Applying Weighing Indicators Among Hadith Criticism Scholars: A Case Study of the Differences Between Imam al-Bukhari in His Sahih and Imam Abu Zur‘a al-Razi in Ibn Abi Hatim’s ‘Ilal al-Hadith

Abstract

Abstract:

This research addresses an important issue in the field of Hadith sciences, particularly ‘Ilal al-Hadith (Hidden Defects in Hadith). The study examines certain narrations found in ‘Ilal al-Hadith by Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi, where Abu Zur‘a al-Razi questions the authenticity of certain isnāds (chains of transmission) of Hadiths that appear in Imam al-Bukhari’s Sahih. Through an analytical study of the principles used for weighing differing hadith evaluations (qarā'in al-tarjīḥ) between Imam al-Bukhari and Abu Zur‘a al-Razi, the research finds that each of these scholars had their own methodology in selecting what they deemed the most authentic version of a narration. However, those unfamiliar with the technical aspects of hadith criticism may misinterpret these isnād differences, leading them to wrongly criticize authentic hadiths included in Sahih al-Bukhari.

This study, therefore, clarifies that the apparent disagreement between these two scholars is one of selection and preference, rather than a fundamental methodological dispute. The researcher concludes that each of the two imams chose a version they believed to be the most sound based on supporting contextual indicators (qarā'in).