A Critical Study of Al-Iḥsān fī Taʿqīb al-Itqān li'l-Suyūṭī

Abstract

The evaluation and analysis concerning Imām Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, demonstrating that the objections raised against his celebrated work, al-Itqān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān by ʿAllāmah ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ṣiddīq al-Ghumārī  in his treatise al-Iḥsān fī Taʿaqqub al-Itqān, do not withstand scrutiny when weighed upon the touchstone of rigorous scholarly examination, but rather remain confined to superficial critique and cursory objection. The foundational principle that jarḥ wa taʿdīl (the science of critical evaluation and validation of narrators), within the methodology of the muḥaddithīn, is itself a matter of ijtihād (independent scholarly reasoning), wherein divergence of opinion among the specialists of the discipline is not merely natural but expected, since every muḥaddith renders judgment upon a narration or narrator in the light of his own discernment, his own sources, and his own critical standard. It follows, then, that the mere holding of a divergent opinion by one muḥaddith against another does not, in itself, suffice to establish the error of the latter, unless that divergence is buttressed by firm indicators, substantiated proofs, and credible evidence capable of elevating mere assertion to the rank of certainty.

Measured upon this very scale, when ʿAllāmah al-Ghumārī's most fundamental claim, namely, that certain narrations mentioned in al-Itqān are mawḍūʿ (fabricated) is examined, it is found to remain at the level of bare assertion, for in its support neither was any isnād-based investigation presented, nor any authentic specimen of ʿilm al-rijāl (the science of narrator-criticism), nor any credible testimony of the kind considered by the muḥaddithīn an indispensable precondition for pronouncing the verdict of fabrication upon a narration. It bears remembering that the verdict of waḍʿ (fabrication) is, within the science of ḥadīth, reckoned the gravest and most delicate of judgments, one requiring the clear identification of a break in the chain of transmission, demonstrable proof of the presence of liars and fabricators among the narrators, or such explicit testimony of the text itself as would establish, upon the joint scales of reason and transmitted evidence, the falsity of the narration. Al-Ghumārī's critique, by contrast, falls well short of this exalted standard, failing to establish that proportion between claim and proof which constitutes the very spirit and essential temperament of ḥadīth criticism.The sum of the matter is this: that while fully acknowledging the latitude for divergence of opinion, in keeping with the traditional breadth of temperament shown by the people of learning, the charge of fabrication levelled against al-Itqān proves wholly unfounded and devoid of substantiating proof and thus the scholarly and critical rank of al-Suyūṭī remains, notwithstanding this critique, firmly established, exalted, and unclouded.