Response to Dr. Saifullah on Hadith.
imran...@xtra.co.nz
[I would like to thank Zain Ali for his assistance in preparation of this
post by bringing to my attention some other points regarding Dr. Saifullah's
arguments I have overlooked]
This is a (combined - sort of) response to Dr. Saifullah's replies to my
postings on hadith criticism, including the recent exchange on Juynboll),
(see the recent exchanges on Hadith criticism). My apologies for the delay
in replying ... caught up in academic work ...
Yet once again, Dr. Saifullah submits profoundly disappointing posts. I do not
have the time to waste, responding to the same, repetitious arguments, that do
not go anywhere. Therefore, I am going to prune and expunge from the Doctor's
postings the dozens of non-sequiturs and other fallacies that permeate his
submissions, to see whether the shards that are left over will suffice to make
his case work.
Let me recapitulate the area of contention for those who are just joining us.
My argument is as follows. First, we may regard memory and testimony as trust-
worthy, in the absence of negative evidence, and in proportion to the nature of
the claim being made. We usually trust other people's memory and testimony on
reports concerning what happened. However, this is not always the case. We may
sometimes have reason to doubt that a report is true if we have negative forms
of evidence, or if the reports themselves are suspect due to the nature of the
claims they make (e.g. miracles, prophecies, etc).
I have argued that we have sufficient negative evidence and numerous outrageous
claims to dissolve our prima facie plausibility vis-a-vis the classical hadith
corpora. Earlier, I quoted Robson to this effect:
"One readily notices phrases from the Old and New Testament put into the mouth
of the Prophet as his sayings. There are references to towns far from Arabia
which were to be conquered, even to towns not yet founded in the Prophet's
time. Parties which arose in the early Muslim period are named, e.g. Kharidjis,
Murdji'a, Kadariyya, Djahmiyya. Reference can be found to the rightly-guided
Caliphs, and there are unmistakable references to the Umayyads and the
Abbasids. Many miracles are attributed to the Prophet, although the Kur'an
does not represent him as a miracle-worker. There is great detail regarding the
tribulations before the end of the world, and regarding the Last Judgment.
There are also elaborate descriptions of heaven and of hell. The Western mind
finds it difficult to accept such material as genuinely coming from the
Prophet. While one does not feel justified in explaining away the whole body
of Tradition on these lines, it is quite clear that much material coming from
a later date has been attributed to the Prophet, and this makes it very
difficult to find a satisfactory criterion by which one may recognize what
is genuine." -- J. Robson, 'Hadith' in the encyclopedia of Islam", Vol III,
Leiden, E.J. Brill: 1971, pp. 26-27.
In other words, it is not longer sufficient to say that because the hadith
constitute the memory and testimony of other people, they are therefore trust-
worthy. One is going to need more evidence than that! So what is Dr. Saifullah
going to proffer? Not much at all. He does not see that all the scholars in
the Western tradition (Golziher, Schacht, Juynboll, Berg and even Motzki) are
of the opinion that the classical Muslim apparatus for sifting through real
and factitious hadith corpora is, at best, inadequate (for some of the reasons
stated above). They may disagree on methodological approaches, but they do in
fact realize that more work needs to be done on the hadith corpora. It is not
as if the story has ended because the classical Muslim scholars have made sure
everything is good! Let us consider Juynboll. Now even Harald Motzki, whom Dr.
Saifullah has espoused and said his approach is more "balanced", remarks on
the work done by Juynboll thus: "[h]is research has produced many valuable
results, especially concerning the extension and the tecniques of isnad
falsification ..." -- Harald Motzki, "The Musannaf of Abd Al-Razzaq Al-San'ani
as a Source of Authentic Hadith of the First Century A.H", JNES 50, No. 1,
1991, p. 9, f.n. 27.
Skepticism is warranted over hasty credulity because, as Goldziher put it,
"In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to
express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the
oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation
immediately following the Prophet's death. Closer acquaintance with the vast
stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust
regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections."
So what is this "authentic evidence" that Dr. Saifullah gives us? Nothing much
really.
First, Dr. Saifullah championed the mutawatir argument, but he really did not
give any evidence to demonstrate that the purported tawatur methodology is well
guarded against possible fabrications. He claims it is impossible that tawatur
is fallible (see earlier posts), and shifts the burden of proof on me to show
him wrong. Bearing with this fallacy, I cited Juynboll's argument to show how
tawatur fabrication could easily take place, which explicitly refuted this
contention, i.e. the anti-Bagdad tradition. Dr. Saifullah responded with a
silly outburst:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> 2. Juynboll himself has said that both al-Khatib and Ibn al-Jawzi have
> rejected the narrators F1-5 and F7-11 and for F12, he has been deemed
> unreliable. It never even manage attain the status of mutawatir as the
> narrators F1-5 and F7-11 and F12 are deemed unreliable! Our guy claims
> that this tradition has reached tawatur! Shall we say poor reading
> comprehension!
Dr. Saifullah has completely missed the point. Had he bothered to read the
argument carefully, before jumping the gun, he would have seen what the point
was. Let me explain this again for him. The point, Doctor, is not that both
al-Khatib and Ibn al-Jawzi recognized the forgery. Rather, they accused the
transmitters of having forged the *same* hadith independently of each other
and attributing it to the allegedly innocent Sufyan ath-Thawri. They did not
even stop to think how it could be that a dozen or so transmitters had
*independently* concocted the same matn! The transmitters, as Juynboll shows,
had strong connections with Sufyan. If you rule out the possibility that 12
people had independently fabricated the same hadith, then the only
explanation you have left is that Sufyan himself had fabricated it (this is
more plausible when you look at the biographical information on Sufyan). And
Sufyan's students made the moves they did to protect his authority.
Dr. Saifullah points out that in Bukhari's "Du'afa al-Sagheer", it is said of
one of the transmitters (F3) Isma'il b. Aban: "He used to attribute fabricated
hadith to the trustworthy." Others said the same. But this is precisely the
point I am making. The commentators failed to realize that Sufyan himself was
suspect. Or does the Doctor seriously think that all twelve transmitters from
Sufyan had forged the hadith independently of each other? He continues,
Dr. SAIFULLAH
> 3. If Juynboll was really interested in showing that tawatur can lead to
> mass-scale forgery why did he choose a hadith which has narrators all been
> rejected [F1-5 and F7-11 and F12] and picked it up from no other book but
> al-Jawzi's Kitab al-Mawdu'at, a collection of forged hadiths?
Ah, but this is precisely the point, Dr. Saifullah. All the narrators had been
rejected for what reason? Are we really to believe, as al-Khatib and al-Jawzi
tell us, that they all fabricated, independently of each other, the same hadith
which they attributed to Sufyan? It is obvious that Sufyan himself forged the
bogus hadith. You see, this is precisely how common links allow fabrication of
mutawatir traditions to occur. The person who is the common link can easily
bring a tradition into existence, extending the isnad back to the Prophet, and
his students, for example, can spread this tradition believing it to be true.
Next, we see Dr. Saifullah suspecting that Juynboll's assertions:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> 4. And as expected Juynboll started to attack Sufyan al-Thawri for
> "harbouring" anti-`Abbasid feeling by quoting "... beware of these
> princes, do not seek to approach them, do not get caught up in anything
> they do." Junyboll also suspects that Sufyan al-Thawri's anti-`Abbasid
> feeling may well have moulded into a hadith, or more than one for that
> matter, which was or were felt openly critical of the `Abbasid policies
> [nota bene: he only suspects with no evidence to show]. It did not occur
This really is a gobsmacking statement from Dr. Saifullah. What are you saying
Doctor? Did you even read Juynboll's argument properly?! Juynboll has SHOWN to
us that Sufyan did forge the hadith. As he says: "we have come to the inscapa-
ble evidence that it is Sufyan himself who has to be held accountable for it."
(same page you quote). The question is not DID HE but WHY? Juynboll suggests
that the best explanation comes from Sufyan's anti Abbasid feelings.
