Critical Rigor vs. Juridical Pragmatism_jonathan_brown

7/27/2019 Critical Rigor vs. Juridical Pragmatism_jonathan_brown

1/41

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 Islamic Law and Society 14, 1Also available online www.brill.nl

Correspondence: Jonathan Brown, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civiliza-tions, University of Washington, 229 Denny Hall, Box 353120, Seattle, WA,

98195-3120. E-mail: [email protected].

CRITICAL RIGOR VS. JURIDICAL PRAGMATISM:

HOW LEGAL THEORISTS AND \AD^TH SCHOLARS

APPROACHED THE BACKGROWTH OF ISN$DSIN THE GENRE OF #ILAL AL-\AD TH

JONATHAN BROWN

Abstract

Modern scholarship has accepted the backgrowth of isnds in the earlyadth tradition, but this phenomenon did not occur without controversyamong classical Muslim scholars. \adth critics were aware that materialwas being pushed back to the Prophet, a phenomenon they approachedthrough the lens ofziyda (addition). By examining works devoted to criti-cizingadth narrations (#ilal) from the 3rd/9th to the 8th/14th centuries,we will see that the original non-Prophetic versions of many adths sur-

vived alongside their Prophetic counterparts well into the 5th/11thcentury. More importantly, certain adth scholars from the 3rd/9th to the7th/13th centuries believed that Prophetic reports in the canonical adthcollections were actually statements of other early Muslims. The positionof these critics, however, was marginalized in the 5th/11th century, whenmainstream Sunni jurists chose to accept the Prophetic versions categori-cally. Although the jurists position became dominant in Sunni Islam,criticism of the backgrowth of isnds has continued in the work of selectadth scholars until today.

Introduction

According to current scholarship, the 3rd/9th century witnessed the

culmination of a movement from a reliance on the legal precedents

of various early Muslim authority figures to a focus on the Prophets

legacy. In the adth tradition, this phenomenon manifested itself inthe backgrowth of isnds: instances in which Muslim scholars of the2nd/8th and early 3rd/9th century attributed the legal and doc-

trinal maxims of members of the early Muslim community to the
http://www.brill.nl/http://www.brill.nl/


2/41

jonathan brown2

Prophet. It was these reports, falsely ascribed to the Prophet, which

comprised the bulk of the great canonical and non-canonical adthcollections produced in the mid to late 3rd/9th century.

The backgrowth of isnds, however, did not occur without con-troversy. It sparked a debate among Muslim scholars that lasted

into the 5th/11th century and vestiges of which survive to this day.

Muslim adth critics of the Abbasid period were keenly aware thatmaterial was being pushed back to the Prophet, although they

clearly extended more charity to the adth tradition than Westernscholars. These Muslim scholars explained the backgrowth of isnds

in terms of the concept of ziyda, or Addition, according to whicha report from a Companion or later figure was inappropriately

raised up to the Prophet. Although the great adth collections ofthe 3rd/9th century did indeed focus almost exclusively on Prophetic

reports, non-Prophetic versions of these reports survived alongside

them in other works well into the 5th/11th century. By examining

books devoted to criticizing adth narrations (kutub al-#ilal) fromthe late 3rd/9th to the 8th/14th century, we will see that certain

adth scholars of the 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries believedthat reports considered Prophetic in the canonical adth collectionswere actually statements made by Companions and other early

Muslims. The position of these rigorous scholars, however, was

marginalized in the 5th/11th century, when influential Sunni scholars

elected to accept the Prophetic versions of such reports regardlessof evidence for the backgrowth of their isnds. This developmentoccurred as part of an open debate over Addition in which the

pragmatic position of the jurists and legal theorists ultimately

triumphed over the emphasis ofadth critics on historical accuracy.Although the majority of influential participants in the later Sunni

adth tradition embraced the jurists position, criticism of the

backgrowth of isnds has continued in the work of select adthscholars until today.

The Schachtian Framework and the Backgrowth ofIsnds

All interpreters in the early Islamic tradition derived their authority

from a perceived connection to the Prophet, either through reports

transmitted from him, teachings inherited from his Companions,

or a reputation for piety in the Prophets idiom. By the dawn of the

3rd/9th century, however, these varied and often competing con-


3/41

critical rigor vs. juridical pragmatism 3

nections to the Prophets legacy had inundated legal discourse with

a cacophony of authoritative statements from the Prophet, his

Companions, their students and finally early legal synthesists like

Ab\anfa (d. 150/767), Mlik b. Anas (d. 179/795) and al-Laythb. Sa#d (d. 175/791).

Beginning with Goldzihers analysis of the explosive growth of

Prophetic reports in the early Abbasid period and later Joseph

Schachts pioneering study of legal adths, Orientalists concludedthat Muslim scholars of the late 2nd/8th and early 3rd/9th centuries

attempted to resolve this interpretive plurality by investing the legal

reports of the Prophet with more authority.1 This transition has

been associated with Muammad b. Idrs al-Shfi# (d. 204/819-20), whose famous Risla documents his campaign to identify thenotion of authoritative precedent (sunna) solely with Prophetic adths.2

As articulated by Schacht, this movement from the precedent of

the community to the precedent of the Prophet has become the

regnant vision of early Islamic legal history. Even one of Schachtsmost vociferous critics, Wael Hallaq, agrees that by approximately

830 CE the full authority to determine the law was transferred

from the hands of Muslims to those of God and his Messenger.3

Al-Shfi#represented the culmination of this process: [t]he elimina-tion of the role of the Companions reports from the construction

of law was completed by Muammad Ibn Idrs al-Shfi# who

insisted, consistently and systematically, that the Quran and theSunna of the Prophet are the sole material sources of the law.4

1 See Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, ed. and trans. S.M. Stern and C.R.Barber (Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1971), 2:76 ff. For surveys of the state ofthe field of the early Islamic tradition and the authenticity question, see:Harald Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence: Meccan Fiqh before the Classical

Schools, trans. Marion H. Katz (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1-49; idem, DatingMuslim Traditions: a Survey, Arabica 52, no. 2 (2005): 204-53; Fred M.Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing(Princeton: Darwin Press, 1998), 1-25; ZeevMaghen, Dead Tradition: JosephSchacht and the Origins of Popular Practice, Islamic Law and Society 10, no.3 (2003): 276-347.

2 Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence(Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1975), 13. For discussions of Schachts thought, see Motzki, The Originsof Islamic Jurisprudence, 18 ff.

3 Wael B. Hallaq, The Authoritativeness of Sunni Consensus, InternationalJournal of Middle East Studies 18 (1986): 431; idem, A History of Islamic LegalTheories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 17.

4 Hallaq, A History of Islamic Legal Theories, 18.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0570-5398(2005)52:2L.204[aid=7740328]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0570-5398(2005)52:2L.204[aid=7740328]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0928-9380(2003)10:3L.276[aid=7740327]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0928-9380(2003)10:3L.276[aid=7740327]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0928-9380(2003)10:3L.276[aid=7740327]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0928-9380(2003)10:3L.276[aid=7740327]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0928-9380(2003)10:3L.276[aid=7740327]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0570-5398(2005)52:2L.204[aid=7740328]


4/41

jonathan brown4

Building on the contributions of Susan Spectorsky and Harald Motzki,

Christopher Melchert has adjusted the Schachtian framework by

noting that Schacht took al-Shfi# too much at his word; in the

first half of the 3rd/9th century, Ibn \anbal (d. 241/855) and#Abd al-Razzq al-an#n (d. 211/827) continued to rely on thelegal opinions of the Companions when Prophetic adths wereabsent.5 Nonetheless, Melchert agrees that one of the general defining

developments of jurisprudence in the 3rd/9th century was that

hadith reports from the Prophet eclipsed reports from the Com-

panions and later authorities.6

According to the Schachtian framework, the movement away

from the precedent of numerous authoritative figures such as the

Prophets Companions and their Successors to the Prophet himself

manifested itself in the backgrowth of isnds. Schachts reasoningwas simple and clear. Books surviving from what he termed the

ancient schools of law, like Mliks Muwaa", include far more

authoritative reports from later figures than from the Prophet himself.7

The collections compiled after al-Shfi#, however, such as thecanonical Six Books and the Sunan of al-Draqun (d. 385/995),were undeniably focused on Prophetic reports.8 Furthermore, these

collections often included reports attributed to the Prophet that the

authors of earlier adth collections had attributed to Companionsor Successors. A report in the Muwaa" may be attributed to a

Companion, while a generation later al-Shfi#attributes the samereport to the Prophet through a defective mursal isnd (in whichthere exists a gap in the isndbetween the Prophet and the person

5 Christopher Melchert, The Traditionist-Jurisprudents and the Framingof Islamic Law, Islamic Law and Society 8, no. 3 (2001): 401. See also Susan

A. Spectorsky, Amad Ibn \anbals Fiqh, Journal of the American OrientalSociety 102 (1982): 461-5; Harald Motzki, The Muannaf of #Abd al-Razzqal-an#nas a Source of Authentic Adthof the First Century A.H, Journalof Near Eastern Studies 50 (1991): 1-21.

6 Melchert, The Traditionist-Jurisprudents and the Framing of IslamicLaw, 399.

7 Schacht, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 22. Yay b. Yay al-Layths recension of the Muwaa", for example, contains 1,720 narrations, ofwhich 613 are statements of the Companions, 285 of the Successors and 61

with no isnd at all; Muhammad Abd al-Rauf, \adth LiteratureI: theDevelopment of the Science of \adth, in The Cambridge History of ArabicLiterature: Arabic Literature until the End of the Umayyad Period, eds. A.F.L Beestonet al. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 273.

8 Schacht, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 4.


5/41


quoting him). Two generations later, in theaof al-Bukhr(d.256/870), we find the same adth with a complete isnd to theProphet.9 Schacht contended that the Prophetic versions of these

reports had clearly been forged after the compilation of works suchas the Muwaa", since if they had existed earlier, then scholars likeMlik no doubt would have included them in their writings totrump their adversaries in legal debates.10

According to the Schachtian framework, the development of legal

discourse in the first two and a half centuries of Islam was thus a

slow process of finding more and more compelling sources of authority

for legal or doctrinal maxims. Statements from Successors, especially

polemical adths, were the oldest and thus most historically ac-curate.11 In debates between early legal scholars, however, the problem

of competing Successor reports was solved by disingenuous experts

attributing these statements to the next highest rung on the ladder

of authority: the Companions of the Prophet. We should thus treat

these Companion reports as historical fabrications.12

By the mid2nd/8th century, the problem of competing reports from the

Companions resulted in such statements being pushed back to the

Prophet himself. Al-Shfi# proved the greatest champion of thistotal reliance on Prophetic adths. Since the major Sunni adthcollections consist almost entirely of reports from the Prophet, much

of their material must have been put into circulation after al-Shfi#s

time.13Schachts conclusions yielded a simple rule: the farther back the

isndof a adth goes, the more assured we should be of its fabricationand the later the date that this fabrication occurred.14 Schachts

conclusions have been further developed by G.H.A. Juynboll,15 and

9 Ibid., 165-6.10 Schacht, A Revaluation of Islamic Tradition,Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society (1949): 151.11 Schacht, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 157.12 Ibid., 150.13 Ibid., 4-5.14 See Schacht, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 39, 165; idem, A

Revaluation of Islamic Tradition, 147.15 G.H.A. Juynboll, Some Isnad-Analytical Methods Illustrated on the

Basis of Several Woman Demeaning Sayings from Hadith Literature, al-Qantara10 (1989): 353, 369; idem,Muslim Tradition: Studies in Chronology, Provenanceand Authorship in Early \adth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983),17; idem, Islams First Fuqah", Arabica 39, no. 3 (1992): 299-300.


