Response To Dr. Saifullah On Hadith (Prima Facie Irrationalities, Common Link & Tawatur).
imran...@xtra.co.nz
Dr. Saifullah is a master of evasion. He has not substantiated his claim
that tawatur fabrication is impossible. No evidence has been proffered by the
Doctor to show that ahad hadith (especially those of an extraordinary nature)
can be trusted. And finally, he is simply dismissive of my argument claiming
that there was permeating bias within the rijal works. All Dr. Saifullah can
do is simply pigeonhole away as red herrings those arguments he will not/can-
not reply to. And then he asks what the problem is!
DR. SAIFULLAH
> 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
More accurately, Robson's charge is that the very nature of the hadith corpus
makes it difficult to sift through what is true and what is untrue. And that it
is not sufficient to appeal *merely* to the archaic science of isnad and their
putative corroboration in the rijal works (which, of course, is precisely what
Dr. Saifullah is championing as being reliable). You need to be more rigorous
and utilize modern, historico-critical methodological application, something
which Dr. Saifullah will decline, no doubt, because for him, the archaic
science of isnads + the rijal works suffices for historical verification and
falsification. And this is all true because no one can disprove the Doctor.
Our pal Saifullah's reply is simply that, contra Robson, complete isnads do
exist, and that they may be found in early written corpora. This is a different
sort of argument entirely, which we can put aside for the moment. Since our pal
Saifullah is disappointed at the lack of examples which may cast prima facie
doubt on the hadith, let us consider the part in Robson's quote where he
says that:
"Many miracles are attributed to the Prophet, although the Kur'an does not
represent him as a miracle-worker." -- J. Robson, 'Hadith' in the Encyclopedia
of Islam", Vol III, Leiden, E.J. Brill: 1971, pp. 26-27.
I must stress that there are many more examples, but to make sure that our pal
Saifullah has not bitten off more than he can chew, let us stick to the reports
which may be deemed miraculous in nature. One may easily consult the first few
pages of Sahih al-Bukhari by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.
We are told that "[a] number of miracles were bestowed upon and performed by
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to establish the proof of
his prophethood." And also that "these accounts are real, validated narrations
of the sayings, actions, and tacit approvals of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings be upon him)." And the pious reader is reminded before reading the
accounts that the miraculous reports "are all from Sahih al-Bukhari, the
most authentic collection of ahadith."
Let me pick a few:
* Splitting of the Moon
-----------------------
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 388:
Narrated Abdullah:
The moon was cleft asunder while we were in the company of the Prophet, and
it became two parts. The Prophet said, Witness, witness (this miracle)."
* Lights to guide Companions
----------------------------
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 454:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Two of the companions of the Prophet departed from him on a dark night and
were led by two lights like lamps (going in front of them from Allah as a
miracle) lighting the way in front of them, and when they parted, each of
them was accompanied by one of these lights till he reached their (respective)
houses.
* Crying of the stem of the Date-palm Tree
------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 783:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
The Prophet used to deliver his sermons while standing beside a trunk of a
datepalm. When he had the pulpit made, he used it instead. The trunk started
crying and the Prophet went to it, rubbing his hand over it (to stop its
crying).
Now, the questions can be posed to Dr. Saifullah:
(1) Does Dr. Saifullah believe all of these events really happened?
(2) If so, what are his reasons for doing so?
I am not going to present my own arguments against such traditions, lest the
Doctor cries out that words are being put into his mouth, so let's just wait
and see what his response is.
The other main contribution from the Doctor is on Juynboll. First, he
squabbles over the fact that I did not quote Juynboll in full, writing:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> 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.
This is simply untrue. If anyone consults my earlier posting, they will find
that I quoted Motzki to show that scholars such as Juynboll are not so casually
dismissed as the Doctor would have us do, but rather, command careful scrutiny.
I was not using "nasty misquotes", as Dr. Saifullah alleges I did, but simply
quoting what I needed to show that Juynboll needs analysis, even if you
disagree with him. Not even Motzki considers Juynboll's work in such low
regards as Dr. Saifullah does. The Western tradition realizes that the works
of Goldziher and Schacht were extremely valuable, for one reason or another.
Even Motzki writes thus:
"While studying the Musannaf of 'Abd al-Razzaq, I came to the conclusion that
the theory championed by Goldziher, Schacht, and, in their footsteps, many
others - MYSELF INCLUDED - which, in general, rejects hadith literature as a
historically reliable source for the first century A.H., deprives the
historical study of early Islam of an important and useful type of source."