DR. SAIFULLAH
> to him that Malik was physically beaten because he did not give a fatwa
> that suited the whims of Governer of Madinah, Ja`far b. Sulayman. Ahmad
> Ibn Hanbal was beaten just because he did not subscribe to Mu`atazila
> views. There is a long history of Islamic scholars to be not associated
> with the rulers. So, the case of Sufyan al-Thawri is no different for
> asking people to be "... beware of these princes, do not seek to approach
> them, do not get caught up in anything they do." So, Juynboll has to come
> up with something better than this.
Bravo Doctor! An appropriate time, I say, to throw in a red herring. I think
the towel would have been better, but hey, it's worth a try! Whatever we may
think of why Sufyan warned people to be cautious about the princes, it has
absolutely no relation to the fact of the matter - Sufyan had forged an anti
Abbasid hadith. Sorry Doctor, but *you* have to come up with something better
than this. Try refuting Juynboll's demonstration of Sufyan's fabrication for
a start. Instead, here is this comment from Dr. Saifullah:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> There are certain questions that need to be asked. What are the dates of
> death of each of these narrators that are being rejected? Juynboll does
> not go into this issue to show whether they all were from the same place
> or different or whether they met each other. There is nothing there in his
> analysis. Why is that whoever wanted to forge a hadith would use a weak
> narrator? This itself is perplexing and Juynboll does not discuss this
> issue. It would be a good idea to use a reliable and trustworthy narrator
> to let it pass through the scholarly circles and make it reach tawatur.
> Unfortunately for Imran, Junyboll provided him with an example that
> neither reaches tawatur nor authenticity. Well, start blaming
> Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, Nasai and others!
Are you serious Doctor? I think Dr. Saifullah is really on thin ice here,
judging from the cracks appearing in his argument. Juynboll is investigating
the classical Muslim sources that purport to document fabricated hadith, and
wants to see if they did their job. His argument on Sufyan's fabrication is
impeccably documented (see all the relevant references from al-Khatib and
Ibn al-Jawzi). Furthermore, he has shown for good reasons how these people
had strong connections with Sufyan. Dr. Saifullah asks why the forgery would
take place? Once again, had he read the section on this by Juynboll carefully
he would have come to realize that it is Sufyan who forged the tradition, and
those who deleted his name from the isnad, and changed the matn, did so to
protect his connections with the bogus anti Abbasid tradition he concocted.
The reason why the scholars rejected the tradition is obvious, but the blame
cannot lie on Sufyan, and therefore has to go to his students who transmitted
it. It follows from this example of Juynboll that any hadith that has reached
the status of tawatur provides no guarantee of its veracity. In this example
we have a "tawatur' 'aka kadhib" (perchance agreeing on falsehood) which the
hadith experts picked out (for the wrong reasons!) but it could easily have
been one which was thought to be true. A common link who forged a hadith and
extended the isnad back to the Prophet could transmit the hadith to others
after him who would think it is genuinely true.
So I don't think Dr. Saifullah's attempted refutation of Juynboll touches his
argument. Juynboll's argument stands. This is one argument of Dr. Saifullah's
that has been refuted, when he wrote that tawatur makes fabrication impossible.
What is the other argument? The rijal argument, where Dr. Saifullah constantly
repeats that the rijal material can be trusted because no one can show that we
cannot trust them.
On the subject of the rijal material, The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam states,
"...[O]pinions on the reliability of authorities might differ very
considerably. The same person, whose communications might be absolutely
trusted in the view of one party, was sometimes considered be others
exceedingly 'weak' in transmission or even as a liar. Originally, even the
authority of many highly respected contemporaries of Muhammad was not generally
recognized; for example the truthfulness of Abu Huraira was hotly disputed by
very many. The verdict usually differed with the standpoint of the party, and
this often gave rise to bitter quarrels. We must, however, remember in
connection that the substance of the transmitted statements was really always
the main thing. It was in reality almost always the bias of their substance
that aroused opposition. The ultimate decision then rested not on the
reputation of the authorities but rather on the substance of the accounts
transmitted by them." -- The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, Gibb & Kramers,
(Leiden E.J. Brill: 1953), p. 117.
Therefore, we see that there was considerable difference between authorities
as to who was deemed a "good" or "bad" transmitter. Of Abu Huraira, his truth-
fulness was "hotly disputed". And furthermore, it was the matn that was really
the subject of scrutiny for authorities. If a particular matn was seen as just
outrageous, then one could easily make an ad hoc move, and brand the person
who transmitted it as weak or a liar (i.e. manipulation of the isnad).
Continuing,
"But at a later period, after the ritual, dogma and the most important
political and social institutions had taken definite shape in the second and
third centuries, there arose a certain *communis opinio* regarding the
reliability of most transmitters of Tradition and value of their statements.
All the main principles of doctrine had already been established in the
writings of Malik b. Anas, al-Shafi'i and other scholars, regarded as author-
itative in different circles, and mainly on the authority of the sayings of
Muhammad. In the long run, no one dared to doubt the truth of these traditions;
nor was it any longer possible to regard men like Abu Huraira, who had put
these accounts into circulation, as liars. Even traditions which contained the
most obvious anachronisms were generally considered reliable." (Ibid)
As happens in nearly any religion, the communis opinio can sometimes become a
problem. The best example I can think of is the official declaration of Trini-
tarian dogma by the Council of Nicea. When the consensus was that the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit were all divine and distinct persons of the same substance,
no one dared to challenge this dogma (some did, and paid for it with their
lives).
Anyway, moving on ... Dr. Saifullah will no doubt point out the fabrication
of Muhammad b. Sa'id al-Maslub, and say: "the hadith specialists were aware
of the fabrications! And that any hadith which is taken back to the Prophet,
SAW, is not considered authentic!" And just what does this prove? Nothing!
All we may infer from this is that the hadith specialists were labelling some
hadith good and some hadith bad. This may have helped somewhat against certain
individuals who were spreading factitious hadith, but it does not safeguard
against the transmission of bogus hadith. All Dr. Saifullah could say was:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> And what evidence have you got to show us that they rijal works can't be
> trusted? Have you got the evidence to show improper transmission? No. Have
> you got the evidence to show wrong-doing and large scale fabrication in
> rijal works?
I have seen the Doctor make this move on many people in other posts. This is
simply shifting the burden of proof. He tacitly implies that his position is
true unless proven otherwise. And for your information, we do have evidence
that shows problematic transmissions, wrong doing, and sectarian bias. Thus,
you will need more evidence than an argument from ignorance to substantiate
your assertions! But I advise readers to study the above quote from Dr. Saif-
ullah carefully, and then read this contradictory outburst by the Doctor:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> And I never said that the rijal works "must be true because no one has
> proven them false". Neither did I claim it. So, please do not put words
> into my mouth to alleviate your already battered position.
Au contraire, Dr. Saifullah, you have explicitly contradicted yourself with
this assertion. When someone says: "What evidence have you got to show us that
X can't be trusted?" this implies that the person saying this believes X to be
true. But you deny ever claiming this. The only words I'm putting in your mouth
Doctor, are yours! So what's the deal? Are the rijal works true or not? You're
dodging the question. And I *have* shown you why your prima facie evidence is
not enough to regard them as authentic by default.
First, we have the background evidence that shows the problems with the hadith
that I have outlined above (see Robson's quote). Second, we know for a fact,
that hadith fabrication (primarily on sectarian prejudices) did occur. To give
an example, I cited two reports. The first is from Ibn Abi'l-Hadid (d. 655/
1257), who said:
"... Know that the origins of fabrications in fada'il traditions were due to
the Shi'ite, for they forged in the first instance traditions concerning their
leader. Enmity towards their adversaries drove them to this fabrication ...
When the Bakriyya saw what the Shi'ite had done, they fabricated for their own
master traditions to counter the former ... When the Shi'ite saw what the
Bakriyya had done, they increased their efforts ..." -- Sharh nahj al-balagha,
as cited in Juynboll, "Muslim Tradition", p. 12.
