Part 2 (E) - The Example of The Uninformed
The Very Long List of
Names - Smith and Hadith
Smith says: "Schacht pinpoints the origin for this undertaking, stating that it was the scholar Shafi'i (died in 820 C.E.) who stipulated that all traditions of law must be traced back to Muhammad in order to retain their credibility." Smith shows a blatant ignorance of the works of ash-Shafi'ee, his contemporaries and predecessors. His claim is erroneous because the printed works of ash-Shafi'ee's contemporaries and predecessors had for so long insisted on this and taken this view to be the natural and correct one:
i. The Muwatta of Malik (compiled by ash-Shafi'ee's teacher) traces its knowledge back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Smith admits this in a later paper when he says "the Mudawwana does not speak of Muhammad's Prophetic authority whereas the Muwatta does." Consequently, he is now endeavouring to cast doubt on the authentic dating of the Muwatta; his assertions will be answered elsewhere. ii. The Kitab az-Zuhd of Ibn al-Mubarak traces its knowledge back to the Prophet. iii. The Musnad of Dawud at-Tayalasi gives its ahadith with chains of transmission back to the Prophet. iv. The recent discovery of the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabih (compiled prior to 59 AH, English translation available). In it we find that Hammam introduces his text with the words: "Abu Hurairah told us in the course of what he related from the Prophet", thus giving the source of his information in the form of an isnad and tracing it back to the Prophet.
These are but a few of those which may be cited, limiting ourselves to some of those which are available in print, let alone the many which are still in manuscript/papyrus form (some of which are described herein). One of the above alone is sufficient to show the falsity of Smith's claim.
From an Islamic viewpoint, the issue of tracing knowledge back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and seeking his verdicts is answered by the Qur'an itself. The reader is referred to the following verses: Qur'an 4:65, 24:51 and 63, 33:21, 33:36 and 59:7, amongst others.
It should be noted that Smith here, as elsewhere, relies heavily on the theories of Joseph Schacht, quoting him a number of times in his paper. In fact, Smith in his discussion of hadith brings neither any new argument nor fresh analysis to the works from which he has simply lifted his grievances. Because Smith's criticism here is not dissimilar from that of Schacht it will be good to briefly discuss Schacht's level of competence in the field of hadith so that there will be little need for us to refer to it later:
Examples from the Errors of Joseph Schacht:
1. Schacht (Origins, pp.176-77) criticises the isnad - Malik from Naafi from Ibn Umar on the grounds that Malik was too young at the time of Naafi's death, and therefore could not have heard hadith from the latter. It is strange to see that that Schacht says: "Nothing authentic is known of Malik's date of birth". If he believes this then how can he adduce that Malik was too young?
This argument, however, assumes that the reader will not check the facts for himself, for Malik was almost 23 years of age when Naafi died, and was hence in a perfectly good position to study under him, as can be adduced from a study of their respective biographies.
2. Schacht (Origins, pp.36-37) takes the statement of Ibn Sirin that: "They did not ask about the isnad but when the fitna (civil war) occurred they said: 'Name to us your men . . . ' . . . " and declares it to be a fabrication on the basis that the civil war referred to in the statement was the one which started with the death of the Umayyad Caliph Walid bin Yazid who died in 127AH, whereas Ibn Sirin had already died in 110AH!
Schacht's whole argument rests on his arbitrary interpretation of the word fitna (civil war). The death of Walid bin Yazid has never been a conventional date in Islamic History. Furthermore, there were many civil wars before this date, which Schacht appears to have overlooked. There was the unrest at the time of the death of the Caliph Uthman, the rift which occurred between Ali and Mu'awiyah, and that between Ibn az-Zubair and Abd al-Malik bin Marwan, all of which occurred between 40 to 80 years before the death of Ibn Sirin.
Schacht takes the work fitna in the sense which suits his preconceived theory, without any historical justification. This, of course, is logically absurd.
3. Schacht (Origins, p.60) says that Ibrahim an-Nakhai confirms certain things by "pointing out the absence of any information on that matter from the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar" and Schacht refers to the work of Abu Yusuf, Athar, pp.349-52. Schacht assumes then that the hadith from the Prophet on the matter under discussion must have been fabricated after the time of Ibrahim, otherwise he would not have failed to mention them. This is erroneous for two simple reasons:
Firstly, the very reference which Schacht cites, namely, Abu Yusuf, pp.349-52, has explicit statements which contradict his own assertions. Here we find two traditions, both narrated by Ibrahim, describing the practice of the Prophet.