-- 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. 21.
In other words, there is other evidence which has surfaced, and which requires
careful examination. Motzki's work on Abd al-Razzaq eventually came into his
book "Die Anfange der islamischen Jurisprudenz". In the review by Irene
Schneider, the following observation is made (Schneider is commenting on the
analysis of Ibn Guraig, who is one of the transmitters of Abd Al-Razzaq's
work):
"Motzki's methodological approach suits the purpose of analyzing the traditions
of Ibn Guraig. His arguments are plausible. His external criteria show that
Ibn Guraig was not a conscious forger; the internal criteria confirm that he
was sincere in admitting his ignorance and doubts regarding certain traditions.
But one should always keep in mind that this does not automatically point to
the authenticity of all the traditions transmitted by Ibn Guraig, as Motzki
seems to conclude. Ibn Guraig may have transmitted some genuine, but also some
forged material, perhaps being subjectively convinced of its authenticity, and
his name may have been used by someone else to confer legitimacy. So Motzki
seems too bold when he writes that Abdarrazzaq's Musannaf contains undoubtedly
authentic material" -- See Irene Schneider's review of Motzki's book in The
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Oct-Dec 1994, v114, n4, p. 684.
No doubt, Motzki has some good approaches, but as we can see, these are still
being contested. The upshot of this is that the works of those like Juynboll
cannot be so easily dismissed. There is one other thing which I must comment
on:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> 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.
The problems for historical scholarship arise from this very problem. There
are theological presuppositions that attempt to seriously limit any academic
inquiry into the hadith. As Von Denffer notes:
"There is agreement among most Muslim scholars that the contents of the sunna
are also from Allah. Hence they have described it as also being the result of
some form of inspiration." -- Von Denffer, "Ulum Al-Qur'an", (Millat: 1994),
pp. 18-19. Von Denffer also cites Suyuti who claimed that the contents of the
sunna are divine in origin via Gabriel (Ibid). It is therefore only natural
to expect this sort of reaction from Muslims who despise Goldziher, Schacht
and other skeptics of hadith, because the upshot of Goldziher and Schacht's
work (if one assumes the position of Islamic orthodoxy) is that inspiration
>from Allah to the Prophet via Gabriel is fabricated.
DR. SAIFULLAH
> 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!
We, us, our, - yes, I do wonder why Dr. Saifullah feels the need to hide behind
pseudonyms and the constant references to the pedantic "we", "us", "our"; does
he think that exposure of weakness and downright absurdity in his arguments
will be less embarrassing to him if his apologetic efforts are hidden behind
anonymity and an obviously phony "we"? I do not need to repeat myself about the
prima facie irrationalities of the hadith. The burden of proof is on the Doctor
to prove his case. So far, he has merely been arguing in a circle with stories
about how the hadith experts had documented the fabrications, etc. We need to
know, independently, whether such critical apparatus (isnads + rijal works) was
sufficient to rule out factitious reports. But no, the Doctor urges that I have
to disprove his case. To restate the problem, this is an argument from
ignorance on Dr. Saifullah's part. Moreover, where is the evidence for all of
the ahad hadiths? Dr. Saifullah is nitpicking Juynboll's argument without even
attempting to refute it (he claims it is circular, and I will come to that soon
enough). What is the evidence? Furthermore, I have never claimed that I have
all the evidence, - I am merely criticizing the poor arguments Dr. Saifullah
has been utilizing for their gaps and fallacies.
Moving on, regarding Juynboll, Dr. Saifullah is not impressed. He reasons the
common link theory out as follows:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> ... 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 ... His premise are his conclusions (aka circular
> arguments!) as we would see further down the post ... Juynboll looks at a
> isnad bundle, identifies the common link and blames him as a fabricator ...
> [t]here 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.
How absurd. Juynboll is *not* arguing that the common link is *a priori* the
fabricator. What he is saying is that in Sufyan's case, the common link was a
forgerer (i.e. Sufyan himself) *based* on certain lines of evidence. We do
know that the hadith came into existence, and that it was *forged* as was
documented by al-Khatib and Ibn al-Jawzi. The best explanation adduced from
the background evidence is that Sufyan concocted this bogus hadith, and that
his students attempted to protect his reputation, e.g. by deleting his name
>from the isnad, etc. Dr. Saifullah simply dismisses Juynboll's strong proof,
which is impeccably documented, as "guesswork", and yet he can provide
absolutely NOTHING to explain the data of the anti-Bagdad hadith. Where did
this hadith come from? Outer space? He complains that:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> 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.