6/41

jonathan brown6

together their discussion of the backgrowth of isnds has providedthe dominant framework for approaching early Islamic intellectual

history.16

The research of Harald Motzki, however, has demonstrated thatSchachts and Juybolls conclusions about the origins and dating of

adth are problematic. First, Schachts premise that an early scholarsfailure to employ a Prophetic adth in a debate in which it wouldhave been pertinent somehow proves that this Prophetic adth didnot exist at that time was a flawed argument e silentio.17 Perhaps the

scholar did not know the adth existed or did not consider ituseful for that argument. Second, by consulting a range of sources

far more expansive than those examined by Schacht and Juynboll,

Motzki has demonstrated that certain traditions (here we will use

the term tradition to indicate the general text a adth, whilenarration will denote a specific transmission of that report) actually

appeared earlier than these previous scholars believed. Rather than

being active forgers of adth, early legal scholars and adthtransmitters such as al-Zuhr (d. 124/742-3), Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767) and Sufyn b. #Uyayna (d. 196/811) were in general reliablypassing on reports from the previous generation. By showing that

two independent sources had heard a report from a common

reference, Motzki was able to date some adths to the time of theCompanions in the second half of 1st/7th century.18

Yet a central tenet of the Schachtian framework remains: isndsdo seem to have grown backwards. A Companion report that Mlikinserted in his Muwaa" in the mid 2nd/8thcentury appears as aProphetic adth in a al-Bukhr a century later. How did theMuslim scholarly community respond to this development? Could

this significant change in legal epistemology have occurred silently

16 See, for example, Michael Cook, Early Muslim Dogma: A Source-CriticalApproach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 110; Fred Donner,Narratives of Islamic Origins, 120; Norman Calder, Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 189.

17 See Motzki, Quo vadis, \adt-Forschung? Eine kritische Untersuchungvon G.H.A. Juynboll: Nfi# the mawlof Ibn #Umar, and his position in Mus-lim \adt Literature, Der Islam 73, no. 1 (1996): 40-80.

18

Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence, 297; idem, The Muannafof#Abd al-Razzq al-an#n, 18-20. See also, Motzki, The Murder of IbnAb \uqayq, in The Biography of Muammad, ed. Harald Motzki (Leiden:Brill, 2000), 170-239; idem, Der Fiqh des Zuhr: die Quellenproblematik,Der Islam 68 (1991): 1-44.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0021-1818(1991)68L.1[aid=2937108]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0021-1818(1991)68L.1[aid=2937108]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0021-1818(1991)68L.1[aid=2937108]


7/41


and left no trace?19 As Fred Donner states in his rebuttal of the

revisionist school of Islamic historiography, it is inconceivable that

the divided and decentralized early Muslim community could

somehow orchestrate a comprehensive redaction of the traditionas a whole into a unified form20 without leaving ample historical

evidence. Similarly, Motzki notes that the forgery of adths on amass scale would have been prevented by the communal oversight

of adth scholars.21 As a corollary, we can posit that the massivebackgrowth of isnds could not have swept across the landscape ofIslamic scholarship with no cries of alarm.

As we shall see, it did not. Rather, the movement from Companion

and Successor reports to adths of the Prophet left in its traildiscarded non-Prophetic reports and an ongoing controversy over

the proper priorities of adth criticism. Western scholars haveoverlooked evidence of this lingering debate because they have so

far focused almost exclusively on the great adth compendia of the

3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries. Expanding our scope of analysisto include collections of flawed reports (kutub al-#ilal) shows thatsome adth scholars were very aware of the backgrowth of isndsand that a debate over which versions of a report were the most

accurate continued for centuries after the compilation of the canonical

adth collections in the 3rd/9th century.This is not to suggest that Muslim adth critics acknowledged

the backgrowth of isnds on the scale that Schacht, Juynboll andothers have described. Muslim scholars maintained much more

charitable presuppositions towards transmitted material. The adthcorpus is so vast that our attitudes towards its authenticity are

necessarily based more on the axioms of our critical worldview

19 This seems to be the contention of Juynboll, who states that the processof doctoring Companion reports (in which they were ascribed to the Prophetin the wake of al-Shfi#s career) left us with the original, Companion versionsin the earliest survivingadth sources but not in later works like the canonicaladth collections. As we shall see, these original Companion reports didindeed survive in later sourcesoutside the adth canon. Juynboll doesnote, however, that Muslim adth critics identified certain transmitters as

being guilty of raising reports up to the Prophet; Juynboll, Islams FirstFuqah", 299-300; idem, Raf#, Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM edition v.1.0.

20 Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins, 27.21 Motzki, Dating Muslim Traditions: a Survey, 235.


8/41

jonathan brown8

than on empirical fact.22 Out of thousands of extant adths, Schachtbased his conclusion about the backgrowth of legal isnds on onlyforty-seven traditions, which he believed undermined the prima facie

historical reliability of the entire adth corpus.23 Conversely, theMuslim critics examined here identify a total of seventy-six instances

of the backgrowth ofisnds. But for them, those reports that do notexhibit this flaw are prima facie words of the Prophet.

Terminology and the Approach of\adthCritics

Examining the manner in which Muslim adth scholars approachedand evaluated the backgrowth of isnds requires a conceptualtranslation of the relevant terms and concepts used by these critics.

First, we must remember that Muslim scholars criticized different

narrations of a adth without dismissing that Prophetic traditionas a wholean important distinction from the content-based criticism

of Western scholarship, which rejects the provenance of all thenarrations of a report the meaning of which is suspect from a

historical-critical perspective. For example, a adth critic couldreject one isnd of the adth Indeed, actions are determined byintentions (innamal-a#ml bi"l-niyyt), while upholding the authenticityof that tradition viaother narrations.24\adth scholars of the 3rd/9th century and beyond referred to reports attributed to the Prophet

as marf# (literally raised up), while reports attributed to one of hisCompanions (and in some cases later figures such as Successors)

were referred to as mawqf(literally stopped at).25 We will thus usethe terms marf# for Prophetic and mawqf for non-Prophetic (i.e.,from Companions or later figures) reports respectively.

22 For a discussion of where the burden of proof for proving/disprovingthe authenticity of Prophetic adths lies, see David S. Powers, On Bequestsin Early Islam, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48, no. 3 (1989): 199-200.

23 Schacht, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 4, 169, 175.24 For an example of this, see n. 51 below for the report yuj"u bil-mawt

yawm al-qiyma ka"annahu kabsh amla, which is criticized as being mawqfthrough its narration by the Companion Ab Sa#d al-Khudrbut not by AbHurayra.

25 Statements made by Successors are generally called maq#. As severalinstances in this article demonstrate, however, the term mawqfcould be usedto describe these reports as well. See, for example, al-Draquns criticism ofMuslims report from the Successor Ibn AbLayl below.


9/41


Muslim scholars from the 2nd/8th to the 4th/10th century devoted

a great deal of attention to collecting and sorting the reports of

Companions or Successors along with Prophetic adths. Ab Nu#aym

#Abd al-Malik al-Jurjn(d. 323/935), for example, is described bya later adth scholar as memorizing mawqf reports to the sameextent that later experts memorized Prophetic ones.26 Al-Bukhrsfirst writings were compilations of the legal statements of the

Companions and Successors.27 Although they seldom surface in the

major adth compendia of the 3rd/9th century, even as late as the5th/11th century Companion traditions were in circulation alongside

their Prophetic counterparts among scholars who had complete

isnds back to the originator of the report. In one of the last greatadth collections containing these full-length isnds, the Sunan al-kubr of Ab Bakr Amad al-Bayhaq (d. 458/1066), the authoroccasionally includes his own Companion version of reports otherwise

attributed to the Prophet.28 Another major adth collector of the

5th/11th century also cultivated a vast number of reports with fullisnds; in his famous Trkh Baghdd, al-Khab al-Baghdd(d. 463/1071) occasionally provides Companion adths together withcorresponding Prophetic versions.29

26 Shams al-Dn al-Dhahab, Tadhkirat al-uff, ed. Zakariyy #Umayrt,

4 vols. in 2 (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1419/1998), 3:26.27 Tj al-Dn al-Subk, abaqt al-shfi#iyya al-kubr, ed. Mamd Muammadal-anand #Abd al-Fatt Muammad al-\alw, 10 vols. ([Cairo]: #^s al-Bbal-\alab, 1383/1964), 2:216.

28 Note: I will use the Wensinckadth citation format (kitb, bb) for mu-annaf texts and Wensincks citations for Ibn \anbals Musnad (cued to theMaymaniyya print). Al-Bayhaq includes both marf# and mawqf versions ofthe report ltuzawwiju al-mar"atu al-mar"ata wa ltuzawwiju al-mar"atu nafsahthat he received from his teacher, al-\kim al-Naysbr(d. 405/1014); Ab

Bakr Amad b. al-\usayn al-Bayhaq, al-Sunan al-kubr, ed. Muammad #Abdal-Qdir #A, 11 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1420/1999), 7:178(kitb al-nik, bb lnikillbi-wal). On another occasion al-Bayhaqnarratesa report (al-witr aqq fa-man aabba an yuwattira) both mawqf and marf#through different isnds meeting at al-Zuhrand then continuing to the Prophet/Companion; idem, al-Sunan al-kubr, 3:35 (kitb al-alt, bb al-witr bi-rak#awida).

