Books and Documents 03 Mar 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com
The War Within Islam: Niyaz Fatehpuri’s Struggle Against The Fundamentalists by JUHI SHAHIN
Excerpts from a newly published book in Pakistan: The War Within Islam: Niyaz Fatehpuri’s Struggle Against The Fundamentalists
URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1221
Late. Allama Niyaz Fatehpuri [1884-1966]
The entire Wahhabi edifice is based on false, concocted ahaadees. No doubt many of the ahaadees serve a useful purpose of explaining Quranic injunctions, but remember this institution was created more than a hundred years after the death of the Prophet (PBUH) by the established ruling class of Arabs that was an inveterate enemy of Islam. Niaz Fatehpuri is questioning the very possibility of the Prophet having spoken so many words and sentences as have been attributed to him in his lifetime as a Prophet. [Sultan Shahin]
===================================
Dear Sultan Sahab,
You must read these books before saying something on Fabricated/Concocted Hadiths. The Scholars mentioned below have compiled all such Hadith in their several books to warn all of us to be careful from such lies being spread in the name of Hadith. Books are as under:
You must go through these books before quoting a Fabricated Hadith:
1 - A Great Collection of Fabricated Traditions (Arabic: Al-Mawdu'at al-Kubrah) by ibn Al-Jawzi
2 - Mauzuaat-e-Kabeer by Mulla Ali ibn Sultan al-Qari.
3 - Saheeh al-Jaami’ al-Sagheer and Da’eef al-Jaami’ al-Sagheer, both by Shaykh al-Albaani.
4 - Irwa’ al-Ghaleel fi Takhreej Ahaadeeth Manaar al-Sabeel, also by al-Albaani.
5 - Al-Talkhees al-Habeer fi Takhreej Ahaadeeth al-Raafa’i al-Kabeer, by al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Aqsallaani,
6 - Nasab al-Raayah fi Takhreej Ahaadeeth al-Hidaayah by Haafiz al-Zayla’i.
7 - Tuhfat al-Ashraaf bi Ma’rifat al-Atraaf by al-Haafiz al-Mazzi.
8 - Great Indian Scholar Muhammad Tahir Patni books e.g. “Tadhkirrah al-Mawdoo’aat Wal-Dhu’afaahas and countless other books.
A minor study on Fabricated and Weak Hadiths are as under:
Fabricated Hadiths by Mohsen Haredy
Part 1
Definition of a Fabricated Hadith
The Beginning of Fabrication
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1158658510258&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout
Part 2
Fabricated Hadiths Causes of Fabrication
http://www.islamonline.net/English/HadithAndItsSciences/HadithStudies/2005/07/01.shtml
Fabricated Hadiths
(part 3)
http://www.islamonline.net/English/HadithAndItsSciences/HadithStudies/2005/12/01.shtml
A detailed Research on Hadith Compilation and Research
Are There Any Early Hadiths? By M S M Saifullah & Imtiaz Damiel
Issues Concerning Hadith
As far as the Christian missionaries are concerned, nothing is spared that is related with Islam, whether it is the Qur'an or the h?adith or anything else. Everything needs to be attacked. This page deals with the refutation of the claims of the Christian missionaries and others about the h?adith.
Science Of Hadith
Click here for details!
Hadith & Its Origins
A Brief History Of Hadith Collection And Criticism
This is a lecture given by Dr. Jonathan Brown, a young, eloquent western h?adith scholar at University of Washington where he works as an Assistant Professor. In this lecture, he briefly discusses the history of h?adith collection, its criticism and the evolution of western h?adith scholarship from Goldziher, Schacht, Juynboll to Motzki. A lot of misconceptions about h?adith are clarified in this lecture.
Are There Any Early H?adiths?
On The Nature Of H?adith Collections Of Imam Bukhari and Muslim
Explosive Increase Of Isnad & Its Implications
On The Transmitters Of Isra'iliyyat (Judeo-Christian Material)
H?adith Criticism
Did al-H?ajjaj Change The Qur'an?
H?adiths Inserted Posthumously In The Sahih Of Al-Bukhari?
On The "Versions" Of Malik's Muwatta'
Manuscripts
PERF No. 731: The Earliest Manuscript Of Malik's Muwatta' Dated To His Own Time
PERF No. 665: The Earliest Extant Manuscript Of The Sirah Of Prophet Muhammad By Ibn Hisham
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/
Are There Any Early Hadiths? By M S M Saifullah & Imtiaz Damiel
1. Introduction
It is frequently claimed by the Christian missionaries that there are no hadith collections from the first century of hijra. According to them the first hadith collections were written around 250 years after hijra.
We will show the evidence of existence of hadith collections from first century of hijra.
2. Examples Of First Century Hadith Collections
The Sahifa Of Hammam bin Munabbih:
This is perhaps one of the earliest known hadith collections. Hammam bin Munabbih was a student of Abu Hurrairah and well-known among the scholars of the hadith to be trustworthy. According to the book Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Periodt:
An example is the Sahifah of Hammam bin Munabbih, (d. 110/719), a Yemenite follower and a disciple of companion Abu Hurrayrah, (d. 58/677), from whom Hammam wrote this Sahifah, which comprises 138 hadith and is believed to have been written around the mid-first AH/seventh century.[1]
The author went on to say:
It is significant that Hammam introduces his text with the words: "Abu Hurrayrah told us in the course of what he related from the Prophet", thus giving the source of his information in the manner which became known as "sanad" or "isnad", i.e., the teacher of chain of teachers through whom an author reaches the Prophet, a practice invariably and systematically followed in Hadith compilations.[2]
We can see that of the 138 narrations in the Sahifa, 98 of them are faithfully witnessed in the later collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, both through narrations of Abu Hurrairah and witnessing narrations from other Companions.
We also see that all but two of the narrations are found in one section of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, again witnessing the preservation of hadith and that earlier works were faithfully rendered in later documents.[3]
Using the first century Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih as a "control group" Marston Speight compared it (i.e., the Sahifa) with about the 1500 variant readings of the same ahadith found in the collections of Ibn Hanbal (Musnad), al-Bukhari (Sahih) and Muslim (Sahih); the last three collections date from 3rd/9th century. Speight says:
... the texts in Hammam and those recorded in Ibn Hanbal, Bukhari and Muslim with the same isnad show almost complete identity, except for a few omissions and interpolations which do not affect the sense of the reports. On the other hand, the same ahadith as told by other transmitters in the three collections studied show a rich variety of wording, again without changing the meaning of the reports.[4]
Further he comments about the reports of Hammam found in the later compilations of Ibn Hanbal, al-Bukhari and Muslim by saying that:
... I have found practically no sign of careless or deceptive practices in the variant texts common to the Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih.[5]
In other words, it shows the meticuluous nature of hadith transmission as well as high moral and upright characters of the transmitters as well as collectors of the hadith; a fact that Islamic traditions had always asserted and now the western scholarship endorses it.
The Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani:[6] An article by Harald Motzki appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies that mentioned about the the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani as a source of authentic ahadith of the first century AH. Since the article is quite huge (21 pages), we will deal with only the conclusions of the author.
While studying the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq, I came to the conclusion that the theory championed by Goldziher, Schacht, and in their footsteps, many others - myself included - which in general, reject hadith literature as a historically reliable sources for the first century AH, deprives the historical study of early Islam of an important and a useful type of source.[7]
Some important hadith collections from second century of hijra are the following:[8]
The Muwatta' of Malik bin Anas: Malik bin Anas (d. 179/795) was the founder of Maliki school of jurisprudence. The Muwatta' of Malik was compiled in mid-second century AH. It is not a corpus of hadith in a true sense but a collection of practices of people of Madinah.
Musannaf of Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 AH)
Musannaf of Ma`mar bin Rashid (d. 153 AH)
A detailed report on hadith can be seen at `Abdur Rahim Green's Debate Material.
And Allah knows best!
________________________________________
References
[1] A. F. L. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant and G. R. Smith (Ed.), Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Period, 1983, Cambridge University Press, p. 272.
[2] ibid.
[3] More information can be obtained from the book Sahifa Hammam bin Munabbih: The Earliest Extant Work On The Hadith, 1979, M. Hamidullah, Centre Cultural Islamique.
[4] R. M. Speight, "A Look At Variant Readings In The Hadith", Der Islam, 2000, Band 77, Heft 1, p. 170.
[5] ibid., p. 175.
[6] `Abd al-Razzaq b. Hammam al-San`ani (ed. Habib al-Rahman al-A`zami), Al-Musannaf, 1970-72, 11 Volumes, Beirut.
[7] H. Motzki, "The Musannaf Of `Abd al-Razzaq Al-San`ani As A Source of Authentic Ahadith of The First Century A.H.", Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 1991, Volume 50, p. 21.
[8] Beeston et al., Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Period, op.cit, pp. 272-273.
On The Nature Of Hadith Collections Of Imam Al-Bukhari & Muslim Khalid al-Khazraji, Muhammad Ghoniem & M S M Saifullah
1. Introduction
Over the years, Christian missionaries have solidified their reputation for embracing zealous new recruits. One fresh addition to this delegation of holy servicemen is the neophyte, Andrew Vargo. More often than not, the missionaries have overlooked the academic backgrounds of these fresh recruits, apparently intoxicated by their impassioned hatred for Islam. Mr. Vargo has recently tried his hand as a student of comparative religion, introducing some of the most fantastic ideas yet to the discourse. Among these ideas is a rather boastful claim concerning the collection of ahadith by the great Muslim scholar, Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH). The highlight of Vargo's claim lies in the following:
In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true!
This is one of the most popular claims concerning the vast collection of ahadith of al-Bukhari in the Christian missionary literature and comes with fanciful explanations. For example, Anis Shorrosh, a well-known Arab missionary, says:
... Bukhari, collected twenty thousand of them, of which he rejected ten thousand, accounting them untrue. Of the remaining ten thousand he accepted only 7,275, declaring the rest to be untrustworthy. Abu Da'ud accepted as authentic only 4,800 rules out 50,000.[1]
Similarly we find Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb claiming that:
...Bukhari, considered to be the most reliable collector, admitted that of the 300,000 hadith he collected, he considered only 100,000 might be true. He then narrowed this number down to 7,275, many of which are repetitions so that the total number is in fact near 3,000. That means that even he admitted there were errors in over 295,000 of them![2]
Nearly a similar statement is repeated by Geisler in his Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics to cast doubts on the miracles performed by the Prophet Muhammad.[3] Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, on the other hand, labels what al-Bukhari did not include in his collection as "apocryphal".
As to the abundance of the apocryphal traditions, we learn that the famous authority al-Bukhari choose only 7,000 out of a host of 600,000 traditions that were current in his on time.[4]
Similar statements were made by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, who quoted a "Muslim scholar".[5]
Not surprising is the case of Rand Corporation, who have published an interesting report on Islam entitled "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies". The report has two fold agenda: firstly, to try to create a version of Islam that suits the post-9/11 Western agenda and secondly encouraging creation of divisions in the Muslim society at home and abroad. The Rand Report's recipe to achieve this aim is to encourage and promote the so-called modernist Muslims and play one section of the society against another to split the Muslim society. A small example of it can be seen when the report uses the material from the hadith-rejectors (not surprisingly!) to claim "objectively" that:
Even if that were not the case, objectively speaking, there is little doubt that hadith is at best a dubious, flawed instrument. Consider that Al-Bukhari is the compiler of what is generally considered to be the most authoritative and reliable collections of hadith. He collected 600,000 hadith, examined them for their authenticity, eliminated all but 7,600 of them, deleted some for redundancy, and was left with a collection of about 4,000.[6]
As we shall see, feisty statements such as the above only prove to be self-defeating in the end. This article intends to examine missionaries' thesis in light of the scholarship of Imam al-Bukhari, and thereby ascertain the actual worth of their claim.
To appreciate the broader perspective, we will also include a discussion of Imam Muslim's ahadith collection, insha'allah.
2. Imam Bukhari & The Nature Of His Collection
Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler, Abdul Saleeb, Abdul-Haqq and Benard have practically begged the question for us already - where exactly did Imam al-Bukhari mention that among the 600,000 ahadith in his collection, only 7,397 are to be accepted as 'true'? They maintains the missionary tradition of conveniently omitting any references that would not support their thesis; the mark of a true academicians, indeed! Once again, it is left to the Muslims to enlighten the ill-informed missionaries on this matter.
Imam al-Bukhari's actual words have been reproduced below:
* The two sahih collections did not gather the totality of the authentic ahadith as proved by al-Bukhari's testimony: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.
(Footnote 2)"
Footnote 2 says:
He [al-Bukhari] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of transmission] for each and every hadith.[7]
To reiterate this in elementary English, Imam al-Bukhari selected only a few authentic ahadith from his vast collection. However, he left out certain traditions, despite their authenticity, simply to avoid excessive length and repetition in his Al-Jami` (a discussion about which is given below). If anything, the privilege to make such a gesture is highly complimentary to the authenticity of the Islamic traditions. In another tradition, Imam al-Bukhari is also reported to have said:
He said, I heard as-Sa`dani say, I heard some of our companions say, Muhammad Ibn Isma`il said: I selected/published [the content of] this book - meaning the Sahih book - from about 600,000 hadiths/reports. Abu Sa`d al-Malini informed us that `Abdullah Ibn `Udayy informed us: I heard al-Hasan Ibn al-Husayn al-Bukhari say: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic what I could not get hold of."[8]
The above quotation reflects Imam al-Bukhari's gallant honesty to admit that he was not able to collect each and every authentic tradition that existed in his day. Rather, his Al-Jami` is only a partial collection of authentic traditions, despite its massive volume. Furthermore, it should be clarified for the missionaries that the notion of a partial collection of authentic material is quite different from the notion of a partially authentic collection of material. However, it is not our aim to offer a course on propositional reasoning. Thus, we leave the point with the hope that they will eventually comprehend this piece of preschool logic.
Professor Mustafa al-Azami, who offered a devastating critique of Joseph Schacht's work, again clarifies the misunderstanding of many orientalists on this issue:
Al-Bukhari did not claim that what he left out were the spurious, nor that there were no authentic traditions outside his collection. On the contrary he said, "I only included in my book al-Jami` those that were authentic, and I left out many more authentic traditions than this to avoid unnecessary length." He had no intention of collecting all the authentic traditions. He only wanted to compile a manual of hadith, according to the wishes of his Shaikh Ishaq b. Rahwaih, and his function is quite clear from the title of his book al-Jami` al-Musnad al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar min umur Rasul Allah wa Sunanhi wa ayyamih. The word al-Mukhtasar, 'epitome', itself explains that al-Bukhari did not make any attempt at a comprehensive collection.[9]
Yet, the missionaries seem to be living under the delusion that the 600,000 ahadith of Imam al-Bukhari's collection somehow means 600,000 separate narrations or bodies of text. His sloppy study of this issue becomes clear when one learns that a hadith is comprised 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 regarded not as one hadith but rather as ten hadiths, despite the fact that the text attached to each chain is the same in every case.