The following points are made by Juynboll:
* The anti-Bagdad hadith is a forgery (documented by al-Khatib and al-Jawzi)
* The isnads merge and sprout later from a common link, Sufyan At-Thawri.
* The dozen transmitters from Sufyan had close connections with him.
* The isnads were manipulated (Sufyan's name was deleted) and the matn was
changed as well in reports being heard from Sufyan's students.
* Al-Khatib and Al-Jawzi accused the transmitters of having forged the hadith
and never doubted Sufyan.
* There are two competing hypotheses: either Sufyan was the originator of the
anti-Bagdad tradition or all twelve transmitters had independently forged a
hadith which was similar to the rest.
* Best hypothesis is the former, not the latter because (a) the coincidence
for the second hypothesis to be true is very improbable, and (b) Sufyan had
also harboured anti-Abbasid feelings.
Thus, the best hypothesis to explain the forged data is the fabrication taking
place at the common link (i.e. Sufyan). All Dr. Saifullah can come up with is a
retort of ignorance:
DR. SAIFULLAH
> 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.
In other words, Dr. Saifullah is playing ignorant. He obviously does not want
to challenge Juynboll's hypothesis by substituting it with a more plausible
explanation, so he brands Juynboll's argument as "guesswork" and then embraces
agnosticism on the common link. Also, by claiming that fabrications can occur
*outside* the isnad, and can then be injected into them, Dr. Saifullah is
seriously weakening his own position which lauds the strictness of the isnads
in keeping out bogus matns. Dr. Saifullah offers no explanation whatsoever as
to where the fabrication occurred, *even though* al-Khatib and al-Jawzi had
*explicitly* branded Sufyan's students as liars and fabricators. Why is he
distancing himself for the classical documentation although he praises it in
other places? Special pleading?
Juynboll's example demolishes Dr. Saifullah's a priori contention that
tawatur fabrication is impossible.
More recently, Juynboll has summed up the following points on the science
of tawatur (see G.H.A. Juynboll, 'Tawatur' in the "Encyclopedia of Islam",
Leiden, E.J. Brill: 2000, p. 382-383):
* A distinction is made between tawatur lafzi (verbatim mutawatir transm-
ission of a text and tawatur ma'nawi (transmission according to the gist
or some feature of the text).
* Only a small number of traditions are mutawatir.
* Traditions can be weak inspite of multiple isnads, such as the hadith for
seeking knowledge (see below).
* Sometimes, mutawatir becomes classified as mashur because of one isnad
which has a "knot" from which multiples strands sprout, - the "madar" or
"pivot." This is the common link which we have been debating recently.
* Finally, the most important point:
"It is indeed astonishing that, althought Muslim hadith scholars used both
technical terms, tawatur as well as madar, they never seem to have adduced
the latter as the indispensible yardstick for the former to be valid, or to
have illustrated features or uses of each in connection with the other in
one and the same hadith context." (Ibid., p. 382).
The entire example of the common link example of Sufyan At-Thawri is to show
how it is possible for fabrications to occur at such "knots" in the strands of
hadith. And as Juynboll notes, the common link is crucial to note when looking
at those traditions that have been classified as tawatur. For a true analysis,
one would need to sketch out a diagram of all the isnads from a mutawatir type
hadith, and see where the links are (if any), and construct a *probablistic*
argument from the background evidence. Dr. Saifullah's claim of *absolute
certainty* in tawatur is simply out of the question.
And Dr. Saifullah has totally misconstrued Juynboll's argument vis-a-vis the
common link. To re-iterate, Juynboll does *not* a priori say the common link
is the forgerer of bogus hadith, but rather, it is a *possibility* that one
needs to analyze on the basis of the background evidence (as was done in the
case of Sufyan).
For a thorough analysis of a mutawatir tradition, I refer the Doctor, and
other interested readers to Juynboll's scrutiny of the man kadhaba saying/
slogan which was brought into circulation to curb further spreading of
mendacity in hadith. See "Muslim Tradition", Chapter 3, pp. 96-134.
