Muslim research scholars established these principles in the elementary stages of Islām in order to analytically examine narrations. It is on the basis of these very principles that they would ascertain the authenticity of these narrations and deeply ponder upon their true essence. Any sensible individual can comprehend the fact that in the evaluation of narrations, there can be no methodology of analysis which is more effective than that mentioned above. This statement is not to claim that these matters were necessarily in view of all the Muslim Muḥaddithīn1 and historians alike. However, there is absolutely no doubt that these principles were devised by the Muslim research scholars, in order to analyse narrations. Generally, they gave regard to these principles throughout their written works. It is quite possible that personal inclinations may lead a research scholar to give greater weight to one element, whereas another may give precedence to the other. Perhaps a writer, in order to produce a more comprehensive collection, may include various weak narrations merely upon the potentiality of their authenticity. Moreover, the possibility also exists that a particular writer is not prudent in his work; for all people of a certain class cannot be of the same level. In any case, Early Muslims kept the principles of Riwāyat and Dirāyat in view, but more discreet writers complied with these two principles meticulously. It is not necessary to provide examples of Riwāyat because the quality of Islāmic research from this aspect is acknowledged by friend and foe alike. On the contrary, various western scholars including Sir William Muir have expressed the notion that Muslims disregard Dirāyat and have tested the authenticity of narrations merely on the principle of Riwāyat.2 For this reason, clear examples which particularly exhibit the use of Dirāyat shall be presented below. Hence, readers shall gain the opportunity to deduce how incorrect and baseless this allegation truly is.
Firstly, the Holy Qur’ān itself states that it is not sufficient to base an incident on Riwāyat alone; rather every aspect of the incident should be fully investigated prior to accepting it as correct. Hence, it states:
“If a person brings you any news, ascertain the character of the one who brings it. If then, this narrator is unworthy of reliance, analyse every aspect before drawing a conclusion.”3
Apparently it seems that this verse alludes to the authenticity of Riwāyat alone. However, with little reflection, it no longer remains hidden that this verse takes both Riwāyat and Dirāyat into account. Therefore, the word فَاسِقٌ is an allusion towards Riwāyat. In other words, one must inquire as to who has brought the news. On the other hand the word فَتَبَیَّنُوْآ is an allusion towards Dirāyat, which essentially means that the news presented must also be examined closely.
At another place the Holy Qur’ān states:
Meaning, “Those who partook in levelling an aspersion against Hadrat ‘Ā’ishahra, the honourable wife of the Prophet of Allāhsa, were a party from among you, O Muslims! However, you should have thought well of the other. Why then did you not dismiss this allegation saying, Holy art Thou, O God, this is a grievous calumny.”4
These verses clearly allude to the principle of Dirāyat. Moreover, the companions of the Holy Prophetsa have been reproached, that although a group of Muslims were apparently responsible for accusing Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishahra, the Muslims were well aware of her nature and knew that she was the wife of the Prophet of God who remained in his company day and night. Thus, upon hearing this accusation, the Muslims should have categorically rejected it at first glance as merely a false accusation and slander. Moreover, these verses indicate that a narration should not be accepted merely on the basis that its narrators apparently seem to be good people; instead all the aspects of an instance should be analysed on the basis of God-given wisdom. If the other elements of an instance throw a narration into obscurity or doubt, it should not be accepted.
In conformity to this Qur’ānic principle, it is also emphasised in Ḥadīth that one should not believe in a verbal narration merely on the basis of hearsay. Rather, one must investigate the validity of statements from every vantage point. Therefore, the Holy Prophetsa states:
كَفٰی بَالْمَرْءِ كَذِبًا اَنْ یُّحَدِّثَ بِكُلِّ مَا سَمِعَ
“A reason sufficient to determine an individual’s dishonesty is that he begins forwarding the narrations he hears without investigation.”5
This Ḥadīth reveals the importance of investigating the validity of narrations as well; however, the essential objective is investigation by means of Dirāyat. It is evident from the words بِكُلِّ مَا سَمِعَ that the acceptance of a narration should not be simply based on hearsay. Instead, the matter must be analysed from the opposite viewpoint in order to conclude whether the relayed report can be deemed acceptable or not. Moreover, this Ḥadīth goes so far as to state, that an individual who relays a narration merely on the basis of hearsay is as responsible for the propagation of falsehood as is the individual who initially fabricated the lie.