29 See, for example, al-Khab al-Baghdd, Trkh Baghdd, ed. Muaf#Abd al-Qdir #A, 14 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1417/1997),2:446 (l tashtar al-samak f al-m" fa"innahu gharar); 5:14 (lamm mta al-nabzurra #alayhi), 38 (inna Allh l yaqbiu al-#ilm intiz#an yantazi#uhu min al-#ulam");6:282-3 (man sami#a al-nid"wa lam yujib); 7:10 (laysa #alal-mar"a irm ill fwajhih); 8:209 (in naqadta al-ns naqadk); 9:16 (#amal al-abrr min al-rijl al-


10/41

jonathan brown10

The backgrowth ofisnds was a recognized problem. \adth criticsof the 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries were aware that specific

transmitters or scholars were elevating these non-Prophetic reports

to Muammad. Al-Tirmidh(d. 279/892) quotes the famous earlyadth critic Shu#ba b. al-\ajjj (d. 160/776) as calling one transmittera serial raiser (raff#) of mawqf reports to the Prophet.30 Theauthor of an early work on weak transmitters, Ibn #Ad (d. 365/975-6), notes that one Ab #Al al-\asan b. #Al b. Shabb al-Mu#ammar(d. 295/907) used to raise mawqfadths to the Prophetand add material to the texts ofadths (rafa#a adth hiya mawqfawa zda fal-mutn ashy"laysa[sic] minh). Ibn #Adquotes an earliercritic who said that raising mawqf reports up to the Prophet wasparticularly common among transmitters in Baghdad.31 In one of

the earliest efforts to systemize the Sunni study ofadth, al-\kimal-Naysbr(d. 405/1014) established an independent category ofimpugned narrators for those who raise mawqf reports to the

Prophet.32 Transformingmawqfreports into Prophetic adths was,of course, not always insidious. Sometimes critics attributed it to

carelessness, as in the case of the respected early scholar Abn b.

khiya); 9:69 (man nasiya al-alt wa lam yadhkurhillwa huwa ma#a al-imm);9:94 (marra rajul mimman qablakum bi-jamjama); 9:252 (al-kursmawi# qadamihiwal-#arsh l yuqaddaru qadruhu); 9:302 (l ta"khudh al-adth ill #amman tujzshahdatahu); 9:329 (inna Allh ta#l #ind lisn kull q"il fal-yattaqi Allh #abdun

wal-yanur mdh yaql); 9:433 (l yadkhulu al-janna al-qattt). These citationsare the beginnings of a comprehensive list of the mawqf/marf# narrationsincluded in the Trkh Baghdd, based on my reading of nine out of fourteen

volumes so far. An even later major adth compendium with full isnds backto the Prophet is Ab Mas#d al-\usayn b. Muammad al-Baghaws (d.516/1122) Shar al-sunna, which also includes some corresponding mawqf

narrations for Prophetic adths; this text requires further study.30 Jmi# al-Tirmidh: kitb al-#ilm, bb m j"a f al-akhdh bil-sunna wa ijtinbal-bida#.

31 Al-Khab al-Baghdd, Trkh Baghdd, 7:383. Al-Khabs citation fromIbn #Adrepresents an addition to Ibn #Ads entry on one al-\asan b. Shabbal-Muktib al-Baghdd, whom he describes as transforming broken isnds intocontinuous ones; Ab Amad #Abdallh Ibn #Ad, Al-Kmil fu#af"al-rijl, 7

vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1405/1985), 2:742-3. Shu#ba and Ibn \anbal alsocriticized #Abd al-Malik b. Ab Sulaymn (d. 145/763) for raising adthsfrom the Successor #A" b. Ab Rab to the Prophet; al-Khab, TrkhBaghdd, 10:394.

32 Al-\kim al-Naysbr, An Introduction to the Science of Tradition, trans.James Robson (London: Luzac and Co., 1953), 36.


11/41


Ab #Ayysh (d. 138/756) confusing the opinions of his teacherswith reports they transmitted to him from the Prophet.33

To accurately comprehend how Muslim adth critics understood

the problem of the backgrowth of isnds, we must appreciate theirperspective. While Western scholars conceive of the development

ofadth literature diachronically, with the Muwaa"of Mlik pre-dating the canonical collections in a historical progression, a Muslim

adth critic of the 4th/10th century saw a synchronic mass ofparallel and competing reports.34 For him, the problem of isndsgrowing backwards appeared as instances of coexisting marf# andmawqfnarrations of the same adth. Acknowledging the backgrowthof an isnd involved recognizing that the mawqf version was themore reliable one according to the principles ofadth criticism. Itis not pertinent to our study whether or not the marf# version wasactually forged from the mawqf onewe are not interesting indetermining authenticity here. What concerns us is that adth

critics felt that they were presented with a choice between twopotentially valid narrations of the same adth.Muslim scholars articulated the backgrowth of isnds through the

notion of ziyda, or Addition. Ziyda encompassed three different,identifiable phenomena that we may term Isnd Addition, Literal

Matn Addition and NormativeMatn Addition. IsndAddition involvedthe addition of a transmitter in the isnd of one narration of a

adth who was not found in other narrations. LiteralMatn Additionwas the addition of material to the text of one narration not found

in others. Here, however, we are concerned only with Normative

Matn Addition, which involved the addition of normative weight to

a tradition by elevating the status of the report from mawqf to

33 Ibn \ajar al-#Asqaln, Tahdhb al-tahdhb, ed. Muaf #Abd al-Qdir#A, 12 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1415/1994), 1:90.

34 One instance in which a Muslim critic of the classical period appearsto see a third dimension to the adth tradition occurs in the work of al-Khab al-Baghdd, who notes that the adth in which the Prophet tookthe poll tax from the Zoroastrians of Hajar (akhadha al-jizya min majs hajar)is mursal in the Muwaa" but musnad through the same isnd in the work of alater student of Mliks student #Abd al-Ramn b. Mahd(d. 198/814); al-Khab al-Baghdd, Trkh Baghdd, 8:335 (biography of Khayrn b. Amad).For a discussion of the transmission of this adth, see Muammad b. Idrsal-Shfi#, al-Risla, ed. Amad Shkir (Beirut: al-Maktaba al-#Ilmiyya, [n.d.]),430 ff.


12/41

jonathan brown12

marf#.35 It literally entailed pushing back the isnd of a narrationfrom a later figure to the Prophet. We will thus use the terms

Normative Matn Addition and the backgrowth of an isnd inter-

changeably.This tripartite division of Addition (ziyda) represents my own

attempt to identify the different phenomena subsumed under what

Muslim scholars often treated as a unified concept. Some Muslim

scholars demonstrated an awareness of the conceptual heterogeneity

inherent in their notion ofziyda, conflating Normative and LiteralMatn Addition while discussing Isnd Addition under the separateheading ofal-mazd fal-asnd(additions in isnds). Others distinguishedbetween or conflated the different forms of Addition in other ways.

As a whole, the manner in which Muslim scholars over the centuries

have envisioned ziyda, its connection with the three phenomenahere described as Addition and their relationships with one another

has lacked uniformity.36 The shared status of these three often

35 For a more extensive discussion of Addition, see Jonathan A.C. Brown,Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon: al-Draquns Adjustment of theaayn, Journal of Islamic Studies 15, no. 1 (2004): 8-11.

36 Limited evidence from al-Bukhr (d. 256/870), Muslim (d. 261/875)and al-Tirmidh(d. 279/892) suggests that they associated an indistinct notionofziydawith both IsndAddition and Literal Matn Addition; Muammad b.

Ism#l al-Bukhr, Kitb raf# al-yadayn f al-alt, ed. Bad# al-Dn al-Rshid(Beirut: Dr Ibn \azm, 1416/1996), 131-3; cf. #Uthmn b. #Abd al-RamnIbn al-al, Muqaddimat Ibn al wa Masin al-iil, ed. #$isha #Abd al-Ramn (Cairo: Dr al-Ma#rif, [1409/1989]), 229; Muslim b. al-\ajjj al-Naysbr, aMuslim (Cairo: Maktabat Muammad #Alal-ubay, [1963]),1:6; Zayn al-Dn #Abd al-Ramn Ibn Rajab, Shar #Ilal al-Tirmidh, ed. Nral-Dn #Itr, 2 vols. ([n.p.]: [n.p], 1398/1978), 1:419. Al-Draqun (d. 385/995) also used the term ziyda for both these phenomena; Brown, Criticismof the Proto-Hadith Canon, 32. Al-\kim al-Naysbr(d. 405/1014) dealt

with Normative and LiteralMatn Addition separately; al-\kim al-Naysbr,Ma#rifat#ulm al-adth,ed. Mu#aim \usayn (Hyderabad: D"irat al-Ma#rif,1385/1966); 27, 50. Al-Khab al-Baghdd (d. 463/1071) addressed Isnd

Addition, Normative Matn Addition and Literal Matn Addition separately(although he notes that what I have identified as Literal Matn and NormativeMatn Addition are closely linked); al-Khab al-Baghdd, Kitb al-kifya f #ilmal-riwya, ed. Amad #Umar Hshim (Beirut: Dr al-Kitb al-#Arab, 1405/1985); 449, 450-1, 464-9. Ibn al-al (d. 643/1245) purposefully combinedthe concepts of Normative and Literal Matn Addition under the rubrick of

ziydawhile dealing with IsndAddition separately under the title ofal-mazdf al-asnd. In his chapter on mu#al adths, however, he treates Isnd andNormative Matn Addition similtaneously; Ibn al-al, Muqaddimat Ibn al;229, 250-6, 480-1. Ibn Kathr (d. 774/1374) followed Ibn al-al, except


13/41


indistinct concepts under the rubric ofziydain the Muslim scholarlyworldview stemmed from the fundamentally crucial role of the

narrator in determining the authenticity of a transmission; regardless

if it was adding a person in the isnd, material to the text of theadth or raising a whole report to the Prophet, all were additionsmade by one transmitter whose reliability guaranteed these claims.37

As such, it seems most useful to view the concept of ziyda asfundamentally unified within Muslim scholarship and then follow

our own conceptual breakdown of the topic.

There is one critical distinction between the backgrowth of isndsas conceptualized by Western scholars and what we have termed

here NormativeMatn Addition among Muslims. For Schacht, finding

a Prophetic adth in a book written after an earlier scholar hadattributed the same report to a Companion or Successor provided

sufficient proof that the isndhad grown backwards. Muslim scholars,on the other hand, did not consider the coexistence ofmawqfand

marf# narrations of the same adth to be prima facie conclusiveevidence of forgery. It was quite possible for reliable mawqf andmarf# versions of a adth to coexist. The reliability of a reportultimately hinged on the reputation of its transmitter and corro-

boration. If the experts who narrated a marf# version and a mawqf

that he ignored the phenomenon of Normative Matn Addition entirely; IbnKathr Ism#l b. Ab\af, al-B#ith al-athth sharIkhtir #Ulm al-adth, ed.Amad Muammad Shkir (Cairo: Dr al-Turth, 1423/2003); 52, 146. Al-#Irq (d. 806/1404) dealt with all three concepts separately but construedziydaas LiteralMatn Addition only; Zayn al-Dn #Abd al-Ram b. al-\usaynal-#Irq, al-Tabira wal-tadhkira, 3 vols. in 2 (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya,[n.d.], reprint of the 1353/[1935] Fez edition, edited by Muammad b. al-\usayn al-#Irq al-\usayn), 1:174-9, 211, 2:306 ff. Al-Sakhw (d. 902/1497) followed him, and al-an#n(d. 1768 CE) argued that the discussion

of NormativeMatn Addition and IsndAddition together was a mistake, sincethe two questions are totally distinct; Shams al-Dn al-Sakhw, Fatal-mughth,ed. #Al\usayn #Al, 5 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Sunna, 1424/2003), 1:219;Muammad b. Ism#l al-an#n, Tawal-afkr, ed. Muammad Muyal-Dn #Abd al-\amd, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dr Iy" al-Turth al-#Arab, 1366/1970), 1:339. Ibn \ajar (d. 852/1449) dealt with all three types of Additionunder the mantle of ziyda; Ibn \ajar al-#Asqaln, al-Nukat #al kitb Ibn al-al, ed. Mas#d #Abd al-\amd al-#Adan and Muammad Fris (Beirut:Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1414/1994), 281-90.