Secondly, even if we accept that Ibrahim did not know of any hadith from the Prophet on the subject at hand. Schacht is then guilty of making the absurd assumption that Ibrahim must have known all of the Prophetic hadith on every subject. He fails to take into consideration the obvious possibility that Ibrahim's failure to mention a narration was because he himself was unaware of one, not that one did not exist.
4. Schacht (Origins, pp.241-42) in order to support his theory that incomplete and broken isnads were perfected and completed by later authors gives an example of one such broken isnad from the works of ash-Shafiee which he asserts was corrected and remedied by Malik in his book al-Muwatta.
Schacht blatantly reverses the evidence to prove his point. He fails to inform the reader that Malik's book al-Muwatta was compiled some forty years earlier than ash-Shafiee's. In other words the correct and complete isnad is dated earlier than the one which Schacht quotes as broken. So, according to Professor Schacht, the mistake was remedied before it was ever committed!
It is analysis such as this on the part of Schacht and at times his complete lack of understanding of the source material which has subsequently led Western scholars to express grave doubts about his work. For example, we find that those who have studied his all too readily formulated and at the same time sweeping theories, have said that:
"Some Western scholars, too, have expressed reservations about the hypotheses of Goldziher and Schacht. My own position is that the wholesale rejection of the hadiths as mere invention and fabrication misses the point that many of the hadiths can be shown to spring from an ancient source in the primitive exegeses." [John Burton, An Introduction to the Hadith, p.181: Edinburgh University Press:1994]
"Schacht's references to Umayyad administrative or to popular 'practice' are always mere blunt assertion. Not one single instance of such presumptions has been substantiated." [ibid, p.xxii - Introduction]
"The present writer regards Schacht's conclusion as too rigid, particularly because his arguments concerning the 'relative position' of a hadith 'in the history of the problem with which it is concerned' are not always wholly convincing." [The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature, pp.232-33]
"Schacht's approach, then might be considered somewhat too narrow because he rigidly identifies the development of law with the growth of hadith and fails to take proper account of intrinsically legal issues of this kind." [ibid, p.320]
Similar objections to Schacht's opinions are aired by N. J. Coulson, who finds them "Too rigid" and "not wholly convincing" [N. J. Coulson, European Criticism, p.319] while James Robson and Nabia Abbott are even more critical. However, the most rigorous articulation of this scepticism comes from Muhammad M. Azami, whose Studies in Early Hadith Literature and On Schacht's Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence can be considered the definitive rebuttal of Schacht's theses. We find that M. M. Azami says:
"It does not appear that Professor Schacht has made any thorough investigation of isnads of a considerable part of legal traditions necessary to put forward a theory of this nature, let alone his investigation of all of them or most of them. A theory of such common application is unacceptable on such meagre evidence. It seems that he has two kinds of measurements for research. To formulate a theory, he uses the term 'common occurrence', basing his research on a few examples that suit his theory; and if there are cases which cover 99% of the subject that refute his theory, then he uses the word 'occasionally' to minimise their effect. This dual standard of argument shows his prejudice and bias and consequently jeopardises the conclusions of his whole research." [M. M. Azami, Studies in Early Hadith Literature, p.235: 1992]
This is answered by Abbott in her study where she concludes that: "One must therefore question sweeping statements that, toward the end of the second century, isnad's that go back to Muhammad were manufactured freely in response to Shafi'i's insistence on such isnad's. For it seems much more likely that a strict process of selection rather than a wholesale fabrication of isnad's accounts for the bulk of the hadith al-nabi that has survived in the standard collections and particularly in the Sahihain of Muslim and Bukhari." [Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, Vol. II, p.174. Chicago: 1967]
If there was a need to project hadith back into the mouth of the Prophet, why is it that some legal doctrines are traced back only as far as one of the four rightly guided Caliphs, or other of the Companions, and not to the Prophet himself?