In short, both the Holy Qur’ān as well as the Aḥādīth support the concept that all news should be confirmed and verified in accordance with both Riwāyat and Dirāyat. Therefore, according to this principle, there are numerous examples found in Ḥadīth where the companions of the Holy Prophetsa and Muslim research scholars following in time, always paid particular attention to the aspect of Dirāyat along with that of Riwāyat. Many times, although an account appeared solid in reference to Riwāyat, it would be disregarded on the basis of Dirāyat. The following Ḥadīth is an example:
عَنْ اَبِی ھُرَیْرَةَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُوْلُ اللّٰهِ صَلَّی اللّٰهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْوُضُوْءُ مِمَّا مَسَّتِ النَّارُ فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ یَا اَبَا ھُرَیْرَةَ اَنَتَوَضَّأُ مِنَ الدُّھْنِ اَنَتَوَضَّأُ مِنَ الْحَمِیْمِ ۔۔۔۔۔ فَقَالَ اَبُوْ عِیْسٰی وَاَكْثَرُ اَھْلِ الْعِلمِ عَلیٰ تَرْكِ الْوُضُوْءِ
In a gathering, Abū Hurairahra mentioned that the Holy Prophetsa would state that after the use of anything which is touched [cooked] by fire, ablution becomes obligatory. Upon this, Ibni ‘Abbāsra interjected and said, “Should we then perform ablution after the use of butter or oil? Shall we perform ablution after the use of boiling water?” After writing this narration, Imām Tirmidhīrh states that among the Muslims, “A majority of the scholars are united in the belief that ablution is not necessary after the use of something which has been prepared over fire.”6
Therefore, from this Ḥadīth it becomes apparent that the narration relayed by Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurairahra, who is renowned for narrating more Aḥādīth than any other companion of the Holy Prophetsa, was rejected by Ḥaḍrat Ibni ‘Abbāsra on the basis of common sense. Firstly, the fact that a substance has been prepared over fire has no relation whatsoever to the fact that after its use, one must renew his ablution. Secondly, if the basis of religion is ease and facilitation, a statement of this nature could not possibly be attributed to the Holy Prophetsa. It is for this reason that in spite of this clear Ḥadīth narrated by Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurairahra, a majority of the A’immah-e-Ḥadīth and jurisprudence are firm on the belief that it is not obligatory to perform ablution after the use of something which has been prepared over a fire. There are many other Aḥādīth which reinforce this ideology. God forbid, this is not to imply that Ḥaḍrat Ibni ‘Abbāsra and other research scholars believe that the narration related by Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurairahra in fact, comprise the words of the Holy Prophetsa but are not worthy of action. Rather, the intent is to imply that in the viewpoint of Ḥaḍrat Ibni ‘Abbāsra and other research scholars, Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurairahra misunderstood the true precept of this narration. Another possibility is that the Holy Prophetsa may have made this statement with relevance to special circumstances but it was generalized by Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurairahra. Although this Ḥadīth proves to be authentic with respect to the principle of Riwāyat, yet Muslim research scholars have not accepted it since it does not fulfill the requirements of Dirāyat. If the narration of a veteran narrator, the likes of Ḥaḍrat Abū Hurairahra has not been exempt from the cross-examination of Dirāyat, the worthlessness of Sir William Muir’s statement, that Muslims would determine the authenticity of Aḥādīth on the basis of Riwāyat alone, and disregard the requirements of Dirāyat, becomes apparently manifest.