37 The modern adth scholar \amza #Abdallh al-Malbrhas reassertedthe conceptual unity ofziydaby underscoring the primacy of the narrator inmaking these various additions; \amza #Abdallh al-Malbr, Naart jaddaf #ulm al-adth (Beirut: Dr Ibn \azm, 1423/2003); 150 ff., 176-9.


14/41

jonathan brown14

one were equally trustworthy, a Muslim critic would be hard pressed

to dismiss either as incorrect.

Moreover, Muslim critics allowed for the possibility that both

Companion and Prophetic versions could be entirely accurate.According to scholars like the Shfi#s al-Khab al-Baghdd, AbIsq al-Shrz(d. 476/1083), Ab al-\asan al-Mward(d. 450/1058), the \anbalIbn al-Jawz(d. 597/1200) and the MlikIbnal-Qan al-Fs (d. 628/1231), it was rationally possible for aCompanion to quote the Prophet directly on a legal matter (producing

a marf# adth) but to paraphrase him when ruling on the samematter after the Prophets death (thus producing a Companion

opinion or mawqfreport).38 This possibility, expressed in the treatisesof these later scholars, was implicit in the thought of earlier adthcritics. Thus, in his famous Sunan the staunch traditionist of Samar-

qand, #Abdallh b. #Abd al-Ramn al-Drim(d. 255/869), lists areport of the Prophet condemning opining on matters of religion

when one has no firm evidence. He then immediately presents thesame report attributed to the Companion Ibn #Abbs.39 As al-Drimexplained to his student, al-Tirmidh, so long as one has an establishedtext (al) for a tradition from the Prophet, such disparities fall wellwithin the range of proper adth transmission.40 Thus Normative

38

Al-Khab al-Baghdd, Kitb al-kifya f #ilm al-riwya, 456; Ab IsqIbrhm al-Shrz, al-Tabira f ul al-fiqh, ed. Muammad \asan Ht(Damascus: Dr al-Fikr, 1400/1980), 325; Ab al-\asan #Alb. Muammadal-Mward, al-\wal-kabr ffiqh madhhab al-imm al-Shfi#, ed. #AlMuammadMu#awwa and #$dil Amad #Abd al-Mawjd, 20 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutubal-#Ilmiyya, 1414/1994), 2:359; Ab al-\usayn #Alb. Muammad Ibn al-Qan al-Fs, Bayn al-wahm wal-hm al-wqi#ayn f kitb al-Akm, ed. al-\usayn$yat Sa#d, 5 vols. (Riyadh: Dr al-ayba, 1418/1997), 5: 278, 452,456; Ibn \ajar, al-Nukat #alkitb Ibn al-al, 239-40. See also Shams al-Dn

al-Sakhw, Fatal-mughth, 1:220; Muammad b. Ibrhm Ibn al-Wazr, Kitbtanqal-anr fma#rifat#ulm al-thr, ed. Muammad ubb. \asan \allq(Beirut: Dr Ibn \azm, 1420/1999), 108.

39 Sunan al-Drim: introductory subchapters, bb al-futywa m fhi min al-shidda. For another example of including a mawqf narration along with amarf# one, see Sunan al-Drim: introductory chapters, bb al-tawbkh li-manyalubu al-#ilm li-ghayr Allh, where the Successor Makl al-Shmnarrates areport once as his own words and once as a report of the Prophet. In anotherexample, one of the transmitters notes that the Companion raised the adthto the Prophet as opposed to the mawqf report that preceded it; Sunan al-Drim: introductory chapters, bb f fal al-#ilm wal-#amal (last two reports).

40 Jmi# al-Tirmidh: kitb al-#ilm, bb m j"a f ta#m al-kadhib #al rasl Allh(). Here al-Tirmidhwas asking specifically about Isnd Addition (making a


15/41


Matn Addition was not inherently problematic. Only in cases when

the marf# version seemed contrived, or when mawqf narrationswere either more numerous or more reliable than the marf# ones

did a critic like al-Drimdiagnose unacceptable Addition and thebackgrowth of an isnd.

Many prominent adth scholars between 200/800 and 700/1300 were thus unwilling to accept the Prophetic versions of a

tradition when they felt the mawqfone was more reliable. Our firstsurviving evidence of this critical rejection of pushing back isnds tothe Prophet comes from #Alb. al-Madn(d. 234/849), a magnetofadth study in Basra and one of al-Bukhrs principal teachers.He noted that the Prophetic adth narrated through the Companion#Ammr b. Ysir (d. 37/657) in which the Prophet prohibited Muslimsfrom eating the meat of animals sacrificed to God more than three

days after the slaughter (innahu nah #an akl lum al-a fawqathalth) was problematic because the mawqfversion through Ab

#Ubayd Sa#d b. #Ubayd al-Zuhr (d. 98/717-8)

al-Zuhr wasmore reliable.41

The Genre of#Ilal al-adth: a Storehouse for Non-Prophetic Narrations

Ibn al-Madns work is one of the earliest surviving books in agenre that preserved Muslims responses to the backgrowth ofisnds,works of #ilal al-adth.

Books of#ilal, or flaws,constituted a subgenre ofadth literaturethat served as a veritable storehouse for the mawqfnarrations whichsurvived alongside the great collections of Prophetic adths. Besidestheir formal collections, we can imagine that the libraries ofadthscholars in the Abbasid period were filled with more humble and

disorganized notebooks ofadth narrations recorded in innumerablesessions from teachers in various cities. These sundry reports would

mursal adth musnad). This question was often inseparable from NormativeMatn Addition, however, both in al-Tirmidhs time and in later periods; seen. 36 above.

41 #Alb. al-Madn, al-#Ilal, ed. Muammad Muaf A#am ([n.p.]: al-Maktab al-Islm, 1392/1972), 104. Al-Bukhrincludes Ab#Ubayds narrationfrom #Alb. Ablib; aal-Bukhr: kitb al-a, bb 16; Ibn \ajar, Fatal-br, ed. #Abd al-#Azz b. #Abdallh b. Bz and Muammad Fu"d #Abd al-Bq, 16 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1418/1997), 10:29 (#5573).


16/41

jonathan brown16

have constituted the raw material from which these scholars compiled

their collections. They also would have provided the evidence that

adth critics used in their attempts to identify which reports enjoyed

the corroborating support of expert transmitters and which wereisolated and thus unreliable. In the course of their identification of

flawed narrations, scholars composing #ilal treatises drew on andcited these now vanished tomes of adth. #Ilal works thereforeallow us a glimpse into the more evanescent manifestations ofadthscholarship that rarely survived their authors death or the ravages

of time. The peak of #ilalwork production seems to have been thelate 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries, but later adth scholars alsoproduced occasional works in this genre (see Appendix for a list of

known #ilal works).Here we must distinguish between books of #ilal al-adth and a

later but very similar genre: collections of extremely unreliable or

forged (maw#) adths known as books ofmaw#t. The distinction

between these two genres is both topical and chronological, althoughthere is a degree of overlap in both these aspects. #Ilalworks focuson comparing the multiple narrations of a adth to determinetechnical flaws like Addition but almost never explicitly criticize a

report due to its meaning. Maw#t works, on the other hand,expand this scope of criticism to include reports that are deemed

unreliable because they include some clear indication of forgery,

such as their contents contradicting the Qur"n, more reliable adthsor general Islamic principles.Maw#tworks thus include criticismsoriginating from #ilal works, often identifying adths as originallyhaving been statements of figures other than the Prophet that had

been inappropriately attributed to him. This overlap in content

between #ilal and maw#t works is most evident in Ibn al-JawzsKitb al-maw#tand his al-#Ilal al-mutanhiya, for Ibn al-Jawzlistedmany of the same adths in both books.42

42 See Muammad b. Ja#far al-Kattn, al-Risla al-mustarafa li-bayn mashhrkutub al-sunna al-musharrafa(Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1416/1995), 118.For an example of a maw#tbook identifying the backgrowth of isnds froma Companion to the Prophet, see Mull #Al al-Qri" (d. 1014/1606), al-Man# f ma#rifat al-adth al-maw#, ed. #Abd al-Fatt Ab Ghudda, 6th ed.(Beirut: Dr al-Bash"ir al-Islmiyya, 1426/2005), 67, 77, 81, 107, 116, 149,193, 198, 199, 201, 206. For some examples of reports attributed to theProphet but originally said by other figures, see ibid., 53 (Sufyn al-Thawr),62 (Ab \anfa and al-Shfi#), 83 (Ibrhm al-Nakha#).


17/41


The fact that maw#t books often drew on criticisms, such asimproper Normative Matn Addition, found in #ilalworks highlightsthe second distinction between the two genres. The maw#tgenre

effectively succeeded that of #ilal books, appearing as #ilal workswere falling out of production. #Ilalworks are rare after 400/1010,while maw#tbooks are exclusively the product of the period afterthe 5th/11th century, increasing in number in the late middle and

early modern periods. The earliest known maw#tbooks were theTadhkirat al-maw#t of Ab al-Fal al-Maqdis (d. 507/1113) andal-\usayn b. Ibrhm al-Jawzaqns (d. 543/1148-9) al-Abl waal-mankr wa al-i wa al-mashhr.43 Al-Jawzaqn himself inad-

vertently demonstrates the evolution of the maw#t genre frombooks of #ilal. Although his work clearly focuses on identifyingforged adths based on their problematic contentsthe hallmarkof later maw#t books, he himself considers his book a study of#ilal. For indeed the [study of]#ilal, he notes, is the most noble

part of the science of adth.44

Because maw#t books drew on#ilal works to criticize the backgrowth of isnds, we will add themaw#t books of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and Amad b. al-iddq al-Ghumr(d. 1960), which identify numerous instances ofNormativeMatn Addition, to the #ilalworks examined in this article.