Professor Mustafa al-Azami adds:
Now it is clear that when traditionalists give enormous numbers for the traditions, they mean channels and sources of their transmission, and do not mean real numbers of hadith.[10]
Nabia Abbott, a prominent orientalist who conducted an extensive study on hadith literature, observed that the phenomenal growth of the corpus of this literature is not due to growth in content but due to progressive increase in the parallel and multiple chains of transmission, i.e., isnads:
... 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.[11]
Take a highly simplified example of one Companion narrating a single hadith from the Prophet to two students: these students themselves teaching that narration again to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of al-Bukhari and his contemporaries. We will find that in al-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 ahadith; 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 narrations 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. Using the mathematical application of geometric progression, Nabia Abbott concludes:
... 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.[12]
The implications of explosive increase in of the isnad is dealt with here.
3. Imam Muslim & The Nature Of His Collection
Imam Muslim along the similar lines to that of Imam al-Bukhari , is reported to have said:
The translation of which is:
[...]. Imam Muslim said: "I have not included in my present book any thing but with proof [regarding authenticity] , and I have not left out anything but with proof". He also said: I did not include everything that I judge authentic/Sahih, I only included what received a unanimous agreement, i.e., what fulfilled all the criteria of authenticity agreed upon [by the scholars].
And Muslim has presented [his collection] to the scholars of his time, like Imam Abu Zar`ah, and retained what was void of defect, and left out what had some defect.[13]
From the above quotation, it is clear that Imam Muslim's collection is also a partial collection of authentic material and not a partially authentic collection of material. He followed a certain set of criteria that demanded a proof for the inclusion of each and every hadith in his collection.
4. Conclusions
Imam al-Bukhari's collection of ahadith was maintained to be authentic on account of his authority, and it has been maintained as authentic ever since. The missionaries' assertion, that Imam al-Bukhari regarded almost 99% of his own collection as spurious, is among the most rash and foolhardy statements ever dared by Christian missionaries. On the contrary, the 7,397 refers to the number of hadiths that Imam al-Bukhari chose to include in his Al-Jami` and left out many authentic narrations from his vast collection for the fear of excessive length.
Again, according to the Vargo:
In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak!
We should wonder whether the neophyte is as quick to demonstrate the same puerile enthusiasm over the question of his own religious texts. Regardless, we will quote the famous trial of Imam al-Bukhari to show how maqlub[14] (changed, reversed) ahadith can be identified with ease by a scholar of hadith:
The famous trial of al-Bukhari by the scholars of Baghdad provides a good example of a Maqlub isnad. The traditionists, in order to test their visitor, al-Bukhari, appointed ten men, each with ten ahadith. Now, each hadith (text) of these ten people was prefixed with the isnad of another. Imam al-Bukhari listened to each of the ten men as they narrated their ahadith and denied the correctness of every hadith. When they had finished narrating these ahadith, he addressed each person in turn and recounted to him each of his ahadith with its correct isnad. This trial earned him great honour among the scholars of Baghdad.[15]
Finally, it is worth citing a significant trend in modern Western scholarship of the Prophetic traditions of Islam. For the past several decades, criticism of these traditions has been the Orientalist's whipping post, an opportunity to invalidate the traditions of Islam, which culminated in the work of Joseph Schacht, mentioned earlier. However, this position has practically been reversed in recent times, with the advent of academic honesty on the part of Western scholars. Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University has made the following counter-criticism of
Schacht's traditional position:
Accepting Schacht's conclusion regarding the many traditions he did examine does not warrant its automatic extension to all the traditions. To consider all Prophetic traditions apocryphal until proven otherwise is to reverse the burden of proof. Moreover, even where differences of opinion exist regarding the authenticity of the chain of narrators, they need not detract from the authenticity of a tradition's content and common acceptance of the importance of tradition literature as a record of the early history and development of Islamic belief and practice.[16]
The position of Esposito perhaps reflects the growing attitude among Western educational institutions that entertain any study of Islam and its traditions. This is simply evidenced by the fact that Professor Esposito has become one of the reigning authorities on Islam in the West, whose textbooks are considered university standards for courses on Islam.
Considering the missionaries' abuse of hadiths to denigrate the Prophet(P) of Islam, it would be too generous to assume that Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler and Abdul Saleeb "misunderstood" the nature of the collection of Imam al-Bukhari. As for the Rand Corporation's report, their "objectivity" lies in the unverified use of source material. An honest misunderstanding entails at least some understanding of the issue, which doesn't even seem to be their case. Perhaps the Christian missionaries might consider beginning a genuine study of the science of hadith before they embarrasses themselves further.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Abu Hudhayfah for providing us necessary help and allowing us to use his material.
And Allah knows best!
________________________________________
References
[1] Dr. A. A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View Of Islam, 1988, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 22.
[2] N. L. Geisler & A. Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent In The Light Of The Cross, 1993, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 165.
[3] "Muhammad, Alleged Miracles Of", in N. L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics, 2002, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 512.
[4] A. A. Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith With A Muslim, 1980, Bethany House Publications: Minneapolis, p. 45.
[5] J. Ankerberg & J. Weldon, Fast Facts On Islam, 2001, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), pp. 50-51.
[6] C. Benard, "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies", 2003, Rand Corporation, p. 67.
[7] Muhammad Ajaj al-Khatib, Al-Mukhtasar al-Wajiz fi `Ulum al-Hadith, 1991, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, p. 135.
[8] Abi Bakr Ahmad Ibn `Ali al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad Aw Madinah as-Salam, 1931 (1349 AH), Volume II, Maktabat al-Khanji, Cairo & Al-Maktabah al-`Arabiyyah, Baghdad and Matba'at as-S'adah near the State Department, Cairo, pp. 8-9.
[9] M. M. al-Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications: Indianapolis (USA), pp. 305-306.
[10] ibid., p. 306.
[11] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition], 1967, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 2.
[12] ibid., p. 72.
[13] Al-Imam Muhyee ad-Din Abi Zakariyya Yahya bin Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sahih Muslim Bi Sharh al-Imam al-Nawawi, Volume I, 1994/1414, Dar al-Khair, p. 1.
[14] A hadith is known as maqlub (changed, reversed) when its isnad is grafted to a different text or vice versa, or if a reporter happens to reverse the order of a sentence in the text.
[15] S. Hasan, An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith, 1995, Darussalam Publishers: Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) available online, quote taken from here.
[16] J. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 1998, Oxford University Press, p. 81
Explosive Increase Of Isnad & Its Implications M S M Saifullah & Elias Karim
1. Introduction
This document can be considered as an appendix to On The Nature Of Hadith
Collections Of Imam Bukhari & Muslim.
Our main concern here is with the statements made by Nabia Abbott in her book Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri on the issue of isnad (i.e., chain of transmitters of the hadith) and the implications of her statements on the authenticity of hadith literature and sciencific nature of hadith sciences.
It has already been observed that Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim selected only a few authentic ahadith from their vast collection and left out many traditions, despite their authenticity, simply to avoid excessive length and repetition. This repetition arose due to explosive increase of isnads during their lifetime.
2. Nabia Abbott On Isnad
Nabia Abbott, a prominent orientalist who conducted an extensive study on hadith literature and papyri, observed that the phenomenal growth of the corpus of this literature is not due to growth in content but due to progressive increase in the parallel and multiple chains of transmission, i.e., isnads:
... 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.[1]
Take a highly simplified example of one Companion narrating a single hadith from the Prophet to two students: these students themselves teaching that narration again to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of al-Bukhari and his contemporaries. We will find that in al-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 ahadith; 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 narrations 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. Using the mathematical application of geometric progression, Nabia Abbott concludes:
... 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.[2]
3. An Example
Before we begin with the implication of explosive increase of isnad, a review of fundamentals of hadith is necessary. Every hadith consists of a matn (text) and an isnad (the chain of narrators). The hadith is evaluated on the basis of the matn and isnad. Isnad, as it is well known, is unique to Islam. The purpose of isnad is the disclosure of the source of information. In the final stage, the source must lead to the person who had direct contact to the highest authority to whom the statement belonged. In other words, the principle of evaluation of the hadith is similar to what is known as the law of witnesses. This is a well-recognised principle in the courts of law all around the world to evaluate/cross-examine a person who said or saw or heard something from someone or somewhere and verify the authenticity of the person's statement. In the science of hadith, this verification takes a new dimension. The transmitters of the hadith are carefully scrutinised to make sure that the persons named could in fact have met one another, that they could be trusted to repeat the story accurately, and that they did not hold any heretical views. This implied extensive biographical studies; and many biographical dictionaries have been preserved giving the basic information about a man's teachers and pupils, the views of later scholars (on his reliability as a transmitter) and the date of his death.
In order to show what Nabia Abbott really meant by explosive increase in isnad, let us take an example of the hadith on fasting. This hadith has been transmitted fully as well as in parts.[3]
Abu Huraira reported the Prophet saying: (that Almighty Allah has said) Every act of the son of Adam is for him; every good deed will receive tenfold except fasting. It is [exclusively] meant for me, and I [alone] will reward it. He abandons his food for My sake and abandons drinking for My sake and abandons his pleasure for My sake. When any one of you is fasting he should neither indulge in sex nor use obscene language. If anyone reviles him he should say, "I am fasting." The one who fasts has two [occasions] of joy: one when he breaks the fast and one on the day when he will meet his Lord. And the breath [of a fasting person] is sweeter to Allah than the fragrance of musk.
This lengthy hadith has been transmitted by many scholars in parts. Ibn Hanbal has endorsed it at least 24 times. It is preserved in the collections of A'mash (d. 148 A.H.), Ibn Juraij (d. 150 A.H.), and Ibrahim b. Tahman (d. 168), transmitters from the students of Abu Huraira. It is also found in Shi'ite, Zaidi, and Ibadi sources.
Confining the discussion only to the third generation of narrators from Abu Huraira, who mostly belong to the first half of the second century of the Hijra, the following features appear: There are 22 third-generation transmitters-nine from Medina, five from Basra, four from Kufa, and one each from Mecca, Wasit, Hijaz, and Khurasan. These variously trace their source to 11 students of Abu Huraira, whose homes were in Medina, Basra, and Kufa. A second interesting point is that not all the Medinese, Basrites, or Kufans are the students of one man. Three of the Basrites trace the source of their knowledge to one Basrite, but the other two cite two different Medinese as their source.
This hadith is not an isolated case of such an extensive transmission. Professor al-Azami adds that:
I have demonstrated this position in three ahadith only. By going through Studies, Arabic section, 30 charts can be produced, and by going through al-A'zami, Ziyaur Rahman's work on Abu Huraira, 1000 charts can be drawn on this grand scale for the ahadith transmitted by Abu Huraira alone.[4]
It is clear from our discussion that the isnad did resulted in an explosive increase
in the multiple and parallel chains of transmission of the ahadith that trace back to the Prophet(P) and the companions. The content, however, did not increase. Now what are the implications of the explosive increase in isnad?
4. The Implications
Here, we are primarily concerned about various hypotheses put forward by Joseph Schacht in his book Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence concerning isnad. Most of the issue are already refuted by Professor M. Mustafa al-Azami in his book On Schacht's Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. We will only summarize some of the refutations here, insha'allah.
"Projecting-back" hypothesis: For a careful reader of the above chart of chain of transmission, it is clear that forgery of a hadith on such a grand scale is impossible as the number of scholars and transmitters of the hadith were spread throughout the Muslim empire from Spain to India. One interesting feature of this is that it refutes Schacht's 'projecting-back' the hadith to the Prophet(P) or his companions hypothesis, i.e., someone invented the hadith and then projected it back to the time of Prophet(P). The second and third generation transmitters of the hadith are considered by Schacht to have involved in this conspiracy. As the above chart shows that if a hadith is fabricated and projected back to the earlier authorities, it would mean that the person who invented the hadith has to ask his teachers and students as well as other Muslim scholars in various parts of the Muslim world to graft the isnad which would take the hadith back to the Prophet(P) or his companions. As anyone can see, this would also require that the same hadith present in the books of earlier scholars be impugned and new isnad grafted. This means a conspiracy of monumental proportions that would involve people from different parts of the Muslim world to come together and hatch such a plot.
Here we might as well accuse Schacht of projecting his doctrines forward.
Creation of supporting traditions: In this hypothesis of Schacht, a hadith was fabricated, the isnad of constructed and was projected forward in time. Let us assume that some person from second or third generation of transmitters fabricated a hadith and perhaps made an arrangement for the duplication of isnad, entrusting his students with the secret and instructing them to ask the scholars of a hundred years later or even more to fabricate new isnads to support his false hadith, and that the request was accepted by Ibn Hanbal and Bukhari and others. Would Schacht have us believe that the originator of this fabricated hadith was able to contact scholars scattering from Khurasan to Egypt and from Syria to Yemen informing them of the need to project the doctrine back to early scholars? Collusion and forgery on so wide a scale is hard to credit.
Supression of undesirable material: In a further attempt to discredit the scholars of the time, Schacht claims that since the hadith as narrated by Hisham (d. 146 AH) shows the Prophet and `A'isha in a disconcerting light, the crucial point was formally mitigated in a version with the new isnad Malik - Yahya b. Sa`id - `Amra - `A'isha, and a shortened one with the isnad Malik - Nafi` - Ibn `Umar - `A'isha... Oddly enough, Bukhari, Muslim, `Abdur Razzaq, and Ibn Hanbal all record Hisham's version without noting or suppressing this 'disconcerting' aspect of the Prophet's behaviour. Moreover, Nafi` died 30 years earlier than Hisham, and according to Schacht, Hisham's version most probably did not exist in the life of Nafi`. Schacht thus asks us to believe that Nafi` had the foresight to see that after 30 years Hisham would present the Prophet and `A'isha in a disconcerting light, and thus mitigated the crucial point before its existence.[5]
Family isnads: According to one of the lesser theories of Schacht, all family isnads are spurious. This has lead him to reject many well-authenticated ahadith and isnads. Muslim scholars on the other hand did not claim that all family isnads are genuine, as is quite obvious from their biographical works. Some of family isnads which were denounced are:
Ma`mar b. Muhammad and his transmission from his father.
`Isa b. `Abdallah from his father.
Kathir b. `Abd Allah from his father.
Musa b. Matir from his father.
Yahya b. `Abd Allah from his father.
But one should not go too far in the dismissal of family isnads. If a statement of a father about his son or vice versa, or a wife about her husband, or a friend about a friend, or a colleague about a colleague is always unacceptable, then on what basis could biography possibly written? Professor Schacht would want us to believe that all the biographies written till now are forgeries.[6]
And Allah knows best!
________________________________________
References
[1] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II (Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition), 1967, The University Of Chicago Press, p. 2.
[2] ibid., p. 72.
[3] M. Mustafa al-Azami, On Schacht's Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 1996, The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies & Islamic Text Society. The discussion starts from
p. 157.
[4] ibid., p. 165.
[5] ibid., p. 205.
[6] ibid., p. 197.