Recently, I was trying to locate some transmissions that were tawatur, and one
which seemed to qualify was the last sermon of the Prophet. Surely, if thousands
of people had witnessed this event, then one would expect that strands of narra-
tive reports would be the same. Here, I refer to the part where the Prophet said
he would be leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) in some reports:
MALIK'S MUWATTA:
----------------
Book 46, Number 46.1.3:
"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the Messenger of Allah,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "I have left two matters with
you. As long as you hold to them, you will not go the wrong way. They are the
Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Prophet."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/046.mmt.html
MUSLIM:
-------
Book 007, Number 2803:
"Ja'far b Muhammad reported on the authority of his father ... [the Prophet
said] I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it, you
would never go astray." [NOTE: No mention of Sunna]
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/007.smt.html
Muslim also narrates this variant:
"I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you. The first of
the two is the Book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So get hold of the
Book of Allah and adhere to it." Then he urged and motivated (us) regarding
the Book of Allah. Then he said, "And my Ahl al耑ayt (family). I urge you to
remember God regarding my Ahl al耑ayt. I urge you to remember God regarding my
Ahl al耑ayt. I urge you to remember God regarding my Ahl al耑ayt."
http://www.al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/Versions.htm
Another variant from al胄akim al胤ayshaburi:
"I have left behind two precious things amongst you, one of which is greater
than the other. The Book of Allah, the Exalted, and my `itrah (kindred). So
watch out how you treat these two after me, for verily they will not separate
>from each other until they come back to me by the side of the Pond." (Ibid)
The link to the Shi'a website gives further reference which interested readers
may wish to follow up on. I recall that this matter has been in dispute between
Sunni and Shi'a parties. Dr. Saifullah may not think much about the variants in
this tawatur transmission, but why not? It is a subtle, but extremely important
variant, which has been the cause of sectarian disputes.
Thus, not only has Dr. Saifullah's attempt failed once again to substantiate
his a priori claim that tawatur fabrication is impossible, but he has provided
no real evidence on ahad hadiths, rijal works, or counter-arguments to dissolve
the prima facie irrationalities of the hadith. And so, my response ends here.
I have elaborated upon the more philosophical difficulties in my posting to
Ghali.
<snipped other tangential, misappropriated verbosity>
--
Wasalaam,
Imran Aijaz
imran...@xtra.co.nz
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Dr. Saifullah is a master of evasion. He has not substantiated his claim
> that tawatur fabrication is impossible. No evidence has been proffered by the
> Doctor to show that ahad hadith (especially those of an extraordinary nature)
> can be trusted. And finally, he is simply dismissive of my argument claiming
> that there was permeating bias within the rijal works. All Dr. Saifullah can
> do is simply pigeonhole away as red herrings those arguments he will not/can-
> not reply to. And then he asks what the problem is!
It is an interesting start to the post where the first paragraph itself is
filled up with many ad hominem attacks. But our job is not to get into
this silly attacks to satisfy our ego. So, we will start with the first
and foremost issue of Common Link.
> DR. SAIFULLAH
> > ... 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 ... His premise are his conclusions (aka circular
> > arguments!) as we would see further down the post ... Juynboll looks at a
> > isnad bundle, identifies the common link and blames him as a fabricator ...
> > [t]here 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.
>
> How absurd. Juynboll is *not* arguing that the common link is *a priori* the
> fabricator. What he is saying is that in Sufyan's case, the common link was a
> forgerer (i.e. Sufyan himself) *based* on certain lines of evidence. We do
> know that the hadith came into existence, and that it was *forged* as was
> documented by al-Khatib and Ibn al-Jawzi. The best explanation adduced from
> the background evidence is that Sufyan concocted this bogus hadith, and that
> his students attempted to protect his reputation, e.g. by deleting his name
> >from the isnad, etc. Dr. Saifullah simply dismisses Juynboll's strong proof,
> which is impeccably documented, as "guesswork", and yet he can provide
> absolutely NOTHING to explain the data of the anti-Bagdad hadith. Where did
> this hadith come from? Outer space? He complains that:
Imran's claim here is that Juynboll is *not* arguing that the common link
is *a priori* the fabricator. What is evidence? As one can expect, it is
his own statement. This actually shows that he does not even have
the basic idea of the principles which Juynboll has postulated
concerning the common link and what his status is according to
Juynboll. Unfortunately, we have to go into a brief tutorial that
deals with the issue of common link and his status according to the
principles postulated by Juynboll. We will then add what others say about
Juynboll's common link theory and how it confirms the a priori nature of
assuming that the common link was the forger. Please remember that the
below statements of Juynboll are the principles; they are not evidences.
JUYNBOLL'S IDEAS ABOUT THE COMMON LINK
Juynboll's principles about the common link theory are best described by
him in his numerous papers, usually in the introduction. We will quote
some of them for the sake of brevity.