43 Other maw#tworks include al-\asan b. Muammad al-aghns (d.650/1252) Risla f al-adth al-maw#a and his Maw#t, Ibn Qayyim al-

Jawziyyas (d. 751/1350) al-Manr al-munf fal-awal-a#fand his Naqd al-manql wal-maakk al-mumayyiz bayn al-mardd wal-maqbl, two small treatisesby Jaml al-Dn Muammad hir al-iddqal-Fann(d. 986/1578-9), Shamsal-Dn Ab#Abdallh Muammad b. Ysuf al-lis (d. 942/1536) al-Faw"idal-majm#a fbayn al-adth al-maw#a, the Kashf al-ilh #an shadd al-a#f wal-

maw# wal-whby Muammad b. Muammad al-arbulusal-Sands(d.1177/1763-4), Mull al-Qrs (d. 1014/1606) al-Asrr al-marf# fal-adth al-maw#aand al-Man#a fma#rifat al-adth al-maw#a, Muammad b. #Alal-Shawkns (d. 1839) al-Faw"id al-majm#a fal-adth al-maw#aand #Abd al-\ayy al-Laknaws (d. 1886-7) Kitb al-thr al-marf#a f al-akhbr al-maw#a;al-Kattn, al-Risla al-mustarafa, 117-19.

44 Al-\usayn b. Ibrhm al-Jawzaqn, al-Abl wal-mankr wal-iwal-mashhr, ed. Muammad \asan Muammad (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1422/2001), 23, 30. Al-Jawzaqn is responsible for the earliestinstance I have found of a scholar asserting that the contents of a adth canrender it false and impugn its transmitters; he states, every adth thatcontradicts (bi-khilf) the sunna is cast away (matrk) and the person whosays it ana-thema [as a transmitter] (mahjr); ibid., 89-90.


18/41

jonathan brown18

Detecting the Backgrowth ofIsnds in the Late 3rd/9th Century:Ab Zur #aandAb \tim al-Rz

For Muslim scholars of the 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries, thegreat political and scholarly center of Rayy was an unavoidable

way-station along the Silk Road from Baghdad to Khursn,Transoxiana and beyond.

In the 3rd/9th century, two of the citys scholars emerged as

institutions of Sunni adth study. The critical methodologies ofAb Zur#a al-Rz(d. 264/878) and his friend and colleague Ab\tim al-Rz (d. 277/890) have survived primarily because theywere dutifully set down by the latters son, #Abd al-Ramn Ibn

Ab\tim al-Rz(d. 327/938). His #Ilal al-adthcontains thousandsof narrations in which either his father, Ab Zur#a, or both, foundsome flaw. Inappropriate Normative Matn Addition appears as a

common problem. The book demonstrates that, when faced with

competing Companion and Prophetic narrations of a adth, AbZur#a and Ab\tim selected the one that enjoyed the preponderanceof evidence or expert opinion.45

Although the two Rzs never mention their contemporary col-lectors, the generation that produced the Six Books, they declare

that some reports considered marf# by Ibn \anbal (d. 241/855),Ibn Mjah (d. 273/886) and al-Nas" (d. 303/915) are actually

mawqf. In one case, for example, the two Rzs dismiss the Propheticversion of a report because the trustworthy transmitters (thiqt)support the Companionversion. In dismissing the Prophetic version,

they break with Ibn \anbal and al-Nas", who chose the Propheticisnds.46 In three other cases, Ab Zur#a and Ab\tim feel that

45 This conclusion is based on a total of 33 cases in which Ab\tim andAb Zur#a declared that inappropriate NormativeMatn Addition had occurredand that the mawqf version of the adth was correct. See Ab \tim al-Rz, #Ilal al-adth, 2 vols. (Baghdad: Maktabat al-Muthann, [1971]); 1:17(#15); 1:53 (#133); 1:71 (#191); 1:67 (#175); 1:80 (#215); 1:89 (#238); 1:96(#259); 1:96 (#261); 1:112 (#303 and #307); 1:122 (#334); 1:124 (#340);2:272 (#2313), and cases listed below.

46 Ibn Ab\tim, al-#Ilal, 1:28-9 (#49). This adth is transmitted throughBishr b. al-Mufaal Dwd b. AbHind Ab al-Zubayr Muammadal-Makk Jbir b. #Abdallh Prophet: #alkull muslim ghusl fsab#at ayymkull jum#a. Ibn \anbal has this adth marf# through isnds mentioned by Ab\tim with a slight inversion in the matn; Musnad Ibn \anbal: 3:304. Al-Nas"has it marf# with the same isnd with the addition of \umayd b. Mas#ada


19/41


reports accepted by Ibn \anbal or Ibn Mjah as Prophetic adthswere also instances of inappropriate Normative Matn Addition and

thus cases in which isnds had been pushed backwards.47 Clearly

critics like the Rzs were dealing with competingmarf# and mawqfnarrations, each of which often enjoyed support from the respected

experts of previous generations. In one case, for example, Ab\tim and Ab Zur#a note that, although the mawqfversion is thecorrect one (a), there are reliable marf# versions as well.48

Continuing Criticism in the 4th/10th Century: Ibn #Ammrandal-Draqun

The study of #ilal and identifying the backgrowth of isnds thrivedin the 4th/10th century, when the most famous #ilal works wereproduced.

In fact, this period saw two adth scholars pen critiques of al-

Bukhrs and Muslims as. Ibn #Ammr al-Shahd (d. 317/929-30), a scholar of Herat who was killed in a Qarmatian attack on

Mecca while performing pilgrimage, composed a small #ilal workon Muslims collection. Out of thirty-six flawed narrations culled

from Muslims a, Ibn #Ammr notes three instances of isndsgrowing backwards. In each case, the author details the various

between him and Bishr as well as a slightly expanded matn; Sunan al-Nas":kitb al-jum#a, bb jb al-ghusl yawm al-jum#a.

47 Ab\tim favors the mawqfversion of a adth on what to do if youare praying and feel an impending release of gas (the report is fa-man wajadaminkum fbanihi rizzan). Ibn \anbal has this narration as marf# (Musnad Ibn\anbal: 1:88, 99). See Ibn Ab \tim, al-#Ilal, 1:31-2 (#59). In the secondcase (the report is al-hirr sab#a), Ab\tim says that the mawqf narration

is more correct than the marf# one. Ibn \anbal has the same transmissionbut extends it all the way to the Prophet (Musnad Ibn \anbal: 2:442). See Ab\tim, al-#Ilal, 1:44 (#98). In the third case, the adth two types of deadanimals and two types of blood have been made licit for you (ullat lakummaytatn wa damn), the two Rzs feel that the mawqf narration is morecorrect, although Ibn Mjah has it marf# through the same isnd (Sunan IbnMjah: kitb al-a#ima, bb al-kabid wal-il). See Ibn Ab\tim, al-#Ilal, 2:17(#1524).

48 Ibn Ab \tim, al-#Ilal, 1:26. The usage of the word a here maybe misleading to readers accustomed to its meaning of authentic in thecontext of adth. Here, however, it simply indicates that this version bestrepresents the true nature of the report - regardless of whether or not thereport is actually an authentic adth.


20/41

jonathan brown20

transmitters who communicated the marf# and mawqfversions beforepresenting the decisive opinion of an expert critic from the 2nd/

8th century. Like #Alb. al-Madn, Ibn #Ammr criticizes a statement

forbidding Muslims from eating the meat of sacrificed animals morethan three days after the slaughter as the backgrowth of an isnd.Ibn #Ammr quotes the early adth critic and jurisprudent Sufynal-Thawr (d. 161/778) as responding to a question about theProphetic version of the report by saying, I have not recorded it

as marf#.49 In another report the Prophet prays, May God ordainupon you the prayer of a people upright, worshiping throughout

the night, fasting the days, neither iniquitous nor eschewers of right.

Ibn #Ammr accuses the Transoxianan scholar #Abd b. \umayd (d.249/863-4) of pushing the isnd of this report back from theCompanion Anas b. Mlik to the Prophet.50 Ibn #Ammr also criticizesMuslims only narration of a adth about the inhabitants of heavenand hell being presented with Death in the form of a goat, which

is then slaughtered to demonstrate the eternity of their respectiveconditions. Relying on the testimony of the 2nd/8th-century adthscholar Sulaymn b. Mihrn al-A#mash (d. 148/765), Ibn #Ammrshows that this was a statement made by the Companion Ab Sa#dal-Khudr, not the Prophet.51

One of the most respected and critically stringent adth scholarsof the 4th/10th century was #Alb. #Umar al-Draqunof Baghdad(d. 385/995). He composed two #ilal works, one on the corpus ofadths he received from his teacher Ibrhm b. al-\usayn al-Karaj(d.c. 370/980) and one on the contents of the aayn.52 This latterwork, the Kitb al-tatabbu#, was not polemical and did not serve asa vehicle for al-Draqunto advance his own legal, ritual or dogmaticopinions at the expense of al-Bukhr and Muslim. Rather, the

work was a technical criticism in which al-Draqun juxtaposedhis own methodology ofadth evaluation with those of two scholars

49 Ab al-Fal Ibn #Ammr al-Shahd, #Ilal al-adth f kitb al-a li-Muslim b. al-\ajjj, ed. #Alb. \asan al-\alab(Riyadh: Dr al-Hijra, 1412/1991), 95.

50 Ibid., 131.51 Ibid., 132-3; cf. a al-Bukhr: kitb al-tafsr, srat 19 bb 1 / Fat al-

br # 4730; a Muslim: kitb al-janna wa ifat na#mih, bb al-nr yadkhuluhal-jabbrn wal-janna yadkhuluh al-u#af".

52 Al-Khab, Trkh Baghdd, 6:56-7.


21/41


whom he studied intensively and clearly admired greatly.53 The

Kitb al-tatabbu# thus provides a fascinating account of a scholardebating the backgrowth of isnds for certain adths more than a

century after they had won the approval of the great experts al-Bukhrand Muslim.

Like the two Rzs, al-Draqunwas highly suspicious of NormativeMatn Addition. If a marf# version of a report coexisted with amawqf one, he did not accept the Prophetic version unless it wascorroborated by the majority of the narrations of that adth orcertified by the overwhelming expertise of master critics like al-

A#mash.54 Of 217 narrations that he criticizes in the aayn, al-Draqunnotes fifteen instances of inappropriate Normative Matn

Addition in which isnds had been pushed back to the Prophet. Forexample, Muslims sole narration of a adth in which the Prophetexplains that God will grant the believers a vision of Himself on the

Day of Judgment without any separation, al-Draqunargues, isactually the words of the Successor #Abd al-Ramn Ibn AbLayl(d. 82/701-2).55 In reaching this conclusion, al-Draqunwas notonly overturning Muslims decision on this report; other prominent

adth scholars had also declared this adth marf#. Al-Tirmidhincluded it as the words of the Prophet in his Jmi# (although henotes that a mawqf version also exists).56 Ibn Mjah presents the

53 Brown, Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon, 16 ff. Al-Bukhrs #ilalwork has unfortunately been lost. We can glean a few indications of hisstance on Normative Matn Addition from his extant writings. He states thatone narration adding a phrase in the matn of a adth (Literal Matn Addition)is allowed if the addition can be substantiated (idh thabata). He makes nomention of competing narrations; al-Bukhr, Kitb raf# al-yadayn f al-alt,131-3.

