DATING MUSLIM TRADITIONS: A SURVEY - …clagsborough.uk/dating_muslim_traditions.pdf · DATING MUSLIM TRADITIONS: A SURVEY HARALD MOTZKI Introduction 1 Throughout the centuries Muslim

1 A first draft of this paper was read at the conference ldquoOacuteadigraveth Text and Historyrdquoorganized by the Center of Islamic Studies School of Oriental and African StudiesLondon March 1998 I wish to thank Dr Paul Hardy for the careful revision of myEnglish text

2 The term Oacuteadigrave∆ as I used it in this article means the sort of traditions found inthe pre-canonical collections such as Magravelikrsquos Muwadaggerdaggera It is not limited to traditions ofthe Prophet

3 A famous expression of the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886)

DATING MUSLIM TRADITIONSA SURVEY

HARALD MOTZKI

Introduction1

Throughout the centuries Muslim scholars have devoted themselves toOacuteadigrave∆ study for various reasons2 Legal theorists for example sought inOacuteadigrave∆ texts a source of law Others found in them moral and religiousinspiration Still others saw in the Oacuteadigrave∆ an important source for thehistory of early Islam The interests of scholars in the West have beenless varied Their interest in Muslim traditions has been almost exclu-sively historical They seek knowledge from the Oacuteadigrave∆ principally to findout what really happened (ldquowie es eigentlich gewesenrdquo )3 This is true notonly in the case of traditions purporting to recapitulate historical eventsIt is true for ˙adigrave∆s touching on legal exegetical and theological mat-ters as well In short the aim of occidental scholars has concentratedon ˙adigrave∆s as sources for the reconstruction of Islamic history the his-tory of events the history of jurisprudence of religious ideas and insti-tutions and exegesis of the Quragraven etc

For the history of early Islam the Oacuteadigrave∆ is certainly a source of primeimportance if only for the reason that there are not many other sourcesavailable A prerequisite of historical reconstruction is source criticismone of the methodological achievements of modern historical studies

copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2005 Arabica tome LII2Also available online ndash wwwbrillnl

arab_670_Motzki_204-253 32305 602 PM Page 204

205

Source criticism sets out to evaluate the sources available by checkingthe authenticity originality and accuracy of the sourcersquos informationalcontent4 Two examples may illustrate its importance Consider a doc-ument which although it purports to be a Genoese title-deed of theninth century of the common era (CE) can be proven to have beencomposed at Rome in the eleventh century of the same era and istherefore a fabrication Hence the reliability of its information onGenoa of the ninth century is uncertain The document can be usedhowever as source for aims and practices of forging documents atRome in the eleventh century Or consider a document which is trans-mitted by writing over a longer period of time Obviously it can undergoany number of changes That is passages can be omitted added ordistorted intentionally or not Such changes must be taken into accountand documented (if possible) if we wish to extract from the documentits original intention This is the task of source criticism

One aim of source criticism is the dating of documents When try-ing to determine the degree of reliability of a source the first questionsa historian usually asks are How far away in time and space is thesource from the event of which it informs us Are the date and placeof origin which the source assigns to itself correct Dating a source istherefore the first step in determining what historical use can be madeof it The methods which can be used to date a source depend on thecharacter of the source in question Consequently dating methods aremany and diverse In fact each historical discipline developed its ownmethods Scholars working in the field of early Islam likewise devel-oped methods adapted to their discipline Now whether the differentmethods they are using in dating ˙adigrave∆s are reliable is a matter of dis-pute But it is a dispute in which the participants are few given thatthe number of scholars who engage in the critical study of dating meth-ods is small All the same it is a dispute of the very first importancefor every scholar who works in the area of early Islam

In order to review the existing methods used in the studies con-cerned with Oacuteadigrave∆ I have classified them into four groups 1) methodswhich use the matn 2) dating on the basis of the collections where tra-ditions appear 3) dating on the basis of the isnagraved and 4) methods using

4 Cf JG Droysen Historik Vorlesungen uumlber Enzyklopaumldie und Methodologie der Geschichteed R Huumlbner Darmstadt 1972 98-99


206

5 A fifth category would be ldquomethods using other criteriardquo It is left for anotherarticle

6 I Goldziher Muhammedanische Studien Halle Max Niemeyer 1889-90 II 1-274English translation Muslim Studies trans CR Barber and SM Stern London GeorgeAllen amp Unwin 1971 II 1 ff

7 Goldziher Muhammedanische Studien II 6 (I quote the English translation accordingto the pagination of the German original given in the margins)

8 Ibid 5

matn and isnagraved5 In each group the approaches are not always the sameand can be further classified Additionally it must be said that schol-ars often use combinations of different methods For each method Ishall present one or more representatives and discuss their approachesThe main questions which I shall try to answer are How does themethod in question function On what premises it is based Are methodand premises reliable What results does the method produce

I Dating on the Basis of the Matn

A First Steps in Dating Ignaz Goldziher

One of the most famous examples of the use of dating by means ofthe matn of a ˙adigrave∆ is Ignaz Goldziherrsquos article ldquoUeber die Entwicklungdes Oacuteadicircthrdquo published in 1890 in the second volume of his Muham-

medanische Studien6 In this article ndash the first fundamental study on Oacuteadigrave∆

written by a Western scholar ndash Goldziher mentions that there is some-thing called isnagraved but does not mention it further7 His statements onthe origins of ˙adigrave∆s are solely based on their matns and other criteriaTwo types of dating can be distinguished in Goldziherrsquos article first ageneral dating ie a dating of the Oacuteadigrave∆ as a whole second a datingof a particular ˙adigrave∆ or tradition

The principle behind Goldziherrsquos general dating of the Oacuteadigrave∆ is well-known Most of the material available in the canonical collections is aresult of the religious historical and social development of Islam in thefirst two centuries the reflection of the efforts which emerged in theIslamic community during their more mature stages of development8

On the basis of this principle of general dating of the Oacuteadigrave∆ Goldziherdenies that the bulk of traditions concerning the Prophet and also mostreports on the Companions might possess any worth as historical sourcesfor the time about which they purport to inform us This does notmean that they cannot be used as sources for the time when they actu-


207

ally originated which is defined by Goldziher as the Umayyad and thefirst century of the Abbasid caliphate

Goldziher did not formulate his general dating of the Oacuteadigrave∆ as auniversal statement He did not say ldquoAll ˙adigrave∆s are the result of laterdevelopmentsrdquo He formulates it as a partial generalisation ie ldquothevast stock of ˙adigrave∆srdquo This means that some authentic ˙adigrave∆s go back tothe first half of the first Islamic century although about these Goldziherexpresses no concern This division between a major component ofnon-authentic and a minor part of possibly authentic traditions leavesus with an epistemological problem If we have to do with a traditionwhich is not clearly a late fabrication ndash which is most frequently thecase ndash then into which category must we place it If Goldziherrsquos gen-eral dating is correct then for statistical reasons we have to concludeindeed it is safer to assume that the tradition is late or rather notauthentic for the probability of coming across an early and possiblyauthentic ˙adigrave∆ is not large

But on what arguments does Goldziher base his general dating ofthe Oacuteadigrave∆ On what grounds does he rest his judgement on its authen-ticity His conclusions are based merely on a limited sample of tradi-tions he collected The following represent the indications or reasonswhich may have motivated their invention or fabrication

1) Political quarrels and religious disputes within the nascent Islamiccommunity Goldziher like a number of others assumes that the moresecular regime of the Umayyad dynasty had driven ldquomore pious Muslimsrdquoto create a religious world of their own and to project it back to theProphet and the first four caliphs The rulers reacted to this developmentby having their political principles justified by opportunistic scholars inthe same way Namely they ordered them to forge ˙adigrave∆s and ascribethem to earlier authorities According to Goldziher a large number oftraditions said to go back to the Prophet or the Companions arose pre-cisely in this way during the second half of the first century AH9

2) Other ˙adigrave∆s came into being when the Abbasids took over thecaliphate from the Umayyads in the course of the second Islamic cen-tury The new religious policy of the rulers gave a strong impulse tothe development of Islamic jurisprudence This impulse at the sametime prompted the study and production of ˙adigrave∆s since under Abbasid

9 Ibid 73-83


208

rule subservience to the heads of state led some scholars (ldquocourt theolo-giansrdquo) to forge traditions in favour of whatever the regime currentlyin place wished to carry through10

3) During the second half of the second century AH many tradi-tions emerged from the dispute between the old style jurists the ahl al-ray and scholars who advanced arguments on the basis of traditionsthe aszlig˙agraveb al-˙adigrave∆ According to Goldziher the latter wished to base thelaw as much as possible on the example of the Prophet and hisCompanions and in cases where they could not find a tradition theysimply invented one The scholars of the ancient schools answered thechallenge to their doctrines by looking for traditions which supportedtheir point of view and even invented ˙adigrave∆s whenever they thought itwas appropriate11

4) Many ˙adigrave∆s have their origin in or became distorted during themany political and religious struggles within the Muslim community orelse they derive from groups or circles dissatisfied with or opposed tothe ruling family To give expression to their claims the different par-ties created ˙adigrave∆s for or against rebellion for or against the dynasticprinciple of rule and for or against the claim of particular clans of theProphetrsquos tribe to the caliphate In fact rivalry between tribes townsor scholarly circles must never be underestimated as source of fabri-cated traditions12

Goldziherrsquos set of causes and motives for the invention and fabricationof ˙adigrave∆s during the Umayyad and Abbasid period is derived from awide range of sources However the choice of the source material andthe use to which Goldziher puts it display two major points of weak-ness 1) Goldziherrsquos source material consists mostly of traditions abouttransmitters and ˙adigrave∆s and only rarely of the traditions themselves13

When Goldziher falls back on the traditions themselves he relies on˙adigrave∆s which are rarely considered reliable by Muslim scholars them-selves Traditions from the collections of al-Bucentagraverigrave and Muslim appearbut rarely amongst his pieces of evidence 2) Goldziher seldom ques-tions the historical reliability of the reports which he is using althoughthey often have an anecdotal character

10 Ibid 53-7311 Ibid 73-8312 Ibid 88-13013 In the light of my typology of dating methods these cases belong to the fifth cat-

egory ldquoinformation derived from other sourcesrdquo See note 5


209

To form some idea of Goldziherrsquos mode of reasoning an example ishelpful From a late compilation of acentbagraver he quotes the following anec-dote A scholar at the court of the Caliph al-Mahdigrave (158-169 AH775-785 CE) added a word to a ˙adigrave∆ in order to make pigeon racing permitted a sport of which the caliph was fond However to the ldquoortho-dox scholarsrdquo pidgeon racing was repugnant This prompts Goldziherto conclude ldquothe tale nevertheless shows what a court theologian wascapable of doing in matters of the tradition Theologians who wishedto reconcile theory with the practices of life had to have recourse to suchsubterfuges and this consideration became one of the chief factors inthe history of the growth of the Oacuteadigravethrdquo14 Still does not Goldziher owe the reader proof that this distorted ˙adigrave∆ found its way into oneof the authoritative compilations of ˙adigrave∆s andor was taken seriouslyby other scholars

What this example shows is how on the one hand Goldziher is ableto move from singular cases ndash where the historical character of a nar-ration is by no means certain ndash to a conclusion about the entire cor-pus of Oacuteadigrave∆ On the other it illustrates how he can move from thepossibility that something could have happened to conclude that it actu-ally did happen That is he can deduce a fact from a mere possibil-ity Even if the story about al-Mahdigraversquos court theologian was true andif there were some other reliable cases of forgery it takes some degreeof audacity to conclude that many or most ˙adigrave∆s are forgeries I do notwish to deny that Goldziher succeeded in his study on the Oacuteadigrave∆ topresent a number of texts which possibly or probably reflect reactionson later religious political or juridical developments I only questionwhether it is methodologically correct to conclude on the basis of alimited number of reports about invented or falsified ˙adigrave∆s and a fewtraditions which can hardly derive from the time from which they pur-port to emanate that the vast majority of the ˙adigrave∆s have been fabri-cated at a later time and came into being as a result of the develop-ments mentioned above Goldziherrsquos dating may be true for a numberof individual traditions That this dating holds true for the majority ofthe ˙adigrave∆s he has not demonstrated

Apart from general dating Goldziher sometimes tries to pin downthe time of origin of a particular tradition or some of its elements Inthese cases he does not mention explicitly which criteria he uses to

14 Goldziher Muhammedanische Studien II 70 (emphasis mine)


210

15 See ibid 23-27 138-4016 Eg ibid 25-2617 Eg ibid 29-3018 Eg ibid 35

distinguish between an earlier and a later tradition Some of his exam-ples will reveal his methodological principles In fact four follow

1) Anachronisms indicate that a text originates from a time later thanpurported15

2) Traditions of which the content clearly displays a secondary stagein the development of an issue are younger than those with a less de-veloped content16

3) When the Prophet or early Muslims appear in a tradition in an un-favourable light the tradition can be accepted as authentic and early17

4) Reproaches among opponents against each other have probably ahistorical kernel18

The first principle is certainly a safe one The second principle takesfor granted that we know what the development was However knowl-edge of that kind is for the most part based on the traditions them-selves So such an argument seems suspiciously circular in its reason-ing One adopts Goldziherrsquos premises three and four however at onersquosown peril Their validity depends on a supply of background informa-tion about the persons who circulated the traditions in question forthey may have had a bias But information about such persons is forthe most part lacking Even if principles three and four may be of someuse in particular cases they cannot be considered as general rules

In sum Goldziherrsquos methods of dating particular traditions on thebasis of their matns are very rudimentary His conclusions concerningthe origin of a tradition seem often to derive from intuition and appearquite arbitrary Therefore the validity of his general dating of Oacuteadigrave∆

based on the dating of particular traditions seems as limited as that ofthe rules of thumb he employs

B Joseph Schachtrsquos Dating with the Matn

Another famous advocate of dating ˙adigrave∆s on the basis of their matns isSchacht As in the case of Goldziher we can distinguish between hisdating of the Oacuteadigrave∆ in general and his dating of individual ˙adigrave∆s Butunlike Goldziherrsquos Schachtrsquos general dating is not based only on the


211

matns but results from a combination of different methodologicalapproaches

1) The hypothetical reconstruction of the development of the juridicaltheory during the second Islamic century based on a study of al-rdquoagravefiigraversquos(d 204 AH820 CE) theoretical treatises 2) The method of datingtraditions on the basis of the collections in which they first appear 3) Acomparison of matns of individual traditions 4) A comparison of theirisnagraveds19

This order of methods shows that Schacht dates on the basis of thematn only after other methods have been used Even so one mustuncover the premises on which Schacht works when he is dating byusing the matn This is even more urgent because his method andpremises have been adopted by many scholars after him The most im-portant of them are