On The Transmitters Of Isra'iliyyat (Judeo-Christian Material) M S M Saifullah, Muhammad Ghoniem, Abu Hudhayfah & Khalid al-Khazraji
1. Introduction
This document deals with clarifying some of the misconceptions which are held by both Muslims and non-Muslims concerning the transmitters of isra'iliyyat or Judeo-Christian material into the Qur'anic exegesis or tafsir. The misconception is that the transmitters of isra'iliyyat narrations are 'fabricators' of hadith and are considered as 'untrustworthy.'
We will first deal with the conditions of acceptance of isra'iliyyat narrations in the Islamic literature. Then we will focus on the reliability of narrators such as Wahb Ibn Munabbih and Ka`b al-Ahbar, who had transmitted many isra'iliyyat narrations into Islamic literature.
We will also deal with some of the statements made by the Christian missionary Shamoun concerning Wahb Ibn Munabbih and Ka`b al-Ahbar.
Furthermore, Saifullah does not apply his method of criticism consistently. In one of his articles, he cites the hadith collection of Wahb b. Munabbih to prove that there were early records of Islamic traditions.
2. Wahb Or Hammam?
According to the Christian missionary Shamoun:
In one of his articles, he cites the hadith collection of Wahb b. Munabbih to prove that there were early records of Islamic traditions.
Well, if one simply follows that link and read it is clear that we are talking about Hammam Ibn Munabbih, the brother of Wahb Ibn Munabbih. The Christian missionary confused himself with the names. Hammam Ibn Munabbih wrote his Sahifa which comprises of 138 ahadith and his collection is believed to be mid-first century AH/seventh century CE.
3. Isra'iliyat: Its Narrators & Rules Of Accepting The Narrations
The first and foremost issue is to know the basis of acceptance of isra'iliyyat by the hadith scholars. The scholars distinguish three kinds of the isra'iliyyat:
• Those known to be true because the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad(P) confirms them.
• Those known to be false, because the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad(P) rejects them.
• Those not known to be true or false, and we do not say they are true or false.
These set of rules are applied by hadith scholars when dealing with isra'iliyyat material. These rules are based on the hadith of the Prophet(P) recorded in various hadith collections. From the above, one can conclude that it is of little consequence whether Wahb, Ka`b or anyone else is narrating the isra'iliyyat material from them or anyone else since the same set of rules applies to everyone narrating such traditions. It does not exclude even Ibn `Abbas who also had transmitted isra'iliyyat traditions through Wahb, Ka`b and others.
Keeping the above in mind, let us now proceed further with the arguments. We read:
Yet, Saifullah conveniently fails to mention that Wahb also included material from the Jews.
Wahb transmitted both isra'iliyyat and Islamic traditions. Does transmitting isra'iliyyat traditions along with Islamic traditions make any transmitter untrustworthy? Or is he branded as a fabricator or a liar? The above set of rules does not say so. But according to the missionary:
This has led prominent Muslims to doubt Wahb's credibility as a compiler of hadith.
In the current discussion, we are dealing with Wahb, the transmitter of hadith and isra'iliyyat traditions, not the compiler of hadith. This distinction should be made clearer for those who are confused. The scholars of the hadith had criticized the isra'iliyyat traditions transmitted by him.
What we do is a simple exercise of going through the books that deal with the transmitters of hadith compiled by the famous hadith scholars of the past. This study in the hadith sciences is known as Rijal al-Hadith (the study of the reporters of hadith). This would enable us to check the reliability of Wahb Ibn Munabbih and Ka`b al-Ahbar as the transmitters of hadith. We have also included Hammam Ibn Munabbih for the sake of completeness of the argument.
Wahb Ibn Munabbih
Concerning Wahb, al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH) said:
126 - Wahb Ibn Munabbih Ibn Kamil al-Yamani, the father of `Abdallah al-Abnawi. He is trustworthy [thiqah]...[1]
Ibn Hajar places him in category three of hadith narrators who come immediately after category two, which includes extremely precise and firmly established hadith narrators, and after category one which is reserved purely for the Companions of the Prophet(P).
According to al-`Ijli (d. 261H), Wahb is:
A successor, thiqah....[2]
The editor of this edition placed a footnote to al-`Ijli's comment saying:
He is also declared thiqah by Abu Zur`ah, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Hibban and others.[3]
Imam al-Suyuti (d. 911H) includes him in his book of hadith memorisers.[4]
Many of the hadith scholars have recorded his hadith, including al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi.
To summarize the views of various hadith specialists on Wahb, let us consider the
following quote:
The translation of which is:
If we examine what the scholars and critics said concerning Wahb, we would be convinced that he was above the defamation made against him, innocent from any accusation that would scratch his fairness and honesty. Al-Dhahabi said: He was trustworthy and honest and transmitted a lot from the books of isra'iliyyat. Al-`Ijli said: Trustworthy and a successor, he was appointed in the Court of San`a'. Ibn Hajar said: Wahb Ibn Munabbih of San`a' was a successor. He was trusted by the public of scholars except al-Fallas who said: He is weak, what led him to this stance is that [Wahb] was suspected of having a controversed opinion regarding Qadar [i.e., predestination]. An-Nasa'i and Abu Zur`ah said: He was trustworthy. Ibn Hibban has mentioned him in his book of trustworthy narrators. Al-Bukhari himself used to rely on him and trusted him. We can find in al-Bukhari one report from him through his brother Hammam from Abu Huraira concerning the writing of hadith....[5]
So the conclusion here is that Wahb is consider to be a thiqah even though he transmitted isra'iliyyat traditions along with the Islamic ones. The scholars have rejected the isra'iliyyat traditions which do not satisfy the criteria as listed above.
Ka`b al-Ahbar
Muslim, Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi have recorded his hadith.
Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said:
53 - Ka`b Ibn Mati` al-Himyari, Abu Ishaq, known as Ka`b al-Ahbar, is trustworthy [thiqah]. He belongs to the 2nd [tabaqah]. He lived during both Jahiliyyah and Islam. He lived in Yemen before he moved to Sham [~Syria]. He died during the Caliphate of `Uthman exceeding 100 years of age. None of his reports are in al-Bukhari. He has one narration in Muslim from Abu Huraira from him on the authority of al-A`mash from Abu Salih.[6]
And he places him in the second category of hadith narrators.
Hammam Ibn Munabbih
Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said:
110 - Hammam Ibn Munabbih Ibn Kamil al-San`ani, Abu `Utbah, the brother of Wahb, trustworthy [thiqah]....[7]
And he places him in category four which is a category of narrators that just falls below the status of those in category three.
Al-`Ijli said:
....thiqah, a successor.[8]
The editor of this edition placed a footnote to al-`Ijli's comment saying:
There is agreement on the fact that he is thiqah, his hadith are in the six books [i.e., al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, an-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah].[9]
4. Conclusions
The above discussion is self-explanatory. The obvious conclusion is that each hadith is discussed on the basis of its strengths and weaknesses; whether in chain of narrators (isnad) or the text (matn). We find that Wahb Ibn Munabbih and Ka`b al-Ahbar are considered as trustworthy narrators of hadith because they transmitted the Islamic traditions faithfully along with isra'iliyyat traditions. Just because they had also transmitted isra'iliyyat traditions along with the Islamic ones does not make them 'untrustworthy' or 'fabricators' of hadith because they did not attribute these isra'iliyyat traditions to the Prophet(P). Muslim scholars have rejected the isra'iliyyat traditions on the basis that they do not satisfy the critieria of truthfulness according to the above set of rules.
In a response to an accusation against Ka`b al-Ahbar, Wahb Ibn Munabbih, and others who had knowledge in the previous books and transmitted it in the Islamic literature, Dr. Muhammad Husayn al-Dhahabi says:
As for his saying [i.e., the critic]: "In general they [Ka`b and the others] introduced to the Muslim's creed and knowledge a lot of what had left bad affects." If [the critic] wanted to put the blame of the bad affects upon Ka`b and the others then we don't agree on this, because whatever Ka`b and the others narrated from the People of the Book they didn't say it is from the Prophet, peace be upon him, and [thus] they didn't lie to Muslims about it, but they were only reporting it as the Israelite tradition which existed in their own books. We are not obliged to believe anything of it nor we are requested to trust it...."[10]
That actually sums up the whole case rather nicely.
Finally, if the Christian missionary Shamoun can't distinguish between Wahb and Hammam and a major difference between a compiler and a transmitter of hadith, he has no right to comment on the hadith literature itself.
And Allah knows best!
________________________________________
Appendix
Al-Fallas & Wahb's Qadar Controversy
Here we deal with the issue of Wahb's alleged subscription to Qadariyyah. The material below is (translation from Arabic to English) taken from Al-Isra'iliyyat wal Mawdu'at fi Kutub al-Tafsir by Dr. Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Abu Shahbah, Professor of Qur'anic Sciences and Hadith at the University of al-Azhar and University of Umm al-Qura, 4th edition, Maktabat as-Sunnah, Cairo 1408 A.H., pp. 105.
The translation of which is:
Wahb Ibn Munabbih as-San`ani al-Yamani [i.e., from San`a', Yemen], he is among the righteous successors. Born in the end of `Uthman's caliphate, he narrated from Abu Hurayrah and Abu Sa`id al-Khudri and `Abdullah Ibn `Abbas and `Abdullah Ibn `Umar and others. Narrated from him, `Amr Ibn Dinar al-Makki and `Awf Ibn Abi Jamilah al-`Abdari and his two sons `Abdullah and `Abd al-Rahman and others. Al-Bukhari and Muslim and Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasa'i reported from him. He died in San`a' in 110 A.H.
The jumhur [i.e., the majority of the scholars] trusted him except al-Fallas who said: He is weak. He was suspected of having a controversed opinion regarding Qadar [more precisely that man creates his own actions when the choice is up to him] and he composed a book in this respect but in authentic reports he [Wahb] withdrew what he said in it. Hammad Ibn Salamah said that Abu Sinan said: I heard Wahb Ibn Munabbih say: "I used to have a stance regarding Qadar until I read some seventy books of the "Books of the Prophets". "Anyone who ascribes to himself any part of the will has commited kufr. Therefore, I gave up my stance" [see Fath al-Bari, Volume 2 p. 171, Edition of Munir]. And I never saw anyone accuse him of fabrication or lying except some people in later generations [muta'akhkhirun] as stated previously. He used to report massively from the books of ahl al-Kitab and it seems that he used to trust their books very much and their wisdom and tales. In the beginning of his career, Ibn Kathir has reported from him many reports full of wisdom and many teachings and stories that would cover some twenty parchments almost devoid of outrageous accounts. He also reported from him many accounts in his tafsir most of which are among the isra'iliyyat.
We do not deny that because of him [Wahb] the books of tafsir include isra'iliyyat and many false stories, but what we deny is [the accusation] that it would be him who fabricated them on purpose even though we do not discharge him of his responsibility for being one of the means that conveyed these stories to the Muslims and stuck them into the tafsir while the Qur'an is innocent from them and we wish he hadn't done so.
________________________________________
References
[1] Ahmad Ibn `Ali Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, Volume II, 1960, Al-Maktabat al-`Ilmiyyah: Al-Madinah, p. 339.
[2] Ahmad Ibn `Abdullah Ibn Salih Abu al-Hassan al-`Ijli, Tarikh al-Thiqat, 1984 Edition, Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), p. 467, No. 1786.
[3] ibid.
[4] Jalal al-din `Abd al-Rahman al-Suyuti, Tabaqat al-Huffadh, 1983 Edition, Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), p. 48, No. 92.
[5] Muhammad Husayn al-Dhahabi, Al-Tafsir wa 'l-Mufassirun, Dar al-Qalam, Beirut, Volume I, pp. 199.
[6] Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, Op Cit., p. 135.
[7] ibid., p. 321.
[8] Al-`Ijli, Tarikh al-Thiqat, Op Cit., p. 461, no. 1750.
[9] ibid.
[10] Al-Dhahabi, Al-Tafsir wa 'l-Mufassirun, Op Cit., p. 192.
Did Al-Hajjaj Change The Qur'an? M S M Saifullah, Muhammad Ghoniem & Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi
1. Introduction
It had been claimed by Orientalists and Christian missionaries that al-Hajjaj was responsible for changing the some contents of the Qur'an. The scandal surrounding al-Hajjaj is apparently based on two different traditions, one Muslim and the other Christian. The Islamic source is Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud where a report mentions that al-Hajjaj made eleven changes in `Uthman's mushaf. As for the Christian source, the prominent one is of exchange of letters between Ummayad Caliph `Umar II and the Byzantine Emperor Leo III. A less prominent writing is that of an apology attributed to `Abd al-Masih al-Kindi.
We would begin by examining the report in Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud, the problems with the interpretation of Orientalists and Christian missionaries, the authenticity of the report and the implication of the alleged changes made by al-Hajjaj. Followed by this would be the analysis of Christian polemical sources and their authenticity.
The document is divided into following sub-headings:
2. The Report In Kitab al-Masahif Of Ibn Abi Dawud
The report in Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud says:
The translation of the report is as follows:
Section: What al-Hajjaj Had Changed in `Uthman's Mushaf?
Abu Bakr said that it was there in the book of my father that a man told; I asked my father, "Who was that man?". He said, "Abbad ibn Suhayb told us from Awf ibn Abi Jamila that al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf changed in `Uthman's mushaf 11 letters". He said in
al-Baqarah (2:259) lam yatasanna wanzur without ha to lam yatasannah with ha.
and in al-Ma'idah (5:48) shari`atan wa minhajan was changed to shir`atan wa minhajan
and in Yunus (10:22) huwal-ladhi yunash-shirukum was changed to yusay-yirukum
and in Yusuf (12:45) ana-atikum bita'wilihi was changed to ana onabbio'kum bita'wilihi and in Mu'minun (23:85-89) sayaquluna lillah....lillah....lillah he made the two last occurrences allah....allah and in al-Shu`ara in the story of Nuh (26:116) it was minal mukhrajina and in the story of Lut (26:167) it was minal marjumina. It was changed in the story of Nuh to minal marjumina and in the story of Lut to minal mukhrajina and in al-Zukhruf (43:32) it was nahnu qasamna baynahum ma` ishahum and he changed it to ma`ishatahum and in al-ladhina kafaru (47:15) min ma`inn ghayri yasin was changed to min ma`inn ghayri asin and in al-Hadid (57:7) he changed fal-ladhina amanu minkum wat-taqaw lahum ajrun kabir to minkum wa anfaqu.
and in "When the Sun is folded up" (81:24) wa ma huwa `ala-l-ghaybi bidhanin to bidanin[1]
In other words, the report says that al-Hajjaj made eleven changes in `Uthman's mushaf and these changes are documented.
Instead of reading carefully what has been mentioned in the report, the Orientalists and missionaries have involved themselves in myth-making and taking it to almost delirious levels. Based on this report al-Hajjaj has been accused of "undertaking a completely new recension" or a "minor recension" or even changing the `Uthmanic recension of the Qur'an. Let us list them one by one.
According to Arthur Jeffery, the action of al-Hajjaj resulted in an "entirely new recension of the Qur'an" and that al-Hajjaj ordered the "new copies of his text sent to the great metropolitan centres."