It is mentioned in another Ḥadīth:
عَنْ اَبِیْ اِسْحٰقَ قَالَ كُنْتُ مَعَ الْاَسْوَدِ بْنِ یَزِیْدَ فَحَدَّثَ الشَّعْبِیُّ عَنْ حَدِیْثِ فَاطِمَةَ بِنْتِ قَیْسٍ اَنَّ رَسُوْلَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّی اللّٰهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَمَ لَمْ یَجْعَلْ لَھَا سُكْنَی وَلَا نَفَقَةَ فَاَخَذَ الْاَسْوَدُ مِنْ حَصَی فَحَصِبَهُ بِهٖ فَقَالَ وَیْلَكَ تُحَدِّثُ بِمِثْلِ ھٰذَا وَقَالَ عُمَرُ لَا نَتْرُكُ كِتَابَ اللّٰهِ وَسُنَّةَ نَبِیِّنَا صَلَّی اللّٰهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِقَوْلِ امْرَأَةِ لَا نَدْرِیْ حَفِظَتْ اَوْ نَسِیَتْ
Abū Isḥāqra narrates that on one instance, in a gathering, I was sitting with Aswad bin Yazīdra. Sha‘bīra narrated that Fāṭimah bint Qaisra, who was a lady companion of the Holy Prophetsa, states that when her husband divorced her, the Holy Prophetsa did not order that she receive a house or expenses. At this, Aswad took a handful of small pebbles and threw them at Sha‘bī and said, “You present such a Ḥadīth? When this Ḥadīth was presented before Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra, he said that we cannot ignore the Qur’ān and Sunnat7 of the Holy Prophetsa merely upon the statement of a woman. We are unaware of what the actual statement was and what she understood or what the actual statement was and what she forgot of it.”8
In this Ḥadīth Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra, the second Caliph of the Holy Prophetsa rejected the narration of a lady companion on the foundation that her statement is contradictory to the teachings of the Qur’ān and the Sunnat of the Holy Prophetsa. Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra reconciled this conflict by suggesting that the woman who made this statement was either unable to comprehend the words of the Holy Prophetsa or that she later forgot those words. In any case, this Ḥadīth was not accepted by Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra on the basis of Dirāyat, though it was authentic from the perspective of Riwāyat. Similarly, the religious verdict of the Muslims is that the narration of Fāṭimahra was incorrect and the belief of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra was correct.
Likewise, in another Ḥadīth it is narrated:
عَنْ مَحْمُوْدِ ابْنِ الرَّبِیْعِ اَنَّهٗ سَمِعَ عِتْبَانَ بْنَ مَالِكِ الْاَنْصَارِیَّ یَقُوْلُ قَالَ رَسُوْلُ اللّٰهِ صَلَّی اللّٰهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ اَنَّ اللّٰهَ قَدْ حَرَّمَ عَلیٰ النَّارِ مَنْ قَالَ لَآ اِلٰهَ اِلَّا اللّٰهُ یَبْتَغِیْ بِذَالِكَ وَجْهَ اللّٰهِ قَالَ مَحْمُوْدُ فَحَدَّثْتُھَا قَوْمًا فِیْھِمْ اَبُوْ اَیُّوْبَ صَاحِبُ رَسُوْلِ اللّٰهِ صَلَّی اللّٰهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَاَنْكَرَھَا عَلَیَّ اَبُوْ اَیُّوْبَ وَقَالَ وَاللّٰهِ مَا اَظُنُّ رَسُوْلَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّی اللّٰهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ مَا قُلْتُ قَطُّ
Maḥmūd bin Ar-Rabī‘ narrates that I heard from ‘Itbān bin Mālik that the Prophet of Allāh said, Allāh the Exalted has prohibited the fire of hell upon all those who in full sincerity and to seek the pleasure of God alone, declare that there is none worthy of worship except Allāh. Maḥmūdra added, I told the above narration to some people in a gathering where Abū Ayyūbra was also present. Abū Ayyūbra denounced the narration and said, “By God, I cannot at all presume that the Holy Prophetsa might have said so.”9
In this Ḥadīth, Ḥaḍrat Abū Ayyūb Anṣārīra refused to accept a narration on the basis of Dirāyat, though it seemed authentic with reference to Riwāyat. It is quite possible that the argumentation and rationalization of Ḥaḍrat Abū Ayyūb Anṣārīra is incorrect, but nonetheless, this Ḥadīth is proof of the fact that the companions of the Holy Prophetsa did not blindly accept every Ḥadīth that reached them. Quite the contrary, they would accept Aḥādīth only after a thorough investigation, whilst utilising both the principles of Riwāyat and Dirāyat.