54 Brown, Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon, 31-33.55 #Alb. #Umar al-Draqun, Kitb al-ilzmt wal-tatabbu#, ed. Muqbil b.

Hdal-Wdi#(Medina: al-Maktaba al-Salafiyya, [1978]), 266-7. This adthis found in a Muslim: kitb al-imn, bb ithbt ru"yat al-mu"minn f al-khirarabbahum. The report is When the people of Paradise enter Paradise, Godmost high will say do you wish Me to grant you anything else, and they willrespond, Have you not honored our countenances, granted us entry into theGarden and saved us from Hellfire? Then God will remove His veil, andthey will never be granted anything dearer to them than gazing at their Lordmost glorious (idhdakhala ahl al-janna al-janna qla qla yaqlu Allh tabraka wa

ta#l turdn shay"

an

uzdukum fa-yaqln a-lam tubayyi wujhan a-lam tudkhilnal-janna wa tunajjin min al-nr, qla fa-yakshifu al-ijb fa-m u# shay"an aabbailayhim min al-naar il rabbihim #azza wa jall).

56 Jmi# al-Tirmidh: kitb ifat al-janna, bb m j"a fru"yat al-rabb tabraka wata#l.


22/41

jonathan brown22

Prophetic version as the correct one. Ibn \anbal also offers onlythe marf# version.57 Al-Draqun thus reveals the backgrowth ofan isnd found in four of the most respected or well-known adth

collections of the 3rd/9th century.In his much larger Kitb al-#ilal, which consists of 2,336 criticized

narrations, al-Draqun notes that certain narrations of adthsattributed to the Prophet in the canonical Six Books were actually

the words of Companions. He asserts, for example, that the correct

narration of a report the witrprayer is enjoined upon every Muslim(al-witraqq #alkull muslim) is mawqf. Those that have it maw-

qf, he explains, are more reliable than those who have itmarf#. Ab Dwd (d. 275/888) and Ibn Mjah, however, includeit as a Prophetic adth in their Sunans. Only al-Nas", widelyconsidered to be the third most critically demanding compiler, after

al-Bukhrand Muslim, notes that the mawqf version is correct.58

Al-Draqunalso concludes that the report attributed to the Prophetthrough Ab Hurayra Sa#d b. Musayyab, that the molar ofthe unbeliever on the Day of Resurrection will be greater than

[Mount] Uud (irs al-kfir yawm al-qiyma a#am min Uud) isproperly mawqf.59 However, both Ibn \anbal and Ibn Mjah hadselected Prophetic versions of this report for their collections.60

The Triumph of Legal Theorists and the Categorical Acceptance of Prophetic

Versions

Many prominent adth critics of the 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuriesproved much laxer with NormativeMatn Addition than Ab\tim

57 Sunan Ibn Mjah: kitb al-muqaddima, bb m ankarat al-jahmiyya; Musnad

Ibn \anbal: 6:16.58 Al-Draqun, al-#Ilal al-wrida f al-adth al-nabawiyya, ed. Maf al-

Ramn al-Salaf, 11 vols. (Riyadh: Dr al-ayba, 1405/1985-1416/1996),6:100. See Sunan AbDwd: kitb al-witr, bb kam al-witr; Sunan Ibn Mjah: kitbiqmat al-alt, bb m j"a f al-witr bi-thalth wa khams (subchapter #123); Sunanal-Nas": kitb qiym al-layl wa taawwu# al-nahr, bb dhikr al-ikhtilf #alal-Zuhrf adth Ab Ayyb f al-witr.

59 Al-Draqun, al-#Ilal al-wrida f al-akhbr al-nabawiyya, 9:177.60 Musnad Ibn \anbal: 2:328, 334, 537 [through #A" b. Yasr Ab

Hurayra Prophet] and another with a slightly different matn with this sameisnd; Sunan Ibn Mjah: kitb al-zuhd, ifat al-nr [this version has an invertedword order in the matn, and its isnd goes through #Aiyya al-#Awf AbSa#d al-Khudr Prophet].


23/41


al-Rz, Ab Zur#a al-Rz, Ibn #Ammr and al-Draqun. Whilethese latter scholars only accepted Addition when the Prophetic

version enjoyed the preponderance of expert evidence, others allowed

one narrator to break with the predominant version of a report andattribute it to the Prophet as long as that narrator was reliable

(thiqa).

Perhaps the earliest example of this less strict school of adthevaluation was al-Tirmidh, who accepted the attribution of additionalmaterial to the Prophet provided it was done by a reliable adthmaster (fi).61 The compiler of one of the last collections limitedto authentic adths, Ibn \ibbn al-Bust (d. 354/965), explainsthat the Prophetic version of a report presented by a transmitter is

acceptable even if others identified it as mawqf elsewhere so longas the first transmitter is upstanding (#adl).62

A student of Ibn \ibbn and the first great systematizer of theSunni adth tradition, Ab #Abdallh Muammad al-\kim al-

Naysbr(d. 405/1014), was also lax in rejecting Normative MatnAddition. He declared, in fact, that no Addition made by a reliabletransmitter (thiqa) should be considered a flaw (#illa) in a adth.63

In his landmark treatise on the science of adth collection andcriticism, Ma#rifat #ulm al-adth, al-\kim instructs his readers totreat as Prophetic a report that may appear as mawqfbut is reallymarf# (musnada fal-al).64 This was tantamount to accepting all but

the most blatant instances of inappropriate NormativeMatn Addition,since a critic could elevate what others considered a Companion

report to Prophetic status provided he believed that the Prophetic

version was the original one.

As a result, only the most egregious instances ofisndbackgrowthalarmed al-\kim. His student, Ab Ya#l al-Khall(d. 446/1054),reports that al-\kim had heard the following mawqf report froma pillar ofadth scholarship in Naysbr, Ab al-#Abbs al-Aamm(d. 346/957), attributed to the Companion #Abdallh b. #Amr: the

61 Ibn Rajab, Shar #Ilal al-Tirmidh, 1:419.62 Ibn \ibbn, a Ibn \ibbn bi-tartb al-Amr #Al" al-Dn al-Fris, ed.

Amad Muammad Shkir (Cairo: Dr al-Ma#rif, [1952]), 1:119; idem,#Ilalal-akhbr wa ma#rifat ruwt al-thr (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 2001), 418.

63 Al-\kim al-Naysbr, al-Mustadrak#alal-aayn, ed. Muqbil b. Hdal-Wdi#, 5 vols. (Cairo: Dr al-\aramayn, 1417/1997), 1:39-40.

64 Al-\kim al-Naysbr, Ma#rifat #ulm al-adth, 26-7.


24/41

jonathan brown24

son of Adam will share half the punishment of the people of Hellfire

in proper proportion (Ibn $dam yuqsimu nif #adhb ahl al-nr qismatan

ian). Two years later, however, al-Khallheard al-\kim mention

that he had heard the same report from a fellow scholar in Isfahanas a adth attributed to the Prophet. When al-Khallasked histeacher to transmit the Prophetic version to him, al-\kim refused,explaining, I stand by what I read from him [al-Aamm] as amawqf report.65 The Prophetic version, however, was already sodubious that neither the compilers of the Six Books nor Ibn \anbalhad included it in their collections. Rejecting it as a case of the

backgrowth of isnds is thus hardly a testament to al-\kims se-lectivity.

Ibn \ibbns and al-\kims more permissive attitude towardsNormativeMatn Addition resonated with prominent adth scholarsstrongly associated with specific schools of law. The Mlik juristand adth scholar of Lisbon, Ibn #Abd al-Barr (d. 463/1071), states

in his mammoth commentary on the Muwaa" (Kitb al-Tamhd)that the Additions (ziydt) of the adth masters (uff) concerningthe text of reports are acceptable (maqbla).66 His Shfi#contemporaryin Khursn, Ab Bakr al-Bayhaq(d. 458/1066), also demonstrateda latitudinarian approach to competing Prophetic and Companion

reports. In his massive compendium of adth buttressing Shfi#substantive law,the Sunan al-kubr, al-Bayhaqsometimes acknowledges

that mawqfnarrations exist alongside Prophetic ones. But he generallyfavors the Prophetic versions.67 Although al-Bayhaqwas a tremendousscholar ofadth, he was first and foremost a dedicated adherentof the Shfi#/Ash#arschool of law and legal theory. His attitude

65 Al-Khall b. #Abdallh al-Khall, al-Irshd fma#rifat#ulam"al-adth, ed.

#$mir Amad \aydar (Mecca: Dr al-Fikr, 1414/1993), 326.66 Ab #Umar Ysuf Ibn #Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhd li-m f al-Muwaa" minal-ma#nwa l-asnd, ed. Muaf b. Amad al-#Alawand Muammad #Abdal-Kabr al-Bakr, 2nd ed., 26 vols. ([Rabat]: Wizrat #Umm al-Awqf wal-Shu"n al-Islmiyya, 1402/1982, 1st edition 1387/1967), 8:267.

67 See notes 28 and 98, where al-Bayhaq favors the marf# versions. Inone case he invokes the expert opinion of#Abdallh b. \arb to bolster supportfor the marf#reports. For an instance where al-Bayhaqfeels that the Companion

version of the report Indeed marriage is servitude, so be wary of where youenslave your free maiden (innam al-nik riqq fal-yanur aadukum ayna yaruqqu#atqatahu), attributed to Asm" bt. AbBakr, is more reliable than the Prophetic

versions, see al-Bayhaq, al-Sunan al-kubr, 7:133 (kitb al-nik, bb man takhallli-#ibdat Allh idh lam tattaqi nafsuhu il al-nik).


25/41


towards competing marf# and mawqf reports reflected the stanceemerging as mainstream among legal theorists in his school and

others in the 5th/11th century.

This stance privileged the practical epistemological needs of juristsand legal theorists over the critical methodology of stringent adthcritics. For jurists and legal theorists of the 5th/11th century, the

question of competing Prophetic and Companion narrations was

an undesirable distraction.68 In the early development of the Sunni

legal tradition, Companion opinions had been an important con-

sideration in establishing rulings. Once the \anaf, Shfi#, Mlikand \anbalschools of law had matured, however, none of themgranted Companion opinions authority approaching that of Prophetic

adths. If a jurist could determine that a report was the words ofthe Prophet and not those of a lesser figure, its authority and legal

utility increased dramatically. A Prophetic report could restrict or

modify Qur"nic rulings as well as govern worship and dogma.

Many jurists and legal theorists thus adopted the stance ofadthcritics like Ibn \ibbn, who accepted Normative Matn Additionunconditionally, provided the transmitter of that narration was

reliable. The great Shfi#/Ash#arjurist of Baghdad, Ab Isq al-Shrz, thus maintained that the existence of competingmarf# andmawqfnarrations posed no threat to the reliability of the Prophetic

version; scholars should accept the Prophetic version as authoritative.