It is also worth replying here to the comments of other European scholars who have envisaged a natural course of events in which those who associated with the Prophet for a long period would have reported more traditions from him than those who only knew him for a short while. This, however, was not the case. The younger generation of Companions reported far larger numbers of hadith than their older brethren. These questions have already been raised by classical hadith scholars themselves, who point out that since the older Companions passed away not long after the death of the Prophet, they had less time to pass on all the traditions known to them, whereas the younger Companions, such as Ibn Abbas, Abu Hurairah, Aisha, lived for a longer period, and were therefore able to disseminate the narrations known to them much more extensively. This serves as an argument against the accusation of later fabrication as J. Fuch points out, it in fact supports the veracity of the traditionists; for if all the isnad's had been forged by them, they would have tried to produce isnad's from the older Companions in larger numbers. [J. Fuch, Die Rolle des Traditionalismus, p.17. ZDMG XCIII: 1939]
Crone's works and conclusions are no more reliable than any of the others which Smith quotes as the basis for his hypotheses. D. S. Powers of the Cornell University - writing in the Journal of Semetic Studies (discussing the book Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law) comments on some of Crone's views regarding the Prophetic hadith and their development, he says:
"Stated in these terms, Crone's position will be unacceptable to many non-Muslim scholars, for several reasons. First, in my view, Crone has merely replaced one a priori assumption (authenticity) with another (inauthenticity); between these two extreme positions, however, lies much ground for historical investigation . . . in at least one instance Crone has exaggerated an alleged discrepancy between the early jurists and Prophetic hadith. To corroborate her conclusion about the contribution of Near Eastern provincial law to the origins of Islamic law, she attempts to demonstrate conclusively that the legal maxim 'no bequest to an heir' could not have been instituted by the Prophet, as Islamic tradition maintains, because all of the early Iraqi jurists appear to have forgotten what the Prophet allegedly had said (pp.93-6). But her analysis rests upon a clear misreading of the Prophetic hadith, making it appear as if the early jurists disagreed with the Prophet when in fact they did not (for a detailed critique of her argument, see again my article 'On Bequests in Early Islam'). One wonders whether a close examination of other instances in which Crone attributes 'wild disagreement' to the early jurists might not yield similar results. Be that as it may, Crone's inability to demonstrate the inauthenticity of this Prophetic hadith does not inspire confidence in her blanket rejection of the authenticity of all statements attributed to the Prophet."
Smith is somehow under the delusion that 600,000 hadiths means 600,000 separate bodies of text! He fails to remember that a hadith consists of both a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnad), in the science of hadith the same text with ten chains of transmission is not one hadith but rather ten hadiths (despite the fact that the text attached to each chain is the same in every case.)
This increase in the number of hadiths included in the later collections is easily fathomed by anyone conversant with the history of the collection of hadith. With the expansion of the Islamic empire, the custodians of the hadith's travelled widely and settled throughout the new dominions, narrating those ahadith known to them to create a provincial corpus. It was only after students of hadith had travelled through all these countries and collected together the traditions known to the specialists living there, and narrated them to their own students, that larger and more complete collections of hadith could be compiled.
Take a high simplified example of one Companion narrating a single hadith from the Prophet onto two students, these students themselves teaching that narration again to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of Bukhari and his contemporaries. We will find that in Bukhari's generation at least 16 individuals will be hearing the hadith from their respective teachers. Because each individual chain of transmission counts as a separate hadith, what started out as a single narration transmitted by one Companion only, has evolved within a short period of time to 16 hadith's; an increase of 1600%. The true nature of affairs, however, being far greater, with a far greater number of Companions transmitting a far greater number of narration's to a far greater number of students. This then is the form in which proliferation took place, the dispersion of narrators and chains of transmission, not, as Smith seems to think, by the emergence of newly formulated texts!
Nabia Abbott writes: " . . . the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission." [Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, Vol.II, p.2: Chicago: 1967]
She also finds that: " . . . using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand Companions and senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each would bring us well within the range of the total number of traditions credited to the exhaustive collections of the third century. Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic after all." [Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, Vol.II, p.72: Chicago: 1967]
Wrong again! Rather it was his teacher Ishaq ibn Rahaawaih who urged him onto this task as is well-known to those who have taken it upon themselves to study the matter. Smith, in his eagerness, has obviously confused himself with similar instructions given by the Caliph Umar ibn Abdul Aziz to az-Zuhri some 130 years earlier!
Smith again puts his words into the mouths of his sources. Humphreys doesn't make mention of Bukhari at all on page 73! Furthermore, Humphreys uses the words 'reliability' or 'suitability' which Smith magically transforms into 'unreliability' or 'unsuitability' to add extra emphasis to an already weak argument.