"This [single] strand must be considered to have been put together by that
particular person in the bundle, here called the common link, at whose
level the strands begin to blossom out in different directions. It is
namely inconceivable that a remark of the Prophet was transmitted to later
generations by one single Companion only, who in his turn passed it on
only to one single Successor, who in his turn passed it on only to one
single other Successor, etcetera.... The cl [i.e., the common link] can on
the whole be held responsible not only for the strand back to the Prophet
but also for the proliferation of the text (matn) of the report or
tradition, or in any case for the transmission of that matn's most ancient
wording."
G. H. A. Juynboll, "Early Islamic society as reflected in its use of
isnads," Le Museon, 107 (1994), pp. 154-155
Juynboll himself says that he "should like to postulate: as a rule.." [p.
689] that:
"On the other hand, almost the opposite obtains for the cl [i.e., the
common link] in hadith transmission: the cl did invent the single strand
from himself down to the Prophet or a Companion as well as the text of the
tradition which is thus projected backwards in time to lend it more
prestige."
G. H. A. Juynboll, "Some Thoughts on Early Muslim Historiography",
Bibliotheca Orientalis, 49 (1992), pp. 689-690
But this "rule" is not based on any evidence. It is just a postulation.
"... the saying which he claims [i.e., the common link] was uttered by the
Prophet is in reality his own, or (if somebody else's) he was the first to
put it into so many words."
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
"In the main, the common link is responsible for the strand for himself to
the Prophet as well as for the (protoversion of the) matn..."
G. H. A. Junyboll, "Nafi', the mawla of Ibn 'Umar, and his position in
Muslim Hadith literature," Der Islam, 70 ii (1993), pp. 212.
OTHERS ON JUYNBOLL'S COMMON LINK THEORY
This is just to verify whether others have understood the apriori nature
of Juynboll's common link theory as we have just in case if people start
accusing me of misrepresenting Juynboll.
"For Juynboll, if I read him rightly, the common link is the fabricator."
M. Cook, "Eschatology And The Dating Of The Tradition", Princeton Papers
In Near Eastern Studies, 1992, Volume 1, p. 39, n. 10.
Cook mentions the common link being the fabricator as a part of the
"principle" [p. 24].
Commenting on the claim of Juynboll that the commmon link is the
fabricator, a priori, Motzki says:
"There is no reason to reject a priori the claim of the common link that
he received the tradition or the information on which it is based from the
person he names. In order to reject the claim, we must have concrete
indications that it is in all likelihood not true, e.g., that the
lifetimes of the common link and his alleged informant are not compatible
with such a claim, etc."
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.
It is good time to summarize some of the principles which Juynboll has
postulated and assumed a priori:
1. The common link is a fabricator of the matn and he is responsible for
the transmission of it.
2. The common link is also responsible for taking the strand back to the
Prophet, SAW.
3. The more transmission lines there are, coming to a certain transmitter,
either reaching him or branching out from him, the more that moment of
transmission, represented in what may be described as a 'knot', has a
claim of historicity. This is a major adage in Juynboll's methodology
[Junyboll, "Some Isnad-Analytical Methods...", p. 352].
4. If there are "dives" under the common link, the deeper the "dive", the
more recent is the date of origin of that particular isnad [Junyboll,
"Some Isnad-Analytical Methods...", p. 368.].
Imran has claimed that Juynboll does not assume a priori that the common
link is a forger. He called our claim as "absurd". His absurdity is
obvious when we have Juynboll himself (and others!) saying that the
principles of common link theory blames the common link as a forger with
no reason whatsoever! Other have said that same thing about the status of
Juynboll's common link.
Now that we have firmly established that Juynboll's a priori assumption is
that the common link was the forger of the hadith, let us now move over to
the possibilities that are either dismissed or made into a formative
principle by Juynboll. We have mentioned two escape clauses earlier.
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
[Schact, Origins, p. 175]. Juynboll rejects this escape clause because the
common link, according to his formulated principles, was the source of
proliferation of matn and sending the isnad back to the Prophet. [See the
above quote of Juynboll, "Early Islamic society as reflected in its use of
isnads," Le Museon, op. cit., p. 155 and also Junyboll, "Some
Isnad-Analytical Methods...", p. 353, 355]. Therefore, according to the
"principles" of Juynboll, the tradition could never have originated later
than the common link. What is his proof? Well, it is his principles [nota
bene: a principle is not a proof. It needs to be verified rigourously
before it rests of solid grounds]. Since his principles say that the
tradition could never have been originated later than the common link, the
common link has to be the fabricator. The argument here is circular.
