How Necessary is Isnād Within the Religion?

Imam Ibn al-Mubārak (raḥimahullah) famously said: “Isnād (chain of transmission) is from the religion: had it not been for the isnād, whoever wished to would have said whatever he liked.” He also said: “The one who seeks the religion without a chain is like the one who intends to climb to the roof without stairs.” 

Here, we understand the utility of isnād and its function in preserving the sanctity of the religion. However, the extent of this utility ought to be clarified. Is it the case that isnād is necessary in all aspects of the religion? If not, then how are exceptions substantiated? 

Shaykh ʿAbdul Ḥayy al-Laknawī (raḥimahullah) answers these questions by first presenting the virtue and honour associated with the isnād itself and the pursuit of it. He argues this pursuit began in the time of the Prophet ﷺ as deciphered from the narration mentioned in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim of the bedouin man who heard from a messenger of the Messenger of Allah ﷻ and still, went to Rasūllullah ﷺ directly to hear from him, shortening the chain between them. 

Shaykh ʿAbdul Ḥayy (raḥimahullah) then goes on to expound on the commonly referenced saying “Every science has its people (li kulli fann ar-rijāl)”. He clarifies that a jurist (faqīh), despite his lofty rank and authoritative position in matters pertaining to lawful and unlawful, his presenting a narration absent of a chain of transmission, automatically puts this narration under scrutiny regardless of his calibre. Shaykh ʿAbdul Fattāḥ Abu Ghudda (raḥimahullah) comments on this by saying “the lofty status of a person does not necessitate accepting everything they transmit ''.

This is not to say - as repeatedly clarified by both Shaykh ʿAbdul Ḥayy and Shaykh ʿAbdul Fattāḥ (raḥimahum Allah) - that this was done deliberately. The assumption of these scholars who were not scholars of ḥadith was that these narrations were accurately transmitted, hence, it was suitable for them to include them in their works. It is not their responsibility or area of expertise to thoroughly examine the narration and its narrators to assess its authenticity. 

While the aforementioned rigour is necessary and an inseparable part of our tradition, the question of the absolute necessity of a sanad can also be answered by deciphering its purpose.The purpose of a sanad is to transmit reliable information. Shaykh ʿAbdul Ḥayy (raḥimahullah) mentions that this can be done in alternative ways to an actual chain of transmission, especially in later centuries. For example, if a reliable person is transmitting information in their books, that is sufficient to deem the information reliable.

For this reason, it is permissible to act upon narrations mentioned in reliable books even if there is no literal chain that connects one to the author of the book or to the transmitter of the narration. A standard of necessitating a literal chain can be considered excessive and misunderstanding the intent behind it. 

This is also seen in legal texts. If a reliable jurist is presenting a ruling, it would not be expected that they offer a chain of transmission from themselves to one of the leading figures in the madhhab (school of thought). 

To answer the question, then, on whether a chain of transmission is needed in all aspects of the religion, Shaykh ʿAbdul Ḥayy (raḥimahullah) offers the following conclusion: 

“All aspects of religion need a clear chain of transmission that can lead us back to its source or the clear mention of a reliable, (qualified) individual. There are no exceptions in this regard. This results in certain aspects of the religion being established through maximal caution and others aspects being established through leniency.”

And the correct interpretation and understanding is deferred to Allah alone who knows best.