Tajdeed

I’ve recently written on why I find the IMCA (Isnad-cum-Matn Analysis) and HCM (Historical-Critical Method) unreliable frameworks for hadith authentication from a Muslim perspective.

The primary issue lies not in their mechanisms, but in their underlying assumptions. These methods begin with the premise that identifying a common link or tracing a narration to a specific region (e.g., Iraq) points toward fabrication, particularly for politically sensitive hadiths. This presumption of political motive shapes their conclusions and introduces significant bias.

For instance, many pro-Alid narrations are transmitted through Iraq, which is unsurprising given Imam Ali’s strong support base there, while regions like Madina were under Umayyad or Zubayrid influence. The academic assumption tends to be that these narrations were fabricated for political purposes, rather than acknowledging the possibility that they reflect authentic traditions preserved by a loyal community and neglected or suppressed elsewhere, so and emphasis of a trend within the authentic hadith rather than fabrication, which also can denote bias, but not automatically fabrication.

From a Muslim standpoint, declaring a hadith fabricated requires far more diligence:

Cross-referencing with the Qur’an

Examining the matn in light of established sunna and ethical principles

Assessing the narrators’ integrity through well-preserved biographical data

Isnad criticism is not infallible, but it provides a meaningful framework for preserving prophetic teachings. Without it, modern academic tools like IMCA would lack the structural basis to function—something evident when applied to other traditions like Christianity, which lack such detailed transmission records.

Ultimately, my core objection is that the presumption of fabrication at the heart of these academic approaches undermines the integrity of hadith evaluation and leads to premature or unwarranted dismissals. A more balanced methodology would begin with respect for the isnad system and apply critical tools with greater epistemic humility.

By Ricky Alfred