When we come to examine the accounts of the activity of al-Hajjaj in this matter, however, we discover to our own surprise that the evidence points strongly to the fact that his work was not confined to fixing more precisely the text of the Qur'an by a set of points showing how it was to be read, but he seems to have made an entirely new recension of the Qur'an, having copies of his new text sent to the great metropolitan centres and ordering the destruction of earlier copies in existence there, much as `Uthman had done earlier. Moreover, this new text promulgated by al-Hajjaj seems to have undergone more or less extensive alterations.[2]
Obviously the report in Kitab al-Masahif does not say any such thing as what has been claimed by Jeffery. Taking a clue from Arthur Jeffery, a Christian apologist called Chad VanDixhoorn states:
Others yet hold that the final form was not finally settled until the recension of al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf.
The author of the article "The Qur'an" in the book Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period prefers "a minor recension" instead of an "entirely new recension of the Qur'an". He conjectures:
On the other hand we have the tradition in Ibn Abi-Da'ud that al-Hajjaj was responsible for eleven changes in the consonantal text. If this is so, he is responsible for a minor recension at least.[3]
According to the claim of missionary John Gilchrist
During the caliphate of Abd al-Malik in the first century of Islam the governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, took steps to correct Uthman's text. He is said to have made eleven direct changes to the Qur'an text as it stood in its consonantal form, all of which are reflected in the Qur'an as it stands today.... The whole section continues to name each one of the amendments made by al-Hajjaj so that the Qur'an text as we have it today is not only the Uthmanic text but also a subsequent minor recension of it by the Iraqi governor.
Gilchrist claims that the alleged changes made by al-Hajjaj, as seen in Kitab al-Masahif, were made to the "`Uthmanic text" and that it was a "minor recension". The Qur'an that we have today is a combination of "`Uthmanic text" and the"minor recension".
That the "Qur'an of Uthman" has been altered is also championed by "Brother Mark".
He says:
The insistence that this was 'merely' altering the Qur'an of Uthman from one set of 'accepted readings'to another is little comfort to people who have been taught that NO CHANGES have ever occurred to the Qur'anic text.
Similarly, the missionary Jochen Katz has fantasized the following about the changes that al-Hajjaj made to "Uthman's Koran":
he gave himself the liberty to change several words of Caliph Uthman's Koran, which is an indication that he did not believe that the Koran was verbally inspired or was inscribed in a "tablet preserved".
The next in the category are those missionaries whose statements can be called demented. According to Steven Masood, al-Hajjaj was "accused" of making eleven changes in the text (sorry, who accused whom!):
Al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusaf (694-714), the viceroy of Iraq, is said to have directed the work. He was also accused of making changes in the text. Ibn Abi Dawood lists these amendments in considerable detail in the chapter Ma Ghaira al-Hajjaj fi Mushaf Usman - 'What was altered by al-Hajjaj in the Uthmanic text'.[4]
Another missionary in this category is Joseph Smith. He claims that the eleven "distinct" amendments that al-Hajjaj made were reduced to "seven readings"!
We also know from Muslim tradition that the Uthmanic Qur'an had to be reviewed and amended to meet the Caliph's standard for a single approved text even after Uthman's death. This was carried out by al-Hajjaj, the governor of Kufa, who made eleven distinct amendments and corrections to the text, which were later reduced to seven readings.
Summarizing, the report says that al-Hajjaj made eleven changes in `Uthman's mushaf. This has been mysteriously and mythically transformed as if al-Hajjaj "undertook a completely new recension" or a made "minor recension" or even completely changed the `Uthmanic recension of the Qur'an! Apart from such absurdities, neither the Orientalists nor the missionaries checked the authenticity of the report; a method frequently employed to supress the information and to attack the Qur'an. Let us now check the authenticity of this report mentioned in Ibn Abi Dawud's Kitab al-Masahif.
3. Hadith Criticism Of The Report: The Study of Isnad
Hadith critics at first look at the isnad and if it is defective, they call the hadith defective, without scrutinizing the subject matter; because a hadith, according to their criteria, cannot be authnetic unless both its parts are correct.[5] Using this criteria let us first study the isnad.
The isnad of this report is Awf bin Abi Jamila `Abbad Ibn Suhayb Abu Bakr Father of Abu Bakr. Study of reliability of narrators in this isnad shows that `Abbad Ibn Suhayb is the one who had been declared weak and his hadith is rejected.
Al-Bukhari very tersely says in his Du`afa al-Saghir:
228 - `Abbad Ibn Suhayb al-Basri: Abandoned.[6]
Similarly al-Nasa'i says in his Du`afa wa-l-Matrukin:
411) `Abbad Ibn Suhayb al-Basri: His hadith is rejected (matruk al-hadith).[7]
Ibn Abi Hatim comments in his Kitab al-Jarh wa-l-Ta`dil:
417 - `Abbad Ibn Suhayb al-Basri narrated from Isma`il Ibn Abi Khalid and Hisham Ibn `Urwah and the two Hijazis. Narrated from him people who did not understand the science. `Abd al-Rahman told us that `Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hanbal wrote to us: "I asked my father about `Abbad Ibn Suhayb." He said: "I saw him in Basra several times. The qadariyyah used to claim him." It was read to al-`Abbas Ibn Muhammad al-Duri from Yahya Ibn Ma`in that he mentioned `Abbad Ibn Suhayb and said that it was narrated from Abu Bakr Ibn Nafi` - and Abu Bakr Ibn Nafi` is a senior from whom Malik Ibn Anas narrated - that `Abd al-Rahman told us: My father told me: "`Ali Ibn al-Madini said: 'The hadith of `Abbad Ibn Suhayb is gone.'" `Abd al-Rahman told us, Hab Ibn Isma`il [al-Kirmani] wrote to me: "I heard Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaybah say: 'We forsook the hadith of `Abbad Ibn Suhayb twenty years before he demised.'" `Abd al-Rahman told us: "I asked my father about `Abbad Ibn Suhayb. He said: 'His hadith is weak (da`if). His hadith is disavowed (munkar). His hadith is forsaken.'"[8]
Similarly Ibn Hibban says in Kitab al-Majruhin min al-Muhaddithin wa-l-Du`afa wa-l-Matrukin:
Abbad Ibn Suhayb: From Basra. He narrated from Hisham Ibn `Urwah and al-A`mash. The Iraqis narrated from him. He belonged to the qadariyyah and called to it. On the top of that, he narrated disavowed narrations from famous people, such narrations, if heard by a beginner in this field, he would deem them forged.
It was narrated from Hisham Ibn `Urwah from his father from `A'ishah that the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: "Blue eyes are a blessing." Ibn `Ar`arah informed me of this narration in Nasibin saying: "Muhammad ibn Musa said on the authority of `Abbad Ibn Suhayb."
It was narrated from Humayd al-Tawil that Anas said: "I entered at the Messenger of Allah - peace be upon him. There was a recipient full of water before him. He told me: 'Anas, come close to me so that I teach you how to perform wudu'.' I went close to him - peace be upon him. When he washed his hands, he said: 'In the name of Allah, praise to Allah, there is no power nor strength except in Allah'. Then when he performed the istinja', he said: 'O Allah, preserve my chastity and ease my affairs.' When he washed his mouth and nose, he said: 'O Allah, teach me my argument and do not deprive me from the scent of Paradise.' When he washed his face, he said: 'O Allah, make my face white on the day when the faces become white.' When he washed his arms, he said: 'O Allah, give me my book in the right hand.' When he wiped his head, he said: 'O Allah, overwhelm us with Your mercy and protect us from your punishment.' When he washed his feet, he said: 'O Allah, make my feet unshakable upon the day when the feet falter.' Then, the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: 'By the One Who sent me with the truth, Anas, whoever says the same in his wudu', from each drop that falls from his fingers, Allah creates an angel that praises him in seventy tongues, the reward of which lasts until the day of resurrection.'" This was narrated to us by Ya`qub Ibn Ishaq al-Qadi on the authority of Ahmad Ibn Hisham al-Khawarizmi, from him.[9]
Al-Dhahabi says in his Mizan al-I`tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal:
4122 - `Abbad Ibn Suhayb, one of the abandoned. He narrated from Hisham Ibn `Urwah and al-A`mash. Ibn al-Madini said: "His hadith is gone." Al-Bukhari, al-Nasa'i and others said: "Abandoned." Ibn Hibban said: "He belonged to qadariyyah and called to it. On the top of that, he narrated disavowed narrations from famous people, such narrations, if heard by a beginner in this field, he would deem them forged."
Muhammad Ibn Musa said, `Abbad Ibn Suhayb informed us on the authority of Hisham from his father from `A'ishah that the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: "Blue eyes are a blessing."
A lengthy but fabricated hadith was narrated from Humayd on the authority of Anas concerning the wudu' from which we quote: "When he washed his face, he said: 'O Allah, make my face white...'" until he said: "'Anas, whoever says the same in his wudu', from each drop that falls from his fingers, Allah creates an angel that praises him in seventy tongues, the reward of which lasts until the day of resurrection.'" Narrated by Ibn Hibban on the authority of Ya`qub Ibn Ishaq [3/30] al-Qadi, from Ahmad Ibn Hisham al-Khawarizmi, from him.
Al-Bukhari said in Kitab al-Du`afa' al-Kabir: `Abbad Ibn Suhayb died after year 200.
He was forsaken, his hadith is abundant.
Abu Dawud said: "He is truthful (saduq) and qadari". Ahmad said: "He was not a liar and had plenty of hadith. He heard from al-A`mash." Al-Kudaymi said: "I heard `Ali say: 'I forsook 100 thousand hadiths of mine, half of which come from `Abbad Ibn Suhayb'."
Ahmad Ibn Rawh narrated from `Abbad 100,000 hadiths. Ibn `Adiyy said: "`Abbad Ibn Suhayb has many writings, and although he is weak, his hadith is written by Ibn Abi Dawud."
Yahya Ibn `Abd al-Rahman told us: "I heard Yahya Ibn Ma`in say: '`Abbad Ibn Suhayb is more reliable than Abu `Asim al-Nabil.'" Abu Ishaq al-Sa`di said: "`Abbad Ibn Suhayb exaggerated in his innovation and disputed for his falsehoods."[10]
Similar statements are made by Ibn Hajar in his Lisan al-Mizan.[11] The bottomline here is that `Abbad Ibn Suhayb has been abandoned and his reports are rejected. The terms used to describe `Abbad Ibn Suhayb are the most severe possible [matruk al-hadith]. It is not correct to describe his narrations as 'weak', which is an understatement. Rather, his narrations are fabricated, pure and simple. He has reached the lowest levels of Jarh in the sciences dealing with al-Jarh wa 'l-Ta`dil ("The disparaging and declaring trustworthy") of the narrators.
It is also clear that Ibn Abi Dawud wrote the hadith from `Abbad Ibn Suhayb even though the hadith scholars before and after Ibn Abi Dawud have considered the hadith from `Abbad Ibn Suhayb to be rejected. It is not that the Orientalists and the missionaries are unaware of this fact. Jeffery, whose book Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices is often used by the Christian missionaries for polemical purposes to attack the Qur'an, clearly says:
Much of the material given by Ibn Abi Dawud regarding the history of the text of the Qur'an, though extremely unorthodox, yet agrees so closely with the conclusions one had reached from quite other directions that one feels confident in making use of it, however weak orthodoxy may consider its isnads to be.[12]
Jeffery gives no reasons for is new found confidence. Commenting on Jeffery's attainment of "confidence" from "quite other directions" Yasir Qadhi says:
This clear double standard on Jeffery's part is not suprising; whenever an Orientalist finds some information that he feels can be used to discredit Islam and cast doubts on it, no matter what the context, authenticity or actual implications of the text may be.... Therefore the reason that these narrations are authentic, according to Jeffery, is because they agree with preconceived conclusions that were arrived from 'quite other directions'; unnamed and unknown directions, it should be pointed out![13]
In the absence of Jeffery's unknown and unnamed directions for his confidence in the material of Ibn Abi Dawud, we go for something that is known, that is, the rejection of the hadith from `Abbad Ibn Suhayb. The case on the issue of the changes made by al-Hajjaj in `Uthman's mushaf can be considered null and void. It is worth reminding that there exists no parallel reports similar to the one discussed in order to authenticate the isnad and matn.
4. Hadith Criticism Of The Report: The Study of Matn
This report does not provide any clue of the nature of alleged changes that were made by al-Hajjaj in `Uthman's mushaf. An in-depth study shows that they are the differences in the Qira'at. Dr. `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan did research on the issue alleged changes that al-Hajjaj made for his Ph.D thesis at the University of Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud. His thesis was published as a book from Riyadh in two volumes. The book is called Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd ("The Views Of The Orientalists About The Holy Qur'an & Its Interpretation: Study and Criticism").
After quoting the report of Ibn Abi Dawud, Dr. Radwan mentions in the footnotes about the Qiraa'aat which the changes are associated with.
al-Baqarah (2:259) lam yatasanna wanzur without ha to lam yatasannah with ha.[14]
Comments: Both readings are among The Seven as it is mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in Hujjat al-Qira'at, page 142/143, where he says that Hamzah and al-Kisa'i read lam yatasanna without the letter ha in wasl [i.e., in case they didn't stop at the word yatasanna while reading] and the five other readings read yatasannah keeping the ha even when they didn't stop.[15]
________________________________________
and in al-Ma'idah (5:48) shari`atan wa minhajan was changed to shir`atan wa minhajan.[16]
Comments: al-Nakh'i and Ibn Waththab read with a fathah on the letter shin [i.e shar`atan] and the whole community of readers read shir`atan and I found nobody mentioning shari`atan.[17]
________________________________________
and in Yunus (10:22) huwal-ladhi yunash-shirukum was changed to yusay-yirukum[18]
Comments: Both readings are among The Seven. They were mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in his book Hujjat al-Qira'at, page 329, where he says that Ibn `Amir read yunash-shirukum and the other readers read yusay-yirukum.[19]
________________________________________
and in Yusuf (12:45) ana-atikum bita'wilihi was changed to ana onabbio'kum bita'wilihi[20]
Comments: al-Hasan read ana-atikum with a long hamzah having a fathah followed by the letter ta having a kasrah and a silent ya. And in wasl [i.e., when not stopping on the word], Nafi` and Abu Ja`far read ana onabbio'kum as it is mentioned by Ahmad `Abdul Ghani al-Dumyati in his book Ithafu Fudala' ilbashar Fil Qiraa'aat Ilarba'a 'Ashar, page 265.[21]
________________________________________
and in Mu'minun (23:85-89) sayaquluna lillah....lillah....lillah he made the two last occurrances allah....allah[22]
Comments: All these readings are among The Seven as mentioned by Ibn Zanjalah in Hujjat al-Qira'at, page 490, where he says that Abu 'Amir read allah...allah with an alif and the others read lillah...lillah and all readings agreed on the first occurrence [i.e., lillah].[23]
________________________________________
and in as-Shu`ara in the story of Nuh (26:116) it was minal mukhrajina and in the story of Lut (26:167) it was minal marjumina. It was changed in the story of Nuh to minal marjumina and in the story of Lut to minal mukhrajina[24]
Comment: I didn't find anybody who mentioned what the author has said.[25]
________________________________________
and in az-Zukhruf (43:32) it was nahnu qasamna baynahum ma` ishahum and he changed it to ma`ishatahum.[26]
Comments: The reading of the community [jumhoor] of readers is ma`ishatahum in singular. Al-'Amash and `Abdullah and Ibn `Abbas and Sufyan read ma`ishahum in plural as mentioned by Abu Hayyan in Al-Bahr al-Muhit, VIII - page 13.[27]
________________________________________
and in al-ladhina kafaru (47:15) min ma`inn ghayri yasin was changed to min ma`inn ghayri asin.[28]
Comments: The Seven except Ibn Kathir read ghayri asin with a madd [a long vowel], as for the reading yasinin it is shadhdh and was mentioned by Abu Hayyan who reported it using the words it was said that .... Refer to Hujjat al-Qira'at in page 667 by Ibn Zanjalah and the interpretation of Al-Bahr al-Muhit, VIII - page 79.[29]
________________________________________
and in al-Hadid (57:7) he changed fal-ladhina amanu minkum wat-taqaw lahum 'ajrun kabir to minkum wa anfaqu.[30]
Comment: I could not find the one who mentioned this reading.[31]
________________________________________
and in "When the Sun is folded up" (81:24) wa ma huwa `alal-ghaybi bidhanin to bidanin.[32]
Comment: Ibn Kathir and Abu `Amr and al-Kisa'i and Rees and Ibn Mahran from Rawh read with the letter dha and the others read with the letter dad, and so it is in all the Codices (the books). Refer to Al-Nashr fil Qira'at il'ashr, II - page 398/399.[33]
________________________________________
Dr. Radwan went on to say:
These readings as I have just highlighted are among the correct (Sahih), Mutawatir and well established that we can read in any form it has been drawn into and among them are ones I could not verify which make us doubt about their being attributed to al-Hajjaj, especially because he was not isolated from the Ummah. Much more, in his time, no Muslim would let him change or replace anything traced back to the Prophet(P) whether it concerned Qur'an or hadith.