1) A tradition must first be dated by placing its content (the problemand its solution) into the legal development as he had reconstructedit20 2) Traditions which have the form of short legal maxims are ear-lier than narratives21 3) Anonymous maxims are earlier than thoseascribed to a particular authority22 4) Terse statements are earlier thandetailed ones 5) Texts which contain the problem implicitly are ear-lier than those which expound it explicitly23

The first rule shows that Schachtrsquos dating on the basis of the con-tents of traditions is dependent on his assumptions regarding the gen-eral development of Islamic legal thinking and his view of the particularjuridical problem in question These assumptions derive from a studyof the material using different methodological approaches of which the analysis of the matns is one among others Arguing in this mannergives the appearance of circular reasoning Furthermore the other fourpremises or methodological rules are secondary generalisations Theyresult from a study of legal traditions in which other premises andmethodological approaches played a primary role To give an exam-ple The second premise is not plausible as such because legal max-ims can also be formulated on the basis of reports on legal cases and

19 J Schacht The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence Oxford Clarendon Press 195020 Ibid 176-7921 Ibid 180 18822 Ibid 180-8923 J Schacht ldquoModernism and Traditionalism in a History of Islamic Lawrdquo in Middle

Eastern Studies 1 (1965) 393


212

24 Some examples in H Motzki Die Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz Ihre Entwicklungin Mekka bis zur Mitte des 28 Jahrhunderts in series Abhandlungen fuumlr die Kunde des MorgenlandesL 2 Stuttgart Steiner Verlag 1991 115-20 English translation The Origins of IslamicJurisprudence Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools trans MH Katz Leiden EJ Brill2002 126-131 and in idem ldquoThe Murder of Ibn Abigrave l-Oacuteuqayq on the Origin andReliability of some Maghagravezigrave-Reportsrdquo in H Motzki (ed) The Biography of Mu˙ammad theIssue of the Sources Leiden EJ Brill 2000 188 ff 201 ff

25 See below pp 214-215 220-223 For a more detailed critique of Schachtrsquos approach cfMotzki Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz idem The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence passim

26 R Marston Speight ldquoThe Will of Sad b a Waqqagraveszlig The Growth of a Traditionrdquoin Der Islam 50 (1973) 249-267

27 Ibid 24928 Ibid 250

their solutions and thus be secondary24 This premise is dependent onother premises of Schacht and cannot claim an independent and uni-versal validity It can be only used as working hypothesis For it mayprove false on the basis of legal traditions which Schacht has not stud-ied andor when some of his other premises prove to be false25

C Form Analysis and Dating Marston Speight

In the seventies of the century just past a method which was originallydeveloped in Biblical studies entered into Islamic studies form analy-sis It was applied to Islamic traditions by Marston Speight In his arti-cle ldquoThe Will of Sad b a Waqqagraveszlig The Growth of a Traditionrdquo heattempts to reconstruct the chronological development of a Prophetic˙adigrave∆ by comparing its matn variants26 Speight proceeds from the assump-tion that all textual variants have been part of an oral tradition beforethey ldquobecame frozen in a written compilationrdquo27 His method consistsof the following steps Firstly he compiled a corpus of nineteen tradi-tions which he considered to be variants related by their content Instep two he arranged the texts according to their complexity As athird step he analysed each text with respect to its degree of devel-opment the internal cohesion of its elements indications of style andvocabulary since these may suggest an earlier or later stage of devel-opment of the text in question In the fourth and final step Speightclassifies the texts from the standpoint of related content On the basisof all these steps a chronology of the nineteen traditions is established

In his analysis of the texts Speight starts from several premises whichhe seems to consider as self-evident at least he does not question them1) Concise texts are older than more detailed and descriptive ones28


213

2) Reported speech is earlier than direct speech29 Additionally Speightdistinguishes a vertical and horizontal development of traditions Verticalmeans the internal development of a group of texts which are contex-tually related horizontal denotes the development from elementary textswhich consists of only a few elements to more complex traditions30

Speightrsquos analysis leads to a ldquorough chronological patternrdquo whichconsists of three stages 1) The oldest text (which a hypothetical moreoriginal version preceded) 2) A group of three texts which he datessomewhat later but which belong to the early Umayyad period 3) Theremaining fifteen texts which are later than those mentioned developedduring the (later) Umayyad period In a relative chronology basedexclusively on the matns of the traditions one would not expect absolutedates like early and later Umayyad period Speight bases them firstlyon the date of death of Sad b Abigrave Waqqagraveszlig the central figure of thetraditions who died in 55 AH675 CE and secondly on the obser-vation that in some variants other names appear According to himthis could only have happened after the death of Sad these versionsmust thus be later31

Speightrsquos dating of traditions on the basis of pure matn analysis isnot convincing for the following reasons First it is questionable whetherall the texts of his sample really belong to the same tradition32 Secondlythe general validity of the premises on which his form analysis is basedis doubtful The first premise which is borrowed from Schacht is usedby Speight as if it is a rule generally valid in the study of Muslim tradi-tions a conclusion which can be challenged as I have just argued whendiscussing Schachtrsquos method The second premise cannot claim generalvalidity either The same story can be reported by different transmit-ters not only in different wordings but also with different emphasis Itis not less plausible to assume that reports which were originally vividand colourful using direct speech became more sober in the courseof time and changed into reported speech The weakness of the premisesundermine Speightrsquos relative chronology

Thirdly Speightrsquos absolute dating which is based on the differenceof names is not convincing either According to him the central figure

29 Ibid and passim30 Ibid 251-52 26531 Ibid 266-26732 DS Powers already pointed to this in his article ldquoThe Will of Sad b Abigrave Waqqagraveszlig

A Reassessmentrdquo in Studia Islamica 58 (1983) 33-53 esp 41


214

33 Speight ldquoThe Will of Sad b a Waqqagraveszlig The Growth of a Traditionrdquo 257-58 26634 Ibid 266-6735 For my view on John Wansbroughrsquos approach that is also based only on the texts

see H Motzki ldquoThe Origins of Muslim Exegesis A Debaterdquo in Der Islam (forthcoming)

of the tradition Sad b Abigrave Waqqagraveszlig is called in two variants Sad bAfragrave He concludes from it that there has been another primitive ldquosickvisit storyrdquo originally connected to the name Ibn Afragrave which becamelater confused with the similar story of Sad b Abigrave Waqqagraveszlig33 Becausesuch a confusion can only be thought of after the death of the latterSpeight dates those variants in which the name Ibn Afragrave appears intothe early Umayyad period34 This reasoning is erroneous The name(Sad) ibn Afragrave does not belong to the ldquosick visit storyrdquo but to thestory of muhagrave[irugraven dying in Mecca which is in some variants combinedwith the former In the latter story the central figure is Sad b rsaquoawlanot Sad b Abigrave Waqqagraveszlig as Speight rightly states He did not realisehowever that Sad b Afragrave is only an erroneous transmission of thename Sad b rsaquoawla which may be due to bad handwriting Thedifference of names tells us nothing about the date of the versions inquestion The mistake in the names can have been made by a trans-mitter or copyist at a much later period than Umayyad times Indeedthe editor of Ibn Oacuteanbalrsquos Musnad in which both variants are foundmay be responsible for it

Criticism of the methods used by Goldziher Schacht and Speightfor dating of traditions on the basis of the matns ought not lead us tothe conclusion that matns are worthless for purposes of dating The crit-icism conducted here merely shows that the premises and methods usedby these scholars are unsafe There is much to be learned from theldquoformgeschichtliche Methoderdquo In this sense Speightrsquos approach is a step inthe right direction In my experience it is seldom possible to findsufficient indications for the dating of traditions in the matns alone35

All the same matn analysis can and sometimes must contribute to thedating of traditions But it does this best when used in combinationwith other methods of dating as we will shortly see

II Dating on the Basis of the Occurrence of Traditions in Collections

Again Joseph Schacht was the first to use this method of dating in asystematic fashion He describes it as follows ldquoThe best way of prov-ing that a tradition did not exist at a certain time is to show that it


215

was not used as a legal argument in a discussion which would havemade reference to it imperative if it had existedrdquo36 This e silentio argu-ment has two weak points one theoretical the other practical On thetheoretical side the fact that a tradition was not used by someone mayhave several reasons non-existence is only one of them The simplestexplanation may be that this person did not (yet) know the ˙adigrave∆ inquestion This of course is not the same as the tradition not havingexisted at all The person may also have had reasons ones not knownto us which prevented him from citing the tradition On the practicalside the weak point in Schachtrsquos reasoning is that in most cases wedo not know whether or not the sources actually reflect a juridical dis-pute Whether collections of legal traditions are compiled as completearsenals of legal ammunition to be used in disputes or whether theycontain a personal choice of the compiler is not a matter which wecan know with complete certainty

GHA Juynboll has employed the same method in his article ldquoTheman kadhaba Tradition and the Prohibition of Lamenting the Deathrdquopublished in his book Muslim Tradition37 In his treatment of the man

kaasympaba tradition he applies the method to a tradition which is not obvi-ously legal in character His dating of it will be discussed in the fol-lowing section Juynboll examines first ldquoin what early collections avail-able in printed editionsrdquo the ˙adigrave∆ in question ldquois not found and thosein which it is foundrdquo He proceeds in two steps First he investigatesthe collections compiled in the Oacuteijagravez and Egypt next the Iraqi ones

The result of his investigation of the collections compiled in the Oacuteijagravezand Egypt is that ldquoThe man kadhaba tradition does not occur in Oacuteijagravezigraveor in Egyptian collections from before the 180s800srdquo38 Here he isspeaking of the Muwadaggerdaggera of Magravelik (d 179 AH796 CE) and the]agravemi of Ibn Wahb (d 197 AH812-13 CE) This ˙adigrave∆ is foundhowever in the works of al-rdquoagravefiigrave (d 204 AH820 CE) and in al-Oacuteumaydigraversquos (d 219 AH834 CE) Musnad both Oacuteijagravezigrave scholars Thisleads Juynboll to the conclusion that the tradition in question musthave come into circulation in the Oacuteijagravez between Magravelikrsquos Muwadaggerdaggera andthe books of al-rdquoagravefiigrave and al-Oacuteumaydigrave He thinks those transmittersmentioned in the isnagraved of the tradition who died in the 180s or 190s

36 Schacht The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence 14037 GHA Juynboll Muslim Tradition Studies in Chronology Provenance and Authorship of

Early Oacuteadigraveth Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1983 96-13338 Ibid 109


216

are responsible for it The isnagraveds by which they trace the tradition backto the Prophet are correspondingly fabricated39

The investigation of the Iraqi Oacuteadigrave∆ compilations produced the fol-lowing results The man kaasympaba tradition is not found in collections whichoriginate before al-ˇayagravelisigraversquos (d 203 AH818-19 CE) Musnad as egthe ]agravemi of al-Rabigrave b Oacuteabigraveb (d second half of the second centuryperhaps 170 AH787 CE) This leads Juynboll to conclude that ldquoWeare [ ] justified in determining with the non-occurrence of the com-plete dictum in this collection in mind a terminus post quem for its emer-gence in Iraqrdquo40 The ˙adigrave∆ in question must then have come into cir-culation in Iraq between the date of death of al-Rabigrave b Oacuteabigraveb andthat of al-ˇayagravelisigrave ldquoResponsible for the dictum are probably the variouspupils ndash or people using their name ndash of the key figures or commonlinks in the man kadhaba isnagraveds such as Shuba b al-Oacuteajjagravej (d 160AH777 CE) active in Baszligra and Kugravefa Abugrave Awagravena al-Wapartpartagrave˙ bAbd Allagraveh (d 176 AH790 CE) active in Wagravesidagger and Baszligra andAbd Allagraveh b Abigrave Awfagrave (d 174 AH792 CE) active in Egypt althoughthe majority of his masters and many of his pupils were Iraqirdquo41

Compared to al-ˇayagravelisigraversquos Musnad in which only a handful of vari-ants are found the collections of the third century contain many moreversions with different isnagraveds Juynboll seems to think that these isnagravedsoriginated only after al-ˇayagravelisigrave although he does not state this explicitlyThe most extensive list of variants of the man kaasympaba tradition is con-tained in Ibn al-]awzigraversquos (d 597 AH1200-01 CE) Kitagraveb al-mawpartugraveagravet

which has thirty-one versions more than the collections of the thirdcentury This leads Juynboll to the conclusion that those thirty-one vari-ants are fabrications which emerged ldquofrom the fourth century onwardrdquo42

On the basis of his investigation of Oacuteijagravezigrave Egyptian and Iraqi col-lections of traditions Juynboll finally concludes that ldquoevery piece of evi-dence [ ] points to Iraqi sunnite traditionist circles flourishing in thesecond half of the second century as the breeding ground of the man

kadhaba sayingrdquo43 The isnagraveds which reach back to the Prophet must beconsidered as fabrications of the transmitters living in this period thesame holds true for the isnagraveds appearing only in later collections44

39 Ibid 112-1440 Ibid 12541 Ibid 12542 Ibid 130 43 Ibid 13244 Ibid 132-33


217

Additionally he postulates a general rule concerning matns and isnagravedsldquoThe more elaborate or composite a tradition the later it came intocirculation This holds also true for isnagravedsrdquo45

This is a very short sketch of Juynbollrsquos detailed study His methodis characterised by the use of the argument e silentio Schacht had justifiedits use by arguing that the traditions were used as arguments in thedisputes of jurists and we can therefore expect that traditions whichare suited to support the position of a jurist or a school of jurispru-dence are quoted if they existed The weaknesses of this assumptionhave already been mentioned46 Because there is no legal discussion dis-cernible Juynboll defends the use of the argument by silence with thefollowing claim ldquoMuslim collectors used to put all the material theyhad gathered from their predecessors into their collections which havethus to be considered as complete records of the material available in acertain region at a certain timerdquo Therefore he reasons ldquothe absenceof certain material in certain collections may be considered as relevantfact with significant implications for the chronology of that material orits provenancerdquo47

This premise seems to be doubtful in view of the fact that duringthe second and third centuries AH Oacuteadigrave∆ for the most part were notcollected by gathering the manuscripts of collections made by prede-cessors but by hearing it in the classes and recording it Additionallyit is to assume that the collection of a teacher of Oacuteadigrave∆ contained hispersonal choice of traditions not necessarily all he knew and that thecollection grew in the course of time That means that not all trans-mitters of a scholar necessarily received identical corpora of texts Apartfrom the general objection against Juynbollrsquos premise his concrete dat-ing of the ˙adigrave∆ in question is not convincing In fact there are a num-ber of arguments to be made against it