In actual fact the criteria for adducing the weak from the authentic hadith had already been determined by Bukhari's teachers and the scholars that went before him; the likes of Yahya ibn Maeen, Ali ibn Madini, Ibn al-Mubarak, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, ash-Shafi'ee, Malik, az-Zuhree and so on. Bukhari's own printed works - Tarikh as-Saghir, Tarikh al-Kabir and ad-Du'afa - help us determine the standards he maintained in evaluating the isnad. Al-Hazimi, al-Ayni and al-Qastallani in their respective commentaries to the Sahih have all given details of the very exacting principles set by Bukhari in compiling his work.
Rather it beggars belief as to why Smith even dares to speak on a subject which he clearly knows very little about! Who before Smith said that the 592,603 were false and had to be scrapped? A number of inaccuracies have to be cleared up here:
i. Where does Bukhari claim that he intended to include ALL of the authentic hadith known to him? Rather he said the exact opposite in that: "I left out many more authentic traditions than this to avoid unnecessary length." [al-Khateeb in his Tarikh 2/8-9]. We find Muslim making a similar statement in his Sahih where he says: "I have not included in this every hadith which I deem authentic." [Sahih Muslim, English translation, Vol. 1, p.222, no.801., India:1987]. How many of the 592,603 were authentic with Bukhari and Muslim but they chose not to include them?
ii. Smith is again under the delusion that 600,000 hadiths somehow means 600,000 separate narrations or bodies of text! In theory, the 592,603 hadith omitted by Bukhari could have had the same single text through 592,603 separate isnads, to him that would have counted as 592,603 hadith - albeit in theory that is, but this simply goes to show that the situation is not quite what Smith imagines it to be. It would be more accurate to say, for Smith's benefit if nothing else, that the figure of 592,603 alludes to individual chains of transmission, not texts.
iii. The fact that Bukhari has compiled other works in which he has included authentic hadith not found in his Sahih clearly shows that other authentic hadith were known to him. For example, his printed works Juz Raf'al-Yadain, Qiraa'at Khalf al-Imaam, Khalq Af'al al-Ibaad, Al-Adab al-Mufrad and others.
iv. The fact that the works of other writers contain many authentic hadith (not included by Bukhari) is again ample proof that the figure of 592,603 does not consist merely of false narrations. We have the Sahih books of Muslim, of Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaimah, Abu Awanah and the vast library of Sunan, Musnad and Musannaf titles. Mention should also be made here of the Mustadrak of al-Haakim who compiled his work on the criteria that he would include in it some of the authentic hadith which met the standards of either Bukhari or Muslim but they did not themselves include them in their respective works. All of these have to be catered for in the 592,603!
v. The sahih (authentic) hadith is itself split into two categories. That which is sahih li-dhatihi (authentic of its own accord) and sahih li-ghairihi (authentic due to supporting narrations). Bukhari intended only to collect those hadith in his book which were of the level of sahih li-dhatihi. Therefore the countless number of hadith classified as sahih li-ghairihi have all to be catered for in the 592,603!
vi. The sahih hadith is not the only authentic type of hadith, there are also those of the hasan (good) class. Since Bukhari intended only to collect the authentic sahih hadith, the countless number of hadith classified as hasan have all to be catered for in the 592,603!
vii. The 600,000 narrations were not purely traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) but included the individual sayings of the Companions and their Successors, their legal decisions and commentaries; the word 'hadith' covers all of these subject matters in some scholars' terms. Therefore the countless number of non-Prophetic narrations have to be accounted for in the figure of 592,603!
viii. R. S. Humphreys (who Smith is so apt to quote elsewhere) clearly states in his work: "These compilations did not claim to include all the materials which the ancient historical tradition had produced. On the contrary, a compiler would select only a small number of those known to him." [Humphreys, Islamic History - Revised Edition, p.73. Princeton University Press:1991]
Where does all this leave Smith's theory? Or rather the theory he transcribed from others without any verification on his own part!
Smith would want us to accept that because SOME of the hadith may have doubt concerning them then we should simply discard ALL of the other narrations on the same basis! This is akin to a coinsmith who finds a forgery amidst his pile and promptly proceeds to dispose of the rest of the coins without giving to them the individual scrutiny that they deserve. This would be ludicrous! (Using the same analogy, we could say that Christians should dispose of the the four canonized gospels because of the existence of numerous apocryphal gospels!)
If Smith accepts that Bukhari and other compilers endeavoured to sift the authentic from the weak, then why doesn't he accept their efforts and himself reject only those narrations which were shown to be false? This certainly would be more just and exacting in the end. Of course we don't expect Smith to be so welcoming.