All these arguments rebut the claims of the Orientalists. And the following points confirm the validity of my opinion:
• Al-Hajjaj being loyal to `Uthman [or from his court] and since he wouldn't forgive those who let `Uthman down on the day of al-Dar [or the house], how could he question `Uthman and his codex and make changes in it.
• The codex of `Uthman was spread everywhere and its copies in the time of `Uthman were countless. How about their number in the Umayyads time? Undoubtedly, their number has increased. Moreover, al-Hajjaj was the mere governor of one county of the huge Islamic land. Supposing that he was able to change the copies of his county how could he reach the ones in the other districts while there were thousands of copies! Much more, history did not mention contradictions between the Codices of Iraq and the other Codices. It is well known that the Great Book is saved in the chests of Muslims as much as it is saved in written form. If al-Hajjaj managed to change the lines how could he reach what is inside the chests of thousands of Muslims?
• It is known as well that the Abbassid dynasty was established on the ruins of the Umayyads and that they changed many of the policies of Bani Umayyah in the administration of the lands. They didn't spare any effort in showing the negative aspects of Bani Umayyah and in getting close to the people by spreading justice and defending it. If the Abbassids had found any changes in the Holy Book, it would have been the greatest opportunity for them to show how misleading Bani Umayyah were and, thus, give their own rule some additional legitimacy.[34]
These observation speak of themselves. Even if we assume that this incident is authentic, the question that arises is: so what? Al-Hajjaj supposedly made changes in 11 places, and even these places are documented to the last detail. Orientalists and missionaries, as usual, take some trivial piece of information (forgetting the fact that it is fabricated!) and make, not just a mountain, but an entire planet, out of an anthole.
Let us now move to the Christian polemical sources such the letter of Byzantine Emperor Leo III to `Umar II and the apology of `Abd al-Masih al-Kindi on the claim that al-Hajjaj was responsible for present day Qur'anic text.
5. The Christian Polemical Sources: Letter Of Leo III & `Abd al-Masih al-Kindi
There is a persistent tradition in the eastern Christian churches, often referred to by oriental Christians even in the present day, to the effect that early during the 8th century, there had been an exchange of letters on the question of the respective merits of Christianity and Islam, between the Ummayad Caliph `Umar II and the Byzantine Emperor Leo III. In the letter to `Umar II, the Byzantine Emperor Leo III writes:
In brief you admit that we say that it [i.e., the Qur'an] was written by God, and brought down from the heavens, as you pretend for your furqan, although we know that it was `Umar, Abu Turab and Salman the Persian, who composed that, even though the rumour has got around among you that God sent it down from the heavens.[35]
This is a rather peculiar statement from Leo III, as Jeffery comments in the footnotes. By Abu Turab, Leo III meant `Ali, son-in-law of the Prophet(P).
Continuing the letter to `Umar II, Leo III writes:
As for your (book), you have already given us examples of such falsifications, and one knows, among others, of a certain Hajjaj, named by you as the governer of Persia, who had men gathered up your ancient books, which he replaced by others composed by himself, according to his taste, and which he propagated everywhere in your nation, because it was easier by far to undertake such a task among the people speaking a single language. from this destruction, nevertheless, there escaped a few works of Abu Turab, for Hajjaj could not make them disappear completely.[36]
Commenting on the issue, Jeffery states:
It would thus seem that some revision of the text, as well as clarification by division and pointing, was undertaken by al-Hajjaj, and that this was known to the Christians of that day, and naturally exagerrated by them for polemical purposes.[37]
It becomes quite obvious as to whether the document between `Umar II and Leo III is authentic. Jeffery says:
The question remains as to the genuineness of this correspondence, and that is a matter for the historians to argue on the basis of the material itself.[38]
Now that the authenticity of this document has fallen on the grounds of suspicion, we would like to push the question even further and consider the ramifications. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook in their book, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, used the aforementioned Christian polemic to reconstruct Islamic history before even verifying the facts.
Now both Christian and Muslim sources attribute some kind of role to Hajjaj in the history of Muslim scripture. In the account attributed to Leo by Levond, Hajjaj is said to have collected and destroyed the old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others composed according to his own tastes.[39]
John Wansbrough, reviewing Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, makes a mockery of the poor scholarship of Crone and Cook and says:
The material is upon occasion misleadingly presented, e.g., Ephrem certainly did not prophesy an exodus of Hagarenes from the desert, nor did Levond report Leo's description of Hajjaj destroying old Hagarene writings.[40]
In other words, the account attributed to Leo by Levond (or Ghevond) is a forgery that was constructed to scandalize the question of al-Hajjaj by some later Christian writer. This possibility was also echoed by Neal Robinson in his book, Discovering The Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach To a Veiled Text, where he states:
The letter ascribed to Pope Leo may simply be a convenient literary device used by a Christian polemicist living at a later date. Even if it is authentic, and the allegations which it contains have some substance, the activity of Hajjaj may have been limited to destroying the sectarian writings, and early codices of the Qur'an which preserved the surahs in a different order.[41]
Now that the issue of Leo has been closed, let us now move over to the other Christian polemic associated with al-Hajjaj; the apology attributed to `Abd al-Masih al-Kindi. The composition of the apology has seen some serious disagreement among the Western scholars. The Encyclopaedia Of Islam says:
Taking as evidence the historical data supplied by the text, mention of caliph al-Ma'mun (198-218/813-33), of the sack of Mecca by Abu 'l-Saraya (199/815) and the revolt of Babak al-Khurrami (204/819), W. Muir believes that the date of the composition of the letter can be fixed at 215/830. But L. Massignon believes the composition to be later than the year 300/912, seeing that the author borrowed from al-Tabari (d. 310/923) his criticism of an opinion of the Hanbali al-Barbahari (d. 329/940). Similarly, observing a parallelism between certain criticisms contained in the letter and in the work of a Muslim heretic Ibn al-Rawandi (d. 298/910), P. Kraus concludes that the Christian author borrowed these criticisms from the latter and therefore the letter can only have been composed at the beginning of the 4th/10th century.[42]
It appears that the most authentic view is that the letter was composed in the beginning of the 4th/10th century. The letter of al-Kindi played a very important role in the East as well as in the West in the polemic between Christians and Muslims. It was translated in Latin in 1141 by Peter of Toledo and revised by Peter of Poitiers. Its English translation was done by William Muir.[43] The claim of al-Kindi is that al-Hajjaj gathered together every copy that he could lay hold of and caused to omit from the text a great many passages. Among these were the verses revealed concerning the Bani Umayyah with names of certain persons and concerning the Bani `Abbas also with certain names. Al-Hajjaj then sent six copies of his version of the Qur'an to Egypt, Syria, Makkah, Madinah, Kufah and Basra. After that he called in and destroyed all the preceding copies, just as `Uthman had done before. Al-Kindi then says that he has drawn this account from the Muslim authorities.[44]
To begin with, no such Muslim authorities mention what has been claimed by al-Kindi. Hence is it nothing but a polemical exagerration. Jeffery says:
The Christian writer al-Kindi in his polemical work known as the Apology of al-Kindi, makes a controversial point out of the alterations he claimed that al-Hajjaj, as everyone knew, had made in the text of Qur'an, but this was regarded by scholars as just a polemical exagerration such as one might expect in a controversial writing.[45]
Similarly, polemical nature of al-Kindi's apology rather than its factual basis is also echoed by Beesten et al.
It is difficult to assess the role of al-Hajjaj. We may ignore the arguments of the Christian `Abd al-Masih al-Kindi that al-Hajjaj was very much responsible for our text, as these have a polemical rather than factual basis. The account most widely found has him ordering Nasr bin `Asim to introduce the markings to safeguard the protection of the text. This is a plausible reason for the innovation, and the story is unchallenged, despite strong hostility of the sources towards al-Hajjaj.[46]
From a historical point of view, al-Kindi's claim is based upon conjecture rather than "Muslim authorities" and smacks of delirium. For al-Hajjaj was merely one of the generals in the Ummayad regime, with little influence and almost no ability to do the Qur'an any harm. In fact, he was utterly incapable of effecting any change in the most elementary laws of Islam, not to speak of the Qur'an, which is the foundation of Islamic faith, and pillar of Islamic laws. One wonders how he could influence any change in the Qur'an after it had gained currency in the vast Muslim empire. Not a single historian or commentator has chronicled this change, the importance of which should not have escaped their notice. No contemporary Muslim ever objected to this, and even after his rule, the Muslims seem to have condoned this abominable fact. Moreover, if it is all believed that he managed to withdraw all the copies of the Qur'an, and replacing it with his new codex, how could he eradicate it from the hearts of great numbers of Muslims who had committed it to memory? Had there been anything in the Qur'an which was uncomplimentary to the Ummayads, Mu'awiyah would have been the first to see it omitted because, compared to al-Hajjaj, he was more influential and powerful. Of course, if Mu'awiyah had done this, the companions of `Ali would have argued with him, the way they did on many occasions, as recorded in the books of history, hadith and theology. An example would be of the battle of Siffin (AH 37), 27 years after the death of the Prophet(P), and five years after `Uthman's copies were distributed.
Mu'awiyah's troops fixed sheets from the Qur'an on their spears to interrupt the battle. However, nobody accused anyone else of using a 'partisan' version of the text, which would have made a splendid accusation against the enemy.[47]
The pretence that the Qur'an has been tampered with has no substance whatsoever.
Al-Hajjaj was one of the most, if not the most, notorious figures in Islamic history and is well-known for his brutality against Ibn al-Zubayr as well as restive population of Iraq. It, therefore, comes as no surprise that lots of spurious accounts are found regarding him, in both Islamic and Christian literature, which try to show him as being even more evil than he was. The report in Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud and polemics of Leo III and al-Kindi are obvious over-exagerrations and spurious.
6. Conclusions
To conclude the issue of al-Hajjaj and the changes he made in the Qur'an, it has been shown that the report in Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud is false. This is because the reporter `Abbad Ibn Suhayb is the isnad has been declared abandoned in hadith and all his hadith are rejected. Analysis of matn of the hadith shows that the alleged changes that were made related to the Qira'at that are mutawatir. Muslims have accepted various Qira'at as authentic provided they satisfy certain conditions. Furthermore, the hadith in Kitab al-Masahif is only known to us through one chain. There exists no parallel chains to authenticate the matn or text of the report.
It is clear that there was no new recension after `Uthman united Muslims on the basis of single text. Muslims have a complete agreement over it. Al-Hajjaj's role is rather well documented in the literature dealing with Sciences of the Qur'an.
Summarizing the Christian sources: We see that the Christian sources of Leo III and `Abd al-Masih al-Kindi have a purely polemical purpose and exaggerate the events that took place during al-Hajjaj's time. The sources lack factual basis and their historicity itself is doubtful. This view is solidified by modern scholarship. As pointed out earlier, how could al-Hajjaj, who was governor of Iraq, a small part of Muslim land, able to change the Qur'anic text completely. The complete change of Qur'an is not documented in the Islamic history at all. And above all how could he change what was commited in the memory of Muslims in the vast Islamic empire.
And Allah knows best!
________________________________________
References
[1] For Kitab al-Masahif see Arthur Jeffery's, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, 1937, E. J. Brill, Leiden, pp. 117-118.
[2] A. Jeffery, The Qur'an As Scripture, 1952, Russell F. Moore Company Inc., New York, p. 99.
[3] A. F. L. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant and G. R. Smith (Ed.), Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period, 1983, Cambridge University Press, p. 243.
[4] S. Masood, The Bible And The Qur'an: A Question Of Integrity, 2001, OM Publishing: Carlisle, p. 36.
[5] M. M. Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications: Indianapolis, p. 305; Also J. Robson, "Tradition: Investigation And Classification", Muslim World, 1951, Volume XLI, pp. 102-104; See also "Al-Djarh Wa'l Ta`dil", Encyclopaedia Of Islam, New Edition, 1965, Volume II, p. 462 for judging the reliability of a narrator.
[6] Abi `Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Isma`il al-Bukhari, Kitab Du`afa al-Saghir, 1976 [1396 AH], Dar al-Wa`y: Halab, p. 76.
[7] Abi `Abd al-Rahman Ahmed Ibn Shu`ayb al-Nasa'i, Kitab al-Du`afa wa-l-Matrukin, 1976 [1396 AH], Dar al-Wa`y: Halab, p. 75.
[8] Abi Muhammad `Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abi Hatim Muhammad Ibn Idris Ibn al-Mundhir al-Tamimi al-Hanzali al-Razi, Kitab al-Jarh wa-l-Ta`dil, 1941-53, Volume III, Matba`at Majlis Da'irat al-Ma`arif al-`Uthmaniyah: Hyderabad al-Dakkan, p. 81-82
[9] Muhammad Ibn Hibban Ibn Ahmad Abi Hatim al-Tamimi al-Busti, Kitab al-Majruhin Min al-Muhaddithin wa-l-Du`afa' wa-l-Matrukin, 1975 [1395], Volume II, Dar al-Wa`y: Halab, pp. 164-165.
[10] Abi `Abdallah Muhammad b. Ahmad b. `Uthman al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH), Mizan al-I`tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, 1963, Volume II, Isa al-Babi al-Halabi: Cairo, p. 367.
