The proliferation of fabricated hadiths (maudhu‘) throughout Islamic history, driven by political, sectarian, and ideological motivations, necessitated rigorous methodological frameworks for hadith verification. Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH) developed one of the most influential yet contested approaches to identifying fabricated narrations through his seminal work al-Maudhu‘āt. While existing studies have examined hadith classification and general principles of hadith criticism, no comprehensive comparative analysis has systematically evaluated the epistemological foundations and methodological distinctions among Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Suyūṭī, and Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī within an integrated sanad-matn framework, nor explored their relevance to contemporary digital-era disinformation challenges. This study aims to analyze Ibn al-Jawzī's sanad-criticism methodology for detecting fabricated hadiths in al-Maudhu‘āt, compare it with the methodologies of al-Suyūṭī and Ibn Ḥajar, and evaluate the relevance of these classical approaches to religious information verification in the digital age. This research employs a qualitative approach combining intellectual history analysis, content analysis, and comparative methodology, with al-Maudhu‘āt as the primary data source, supplemented by al-La‘ālī al-Maṣnū‘ah and Lisān al-Mīzān as secondary sources. The findings reveal three epistemologically distinct methodological poles: Ibn al-Jawzī’s eliminative-preventive approach, which prioritizes a single defective transmitter as sufficient grounds for maudhu‘ judgment; al-Suyūṭī’s inclusive-moderate approach, which demands comprehensive cross-chain verification before issuing verdicts; and Ibn Ḥajar’s systematic historico-critical approach, which cross-references biographical data and evaluates comment consistency across sources. These three methodologies constitute a layered verification framework applicable to contemporary hadith authentication challenges, particularly for detecting religiously fabricated content on social media and for developing AI-based hadith verification algorithms. This study offers a reconstructed epistemological model of classical hadith verification that bridges pre-modern scholarship and digital-era information literacy, providing methodological foundations for AI-assisted systems for Islamic information authentication.
This study examines the hadiths describing the final moments of the Prophet Muhammad’s (SAW) life through the application of isnād (chain) and matn (text) criticism, with particular focus on the differing narrations transmitted by ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr and ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. The research specifically aims to determine how matn criticism can be used to evaluate the historical reliability and interpretive implications of these narrations concerning the Prophet’s final moments. Employing a qualitative library-based approach and descriptive-comparative analysis, the study examines narrations found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, and Durrah an-Nāṣiḥīn fī al-Wa‘ẓ wa al-Irshād, alongside theoretical perspectives from Dirāsāt fī al-Ḥadīth wa al-Tārīkh and Manhaj Kritik Matan ‘Ā’isyah RA. The analysis evaluates the continuity of transmission, reliability of narrators, textual consistency with the Qur’an and authentic hadiths, and the historical coherence of each narration. The findings reveal that the narration transmitted by ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr regarding the Prophet’s passing in her embrace is the strongest and most historically reliable narration, classified as ṣaḥīḥ li dhātihi. In contrast, narrations attributed to ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and Ibn ‘Abbās are categorized as weak (ḍa‘īf) or disconnected (maqṭū‘) due to deficiencies in transmission, although they continue to hold spiritual and moral significance. The study concludes that matn criticism plays a crucial role in distinguishing between historically authoritative reports and narrations functioning primarily as moral or devotional traditions, thereby contributing to a more objective understanding of the Prophet Muhammad’s (SAW) death.