Furthermore, in another Ḥadīth it is mentioned:
قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فَلَمَّا مَاتَ عُمَرُ ذَكَرْتُ ذَالِكَ لَعَائِشَةَ فَقَالَتْ یَرْحَمُ اللّٰهُ عُمَرَ وَاللّٰهِ مَا حَدَثَ رَسُوْلُ اللّٰهِ صَلَّی اللّٰهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ اَنَّ الْمَیِّتَ لَیُعَذَّبُ بِبُكَاءِ اَھْلِهٖ عَلَیْهِ وَلٰكِنْ قَالَ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ یَزِیْدُ الْكَافِرِ عَذَابًا بِبُكَاءِ اَھْلِهٖ عَلَیْهِ قَالَ وَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ حَسْبُكُمُ الْقُرْاٰنُ وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ اُخْریٰ
Ibni ‘Abbāsra narrates that Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra would relate that the Holy Prophetsa stated, “By weeping over the corpse of a person that person is subject to the punishment of God.” After the death of ‘Umarra, when I mentioned this narration to Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishahra, she said, “May Allāh have mercy upon ‘Umar, by God the Prophet of Allāhsa did not say that, rather he said that ‘If the kinsmen of a disbeliever weep after his death they only increase his punishment.” Then Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishahra said that “The statement of the Qur’ān is sufficient that no soul shall bear the burden of another.” 10
This Ḥadīth conspicuously exhibits the utilisation of the aspect of Dirāyat. Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishahra rejected the narration related by an illustrious person, the likes of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra, not only by presenting an opposing narration in rebuttal, but also furnished proof her own belief, by presenting argumentation from the Holy Qur’ān. At this point it is irrelevant to discuss whether Ḥaḍrat ‘Ā’ishahra was correct or Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra; the sole objective is to prove that the allegation that Muslim research scholars accepted Aḥādīth merely on the basis of Riwāyat is completely false. The truth is that Muslim research scholars utilised the principle of Dirāyat copiously and with their God-given intellect would evaluate narrations prior to accepting them as genuine and authentic. It is due to this very reason that even the greatest of companions would fall into a mutual difference of opinion.
1 Scholars of Ḥadīth (Publishers)
2 Life of ‘Mahomet’, Sir William Muir, p. xlii, Reprint of the 1894 Ed., Published by Voice of India New Delhi
3 Al-Ḥujurāt (49:7)
4 An-Nūr (24:12,13,17)
5 Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Muqaddamatul-Mu’allif), Bābun-Nahyi ‘anil-Ḥadīthi bikulli mā Sami‘a, Ḥadīth No. 7
6 Sunanut-Tirmidhī, Kitābuṭ-Ṭahārah, Bābu Mā Jā’a fil-Wuḍū’i mimmā Ghayyaratin-Nāru, Ḥadīth No. 79
7 Practice of the Holy Prophetsa (Publishers)
8 Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Kitābuṭ-Ṭalāq, Bābul-Muṭallaqati Thalāthan lā Nafaqata lahā, Ḥadīth No. 3710
9 Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī, Kitābut-Tahajjud, Bābu Ṣalātin-Nawāfili Jamā‘atan, Ḥadīth No. 1186
10 Mishkātul-Maṣābīḥ, Kitābul-Janā’iz, Bābul-Bukā’i ‘alal-Maiyyiti, Al-Faṣluth-Thālith, Ḥadīth No. 1742, Volume 1, Part 1, pp. 329-330, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (2003)