The second is also from Ibn Abi'l-hadid who quotes from the Kitab al-ahdath
of Mada'ini (d. 215-35/830-50),
"Then Mu'awiya wrote to his governors saying: "Hadith about Uthman has
increased and spread in every city, town and region. When this letter from me
reaches you, summon the people to relate the merits of the Companions and the
first caliphs. And do not let any Muslim relate anything about Ali without
bringing something contradicting this about the Companions. This I like better
and it pleases me more, it invalidates Abu Turab's claims and those of his
Shi'ite in a more definitive way and it is for them more difficult to bear
than the virtues and the merits of Uthman." Mu'awiya's letters were read out
to the people. And many forged reports concerning the merits of the Companions,
in which there was no [grain of] truth, were related. The people went out of
their way in relating reports in this vein until they spoke thereof in glowing
terms from the pulpits. The teachers in the schools were instructed to teach
their young pupils a vast quantity of these until they related them just as
they studied the Quran and they taught these to their daughters, wives and
servants. God knows how long they persisted in this." (Ibid).
This suffices to show the sectarian and prejudiced bias that permeated the
thoughts of the early Muslim community. We also have evidence to show that it
tipped over into the science of hadith.:
"The Muslim historians of doctrine [who are mostly Sunni] always tried to show
that all other schools of thought than their own were not only false but, if
possible, less than truly Muslim. Their works describe innumerable "firqahs" in
terms which readily misled modern scholars into supposing they were referring
to so many "heretical sects" -- Marshall G. S. Hodgson, "The Venture of Islam",
Vol 1, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974, pp. 39-40.
Even according to Ibn Khaldun, the Shi'a believe that:
"Ali is the one whom Muhammad appointed. The (Shi'a) transmit texts (of
traditions) in support of (this belief) ... The authority of the Sunnah and the
transmitters of the religious law do not know these texts (1) Most of them are
suppositions, or (2) some of their transmitters are suspect, or (3) their (true)
interpretation is very different from the wicked interpretation that (the Shi'a)
give to them.'" -- Ibn Khaldun, "The Muqaddimah", tr. Franz Rosenthal, Vol 1,
New York: Pantheon Books, 1958, p. 403. In Arabic, see Vol 1, Beirut: Maktabatul
Madrasah, 1961, p. 348.
A summary of rules utilized in the rijal works can be found in Shah 'Abd al-
'Aziz's work "'Ujala Nafi'a." The second rule states a sort of 'guilty unless
proven otherwise' attitude:
"If the reporter was a Shi'a and the hadith was of the nature of an accusation
against the Companions of the Holy Prophet, or if the reporter was a Khariji and
the hadith was of the nature of an accusation against a member of the Prophet's
family [his hadith was not accepted]. If, however, such a report was
corroborated by independent testimony, it was accepted." -- Muhammad Ali, "The
Religion of Islam", (National Publication & Printing House), p. 86.
Finally, you may see a Shi'ite critique of Bukhari and Muslim, and see what they
have to say about the Sunni perceptions of Shi'ite belief. First, an introduction
comes:
"[I]f a researcher were to free himself from the yoke of blind imitation and
abject fanaticism, he would find in al-Bukhari and Muslim strange and
astonishing things which reflect absolutely the outlook of the Bedouin Arab
whose thinking is still stagnant, believing in some tales and legends. His
thinking leans towards everything that is strange."
The bias? It's here:
"We will prove to the discerning reader the position of al-Bukhari on
everything concerning 'Ali b. Abi Talib and how he tried his utmost to hide his
merits and disseminate any faults attributed to him."
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/ask/08~1.htm
The essay contains many more example of bias which you may check out.
It will be interesting to hear from any Shi'ite intellectuals on SRI as to
whether the rijal works did, in fact, contain anti-Shi'a bias from the Sunni
scholars in their opinion.
Dr. Saifullah needs to understand that all modern Western scholarship knows
that it is not enough that you had isnad criticisms along with the rijal works.
For example, Juynboll's work on the isnads (which Motzki hails as producing
"many valuable results"):
"But hadith criticism, mainly confined to isnad criticism, came too late to
become an adequate tool for sifting the material that could genuinely be
ascribed to the oldest authority of its isnad from that which could not thus be
ascribed. And apart from its having come too late to the rescue of the
developing hadith literature, it suffered from two serious, interrelated short-
commings both pointing to its naivete:
(1) isnads, even 'sound' ones, could have been fabricated in their entirety,
something which in the case of especially the traditions in the canonical
collections never seems to have taken into consideration; and directly
related to this:
(2) the near absence of the application of suitable criteria for probing
matns."
-- Juynboll, Op. cit., p. 75.
On the rijal, even Motzki comments thus:
"...On the other hand, we cannot rule out a priori the possibility that Adb al
Razzaq generally fabricated the information on the origin of his material and
attributed it fictitously to these people. Which of these two hypotheses is the
more probable could perhaps be decided with the help of biographical and
bibliographical reports about the person in question. But since the reliability
of such reports is no more certain than that of the statements of our author,
we have to find a solution from the work of Adb al Razzaq itself. The clue to
it can be found by analysing the four largest clusters, or complexes, of
transmissions in a bit greater depth." -- Motzki, Op. cit., p. 3.
So you see, you need some other forms of hypothesis confirmation. Scholars like
Motzki certainly do not dismiss Goldziher, Schacht or Juynboll as fantasies. On
the contrary, their work is seriously considered. It is no longer sufficient to
merely appeal to the *instrinsic plausibility* of the hadith corpora. You need
some form of external 'check'. And so, R. Marston Speight, for example, looks at
the content of hadith 'structures' (see his "Narrative Structures in the Hadith,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Oct 2000 v59 i4 p. 265). Other scholars are
closley looking at the topoi and schemata structures of hadith to determine the
question of authenticity. NO ONE relies *merely* on the intrinsic plausibility
of the hadith corpus. And yet this is precisely what Dr. Saifullah is preaching;
that the isnad system can be trusted in corroboration with the rijal works, and
purported fabrications have been documented. In other words, the classical app-
aratus is sufficient to filter out the fabricated material. And furthermore,
this is all to be trusted because no one can disprove the Doctor.
My analogy of the Gospels still stands. No modern New Testament scholar takes
it for granted that the instrinsic plausibility of the Gospels makes them true.
The Gospels are subjected to rigorous historico-critical scrutinty (as in the
works of Dominic Crossan). Unfortunately, hadith criticism is still nascent as
only a handful of scholars have tackled the subject. But anyway, that's another
story for another day.
That's it for now ... apart from the non-sequiturs and other expunged fallacies
>from Dr. Saifullah's postings, I will deal with the side issues later. In this
posting, my aim was to show how Dr. Saifullah's critique of Juynboll fails, as
does his claim that there was no sectarian bias (i.e. Sunni vs. Shi'a) in judg-
ing the transmission of hadith. Given the problematic nature of the hadith as I
have outlined it, more evidence is needed from Dr. Saifullah to supplement the
inadequacies of the isnad and rijal works, to account for the hadith corpora -
*especially* given the nature of the corpus (e.g. fabrications, miraculous
reports, prophecies, etc, etc). Thus far, Dr. Saifullah's approach has been
mainly question-begging, by presenting documented output of the very apparatus
that is in question.
--
Wasalaam,
Imran Aijaz
imran...@xtra.co.nz
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> I have argued that we have sufficient negative evidence and numerous outrageous
> claims to dissolve our prima facie plausibility vis-a-vis the classical hadith
> corpora. Earlier, I quoted Robson to this effect:
>
> "One readily notices phrases from the Old and New Testament put into the mouth
> of the Prophet as his sayings. There are references to towns far from Arabia
> which were to be conquered, even to towns not yet founded in the Prophet's
> time. Parties which arose in the early Muslim period are named, e.g. Kharidjis,
> Murdji'a, Kadariyya, Djahmiyya. Reference can be found to the rightly-guided
> Caliphs, and there are unmistakable references to the Umayyads and the
> Abbasids. Many miracles are attributed to the Prophet, although the Kur'an
> does not represent him as a miracle-worker. There is great detail regarding the
> tribulations before the end of the world, and regarding the Last Judgment.