Why would Muslims create a host of traditions which they themselves would promptly reject? Smith is also under the delusion that nothing exists until it is put into writing. For him the spoken word holds no lasting value whatsoever. The mere compilation of a work at a given time in no way implies that its contents were not available or did not exist well beforehand. Smith says: " . . . seems to suggest either their creation or their adoption at this time." Which is it going to be: 'creation' or 'adoption'? The first (creation) implies something new and the other (adoption) the acceptance of something already in existence. Smith can't have it both ways. (Medication still absent)
Professor Schacht's capabilities have already been discussed. Schacht was of the view that the law and the practice existed first [Origins, p.63] and were then given an air of authority by linking them to the Prophet! To support his argument he quotes Ibn Qasim from the Mudawwana (4/28) who concludes by saying: "So the traditions remained neither discarded (in principle) nor adopted in practice . . . and actions were ruled by other traditions which were accompanied by practice."
Schacht fails to grasp the meaning behind his source. Ibn Qasim's whole discussion is based on the point that there are two groups of traditions: one group which is accompanied by the practices of the Companions and the Successors, and another group which is not accompanied by any sort of practice. So, if there were a conflict between these two groups, then the one accompanied by the practice would be given precdence. No where does he indicate that the practice came first and the tradition later!
If Smith admits that such works were concerned with describing the battles and campaigns of the Prophet, why should we expect them to cover other aspects of his life and teachings also? Smith is asking to much, he would have us believe that from any book written about the Prophet and Islam we should be able to draw all the relevant information we could wish to have. Why should a book on battles be anything other than that?
Smith is adept at making claims without giving suitable examples. He refers here to Humphreys who himself similarly fails to quote any examples. Despite this, in terms of offering a general response, we can say: There is no doubt that some hadith appear to contradict others. However, Smith should bear two strong possibilities in mind:
i. That it is often the case of a weak/inauthentic narration contradicting one that is established as authentic.
ii. That it is often the case of a later tradition abrogating an earlier one.
For it is a natural thing for the leader of a fast-developing movement to change the instructions he issues to his followers in order to respond to a changing situation. Hence we find that the Prophet at times issued advice or instructions which superseded those which he had given earlier. In some cases, the clashes can be resolved by pointing out the different circumstances under which the apparently differing instructions were given. Is this then regarded as contradiction?
One cannot but be surprised to find that some European scholars have cited traditions as evidence of contradictions in the literature when Muslim scholars have for a thousand years and more dismissed those very traditions as spurious, or cases of abrogation. On other occasions, they have cited narrations traditionally considered authentic as forged!
Smith again is silent by way of examples, and I have been unable thus far to obtain a copy of Kennedy's work to see what he has to say. Therefore, without discussing specific grievances, we can say in terms of a general response:
Smith has himself previously indicated that such authors were not themselves writers but rather compilers who drew together the information passed on to them. Al-Tabari himself alludes to this in the Introduction to his History when he says: "Let him who studies this book of ours know that in everything I say about the subjects which I have decided to recount here, I rely only on what I transmit from explicitly identified reports and from accounts which I ascribe by name to their transmitters . . . And if we mention in this book any report about certain men of the past which the reader finds objectionable or the hearer offensive . . . let him know that this is not our fault, but is rather the responsibility of one of those who has transmitted it to us. We have presented (them) only in the form in which they were presented to us."
That is to say, Al-Tabari did not take it upon himself to extensively edit the sources in his History but faithfully displayed them in the manner in which he received them. Can he then be accused if any conflicting accounts should arise?
Furthermore, Smith expects that once a scholar arrives at a given writing then there is no allowance for him to alter his standing at some later stage. If due to progressive research an individual finds it necessary to amend a previously held viewpoint are we then to label him with contradiction and conflicting reports?
In the previous section Smith pushed forward the accusation of contradiction and then here promptly proceeds to contradict himself! He conludes that because of similarity this data must have been recycled 'through the centuries'. Yet in the very next passage he asserts that 'Because of their similarities, they seem to point to a singular source early in the ninth century." What happened to his theory of 'through the centuries'?
To say that al-Tabari's History, which covers the period from the creation of Adam to life in al-Tabari's own generation (printed in approx. 30 volumes in English) is "much the same as Ibn Hisham's Sira", whose main aim is to detail the 23 years of the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); and also that al-Tabari's 'Commentary' on the Qur'an which covers the entire scripture from beginning to end in approx. 15 volumes, is "much the same as Bukhari's hadith collection" which dedicates only a small portion to Quranic commentary and even then covering only 350 or so verses, is deception at its highest level. Smith assumes that his readers/listeners are unable to check the true facts for themselves.