First Juynboll has discovered that the man kaasympaba ˙adigrave∆ was known tothe Oacuteiltagravezigrave collectors al-rdquoagravefiigrave and al-Oacuteumaydigrave He ascribes the spread ofthe ˙adigrave∆ to their informants All these informants are according to theisnagraveds Medinese or Meccan scholars who mention in their turn Oacuteiltagravezigravescholars as their own informants48 In addition the Oacuteiltagravezigrave informants of

45 Ibid 12846 See p 214-21547 Ibid 98 (emphasis mine)48 This is also true in the case of al-Oacuteumaydigraversquos informant Sufyagraven b Uyayna who

must be regarded as a Meccan scholar not as Kugravefigrave He moved to Mecca already in


218

al-rdquoagravefiigrave and al-Oacuteumaydigrave are older than the Iraqi scholars who inventedthe tradition according to Juynboll The latter are the pupils of rdquoubaand Abugrave Awagravena Among them one finds al-ˇayagravelisigrave the earliest col-lector with whom Juynboll finds the ˙adigrave∆ The existence of earlier Oacuteiltagravezigraveinformants in the Oacuteiltagravezigrave collections contradicts his general conclusionldquothat every piece of evidence [ ] points to Iraqi sunnite traditionistcircles [ ] as the breeding ground of the man kadhaba sayingrdquo49

Second it is remarkable that Juynboll does not hold the commonlinks of al-ˇayagravelisigraversquos variants responsible for the ˙adigrave∆ eg rdquouba (d 160AH776 CE) The common links suggest a dating of the traditionin the first half of the second century not in the second half ObviouslyJuynboll prefers here the e silentio argument (the tradition is not foundwith al-Rabigrave b Oacuteabigraveb) to the common link phenomenon To my mindhis preference is highly questionable50

Third Juynboll has overlooked the fact that several versions of theman kaasympaba tradition are contained in Mamar b Ragraveldquoidrsquos ]agravemi51 Mamarwas born and grew up in Baszligra However he left the city as a youngstudent around the year 120 AH738 CE to study in the Oacuteiltagravez Hefinally settled in Iacuteanagrave where he died in 153 AH770 CE Mamarknows already three different versions of the ˙adigrave∆ The matns of two ofthem are short one has only the man kaasympaba dictum The second addsanother well-known saying of the Prophet The third version is a longerstory which ends with the man kaasympaba saying These three versions showthat short versions of a tradition can exist simultaneously beside a longversion This contradicts Juynbollrsquos rule that ldquothe more elaborate orcomposite a tradition the later it came into circulationrdquo52 It seemsmore likely in the case of Mamarrsquos variants that the short versionscontaining only the saying are the abridged ones than that the longerversion was created secondarily by adding an invented history to the

123 AH741 CE perhaps even in 120738 when he was sixteen or thirteen yearsold (see Ibn Sad Mu˙ammad al- abaqagravet al-kubragrave ed I Abbagraves Beirut Dagraver Iacuteagravedir1957-1960 V 497-498) not as Juynboll claims (according to Ibn Oacutea[ar A˙mad bAligrave al-Asqalagravenigrave Tahasympigraveb al-tahasympigraveb (Beirut Dagraver Iacuteagravedir 1968 [repr of the edition Oacuteaydaragravebagraved1325-1327 AH] IV 122) in 163 AH The latter date seems to be a printing error

49 See above note 4350 Only in his recent article ldquoShuba b al-Oacuteajjagravej (d 160776) and his Position among

the Traditionists of Baszligrardquo in Museacuteon 111 (1998) 187-226 esp 193-196 Juyboll identifiesrdquouba as the originator of the man kaasympaba saying

51 Abd al-Razzagraveq b Hammagravem al-Iacuteanagravenigrave al-Muszligannaf Beirut al-Ma[lis al-ilmigrave13911972 XI no 20493-95 Mamarrsquos ]agravemi transmitted by his pupil Abd al-Razzagraveqis part of the edition of the latterrsquos Muszligannaf

52 See above note 45


219

saying of the Prophet In short it is improbable that Mamar inventedthe different matns with their defective isnagraveds

All this leads to the conclusion that the man kaasympaba tradition in longand short versions circulated already in the first half or rather in thefirst third of the second century not only in Iraq ndash which may indeedhave been its place of origin ndash but also in the Oacuteiltagravez and Yemen53 Thisexample illustrates how dangerous it is to date with the argument e silentio when only a few sources are available as is the case for thesecond century after the Hijra A single source overlooked or editedafterwards can destroy the whole argument The method can and evenshould be used to establish a terminus post quem for a tradition but weshould not conclude from it that it could not be earlier and that the listsof informants given in the isnagraveds are inevitably fabricated

III Dating on the Basis of the Isnagraved

Among the third group of methods two wholly different approachescan be distinguished A) Establishing the date of a particular ˙adigrave∆ orcomplex of ˙adigrave∆s with the same content on the basis of its or theirisnagraved variants B) Establishing the origin of traditions which accordingto their isnagraveds derive from the same informant of a collector (recon-struction of sources)

A Isnagraved Analysis of a Single Tradition

1 Schacht on Isnagraved Analysis When the topic of isnagraved analysis is mentioned the name of JosephSchacht immediately comes to mind Although he was neither the firstnor the only one to recognise the potentialities of the isnagraved for datingpurposes54 he is to be credited with popularising the method Hedescribes it in the chapter of his book The Origins of Muhammadan

Jurisprudence entitled ldquoThe Evidence of Isnagravedsrdquo Schacht proposes fiverules to be applied when one tries to establish the date of a traditionon the basis of the isnagraved55

53 See also M Muranyi ldquolsquoMan ˙alafa alagrave minbarigrave agrave∆iman rsquo Bemerkungen zu einemfruumlhen Traditionsgutrdquo in Die Welt des Orients 18 (1987) 92-131

54 Alois Sprenger did it already in the nineteenth century see his Das Leben und dieLehre des Mo˙ammad Berlin Nicolaische Verlagsbuchhandlung 1861-65 III 235-36 andpassim

55 Schacht The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence 163-75


220

1) ldquoThe most perfect and complete isnagraveds are the latestrdquo56 2) If thereare isnagraveds of the ˙adigrave∆ which stop at a later level of transmission eg atthe Successorsrsquo level in addition to isnagraveds which reach back to a higherauthority the latter isnagraveds are secondary This is the result of what hecalls ldquobackwards growth of isnagravedsrdquo57 3) Isnagraved variants which appear inlater sources with ldquoadditional authorities or transmittersrdquo are fabricationsSchacht called this the ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo58 4) ldquoThe existence of asignificant common link NN in all or most isnagraveds of a given traditionwould be a strong indication in favour of its having originated in thetime of NNrdquo59 5) Isnagraved variants that by-pass the common link are later60

Schacht considers rules one through five as general in character Butare they as general as he supposes His observation that the isnagraveds oftraditions contained in later sources are in general more complete isundoubtedly correct This fact was also known to Muslim Oacuteadigrave∆ schol-ars They also knew that defective isnagraveds were sometimes improved Yetnone of this need lead us to the conclusion that all or most early tra-ditions must have a defective isnagraved nor should it induce us to believethat early ˙adigrave∆s with unbroken isnagraveds cannot exist

The ldquobackwards growth of isnagravedsrdquo is a phenomenon known to everyOacuteadigrave∆ scholar The Muslim scholars called it raf literally ldquoraising higherrdquoin the chain of transmission However the fact that there are cases inwhich eg a Companion tradition is ldquoraised uprdquo to a Prophetic oneby adding the Prophet to the isnagraved does not justify the conclusion thatall Prophetic ˙adigrave∆s of which variants are known which stop at theCompanionrsquos or the Successorrsquos level are necessarily secondary If werid ourselves of Schachtrsquos theory that the Muslim traditions generallycame into being only by fabrication and developed from Successor toCompanion and finally to Prophetic ˙adigrave∆s we become capable of imag-ining that a certain legal opinion can have been expressed by theProphet and also held by a Companion or a Successor It cannot beexcluded a priori that there are Prophetic ˙adigrave∆s which are earlier thansimilar Companion or Successor traditions

Schacht considers the isnagraved the ldquomost arbitrary part of the traditionsrdquo61

56 Ibid 16557 Ibid 161 17158 Ibid 164-16959 Ibid 17260 Ibid 17161 Ibid 163


221

He does not only assume that all isnagraveds have a fictitious part (ie thelast part which contains the persons of the first century)62 He also thinksthat the remaining part of the isnagraved strands (containing the transmittersof the second and third century AH) ldquowere often put together verycarelesslyrdquo63 This is the reason for his sceptic attitude towards isnagraved

variants He thinks that isnagraveds displaying different transmitters on thesame level of generation are ldquouncertain and arbitraryrdquo64 The exam-ples he quotes in his book show that he cannot imagine that a tradi-tion of the first third of the second century or earlier could really havebeen transmitted by two or more different persons Schacht is con-vinced that most isnagraveds of a tradition originated by ldquocreation of addi-tional authorities or transmittersrdquo65 or by fabrication of complete isnagraveds(spread of isnagraveds)66 But these views too are generalisations made onthe basis of a few cases Whatrsquos more they are assertions not provenfacts I shall come back to the theory of spread of isnagraveds when dis-cussing attempts to apply it

Schacht claims that ldquofamily isnagravedsrdquo ie isnagraveds in which transmittersare related to each other (eg father ndash son ndash grandson or uncleaunt ndashnephew or patron ndash client) are in general inauthentic Rather theyare later fabrications which merely simulate authenticity This he con-cludes from his study of the sources He gives some examples of fam-ily isnagraveds which he considers to be fabricated These examples showthat his reservations against family relations in the isnagraveds concern onlywhat he calls ldquothe fictitious partrdquo of isnagraveds ie the part with the ear-liest transmitters and the authority to which it goes back67 It is notclear however on what basis he arrives at his negative judgement withrespect to concrete examples Possibly it is based on his general dat-ing and the relative chronology of the legal problem in question as hepostulates it plus the five rules of matn analysis mentioned above Yeteven if every one of his examples were examples of isnagraved fabrication ndashwhich is far from certain ndash it is not justified to generalise them and tobrand every family isnagraved fictitious It seems natural for traditions to betransmitted to family members Moreover if there has been real trans-mission at all such cases must have been frequent

62 Ibid 171 17563 Ibid 16364 Ibid 16365 Ibid 16666 Ibid 166-16967 Ibid 171


222

Schachtrsquos name is particularly connected with the phenomenon hecalled ldquocommon linkrdquo a peculiarity of the isnagraveds which was knownalready to the classical Muslim Oacuteadigrave∆ scholars as Schacht rightly pointedout68 But according to Schacht the common link is the junction betweenthe fictitious and the real part of the isnagraveds The fictitious part whichmostly has the form of a single strand is the part which reaches fromthe common link to an earlier authority eg a Companion or theProphet69 The real part consists of the several strands which reachfrom the common link to the authors of the collections in which the˙adigrave∆ in question is found In this part we have to do with real transmissionwhich can be used for dating purposes The common link is thenaccording to Schacht the first who brought the ˙adigrave∆ into circulationTherefore it must originate from the time of the common link at theearliest70 Schacht states about the value of the common link for datingpurposes ldquoThe existence of common transmitters enables us to assign afirm date to many traditions and to the doctrines represented by themrdquo71

However Schacht obscures the clarity of what the common link phe-nomenon is all about by assuming that a tradition cannot be broughtinto circulation by the common link himself but ldquoby a person who usedhis namerdquo72 He expounds his reservation against dating with the com-mon link with examples in which the common link belongs to the gen-eration commonly called the tagravebiugraven (Successors)73 The isnagraveds of a tradi-tion which allegedly go back to the same Successor were fabricatedaccording to Schacht a generation later and the tradition is falsely ascribedto him74 In these cases the common link can only give ldquoa terminus a

quordquo The traditions which allegedly go back to Nagravefi and which werepossibly available in form of a written source around the middle of thesecond century are such cases75 All transmitters who used that sourcereferred directly to Nagravefi who became thereby a common link with-out the transmitters having had contact with him However Schachtrsquos

68 Ibid 17269 But can ldquoacquire additional branches by the creation of improvements which would

take their place beside the original chain of transmitters or by the process which wehave described as spread of isnagravedsrdquo Ibid 171

70 Ibid 171-17271 Ibid 17572 Ibid 17173 Ibid 17674 GHA Juynboll labels them ldquoseeming common linksrdquo75 Ibid 176-179


223

conclusions about Nagravefirsquos traditions are for the most part mere alle-gations or statements based on doubtful arguments76

In spite of these limitations Schacht considers the common link phenomenon as a suitable basis for dating traditions77 Schacht alreadydetected that sometimes isnagraveds bypasses the common link78 He con-siders such isnagraveds as fabrications because he thinks that the commonlink brought the tradition into circulation Whether this conclusion isacceptable or not depends on the question whether Schachtrsquos inter-pretation of the common link phenomenon is acceptable or not

2 Juynbollrsquos Method of Isnagraved AnalysisSchacht himself did not apply the method of dating on the basis ofcommon links very often in his book The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence

nor in later publications It is the merit of Joseph van Ess and GHAJuynboll to have put the method into practice and to have developedit further In the following pages I focus on Juynbollrsquos application ofthe method In his book Muslim Tradition Juynboll gave a detaileddescription of the premises on which the method is based and how itfunctions79 He illustrated for the first time in more detail the phe-nomenon that common links are sometimes by-passed by isnagraveds ndash apeculiarity which Schacht had only mentioned in passing ndash and gavean explanation of it In Muslim Tradition however Juynboll was stillreserved and cautious with respect to the benefits of its use He statedldquo[ ] it is mostly impossible to prove with incontrovertible certaintythat isnagraveds are not invented in their entirety Thus the common linkif there is one is often only a useful tool from which to distil an approx-imate chronology and possible provenance of the ˙adigravethrdquo80

In his article ldquoSome Isnagraved-Analytical Methods Illustrated on the Basisof Several Women-Demeaning Sayings from Oacuteadigraveth Literaturerdquo pub-lished six years later he attaches much more value to the common

76 On the issue of Nagravefi traditions see Motzki ldquoQuo vadis Oacuteadigrave∆-Forschung Eine kri-tische Untersuchung von GHA Juynboll lsquoNagravefi the Mawlagrave of Ibn Umar and hisPosition in Muslim Oacuteadigraveth Literaturersquordquo in Der Islam 73 (1996) 40-80 193-231 (Englishtranslation forthcoming)

77 These limitations concern above all the period of the Successors78 Juynboll calls them ldquodivesrdquo79 Juynboll Muslim Tradition 206-1780 Ibid 214


224

link for dating purposes81 Obviously in the time between the bookand the article he had gained extensive experience with this methodIn what follows I shall focus on his method as set forth in this article

