An Introduction to the Science of the Hadith:
Kitab Ma`rifat Anwa` `Ilm al-Hadith

Ibn al-Salah al-Shahrazuri (Eerik Dickinson, tr.)
Reading, UK: Garnet Publishing, 2005. 356 pages.

Contemporary western scholarship on the hadith literature largely ignores
most of the relevant secondary scholarship, namely, that produced by pre-
modern hadith specialists, including the discussions and assessments found
in the rijal literature, the `ilal genre, and other works. Perhaps this neglect
is born of the conviction that as religious persons, pre-modern scholars
were incapable of “doing” real history. Or perhaps it reflects the suspicion
that their assessments were designed exclusively to vindicate doctrinally
correct hadiths. Neither assumption does justice to the traditional field of
hadith studies. It is thus fitting to understand this discipline, not only
because attention to the secondary literature is a requirement of responsible
scholarship in any field, but also because doing so can benefit the modern
reevaluation of the hadith literature. 

The first step toward understanding traditional hadith scholarship is to
know its terminology. In English, there may be no better introduction to this
terminology than Eerik Dickinson’s translation of Ibn al-Salah’s (d.
643/1245) classic work. In addition, the book briefly addresses some of the
defects that could appear in the hadiths, contradictions in their isnads (chains
of transmission) or matns (texts), such as when one transmitter relates a tra-
dition with an incomplete isnad and another transmitter provides a complete
one, various subdisciplines of hadith studies and other matters.

Ibn al-Salah’s book can help correct certain modern misunderstandings
about the nature of traditional hadith scholarship and the technical meanings
of such basic terms as sahih, da`if, munkar, and tadlis. To give an example,
the traditional discipline is often faulted for rating as sound (sahih) hadiths
that can be recognized as ahistorical. This presupposes, incorrectly, that
sahih means authentic. Yet Ibn al-Salah indicates that classifying a hadith as
sahih means no more than saying that its isnad and its variants satisfy cer-
tain formal criteria. He asserts that, therefore, such a classification does not

122 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:1



necessarily mean that the hadith is authentic. Likewise, if a hadith is not con-
sidered sahih, this does not mean that it is necessarily apocryphal. (To be
sure, it was held that a judgment of soundness creates a presumption of
authenticity that should be acted upon in the absence of other evidence.
However, this probabilistic approach acknowledged that many sound
hadiths could be ahistorical.)

The book also touches upon the methods of hadith critics. Redaction crit-
icism was their bread and butter. Comparing different versions of a hadith
often made it possible to learn what its prototype looked like and, hence,
judge the qualities of its various transmitters. For example, it was often pos-
sible to discern if a transmitter had changed the hadith’s sense. In the case of
contradictory variants of the same hadith related through person X, if all
transmitters from X except one related the hadith in a certain way, that one
could be considered the original version and the anomalous version could be
written off as erroneous. But such matters were not necessarily settled
through a mere counting of the transmitters on the two sides of a disagree-
ment. Rather, transmitters known as reliable were given greater weight.

While Dickinson’s translation is definitely valuable, there is room for
improvement. It is neither free from error nor always in accordance with
idiomatic English. For example, there is a problem in the section on sahih
reports. The translation states: “The standard of the sound hadith does not
require that the hadith is sound in reality…” (p. 5). It is not clear what this
sentence means. At this point, Ibn al-Salah has already given the criteria that
define a sound hadith. This sentence, then, appears to say that a hadith that
satisfies these criteria need not, in reality, satisfy these criteria: a contradic-
tion. In fact, however, Ibn al-Salah does not say that a sahih hadith is not
necessarily sahih in reality; rather, what he says is that it need not be “defi-
nitely true” (maqtu`an bih), i.e., certainly authentic. 

Another error appears in the section on munkar reports. The translation
states: “In the remarks of many scholars of hadith we find a blanket condem-
nation of the hadith isolated as rejected, unfamiliar or anomalous” (p. 59).
The original text is wa-itlaq al-hukm `ala al-tafarrud bi al-radd aw al-
nakarah aw al-shudhudh mawjud fi kalam kathir min ahl al-hadith. Dickin-
son understands hukm `ala to mean “condemnation of.” Although in some
contexts hukm can mean that, here it refers to the judgment (on an isolated
transmission [tafarrud]) that the hadith is munkar. The preposition `ala goes
with itlaq, not hukm. What Ibn al-Salah is saying is that, in the remarks of
many hadith scholars, the term munkar is applied without distinction to iso-
lated hadiths characterized by rejection, unfamiliarity, or anomalousness.

Book Reviews 123



The point is that some scholars used munkar simply as a synonym of “iso-
lated” and did not take into account factors other than isolation, such as the
transmitter’s reliability. 

As an example of non-idiomatic and confusing renderings, one may
mention this sentence: “Abu `Abd Allah al-Hakim made a type of problem-
atic hadith the instances when …” (p. 45). A better translation would be:
“Abu `Abd Allah al-Hakim considered as a type of problematic hadith the
instances where …” (See Lane’s Lexicon for this sense of ja`ala.)

In sum, this translation is a valuable contribution to the western study of
Islam. It is to be hoped that it inspires more rigorous research in the funda-
mental field of hadith studies.

Behnam Sadeki
Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies

Stanford University, Stanford, California

124 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:1