Between Traditionalising and Futuring: Applying The Broader Maqasid Paradigm to Hadith Studies
Main Article Content
Abstract
There are two major points of contention in modern hadith studies. The first concerns the phenomenon of re-authenticating hadith by scholars, both traditionalists and rationalist modernists. The former seeks to maintain originality and utilise authentic sources for religious purposes. The latter’s ethos is primarily — though arguably—one of objectivity, with occasional goals of replacing outdated traditional legal positions. Nonetheless, both approaches have revived practises related to authentication, such as studying the ruwāt (transmitters), refining the principles of al-jarh wa al-ta’dīl (discreditation and accreditation of traditionists), and examining the ‘ilal (hidden flaws) in hadith, among others. Modernists, however, place greater emphasis on rational criticism. Academic departments in Muslim societies have been established to study hadith for both critical and practical purposes. The cumulative result is what can be termed “traditionalising.” The second major point of discussion relates to the exploration of the space-time dimension in interpreting religious commandments. This stems from the modern era’s emphasis on change. The theme of change, along with technological advancement, has gradually led to the concept of “futuring.” A key question arises: if “futuring” has introduced new methods and technology for verification, particularly through the use of artificial intelligence, what does this mean for the current practice of “traditionalising” in religious education? Should hadith scholars and students engage in continuous re-verification of hadith, or could this responsibility be delegated to technology? This paper attempts to define both “traditionalising” and “futuring” within the context of Islamic religious education, particularly in hadith studies. It also analyses potential tensions between these two approaches in the near future. The paper argues that the broader maqasid (objectives of sharia) framework could help conceptualise and reconcile these two goals. The research draws on existing literature about traditional learning and the future of hadith studies, and addresses the critical role this issue plays in shaping the agendas of Islamic religious education in the future.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
AbuSulayman, A. (2004). Crisis in the Muslim mind. International Institute of Islamic Thought.
al-Attas, S. M. N. (2019). Islam and Secularism. Ta’dib International.
al-Bukhārī, M. ibn I. (2001). Al-Jāmi’ al-Musnad al-Sahīh al-Mukhtasar min Umūr Rasūl Allāh waSunanihi wa-Ayyāmihi (M. Z. Ibn Nāsir, Ed.). Dār Tawq al-Najāh.
al-Nawawī, Y. ibn S. (2012). Al-Minhāj Shar’ Sahīh Muslim Ibn al-Hajjāj. Dār al-Ma’rifah.
al-Suyūtī, ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Abī Bakr. (n.d.). Alfiyat al-Suyūtī Fī ‘Ilm al-hadīth. Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah.
al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, A. ibn ‘Alī ibn T. (1983). Al-Jāmi’ Li Akhlāq al-Rāwī Wa Ādāb al-Sāmi’. Maktabah al-Ma’ārif.
al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, A. ibn ‘Alī ibn T. (1988). Nasīhat Ahl al-hadīth. Maktabah al-Manār.
al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, A. ibn ‘Alī ibn T. (1996). Kitāb al-Faqīh Wa al-Mutafaqqih (’Ādil ibn Yūsuf al-’Azzāzī, Ed.). Dār Ibn al-Jawzī.
Auda, J. (2021). Re-envisioning Islamic scholarship: Maqāsid methodology as a new approach. Claritas Books.
Bin Jamil, K. H. (2017). Traditional Sunnī epistemology in the scholarship of al-Hāfiz al-Khatīb alBaghdādī (463AH/1071CE) [Doctoral dissertation, SOAS University of London]. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/26670/1/4461_Jamil.pdf
Bin Jamil, K. H. (2022). Who moved my Sanad? Another history of Isnād in the transmission and conveyance of Hadīth and Sunnah. Journal of Qur’an and Hadith Studies, 11(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.15408/quhas.v11i1.27211
Bin Jamil, K. H. (2023). Negotiating meanings: The history and strategies in dealing with mushkil or problematic hadiths. In Negotiating meanings: Engagement with problematic or contradictory hadīths in medieval and modern times. Islamic Book Trust.
Bradford, W. D. (2000). Global capitalism and sustainable development (SSRN Scholarly Paper 291749). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.291749
Davidson, G. (2023). Where was hadith read in Damascus?: Audition notices and the loci of hadith transmission in medieval Damascus. In M. Gharaibeh (Ed.), Beyond authenticity: Alternative approaches to hadith narrations and collections (pp. 217–253). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004529083_012
Davidson, H. A. (1992). Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on intellect: Their cosmologies, theories of the active intellect and theories of human intellect. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195074239.001.0001
FINTERRA (Director). (2020, 5 February). Unlocking the Maqasid of Islamic revealed knowledge: Why & how? Shaykh Dr. Ahmad Al Raysuni. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARIe1jyF2B0
Ibn al-Salāh, ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān. (1999). An introduction to the science of the hadīth: Kitāb Ma’rifat Anwā’ ‘Ilm al-hadīth (E. Dickinson, Trans.). Garnett Publishing.
Malkawi, F. H. (2014). Epistemological integration: Essentials of an Islamic methodology (N. Roberts, Trans.). International Institute of Islamic Thought. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvkjb263
Newlon, B. (n.d.). The ten essentials of knowledge: Muhammad ibn Ali al-Sabban’s (d.1791) Didactic poem Al-Mabadi Al-Ashara. Retrieved 3 September 2023, from https://www.academia.edu/25045808/The_Ten_Essentials_of_Knowledge_Muhammad_ibn_Ali_al_Sabbans_d_1791_didactic_poem_Al_Mabadi_Al_Ashara__العشرة_المبادئ
Okan, Z. (2003). Edutainment: Is learning at risk? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00325
Wan Daud, W. M. N. (1998). The educational philosophy and practice of Syed Muhammad Naguib al-Attas: An exposition of the original concept of Islamization. International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC).
Wolfson, H. A. (1935). The internal senses in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew philosophic texts. The Harvard Theological Review, 28(2), 69–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000022938