Juynboll agrees with Schacht on the interpretation of the commonlink and of the part of the isnagraved which goes back from the commonlink to earlier authorities The common link according to Juynboll isthe originator of the tradition or put it otherwise the tradition ldquois hisown or (if somebody elsersquos) he was the first to put it into so manywordsrdquo ldquothe single strand from the cl [ie the common link] down tothe prophet [ ] is a path invented by the cl [ ]rdquo82 He further statesthat (real) common links only appear from the level of the Successorsonwards83 Juynboll seems to consider these statements as methodologicalrules not as statements about historical facts This is obvious from hisview that the content of traditions may be older than the date arrivedat on the basis of the common link Since this cannot be proven it isaccording to him not possible to go back in dating before the com-mon link84 However Juynboll obscures his methodological interpreta-tion of the common link by statements which follow those of SchachtFor example he claims that the common link must be considered theoriginator of the tradition85 So far there is little difference betweenJuynboll and Schacht

Much of Juynbollrsquos refinement of the common link method concernsthe part of the isnagraveds which Schacht called ldquothe real part of the isnagravedsrdquoie the transmitters between the common link and the compilers ofthe later Oacuteadigrave∆ collections According to Juynboll this part is much lessreal than it looks There is on the one hand a difference betweenstrands which run from the common link through ldquopartial common linksrdquoor ldquoknotsrdquo to the collectors and on the other hand ldquosingle strandsrdquowho do not cross others The former alone can be considered histori-cal the latter must be suspected of having been fabricated86 The singlestrands must be considered unhistorical as long as new sources do not

81 GHA Juynboll ldquoSome Isnagraved-Analytical Methods Illustrated on the Basis of SeveralWomen-Demeaning Sayings from Oacuteadigraveth Literaturerdquo in Al-Qandaggerara 10 (1989) 343-84

82 Ibid 35383 Ibid 36984 Ibid 381 Juynboll writes ldquoalthough the breeding ground of this type of saying

may be older than the proposed date this is in any case not borne out by the tradi-tion material discussed hererdquo Cf 370

85 See ibid 359 (ldquomore often than not they were just religious dicta which theyascribed to older authorities and very often all the way back to the prophetrdquo) and 369

86 Ibid 354


225

reveal that the transmitters through whom the single strand goes to thecommon link have indeed passed the tradition to more people notonly one and thus become (historical) partial common links87

With this distinction Juynboll responds to the objections which MichaelCook had raised against dating with the common link in his book Early

Muslim Dogma88 Of Cookrsquos several objections I mention here only onethe possibility that isnagraved variants came into being by the process whichSchacht has called ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo Cook emphasises more sharplythan Schacht that spread of isnagraved can occur on every level of thetransmission process In doing so he describes some hypothetical pos-sibilities of how a tradition could have been transmitted from personsother than the common link without the isnagraveds showing that89

Juynboll also studies the phenomenon of isnagraveds sometimes by-passingthe common link in more depth than Schacht He thinks that theseisnagraveds which he calls ldquodivesrdquo are fabrications for which the authors ofthe Oacuteadigrave∆ compilations or their informants are responsible90 This viewis based on two sorts of arguments Firstly the dating method on thebasis of the collections in which a tradition first appears The argu-ments are as follows The collector Ibn Oacuteanbal is responsible for thesesingle strands ldquobecause they are only found in his Musnadrdquo91 or ldquoeverynon-occurrence of an Ibn Uyayna strand in al-Oacuteumaydigraversquos collectionautomatically throws doubt on that strandrdquo92 or this single strand ldquoismost probably the handiwork of Ibn Oacuteanbal because the tradition isnot found in Abd al-Razzagraveqrsquos Muszligannaf rdquo93 Secondly Juynboll thinksthat his view is corroborated by an isnagraved-cum-matn analysis94

In order to date the origin of the dives Juynboll formulated the ruleldquoThe deeper the lsquodiversquo under the common link the more recent is the

87 Ibid 35888 M Cook Early Muslim Dogma A Source-Critical Study Cambridge Cambridge University

Press 198189 Cookrsquos view is discussed in more detail below in the present article90 Juynboll ldquoSome Isnagraved-Analytical Methodsrdquo 366 375-7791 Ibid 36692 Ibid 356 note 1993 Ibid 376-7894 Juynboll writes ldquoon the basis of countless analyses of isnagraved bundles accompanied

by detailed comparisons of the matns of common link-supported strands with those oflsquodiving strandsrsquo I have come to recognise that the latter almost invariably shows up amore sophisticated wording and embellishments and short comments lacking in whatI call the proto-version brought into circulation by the common linkrdquo Ibid 367 Forthe methodological approach of the isnagraved-cum-matn analysis see section IV below andMotzki ldquoQuo vadis Oacuteadigrave∆-Forschungrdquo


226

date of origin of that particular strandrdquo95 Analogous to Schachtrsquos modelof the development of Muslim traditions Juynboll postulates that ldquodiv-ing strandsrdquo that end in an early Successor have to be considered asthe oldest (albeit ldquoof much more recent origin than those strands thatend in the common linkrdquo) ldquodiving strandsrdquo ending in a Companionhave to be considered as ldquoof again more recent originrdquo and thoseldquoending up in the prophet of the most recent originrdquo96

Juynbollrsquos studies have improved the method of dating traditions bymeans of the isnagraved considerably especially as far as the study of the com-mon link phenomenon is concerned This does not mean howeverthat question marks cannot be put after some of his premises method-ological rules and conclusions Consider for example the followingthree items

1) The assumptions that the common link is the originator of thetradition and that ldquothe single strand from the common link down tohe prophetrdquo is ldquoa path invented by the common linkrdquo are problematicgeneralisations Juynboll admits that the common link can have the tra-dition from a contemporary and that its content may even be olderbut he categorically excludes the possibility that the person named bythe common link as his source really is his informant He states ldquoIfhe [ie the common link] did hear it from somebody else his isnagraveddown to the prophet does not contain a clue as to his source97 Thisis not plausible The argument that we cannot know for sure on thebasis of isnagraved analysis whether the common link really heard the tra-dition from someone else or not does not justify the definite exclusionof the possibility that he did It is of course possible that a commonlink received it from someone else and named his informant when trans-mitting it as is the normal case in Oacuteadigrave∆ transmission A priori we can-not rule this out and there are means to prove it in some cases Acloser look at the examples Juynboll uses to illustrate his assumptionthat the name of the common linkrsquos informant is generally unhistoricalmakes clear that it is groundless

Juynboll analyses a ˙adigrave∆ of the Prophet in which the Baszligran Sulaymagravenb Tarcentagraven al-Taymigrave (d 143 AH760-61 CE) is the common linkHe concludes that Sulaymagraven must be the originator of the ˙adigrave∆ Asinformant of Sulaymagraven the Baszligran Abugrave U∆magraven (Abd al-Ra˙magraven b

95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227

Mull) al-Nahdigrave (d ca 100 AH718-19 CE) is given in the isnagraved Juyn-boll considers this claim ldquohighly dubiousrdquo98 because this Abugrave U∆magravenldquoseems to belong to a generation of early Successors who can rightlybe called very peculiarrdquo99 Among the peculiarities are ripe old agetopoi in their biographies settlement in Baszligra or Kugravefa and that theyare often monopolised by one particular common link Surely thesepeculiarities as such do not preclude the possibility of Sulaymagraven hav-ing received the tradition from Abugrave U∆magraven In another saying of theProphet analysed by Juynboll in his article he identifies the BasranAbugrave Raltagrave al-Utagraveridigrave (d 107 AH725-26 CE or 109727-28) asldquoundeniable common linkrdquo and by virtue of it as originator the ˙adigrave∆Juynboll dates this tradition between the eighties and the year 107 or109 AH which is the terminus post quem100 This Abugrave Raltagrave howeverdisplays the same ldquopeculiaritiesrdquo as Abugrave U∆magraven I wonder why Juynbollrejects the latter as a possible informant of Sulaymagraven and perhaps orig-inator of the tradition because of these peculiarities but accepts theformer as originator of the ˙adigrave∆ in spite of these peculiarities

Juynbollrsquos conclusions concerning the tradition of Abugrave Raltagrave showother inconsistencies as well In the isnagraved bundle some of the variantsname the older Companion Imragraven b Oacuteusayn as informant of the com-mon link Abugrave Raltagrave other isnagraved variants have instead the youngerCompanion Abd Allagraveh b Abbagraves Both groups of isnagraveds are charac-terised by partial common links which speaks according to Juynbollin favour of the historicity of the transmission The conclusion shouldbe then that Abugrave Raltagrave has named both Companions as his sourceTo some of his pupils he must have mentioned Imragraven to others IbnAbbagraves and to a third group both Juynboll concludes however thatthe strands which go via Ibn Abbagraves ldquohail from later timesrdquo and meansthe time of the authors of the large compilations which emerged in thecourse of the third century101 This conclusion contradicts on the onehand his premise that the common link is not only the originator of thetext of the tradition but also of the single strand which refers to earlierauthorities on the other hand it contradicts his view that partial com-mon link transmissions are historical

I propose two alternative interpretations one of the common linkphenomenon and another of his single strand The early common links

98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360

100 Ibid 370101 Ibid 364-365 (since Ibn Abbagraves died later than Imragraven)


228

(the generation of the Companions excluded) were the first major col-lectors and professional disseminators of knowledge in general and oftraditions about individuals of the first Islamic century in particularThis does not exclude the possibility that some traditions were revisedcombined or even invented by the common links

The single strand of the common link reproduces first of all thename of the informant from whom the common link received or allegedto have the tradition then the way by which the informant claimed tohave received it or the way by which the common link thought thathis informant has got it Juynboll rejects the single strand as fictitiouswith the argument that if it were a real transmission path we mustexpect to find not only this one but many others Such an expectationis however not plausible if we assume that a common link is a majorteaching collector In this case his single strand reflects only the pathhe has mentioned The single strand does not signify that this has beenthe only channel through which the tradition was spread Other chan-nels of transmission may have existed but remained unknown becausethey were not quoted by one of the major collectors and professionaldisseminators of traditions or perhaps found the way only into collec-tions we do not know (yet)102 This explanation of the common linkphenomenon seems more in harmony with our knowledge concerningthe transmission processes during the first three Islamic centuries thanthat of Juynboll and Schacht Whether it is a workable hypothesis hasto be tested

2) Another problem is Juynbollrsquos division between historical andunhistorical common links It says that only those transmission linescan be considered historical which contain partial common links betweenthe common link and the authors of the collections In these casesJuynboll speaks of a ldquoreal common linkrdquo which has to be distinguishedfrom a ldquoseeming common linkrdquo ldquoSpidery bundlesrdquo ie transmissionswhich consists mostly of single strands between the common link andthe collections must be considered unhistorical He expresses this the-sis in the form of a general rule which he calls ldquoa major adagerdquo ldquothemore transmission lines there are coming together in a certain trans-mitter [ ] the more that moment of transmission [ ] has a claimto historicityrdquo103

102 See also Motzki ldquoQuo vadis Oacuteadigrave∆-Forschungrdquo103 Juynboll ldquoSome Isnagraved-Analytical Methodsrdquo 352


229

This general rule is plausible It is not however very practical ashis own examples prove When we look at Juynbollrsquos diagrams illustratinghis isnagraved analysis it is striking that in many cases partial common linksappear almost exclusively on the level of those transmitters who directlyrefer to the common link They show up more rarely in the later gen-erations of transmitters Most transmission lines between these partialcommon links and the collections are single strands104 If one takes seri-ously Juynbollrsquos general rule then most of the traditions dealt with inhis article must be considered unhistorical Obviously Juynbollrsquos con-ditions for traditions to be accepted as historical make too great ademand on the scanty sources available to be useful in practice

What an isnagraved bundle of a tradition shows are its transmission lineswhich we find in the compilations of a few (seldom more than a dozen)later collectors Each of these compilators reproduce one or more trans-mission lines by which he has or claims to have received the traditionIf one assumes that there has been transmission of traditions at all andthat (at least) a part of the transmission lines between the compilationsand the common link are real ones (an assumption with which Juynbollagrees) then they can only represent a tiny part of the many trans-mission lines which must have actually existed Therefore it cannot beexpected that the part reflects the structure of the whole Partial com-mon links or ldquoknotsrdquo in the transmission lines are ideal cases whichour sources by chance can reveal The demand that only those trans-mission lines which are completely filled with partial common linksmust be accepted as historical would leave us with only a few histori-cal traditions105

3) The last point I would like to discuss is Juynbollrsquos claim that theldquodiving single strandsrdquo are fabricated by the authors of the Oacuteadigrave∆ col-lections or their informants This claim is based mainly on e silentio

arguments of which examples have been given above In a more gen-eral form the argument goes as follows Isnagraveds which contain the namesof early collectors of whom Oacuteadigrave∆ compilations are available (eg Magravelikor Abd al-Razzagraveq) or names of individuals (eg Ibn Uyayna or rdquouba)which are richly documented in the collections of their pupils (eg

104 See ibid 349 351 363 365 368 Diagram 7 (p 373) displays a ldquospiderrdquo withDagravewugraved b Qays as ldquoknotrdquo In spite of it Juynboll considers him an ldquounmistakablerdquoc[ommon] l[ink] Ibid 372

105 For a more detailed presentation of my arguments see Motzki ldquoQuo vadis Oacuteadigrave∆-Forschungrdquo


230

al-Oacuteumaydigrave or al-ˇayagravelisigrave) but which are only found in later Oacuteadigrave∆ col-lections (eg those of Ibn Oacuteanbal or Muslim) are fabrications For ifthese isnagraveds were authentic ones we could expect to find them in theearlier compilations already This argument is based on the assump-tion that the earlier compilations contain completely or exhaustively thetransmitted material of the persons in question For the second andthird century at least this assumption appears unlikely

Firstly the material which teachers passed on to their pupils duringlectures and seminars was for practical reasons surely only a selectionof what they had learned or possessed themselves Secondly it seemslikely that the content of the lectures was not always the same in thecourse of decades so that not all the students of a teacher learned thesame subjects from him Thirdly it is doubtful whether all early col-lections which were compiled by a scholar and transmitted by his pupilswere transmitted completely and accurately We must reckon withprocesses of edition selection and rearrangement106

3 Michael Cookrsquos Critique of Dating by Employing the Common LinkThe most detailed and subtle critique of the dating method which makesuse of the common link phenomenon has been put forward by MichaelCook He has articulated his general reservations first in the chapterldquoThe dating of traditionsrdquo of his book Early Muslim Dogma a critiqueof Joseph van Essrsquo study Zwischen Oacuteadigravet und Theologie Later he tried toprove the unreliability of the method with some examples107 Cookrsquosreservation about dating with the common link derives from two sortsof arguments first general considerations concerning the value of knowl-edge in early Islamic civilisation and concerning the motives of forgerysecondly concrete ideas about how isnagraved fabrication had happened orpossibly could have happened Cookrsquos general considerations are basedon the following assumptions

