University of Birmingham

School of Philosophy, Theology & Religion

Essay/Assignment Cover Sheet 2018-2019
To be included as the first page of all work submitted for assessment

PLEASE READ AND COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS OF THIS FORM

Module title Traditional approaches

Module level (C, I or H) M
Student ID (SRN) 1986776
Essay/assignment title or question Modern Approaches to Hadith
Actual word count of submitted 4000
assignment
Have you had an extension agreed? No
If yes, what is your extension
deadline?

REMINDERS

1. Do NOT give your name on the assignment or in your file name or provide any
information which might facilitate your identification anywhere in this submission;
instead put your SRN on the top right-hand corner of each page and include this
cover sheet.
2. Assignments should be submitted electronically via the module section on
Canvas before 12 noon on the published deadline for this assessment task.
3. A penalty of 5 marks will be imposed for each working day the assignment is late,
until a grade of 0% is reached.
4. You must refer to and be guided by the School of Philosophy, Theology &
Religion’s policy on word count penalties, which can be found in your module
handbook. PTR’s rules apply to all submissions for PTR modules, irrespective of
your home School’s rules.
5. By submitting this assignment, you are declaring that it is not plagiarized, but
rather all your own work, and that all quotations from, allusions to and
paraphrasing of the work of others have been fully cited and referenced.
6. If you believe that your performance may have been affected by illness or similar
matters, your submission declares that you have followed the guidance on
extenuating circumstances and extensions.
7. It is your responsibility to ensure you upload the correct version of your essay to
the correct assignment section on Canvas as Word or PDF documents only.

STUDENT REFLECTION ON FEEDBACK AND ASSESSMENT

In the academic year 2018-19 we are asking you, as the starting point for your
summative assessments, to think about feedback you have received at earlier points
in your course and how you have responded to it in this new piece of work. Thinking
carefully about the feedback you have received previously can help to improve your
performance. It is helpful, too, for the marker to know what feedback you have had
previously on similar pieces of work, and how you have tried to act on it. Knowing the
range of different kinds of feedback you have had can also help us to use more those
kinds that are most helpful to you.

Either in a comment on what you write here, or in their feedback to you, your marker
will engage with your reflection. The extent to which you have improved on previous
pieces of work will NOT affect your mark. Your work will be marked on the basis of its
own merits as a piece of academic work, NOT on the basis of the answers you give in
the box below. Instead, your response will help us to work with you to make feedback
helpful and help you improve academically.

PLEASE DO NOT include any information here that would enable your identification.

What feedback have you received on earlier assessments, or while preparing this
assessment? (Answer in three bullet points.)

 Try to write an essay that isn’t broken down into numerous subsections.
Avoid bullet points, tables, and lists of ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’.
 Think carefully about the organization of paragraphs. They shouldn’t be too
short. Don’t leave spaces between paragraphs as this tends to create
thematically incomplete paragraphs.
 Proof-read your work for typos and punctuation. Give page numbers in in-
text citations.

How have you responded to that feedback in this assessment? (Again, answer in
three bullet points.)

 I have read more literature outside of the recommended readings

 I have restructured the essay to flow logically and chronologically

What feedback on this assessment would best help you think about your next one?
(Again, answer in three bullet points.)
 Whether my arguments and deductions are consistent and clear
 Analyse the key issues in discussions about the authenticity of hadith, making reference to and
evaluating modern scholarly approaches associated with them.

The importance of Hadith to the Islamic tradition cannot be underestimated, it is a vital part of its
heritage and plays a pivotal role in the development of law and jurisprudence Brown (2014) argues
that even the Quran is viewed through the prism of hadith, that is how important they are to Islamic
scholarship. In this study I will analyse the key discussions around the authenticity of Hadith and the
modern scholarly approaches which are associated with them. This will be done by first providing a
context into the background of why hadith literature was important to the Islamic tradition as well as
for the western scholarship which then in turn focused on it. Muslim interaction with modernism,
alongside modern criticisms by orientalists, has bought the question of the authority and role of these
hadith back to light. These modern and traditional hadith criticism methods will be evaluated and
contrasted with one another with a modern overview of the development of the discussion thus far. I
will argue that modern scholarship has developed three broad trends and approaches to the question
on the validity of hadith which has focused on analysing the Sanad (chain or narration). I will do this
by focusing on secondary modern literature on the subject attempting to provide a chronological as
well as methodological account for these trends. I will argue that they developed chronologically and
in response to one another and these varied approaches and attitudes affected each other.