[11] Shihab al-Din Abi al-Fadl Ahmad Ibn `Ali ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Kitab Lisan al-Mizan, 1911-13 [1329-31], Volume III, Matba`at Majlis Da'irat al-Ma`arif: Hyderabad al-Dakkan, pp. 230-23.
[12] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op Cit., p. viii.
[13] Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction To The Sciences Of The Qur'aan, 1999, Al-Hidaayah Publishing And Distribution: Birmingham (UK), pp. 386-387.
[14] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op Cit., p. 117.
[15] Dr. `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Volume I, 1992, Dar al-Tibah: Riyadh, p. 430.
[16] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op. Cit., p. 117.
[17] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Op. Cit., p. 430.
[18] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op. Cit., p. 117.
[19] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Op. Cit., p. 430.
[20] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op. Cit., p. 117.
[21] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Op. Cit., p. 431.
[22] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op. Cit., p. 118.
[23] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Op. Cit., p. 431.
[24] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op. Cit., p. 118.
[25] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Op. Cit., p. 431.
[26] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op. Cit., p. 118.
[27] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Op. Cit., p. 431.
[28] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op. Cit., p. 118.
[29] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Op. Cit., p. 431.
[30] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op. Cit., p. 118.
[31] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Op. Cit., p. 431.
[32] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an: The Old Codices, Op. Cit., p. 118.
[33] `Umar Ibn Ibrahim Radwan, Aara' al-Mustashriqin Hawl al-Qur'an al-Karim wa Tafsir: Dirasah Wa Naqd, Op. Cit., p. 431.
[34] Ibid., pp. 430-431.
[35] A. Jeffery, "Ghevond's Text Of The Correspondence Between `Umar II and Leo III", 1944, Harvard Theological Review, p. 292.
[36] Ibid., p. 298.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid., pp. 330-331.
[39] P. Crone & M. Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, 1977, Cambridge University Press, p. 18.
[40] J. Wansbrough, "Review of Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World", Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And African Studies, 1978, Volume 41, p. 156.
[41] N. Robinson, Discovering The Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach To a Veiled Text, 1996, SCM Press Ltd, p. 56.
[42] "Al-Kindi, `Abd al-Masih", Encyclopaedia Of Islam, New Edition, 1986, Volume V, p. 120.
[43] W. Muir, The Apology Of Al-Kindy, 1882, London. Also published in Egypt in the "Nile Mission Press" whose chairman was Dr. S. M. Zwemer.
[44] Also see Alphonse Mingana's discussion on the apology of al-Kindi in "The Transmission Of The Qur'an", Journal of The Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society, 1916, pp. 41-42.
[45] A. Jeffery, The Qur'an As Scripture, Op. Cit, p. 99.
[46] A. F. L. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant and G. R. Smith (Ed.), Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period, Op. Cit, p. 243.
[47] Ahmad von Denffer, `Ulum al-Qur'an, 1994, The Islamic Foundation, p. 56.
Hadiths Inserted Posthumously In The Sahih Of Al-Bukhari? M S M Saifullah & Muhammad Ghoniem
1. Introduction
We are going to examine a number of strange claims made by Christian missionaries concerning the insertion of "many traditions" of "unreliable" narrators into the Sahih of al-Bukhari after his death. The claim is that the hadiths of "condemned" narrators were later inserted into al-Bukhari's Sahih:
It is interesting to note that Bukhari wrote a book about the narrators (Zuafa-us-sagher). What is even more interesting is that Bukhari's book condemns several narrators including: Ata bin abi Maimoona, Ayyub bin Aiz, Ismail bin Aban, Zubair bin Muhammad, At-Tayyimi, Saeed bin Urwa, Abdullah bin Abi Labeed, Abdul Malik bin Ameen, Abdul waris bin Saeed, Ata bin As-Saib bin Yazeed, and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable. However, the Hadith-collection of Bukhari in the its modern form actually includes many traditions narrated by these very individuals! Obviously, these traditions, which Bukhari rejected, were inserted in his book following his death.
This is an interesting charge, but where on earth is the evidence or source for this claim? The missionaries failed to provide any proper reference or quotation which the reader could verify. It seems that these claims can be traced back to the writings of one "brother Mark" who in turn quotes from book by Dr. Kamal Omar.[1] It can easily deduced reading his book that Kamal Omar is a rejecter of hadith (i.e., belonging to the Qur'an-only sect). When the claim is made that the following narrators are unreliable:
Zuafa-us-sagheer condemns certain individuals like Ata bin abi Maimoona, Ayyub bin Aiz, Ismail bin Aban, Zubair bin Muhammad, At-Tayyimi, Saeed bin Urwa, Abdullah bin Abi Labeed, Abdul Malik bin Ameen, Abdul waris bin Saeed, Ata bin As-Saib bin Yazeed, and Khamsan bin Minhal as unreliable and hence rejected.[2]
one should at least quote from Kitab al-Du`afa al-Saghir of al-Bukhari. For those who do not know what Kitab al-Du`afa al-Saghir is, it is a book written by al-Bukhari about the narrators and their weaknesses whether minor or major. What is interesting is the Dr. Omar did not even quote Kitab al-Du`afa al-Saghir to support his position.[3] Christian missionaries do not fare any better either. This is sufficient enough to make any reader suspicious. Furthermore, commonsense would tell us that if someone was going to insert hadith into al-Bukhari's Sahih after he died, why would that person(s) make the silly mistake of including condemned narrators in the chains of transmission of those hadith, particularly condemned narrators from one of al-Bukhari's other books? It would have made more sense to have ensured that all narrators were famous and reliable so that the hadiths would be accepted by the later day scholars without suspicion. How else is then the "insertion" would gain wide-scale acceptance from scholars of later times?
2. Are The Narrators Mentioned By Missionaries "Condemned" By Al-Bukhari?
The narrators mentioned by the missionaries are
Ata bin abi Maimoona, Ayyub bin Aiz, Ismail bin Aban, Zubair bin Muhammad, At-Tayyimi, Saeed bin Urwa, Abdullah bin Abi Labeed, Abdul Malik bin Ameen, Abdul waris bin Saeed, Ata bin As-Saib bin Yazeed, and Khamsan bin Minhal
It will be seen that most of the above mentioned narrators do not even exist in Kitab al-Du`afa al-Saghir! Whoever remains either belong to early sects of Islam, such as the qadariyyah, murji'ah, etc. It is interesting to note that al-Bukhari did not condemn any of the above mentioned narrators as unreliable at all, contrary to the Christian missionaries' claim! Before we proceed with our refutation, let us digress breifly and define the methodology of our refutation.
3. The Methodology Of Refutation
The methodology of our refutation is the following:
i. Use Kitab al-Du`afa al-Saghir of al-Bukhari to verify the claim of the
missionaries that the narrators were condemned as unreliable. We will also use the footnotes mentioned by the editor of that book which throw light on the issue of "unreliability" of narrators.
ii. Cross-check with al-Bukhari's Kitab al-Tarikh al-Kabir, a book that deals with short biographical notes of the narrators, to see if al-Bukhari consistently maintained his position on the reliability/unreliability of the narrator in question.
iii. Use Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani's Taqrib al-Tahdhib, again a book that gives short biographies and reliability of hadith narrators, for further information, if any, about the narrator.
iv. Check al-`Ijli's Tarikh al-Thiqat, a book that deals with the reliability of hadith narrators, for confirmation.
v. Finally, we will verify the claim of existence of "many traditions" by the above mentioned "unreliable" narrators in Sahih of al-Bukhari. We will also be studying the isnad bundles of the hadith of these "unreliable" narrators to cross-check the existence of the same hadith or its slight variants in other hadith collections. This will give an idea of existence of parallel isnads independent of the "unreliable" narrator or the use of "unreliable" narrator by an early hadith collector. In the cases where there were many traditions from same narrator, they all are represented by a single tradition so as to maintain the clarity of the isnad bundle. The isnad bundles were drawn using Hadith Sharif software by al-Sakhr.
4. Narrators Associated With Innovated Sects
Even though al-Bukhari did include some of the above mentioned narrators in Kitab al-Du`afa he didn't specifically mention they are weak. For example, for the majority of other narrators in Kitab al-Du`afa, al-Bukhari tells us why they were weak by using words like "he was rejected in hadith" or "his hadiths are not authentic". For the narrators mentioned by Christian missionaries, al-Bukhari does not say any such thing they were unreliable.
In most cases, the narrators mentioned by Christian missionaries were accused at one time or another of being associated with one of the early sects of Islam, such as the qadariyyah, murji'ah, etc. Al-Bukhari mentions this in his Kitab al-Du`afa. This is, in our view, the reason why al-Bukhari included these narrators in Kitab al-Du`afa; not because they were weak narrators, as we would soon see, but because they were linked to one of the rejected sects. This, however, does not stop us from accepting their hadith so long as they do not openly make da'wah [i.e., to call] to their sect and also so long as the hadith they narrate do not support the beliefs of their own sect. This is the soundest opinion among the scholars of hadith. Therefore, it was prudent that al-Bukhari included these narrators in Kitab al-Du`afa to cover the eventuality that they narrated a hadith supporting their sect.
Ibn Kathir in his book Al-Ba`ith al-Hathith Sharh Ikhtisar `Ulum al-Hadith, deals with this issue succintly. He says:
Question: The one who commits a bid`ah [i.e., innovation in religion], if it makes him kafir, then there is no doubt that his narration is rejected. If it does not, then if he deems it lawful to lie, his narration is also rejected. If he does not make lying lawful, is his narration accepted or not? Does it make any difference if he preaches [his bid`ah] or not? There has always been a disagreement about that. The majority is for distinguishing preachers [da`iyah] from non-preachers [of bid`ah]. This was narrated from al-Shafi`i. Ibn Hibban narrated with agreement that: He cannot be used as an proof according to all our Imams, I don't know of any disagreement between them about that.
Ibn al-Salah said: This is the most fair and best opinion. A complete prohibition is remote, far of the known opinion of the Imams of hadith as their books are filled with narrations from people with bid`ahs who did not involve in preaching. The two sahihs contain many such hadiths regarding shawahid and Usul [fundamentals]. And Allah knows best.[4]
It is clear from reading the above material, the best and fair opinion among the hadith scholars is that as long as innovators did not openly make da'wah to their sect and the hadith they narrate do not support the beliefs of their own sect, their hadith is acceptable.
5. Narrators Who Got Confused In The Last Days Of Their Life
What about the narrators who were reliable once upon a time in their life and later became confused due to some malady? Ibn Kathir in his book Al-Ba`ith al-Hathith describes this issue in detail. Below is the complete discussion on this issue.
Those who get confused at the end of their lives
Either out of fear or harm or illness or accident: like `Abd Allah Ibn Lahi`ah, when his books were lost, his mind got confused. Whoever hears from such people before they got confused their narration is accepted and whoever hears from them after that or doubts, their narration is not accepted.
Among those who got confused at the end of their lives there are: `Ata' Ibn al-Sa'ib and Abu Ishaq al-Sabi`i. Al-Hafidh Abu Ya`la al-Khalili said: Ibn `Uyaynah heard from him later. There is also: Sa`id Ibn Abi `Arubah. Waki` and al-Mu`afa Ibn `Imran heard from him after his confusion. There are also al-Mas`udi and Rabi`ah and Salih the freed slave of al-Taw'amah and Husayn Ibn ` Abd al-Rahman, according to al-Nasa'i. There is also Sufyan Ibn `Uyaynah two years before his death, according to Yahya al-Qattan. There is also `Abd al-Wahhab al-Thaqafi, according to Ibn Ma`in. And `Abd al-Razzaq Ibn Hammam of whom Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: He got confused after he had become blind. Then he had hadith whispered/read to him. Therefore, whoever heard from him after his blindness has not earned anything.
Ibn al-Salah said: I found in the narratives of al-Tabarani from Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim al-Dabari from `Abd al-Razzaq many objectionable hadiths. It may be that he heard from him after his confusion. Ibrahim al-Harbi said that al-Dabari was about six or seven years old when `Abd al-Razzaq died. And `Arim got confused at the end of his life [Arabic: bi'akharah].
Among those who got confused after the former, Abu Qilabah al-Raqashi and Abu Ahmad al-Ghatrifi and Abu Bakr Ibn Malik al-Qati`i, he became senile so much that he did not know what he is reading.[5]
The above material is self-explanatory. This actually shows how careful the hadith critics were when it came to accepting the hadith from people who were young and old, sane and insane, reading from a book or reciting from the memory. Armed with this fundamental knowledge of acceptance and rejection of narrators, let us now move over to the narrators mentioned by the missionaries.
References
[1] Dr. Kamal Omar, Deep Into The Quran With A Non-Committal, Non-Sectarian, Scholastic Mind Discovers The Pristine And Is, Therefore, Much Ahead Of Our Times, 1987, Karachi, pp. 286-287.
[2] ibid., p. 287.
[3] ibid., There is absolutely no mention of the book Kitab al-Du`afa al-Saghir in the notes at the end of the chapter (see pp. 295-295) as well as in the reference section (see pp. 365-368).
[4] Isma`il Ibn `Umar Ibn Kathir, Al-Ba`ith al-Hathith Sharh Ikhtisar `Ulum al-Hadith, 1951, Maktabat wa-Matba`at Muhammad `Ali Subayh wa-Awladuh: Al-Qahirah, pp. 109-110.
[5] ibid, pp. 274-275.
On The "Versions" Of Malik's Muwatta' M S M Saifullah, Hesham Azmy & Muhammad Ghoniem
1. Introduction
It has become increasingly common for Christian missionaries to attack Islam by employing the polemics of the so-called the "Qur'an-only sect," a group that rejects hadith literature as one of the sources of Islamic law. Prominent among such writings is the work of one Dr. Kamal Omar. Taking a cue from Dr. Omar, these Christian missionaries have claimed that "many traditions" by "unreliable" narrators were inserted into the Sahih of al-Bukhari upon his death. This claim was systematically critiqued and found to be without merit. In this essay, we will examine another claim by Dr. Omar, which concerns the Muwatta', a treatise of Islamic law by the Medinan jurist, Malik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH / 795 CE). The new claim, much like the previous one, has been recycled by the missionaries. Dr. Omar says:
It is because of this tampering with the books of Hadith that we do not get any uniformity in the bulk of this literature. To give another example, the Muwatta which is said to be Hadith-collection of Imam Malik is not one uniform Muwatta. There are more than one Muwatta-books and they drastically differ from one another.[1]
Commenting on Dr. Omar's writing, "Brother Mark" writes:
Indeed, one publication of Muwatta here in the U.K. - that of Islamic Academy U.K. - has notes relating how this one was chosen from among 50 `versions' of the Muwatta, and only 16 were considered "best transmitted".
Andrew Vargo, taking a clue from "Brother Mark's" writing, tauntingly asks:
... which of these 16 "best transmitted" editions of the Muwatta of Malik represents your authentic "early Hadith"? Personally, I do not trust the historical accuracy or authenticity of any of these versions. But, as you say, God knows best!