1) ldquoIn a traditionist culture [ ] the relevant value is not originalitybut authority sharp practice consists in falsely ascribing my view to a

106 As regards Juynbollrsquos additional argument based on the matns of the dives onecan wonder whether this is not a rash generalisation Besides it starts from the assump-tion that generally shorter matns are earlier which is far from certain A comparativestudy of the matns of common links and of diving transmissions would be most wel-come

107 In his article ldquoEschatology and the Dating of Traditionsrdquo in Princeton Papers in NearEastern Studies 1 (1992) 23-47


231

greater authority than myself rdquo108 2) Transmission lines have to be asshort as possible in order to be considered elegant 3) ldquoIsolated tradi-tionsrdquo ie traditions which have been only transmitted with one or afew varying isnagraveds109 are not accepted as proof These three ldquovaluesrdquoresult in a sort of compulsion of ldquothe systemrdquo that makes forgeriesacceptable and plausible110

Is the argument implied here convincing Let us begin with the firstassumption I wonder whether the Muslim educational system during thefirst and second century after the Hijra is adequately characterised by thelabel ldquotraditionist culturerdquo in which ldquothe relevant value is not originalitybut authorityrdquo111 This is a black and white picture Was the educationalsystem in early Islam really so one-sided or is it more fairly describedas a system in which both values originality and authority played arole Just the first Islamic centuries were characterised by a conflictbetween both values a conflict in which authority eventually triumphedbut victory was not yet won at the end of the second century

According to Cook the first assumption explains the phenomenonof what Schacht has called ldquobackwards growth of isnagravedsrdquo ie ldquotheprocess whereby [ ] isnagraveds are lsquoraisedrsquo from oneself to onersquos teacherto his teacher and ultimately to the Prophetrdquo112 Cook illustrates thephenomenon with an anecdote which reports that Amr b Digravenagraver ascribeda saying to Ibn Abbagraves but when a colleague spoke to Amr about itthe latter admitted that he had received the saying from an informantwithout explicit mention that it was a saying of the Companion Thisprompts Cook to formulate the rule ldquoWhere one isnagraved reaches only toA and a second goes back through him to his teacher then given thevalues of the system we are entitled to suspect that the higher isnagraved issecondary rather than the other way roundrdquo113

Is it legitimate to draw such a general rule from the anecdote Ifwe generalise the report about Amr it says that it could happen thata scholar ascribed a saying of his informant or teacher to an earlier

108 Cook Early Muslim Dogma 107-108109 See for a more precise definition GHA Juynboll under the entry ldquoKhabar al-

wagrave˙idrdquo in Encyclopaedia of Islam 2nd Edition ed B Lewis et al Leiden EJ Brill1960- IV 896 Henceforth abbrev EI 2

110 Cook Early Muslim Dogma 111111 Ibid 108112 Ibid113 Ibid


232

authority whom the informant had not mentioned What does thisprove First the anecdote does not say that it was the opinion of thescholar himself which he ascribed to an earlier authority as Cook sup-poses calling it a ldquosharp practicerdquo Secondly if the anecdote has ahistorical value at all and did not result from rivalry between differentcentres of scholarship then the anecdote merely proves that such casesof dishonesty or inaccuracy happened No one would deny that YetCookrsquos conclusion reaches further he suggests that it was ldquoa systemrdquoie early Muslim scholars generally behaved in this manner Based onone anecdote (or even a few more) is such a conclusion warranted

The second method of forgery which Cook considers to be a con-sequence of the system of values and exerting pressure on the scholarsis ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo ie ndash as Schacht has put it ndash ldquothe creation ofadditional authorities or transmitters for the same doctrine or tradi-tionrdquo114 This sort of forgery is more tricky than others because in-stances of it are more difficult to detect Moreover according to Cookit has serious consequences for the dating on the basis of common links

Cook distinguishes between three types of ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo Thefirst type is one where a transmitter ascribes a tradition which he hasonly received from a contemporary or a fellow student to the latterrsquosteacher thereby suppressing his real informant in the isnagraved By this trickthe latterrsquos teacher becomes a common link which in fact he is notThis does not fit precisely the definition which Schacht gave of ldquospreadof isnagravedsrdquo namely ldquocreation of additional authorities or transmittersrdquoIn these cases transmitters or authorities are omitted from the isnagravedCook imagines that in the same manner even two levels of informantscould be jumped over and an even earlier virtual common link couldbe created That such things really happened Cook demonstrates byanecdotes with doubtful historical reliability such as that about Sufyagravenb Uyayna who is reported to have suppressed in an isnagraved two trans-mitters115 This anecdote is aimed at portraying Ibn Uyayna as a badtransmitter whereas other anecdotes say just the contrary namely thathe tried to hear personally from an old scholar whose traditions hereceived from someone else

Next to ldquostriving for higher authorityrdquo Cook mentions in this con-text his second ldquobasic value of the systemrdquo namely elegance Againhe illustrates this with anecdotes to the effect that shorter isnagraveds were

114 Schacht The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence 166115 Cook Early Muslim Dogma 111


233

preferred to longer ones116 However several of these anecdotes onlyreport that there had been scholars who tried to hear a tradition whichthey had heard from a colleague (in one case a much younger scholar)from the source himself117 It is not mentioned in the anecdotes thatthey did so in order to have a more elegant isnagraved It seems somewhatdoubtful that in the first half of the second century after the Hijra theelegance of isnagraveds was already an issue The motive behind the be-haviour of those scholars was the desire to transmit from an old andfamous scholar themselves instead through a younger colleague becauseit provided more scholarly prestige A similar but less anecdotal reportis transmitted for example from Ya˙yagrave b Ya˙yagrave al-Maszligmugravedigrave the trans-mitter of the most current version of Magravelikrsquos Muwadaggerdaggera It is reportedthat Ya˙yagrave had studied Magravelikrsquos Muwadaggerdaggera in al-Andalus with his teacherZiyagraved b Abd al-Ra˙magraven but then travelled to Medina in order tohear the same text from Magravelik himself118 Did he make the voyage fromal-Andalus to Arabia only in order to have a more elegant isnagraved Besidesthe anecdotes quoted by Cook prove not only dishonesty but also thecontrary namely that there were also scholars who did not suppresstheir informant in order to be able to relate from an older authority

Cookrsquos second variant of ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo is the hypothetical casethat a transmitter not only conceals his direct informant but also replacesthe latterrsquos teacher by his own teacher In this way the transmitter cre-ates a virtual common link two generation before himself because hisfictitious informant (his real teacher) and the teacher of his real infor-mant appear as pupils of the same early authority This would be atrue ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo according to Schachtrsquos definition since in thiscase a fictitious transmitter is added Cook gives no evidence for thishypothetical case not even an anecdote

Speculation over possible kinds of forgery can be carried on until itfinds its natural end in the assumption that whole isnagraveds can be fab-ricated and added arbitrarily to traditions Cook gives no documenta-tion for this third type of ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo which has been mentionedalready by Schacht119

116 Ibid 109117 Ibid 202-203 note 7118 Cf Zurqagravenigrave Mu˙ammad Abd al-Bagraveqigrave rdquoar˙ alagrave Muwadaggerdaggera al-imagravem Magravelik Beirut

1990 I 19119 There are of course anecdotes which report such cases see for example Goldziher

Muhammedanische Studien II 160


234

Touching on the last two types of forgery Cook mentions his thirdvalue of ldquotraditionist culturerdquo ldquothe objection which used to be madeto lsquoisolatedrsquo traditionsrdquo Supposedly this compelled Muslim scholars toforge isnagraveds120 But as in the case of the other two ldquovalues of the sys-temrdquo the assumption that this value played an important role as a dri-ving force in isnagraved forgery is too vague and undifferentiated Was theobjection to ldquoisolated traditionsrdquo already an issue in the first centuryand during the most part of the second century It seems doubtful thatthis motive applies to the isnagraveds of this period In addition one wonderswhether the reservation against al-centabar al-wagrave˙id (isolated tradition) affectedall sorts of traditions equally or only one genre namely legal Oacuteadigrave∆

Cook himself wonders whether ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo was ldquoa processoperative on a historically significant scalerdquo and admits ldquothat the evi-dence does not lend itself to a conclusive answerrdquo121 He thinks how-ever ldquothat some store must be set by the fact that the process [of theldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo] as outlined is thoroughly in accordance with thecharacter and the values of the systemrdquo122 In view of the reservationswhich can be brought forward against Cookrsquos ldquovaluesrdquo ndash the gist ofthese reservations being that Cookrsquos ideas are historically speaking toovague undifferentiated and provable only by anecdotes ndash the whole the-ory that there existed a compulsion to forgery by reason of those val-ues is unconvincing Besides it is doubtful first that ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquowas really practised ldquoon a significant scalerdquo second that all isnagraveds nomatter the genre of the tradition are affected equally thirdly thatldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo was practised at all times to the same extent andfinally that the assumption of forgery on a huge scale applies also tothe traditions contained in the collections of the critical Oacuteadigrave∆ scholars

Based on his conviction that forgery was stimulated by certain cul-tural values Cook concludes that scholars who are using ˙adigrave∆s todayhave only two methodological choices if they deny that ldquospread ofisnagravedsrdquo happened on a significant scale they must also accept mutawagravetir

traditions123 as historically reliable if they admit on the contrary thatMuslim scholars forged isnagraveds in huge dimensions they must give upthe idea that it is possible to date traditions on the basis of the isnagravedsin general and the common link phenomenon in particular

120 Cook Early Muslim Dogma 110121 Ibid 111122 Ibid123 See for them p 38


235

However in view of the reservations against his arguments theseare not the only positions which can be chosen Neither Schacht norCook have convincingly shown that ldquospread of isnagravedsrdquo was really prac-tised on a significant scale They have only shown that there were sev-eral possible ways how isnagraveds could be forged and that Muslim schol-ars could have had different motives to do so Apart from possibilitiesSchacht and Cook produced only scarce evidence that isnagraved forgeryreally happened

On the basis of mere possibilities and a few instances of the realforgery it makes no sense to abstain completely from using the isnagravedsfor dating purposes The historians of the European Middle Ages wouldnot abstain from using diplomas as historical sources because there werecases of forgery which are not easy to detect The intention of the isnagravedsystem was to assure the reliability of the transmission process Thebasic value linked with it was that I have to name the informant fromwhom I had received the information Doing otherwise intentionallywas forgery and dishonesty Certainly this must have been clear toanybody familiar with that system and the whole scholarly communityas a whole must have watched to ensure that its norm was not vio-lated This does not exclude that forgery could happen But it seemsunlikely that it happened at a huge scale in scholarly circles not tospeak of the circles of mu˙addi∆ugraven124 If the scholarly isnagraved system wasonly or mainly used to feign reliability then the whole system of val-idating traditions by isnagraveds would have become absurd Al-rdquoagravefiigraversquos insis-tence on traditions with reliable isnagraveds would have been pointless andhypocritical if he had been convinced that most traditions available inhis time were equipped with fabricated isnagraveds Was the whole systemof Muslim Oacuteadigrave∆ criticism only a manoeuvre of deception Who hadto be deceived Other Muslim scholars They must have been awareof the pointlessness and vanity of all the efforts to maintain high stan-dards of transmission if forgery of isnagraveds was part and parcel of thedaily scholarly practice125

It seems therefore more appropriate to keep the premise that gen-erally speaking the isnagraved system served the expectations of the traditionistOtherwise we would expect that they would have quickly abandonedit Until we have proof to the contrary we must therefore presume

124 Their use of isnagraveds must not be equated with that of popular storytellers 125 See also my ldquoThe Prophet and the Cat on Dating Magravelikrsquos Muwadaggerdaggera and Legal

Traditionsrdquo in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 22 (1998) 32 note 44


236

that isnagraveds are in principle reliable except perhaps around the timewhen the system came into being Still and all we have to be on ourguard against possible cases of error well meant improvement or forgeryin the isnagraveds The question of the possible motives for improvementand forgery an issue which occupied Cook in his chapter ldquoThe dat-ing of traditionsrdquo may help in this connection as may the study ofthe relationship between isnagraveds and matns of a particular tradition amethod to be dealt with in the next chapter

Before we leave the issue of the type of isnagraved analysis which is focusedon a single tradition Cookrsquos attempt to check the reliability of Schachtrsquosdating methods will be reviewed In his brilliantly argued articleldquoEschatology and the Dating of Traditionsrdquo126 he examines traditionswhich ldquocan be dated on external groundsrdquo ie independently of theisnagraveds127 Such an external dating seems to be possible in case of tra-ditions which predict certain historical events though not quite cor-rectly This reservation is important for a tradition which predicts whatreally happened could have been created post eventum and is thus notsuitable for an external dating Cook rightly assumes that half-true pre-dictions must originate from a time before the predicted event hadactually happened128 However a crucial point for dating on externalgrounds is that there should be no doubt that the prediction in ques-tion really intended a particular historical event

Among the three examples Cook presents in his article only two aredatable with some certainty on external grounds the tradition aboutldquothe reign of Tiberius son of Justinianrdquo (which is to be dated between93 AH711 CE and 119 AH737 CE) and the tradition aboutldquoIbn al-Zubayr and the Mahdigraverdquo (datable into the time of the SecondCivil War ie 64-73 AH683-692 CE)129 These two traditions arepreserved in several variants with different isnagraveds and thus permit anisnagraved analysis Cook examines whether the dating based on an isnagraved

analysis following the principles defined by Schacht is corroboratedby the external dating of the two traditions His conclusion is that ldquoin

126 Cook ldquoEschatology and the Dating of Traditionsrdquo 23-47127 This method belongs actually to my fifth category of dating methods which is

not discussed in this article (see note 5) Cookrsquos article is nevertheless included herebecause of its importance for isnagraved analysis

128 Cook ldquoEschatology and the Dating of Traditionsrdquo 25129 In the case of the ldquotradition on the Andalusian invasion of Egyptrdquo Cook admits

ldquothe possibility that the apparent relationship between prophecy and event is fortuitousrdquoIbid 29


