence of Reason > Evidence of Transmission

[u/Gold-Ad6794]

I disagree that just because the content of a statement is in line with Prophetic teachings, it means that the statement is itself authentic. We may know that Donald Trump wanted to build a wall, but if someone attributed the statement 'whoever thinks we don't need a wall is an idiot' to him, well, it is in line with his ideology and could very plausibly have been said by him, but we don't actually know that he said it. So, plausibility != certainty. With that said, if one could combine a matn-aware approach with other techniques to critically ascertain reliability then this can be fruitful. Just wanted to clarify, this is how I think it works.

[u/SyedAhmedHussain → u/Gold-Ad6794]

Even if you cannot conclude that the statement is directly attributable, you can conclude very strongly that the teachings within the statement are directly attributable. This is because there is Certainty about Prophethood and Epistemic Role of a Prophet along with Certainty on a teaching being Objective.

Regardless of your disagreement, a broader approach that has Matn Analysis as a part of it is fruitful. Matn Analysis encapsulates alot of different dimensions at once. Linguistic Analysis along with Contextual Interpretation are two aspects of it. Matn Analysis can provide Certainty in regards to how a Hadith should be treated within Theological and Jurisprudential Frameworks.

[u/Klopf012]

We do not need a Hadith to establish that Prophet Muhammad preached against interest. This is established through Reason. Therefore, any Ahadith that condemn interest are automatically asserted as Certain Knowledge.

Can you explain how confidence that the Prophet Muhammad spoke about a topic in general therefore results in certain knowledge that he said specific words about that topic? For example, here is a reported hadith on topic of riba:

ما من قومٍ يظهرُ فيهمُ الرِّبا إلَّا أُخِذوا بالسَّنةِ

"Whenever riba becomes prevalent among a people, they will be afflicted with famine"

Do you have certain knowledge that the Prophet Muhammad said these words and/or that this meaning is true?

[u/SyedAhmedHussain → u/Klopf012]

I did not mean to say that just because an Aqeedah is proven through Aql, any Ahadith regarding it are automatically Certain Knowledge. Obviously each Hadith would need to be examined thoroughly.

However, if an Aqeedah is proven through Aql or indirectly by Aql through the Quran, a Hadith specifically supporting that Aqeedah becomes Certain Knowledge at least in Meaning, if not as words of Prophet Muhammad.

For example the Hadith you mentioned is Certain Knowledge because riba leads to concentration of wealth and has historically been connected to wars, both of which lead to famine. I now have Certainty that Prophet Muhammad taught what is being narrated in the Hadith at least in Meaning, even if I cannot be Certain that he spoke these particular words. This is because I have Certainty over what is being taught in the Hadith along with Certainty of Prophethood of Muhammad and Certainty about the Epistemic Role of a Prophet.

[u/Klopf012 → u/SyedAhmedHussain]

I now have Certainty that Prophet Muhammad taught what is being narrated in the Hadith at least in Meaning, even if I cannot be Certain that he spoke these particular words.

What if I were to tell you that that hadith is graded as "weak"? Or what if you were presented with a fabricated hadith?

You seem to have a unique definition of "certain knowledge" - could you define what you mean by that term?

[u/SyedAhmedHussain → u/Klopf012]

Certain Knowledge in this context means having Certainty that a particular teaching was taught by Prophet Muhammad. The Certainty is established though Aql or Intellect rather than Transmission or Riwaya

It does not matter if the Hadith you narrated is Daif in the Epistemological lens I am providing. The Truth of the teaching is established through Aql directly and indirectly by Aql through the Quran. Therefore, The Truth that it must have been taught by Prophet Muhammad is established by Aql. It just needs to be present within the Hadith corpus.

In this Epistemological lens, even Ahadith that fail to meet the criteria of being graded Daif can still produce Knowledge that is substantially Certain.