He noted that this position differs from that of some adth scholars(ab al-adth), who consider the competing mawqfnarrations tobe damning (qad) for the Prophetic report.69

Al-Shrz reveals the functionalist motivation for categoricallyaccepting the Prophetic version by turning to a rational principle

embedded in the Near Eastern composite of classical Islamic thought.

68 Interestingly, when rigorous critics like al-Draqun revealed that aProphetic report was really mawqf, a small window was opened up for juriststo rehabilitate this adth. The \anafjurist and adth scholar 4iy" al-Dn

Ab \af #Umar al-Mawil (d. 622/1225) devoted an unusual treatise torescuing those adths al-Draqunand Ibn al-Jawzhad proven to be mawqfin their #ilal works. Al-Mawilexplains that these reports may indeed haveoriginally been the statements of Companions, but this means that they may

still possess some legal utility. \adths that are patent forgeries (maw#t)have no legal weight, while Companion reports are admissible as evidence inderiving legal rulings among jurists; 4iy" al-Dn Ab\af#Umar al-Mawil,al-Wuqf #al al-mawqf, Ms. Ahmet III 624, fol. 230b.

69 Al-Shrz, al-Tabira, 325.


26/41

jonathan brown26

The scholar invokes the axiom that in matters of epistemology,

the affirmative supersedes the negative (al-muthbit muqaddam #al al-nffal-#ilm).70 In other words, all things being equal, a report that

increases the absolute amount of knowledge about law and doctrinein the Muslim community supersedes a report that offers no additional

knowledge. Ab al-Muaffar al-Sam#n (d. 489/1096), a youngercontemporary of al-Shrzfrom Khursn who defected from the\anaf to the Shfi# school, reiterates the acceptability of takingthe Prophetic version of a report. He explains that a Companion

may quote the Prophet on one occasion and paraphrase him on

another when delivering his own legal ruling (fatw). Al-Sam#nadds that one should treat competing Companion/Prophetic nar-

rations of the same adth in the same manner as one would treattwo totally different adths. The Prophetic version is thus admissibleregardless of how numerous or well attested the Companion counter-

parts are.71

The general acceptance of Normative Matn Addition was echoedby al-Shrzs \anbal contemporary in jurisprudence and legaltheory, Ab Ya#l Ibn al-Farr" of Baghdad (d. 458/1066).72 AMlikof Baghdad from the same period, Ab al-Wald al-Bj(d.474/1081), also accepted Addition to the text of a report (al-z"id

70 Al-Shrz, Kitb al-ma#na f al-jadal, ed. #Abd al-Majd Turk (Beirut:Dr al-Gharb al-Islm, 1408/1988), 162-3. The earliest articulation of thisprinciple that I have found appears in Ab Ja#far Amad b. Muammad al-aws (d. 321/933) Shar ma#n al-thr, oddly in the context of LiteralMatn Addition. Here al-awfavors the narration with Addition over theone without it because the narration adding supersedes the one lacking (al-z"id awl min al-nqi); Ab Ja#far al-aw, Shar ma#n al-thr, ed.Muammad Zahral-Najjr, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1421/

2001), 1:23. For instances of this principle being employed in the context ofclaims made in a debate (in which, all things being equal, the person makinga claim trumps the person rejecting it) in both the sixth/twelfth century andthe twentieth, see Majd al-Dn al-Mubrak b. Muammad Ibn al-Athr, Jmi#al-ul fadth al-Rasl, ed. #Abd al-Qdir al-Arn", 15 vols. ([n.p.]: Dr al-Mal 1389/1969), 1:162; Amad b. al-iddq al-Ghumr, #Al ibn Ablibimm al-#rifn aw al-Burhn al-jal f taqq intisb al-fiyya il #Al, ed. AmadMuammad Murs (Cairo: Maktabat al-Qhira, [n.d]), 183.

71 Ab al-Muaffar Manr b. Muammad al-Sam#n, Qawi# al-adilla ful al-fiqh, ed. #Abdallh b. \fi al-\akam, 5 vols. (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Tawba, 1418/1998), 2:463; cf. al-an#n, Taw al-afkr, 1:340.

72 Ab Ya#l Ibn al-Farr", al-#Udda ful al-fiqh, ed. Amad b. #AlSr al-Mubrak, 3 vols. (Beirut: Mu"assasat al-Risla, 1400/1980), 3:1011.


27/41


min al-akhbr). If the report adding knowledge were dealt with on itsown merits, he explains, scholars would accept and employ it. Any

critic who would accept the marf# report if it were narrated in

isolation must thus also accept the report when it is a case ofAddition to another narration.73 This stance offered the jurists

tremendous utility. For example, in the face of nine mawqfnarrationsof a report and only one marf# version, they could dismiss themajority Companion versions and take the lone Prophetic narration.

These 5th/11th-century jurists and legal theorists received validation

for their position from al-Khab al-Baghdd (d. 463/1071). Thistowering figure in adth scholarship sought to build a bridge betweenthe ahl al-adth traditionists and the more theoretically inclineddevotees of the Shfi#/Ash#arschool. His Kitb al-faqh wa"l-mutafaqqihthus attempts to digest and present the system of Shfi#/Ash#arlegal theory in the transmission-based language ofadth scholars.In other writings, al-Khab urges adth scholars to better understand

and appreciate the complementary role ofadth scholars and jurists.In this vein, he presents his readers with stories of collaborationbetween the archetypal jurist Ab\anfa and the adth transmitterSulaymn b. Mihrn al-A#mash.74

In his hugely influential treatise on the discipline of adthtransmission and criticism, al-Kifya f#ilm al-riwya, al-Khab backsthe jurists stance on NormativeMatn Addition in the face of resistance

from adth scholars. He acknowledges that the majority ofadthscholars (muaddithn) treats the mawqf narration as the correct

version and view the marf# narration as an erroneous attribution tothe Prophet. Al-Khab argues, however, that the existence of acompeting Companion report does not affect the provenance of

the Prophetic one. After all, the Companion version may represent

the Companions fatw, and thus the two reports represent twototally different instances of speech. He describes how Sufyn b.

73 Ab al-Wald Sulaymn b. Khalaf al-Bj, al-Ishra f ul al-fiqh, ed.#$dil Amad #Abd al-Mawjd and #AlMuammad #Awa (Riyadh: MaktabatNizr Muaf al-Bz, 1418/1997), 239.

74 Here Ab\anfa answers a legal question in the presence of al-A#mash,who then inquires as to how he arrived at that response. Ab\anfa replies,From one of your adths, to which al-A#mash responds, Yes, we are thepharmacists and you are the doctors; al-Khab, Naat li-ahl al-adth,inMajm#at al-ras"il f#ulm al-adth, ed. ubal-Badral-Smarr"(Medina:al-Maktaba al-Salafiyya, 1389/1969), 33.


28/41

jonathan brown28

#Uyayna used to narrate a adth from the Prophet and an identicalfatwfrom a Companion without considering the two reports related.75

Al-Khabs efforts to straddle the divide between jurists and adth

critics manifested itself in his other writings on Normative MatnAddition. In his Tamyz al-mazd f muttail al-asnd (now lost), heapparently adopted a position closer to that of the adth scholarshe mentioned in the Kifya.The 8th/14th-century \anbalscholarZayn al-Dn Ibn Rajab (d. 795/1392) explains how al-Khabsefforts to be all things to all people angered some adth scholars,who rejected his adoption of the legal theorists stance in his Kifya,as well as the legal theorists, who rejected his position in the Tamyz.76

In his evaluation ofadths in the Trkh Baghdd, al-Khab assumesan approach similar to that of al-\kim al-Naysbr; he rejectsonly the more flagrant backgrowth of isnds.77

Al-Khabs pro-jurist stance on Normative Matn Addition wasadopted by the major architects of the later Sunni adth tradition.

The Mlikal-Q #Iy b. Ms (d. 544/1149) recognized thatthe majority of jurists (fuqah") and legal theorists (uliyyn) acceptedAddition unconditionally, provided the narrator of the Prophetic

report was trustworthy. Al-Q #Iy omitted any note ofadthscholar dissent.78 In his definitive treatise on the adth sciences,Ibn al-al (d. 643/1245) categorically adopted the legal theorists

75 Al-Khab, al-Kifya, 449, 456.76 Ibn Rajab, Shar#Ilal al-Tirmidh, 1:428. Here the modern adth scholar

Nr al-Dn #Itr suggests that al-Khab was not altering his position becausethe Tamyz was devoted to the question of Isnd Addition. Since we do nothave access to the Tamyz, however, we are dependent on Ibn Rajabs analysisof its content. Because he felt it was appropriate to mention the book in thecontext of Normative Matn Addition, it seems likely that the work actuallyaddressed this issue at least in part.

77 Al-Khab notes, for example, that the correct version of the little-known Prophetic adth never did two men love one another for [the sakeof God] (m tabba rajuln fAllh) is mawqf. He also notes the correctmawqfversions of Ab Dwds frequently criticized adth (mentioned above)on not answering the call to prayer (Sa#d b. al-Jubayr Ibn #Abbs Prophet: man sami#a al-nid" fa-lam yujib fa-l alt lahu) as well as a adthon buying fish that Ibn \anbal included in his Musnad as marf# ( Yazd b.

Ab Ziyd

Musayyib b. Rfi#

#Abdallh b. Mas#d

Prophet: ltashtaral-samak fal-m"fa-innahu gharar;Musnad Ibn \anbal: 1:288); al-Khab,Trkh Baghdd, 6:282-3; 2:446; 9:446-7.

78 Al-Q #Iy b. Ms, Ikml al-Mu#lim bi-faw"id Muslim, ed. YayIsm#l, 9 vols. (Mansoura, Egypt: Dr al-Waf", 1419/1998), 1:102.