237

none of the [ ] cases examined does the obvious external datingmatch the obvious Schachtian datingrdquo130 Among Schachtrsquos criteria ofdating the following proved to be unreliable first the general datingldquothat fabrication of legal traditions began only around the year 100AH718 CErdquo secondly the rule ldquothat the better the isnagraved in termsof the classical norms of Oacuteadigrave∆ criticism the later the real date of thetraditionrdquo131 thirdly the claim that traditions going back to the Prophetare the most recent ones and finally the common link method Cooksummarises the result of his study in the sentence ldquoThere is nothingin my findings that could serve to encourage recruitment to the Schachtianschoolrdquo of dating traditions132 This discovery based on two concreteexamples is not surprising in view of the theoretical weaknesses ofSchachtrsquos dating methods which I discussed above133 Based on a muchbroader textual basis and by using other methods of analysis I cameto a similar conclusion in my study Die Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz134

However I am convinced that some of the criteria proposed bySchacht for the dating of traditions remain valuable under the condi-tion that they are freed of their Schachtian interpretation and that theyare removed from their connections with his other principles of dat-ing The common link method is one of the principles which deservesmore confidence than Cook is prepared to give it In his amiable man-ner of discussion Cook writes ldquoI am sympathetic to critics of thispapers who urge that the existence of common links must mean some-thing but just what it means I do not pretend to knowrdquo135

In view of the results which the examination of Schachtrsquos datingmethods have produced Cookrsquos reservation is understandable Schachtconsidered the common link as the originator or fabricator of the tra-dition in question and denied emphatically that he had transmitted itfrom the preceding generation and even less from the individual henamed as his informant Cook on the other hand came to the con-clusion that in the two cases which are datable on external grounds

130 Ibid 35131 Ibid 24132 Ibid 35133 See pp 7-9 11-12 16-20134 Except for the common link phenomenon See note 24 Cookrsquos and my own neg-

ative judgement on Schachtrsquos dating method affects his method as a whole the interplayof individual premises and rules on which his instances of dating are based and theinterpretation which Schacht gave to certain phenomena occurring in the field of Oacuteadigrave∆

135 Ibid 46 note 74


238

the common links cannot be the originators of the traditions in ques-tion because these traditions must be earlier

But Cookrsquos conclusion that ldquothe common link method performspoorlyrdquo has to do with the fact that he slavishly follows Schachtrsquos ideaof what the common link represents136 When discussing Schachtrsquos andJuynbollrsquos interpretation of the common link phenomenon I have alreadysuggested that an alternative interpretation is possible and that thereare reasons in many cases not to consider the common links as theoriginators or rather fabricators of the traditions in question but as thefirst major collectors and professional disseminators of traditions137 Onereason is my conviction (which I share with Schacht) that the trans-mission lines which fan out from the common link onwards until theyreach the later collections are for the most part the real paths of trans-mission (Schachtrsquos ldquoreal partrdquo of the isnagraved structure) This is not meantto exclude occasional instances of improvement or fabrications of isnagraveds138

If most of the transmitters of the isnagraved strands which fan out fromthe common link onwards are real transmitters it is implausible to denya priori and categorically that the common link could be a real trans-mitter as well Why must the common link always be a fabricatorWhy could he not have received the tradition (at least the gist of it)from the person he gives as his informant I have discussed the argu-ments brought forward by those who regard the common link as thefabricator elsewhere in some detail139 So in the present context I shallreject this interpretation of the common link without additional argu-ment That the common links which appear from the generation ofthe successors onwards should be considered mostly as major collectorsis not meant to exclude that occasionally they can have invented atradition changed ndash intentionally or by mistake ndash the matn or isnagraved ofa tradition which they had received or can have not given the rightnames of their informants

If one applies this conception of the common link to the two eschato-logical traditions which Cook served to refute the common link methodit becomes obvious that the external dating fits very well the position ofthe common link in the isnagraved bundles In the case of the tradition con-

136 Ibid 35137 This definition concerns only common links from the generation of the Successors

onwards not those on the level of the Companions The latter must not be mixed upwith the former See below p 38

138 For the reason why only occasional see above pp 31-32139 See Motzki ldquoQuo vadis Oacuteadigrave∆-Forschungrdquo


239

cerning ldquoIbn Zubayr and the Mahdigraverdquo the isnagraved bundle suggests Abugraveal-rsaquoaligravel as source of the common link Qatagraveda (117 AH735-6 CE)140

The tradition about ldquoThe reign of Tiberiusrdquo is more complicatedbecause it represents the rare case of a tradition with two independentcommon links who are contemporaries but lived in different countriesIn addition each common link has different informants a fact whichis also somewhat rare In such a case it is difficult to decide what hap-pened In order to explain how the different informants and isnagraveds ofeach common link came into being one could imagine that the com-mon link received the tradition from more than one informant possi-bly with different matns and isnagraveds and transmitted them at times asindividual traditions with their original matn at other times in the formof a combined tradition that is with one matn but varying isnagraveds Thefact that a similar tradition appears both in Syria and Egypt withoutshowing a common source in the isnagraveds can perhaps be explained asdiffusion The turn of the first century was certainly a period whichwas susceptible to eschatological predictions which must have been cir-culating widely and quickly as often happens at turns of centuries Therecould have been slightly different versions spread by different peopleThe several names which appear as informants of the common linkscan reflect this situation they must not necessarily be fictitious Theinformants of the common links are the generation in which the tra-dition must have its origin according to the external dating If we con-sider the common links not as originatorsfabricators but as collectorsof the traditions the dating based on the common link fits perfectly theexternal dating141

The thesis that the common link phenomenon can best be explainedby the collection and the systematic or institutionalised as it werespreading of traditions in circles of scholars takes the fact into accountalready realised by Schacht that most of the common links we find inOacuteadigrave∆ literature belong to the first three generations active during thesecond century ie the time between roughly 100 and 175 AH142

140 He is Iacuteagraveli˙ b Abigrave Maryam al-Icircubaigrave his date of death is unknown Cf IbnOacutea[ar Tahasympigraveb IV 402-403

141 For the issue of dating eschatological traditions by the common link see the recentarticle of A Goumlrke ldquoEschatology History and the Common Link A Study inMethodologyrdquo in H Berg (ed) Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins LeidenEJ Brill 2003 179-208



240

This is exactly the time in which the first substantial collections of tra-ditions were compiled and their material transmitted more systemati-cally in institutionalised scholarly circles It became the basic materialof the more substantial collections compiled at the end of the secondand during the third century AH143

When transmitting their material to their pupils the first major col-lectors mostly confined themselves ndash probably for practical reasons ndash togive the name of only one informant even if they had heard the con-tent from more than one This assumption explains the fact that thepart of the isnagraveds which reaches from the common link back to earlierauthorities has mostly the form of a single strand The rarer cases inwhich two or more names are mentioned as informants of the com-mon link show that occasionally scholars found it suitable to indicatethat they had received the information from different people This pro-cedure was particularly called for when the collector combined differentreports to a single new one In such cases the common link transmit-ter could give the names of all his informants in the isnagraved (collectiveisnagraved ) or mention sometimes one of the informants sometimes anotherone This explanation of the relation between the common link andhis informant(s) is not meant to exclude the possibility that differencein the names of the informant of the common link can also be causedby carelessness or intentional change on the part of the common linkor a later transmitter

The idea that most common links from the tagravebiugraven generation onwardswere collectors not fabricators has consequences for the dating of theirtraditions Then the time of the common linkrsquos activity as a scholaris in many cases not the terminus post quem his traditions have existed(as Schacht and Juynboll claimed) but the terminus ante quem We areentitled to assume that the common link received the tradition ndash at leastthe gist of it ndash from the individual(s) he gives as his informant(s) as long

143 The generation of the earlier tagravebi ugraven (fl in the last third of the first century AHmust ndash at least partially ndash be added to this category of common links even if theyappear more rarely The common links of this generation such as Urwa b al-Zubayrand Saigraved b al-Musayyab can be integrated in the conception of collectors in assum-ing that they were the first minor collectors of traditions which were active at a timein which the system of institutionalised scholarship was only just starting Actually itwas the generation of the teachers of the first major collectors such as Ibn rdquoihagraveb al-Zuhrigrave The scholars from among the early tagravebiugraven appear more rarely as common linksbecause their teaching circles were yet small and because only a few of their pupilsbecame famous scholars themselves and collected and spread traditions systematically


241

indications are lacking to the contrary144 The informant of the com-mon link is crucial to the dating of the tradition not the common linkhimself The informantrsquos date of death ndash or more exactly the time inwhich the common link had contact with him ndash is the terminus post quem

Epistemologically the shift of the terminus post quem from the commonlink to his informant(s) is accompanied by a decrease in certainty

We can be sure that the tradition existed at the time of the com-mon link (if he is a real one) because two or more people transmittedit from the common link but the isnagraved does not give us a clue to decidewhether the common link really had the tradition from the person hegives as his informant This loss of certainty is compensated to a certaindegree It is compensated first by the legitimate premise that in mostcases the collector will have given the real informant For there is noreason to assume that most collectors invented them Some collectors mayhave had reasons to hide their real informant in some cases or mayhave boasted occasionally with a spectacular authority But these casesmust be considered the exceptions not the rule Secondly a system-atic investigation of a common linkrsquos practice of giving his informantscan help to judge the reliability of a common link145

The conception of the common link as systematic collector does notexplain common links which belong to the generation of the szliga˙agraveba orthe case of the Prophet himself being the common link These casesrequire other explanations Since this issue has not yet been sufficientlystudied I confine myself to a few remarks We should differentiatebetween traditions in which only one Companion appears as commonlink and mutawagravetir traditions in which the Prophet is the common linkfrom which several companions are alleged to have transmitted In thefirst case we cannot exclude a priori that such traditions are the relicsof a real transmission process Circles of pupils developed probablyalready around some Companions Out of these circles grew the first

144 Such indications can be detected for example by studying systematically the tra-ditions of the common link in question and by examining his practice of giving infor-mants For examples of such investigations see Motzki Die Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenzidem The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence idem ldquoDer Fiqh des-Zuhrigrave die Quellenproblematikrdquoin Der Islam 68 (1991) 1-44 English transl ldquoThe Jurisprudence of Ibn rdquoihagraveb az-ZuhrigraveA Source-critical Studyrdquo (Nijmegen 2001 httpwebdocubnkunnlmonommotzki_hjuriofibspdf ) 55 pp

145 There are only very few investigations of this kind until now For the commonlink Ibn ]uray[ see Motzki Die Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz passim and esp 209-212 idem The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence 234-238


242

scholarly circles of the early tagravebiugraven generation in the great administra-tive and intellectual centres of the early Islamic world146 Besides wemust reckon with family or tribal traditions which focus on a Companionand may be very early147 Such traditions could even have been pre-served for some time independently of the scholarly circles and couldhave been covered by the systematic collection of traditions only at alater date148 How traditions developed in which the Prophet appearsas a common link I do not know I assume that there is no generalsolution of this problem different possibilities must be accounted forIn any case the issue deserves further study

B Source Reconstruction on the Basis of Isnagraveds

Our knowledge of the first two centuries of Islam is based on sourcesdating mostly not earlier than the third century These sources pretendto be collections of pieces of information which are much earlier andwhich were transmitted by several generations of scholars Yet fromlater sources we also know that there were already earlier collectionscompiled during the second or even the first century of which onlythe titles and the names of their putative authors are preserved Forthe historian of early Islam who has to rely on the later sources be-cause they are almost the only ones available the question arises whetherthese sources really contain earlier material and if so how early it isThis question can hardly be answered by analysing the content of thetexts The isnagraveds on the contrary can be of much help Many sourcesprovide chains of transmitters for every piece of information or giveat least the name of the person of whom the information is said toderive If these chains of transmitters are not entirely fictitious theycan tell us something about the history of the texts before they becametaken down in the later collections

The possible usefulness of the isnagraveds for the ldquoreconstruction of ear-lier sourcesrdquo ndash this expression which will be clarified below ndash was realisedby Western scholars already in the nineteenth century Thanks to their

146 Cf H Motzki ldquoDie Entstehung des Rechtsrdquo in A NothJ Paul (eds) Der islamischeOrient Grundzuumlge seiner Geschichte Wuumlrzburg Ergon Verlag 1998 167 ff

147 I have reconstructed such Companion traditions in ldquoThe Prophet and the Catrdquoand ldquoThe Murder of Ibn Abigrave l-Oacuteuqayqrdquo For another example see DS Powers ldquoOnBequests in Early Islamrdquo

148 An example of an early tradition emerging only in later collections is the Surraq˙adigrave∆ Cf H Motzki ldquoDer Prophet und die Schuldner Eine ˙adigrave∆-Untersuchung auf demPruumlfstandrdquo in Der Islam 77 (2000) 1-83


243

experience in Biblical studies early scholars working in the field ofIslamic history like Julius Wellhausen not only had a keen sense forldquosource reconstructionrdquo but they also had right at their disposal mostsuitable sources for such a reconstruction namely al-ˇabarigraversquos (d 310AH923 CE) monumental Tarigravecent al-rusugravel wa l-mulugravek and al-Balagraveasympurigraversquos(d 279 AH892 CE) Futugrave˙ al-buldagraven In these works every report isequipped with an isnagraved By investigating the isnagraveds of a compilation andlooking for common transmitters in its transmission lines material ofearlier compilers was detected such as Ibn Is˙agraveq (d 150 AH767CE) Abugrave Micentnaf (d 157 AH775 CE) Sayf b Umar (d 180AH796 CE) al-Wagraveqidigrave (d 207 AH823 CE) and al-Madagraveinigrave(d 228 AH843 CE)149 Most scholars of early Islamic history acceptedthe method in principle although some details of its application remainedcontroversial150 It was also used in other fields of Islamic studies suchas tafsigraver Oacuteadigrave∆ in the stricter sense and adab151 An investigation intothe sources of al-ˇabarigraversquos voluminous commentary of the Quragraven forexample detected quite a number of substantial earlier collections onwhich his Tafsigraver is based Among them are such early ones like that of Ibn Abigrave Na[igrave˙ (d 131 AH748-9 CE) Ibn ]uray[ (d 150 AH767 CE) Mamar b Ragraveldquoid (d 153 AH770 CE) Abugrave ]afar al-Ragravezigrave (d ca 160 AH777 CE) Asbagravedagger b Naszligr al-Hamdagravenigrave (fl firsthalf of the second AHeight century CE) Ibn Is˙agraveq (d 150 AH767 CE) and Sufyagraven al-Ocircawrigrave (d 161 AH778 CE)152 Among the

149 See J Wellhausen ldquoProlegomena zur aumlltesten Geschichte des Islamsrdquo in his Skizzenund Vorarbeiten Berlin 1844-1899 VI 1-60