Background

Hadith itself is an integral part of Muslim heritage as it not only provided a basis for Islamic law, but
also recorded the legacy of the Prophet, Brown (2014). The derivation of Islamic law had two
approaches, one being the traditionalist one, relying solely on narrations (ahl ul hadith) and the other
group favouring reason (ahl ul ray) Melchert (2015), it is out of this context which Brown (2014) states
that Sunni hadith criticism emerges. So, this shows that within the Islamic tradition there already
existed a mechanism by which hadiths were utilised and a conversation around the authenticity of
these hadith already existed. There were a few issues which required a science to emerge, the first
being that it was an oral tradition which needed to be authenticated and written. This was due to an
initial prohibition of writing of hadiths, at times there was prohibitions and at other times it was
allowed. Brown (2014) explains this prohibition by stating it reflects competing values in the Islamic
hadith tradition between the written and oral traditions which also coincides with the development of
the Arabic script and widespread availability of paper. Another reason for the emergence and a need
for a hadith science was the existence of ‘Musanaf’s’ which in essence were legal books of
jurisprudence which included reports from the Prophet, his companions and also the opinions of the
compilers and noteworthy early jurists. These of course needed developing and shifting out in order
to preserve the reports of the Prophet from any other additions. However, it is fair to comment here
and say that an element of the compilers of these books or ‘Musannaf’s’ would have already added or
interpreted their own opinion and projected it onto the hadiths whilst reporting them. This fact will
perhaps be picked up and suggested later by modern scholars of hadith. The ‘Musannafs’ eventually
evolved into ‘Musannad’s’ with a greater emphasis placed on the ‘sanad’ or chain of the report with
the opinions of the companions and scholars being demoted to commentaries and supplementary to
the actual hadith report itself. These collections then developed further into ‘Sunnan’ and ‘Sahih’
literature and compilations. One of the driving factors behind this developmental process of
authenticating hadith reports was fuelled by early civil wars, sectarian groups emerging,
popularisation of story tellers and even pious people trying to fabricate reports to make people act
more religious, Brown (2014).

The traditional solutions to these forgeries and the problem of authentication was a three-tier system
which would be attributed to the ‘ahlul hadith’, Brown (2008). This involved demanding a source
‘Sanad’, verifying the source by looking at the chain of narration and finally checking to see if there
were any collaborating reports. This involved the development of a whole separate discipline known
as ‘ilm ul rijal’ which involved compiling and analysing the biographies of the narrators of these
reports, Melchert (2015). A second, less prominent trend within traditional scholarship which
emerged was known as the ‘ahlul ray’ which concentrated on Content Criticism (Matn), it was
associated with groups such as the Mutazilites who used reason as the primary measure hence ‘Matn’
criticism took a back seat to ‘Isnad’ analysis. The use of reason was a taboo, this coupled with the
divine sanctity and authority given to the statements of the Prophet due to theological assumptions
created an atmosphere of neglecting Matn, although it did take place according to Brown (2014). An
even obscurer trend was the Sufis who along with the usual chain also had a spiritual chain which they
paid attention to, so the chain was not merely hearing the words from teacher to student back to the
Prophet but it was also a discipleship which lends more credibility to the ‘Sanad’, this discipleship
entailed more than just hadith for them, it also encompassed spiritual training which often was
represented by the passing down of a cloak to signify inheritance of the chain of discipleship, Brown
(2014). There is also an existence of a mystical chain, for example the famous hadith in which God
describes himself as ‘the hidden treasure’ which wanted to be known, a reason for creation, is
deemed not authentic but is “authenticated by Kashf (unveiling) not Sanad” Brown (2014, p195). This
of course cannot be verified as it is not sensible or tangible hence not available for hadith criticism.