Studies on Q.S. al-Nisā’ [4]:34 often conclude that classical Qur’anic exegesis reinforces patriarchal authority by positioning men as superior to women in family leadership. However, this view tends to overlook the diversity of interpretations within the classical tafsir tradition. This article re-examines classical interpretations of the phrase al-rijālu qawwāmūna ‘alā al-nisā’ by identifying progressive perspectives that have received limited scholarly attention. Using qualitative library research and a comparative hermeneutic approach, the study analyzes major classical tafsir works from the fourth to eighth centuries Hijri, including those of al-Ṭabarī, al-Māwardī, al-Rāzī, and Abū Ḥayyān. The findings show that classical tafsir is not a monolithic patriarchal tradition. Rather, it contains diverse understandings of qiwāmah that can be grouped into three progressive models. First, the mas’ūliyyah model emphasizes responsibility and care, portraying the husband as a guardian responsible for family welfare. Second, the niẓām model understands qiwāmah as a functional organizational arrangement rather than a sign of male superiority. Third, the qudrah model links qiwāmah to the capacity to provide protection and effective leadership, allowing role flexibility based on competence rather than biological sex. These interpretations indicate that egalitarian and non-hierarchical views of family relations were already present within parts of the classical exegetical tradition. This study challenges the assumption that classical tafsir uniformly legitimizes patriarchy and highlights the plurality of classical Islamic thought. It also demonstrates the relevance of classical interpretations for developing contextual and gender-sensitive readings of the Qur’an in contemporary Muslim societies.
Usamah Al-Azhari's claim that the Hadith scholars follow the Ash'ariyah and Maturidiyah creeds in the book Aqidah Al-Muhadditsin Wa Washilatuhum Bi Al-Tashawwuf has sparked academic controversy because it ignores significant chronological and methodological gaps. This study aims to test the validity of this claim by critically analyzing the theological independence of the Hadith scholars. Using a qualitative approach that integrates Krippendorff's content analysis and historical theology, this study evaluates the text of Usamah's claim. It compares it with classical documents from the Hadith scholars, the Ash'ariyah, and the Maturidiyah traditions. The research findings indicate that the Hadith scholars possess an epistemological independence that cannot be reduced to the Ash'ariyah or Maturidiyah framework. The chronological gap-where the Ash'ariyah and Maturidiyah emerged in the 3rd century AH, long after the initial generation of Hadith scholars-proves a historical anachronism in Usamah's mapping. Furthermore, despite both using the tafwidh method, the Hadith scholars apply it with a textual-traditionalist approach that is fundamentally different from the rationalistic Ash'ariyah ta'wil method and the rationalist-systematic Maturidiyah approach. The internal dialectics within the Hadith scholars' tradition-such as Al-Ghazali's critique of textual codification and Ibn Khuzaymah's ta'wil practices-further strengthen their methodological autonomy. This research contributes to the reconstruction of Sunni theological historiography by affirming the position of the Hadith scholars as an independent tradition, not merely followers of a posteriori theological school.
This study examines gender ambivalence in Hamka’s interpretation of gender-related Qur’anic verses in Tafsir al-Azhar. While previous studies have generally portrayed Hamka either as a modernist reformer or as an exegete who reproduces patriarchal views, little attention has been paid to the ambivalent character of his interpretations of gender relations and the socio-epistemological factors shaping them. Addressing this gap, the study aims to analyze how Islamic modernist ideals and patriarchal traditions coexist within Hamka’s interpretation of gender-related Qur’anic verses. Employing discourse analysis and Karl Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge, the study investigates Hamka’s interpretations of Q. al-Baqarah [2]: 222–223 and 282, as well as Q. al-Nisā’ [4]: 1 and 34. The findings reveal a pattern of gender ambivalence in which egalitarian and patriarchal tendencies operate simultaneously. In some interpretations, Hamka reinforces male authority and women’s subordinate positions, while in others he emphasizes reciprocity and mutual responsibility, and critiques patriarchal practices. This ambivalence emerges from the interaction of three factors: a predominantly textual-reflective interpretive approach that seeks limited contextualization, a stronger concern with the maqāṣid of the verses than with theorizing gender relations, and the influence of Hamka’s socio-historical background, particularly the encounter between Islamic modernism and Minangkabau cultural traditions. By conceptualizing gender ambivalence as an analytical framework for examining tensions between egalitarian and patriarchal tendencies in Qur’anic interpretation, this study contributes to the field of Qur’anic gender studies. It demonstrates how socio-historical contexts shape the production of exegetical discourse.