> There are also elaborate descriptions of heaven and of hell. The Western mind
> finds it difficult to accept such material as genuinely coming from the
> Prophet. While one does not feel justified in explaining away the whole body
> of Tradition on these lines, it is quite clear that much material coming from
> a later date has been attributed to the Prophet, and this makes it very
> difficult to find a satisfactory criterion by which one may recognize what
> is genuine." -- J. Robson, 'Hadith' in the encyclopedia of Islam", Vol III,
> Leiden, E.J. Brill: 1971, pp. 26-27.
Robson's charge is that much of the material that we have got in the
traditions is late and it has been put back into the mouth of Prophet,
SAW. Robson is silent by the way of examples and so is our pal Imran. The
issue of Schacht claiming that the traditions were put back in the mouth
of Prophet, SAW, by later day authorities such as Shaafi'i has been
refuted by al-Azami. I really do not understand why Imran brings up these
things again and again without even bothering to read. Let me restate what
I have said before. Al-Azami's argument on isnad in his "On Schacht's
Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence" interestingly starts off the
refutation of Schacht's hypothesis about isnad system with a quote from
Robson who applauded Schacht's findings. As for Malik's Muwatta containing
partial isnads and that Shafi'i completed the isnad back to the Prophet,
SAW, it is a lie. Al-Azami in the Appendix 1 clearly shows that the
Muwatta' itself has the complete isnad of the hadith which Malik quotes
with partial isnads. Further al-Azami also uses the contemporary sources
such as Malik's students who transmitted his Muwatta' with full isnad as
well as parallel traditions. The complete isnad was known to Malik and
Shafi'i did not have to come and stretch back to the Prophet, SAW. And
some of the examples which Schacht cites are his own mistakes. Adopting
the "fortress Schacht" kind of argument Cook says:
"... everyone knows, isnads grow backward" [Early Muslim Dogma, 1981,
Cambridge, p. 108]
What is the evidence for this? Well, to be honest there is none and as
expected Imran does not have one either. We can only expect him to show
what he has anyway! The supposed backward growth of isnad is not
supported by textual evidence. Schacht's evidence only demonstrates that
incomplete isnad co-exists with complete ones; but there is no positive
evidence that the complete ones grew backwards out of the incomplete ones.
Al-Azami in his "On Schacht's Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence" has
already shown that in the case of Malik's Muwatta' the incomplete as well
as complete isnads can be traced back in Muwatta' itself as we have stated
above. Shaafi'i did not come along to complete the isnad back to the
Prophet, SAW. In fact, there are some partial isnads in Shaafi'i's Kitab
al-Umm and al-Risalah but Malik quotes these in full. [See examples in
al-Azami's, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, pp. 220-221.]
Other thing here is that Schacht did not have early hadith compilations
available to him such as the one by `Abd al-Razzaq's Musannaf, Hammam's
Sahifa, Jami` of Ibn Jurayj etc. So, he made some false premises that lead
him to conclusions that are totally unacceptable.
Another thing which one notices from the above statement of Robson is that
he is confusing between the hadith literature, Sirah and Israiliyaat
traditions. Traditionally Muslims have distinguished between the three. To
this we should also add Tafseer which contain material from near-eastern
sources to explain certain parts of the Qur'an. we do not need to go
any further on this issue as the individual cases have been dealt with by
Islamic scholars of the past.
> In other words, it is not longer sufficient to say that because the hadith
> constitute the memory and testimony of other people, they are therefore trust-
> worthy. One is going to need more evidence than that! So what is Dr. Saifullah
> going to proffer? Not much at all. He does not see that all the scholars in
> the Western tradition (Golziher, Schacht, Juynboll, Berg and even Motzki) are
> of the opinion that the classical Muslim apparatus for sifting through real
> and factitious hadith corpora is, at best, inadequate (for some of the reasons
> stated above). They may disagree on methodological approaches, but they do in
> fact realize that more work needs to be done on the hadith corpora. It is not
> as if the story has ended because the classical Muslim scholars have made sure
> everything is good! Let us consider Juynboll. Now even Harald Motzki, whom Dr.
> Saifullah has espoused and said his approach is more "balanced", remarks on
> the work done by Juynboll thus: "[h]is research has produced many valuable
> results, especially concerning the extension and the tecniques of isnad
> falsification ..." -- Harald Motzki, "The Musannaf of Abd Al-Razzaq Al-San'ani
> as a Source of Authentic Hadith of the First Century A.H", JNES 50, No. 1,
> 1991, p. 9, f.n. 27.
As for your "brave" comments about Motzki, let us quote footnote 27 once
again in its fullness:
"G. H. A. Juynboll has recently tackled the question of authenticity of
the hadith anew. He has concentrated on the biographical material,
especially that of Ibn Hajar, and the ahadith of the Prophet as preserved
in the classical and other collections of the third century AH and later.
See his Muslim Traditions: Studies.... Early Hadith (Cambridge 1983). His
research has produced many valuable results especially concerning the
extension and the techniques of isnad falsification, partly even known to
Muslim scholars themselves. But he has treated the early Musannaf works
such as that of `Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shayba quite harshly. In my
opinion, they offer us many interesting new ideas, as will be argued in
this article".
So, this is the complete quote on p. 9. What we read is that the
techniques concerning isnad falsification were already known to Muslim
scholars. Juynboll was not the one who came up with it for the first time.
As one can see Imran partly quoted the above material to give the complete
credit to Juynboll whereas the complete quote says that the techniques
which Juynboll "developed" were already known to Muslim traditionalists.
It is pretty easy to understand why people get involved in such nasty
misquotes. When we ask them to produce the evidence that the origins of
isnad were late, they have none. When we ask them to produce the evidence
that for "the Sunni scholars, the Shi'a are considered the worst liars and
fabricators of hadith", they have none. When we ask them to produce the
evidence that "a good/bad person of good/bad integrity/memory depending on
their sectarian perference" they have none. But they like to attack
the Muslim traditionalists for no justified reason or use partial quotes
to belittle their works. And then have audacity to say that it "is not as
if the story has ended because the classical Muslim scholars have made
sure everything is good!" as if it is true. Some ignorant outbursts about
hadith literature! The hadith is even discussed today for its weakness or
strength, e.g., the contemporary works of Shaykh Albani, who died
recently, where he discusses authenticity of the hadiths mentioned in
the collections of classical Muslim scholars [See "Silsilah al-Hadith
al-Sahih", "Tahdhir al-Sajid" etc.]. His work has been criticised in some
parts by his own peers as one can expect from critical scholarship.
Muslims, at least, do not elevate the classical collectors to an extent
that they are made infallible. Al-Bukhari's work has been criticised in
the past not because of faulty hadiths but because some of the narrators
did not measure up to his high standards.
As for the Western scholarship on hadith, it is perhaps best represented
by Cook's statement:
"The bottom line in the study of early Islamic traditions may well be that
anyone can wriggle out of anything".
[M. Cook, "Eschatology And The Dating Of The Tradition", Princeton Papers
In Near Eastern Studies, 1992, Volume 1, p. 35]
This attitude is best represented in the works of Schacht and Goldziher.
And to some extent Juynboll concerning his common-link theory as we will
see below. Fortunately, from an Islamic point of view such a position
adopted by Western scholarship is untenable.
> Skepticism is warranted over hasty credulity because, as Goldziher put it,
>
> "In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to
> express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the
> oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation
> immediately following the Prophet's death. Closer acquaintance with the vast
> stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust
> regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections."
>
> So what is this "authentic evidence" that Dr. Saifullah gives us? Nothing much
> really.
What "authentic evidence" did Goldziher provide? Nothing much really. And
what is your evidence to back up Goldziher's claim? Nothing much really.
And you hypocritically profess as if you have all the evidence and we have
none! How convenient!