Despite this, what difficulty is there in accepting that three authors writing about a common event (i.e. the life of the Prophet), all from the same Islamic and historical perspective, should produce works which hint of similarity? Why should we expect their works to differ?
Smith on Isnaad
This is a laughable error and reeks of ignorance! Had he even bothered to read the most basic, introductory work in the field of hadith and isnad he would have realised without fail that great efforts were always exerted in trying to obtain the shortest chain for each narration. The following few quotes should help clarify the matter:
" . . . the students of hadith are concerned chiefly with attaining the briefest isnad." [Ibn al-Jawzi in Sayid ul-Khaatir, p.216]
"Seeking for the shortest isnad is a sunnah from those who have preceded." [al-Khateeb in Al-Jaami li-Akhlaaqir Raawee, 1/123]
"Seeking brevity of isnad is a means of drawing closer to Allah - the Most High." [ibid]
Documentary Evidence
Which Muslim scholar has said that earlier written material "was no longer relevant for the new Islam"? I fear Smith, as usual, is misquoting his sources, not even having the decency to copy with any degree of accuracy. He refers the reader here to R. S. Humphreys Islamic History, page 72. I have the revised edition which reads: "So great was the prestige of the classical compilations, and so compelling were the interpretations that they proposed, that most of the texts written earlier simply ceased to be copied or read in any systematic way, though it is clear that many titles were still available (and occasionally studied) down at least to the 7th/13th century."
A little amount of thought is sufficient to show that Smith's statement "Yet there is nothing" (before the 200-300 years he mentions earlier in the paper) can only backfire on him and help to show his deep lack of skill in the field of research. Perhaps he overlooked (or ignored) the following works, all compiled before the dates to which he alludes and available today, covering various topics:
Sahifah of Hamaam ibn Munabih - edited and printed edition.
Nuskhah of Suhail bin Abu Salih - Ms. Zahiriyah Library; Damascus.
Ahadith ibn Juraij of Ibn Juraij - Ms. Zahiriyah Library, Damascus;
Musnad of Ishaaq ibn Rahaawaih - Ms. Zahiriyah Library, Damascus;
Yazid ibn Abu Habib - his traditions transmitted by al-Laith ibn Sa'd - Ms. Zahiriyah Library, Damascus;
Musannaf of Abdur Razzaq - edited and printed edition;
Jaami' of Ma'mar ibn Rashid - printed along with Musannaf of Abdur Razzaq;
Musnad of Humaidi;
Musnad of Dawud at-Tayalasi;
Kitab az-Zuhd of Ibn al-Mubarak;
Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas - edited and printed edition;
Al-Athar of Abu Yusuf;
Muwatta of Muhammad ash-Shaibani;
and others . . .
Smith may be excused here for slipping up in an area where his forefathers were wont to do the same. Smith has a misconception about isnads which to him implies solely oral transmission, whereas in many instances a chain of transmission actually comprised of a series of books which were referred to by the name of their author rather than the name of the book itself. The main reason for this assumption is usually due to a misunderstanding of the term - hadathana - (i.e. he narrated/informed to us) which outwardly seems to suggest oral transmission but which was regularly used for the transmission of books also. In some instances a document is referred to directly in the isnad. Take the following four examples:
- In the Musnad (1/418) of Ahmad the isnad: "Yahya bin Adam informed us that Abdullah ibn Idris dictated to him from his book." Here a book is employed for the transmission of a narration yet still the words "informed us" are used for this purpose.
- Abu Dawud transmits a portion of the booklet of Samurah in various chapters of his Sunan without mentioning the document but at all times referring to the author and employing the term "he narrated/informed to us".
- In the Sunan (1/45) of an-Nasa'i the isnad: "Muhammad bin al-Muthnee narrated to us, saying, Ibn Abi Adee narrated to us from his book and then from his memory."
- The Muwatta of Malik is a well known book. The book was entitled by the author himself. Yet the authors from the later period, utilising the material of the Muwatta freely, referred only to Malik without mentioning the book.
Therefore, the use of an isnad does not necessarily imply that no books were present for the purpose of transmission or that they were not available for consultation. But again, it must be said that Smith is assuming that authenticity lies only in documentation!
Back
to the Table of Contents of An
Authoritative Exposition
Back
to the Islamic Awareness
HomePage