Not surprisingly, neither Dr. Omar nor the missionaries who resort to his writings have provided any evidence to show that the Muwatta' is "a collection hadiths" and that the "versions" of the Muwatta' are "drastically different" from one another. No books that deal with the Muwatta' and its "versions" are quoted and neither is any effort made to show the "drastic" differences between the "versions". This unfortunate laziness is representative of Dr. Omar's writings and no less representative of the work of polemical Christian missionaries who rely on his work, as we have noted earlier. In this essay, we will verify the claim that the "Muwatta' is said to be the hadith collection of Imam Malik," along with a claim concerning the multiple "versions" of the Muwatta', and verify if the "versions" are indeed "drastically" different from one another.
2. What Is The Muwatta'?
The Muwatta', a title given by Malik himself,[2] is one of the earliest formulation of Islamic law as well as being one the earliest collection of hadiths. Even though Muwatta' contains both legal judgements and hadiths, it is neither a book of fiqh nor a book of hadith.[3] Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi says:
... the Muwatta' was not intended to serve as collection of hadiths. But it may be said with equal justice that it is not a book of fiqh in the same sense in which later books on fiqh are said to be works on the subject.[4]
Similarly, Mustafa al-Azami says:
Muwatta' is not purely a hadith book. It contains the ahadith of the Prophet, legal opinions of the Companions and the Successors and of some later authorities.[5]
In his introduction to the Muwatta', Goldziher says:
The Muwatta' cannot be regarded as the first great collection of traditions in Islam, nor does it appear to have been considered as such in Muslim literature.... The work of Malik is in fact not in the proper sense a collection of traditions, forming a counterpart to the sahihs of the next century, nor one which could, from the point of view of the literary historian, be mentioned as a member of the same literary group. It is a corpus juris, not a corpus traditionum.... Its intention is not to sift and collect the healthy elements of the traditions circulating in the Islamic world but to illustrate the law, ritual and religious practice, by the ijma` recognized in Medinan Islam, by the sunna current in Medina...[6]
The Muwatta' is a compendium of accepted principles, precepts and precedents which has become established as the `amal of Madinah. The name Muwatta' means "the well-trodden [path]", i.e., the path followed and agreed upon by the scholars of Madinah up to and including the time of Malik.[7]
It should be pointed out that some Muslim authorities such as Ibn al-Athir, Ibn `Abd al-Barr and `Abd al-Haqq al-Dihlawi included the Muwatta' in the six canonical collection in the place of the Sunan of Ibn Maja. The majority, however, do not include the Muwatta' among the six canonical collections, because almost all the important traditions contained in it are included in the Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim.[8]
3. Reason For Different Transmissions Of The Muwatta'
The reason for different transmissions ("riwayah") of the Muwatta' can be known if one understands that Malik did not produce the Muwatta' in one sitting. He spent more than 30 years, making serious editorial changes in the Muwatta' as opposed the implicit assumption of a fixed text of the Muwatta' by Dr. Omar and his Christian missionary counterparts:
The Muwatta' in its final form is the result of lifetime spent by Malik in gathering and disseminating this knowledge of Madinan `amal, of which it is the distillation. The basic text was in place by the year 150 AH, but underwent serious editorial changes over the next thirty years which are reflecting in various transmissions that have survived today.[9]
That Malik used to revise his Muwatta' regularly, year after year, as mentioned in many Islamic sources and especially those dealing with the Maliki school of jurisprudence. Qadi `Iyad in his Tartib al-Madarik says:
`Atiq al-Zubayri said: "Malik included some ten thousand hadiths in his Muwatta'. Each year he would revise it and drop some narrations from therein so much so that we are left with this amount of it. Had he lived longer he would have dropped the rest of it."[10]
He also adds:
Sulayman Ibn Bilal said: "When Malik wrote the Muwatta', it included four thousand hadiths - or did he say more than four thousand hadiths. When he died, it contained one thousand and some hadiths, as he screened it year after year according to what he believes fulfills the interest of the Muslims and that of the religion."[11]
Ibn `Abd al-Barr in his Al-Tamhid says:
... On authority of `Umar b. `Abd al-Wahid, the companion of Al-Awza`i, that he said: We displayed the Muwatta' before Malik in forty days. He [Malik] said: "A book whom I authored in forty years, you took in forty days. Little indeed is what you consider in it!"[12]
The fact that the Muwatta' has a number of transmissions is hardly a revelation. As early as 350 AH, the great hadith scholar al-Daraqutni compiled a book giving the hadiths in different transmissions of the Muwatta'. His work was published and was entitled Ahadith al-Muwatta' wa-Ittifaq al-Ruwat `an Malik wa-Ikhtilafuhum fi ha Ziyadatan wa-Naqsan[13] ("The Ahadith of al-Muwatta': The Agreement of Narrators from Malik and Their Differences in terms of Addition and Omission").
Given the fact that Malik revised the Muwatta' year after year, it is very likely that two students hearing the Muwatta' and then transmitting it, one during Malik's early life and the other towards the end of his life, will hear two very different versions of the same book simply because Malik was constantly in the process of adding and subtracting from the text. This is the principal reason for the differences between the transmissions of the Muwatta'. Keeping this in mind let us now move over to various transmissions of the Muwatta'.
4. Transmissions Of The Muwatta'
The number of people who transmitted the Muwatta' in its entirety directly from Malik exceed over ninety. Al-Zurqani mentions 81 names; Qadi `Iyad adds 8 more names; al-Nayfar (through Ibn Tulun) adds another four; making a possible 93 names.[14] But the number of transmissions known to us through the existing texts and quotations of the authors is considerably less. The modern editors of the Muwatta' mention between fourteen and sixteen transmissions.[15] The most important of them are listed below:[16]
1. Yahya ibn Yahya al-Laythi (d. 234). Yahya studied the Muwatta' under Malik during the last year of Malik's life (i.e., 179 AH) and his transmission therefore represents the text as Malik was teaching it at the end of his life. It is by far the best known transmission and is the one that is generally meant when reference is made to 'the Muwatta'". It has been published many times.
2. Al-Shaybani (d. 189). This transmission is usually referred as "the Muwatta' of Muhammad" (i.e., Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani), rather than as his transmission of Malik's Muwatta'. This transmission, which differs markedly from the others, has also been published several times. We will discuss the reason for differences between al-Shaybani's transmission of the Muwatta' below.
3. Ibn Bukayr (d. 231). This transmission was published under the title Muwatta' al-imam al-mahdi by the Gouvernement General de l'Algerie (Algiers, 1323/1905). The copies of this transmission are extremely rare.
4. `Ali ibn Ziyad (d. 183). This is one of the earliest known transmissions, having been transmitted from Malik before 150 AH. An early parchment fragment of this transmission (dated 288 AH) containing chapters on game and slaughtered animals (al-sayd wa-l-dhaba'ih) has recently been edited and published.[17] This transmission is again remarkably similar to that of Yahya ibn Yahya but not quite as much as al-Qa`nabi, Abu Mus`ab and to a lesser extent Suwayd.
5. Al-Qa`nabi (d. 221). This is said to be the longest (akbar) transmission. A number of chapters of this transmission, corresponding to the initial portion of Yahya ibn Yahya's transmission up to and including the section on i'tikaf as well as a few chapters from the section on business transactions (buyu`) have recently been edited and published. This transmission is quite similar to that of Yahya ibn Yahya.
6. Abu Mus`ab al-Zuhri (d. 242). Abu Mus'ab is said to have been the last to have related the Muwatta' from Malik and, indeed, his transmission is very close to that of Yahya ibn Yahya. A manuscript of this transmission in Hyderabad, India, has recently been edited and published.
7. Suwayd al-Hadathani (d. 240). The incomplete, but substantial, fragment of this transmission in the Zahiriyya library in Damascus has recently been edited and published. This transmission is close to that of Yahya ibn Yahya, but not as close to it as those of al-Qa`nabi and Abu Mu`sab, there being greater divergence of wording and also a seeming omission of several reports contained in the other three.
8. Ibn al-Qasim (d. 191). Fragments of this transmission, including a large part of the section on business transactions (for which knowledge Ibn al-Qasim was famous), exist in manuscript form in Tunis and Qayrawan. Al-Qabisi's Mulakhkhas (or Mulakhkhis), which contains all the musnad hadiths from this transmission, has recently been published under the title Muwatta' al-Imam Malik ibn Anas riwayat Ibn al-Qasim wa talkhis al-Qabisi. According to Schacht, this transmission closely resembles that of Yahya bin Yahya.[18]
9. Ibn Wahb (d. 197). According to Schacht, the published fragments of Tabari's Kitab Ikhtilaf al-fuqaha contain 'fairly comprehensive' extracts from the transmission of Ibn Wahb on the subjects of jihad and jizya. Schacht says that this transmission 'follows that of Yahya ibn Yahya quite closely'.[19] Schacht also considered the manuscript fragment in Qayrawan entitled Kitab al-Muharaba min Muwatta' `Abdallah ibn Wahb to be part of Ibn Wahb's transmission of Malik's Muwatta'.[20] However, it now seems clear from the the recent edition of this fragment published by Muranyi that it is part of Ibn Wahb's own "Muwatta'" rather than his transmission of Malik's book, for this text, as well as containing distinctively 'Muwattan' material - such as reports containing expressions relating to Madinan `amal - also contains extensive materil now recorded specifically in either the Mudawwana or the `Utbiyya. Indeed much of the material is closer textually to the Mudawwana than to the Muwatta'. Given the basic similarity between the known transmissions of the Muwatta' - including according to Schacht, the other fragments of Ibn Wahb's transmission available - one has to conclude, with Muranyi, that this particular text is not the part of Ibn Wahb's transmission of the Muwatta' of Malik but rather of his own 'Muwatta''.
Of all the published transmissions, the transmission that shows the most marked differences from others is undoubtedly that of al-Shaybani. Firstly, the order, chapter divisions and the titles used for his material are very different from those of the other transmission that we know. Secondly, and more importantly, al-Shaybani consistently excludes Malik's own comments and references to Madinan `amal (as well as excluding other reports, especially from the Successors, but also, on occasions, hadiths from the Prophet) and, instead, includes his own refereces to the views of Abu Hanifa and the fuqaha of Kufa, often adding his own hadiths.
Thus in the transmissions of Yahya, al-Qa`nabi, Abu Mus`ab and Suwayd for instance, the various sections on tayammum and reciting when praying behind an imam (to take random examples) are almost identical in content (although that of Suwayd somewhat less so than others), whereas al-Shaybani, although retaining the Prophetic and Companion hadiths excludes all the comments by Malik, adds his own comments, and, in the case of second section mentioned, adds thirteen more hadiths from various authorities (including the Prophet). In his chapter on li`an, al-Shaybani only relates one Prophetic hadith from Malik, to which he adds a comment that this is in accord with the Kufan position, whereas Yahya's and Abu Mus`ab's transmission contains, in addition to the short hadith, another much longer one about the sabab al-nuzul of the li`an verses (which does not accord with the Kufan position), a quotation from Malik of the verses in question, and numerous reports from his concerning details arising from the same.
Al-Shaybani's editing is even more evident when we consider `Ali ibn Ziyad's transmission, which, although some thirty years earlier than Yahya's, is nevertheless remarkably similar to it (although perhaps not quite as much as those of al-Qa`nabi, Abu Mus`ab, and, to a lesser extent, Suwayd): the chapter on 'Game of the Sea' (sayd al-bahr) and 'The Aqiqa Sacrifice', for instance (to take random examples), are very similar to those in the other transmissions (although Ibn Ziyad) includes some extra comments from Malik). Al-Shaybani, on the other hand, excludes most of the later, i.e., post-Companion - material and again adds his own comments.
It would seem clear that the difference is that whereas Yahya, al-Qa`nabi, Suwayd, Abu Mus`ab and `Ali ibn Ziyad agreed with Malik's madhhab and method - or at least with the presentation of his material - al-Shaybani did not, but chose rather to include in his version only that material which he considered useful for his own teaching purposes, i.e., which accorded with what was taught in Iraq. In other words, al-Shaybani was firmly commited to Kufan fiqh. Due to these reasons al-Shaybani's transmission of the Muwatta' is usually referred to as "the Muwatta' of Muhammad", rather than his transmission of Malik.
Al-Shaybani's transmission is thus very much, as Goldziher puts it, "a revision and critical development of Malik's work",[21] and clearly his choice of what material to transmit was occasioned by the theoretical concerns of the Kufans, who preferred hadiths from the Prophet and the Companions to the opinions of the later authorities and/or the `amal of the people of Madina.
As far as the basic content is concerned, the transmission of al-Shaybani is remarkably similar to that of Yahya bin Yahya, `Ali bin Ziyad, al-Qa`nabi, Suwayd and Abu Mus`ab. The minor differences between them are not surprising given the fact we know now the Muwatta' for Malik was primarily a text for teaching which he used for that purpose for over thirty years or so, during which he made editorial changes. Making comparisons between various transmissions, Dutton says:
... the overall similarity between the different transmissions speak highly for the authenticity of the text and its attribution to Malik.[22]
Examples of comparison between various transmissions can be seen in Dutton's study on "Juridical Practice and Madinan `Amal: Qada' in the Muwatta' of Malik".[23]
A further comment needs to be added concerning the "unfavourable impression of the reliability of Islamic tradition in the second century" as gained by Goldziher from different transmission of the Muwatta'.[24] He criticized Malik for his alleged looseness in his methods of transmission. However, Goldziher's comments were based on the two transmission available to him, i.e., of Yahya bin Yahya and al-Shaybani. We have already seen that these two hardly form an archetypal pair. If Goldziher would have had the access to the transmission of al-Qa`nabi, Abu Mus`ab, Suwayd and Ibn Ziyad, for instance, he would have doubtlessly arrived at a different conclusion.
Following a similar line as that of Goldziher, Schacht said that it was not Malik who fashioned the text; rather it was his students who modelled the text according to their own ways.[25] Commenting on the differences between the transmission of the text, Schacht claimed that "in those days very little stress was laid on an accurate repetition of such texts and great liberty was taken by the transmitters".[26] As with Goldziher, Schacht's observation about the differences between the transmissions are due to the transmitters is true for the case of al-Shaybani, but would not seem to apply to the transmissions of `Ali ibn Ziyad, whose chapter headings are less detailed than Yahya's but whose main text, even though considerably earlier, is remarkably similar, or al-Qa`nabi, Abu Mus`ab and Suwayd, whose chapter headings and the main text are all very close if not almost identical to Yahya's.[27] Furthermore, Schacht admits that the transmissions of Ibn Wahb and Ibn al-Qasim closely resemble the Muwatta' of Yahya bin Yahya.[28]
5. The Authenticity Of The Muwatta'
Now that the issue of alleged "drastic" differences between the "versions" of the Muwatta' is refuted, let us now turn our attention to the authenticity of the text. The erroneous claim of Dr. Omar and his minions concerning the "drastic" differences between the "versions" of the Muwatta' has also bearing upon the authenticity of the text of the Muwatta' itself. There is considerable amount of evidence that the Muwatta' is not only a product of Malik in Madina before his death in 179 AH, but was also substantially in place before the year 150 AH. The evidence for this is following:
A. Papyrus Fragment of the Muwatta' from Second Century AH: Nabia Abbott published a papyri of the Muwatta' that she dates by textual evidence, in particular the characteristics of the script and most significantly in her opinion, the consistent use of `an in the isnads together with the absence of initial transmission formula such as qala, akhbarani, haddathani, etc.