> First, Dr. Saifullah championed the mutawatir argument, but he really did not
> give any evidence to demonstrate that the purported tawatur methodology is well
> guarded against possible fabrications. He claims it is impossible that tawatur
> is fallible (see earlier posts), and shifts the burden of proof on me to show
> him wrong. Bearing with this fallacy, I cited Juynboll's argument to show how
> tawatur fabrication could easily take place, which explicitly refuted this
> contention, i.e. the anti-Bagdad tradition. Dr. Saifullah responded with a
> silly outburst:
Before we deal with what Imran claims as "silly outbursts", let us see
what this common link theory used by Juynboll is all about. Let us take
the example of isnad that is represented as:
Prophet -> Companion -> Successor (CL) and from here the isnad fans out to
many links. The successor is the common link between the Companion (and
hence the Prophet) and various other links below him. Here comes the
argument of common link theory. If we can collect several isnads for what
is substantially the same tradition, and find that all interesect in a
"lowest common link" then we can infer that the tradition was fabricated
by the traditionalist in question, or by someone of his generation using
his name. According to Juynboll the common link IS the fabricator [G. H.
A. Junyboll, "Some Isnad-Analytical Methods Illustrated on the Basis of
Several Woman-Demeaning Sayings from Hadith Literature," Al-Qantara, X
(1989), p. 353]. This is one of the main principles on which the case
rests. So, what is Juynboll's solid proof to support his principle? Well,
there is none. His premise are his conclusions (aka circular arguments!)
as we would see further down the post. According to Schacht, the common
link represents the origin of that tradition and hence could be used for
dating [Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1950, p.
172].
But there is an interesting escape clause. It may be that the tradition in
fact originated later than our common link. Schacht is of the opinion that
we must, of course, always reckon with the possibility that the name of a
common transmitter was used by other, anonymous persons, so that its
occurances gives only terminus a quo [Schahct, Origins, p. 175]. Juynboll,
if I understood him correctly, rejects this escape clause [Junyboll, "Some
Isnad-Analytical Methods...", p. 353, 355]. This escape clause applies
particularly to the traditions "ascribed" to Successors. What is excluded,
even with this escape clause, is fabrication at a date earlier than the
flourishing of the common link. Interestingly, if these two escape clauses
are combined then the common link can no longer tell us about the date of
the tradition or who fabricated it. And this is perhaps the most damaging
argument against the argument e silento of common link theory which states
that the common link is a fabricator. It does not matter even if the
persons below or above the common link are weak; the common link is still
the one involved in forging the tradition.
Apart from the methodological fallacies of the common link theory, there
are other issues. What if the common link is not perfect, that is it has
"diving traditions" originating from the Prophet, SAW, directly? According
to Juynboll:
"In simple terms, the deeper the "dive" under the cl [i.e., common link],
the more recent is the date of origin of that particular strand."
[Junyboll, "Some Isnad-Analytical Methods...", p. 368]
Now one may question how did Juynboll came about designing such a
hypothesis which is arbitrary. Well, it is just one of Juynboll's ideas
which can't be tested and proved either by him or his followers. Juynboll
looks at a isnad bundle, identifies the common link and blames him as a
fabricator and if "dives" under the common link are present they are
considered of "more recent" origins. There is nothing scientific and
rigourous about it. It is just make an arbitrary hypothesis and work to
justify even though it will appear like a big nonsense.
To sum up, Juynboll position is not really supported by any evidence
that the common link is the fabricator. It is his assumption that the
common link is fabricator and hence it is stated as a proof that the
common link is fabricator. This is a circular argument. Apart from that,
Juynboll, it appears, has not given much of the stress on the science
of rijal to study the hadiths when dealing with common links. We already
know from the quote of Motzki that the Muslim traditionalists were aware
of the issue involving the common link and isnad falsification much before
Juynboll came into this world. How did they go about dealing with it?
Al-Dhahabi in his Mizan al-I`tidal [Volume III, pp. 140-141, translation
taken from al-Azami's "On Schacht's Origins" to make my job easier] says:
"Consider first of all, all the Companions of the Prophet, the older and
younger ones. Each one of them had some knowledge of a certain sunnah
alone, not known to others. In this case it is said that this hadith has
not been attested by any other narrators. So is the case with Successors.
Every one of them had some knowledge alone. I do not want to go into
detail, because the subject has been discussed in the Science of Hadith.
If a scholar, trustworthy and accurate, narrated a hadith alone, it would
be counted as authentic but "strange".
If a scholars who was of a grade B such as Saduq [truthful] or lower than
him and narrated a hadith and no one attested his statement, then it would
counted as munkar.
If a narrator relates ahadith, a good quantity of which is not testified
by other scholars' narrations, this would result in calling him matruk
al-Hadith which means neither his narrations nor the ahadith transmitted
by him could be taken to verify other scholars' ahadith."
Summing up the position of traditionalists, in the presence of a common
link, the science of rijal is applied to study the nature of the hadith.
The presence of common link does not make the hadith "mutawatir", it is
termed as "Gharib" [or strange]. This is the fundamental point about the
common link hadiths. A Gharib hadith can only be Sahih if the narrator is
a hafiz, should not change the wording of the hadith, should not be a
mudallis etc.
An interesting work recently that takes into account both matn and isnad
in the transmission of the hadith is by Iftikhar Zaman ["The Science of
rijal as a method in the study of Hadiths," Journal of Islamic Studies,
vol. 5, no. 1, 1994, pp. 1-34.]. This work is based on the traditional way
of looking at the hadith transmission by correlating matn and isnad
and creeping in of the variants that are related to the specific
narrators depending upon their standing in rijal criticism. He has not
showed any examples dealing with the common links but I do not see why
such a methodology can't be applied to common link theory either. How
effective will it be is a moot point especially in the single strand.
> DR. SAIFULLAH
> > 2. Juynboll himself has said that both al-Khatib and Ibn al-Jawzi have
> > rejected the narrators F1-5 and F7-11 and for F12, he has been deemed
> > unreliable. It never even manage attain the status of mutawatir as the
> > narrators F1-5 and F7-11 and F12 are deemed unreliable! Our guy claims
> > that this tradition has reached tawatur! Shall we say poor reading
> > comprehension!
>
> Dr. Saifullah has completely missed the point. Had he bothered to read the
> argument carefully, before jumping the gun, he would have seen what the point
> was. Let me explain this again for him. The point, Doctor, is not that both
> al-Khatib and Ibn al-Jawzi recognized the forgery. Rather, they accused the
> transmitters of having forged the *same* hadith independently of each other
> and attributing it to the allegedly innocent Sufyan ath-Thawri. They did not
> even stop to think how it could be that a dozen or so transmitters had
> *independently* concocted the same matn! The transmitters, as Juynboll shows,
> had strong connections with Sufyan. If you rule out the possibility that 12
> people had independently fabricated the same hadith, then the only
> explanation you have left is that Sufyan himself had fabricated it (this is
> more plausible when you look at the biographical information on Sufyan). And
> Sufyan's students made the moves they did to protect his authority.
Let us get certain things right first. The hadith with a common link can
never reach the status of mutawatir by its very nature. At best, it can
reach the status of Gharib Sahih provided the narrators in the chain are
well-known huffaz, do not involve in tadlis etc. The hadith quoted by
Juynboll is not mutawatir by any standards even though you are gloating
about it being "tawatur". This actually shows how bad are you even with
the basics of Hadith.
Secondly and most importantly, the hadith is concerned mawdu` by Islamic
standards. This would mean that there is either the problem with isnad or
matn or both. As far as Juynboll is concerned, he draws the isnad bundle
and seeks the common link and blames the common link as the forger simply
because he has assumed that the common link is a forger. Sorry! it is a
circular argument.
Thirdly, the hadith is forged. The question now is who forged it. Are the
guys from F1-5 and F7-11 and F12 involved in the forgery or was it someone
else who forged it on their behalf or some of them colluded to forge it
on others behalf or on the behalf of anybody from the Prophet, SAW, to
Sufyan al-Thawri? Juynboll and Imran has no answer for such basic
questions. As we all know that a hadith forged in the name of the
Prophet, SAW, his Companions and Successors can be done by
those who may or may not be in the isnad. Conversely, since the hadith is
forged it does not mean that the Companions or the Successors in the
hadith were involved in the forgery. Somebody else could have forged on
their name. As far as Juynboll is concerned, this suddenly turns out to
irrelevent and he quickly puts the blame on Sufyan al-Thawri using his
circular arguments as he was the common link.