150 See eg A Noth ldquoDer Charakter der ersten groszligen Sammlungen von Nachrichtenzur fruumlhen Kalifenzeitrdquo in Der Islam 47 (1971) 168-199 U Sezgin Abugrave Micentnaf EinBeitrag zur Historiographie der Umaiyadischen Zeit Leiden EJ Brill 1971 G Rotter ldquoZurUumlberlieferung einiger historischer Werke Madagraveinigraves in ˇabarigraves Annalenrdquo in Oriens 23-24 (1974) 103-133 Kh Athamina ldquoThe sources of al-Balagravedhurigraversquos Ansagraveb al-ashragravefrdquo inJerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 5 (1984) 237-262 JA Bellamy ldquoSources of Ibn abigraversquol-Dunyagraversquos Kitagraveb Maqtal Amigraver al-Muminigravenrdquo in Journal of the American Oriental Society 104(1984) 3-19 S Leder Das Korpus al-Haitam ibn Adigrave (st 207822) Herkunft UumlberlieferungGestalt fruumlher Texte der Acentbagraver Literatur Frankfurt am Main Vittorio Klostermann 1991S Guumlnther Quellenuntersuchungen zu den ldquoMaqagravetil adagger- agravelibiyyigravenrdquo des Abugrave l-Fara[ al-Isfahagravenigrave(gest 356967) Hildesheim Georg Olms Verlag 1991

151 For the field of adab see L Zolondek ldquoThe sources of the Kitagraveb al-Aghagravenigraverdquo inArabica 8 (1961) 294-308 F Fleischhammer ldquoHinweise auf schriftliche Quellen im Kitagravebal-Acopyagravenigraverdquo in Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universitaumlt Halle-Wittenberg Gesellschafts-und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 28 (1979) 53-62 W Werkmeister Quellenuntersuchungen zumKitagraveb al-Iqd al-farigraved des Andalusiers Ibn Abdrabbih (246860-328940) ein Beitrag zur ara-bischen Literaturgeschichte in series Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 70 Berlin K Schwarz 1983

152 Cf H Horst ldquoZur Uumlberlieferung im Korankommentar adagger-ˇabarigravesrdquo in Zeitschrift


244

collections of Oacuteadigrave∆ in the stricter sense only al-Bucentagraverigraversquos (d 256 AH870CE) al-]agravemi al-szliga˙igrave˙ and Abd al-Razzagraveq al-Iacuteanagravenigraversquos (d 211 AH826CE) Muszligannaf have been systematically investigated with the methoduntil now153

Although the use of the isnagraveds for the ldquoreconstruction of earliersourcesrdquo is in principle accepted there is much disagreement about itin detail First how is it to be used Second what does ldquoreconstruc-tion of a sourcerdquo mean Third how far back in time does the methodleads us I shall review these topics which are connected with eachother focusing on the field of Oacuteadigrave∆ in the stricter sense

According to Fuat Sezgin the method works as follows First allisnagraveds given in a compilation such as al-Bucentagraverigraversquos ]agravemi are arrangedaccording to their youngest transmitters (the informants of al-Bucentagraverigrave)Second the isnagraveds of those among the youngest transmitters who arefrequently mentioned by the compiler (al-Bucentagraverigrave) must be further checkedfor whether in their transmission lines they have names in common Ifthey do not they must be regarded themselves as authors of sourceswhich the compiler has used If they do the last common name oftheir isnagraveds which contains the same transmitters must be consideredthe author of an earlier source (while the other common names indi-cate only transmitters)154

Sezgin gives the following isnagraved as example which occurs frequentlyin al-Bucentagraverigraversquos ]agravemi Abd Allagraveh b Mu˙ammad [al-Musnadigrave] (d 220AH843 CE) ndash Abd al-Razzagraveq [al-Iacuteanagravenigrave] (d 211 AH826 CE) ndashMamar [b Ragraveldquoid] (d 153 AH770 CE) ndash Hammagravem [b Munabbih](d 130 AH747 CE) ndash Abugrave Hurayra (d 58 AH678 CE or 59679)155

One would expect that according to his rule Sezgin singles Abugrave Hurayraout as the author of the source because Abugrave Hurayra is the last namewhich all those isnagraveds have in common Surprisingly Sezgin does notHe maintains that all individuals in the isnagraved are authors except Abugrave

der Deutschen Morgenlaumlndischen Gesellschaft 103 (1953) 290-307 The list of compilationsgiven above is my own based on Horstrsquos findings Horst himself assumes that therewere even earlier ones such as the Tafsigravers of Mu[agravehid (d 102 AH720-1 CE or 103721-2) Aligrave b Abigrave ˇal˙a (d 120 AH738 CE or 143760) and al-Suddigrave(d 127 AH744-5 CE)

153 Cf F Sezgin Bucentacircricircrsquonin kaynakları hakkında aratırmarlar Istanbul 1956 Motzki DieAnfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz idem ldquoThe Muszligannaf of Abd al-Razzagraveq al-Iacuteanagravenigrave asa Source of Authentic a˙agravedigraveth of the First Century AHrdquo in Journal of Near Eastern Studies50 (1991) 1-21

154 F Sezgin Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums Leiden EJ Brill 1967 I 82155 Ibid 81


245

Hurayra156 This inconsistency may be caused on the one hand bySezginrsquos idea that the names occurring in an isnagraved indicate ldquoauthorsand authorised transmitters of booksrdquo157 and on the other hand by hisconviction that Abugrave Hurayra although he possessed written notes can-not be the author of a book of almost one hundred and forty ˙adigrave∆sfrom the Prophet158

Be that as it may Sezgin thinks that the early source from whichal-Bucentagraverigrave draws is a collection of Hammagravem b Munabbih which isknown from later bio-bibliographical literature as ldquothe szliga˙igravefa of Hammagravemrdquoand which is also preserved as an independent booklet transmittedthrough Abd al-Razzagraveq and Mamar159 In what form had al-Bucentagraverigravethe collection of Hammagravem at his disposal In his original form trans-mitted through Mamar Abd al-Razzagraveq and al-Musnadigrave or more orless scattered and rearranged in the own books of the three transmittersHowever this question ndash which Sezgin does not dare to answer ndash isonly marginal for him because he is convinced that al-Bucentagraverigraversquos tradi-tions with the isnagraved mentioned above derive from Hammagravemrsquos szliga˙igravefa

anyway160 He assumes that they were transmitted carefully irrespectiveof whether they were combined with other traditions to make largercollections or not

According to Sezgin the reliability of the transmission process isguaranteed mainly by the fact that it happened by writing down thetexts and additional authorisation of them by the author or transmit-ter from whom they were received or by using written sources with-out authorisation The respective type of transmission Sezgin thinks isreflected in the transmission formulas used161 This method which Sezginproposed for the reconstruction of earlier sources on the basis of laterones ndash not only in the field of Oacuteadigrave∆ in the proper sense but for Arabicliterature of the first Islamic centuries in general ndash provoked a livelydebate among Western scholars The criticism was chiefly directed atthree of Sezginrsquos assumptions

156 Ibid157 Ibid 70 Also ibid 77 the author writes that ldquothe isnagraveds (denote) written texts [ ]rdquo

and ldquothe formulas in the chains of transmission [ ] actually refer to written sourcesrdquo158 According to M Hamidullah the szliga˙igravefa is on the contrary a collection of Abugrave

Hurayra which he dictated to Hammagravem Cf M Hamidullah Sahifa Hammam ibn MunabbihLuton UK Apex 1979 60

159 Ibid 88-97160 Sezgin Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums I 81 161 Ibid 77-78


246

First this criticism challenged Sezginrsquos idea that the transmissionprocess happened generally on the basis of written texts and that thenames given in the isnagraveds are authors or transmitters of written textsThis in turn lead to an extensive discussion about the question ofwhat role the oral and written transmissions have played during thefirst Islamic centuries162 The outcome of this fruitful discussion was thatSezginrsquos interpretation of the transmission process as one of passingonly books on is too undifferentiated The transmission must rather beunderstood in terms of a living teaching system in which both oral andwritten forms of passing information on were instrumental The partwhich both forms played could vary with respect to time region scholarand subject and must not be generalised not even for the transmis-sion of Oacuteadigrave∆ in the stricter sense

Secondly the discussion of Sezginrsquos method also made clear that heover-estimated the reliability of transmission and for that matter thepossibility of reconstructing lost sources on the basis of later compilationsIt is dangerous to conclude on the basis of the isnagraveds alone that traditionsof which the isnagraveds contain a putative author of a book (dealing withthe same subject as the traditions in question) reproduce parts of thatbook in their original form We would be on safer ground in assum-ing only that the texts go back to an earlier compiler not to a par-ticular compilation of his163 Sezginrsquos claim for example that al-Bucentagraverigraversquos

162 Cf for example G Stauth Die Uumlberlieferung des Korankommentars Mu[agravehid b ]abrsZur Frage der Rekonstruktion der in den Sammelwerken des 3 Jh d H benutzten fruumlhislamischenQuellenwerke PhD thesis Giessen 1969 SM al-Samuk Die historischen Uumlberlieferungen nachIbn Is˙agraveq Eine synoptische Untersuchung PhD thesis Frankfurt am Main 1978 R SellheimldquoAbugrave Aligrave al-Qagraveligrave Zum Problem muumlndlicher und schriftlicher Uumlberlieferung am Beispielvon Sprichwoumlrtersammlungenrdquo in Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen OrientsFestschrift fuumlr Bertold Spuler ed HR RoemerA Noth Leiden EJ Brill 1981 362-374idem ldquoMuhammeds erstes Offenbarungserlebnis Zum Problem muumlndlicher und schriftlicherUumlberlieferung im 17 und 28 Jahrhundertrdquo in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam10 (1987) 1-16 W Werkmeister Quellenuntersuchungen zum Kitagraveb al-Iqd al-farigraved des AndalusiersIbn Abdrabbih (246860-328940) G Schoeler ldquoDie Frage der schriftlichen oder muumlnd-lichen Uumlberlieferung der Wissenschaften im fruumlhen Islamrdquo in Der Islam 62 (1985) 201-230 idem ldquoWeiteres zur Frage der schriftlichen und muumlndlichen Uumlberlieferung derWissenschaften im Islamrdquo in Der Islam 66 (1989) 38-67 idem ldquoMuumlndliche Thora undOacuteadigravet Uumlberlieferung Schreibverbot Redaktionrdquo in Der Islam 66 (1989) 213-251 (Englishtranslation in H Motzki (ed) Hadith Origins and Developments in series The Formation ofthe Classical Islamic World 28 Aldershot AshgateVariorum 2004) idem ldquoSchreiben undVeroumlffentlichen Zur Verwendung und Funktion der Schrift in den ersten islamischenJahrhundertenrdquo in Der Islam 69 (1992) 1-43 Motzki Die Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz87-95 idem The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence 95-104

163 Cf H Motzki ldquoThe Author and his Work in Islamic Literature of the FirstCenturies The Case of Abd al-Razzagraveqrsquos Muszligannaf rdquo in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic andIslam 28 (2003) 171-201


247

traditions with the above mentioned isnagraved going back via Hammagravem bMunabbih to Abugrave Hurayra reproduce the traditions such as they werecontained in Hammagravemrsquos szliga˙igravefa can only be considered as one of sev-eral possibilities164 Even if one could prove that in this particular casethe same cannot be supposed for other cases of Oacuteadigrave∆ transmission aswell and still less for the transmission of other sorts of knowledge165

Thirdly Sezginrsquos idea that the transmission formulae in the isnagraveds

reflect faithfully the types of transmission such as they have been definedin the classical handbooks of Oacuteadigrave∆ is doubtful too in its general claimIt has been shown that it is not generally true at least for the secondcentury AH This is just the period in which most of the early com-pilations originated166

Yet the shortcomings of Sezginrsquos application of the method does notjustify the conclusion that the isnagraveds are useless for the reconstructionof earlier sources We must only be aware that ldquoreconstructionrdquo doesnot necessarily lead to books and their original texts and we must lookfor additional indications in a compilation and its traditions which mighthelp to substantiate the conclusions which can be drawn from the namescontained in the isnagraveds

In my study Die Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz I used the isnagravedsfound in Abd al-Razzagraveqrsquos Muszligannaf to recover earlier ldquosourcesrdquo namelymaterial going back to Mamar b Ragraveldquoid Ibn ]uray[ Sufyagraven al-Ocircawrigraveand Ibn Uyayna who are a generation older than Abd al-RazzagraveqAlthough at least three of the four scholars are mentioned in latersources as authors of books of the same genre as Abd al-Razzagraveqrsquos theconclusion that the latter derived his material from those books (asSezgin would conclude) cannot be substantiated because the books seemto be lost A safer conclusion would be that Abd al-Razzagraveq receivedthe texts in the lectures of the four scholars a conclusion which is cor-roborated by biographical traditions The idea suggests itself that theirsupposed compilations may have formed for a large part the basis oftheir lectures and that Abd al-Razzagraveq wrote the lectures down buthow he did it ndash word-for-word or in taking notes ndash we cannot ascertainwithout an investigation of the texts itself and their comparison with

164 Another possibility is that they underwent changes in the course of the transmis-sion process

165 A concise summary of the problems which must be taken into account when try-ing to reconstruct earlier sources is given in S Leder Das Korpus al-Haitam ibn Adigrave(st 207822) 3-14

166 Cf Motzki Die Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz 92-95 idem The Origins of IslamicJurisprudence 101-104


248

transmissions preserved from the same scholars by other transmittersthan Abd al-Razzagraveq

In order to corroborate the dating of the texts and to show thatAbd al-Razzagraveq did not ascribe his traditions arbitrarily to his infor-mants invented isnagraveds or equipped invented traditions with well-knownisnagraveds it is worth the effort to study the isnagraveds of Abd al-Razzagraveq indetail trying to find indications of forgery or the opposite There aredifferent approaches that can be applied for this end

1) The isnagraveds of the alleged major ldquosourcesrdquo can be analysed in orderto draw up what I called individual profiles The items of such a profilecould be the number of major informants the quantity of traditionsascribed to them the number of minor informants and the quantitiesof their traditions the number of rarely mentioned informants and thequantity of traditions allegedly going back to them the amount of tra-ditions giving the personal opinion of the respective scholar the amountof anonymously transmitted texts etc167 A comparison of the profilesof the different sources enables us to draw conclusions as to whetherthe assumption is probable that the compiler forged his sources In thecase of Abd al-Razzagraveqrsquos Muszligannaf the result was negative168

2) Peculiarities of the collectorrsquos (in our case Abd al-Razzagraveqrsquos) refer-ences to his informants can be used as indications of reliability suchas expression of ignorance or doubt as to who the informant or whathis precise wording was indirect transmission from a major (direct)informant explanations of or critical comments on the traditions of theinformant or giving variants of the same tradition known from thesame or another source In the case of Abd al-Razzagraveq such pecu-liarities could be found and it seems not reasonable to assume that heinserted them sporadically in his isnagraveds with the intent to deceive hiscolleagues and pupils and to mask the fact that his ascription of tra-ditions to certain sources is arbitrary