There are obvious flaws to this approach which when analysed further could be pointed out. There is
a theological assumption which perhaps undermines the whole science which is that God has
protected this institution of hadith and their reporting, this is inline with the theological view linked
with Prophethood etc. Another similar assumption which can be identified here is that there exists an
assumed piety of the first generation of narrators and the early Muslim community, Brown (2014).
This overall lack of scepticism seems to be one of the greatest weaknesses of this early scholarship,
however as will be discussed in further detail this sceptical trend is a latter historical development of
thought and academia in general. However, as Hallaq (2004) states most of the hadiths that were
recorded were also found in the practise of the community such as those who resided in Medina for
example. So, this meant that the hadiths were already being acted upon before they were recorded
and were corroborate by the practice of the community. Another form of corroboration is that
hadiths were often also found in “Shi’ite, Zaidi and Ibadi sources” Azami (2000, p230) not to mention
being found in geographically diverse locations.

3 modern trends

In modern scholarship in general there seems to be three general trends which make up the approach
to the question of the authenticity of hadith. It is noteworthy that a bulk of the study focused on the
hadith literature from this angle i.e. the truth value and authenticity of hadith. Due to this reason
most of the study has been on the authenticity question as is the focus of this work. However before
exploring the question further the context and background of this scholarship must be discussed.

This leads to the first approach which is often called the ‘Sceptical’ trend, Hamasha (2018). It is also
referred to as the ‘orientalist’ approach, Brown (2014). This trend in the opinion of Brown (2014) is
anything but neutral due to the wider narrative which surrounded the study of Islam in general at the
time. To understand this approach, one must delve further into the context and academic narrative
and discourse present at the time. The way in which this discourse is shaped and defined is by
external factors such as the media, academic literature etc, however in the case of Islam there is
another factor to be considered which is colonialism. The Western world and its institutions, including
the academic ones ruled over and dominated for most part the Muslim world and this early trend and
attitude towards hadith authenticity is a product of this. Brown (2014) suggest that this context was a
power struggle between Islam and the West, whereas Anjum (2014, p11) argues that most study
done during the colonial period was done through the lens “self and other” categories. It is with this
backdrop that this sceptical view formed, and it is in this trend in which one of the most extreme
modern scholarly approaches to Hadith authenticity is found. Overall the sceptical view led to the
conclusion that all ‘Sanad’s’ were fabricated and later forgeries. As Berg (2000) states, one scholar of
this trend, Schacht, claims that the ‘isnad’ were fabricated back to the prophet from earlier existing
reports attributed to companions or those from the early generations. He calls this idea the Common
Link Theory. So, the claim is that this literature has no link back to the prophet and the idea of the
‘sanad’ was just a later invention and superadded to give religious justification and validity to these
reports known as hadith. One of the reasons for this strict approach can be put down to trend of
using the HCM (Historical Critical Method), which was to question the authenticity of everything
historical. Another adopted methodology was the assumption that the founders of religions are not
responsible for their formalised teachings i.e. they were formalised and crystallised a lot later. This
approach by this group of thinkers led to three basic assumptions. The assumptions were to raise
doubt about the authenticity of the text, hadith literature in this case. Be cautious or have suspicion
over religious orthodoxy presented in texts and to also look at what historical agendas were served by
the texts, Brown (2014). There is strength to this approach, and it could be argued that it has led to
development in the science of hadith. This is due to a reliance and study of ‘Matn’ (content) of the
hadiths due to the application of the historical critical method. As the ‘sanad’ was the claim to
authenticity and the thing under scrutiny the ‘Matn’ became the primary focus and this is a key point
and flaw in the traditional method. This is the case as many narrations were accepted due to the
‘sanad’ even if the contents of a hadith contained logical fallacies and contradicted reality. Attributing
this to Goldziher, Brown (2008, 4) states that the “key component of modern historical investigation”
is the ‘Matn’ analysis. This is perhaps its greatest feat as a trend and methodology, it explored a
deeper level of content analysis which was perhaps taken for granted under traditional and even
modern contemporary study of hadith. The sceptical group held two main arguments and
proponents, Goldhizer applied scepticism and assumed that the Umayyads were secular hence had no
interest in preserving hadith, whilst Schacht focused on legal hadith. Although this approach enjoyed
objectivity from theological assumptions, it however was influenced by other political ones perhaps as
Brown (2014) has alluded to such as ‘orientalism’. Upon further inspection, further to Brown’s (2104)
assertations this approach does seem to lack the objectivity and critical approach which seems
apparent at first glance. This is due to serval reasons and one of them being an over reliance on
linking the development of hadith science to the development of Islamic law and studying it as such.
Although there is no doubt to the link between the development of the schools of jurisprudence and
the development of Hadith, they are not mutually exclusive. In traditional scholarship, and later
modern academia too the science of hadith is a subject and science in its own right which is
independent of the study of other aspects of Islam such as law or the Quran. As Brown (2014) states,
to understand the context of the emergence of hadith and its usage one cannot escape from studying
the development of Islamic law, however this must not taint or dilute the study of hadith. This is
clearly something that this sceptical trend has fallen foul of, as stated by Azami (2000, 218) hadith
literature was treated by the orientalists as if it “doesn’t exist at all” or as if it has no “independent
footing of its own”. To summarize, the biggest weakness of over scepticism as Motzki (2013) states is
that it is ‘implausible’ that fabrication would occur on such a huge scale, all of the narrators and
generations that followed all corroborated to forge and invent, what is overlooked is the piety of the
transmiters ad their dedication to preservation to the point they would even preserve grammatical
errors etc, Melchert (2015).