Fourthly, Juynboll (and by extension Imran) has no evidence to show that
Sufyan al-Thawri was the fabricator except for throwing some guess work
here and there. Juynboll asserts that the F1-5 and F7-11 and F12 narrators
were involved in "independently" transmitting the hadith in different
geographical locations. What evidence did Juynboll show to prove this?
None. The basic question to ask is that whether F1-5 and F7-11 and F12
were really involved in the transmission of this hadith or did
some of them collude together to put others name on it or is it
that somebody else fabricated on their behalf. As expected this is not
dealt with by Juynboll perhaps because he was too eager to "prove" his
common link theory.
Fifthly, we have already seen above that there are two escape clauses. The
first one being the fabrication is at a date later than the common link.
The second one being the fabrication is at a date earlier than the
flourishing of the common link. As for the first one, the F1-5 and F7-11
and F12 are all declared as weak but that does not automatically lead to
the conclusion that they were the fabricators. Juynboll, as I have said
earlier, rejects this escape clause whether or not the narrators are
considered trustworthy or fabricators. As for the second one Juynboll is
silent, which itself is pretty interesting.
> Dr. Saifullah points out that in Bukhari's "Du'afa al-Sagheer", it is said of
> one of the transmitters (F3) Isma'il b. Aban: "He used to attribute fabricated
> hadith to the trustworthy." Others said the same. But this is precisely the
> point I am making. The commentators failed to realize that Sufyan himself was
> suspect. Or does the Doctor seriously think that all twelve transmitters from
> Sufyan had forged the hadith independently of each other? He continues,
In fact, you fail to realize that the common link theory argues circularly
that the common link is the fabricator. You claim that Sufyan al-Thawri
was the suspect. Please can you quote some evidence from the rijal works
to back up your claim? If Sufyan itself was a suspect, his contemporaries
would have at least checked it out. Even if we assume that Sufyan
intended to propagate his anti-Baghdad hadith, why would he choose the
narrators which were weak? Sufyan, as we know, was a well-known hadith
critic. If he really had the intention to propagate the hadith he would
have choosen strong narrators who would pass the test of his
contemporaries like Ahmad and Yahya al-Qattan among others. Strangely,
this useful insight is not even considered by either Juynboll or Imran.
> Dr. SAIFULLAH
> > 3. If Juynboll was really interested in showing that tawatur can lead to
> > mass-scale forgery why did he choose a hadith which has narrators all been
> > rejected [F1-5 and F7-11 and F12] and picked it up from no other book but
> > al-Jawzi's Kitab al-Mawdu'at, a collection of forged hadiths?
>
> Ah, but this is precisely the point, Dr. Saifullah. All the narrators had been
> rejected for what reason? Are we really to believe, as al-Khatib and al-Jawzi
> tell us, that they all fabricated, independently of each other, the same hadith
> which they attributed to Sufyan? It is obvious that Sufyan himself forged the
> bogus hadith. You see, this is precisely how common links allow fabrication of
> mutawatir traditions to occur. The person who is the common link can easily
> bring a tradition into existence, extending the isnad back to the Prophet, and
> his students, for example, can spread this tradition believing it to be true.
> Next, we see Dr. Saifullah suspecting that Juynboll's assertions:
This guy claims that it is obvious that Sufyan "himself forged the bogus
hadith". It is "obvious" only because the common link theory presumes
and concludes so. For Imran, he can't come out of this circularity no
matter how much he tries. He has to go in round and round circles. And
remember how he had the impressive list of "logical fallacies" to show how
weak is our argument. Hypocritically, he himself uses these arguments to
"refute" us. Interesting, to say the least!
And where did al-Khatib and al-Jauzi say that "that they all fabricated,
independently of each other, the same hadith which they attributed to
Sufyan"? Complete references please with quotes! You are very good at
saying lot of nonsense without providing evidence. We will tell you that
it was Juynboll who was saying that Ahmad, Yahya Ibn Ma`in and others,
al-Khatib and Ibn al-Jauzi want us to believe that a dozen or so obscure
transmitters, in ignorance of each other, separately or individually,
forged one and the same tradition which they all, again in ignorance of
each other, separately and individually, claimed to have heard from one
and the same famous man [Muslim Tradition, pp. 211-212]. So, you ended up
putting Juynboll's words in the mouth of al-Khatib and al-Jauzi. Allahu
akbar! The best thing that I can say to myself and others is "Hasbunallahu
wa ni`mal-wakeel".
If "common link can easily bring the a tradition into existence, extending
the isnad back to the Prophet, and is students," why not show an example
that does not involve a hadith which is declared to be Sahih yet was
forged, if you are really truthful?
> DR. SAIFULLAH
> > 4. And as expected Juynboll started to attack Sufyan al-Thawri for
> > "harbouring" anti-`Abbasid feeling by quoting "... beware of these
> > princes, do not seek to approach them, do not get caught up in anything
> > they do." Junyboll also suspects that Sufyan al-Thawri's anti-`Abbasid
> > feeling may well have moulded into a hadith, or more than one for that
> > matter, which was or were felt openly critical of the `Abbasid policies
> > [nota bene: he only suspects with no evidence to show]. It did not occur
>
> This really is a gobsmacking statement from Dr. Saifullah. What are you saying
> Doctor? Did you even read Juynboll's argument properly?! Juynboll has SHOWN to
> us that Sufyan did forge the hadith. As he says: "we have come to the inscapa-
> ble evidence that it is Sufyan himself who has to be held accountable for it."
> (same page you quote). The question is not DID HE but WHY? Juynboll suggests
> that the best explanation comes from Sufyan's anti Abbasid feelings.
Let me correct your delusions here. Juynboll has shown us circularly that
Sufyan had forge hadith because the common link says so. Since the common
link says so therefore Sufyan is a forger. What about the case of somebody
else using Sufyan's name to forge the hadith? No discussion is needed for
this because Sufyan did forge hadith as the common link says so. Since the
common link says so therefore Sufyan is a forger. Ad nauseam! Your proof
is nothing but a spoof. This is as tersely as I can put it.
Juynboll "suggests" that the best explanation comes from Sufyan's
anti-`Abbasid feelings. And Sufyan's words are quoted as "... beware of
these princes, do not seek to approach them, do not get caught up in
anything they do" to show that he had harboured anti-`Abbasid feelings.
Who are these princes? What was the context of the statement? Well,
neither has Juynboll mentioned and as expected nor has Imran bothered to
deal with it.
> DR. SAIFULLAH
> > to him that Malik was physically beaten because he did not give a fatwa
> > that suited the whims of Governer of Madinah, Ja`far b. Sulayman. Ahmad
> > Ibn Hanbal was beaten just because he did not subscribe to Mu`atazila
> > views. There is a long history of Islamic scholars to be not associated
> > with the rulers. So, the case of Sufyan al-Thawri is no different for
> > asking people to be "... beware of these princes, do not seek to approach
> > them, do not get caught up in anything they do." So, Juynboll has to come
> > up with something better than this.
>
> Bravo Doctor! An appropriate time, I say, to throw in a red herring. I think
> the towel would have been better, but hey, it's worth a try! Whatever we may
> think of why Sufyan warned people to be cautious about the princes, it has
> absolutely no relation to the fact of the matter - Sufyan had forged an anti
> Abbasid hadith. Sorry Doctor, but *you* have to come up with something better
> than this. Try refuting Juynboll's demonstration of Sufyan's fabrication for
> a start. Instead, here is this comment from Dr. Saifullah:
Throwing red-herrings is your forte. You come up here to argue about "x"
number of things when some 70% of it is refuted or you have no evidence
you bring "y" more to show that your arguments are not yet finished. This
kind of trick is played by Christian missionaries on Muslims. Instead of
dealing with an argument at a time, they bring tons of quotes and scribble
something hoping that something would click. The simple math is that all
the arguments should be multiplied with 0 and hence the result is still
zero.