What is excluded, even with this escape clause, is fabrication at a date
earlier than the flourishing of the common link. Juynboll, as far as I
know, has nothing to say about this issue. The only side comment he makes
is that of "historicity" that we have already mentioned above in the
summary of common link theory.
"The first and foremost principle wielded here is as follows:
The more the transmission lines come together in one transmitter, either
reaching him or going away from him, the more this transmitter and his
transmission have a claim to historicity."
[Juynboll, "Early Islamic society as reflected in its use of isnads," Le
Museon, op. cit., p. 153]
One can infer that the person in the single strand could not have invented
because there is no way to verify the "historicity" of the transmission.
The first thing which strikes any one is that arbitrary nature of this
common link theory. The common link is fabricator no matter who he is and
who he is not, whether he is truthful or whether he is a liar. This is not
only a circular argument but also argumentum e silento. When this was
pointed out to Imran, he called it "absurd". It is quite clear that his
argument based on no understanding of how Juynboll postulated his
common-link theory, is really absurd.
Imran says that Juynboll is "saying is that in Sufyan's case, the common
link was a forgerer (i.e. Sufyan himself) *based* on certain lines of
evidence." We have already seen Juynboll's first line of "evidence" that
the common link has to be the forger no matter what comes. There can't be
any forgers among F1-F5, F-F10 and F12 who are below the common link. And
what about those who are above common link such as `Aasim who has
transmitted to Sufyan and F8-F10, Abu `Ubaydah or Abu `Uthman or Jarir or
Anas? This possibility is not even considered. They can never be the
forgers because they are not the common links: thus spake Juynboll's
principles. Juynboll has not even considered the possibility that any of
the characters above the common link can be forgers. Why? Because the
principles which he formulated does not say so. This itself is
unscholarly.
The next thing which Imran claims is that the "explanation adduced from
the background evidence is that Sufyan concocted this bogus hadith, and
that his students attempted to protect his reputation, e.g. by deleting
his name from the isnad...". We may now ask, since when has explanation
become a proof? If I explain cohesively that the TV works by black magic,
does it mean that I have proved my case. Anybody who knows the basics of
logic will quickly point out that an explanation is not a proof. Now what
is the "evidence" amassed by Juynboll that Sufyan was the one who
concocted the anti-Baghdad hadith and faithfully being parroted by Imran?
The first one is obviously the common link being Sufyan. A circular
argument, obviously!
The second one is that Sufyan had "offered some criticism of the `Abbasids
and, consequently, had aroused the anger of al-Mansur" [Juynboll, Muslim
Tradition, p. 212]. According to Juynboll, the reason for "this anger
given in his biography may be perfectly valid but do not include Sufyan's
spreading of anti-Baghdad and thus anti-`Abbasid, traditions"
[ibid.]. Sufyan had to flee from Kufa to Makkah and went into hiding
because al-Mansur wanted him captured and executed. From this Juynboll
conjectures that the anti-`Abbasid feeling "might very well have moulded
into a hadith or more than one for that matter..." [ibid.]. Juynboll as
one can see has no evidence to show. Sufyan's biography does not say that
he was involved in spreading anti-Baghdad and thus anti-`Abbasid,
traditions. The only thing Juynboll has to fall back to is conjecture that
Sufyan *might* have translated his anti-`Abbasid feeling for a hadith.
Some proof! We should call it a spoof. This spoof is Imran's or shall we
say "Juynboll's strong proof".
And then come the empty rhetoric from Imran "Where did this hadith come
from? Outer space?". We can perfectly understand his desparation to
"prove" to us his case. His case would be valid only if Juynboll had
produced an evidence. But Juynboll has only conjectured and he claims (and
so does Imran) as "seemingly, irrefutably evidence" [p. 213]. Why
seemingly, if the evidence was irrefutable?
> DR. SAIFULLAH
> > 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.
It is quite obvious why Imran would not dare to enter into the two escape
clauses that we have mentioned. He would only discuss it only if his
"master" Juynboll discussed it. Aka HMV: His Master's Voice. He may
dismiss it but he has no reason to argue its dismissal. This is again
quite understandable. Juynboll did not formulate the principle that the
people above or below the common link can forge the hadiths. It is only
the common link who can forge the hadith and all other possibilites by
definition vanish, not even worthy of discussing.
> * There are two competing hypotheses: either Sufyan was the originator of the
> anti-Bagdad tradition or all twelve transmitters had independently forged a
> hadith which was similar to the rest.
