The Difference of Opinion Among Hadith Scholars in Accepting and Rejecting Prophetic Hadiths

Abstract

This research explores the differing methodologies of Hadith criticism between Hadith scholars and jurists, each employing distinct criteria and conditions for accepting or rejecting Prophetic Hadith. Hadith scholars are characterized by their strictness in verifying the chains of transmission, focusing on the requirements of continuity, integrity, and the precision of narrators, while also ensuring the absence of anomalies or defects in the Hadith. In contrast, jurists emphasize the implications of the text and its alignment with reason and tradition, establishing conditions that align with jurisprudential principles such as analogy and widespread acceptance. The research also highlights the divergence between the Hanafi school and the majority in their criteria for Hadith acceptance, where the Hanafi approach is influenced by the opinion-centered environment of Iraq, while the majority adheres to the jurisprudential foundations adopted by other schools. The study aims to clarify each group’s contributions to the development of Hadith and jurisprudential sciences, highlighting the precision of Hadith scholars’ methodology in comparison to the flexibility of the jurists' approach.