We have already showed you earlier that Juynboll's argument about Sufyan
fabricating the hadith is circular. The proof is not on us to show. The
proof is on you to show that it did was the case.
> Are you serious Doctor? I think Dr. Saifullah is really on thin ice here,
> judging from the cracks appearing in his argument. Juynboll is investigating
> the classical Muslim sources that purport to document fabricated hadith, and
> wants to see if they did their job. His argument on Sufyan's fabrication is
> impeccably documented (see all the relevant references from al-Khatib and
> Ibn al-Jawzi). Furthermore, he has shown for good reasons how these people
> had strong connections with Sufyan. Dr. Saifullah asks why the forgery would
> take place? Once again, had he read the section on this by Juynboll carefully
> he would have come to realize that it is Sufyan who forged the tradition, and
> those who deleted his name from the isnad, and changed the matn, did so to
> protect his connections with the bogus anti Abbasid tradition he concocted.
Yeah, yeah, we have heard all these nice little stories from Juynboll's
work. So, please cut the useless material and show us some evidence.
I did not ask you why the forgery would take place; rather I asked you why
would a super-hadith critic like Sufyan or any other who did it would use
weak narrators only to be caught! You did not get it, but this time we
make very clear for you.
> So I don't think Dr. Saifullah's attempted refutation of Juynboll touches his
> argument. Juynboll's argument stands. This is one argument of Dr. Saifullah's
> that has been refuted, when he wrote that tawatur makes fabrication impossible.
Juynboll's argument only stands on circular statement and so is yours. You
can't even prove that the hadith quoted by Juynboll is tawatur and yet
you claim that you have refuted my arguments. We have already shown that
a common-link based hadith is classified as Gharib, Munkar or Mawdu`.
There is no chance of it being a mutawatir.
Motzki commenting about Juynboll's idea about common link being the
fabricator says:
"... common links that belong to the generation of al-Zuhri and the
following generation should not necessarily be considered as originators
of the traditions but as the first systematic collectors of the traditions
who transmitted them to regular classes of students out of which an
institutionalized system of learning developed." [H. Motzki, "The
Collection Of The Qur'an: A Reconsideration Of The Western Views In Light
Of Recent Methodological Developments", Der Islam, 2001, Vol. 78, p. 30]
> What is the other argument? The rijal argument, where Dr. Saifullah constantly
> repeats that the rijal material can be trusted because no one can show that we
> cannot trust them.
>
> On the subject of the rijal material, The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam states,
>
> "...[O]pinions on the reliability of authorities might differ very
> considerably. The same person, whose communications might be absolutely
> trusted in the view of one party, was sometimes considered be others
> exceedingly 'weak' in transmission or even as a liar. Originally, even the
> authority of many highly respected contemporaries of Muhammad was not generally
> recognized; for example the truthfulness of Abu Huraira was hotly disputed by
> very many. The verdict usually differed with the standpoint of the party, and
> this often gave rise to bitter quarrels. We must, however, remember in
> connection that the substance of the transmitted statements was really always
> the main thing. It was in reality almost always the bias of their substance
> that aroused opposition. The ultimate decision then rested not on the
> reputation of the authorities but rather on the substance of the accounts
> transmitted by them." -- The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, Gibb & Kramers,
> (Leiden E.J. Brill: 1953), p. 117.
The above quote is not about the authenticity of rijaal material in its
transmission. It deals with the individuals in the compilations of whom
there are different opinions.
> Therefore, we see that there was considerable difference between authorities
> as to who was deemed a "good" or "bad" transmitter. Of Abu Huraira, his truth-
> fulness was "hotly disputed". And furthermore, it was the matn that was really
> the subject of scrutiny for authorities. If a particular matn was seen as just
> outrageous, then one could easily make an ad hoc move, and brand the person
> who transmitted it as weak or a liar (i.e. manipulation of the isnad).
By the way of examples, we do not see anything as is usually the case
with you. More hot air! Examples please!
<rest deleted for the sake of brevity and has nothing to do with common
link theory>
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
ghali
against Saifullah and a quote of Robinson. Which has no argument, more
astonishment! It seems you have a habit of just quoting references of
personal opinions. It does not add to the argument though.
> In other words, it is not longer sufficient to say that because the hadith
> constitute the memory and testimony of other people, they are therefore trust-
> worthy. One is going to need more evidence than that!
Again another strawman when it comes to the Hadith literature. A good
reference for this, surprise surprise! is from Azami's book on
Schacht's origin. The concept of ADL is part of it, no doubt. And I
don't think ANY legal system in the world disgards it. So if the
Muslims use it, I don't think they are to blame! It does not imply
though that the Rijal system is subjective. The other criteria
mentioned include comparing texts of students with the same teacher
with different teachers, and in different time periods. As well as the
usual rational criteria of inconsistency. They CAN be assessed
objectively, and in many cases they are ENOUGH! In fact Iftikhar Zaman
(Despite your quote from Benhim) has shown that we can compare
different students with this Isnad, matn analysis. And in fact the
Rijal works usually give coherent results. For example let us say that
Zuhri has five student . One of them narrates a idiocyncracy in the
matn. We look into the Rijal works and find that this narrator is
mentioned as being careless with his notes and so on. His WHOLE PHD
was on ONE narration. So it shows how much work goes into this.
Really, (I should not be surprised on a newsgroup) a refutation is not
a quote from an internet site! I mentioned the key problem of
Juynboll, now answer it i.e. a apriori acceptance that the common link
is a fabricator which obviously means no "control group". The other
essential component of your argument goes like this.
A- Miracleous and fabricated events are mentioned with an Isnad
B- Miracles are impossible to prove ,citing Hume. (if this is not
your position then don't misquote. Amazing that your knowledge of
Philosophy is as inaccurate as your knowledge of Hadith in many cases)
C- There MAY BE authentic material with the Isnad system But because
of A and B we reach the conclusion
D- of an Indecision. " I don't Know"
In other words Radical Skepticism of ALL the Islamic sources. Which
even Juynboll does not reach.
With regards to premise A regarding Hume and the issue of miracles,
well that is just a bit boring! The question I am going to ask you
then is this. Do you believe in Moses having miracles as mentioned in
the Quran? If you do then don't quote Hume! Let us though say that you
have more of a weakened position. If miracles are possible then texts
mentioning a prophet doing them is not de facto a problem. For
Robinson it is, of course! Though I still am waiting for the reason
why we should not accept let us say of this possible scenario.
Remember how Juynboll redacted to Thawri using the arguments I cited.
Let us say that we can do this using Muttawatir chains. So in this
case we have MULTIPLE ( NOT like the example you quoted) common links
down to the successors who quote from DIFFERENT companions. We also
know that these companions where stretched around the Muslim world.
Would you accept then at LEAST for NOW the story would have its origin
in the first century. ? Probably just ignore you problem here though
and cite inummerous quotations AGAIN! Well I am saying just that.
Using Jynboll's method we can redact texts to the first century
including the miracles of the prophet.
We also have a clear non-sequitor as well. Note the similar argument
below
A- SOMETIMES we have clear preceptions while we are dreaming
B- Also in reality we have these same preceptions
C- From B and C then we can NEVER reach a POSITIVE conclusion that we
are not dreaming
Or let us say an indecision. Crispin Wright in his very technocratic
article "Imploding the demon" now had a detailed refutation of this
kind of argumentation. I don't see why your argument is the same. True
there are fabricated Isnads but it does not follow that we cannot
trust EVERY isnad after that. We just say that if a hadith is
mentioned in one locality even with numerous authors and is not
testified to in any other collection or locality, then using Isnad
alone maybe problematic. Now with the classical collections this is
not the case in alot of the cases. If we have the same hadith
mentioned in Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, The Mussnaf of Abd Al Razzaq,
the Muwatta and in in numerous legal texts like Kitab al Umm and the
Risala. Would you really think that your example compares?