>
> * Best hypothesis is the former, not the latter because (a) the coincidence
> for the second hypothesis to be true is very improbable, and (b) Sufyan had
> also harboured anti-Abbasid feelings.
All of sudden we are led into a situation where the previous claims of
"strong evidence" and "seemingly, irrefutable evidence" are watered down
to "hypothesis". A hypothesis, by definition, is an assumption or
concession made for the sake of argument. How come an assumption made for
the sake of the argument has become a "strong evidence" and "seemingly,
irrefutable evidence"? Did Juynboll showed a hypothesis or has he shown a
"strong evidence"? The confusion here is apparent.
As for Sufyan harbouring anti-`Abbasid feelings, it does not mean that he
forged the hadith. It is a non sequitur argument. Juynboll himself says
that his biography does not even suggest that he was involved in spreading
anti-Baghdad traditions.
Imran's claim is that there are two competing hypothesis.
1. Either Sufyan forged the hadith
2. Or the 12 transmitters forged it independently.
The question to ask is why only two? Why not more than two? It is
perfectly valid to have the following possibilities.
1. Either Sufyan forged the hadith
2. Or anybody below Sufyan forged the hadith
3. Or anybody above Sufyan forged the hadith
4. Or somebody else forged the hadith on behalf of common link
5. Or somebody else forged the hadith on behalf of members above common
link
6. Or somebody else forged the hadith on behalf of members above common
link
Imran's "two competing hypothesis" is a case of the fallacy of false
dilemma. He has given a limited number of options while in reality there
exist more options than what are presented. For Juynboll and Imran there
can only be one possibility, i.e., Sufyan forged the hadith. Since the
principles of Juynboll does not have any clause on the fabrication of the
hadith either by people above or below the common link, it is not even
worth discussing and then we are asked to believe in "strong evidence".
> Thus, the best hypothesis to explain the forged data is the fabrication taking
> place at the common link (i.e. Sufyan). All Dr. Saifullah can come up with is a
> retort of ignorance:
Keep up your ad homonem attacks. You are better off on these grounds
rather than the grounds which deal with providing evidence and dealing
with critical thinking. We do not expect you to grow out of it any time
soon.
> DR. SAIFULLAH
> > 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.
>
> In other words, Dr. Saifullah is playing ignorant. He obviously does not want
> to challenge Juynboll's hypothesis by substituting it with a more plausible
> explanation, so he brands Juynboll's argument as "guesswork" and then embraces
> agnosticism on the common link. Also, by claiming that fabrications can occur
> *outside* the isnad, and can then be injected into them, Dr. Saifullah is
> seriously weakening his own position which lauds the strictness of the isnads
> in keeping out bogus matns. Dr. Saifullah offers no explanation whatsoever as
> to where the fabrication occurred, *even though* al-Khatib and al-Jawzi had
> *explicitly* branded Sufyan's students as liars and fabricators. Why is he
> distancing himself for the classical documentation although he praises it in
> other places? Special pleading?
I am not playing "ignorant"; I am just adding more possibilities of
fabrication of hadith. Imran has no problems in claiming that hadith were
fabricated to elevate the status of companions but he has a big problem
here when we mention that there is also a possibility that other might
have fabricated the hadith in the name of Sufyan. It is a matter of
convenience. Pick and choose the argument that one wants to uphold and
reject rest when it becomes inconvenient.
Juynboll's common link theory says that a priori, the common link is a
forger. What is this? "Guesswork" or true scholarship?
> Juynboll's example demolishes Dr. Saifullah's a priori contention that
> tawatur fabrication is impossible.
To demolish some of your delusions, the hadith which Juynboll quotes is
called Gharib. It is not mutawatir, as we have already mentioned earlier.
You may like to argue from the point of view of ignorance and use
Juynboll's as your riding horse, the hadith would still not reach the
status of mutawatir. A common linked hadith, by its definition
itself, can never be mutawatir. Secondly, the argument that the common
link is a forger is circular. Thirdly, there is no evidence to show that
Sufyan indeed forged anti-Baghdad hadith. What Juynboll conjectures is
that Sufyan *might* have forged the hadith. Conjecture and proof are
antipodes.
<useless repeats deleted for brevity>
We will deal with the other issues a little bit later, insha'allah, as we
have to first pin down Imran on one thing. He has a habit of moving from
one topic to another without finishing a discussing fully. We want to see
his evidence that Juynboll does not assume a priori that common link is a
forger and that it is not the part of the principles which he has deduced.