29/41


position as articulated by al-Khab. Regardless of competingCompanion reports, the Prophetic version should be taken as correct

because the affirmative supersedes the negative in matters of legal

epistemology.79Almost every major Shfi#adth figure upheld thecategorical acceptability of taking the Prophetic version, provided

its transmitter was reliable, among them al-Nawaw(d. 676/1277),Ibn Jam#a (d. 733/1333), Jaml al-Dn al-Mizz (d. 742/1341),Zayn al-Dn al-#Irq (d. 806/1404), Ibn al-Jazar (d. 833/1429),Shams al-Dn al-Sakhw (d. 902/1497), Jall al-Dn al-Suy (d.911/1505) and Shaykh al-Islm Zakariyy al-Anr(d. 926/1520).In the words of al-Anr, the transmitter [of the Prophetic version]is affirming and thus supersedes the person negating it (i.e., narrating

the mawqf version).80 The Mlik scholar of Marrakesh, Ibn al-Qan (d. 628/1231), seems to have followed al-Khab al-Baghddin upholding the categorical acceptance of Addition by trustworthy

transmitters. Ibn al-Qan stated that this is the opinion of most

of the legal theorists and a party from among the scholars ofadth.Like al-Shrzand Ibn al-al, he explained that the transmitternarrating the Prophetic version has preserved knowledge (afia)that the transmitters of the mawqfnarration have not.81 The \anafscholar of Herat, Ab al-Fay al-Fa al-Haraw (d. 837/1434)also followed Ibn al-al, stating that Addition by a reliable narrator

79 Ibn al-al, Muqaddimat Ibn al, 229.80 Muyal-Dn Ab Zakariyy Yay al-Nawaw, SharaMuslim, 15

vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Qalam, 1407/1987), 1:145; idem, al-Taqrb lil-Nawaw(Cairo: Maktabat Muammad #Al ubay, 1388/1968), 11; Badr al-DnMuammad b. Ibrhm Ibn Jam#a, Manhal al-rw f #ulm al-adth al-nabaw,ed. Muammad al-Sayyid N (Mansoura, Egypt: Dr al-Waf", 1402/1981),167; al-Subk, abaqt al-shfi#iyya, 10:424 (biography of al-Mizz); al-#Irq,Al-Taqyd wal- li-m uliqa wa ughliqa min Muqaddimat Ibn al-al, ed.Muammad #Abdallh Shhn (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1420/1999),79; idem, al-Tabira wal-tadhkira, 1:178; al-Sakhw, Fat al-mughth, 1:219;idem, al-Ghya f shar al-Hidya, ed. Ab #$"ish #Abd al-Mun#im Ibrhm([Cairo]: Maktabat Awld al-Shaykh, 1422/2001), 178; al-Suy, Tadrb al-rw, ed. #Izzat #Al#Aiyya and Ms Muammad #Al, 2 vols. (Cairo: Maba#at\assn, 1980), 1:276; Zakariyy al-Anr, Fat al-bq bi-shar Alfiyyat al-#Irq, ed. Than"allh al-Zhid (Beirut: Dr Ibn \azm, 1420/1999), 162.

81

Ibn al-Qan, Bayn, 5:351, 430. For these citations and indispensableassistance in navigating Ibn al-Qans magnum opus, I am indebted to MuafAb Sufyns extremely useful treatise $r" Ibn al-Qan al-Fs f #ilm mualaal-adth min khill kitbihi Bayn al-wahm wal-hm (Rabat: Maba#at al-Ma#rifal-Jadda, 2002).


30/41

jonathan brown30

(ziydat al-thiqa) is accepted categorically by the majority of juristsand adth scholars.82 The great Indian \anaf adth scholar ofthe nineteenth century, #Abd al-\ayy al-Laknaw (d. 1304/1886-

7), also advocated the categorical acceptability of a marf# narrationregardless of competing mawqf versions, provided the former hada reliable isnd.83

The Survival of the\adthCritical Methodology

Although central figures in the Sunni adth tradition such as al-Khab al-Baghddand Ibn al-al validated the jurists pragmaticbut uncritical acceptance of Normative Matn Addition, a series of

adth scholars continued to uphold the rigorous approach of theRzs and al-Draqun.

Majd al-Dn Ibn al-Athr(d. 606/1210) estimated that while juristsaccepted Normative Matn Addition by a trustworthy narrator

regardless of opposing evidence, many adth scholars still maintainedthat the mawqfreport was the correct version.84 For them, a adthcritic must choose the correct version of the report by examining

the totality of its existing narrations rather than relying on a fixed

rule of acceptance. If the majority of the reliable narrations of the

adth were from a Companion, a Prophetic version was of dubiousprovenance. The great \anbalscholar and preacher of Baghdad,Ibn al-Jawz (d. 597/1200), attempted to walk a critical middleground on the backgrowth of isnds. He explained that a mawqfnarration presents no inherent threat to the authenticity of a marf#

version. Only when the majority of narrations are mawqf does asolitary marf# version lose its reliability. He thus accepted Normative

Matn Addition, except in circumstances in which it was clearly a

minority opinion.85

Shams al-Dn al-Dhahab(d. 748/1348) seconded

82 Ab al-Fay Muammad b. Muammad al-Fa al-Haraw, Jawhiral-ul f#ilm adth al-Rasl, ed. Ab al-Ma#lAhar al-Mubrakfr(Medina:al-Maktaba al-#Ilmiyya, [1973]), 38.

83 #Abd al-\ayy al-Laknaw, afar al-amn bi-shar mukhtaar al-sayyid al-sharf al-Jurjn, ed. #Abd al-Fatt Ab Ghudda (Aleppo: Maktab al-Mab#t

al-Islmiyya, 1416/1996), 332-3.84 Ibn al-Athr, Jmi# al-ul, 1:170.85 #Abd al-Ramn Ibn al-Jawz, Kitb al-maw#t, ed. #Abd al-Ramn

Muammad #Uthmn, 3 vols. (Medina: al-Maktaba al-Salafiyya, 1386-88/1966-68), 1:34.


31/41


this moderate approach, as did his teacher Ibn Daqd al-#^d (d.702/1302). If a reliable transmitter narrates a Prophetic adth,but his colleagues have it as a Companion report, then a critic

should take the word of the majority. An individual, al-Dhahabexplains, may err. If both sides seem equal, then one should

present both versions in ones work.86 Similarly, Ibn Rajab favored

this emphasis on analyzing circumstances (qar"in) to determine thecorrect form of the report. A Prophetic version may be accepted

provided that it does not disagree with other Companion versions

that are more reliable.87 Khall b. Kaykaldal-#Al" (d. 761/1359)noted that the great early adth critics like al-Bukhrconsideredthe specific circumstances of each case of competing marf# andmawqfreports, acting on the best evidence and not some categoricalprinciple (q#ida) like the one advanced by al-Khab and Ibn al-al.88 The Yemeni Sunni, Ibn al-Wazr (d. 840/1436), reiteratedthe importance of considering circumstances (qar"in). The individual

adth critic must evaluate each case according to its merits.89

This approach received its most compelling support from the

Cairene Ibn \ajar al-#Asqaln (d. 852/1449). He stated thatNormative Matn Addition was acceptable only when it did not

differ with a more reliable Companion narration. Ibn \ajar, whodisapproved of the widespread unconditional acceptance of Addition

among jurists, expressed dismay that so many adth scholars from

his own Shfi# school upheld this notion. After all, a categoricalacceptance of Normative Matn Addition could lead to instances in

which a Prophetic narration contradicted more reliable mawqfversions, thus rendering it anomalous (shdhdh) and disqualifying itfrom an authentic (a) rating.90 One of Ibn \ajars students,

86 Al-Dhahab, al-Mqia f #ilm muala al-adth, ed. #Abd al-Fatt AbGhudda (Aleppo: Maktab al-Mab#t al-Islmiyya, 1405/[1984-1985]), 52;al-an#n, Taw al-afkr, 1:343. Al-Dhahab identifies numerous instancesof isnd backgrowth in his Mzn al-i#tidl; see al-Dhahab, Mzn al-i#tidl fnaqd al-rijl, ed. #AlMuammad al-Bajw, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dr al-Ma#rifa,[n.d.], reprint of 1963-4 Cairo #^s al-Bbal-\alabedition, citations are tothe Beirut edition), 1:90, 214, 251, 265.

87 Ibn Rajab, Shar #Ilal al-Tirmidh, 1:424, 429.88 Ibn \ajar, al-Nukat #al kitb Ibn al-al, 296.89 Ibn al-Wazr, Tanq al-anr, 139.90 Ibn \ajar,Nuzhat al-naar f tawNukhbat al-fikar fmualaahl al-athar,

ed. #Abd al-Sam# al-Ans and #Im Fris al-\arstn (Amman: Dr #Im,1419/1999), 45.


32/41

jonathan brown32

Ibrhm b. #Umar al-Biq# (d. 885/1480), espoused his teachersstance, but Ibn \ajars more influential protg, al-Sakhw, aban-doned it for the categorical acceptance of al-Khab, Ibn al-al

and the legal theorists.91The more critical trend in adth scholarship received its support

from scholars who specialized in the complexities of isndcriticism,like al-#Al"and Ibn Daqq, or from iconoclastic figures who werecommitted to rejuvenating the study ofadth as the centerpiece ofSunni Islam, like al-Dhahab and Ibn al-Wazr. The weightiestproponent of this stance on Normative Matn Addition was the great

Mamluk-era scholar Ibn \ajar.But even the advocacy of two giants like al-Dhahab and Ibn

\ajar cannot compete with the list of figures associated with thecategorical acceptance of NormativeMatn Addition. Al-Khab, Ibnal-al, al-Nawaw, al-Mizz, al-#Irq, al-Suy, al-Sakhw, al-

Anrand al-Laknaware recognized as scholars laureate of Sunnism

and its adth sciences. Ab Bakr b. Nuqa (d. 629/1231) elegizedal-Khab by stating, No one of sound thought can doubt that thelater scholars of adth are utterly dependent on (#iyl #al) AbBakr al-Khab.92 Ibn al-al penned the formative treatise onthe study ofadth that has served as the basis for almost all laterworks on the subject. His student al-Nawaw remains one of thetop authoritative references in the Shfi#school and among Sunnis

in general. Al-Suy played such a salient role in shaping laterSunnism that he has been described as the apex of religious

sciences,93 and al-Anrwas honored during his life with the titleShaykh al-Islm. Representing the efflorescence ofadth scholarshipin India in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, al-Laknawisperhaps the most cited adth master of the modern period.

91 Al-an#n, Taw al-afkr, 1:339-40. For al-Sakhws discussion ofthis issue, see his al-Ghya fsharal-Hidyaand his Fatal-mughth, n. 80. Thefamous \anafscholar, lexicographer, and Indian immigrant to Cairo Muam-mad Murta al-Zabd(d. 1791 CE) also seems to have followed Ibn \ajarsopinion. Al-Zabds stance, however, is not entirely clear; Muammad Murtaal-Zabd,Bulghat al-arb fmualathr al-abb, ed. #Abd al-Fatt Ab Ghudda(Beirut: Maktabat al-Mab#t al-Islmiyya, 1408/[1988]), 190-1.

92 Ab Bakr Muammad b. #Abd al-GhanIbn Nuqa al-Baghdd, Kitabal-Taqyd li-ma#rifat ruwt al-sunan wal-masnd, ed. Kaml Ysuf al-\t (Beirut:Dr al-Kutub al-#Ilmiyya, 1408/1988), 154.

93 E. Geoffroy, al-Suy, Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0.


33/41


The Continuation of#Ilal Criticism

Although it has remained the minority opinion, the continuation of

a more rigorous approach to the backgrowth ofisnds has manifesteditself in a small number of #ilalstudies produced after the 5th/11thcentury as well as several maw#t books.

One of the most independently c

Documents

Critical Rigor vs. Juridical Pragmatism_jonathan_brown