So here is then your model for falsification. Find a hadith with a
continous link mentioned in numerous collections with authors
mentioned in the Rijal works in different localities. Now do they
consider this Hadith to be a fabrication. Or Have they at LEAST
REDACTED IT to EARLIER authors. If not then O.K! We have a case
against THEM! Now onto your other fallacy
Juynboll mentions this narration which the narrators of hadith say is
a fabrication but yet using his "Muttawatir" argument we can redact it
to Sufyan al Thawri.
At most from this one can say that the collectors missed something, or
that Thawri misconstrued a companions or successors personal opinion
to be the prophets, or that Thawri even fabricated it ( on acceptance
of the aprior premise of Juynboll). We could even say it is sahih! Not
that this is the case. But it DOES not follow that ALL the ISNAD
system is then destroyed! Not even in the wildest dreams of
possiblity. Rich from a philosopher eh!
But what about this scenario. A common story in a certain area where
these narrators live, is redacted to the prophet using famous
isnads.This does show a way to override Juynbolls criticisms. It also
leaves the Muttawatir argument intact because of the issue of
geographic distribution of narrators in similar periods.
This happens all the time! Rememeber the story of a certain UFO hidden
in a US base. The locals of the communtiy although numerous had enough
"Isnads" from eyewitnesses. Even became primary sources themselves.
Not difficult to imagine this as a possiblity as well.
>Now even Harald Motzki, whom Dr.
> Saifullah has espoused and said his approach is more "balanced", remarks on
> the work done by Juynboll thus: "[h]is research has produced many valuable
> results, especially concerning the extension and the tecniques of isnad
> falsification ..." -- Harald Motzki, "The Musannaf of Abd Al-Razzaq Al-San'ani
> as a Source of Authentic Hadith of the First Century A.H", JNES 50, No. 1,
> 1991, p. 9, f.n. 27.
Another "Even so and so..."! Note the logical fallacy here. But a
misquotation again! Motzki is just saying that the value of Juynboll
comes from his ability to use the isnad HISTORICALLY, Which YOU DO
NOT, to cite this source of fabrication. But if you just bothered to
read the previous paste from Benhinms Bibliography here! You would
know the context. In other words this quotation does NOT address his
problems with the common link theory which he talks about on the
famous issue of Malik Nafi Ibn Umar.
> First, Dr. Saifullah championed the mutawatir argument, but he really did not
> give any evidence to demonstrate that the purported tawatur methodology is well
> guarded against possible fabrications
So why accept the redaction to Thawri? This is just getting plain
silly. You are quoting without understanding what Juynboll is saying.
Or maybe it is intentional? And the example quoted was not even
muttawatir, using ANY criteria. Did you just ignore my reply! I know
at first I was bracketed Saifullah(ghali) then I just disappeared from
your worthy league of opponents! LOL! Oh please Imran give me academic
credentials.
. He claims it is impossible that tawatur
> is fallible (see earlier posts), and shifts the burden of proof on me to show
> him wrong. Bearing with this fallacy,
It just is not a fallacy. We have given the reason why the burden of
proof is on you CONCEPTUALLY because of the problems with Language
etc... For the proof of this see Putnam's appendix in his Reason,
Truth and history.
I have snipped the rest because I have answered most of them in the
previous post where I was bracketed!
But as you put in the effort to quote from Muslim Traditions. I will
give you the pleasure later on to find a POSSIBLE falsification model
for a muttwatir hadith on prayer cited by Azami.
Wassallam for now,
Ghali
ghali
example cited by Azami and Motzki on two famous narrations, one is
Mashr and the other is Muttawatir.
By the way I stand corrected in citing the above hadith i.e. of
Juynboll as Mashur. Saifullah rightly classified hadiths with common
links in the chains of the successor and above as Gharib Sahih if the
cirteria is met. Interestingly not all scholars of Islam accept hadith
like this, but that is another issue. Just to say that to quote a
controvertial example in a field of hadith that is contervertial ( the
issue of whether Gharib is sahih or not)and then cite it as Muttawatir
is, well kindly put, misconstrued.
His argument goes like this. "Goldzhier, Robinson, Juynboll, and
Schacht.." , "Goldzhier, Robinson, Juynboll, and Schacht.." but......
then again "Goldzhier, Robinson, Juynboll, and Schacht.." but.....
then again "Goldzhier, Robinson, Juynboll, and Schacht.." . Parrot
like isn't it.
Now onto the example Imran and note I have given you a falsification
model despite the example you quoted. But I put my money on Imran
rehashing stuff from books in his library and not even answering the
points addressed.
The Hadith from Chapter 8 p 156 in Azami's book " On Schacht's..."
Abu Huraira reported the Prophet saying " The Imam ought to be
followed, so recite takbir when he recites it..." and so on.
This Hadith now has been recorded 124! times with many different
scholars in different localities . It is reported by 26 third
generation authorities and three of the 26 heard it from more than one
source. It is found in the following collections , the Musnad of Imam
Ahmad,Ibn Abi Shaiba's collection, in Bukhari collection, Musnad of
Abu Yala, Tirmidhi,Ibn Khuzaima, Musnaaff of Abd al Razaq,Taylaisi's
collection,Nisai's collection, in the Muwwatta, and let alone the
commentaries and the books of Fiqh that mention this. Now alot of
these collections are obviously from the Tabi i.e Malik and Tabi Tabi
( Sucessors and those that followed them). In other words we have a
geographic distribution according to Azami let us say in the time of
the third generation to Medina, Mecca, Basra, Eygpt, Yemen, Kufa,
Syria Taif, and Wasit. Obviously the chart is just to large to even
contemplating placing it on the newsgroup. You would have to read his
book really.
Now how in the world did this happen. A narration that is quoted in
different parts of the Muslim World in the third generation. How do
you explain this Imran? Where is the common link theory here? It does
not even approach this example as it is a DIFFERENT TYPE OF HADITH!
But let us leave it to Motzki with some interesting quotes on the
hadith of the cat which would by greater implication apply to this
hadith. In response to Calder he states on pages 33- 35
" Calders dating of the hadith on the hadith of the cat leads,
obviously, to numerous problems which cannot be solved except through
wild speculation and without sufficent proof, rejecting all the dates
and authorships which are usually assigned to the hadith compilations
of the second half of the third century "
Then he talks about how Malik is very likely the source of one of the
versions as Calder even denies this. But the funny thing is this
" The problems that Calder's position generate increases like the
heads of the Hydra when includes "precanonical collections in this
discussion. There are twelve ....Sunan of Darmi, the Musnad of Ibn
Hanbal, the remains of the Muwwata of Suwayd b.Said, the Mussnaff of
Ibn Abi Shayba, the Kitab al Wadiha of Abd al Malik b.Habib, the
Muhadhii-Muwatta of Yahya b. Abd Allah b. Bukayr, The Kitab al Tahur
of Abu Ubayd, the extant part of the Muwatta recension of Abd Allah b.
Maslama.., the Musnad of Humayadi, the Musannaf of Abd al Razzaq, the
Kitab al Umm of Shafi, and the Muwatta of Shaybani. These collections
contain thirteen versions of the hadith which are attributed to Malik
.....ONE MUST WONDER HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE HADITH APPEARS IN SO
MANY COLLECTIONS COMPILED BEFORE 250/864 IF, ACCORDING TO CALDER'S
DATING IT ONLY EMERGED AFTER THAT DATE ( my emphasis)"
Now why mention Calder when Juynboll is the man we want to target?
Simple as the example of Azami is not the Common link Isnad we have
but more of a Muttwatir Isnad. In other words you would have to resort
either to Calders crazy ideas! or get your self involved in the
"spreading Isnad fabrcations" that most orientalists even Juynboll
will not hold onto. Now note that the collections above can be cited
with probably a more hefty list with regards to the hadith on Salah.
As Imran though chose to hold onto the Juynboll model then explain
this away. Rememeber your allowance for a redaction to Thawri!
Ghali