We are eargerly waiting for that, insha'allah.
Wassalam
Saifullah
ghali
> fabricator. What he is saying is that in Sufyan's case, the common link was a
> forgerer (i.e. Sufyan himself) *based* on certain lines of evidence.
Interesting does this quote sound familiar Imran,
"Please Ghali, do not try certain tricks on us which can be detected
easily."
Using the same method i.e going back to Benhim's Bibliography we see
an interesting quote
"Single strands should be, mathematically, the rule, not the
exception. THUS THEY CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS UNHISTORICAL (p. 52).
Another drawback of
Juynboll's argumentation is that the rule "the more knots the greater
the historical probability" only applies only if we can rule out the
falsification of knots (pcls), which we cannot (p. 52).
Now who could Motzki be talking about? Juynbol! Obviously the quote is
talking about finding the "real" common link". The point is this, the
a priori rejection of single strands as UNHISTORICAL! by Juynbol So
what is the strand called BEFORE the common link. A SINGLE STRAND! It
then branches after the link.
Even if Juynbol does not explicitly say it. His position leads to it!
LOL!!
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> > How absurd. Juynboll is *not* arguing that the common link is *a priori* the
> > fabricator. What he is saying is that in Sufyan's case, the common link was a
> > forgerer (i.e. Sufyan himself) *based* on certain lines of evidence.
>
> "Single strands should be, mathematically, the rule, not the
> exception. THUS THEY CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS UNHISTORICAL (p. 52).
> Another drawback of
> Juynboll's argumentation is that the rule "the more knots the greater
> the historical probability" only applies only if we can rule out the
> falsification of knots (pcls), which we cannot (p. 52).
>
> Now who could Motzki be talking about? Juynbol! Obviously the quote is
> talking about finding the "real" common link". The point is this, the
> a priori rejection of single strands as UNHISTORICAL! by Juynbol So
> what is the strand called BEFORE the common link. A SINGLE STRAND! It
> then branches after the link.
>
> Even if Juynbol does not explicitly say it. His position leads to it!
Juynboll has explicitly mentioned his principles in many of his
publications that the common link is the forger of the tradition and
and that he was responsible to extend the isnad back to the Prophet,
SAW. And it is clearly an a priori assumption as has been noted by
Juynboll's peers.
This above mentioned stuff is in Motzki's "Quo vadis, Hadit-Forschung?
Eine kritische Untersuchung von G. H. A. Juynboll: 'Nafi' the mawla of
Ibn 'Umar, and his position in Muslim Hadit Literature,'" Der Islam, vol.
73, no. 1, 1996, pp. 40-80. I have managed to go through some of the pages
of this paper with some difficulty. It is in German and my German is below
basic.
The position of Juynboll on the common link is again apparent in the paper
which Motzki was replying to:
"In the main, the common link is responsible for the strand for himself to
the Prophet as well as for the (protoversion of the) matn..."
G. H. A. Junyboll, "Nafi', the mawla of Ibn 'Umar, and his position in
Muslim Hadith literature," Der Islam, 70 ii (1993), pp. 212.
Juynboll while discussing the isnad Ibn `Umar -> Nafi` -> Malik says that
the prophetic traditions with this isnad were invented by Malik who is the
"real common link". This is because it was Malik's students who
transmitted the hadith to several others. Juynboll uses only six canonical
collections to make his arguments. Using earlier collections Motzki
deduces that the real common link is not Malik but Nafi` when Juynboll's
criteria is used. Some of the other issues like the "dives" below are
common link are also discussed and the arguments of Motzki invalidates
Juynboll's ideas about the "dives". According to the principles of
Juynboll if there are "dives" under the common link, the deeper the
"dive", the more recent is the date of origin of that particular isnad
[Junyboll, "Some Isnad-Analytical Methods Illustrated on the Basis
of Several Woman-Demeaning Sayings from Hadith Literature," Al-Qantara, X
(1989), p. 368.].
This being a short but not a complete summary of Motzki's work (as I said
my German is below basic!). It should also be added that the isnad the
Prophet -> Ibn `Umar -> Nafi` -> Malik -> al-Shaafi'i is considered the
"Golden Isnad". It has survived two attempts on it. One by Schacht and the
other by Juynboll. Schacht considered that the family isnads are all
spurious including the one of Ibn `Umar -> Nafi`. More recently by
Juynboll whose thesis was refuted by Motzki.
Wassalam
Saifullah