Sound Chains Are Not Enough

How Shaykh Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303 AH) rejected a hadith on the basis of reason, not isnād

One of the defining characteristics of the Zaydī and Muʿtazilī rationalist traditions is that the authenticity of a ḥadīth is not determined by its chain of transmission (isnād) alone. Even when a chain appears sound, the report itself must still be examined in light of broader principles, including sound reason (ʿaql).

A striking illustration of this methodology is preserved by Imam Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā ibn al-Murtaḍā (d. 840 AH) in Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazilah, where he relates an exchange between the eminent Muʿtazilī theologian Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303 AH) and the hadith scholar al-Burqānī.

The First Question

Al-Burqānī asked Abū ʿAlī about the famous hadith narrated by Abū al-Zinād, from al-Aʿraj, from Abū Hurayra, in which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, said:

“A woman is not to be married together with her paternal aunt, nor together with her maternal aunt.”

Abū ʿAlī replied that the hadith was ṣaḥīḥ.

The Second Question

Al-Burqānī then asked about another hadith transmitted through the very same chain:

“Adam refuted Moses.”

Abū ʿAlī replied:

When al-Burqānī objected that both reports came through the same isnād, Abū ʿAlī answered:

Why the Report Was Rejected

He then explained the problem with the report. In the narration, Adam responds to Moses’ reproach by saying that his sin had already been decreed by Allah before his creation. Abū ʿAlī argued that if this were accepted as an excuse for Adam, it would also become an excuse for every unbeliever and every sinner among his descendants. Anyone could justify disbelief or sin by appealing to predestination, thereby nullifying moral responsibility and blame.

Thus, despite the apparent soundness of the chain, Abū ʿAlī rejected the report because its meaning contradicted the Qurʾān, consensus, and sound reason.

The Significance of the Exchange

The significance of this exchange is that Abū ʿAlī rejected the hadith on the basis of its meaning, not because he first identified a defect in its chain. Indeed, he accepted another narration transmitted through the very same isnād as authentic. This shows that, for him, the apparent reliability of a chain was not sufficient by itself. A hadith also had to agree with the higher authorities of revelation, consensus, and rational proof.

After relating the discussion, Ibn al-Murtaḍā adds his own observation. He suggests that the hidden defect may have arisen through irsāl or tadlīs, meaning that an omitted transmitter could have introduced the problematic report without casting doubt upon the named narrators. This, however, is a later explanation for how such a report could have entered transmission. It is not the basis upon which Abū ʿAlī himself rejected the narration.

Accordingly, this account illustrates an important principle of rational hadith criticism. A sound chain of transmission is important, but it is not the final criterion of authenticity. Even a report transmitted through an accepted isnād may be rejected if its content conflicts with sound reason.