This same procedure can be applied to a collectorrsquos major sources(in our case to Ibn ]uray[ Mamar al-Ocircawrigrave and Ibn Uyayna) Theprofiles of their major sources and their references to their sources ingeneral can provide us not only with indications as to the reliability orunreliability of the earlier collectors (such as Ibn ]uray[ Mamar al-

167 Ibid 56-58 idem The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence 58-61 also idem ldquoThe Muszligannafof Abd al-Razzagraveqrdquo 2-5

168 Ibid


249

Ocircawrigrave and Ibn Uyayna) but also with additional arguments to decidethe question of whether the later collectorrsquos transmission (such as Abdal-Razzagraveqrsquos) can be considered reliable or not

I tested this hypothesis in detail with the material transmitted byAbd al-Razzagraveq from Ibn ]uray[ and I found that the individual profileof his transmission and that of his major sources can be brought outvery clearly by looking at the differences among the traditions whichare ascribed to different sources Significant differences could be foundconcerning the type of tradition (transmission of the teacherrsquos personalopinion or of a tradition on his authority) types of transmission (pref-erence for family isnagraveds major informants local authorities etc) thepreference for a certain type of authority (Successors Companions theProphet) the quality of the isnagraveds the terminology of transmission (iewhat formulas are used) and the genre of the tradition (statement ordialogue)169 In our case the findings corroborated the conclusions whichcould be drawn on the basis of an analysis which focused only on thenames of the transmitters in the isnagraveds

In this way it was possible to reconstruct on the basis of Abd al-Razzagraveqrsquos Muszligannaf not only the material going back to Ibn ]uray[ asource to be dated into the second quarter of the second century butalso the material of two earlier sources Adaggeragrave b Abigrave Rabagrave˙ (d 115AH733 CE) and Amr b Digravenagraver (d 126 AH744 CE) Materialof a source such as Adaggeragrave means the content of his teaching such ashis pupil in our case Ibn ]uray[ has reproduced it

The question of whether the pupilrsquos reproduction was good or notso good can be tentatively answered on the basis of formal peculiari-ties of his transmission like those described above A definite judge-ment on the quality of a pupilrsquos transmission however can only begiven if the transmissions of the same material by other pupils are avail-able and are compared with it I showed this for the case of Amr bDigravenagraver of whom not only Ibn ]uray[rsquos transmission is available butalso that of Ibn Uyayna170 and in more detail for al-Zuhrigrave171 The re-construction of al-Zuhrigraversquos (d 124 AH742 CE) teaching based on

169 For more details see my Die Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz and The Origins ofIslamic Jurisprudence passim and the summary in ldquoThe Muszligannaf of Abd al-Razzagraveqrdquo 2-12

170 Cf Motzki Die Anfaumlnge der islamischen Jurisprudenz 161-167 idem The Origins 177-185

171 Cf Motzki ldquoDer Fiqh des-Zuhrigraverdquo idem ldquoThe Jurisprudence of Ibn rdquoihagraveb az-Zuhrigraverdquo


250

two independent later collections Magravelikrsquos Muwadaggerdaggera and Abd al-RazzagraveqrsquosMuszligannaf shows particularly well both the possibilities of the isnagraved analy-sis described above and the need to complete them by a thorough com-parative study of the matns Only the combination of both methodsleads to convincing results Unfortunately however we must often becontent with conclusions drawn from the isnagraveds because substantial vari-ant transmissions are not available

IV Dating with Isnagraved and Matn

The conclusion drawn at the end of the preceding section that the inves-tigation of the isnagraveds needs to be completed by the analysis of the matns

applies not only to source reconstruction It also applies to the datingof single traditions This insight is visible already in an article by JanHendrik Kramers published in 1953 and Joseph van Essrsquo book Zwischen

Oacuteadigravet und Theologie published in 1975 benefited much from thisapproach172 The method of the two studies has not been appreciatedvery much until recently Kramersrsquo article passed unnoticed and theeffect of van Essrsquo contribution was cut short by Cookrsquos criticism of itsmethod173 The recent revival of this method seems to be due to boththe insight that a combined approach can lead to more reliable resultsthan the investigation of isnagraveds or matns alone and to an uneasinesswith the actual development of isnagraved analysis which tended to becomea too artificial interpretation of isnagraved bundles

The combined method can be called isnagraved-cum-matn or matn-cum-isnagraved

analysis depending on the starting point of the investigation or theintensity with which the two items are used for conclusions Amongthe several possible approaches the one which starts from the assump-tion that there must be a correlation between isnagraved variants and matn

variants of a tradition if they were part of a real transmission processseems to be the most rewarding The scholars who adopt this assump-tion are convinced that such a correlation is unlikely to be the resultof systematic forgery because the phenomenon of correlation is so wide-spread that almost every mu˙addi∆ must have participated in forgeryThe fact that there is often a correlation between the different branches

172 Jan Hendrik Kramers ldquoUne tradition agrave tendance manicheacuteenne (La lsquomangeuse deverdurersquo)rdquo in Acta Orientalia 21 (1950-1953) 10-22

173 See above pp 27-31


251

and strands of the isnagraved bundle belonging to a tradition on the onehand and on the other the different variants of its matn allows check-ing of the isnagraved analysis by the matns or vice versa The method is bestillustrated in two studies which both appeared in 1996 In GregorSchoelerrsquos book Charakter und Authentie der muslimischen Uumlberlieferung uumlber

das Leben Mohammeds the origin and transmission process of two sigravera tra-ditions are traced and in my study ldquoQuo vadis Oacuteadigrave∆-Forschungrdquo a tra-dition ascribed to Nagravefi is investigated174

The isnagraved-cum-matn analysis as it is applied in the two studies pro-ceeds in five steps 1) All the variants of a tradition which can be foundare compiled 2) A bundle of all isnagraved variants are composed in formof a diagram in order to document the transmission process as it isreflected by the transmission lines and to detect partial common linksand a common link175 In accordance with the interpretation proposedwhen discussing the common link phenomenon in the preceding sec-tion the common link is provisionally assumed to be the collector andprofessional disseminator176 3) Whether the common link can be con-sidered really as the collector or professional disseminator has to bechecked by a matn analysis It consists in compiling the texts belongingto the different transmission lines in order to make possible a synopticcomparison of one to the other 4) Groups of matn variants and groupsof isnagraved variants are to be compared to check whether there is a cor-relation or not 5) If a correlation exists then conclusions can be drawnregarding the original matn transmitted by the common link and theone responsible for whatever changes have occurred in the course ofthe transmission after the common link

In this way reliability of the date established on the basis of the isnagravedanalysis or the relative chronology established on the basis of the matn

analysis can be confirmed or disproved The soundness of the conclu-sions grows with the number and diversity of variants available With

174 The three traditions studied in these publications had been investigated alreadybefore by GHA Juynboll in his articles ldquoNagravefigrave the Mawlagrave of Ibn Umar and hisPosition in Muslim Oacuteadigraveth Literaturerdquo in Der Islam 70 (1993) 207-244 and ldquoEarlyIslamic Society as Reflected in its Use of Isnagravedsrdquo in Le Museacuteon 107 (1994) 151-194esp 160-166 179-184 both articles focusing on the isnagraved analysis

175 This is not meant to exclude the possibility that some transmission lines or partsof it are fictitious

176 Schoeler speaks of him as the one ldquo[der] die betreffende Tradition schulmaumlssigverbreitet hatrdquo G Schoeler Charakter und Authentie der muslimischen Uumlberlieferung uumlber dasLeben Mohammeds in series Studien zur Sprache Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen OrientsNeue Folge 14 Berlin Walter de Gruyter 1996 24


252

this method the risk becomes considerably reduced that a common linkwhich is the result of isnagraved forgery remains undetected177 I leave thedescription of the isnagraved-cum-matn analysis with that Several recent stud-ies tested this method with encouraging results178

Conclusion

At the end of this overview of methods which modern scholars in theWest used or are still using in order to date Muslim traditions the fol-lowing conclusions can be drawn The different methods have beenconsiderably improved since the end of the nineteenth centuryNevertheless some methods seem to be more reliable than othersDating particular traditions on the basis of the matn alone seems to bemost inaccurate A dating which argues by silence that a tradition hasnot existed before the time of the compilation in which it appears firstis uncertain and tends to be too late A dating based solely on an inves-tigation of the isnagraveds of a particular tradition and on the common linkphenomenon are less sound than those who check the results of theisnagraved analysis by the thorough study of matn variants This does notmean that the isnagraved-cum-matn method does not raise problems It doesand efforts must be made to solve them in the future Two questionsremain nevertheless Can this or any other method provide first reli-able datings in all circumstances and second datings which will begenerally accepted Two factors stand in the way of it First of all thescarcity of our sources and secondly the fact that all dating methodsmust rely on assumptions derived from other sources The first factor

177 See also Schoeler Charakter und Authentie der muslimischen Uumlberlieferung uumlber das LebenMohammeds 24 26

178 I Zaman ldquoThe Science of Rijagravel as a Method in the Study of Oacuteadithsrdquo in Journalof Islamic Studies 5 (1994) 1-34 where the author is not really concerned with dating˙adigrave∆s but also takes the correlation between isnagraveds and matns as a starting point A Goumlrke ldquoThe Historical Tradition about al-Oacuteudaybiya A Study of Urwa b al-ZubayrrsquosAccountrdquo in H Motzki (ed) The Biography of Mu˙ammad the Issue of the Sources 240-275idem ldquoEschatology History and the Common Linkrdquo Motzki ldquoQuo vadis Oacuteadigrave∆-Forschungrdquoidem ldquoThe Prophet and the Catrdquo idem ldquoThe Murder of Ibn Abigrave l-Oacuteuqayqrdquo idemldquoThe Collection of the Quragraven A Reconsideration of Western Views in Light of RecentMethodological Developmentsrdquo in Der Islam 78 (2001) 1-34 idem ldquoThe Origins ofMuslim Exegesisrdquo U Mitter Das fruumlhislamische Patronat Eine Untersuchung zur Rollevon fremden Elementen bei der Entwicklung des islamischen Rechts PhD thesisNijmegen 1999 R Peters ldquoMurder in Khaybar Some Thoughts on the Origins ofthe Qasagravema Procedure in Islamic Lawrdquo in Islamic Law and Society 92 (2002) 132-167


253

needs no further comment the second does Dating traditions is notpossible without having recourse to assumptions They can be partlyderived from general human experience but partly more concreteassumptions are needed for instance on the dimensions of fabricationand falsification in the field of Oacuteadigrave∆ on the ways how knowledge wastransmitted in the first two centuries of Islam on the nature of thecommon links and single strands etc In addition all these assumptionsmust take into consideration that there may have been variation intime and place The concrete assumptions mentioned can be based ondifferent source material (eg reports on fabrications or on the wayshow traditions were transmitted by different persons) but these assump-tions will always be generalisations based on a limited number of par-ticular facts Depending on which facts we generalise the views on thecultural history of early Islam can be very different Therefore whetherthe dating of a tradition is considered reliable or not depends not onlyon the dating methods applied but also on our preconceptions of earlyIslam which we have formed


205

Source criticism sets out to evaluate the sources available by checkingthe authenticity originality and accuracy of the sourcersquos informationalcontent4 Two examples may illustrate its importance Consider a doc-ument which although it purports to be a Genoese title-deed of theninth century of the common era (CE) can be proven to have beencomposed at Rome in the eleventh century of the same era and istherefore a fabrication Hence the reliability of its information onGenoa of the ninth century is uncertain The document can be usedhowever as source for aims and practices of forging documents atRome in the eleventh century Or consider a document which is trans-mitted by writing over a longer period of time Obviously it can undergoany number of changes That is passages can be omitted added ordistorted intentionally or not Such changes must be taken into accountand documented (if possible) if we wish to extract from the documentits original intention This is the task of source criticism

One aim of source criticism is the dating of documents When try-ing to determine the degree of reliability of a source the first questionsa historian usually asks are How far away in time and space is thesource from the event of which it informs us Are the date and placeof origin which the source assigns to itself correct Dating a source istherefore the first step in determining what historical use can be madeof it The methods which can be used to date a source depend on thecharacter of the source in question Consequently dating methods aremany and diverse In fact each historical discipline developed its ownmethods Scholars working in the field of early Islam likewise devel-oped methods adapted to their discipline Now whether the differentmethods they are using in dating ˙adigrave∆s are reliable is a matter of dis-pute But it is a dispute in which the participants are few given thatthe number of scholars who engage in the critical study of dating meth-ods is small All the same it is a dispute of the very first importancefor every scholar who works in the area of early Islam

In order to review the existing methods used in the studies con-cerned with Oacuteadigrave∆ I have classified them into four groups 1) methodswhich use the matn 2) dating on the basis of the collections where tra-ditions appear 3) dating on the basis of the isnagraved and 4) methods using

4 Cf JG Droysen Historik Vorlesungen uumlber Enzyklopaumldie und Methodologie der Geschichteed R Huumlbner Darmstadt 1972 98-99


206




8 Ibid 5










207






9 Ibid 73-83


208









209






210













211









212




27 Ibid 24928 Ibid 250






213








214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



206




8 Ibid 5










207






9 Ibid 73-83


208









209






210













211









212




27 Ibid 24928 Ibid 250






213








214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



207






9 Ibid 73-83


208









209






210













211









212




27 Ibid 24928 Ibid 250






213








214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



208









209






210













211









212




27 Ibid 24928 Ibid 250






213








214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



209






210













211









212




27 Ibid 24928 Ibid 250






213








214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



210













211









212




27 Ibid 24928 Ibid 250






213








214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



211









212




27 Ibid 24928 Ibid 250






213








214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



212




27 Ibid 24928 Ibid 250






213








214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



213








214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



214









215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



215








216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



216









217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



217








218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



218










219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



219












220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



220







221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



221






222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



222








223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



223









224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



224








86 Ibid 354


225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



225










226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



226





95 Ibid 36896 Ibid 369-7097 Ibid 359


227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



227




98 Ibid 35999 Ibid 360



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



228






229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



229








230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



230








231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



231









232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



232







233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



233








234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



234







235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



235







236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



236










237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



237






135 Ibid 46 note 74


238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



238









239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



239








240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



240






241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



241








242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



242









243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



243







244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



244










245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



245










246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



246






247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



247










248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



248







168 Ibid


249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



249









250












251










252


Conclusion





253



250












251










252


Conclusion





253



251










252


Conclusion





253



252


Conclusion





253



253



Documents

DATING MUSLIM TRADITIONS: A SURVEY - …clagsborough.uk/dating_muslim_traditions.pdf · DATING MUSLIM TRADITIONS: A SURVEY HARALD MOTZKI Introduction 1 Throughout the centuries Muslim