This fragment is present in the Austrian National Museum, Vienna and is classified as PERF no. 731 and is called "the Muwatta' of Malik ibn Anas". Below are the recto and verso sides of the papyrus fragment.
PERF No. 731, "the Muwatta' of Malik ibn Anas". Verso Side.
The fragment has been dated to Malik's own day in the second half of the second century AH. She says:
Thus the paleography, the scribal practices, the text, the order of the traditions and the isnad terminology in the papyrus show a remarkable degree of conformity with the scholarly practices of Malik and his contemporaries. On the strength of this internal evidence the papyrus folio can be safely assigned to Malik's own day.... The codex represented by our folio therefore originated sometime during the quarter century or so that elapsed between the writing of the Shaibani and the Laithi recensions and hence must represent one of the many lost recensions of that interval. Inasmuch as the papyrus text shows only minor variations from the printed text of the Laithi vulgate it is even possible that it represents the vulgate text as it was before it received....[29]
The fragment also shows slight difference in the "order of traditions" , which can easily be explained by assuming a different transmission of the text.
B. Similarity of Content & Diverse Geographical Location of Transmitters: As mentioned earlier, `Ali ibn Ziyad's is the earliest known transmission of the Muwatta' and a fragment dated 288 AH was published recently.[30] `Ali ibn Ziyad, who is also credited with being the first to introduce the Muwatta's into Ifriqiya, returned to Tunis in 150 AH, which year his transmission must therefore predate.[31] A comparison of Ibn Ziyad's tranmission (the earliest one) with later transmissions currently available either wholly or partly in printed form as discussed above (those of Yahya ibn Yahya, al-Shaybani, al-Qa`nabi, Suwayd and Abu Mus`ab), shows, as mentioned above, remarkable similarities in their basic content and thus clearly represent one text. Furthermore, when they were transmitting this text, `Ali ibn Ziyad was in Tunis, Yahya bin Yahya in Cordoba, al-Shaybani in various parts of Iraq, Syria and Khurasan, al-Qa`nabi in Basra (or perhaps Makka), Suwayd in al-Haditha in northern Iraq, Abu Mus`ab in Madina, and Ibn Bukayr, Ibn al-Qasim and Ibn Wahb in Egypt, the common link from which these transmission could have derived is precisely that which is claimed in the sources to be the case, i.e., Malik in Madina.[32]
C. Transmission of the Muwatta' & its Commentaries: The evidence of numerous individuals transmitting the Muwatta' directly from Malik and several commentaries being written on it comes from the biographical literature. From the biographical sources, we have seen that the number of people who transmitted the Muwatta' in its entirety directly from Malik exceed over ninety. As for the commentaries, for example, an early parchment fragment of Ibn Wahb's (d. 190 AH) Tafsir Gharib al-Muwatta'[33] dated 293 AH and a fragment of al-Akhfash's (d. before 250 AH) Tafsir Gharib al-Muwatta'[34] exist in Qayrawan. Furthermore, extensive fragments of Ibn Muzayn's (d. 259 AH) Tafsir al-Muwatta' compiled from the commentaries of `Isa ibn Dinar (d. 212 AH), Yahya ibn Yahya (d. 234 AH), Muhammad ibn `Isa (d. 218 AH) and Asbagh ibn al-Faraj (d. 225 AH) exist, again in, Qayrawan.[35] These transmissions and commentaries would not have been possible had the text not existed at the first place.
6. Conclusions
It was claimed by Dr. Omar and the Christian missionaries that the Muwatta' is "a collection hadiths" and that the "versions" of the Muwatta' are "drastically different" from one another. Regrettably, neither Dr. Omar nor the missionaries produced any evidence to support their claim.
On the contrary, we have seen that the Muwatta' of Malik is neither a collection of hadiths nor a book of fiqh in the traditional sense. The name Muwatta' means "the well-trodden [path]" and illustrates the record of accepted principles, precepts and precedents which has become established as the `amal of Madinah. It was also shown that the reason for different transmissions of the Muwatta' is due to Malik making serious editorial changes in it for more than 30 years. Hence it is very likely that two students hearing the Muwatta' and then transmitting it, one during Malik's early life and the other towards the end of his life, will hear two very different versions of the same book simply because Malik was constantly in the editing the text year after year.
As far as the basic content of the text is concerned, all the transmission are remarkably similar as opposed to the claim of "drastic" differences between the versions. The most marked difference visible in the transmission of Muwatta' is that of al-Shaybani's when compared with other transmissions. Al-Shaybani's choice of what material to transmit in his riwayah was guided by the theoretical concerns of the Kufans, who preferred hadiths from the Prophet and the Companions to the opinions of the later authorities and/or the `amal of the people of Madina. Therefore, his transmission of the Muwatta' shows extensive editing. Hence it is not surprising that al-Shaybani's transmission of the Muwatta' is usually referred to as "the Muwatta' of Muhammad".
The authenticity of the text was established by showing the existence of a papyrus fragment of the Muwatta dating from Malik's own time. The similarity of the content, the diverse location of numerous transmitters and the presence of early commentaries clearly establish the common link going back to the person from whom the text began, namely, Imam Malik of Madinah.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Abu Hudhayfa for giving them interesting information about Muwatta' and that enabled us to write a comprehensive refutation. We are also grateful to the Austrian National Library, Vienna, for providing us the manuscript.
And Allah knows best!
________________________________________
References
[1] Dr. K. Omar, Deep Into The Quran With A Non-Committal, Non-Sectarian, Scholastic Mind Discovers The Pristine And Is, Therefore, Much Ahead Of Our Times, 1987, Karachi, p. 286.
[2] M. M. Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications (Indianapolis), pp. 298-299.
[3] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwatta' And Madinan `Amal, 1999, Curzon Press: Richmond (UK), p. 22.
[4] M. Z. Siddiqi, Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features, 1993, The Islamic Texts Society, p. 8.
[5] M. M. Azami, Studies In Hadith Methodology And Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications (Indianapolis), p. 82.
[6] I. Goldziher (ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, George Allen & Unwin Ltds.: London (UK), p. 198.
[7] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwatta' And Madinan `Amal, 1999, op. cit., p. 22; J. Schacht, "Malik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, E. J. Brill: Leiden, p. 264.
[8] M. Z. Siddiqi, Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features, 1993, op. cit., p. 8.
[9] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwatta' And Madinan `Amal, 1999, op. cit., p. 22.
[10] `Iyad Ibn Musa Ibn `Iyad al-Sabti, Tartib al-Madarik wa-Taqrib al-Masalik li-Ma`rifat a`lam Madhhab Malik, 1966(?), Volume II, Silsilah al-Tarikhiyah: Rabat (Morocco), p. 73.
[11] `Iyad Ibn Musa Ibn `Iyad al-Sabti, Tartib al-Madarik wa-Taqrib al-Masalik li-Ma`rifat a`lam Madhhab Malik, 1966(?), Volume II, op. cit., p. 73; also see Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Baqi al-Zurqani, Sharh `ala Sahih al-Muwatta' li-Malik ibn Anas, 1893, Volume I, Al-Qahirah, p. 8.
[12] Abi `Umar Yusuf Ibn `Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Barr al-Namari al-Andalusi, Al-Tamhid li-ma fi al-Muwatta' min al-Ma`ani wa-al-Asanid, 1967, Volume I, Al-Shu'un al-Islamiyyah: Rabat (Morocco). p. 78; also see `Iyad Ibn Musa Ibn `Iyad al-Sabti, Tartib al-Madarik wa-Taqrib al-Masalik li-Ma`rifat a`lam Madhhab Malik, 1966(?), Volume II, op. cit., p. 75 and Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Baqi al-Zurqani, Sharh `ala Sahih al-Muwatta' li-Malik ibn Anas, Volume I, op. cit., p. 8.
[13] Abi al-Hasan `Ali ibn `Umar al-Daraqutni, Ahadith al-Muwatta' wa-Ittifaq al-Ruwat `an Malik wa-Ikhtilafuhum fiha Ziyadatan wa-Naqsan, 1946, Maktabat al-Khanji: Al-Qahirah.
[14] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwatta' And Madinan `Amal, 1999, op. cit., note 6, p. 188. Fore more details see Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Baqi al-Zurqani, Sharh `ala Sahih al-Muwatta' li-Malik ibn Anas, Volume I, op. cit., p. 6; Malik bin Anas (ed. Muhammad Fu'ad `Abd al-Baqi), Al-Muwatta' (riwayah of Yahya ibn Yahya al-Laythi), 1951, Dar al-Ihya al-Kutub al-Arabiyyah: Al-Qahirah (Egypt), p. 4-7 for different transmissions; Muhammad al-Shadhili al-Nayfar, Muwatta' al-Imam Malik: Qit`a minhu bi-Riwayat Ibn Ziyad, 1980, Dar al-Gharb al-Islami: Beirut (Lebanon), pp. 80-83.
[15] Malik bin Anas (ed. Muhammad Fu'ad `Abd al-Baqi), Al-Muwatta' (riwayah of Yahya ibn Yahya al-Laythi), 1951, op. cit., pp. 9-15 (14 transmissions); I. Goldziher (ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, op. cit., p. 206 (15 transmissions); J. Schacht, "Malik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, op. cit., p. 264 (15 transmissions); Muhammad al-Shadhili al-Nayfar, Muwatta' al-Imam Malik: Qit`a minhu bi-Riwayat Ibn Ziyad, 1980, op. cit., pp. 67-71 (16 transmissions).
[16] Much of the material in this section is from Dutton's work with some of our additions. See Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwatta' And Madinan `Amal, 1999, op. cit., pp. 22-26 for complete discussion.
[17] Muhammad al-Shadhili al-Nayfar, Muwatta' al-Imam Malik: Qit`a minhu bi-Riwayat Ibn Ziyad, 1980, Dar al-Gharb al-Islami: Beirut (Lebanon); J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis", Arabica, 1967, Volume XIV, p. 227.
[18] J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis", Arabica, 1967, op. cit., p. 230.
[19] J. Schacht, "Malik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, op. cit., p. 264.
[20] J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis", Arabica, 1967, op. cit., pp. 230-231.
[21] I. Goldziher (ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, op. cit., p. 206.
[22] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwatta' And Madinan `Amal, 1999, op. cit., p. 24.
[23] Y. Dutton, "Juridical Practice and Madinan `Amal: Qada' in the Muwatta' of Malik", Journal Of Islamic Studies, 1999, Volume 10, No. 1, pp. 1-21.
[24] I. Goldziher (ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, op. cit., p. 204.
[25] J. Schacht, "Deux Editions Inconnues Du Muwatta'", in G. Levi Della Vida (ed.), Studi Orientalistici In Onore Di Giorgio Levi Della Vida, 1956, Volume II, Istituto Per L'Oriente: Roma (Italy), p. 477.
Another variant of such skepticism in the transmission of the Muwatta' is seen in the work of J. E. Brockopp, Early Maliki Law: Ibn `Abd al-Hakam And His Major Compendium Of Jurisprudence, 2000, E. J. Brill: Leiden, pp. 74-77. For a critique of Brockopp's position see Y. Dutton's review of Brockopp's book in Journal Of Islamic Studies, 2002, Volume 13, No. 1, pp.42-45.
[26] J. Schacht, "Malik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, op. cit., p. 264.
[27] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwatta' And Madinan `Amal, 1999, op. cit., note 44, p. 190.
[28] For Ibn Wahb see, J. Schacht, "Malik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, op. cit., p. 264; for Ibn al-Qasim see, J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis", Arabica, 1967, op. cit., p. 230.
[29] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri: Qur'anic Commentary And Tradition, 1967, Volume II, University of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 127.
[30] See ref. 17.
[31] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwatta' And Madinan `Amal, 1999, op. cit., note 5, p. 188.
[32] ibid., p. 27.
[33] Assuming that this commentary refers to a commentary on Malik's Muwatta' rather than on his own. See Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwatta' And Madinan `Amal, 1999, op. cit., note 68, p. 191.
[34] J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis",
Arabica, 1967, op. cit., pp. 244-245.
[35] ibid., pp. 235-237.
PERF No. 731: The Earliest Manuscript Of Malik's Muwatta' Dated To His Own Time
Date
Second half of second century of hijra. This papyrus fragment is dated to Malik's
(d. 179 AH / 795 CE) own time.
Manuscript Number
PERF No. 731
Script
Early book hand carefully executed, especially on the recto. Note the angularity of the letters and the use of very early forms for some of them, such as the nun in min of recto 2, the final qaf with slight double loop of recto 5, the extended initian `ain of verso 5 and 12, and the ha' with beam, which is the characteristics of its sister forms, as in recto 8 and 14 and verso 3. Diacritical points are used rather freely. The alif of prolangation is generally omitted. The vowels and hamzah are indicated on in recto 9. A circle is used for punctuation; and a dot within the circle indicates collation.[1]
Recto has the contents of "Bab al-Targib fi-Sadaqah".
Location
Austrian National Library, Vienna.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the Austrian National Library, Vienna, for providing us the manuscript.
________________________________________
References
[1] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri: Qur'anic Commentary And Tradition, 1967, Volume II, University of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 114.
The images above are reproduced from the stated sources under the provisions of the copyright law. This allows for the reproduction of portions of copyrighted material for non-commercial, educational purposes.
With the exception for those images which have passed into the public domain, the use of these images for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited without the consent of the copyright holder.
PERF No. 665: The Earliest Extant Manuscript Of The Sirah Of Prophet Muhammad By Ibn Hisham
Date
First half of the third century of hijra. This manuscript is believed to be transmitted by students of Ibn Hisham (d. 218 AH /834 CE), perhaps soon after his death.
Manuscript Number
PERF No. 665
Script
Fine papyrus 11 x 13 cm. Central section of folio covering 16 lines.
Small well formed early cursive hand with marked angularity. Note especially the initial alif with its consistent bend to the right. The triangular head of the mim is particularly conspicuous in verso. Diacritical points or dots are sparingly used and only for the letters ta, tha, dal with dot underneath, zain, nun and ya.[1]
The text contained in the manuscript concerns with the second meeting of `Aqabah.
According to Nabia Abbott:
It is, nevertheless, illustrative of the simple nature and limited extent of variants in the course of early transmission... The papyrus thus affords us, at one and the same time, the earliest text fragment and the earliest extant manuscript fragment of the famous Sirah.[2]
Location
Austrian National Library, Vienna.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the Austrian National Library, Vienna, for providing us the manuscript.
________________________________________
References
[1] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri: Historical Texts, 1957, Volume I, University of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 61. Plate 5 in the end shows both recto and verso images.
[2] ibid., p. 64.
The images above are reproduced from the stated sources under the provisions of the copyright law. This allows for the reproduction of portions of copyrighted material for non-commercial, educational purposes.
With the exception for those images which have passed into the public domain, the use of these images for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited without the consent of the copyright holder.
No comments:
Post a Comment