This above-mentioned trend has been revived and the newer and more modern approaches to the
question of hadith authenticity are just merely a re-visitation of the older trends and refinement of
them. For example, the common link theory put forward by Schacht has been revived, Juynboll (2007)
adds to this theory by claiming that all corroborative hadith used as supporters are actually fabricated
as they lack a common link, hence debunking the traditional mechanism of corroborating hadith with
one another. He also states that Hadith criticism was formed way too late to be effective. This newer
trend is labelled the Revisionist Approach by Brown (2014). Like the orientalist approach but the
differentiating factor was that it questioned more broadly Islamic heritage in general rather than just
hadith literature. This was equated with a total denial of hadiths and their authenticity, for example
according to Adams (1997), Wansbrough (d.2002) claimed hadiths were inserted to justify law and
Quran, and none of the sources describing early Islamic history were contemporary to the time they
claim. Cook also criticised hadith dating by doubting the common link method, Brown (2014).

The second approach which one could argue was born in response to the sceptical approach was the
‘Philo Islamic Apology’ group, Brown (2014). This also agrees with the thesis postulated at the
beginning that modern approaches to hadith literature and especially with regards to the question of
authenticity have been gradual and have evolved over time. This group argued that the traditional
system of hadith authentication and the system of isnad analysis was sufficient to ascertain the
validity of a hadith. One of the main proponents was Azami (2000) who defended the common link in
the chains claiming that they went back earlier than Schacht had claimed. He also attacked the
argument by e silentio, which argues that if hadiths weren’t fabricated then why were they not used
in early discussions and arguments. This was dismissed by Azami (2000) by bringing the incident of
Malik who had issued a particular ruling but when he heard a hadith to the contrary from a person
from Egypt, he changed his ruling, so the assumption that everyone knew all the hadiths in circulation
is false as they were not compiled at that time.

Berg (2009) summarises the two above camps very well by claiming that the two trends are based
upon two opposing assumptions which are that one assumes scepticism over the validity of isnad
whereas the other ascribes undue confidence to it. This is a very strong claim by Berg (2009) as it
could be argued indeed there has always been, even from traditional Muslim scholarship never mind
modern academic studies, only two approaches to hadith studies. One being total denial of the chain
and the other being blind acceptance of it as a valid system of authentication. However, this is an
oversimplified and rigid view of an issue which is perhaps more nuanced and complex. There could be
a way of not being so absolute and a way of reconciliation between these two camps.

