A Critical Analysis of the Place of “Obedience” in Measuring the Validity of the Tradition of “Bibliographical Analysis” and Its Critics

Three viewpoints have always been presented on the “authority of consensus on a single individual narration”: no authority of consensus, competence of reasoning, and obedient certainty in which only the original “moazariat” or exemption from punishment in cases such as ignorance of judgment and “monajaziat” or adequate judgment based on wisdom are taken into account rather than conformity with the facts. The theorists of “bibliographical analysis” and their critics both believe that on topics related to the “authority of consensus on a single individual narration”, it is necessary to overlook the subject of obedience, the difference being that “bibliographical analysis” sees obedience as opposed to realism and its use in measuring validity a source of perplexity in researching the Hadiths. The critics, however, basically deny the effects of obedience on the validity measure of the tradition and accept its subjectivity merely as the principle of referring to the tradition. By studying the different angles of these two viewpoints, the present essay shows that overlooking obedience in researching the Hadiths is not an easy task because the relationship between obedience and realism is one of concomitance, so that if obedience is excluded from all research settings on the Hadiths, it will no longer be possible to prove the legitimate validity of the word of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Another fundamental drawback is that “bibliographical analysis” considers realistic validation a methodology for transforming the use of data on Hadiths in research from principles to historical, and subsequently the transformation of the process of validation from being “narrator-centric” to being “book-centric”. However, insisting on this change of usage does not only emanate from a lack of correct understanding of the place of obedience, but it is also based on the problematic immunity of the written word as opposed to the oral world. In methodology, it has also overlooked the thematic differences of the Hadiths.