This leads to the third trend labelled the ‘Sanguine’ approach by Hamasha (2018) and by Berg (2010)
before her. Although naturally Berg (2009) claims this group just falls into the later apologist group
upon deeper analysis it does seem like a synthesised trend distinct from the previous two. Sometimes
also referred to as the ‘Western Re-evaluation’ by Brown (2014) this trend has genuinely taken from
and adapted not only useful elements from the Muslim apologetic trend, which is actually the
traditional Muslim scholarly approach to hadith, but it has also maintained a degree of critical analysis
and scepticism. Motzki (2003) for example welcomes Berg’s scepticism of ‘isnad’ and his proposal of
using stylistic analysis of the ‘matn’, he states this could be a tool utilised alongside analysis of the
chain. Motzki (2013) is famous for rebutting the common link argument and focusing on a ‘isnad’ and
‘matn’ analysis. This trend of re-valuation from western scholarship also hold out that ‘matn’ analysis
was not a neglected part of hadith science as claimed by the sceptics. Brown (2008) argues that Matn
criticism was not a later development as argued by Orientalists such as Goldziher but in fact argues
that it was an early feature going back to the 3/4 (9/10 CE) century. He claims that this was disguised
as Isnad criticism to ward off the influence from the rationalist opponents of traditional Sunni
scholarship such as the ‘Mutazilites’. So, ‘matn’ criticism was indeed a part of ‘sanad’ analysis, in early
scholarship the two were not differentiated, this was done to maintain the importance of the ‘sanad’.
This methodology to hadith has flipped the idea of the common link theory to affirm the authenticity
of hadith rather than doubt it. The common link is the furthest back common narrator found in a
chain of narrators who seems to have been the one who preserved and forwarded the hadith to
following generations. The sceptical camp claimed that this was the point of fabrication and then
circulation. Motzki (2013) however claimed that upon further analysis of different ‘matn’ the common
link should be viewed as a common source rather than an origin. The two assumptions dropped here
are that which says this common link was a fabricator at one end, to blind acceptance of this source at
the other extreme. This approach truly is a blend between the two previous approaches. Perhaps the
biggest counter claim to the sceptical trend is that the sceptics rely on a conspiracy theory which
consisted of all the early Muslim generation who would have fabricated the story of Islam, Berg
(2003). This is of course not plausible. This approach has the added advantage of hindsight as it
developed later from the earlier trends and has managed to whilst keeping the validity of the ‘sanad’
also maintain a degree of scepticism. Whilst also staying true to the originally critical method of the
orientalists this approach has been confident in its own scholarship to re-evaluate some of the
methodological assumptions that came along with the ‘orientalist’ or ‘sceptical’ approach.

Analysis

In retrospect although there are three broad trends observable in modern approaches to hadith it is
clear that the overwhelming majority has viewed the ‘sanad’ itself as not a valid tool of authentication
in and of itself. This has led to other tools and means being developed in order to date the literature
back to its origins. So, the question to whether the hadith literature is correctly attributed to the
Prophet directly through a chain of transmission has largely been dismissed as later fabrication.
However, the hadith literature itself does represent some sort of Muslim intellectual tradition in so far
as it was used to validate pre-existing law and custom, the source of which was undoubtedly the
Prophet of Islam. F Rahman according to Berg (2000) has a unique take on the hadith literature,
maintaining that the origins are from the early days of Islam even if the Sanad and ‘matn’ were
fabricated, as it represented what the early Muslims learnt from the Prophet. He calls this
transmission a ‘silent transmission’ which, as alluded to earlier, correlates with notions such as
practice of the community e.g. the people of Medina, or his companions or his family. This is a kind of
living Sunnah which was passed down but not via Sanad or ‘matn’, almost like the Sufi concept of
discipleship. Perhaps this is the middle ground to the nature of hadiths and their role as to how they
represent Sunnah, giving them some value. One could argue that the assumptions brought about by
the HCM had already been pre-empted by traditional scholarship, traditional hadith criticism already
knew of fabrications, sectarian agendas in hadith as well as political agendas served by hadith
fabrications, however the extent of these and the degree to which hadiths were scrutinised can be
questioned. This raises the question of theological assumptions rather than methodological flaws.
Similarly, modern hadith criticism has gone through evolutionary stages just as the traditional method
had, Hallaq (2004), this development of thought can be clearly seen in the modern method, leaving
room for an integration of both systems and a development of a newer agreed upon system. It
becomes clear that just as with the traditional method it is the assumptions which lead to
inconsistencies within the modern approach to hadith studies, one being the unrestricted application
of the HCM which as Brown (2014) concludes can lead us to farfetched conclusions, this alongside an
underlying doubt on Muslim hadith science has led to an unfair evaluation of the value of hadith
literature.

In conclusion it is fair to say that the different modern approaches to the question of the validity of
hadith namely the three trends all have logically valid conclusions based on their assumptions,
methodology and case studies. Each method of criticism met its own need in its own time, going
forward it must combine both previous methods. Brown (2014) goes as far as saying that the
traditional 3 tier method is a legitimate method and modern enquires would employ the same level of
scrutiny. Following on with this Kamali (2016 ,217) retrospectively postulates that although impressive
and meticulous in “reception, transmission & documentation” to the point of even preserving
grammar errors the application of their methodology could be revisited. He argues the methodology
was sound for the means that they had at their disposal, so it is incumbent to improve the
implementation of that framework. He states three aspects to the next phase which are the utilisation
of modern technology like computers and software not only to store but to sort and analyse hadith.
Also, he mentions the development of contemporary commentaries which could bring the tradition of
hadith into the modern context and make it more relevant. Also, to abridged reliable collections
which would be derived from the existing 6 books of hadith for example. Just as the above, the
modernist responses are merely re-manifestations of older pre-existing groups and ideas with the
above cases being merely an upgrade of the tools used within the system of hadith criticism. There is
an evolution and conversation going on where the Muslim responses and their western counterparts
are equally now contributing and moving the debate into it a new frontier, however for a real change
to occur there must be a more meta systemic change or reframing of the role of hadith as well as an
upgrade of what already exists. Therefore, the most important question to come out of this study is to
put an importance on They have all added to the progression of the study of hadith and have set up
space for further study and investigation.
 Bibliography

Adams, C. J. (1997). Reflections on the work of John Wansbrough. Method & Theory in the Study of
Religion 9, 1, 75-90, Available From: brill<https://doi-
org.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/10.1163/157006897X00061> [Accessed 15 January 2019]

Amin, K., 2004. Nasiruddin al-Albani on Muslim's Sahih: A critical study of his method. Islamic L. &
Soc'y, 11, p.149.

Anjum, F., 2014. TRAVEL WRITING, HISTORY AND COLONIALISM: AN ANALYTICAL STUDY. Journal of
the Research Society of Pakistan, 51.

Aʻẓamī, M.M. (2000) Studies in early Ḥadīth literature: with a critical edition of some early texts.
Indianapolis: American Trust Publications

Berg, H., 2003. Competing paradigms in the study of Islamic origins: Qurʾān 15: 89–91 and the value
of Isnāds. Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins, pp.259-291.

Berg, H. (2009) The development of exegesis in early Islam: the authenticity of Muslim literature from
the formative period. London: Routledge

Brown, D.W. (2003) Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

Brown, J.A., (2008). How We Know Early Hadith Critics Did Matn Criticism and Why It's So Hard to
Find. Islamic L. & Soc'y, 15, p.143.

Brown, J. (2014) Hadith: Muhammad's legacy in the medieval and modern world. Oxford: Oneworld

Burton, J. (2001) An introduction to the adth. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Cook, D., 2002. " Ḥadīth", Authority and the End of the World: Traditions in Modern Muslim
Apocalyptic Literature. Oriente moderno, 21(1), pp.31-53.

Hallaq, W. B. (2004) “Prophetic authority and the modification of legal reasoning,” in The Origins and
Evolution of Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Themes in Islamic Law), pp. 102–
121. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511818783.008.

Hamasha, E, O. (2018) Reconstructing the Past: IBN AL-QAYYIM’S APPROACH IN CRITIQUING

ACCOUNTS OF MAGHAZI (BATTLES) IN HIS BOOK ZAD AL-MA’AD. Philosophy PHD Thesis, University of
Birmingham, Birmingham.

Juynboll, G.H., 2007. Encyclopedia of canonical ḥadīth. Brill.

Kamali, M.H. (2016) A textbook of Hadith studies: authenticity, compilation, classification and criticism
of Hadith. Markfield: The Islamic Foundation

Motzki, H., Voort, N.B.-van der, Anthony, S.W., et al. (2013) Analysing Muslim traditions: studies in
legal, exegetical and Maghāzī Hadīth. Leiden: Brill

Rayyah Maḥmūd Abū, 2000. Lights on the Muhammadan sunnah, or, Defence of the hadith, Qum,
Iran: Ansariyan Publications.

Schoeler, G. and Montgomery, J.E. (2010) The oral and the written in early Islam. London: Routledge

Shahrastāni ̄, (2004). The Prohibition of recording the hadith. Qum: Ansariyan Pub.