sunnah to the Prophets sayings and deeds was a result of a slow and gradual process. One of thereasons behind this transformation, he argues, was the desire to prevent a potential anarchicalsituation that might be caused by the prevalence of the traditions and life styles of the differentgroups that were integrated into the Muslim world as a result of the expansion of Islam. Margoliouthsees the concepts of infallibility (ismah) and non-recited revelation (wahy ghayr matluw) as theoriesconstructed to justify the position of the Prophets sunnah as a legitimate source of the law. Asimilar claim was made by Goldziher in the context of ghayr matluw revelation. Margoliouthmaintains that at the end of the process of justifying existing practices by referring them to theProphet, with these practices becoming the Prophets sunnah and thus strengthening authority, al-Bukhari tried to sort out the hadiths with his strict rules; however, in the view of Goldziher theauthenticity of those traditions he considered to be reliable are still questionable.Another Western orientalist in the pre-1950 period is Josef Horovitz (1874-1931), who is known forhis studies on the seerah literature. However, as Horovitz himself remarks, it is not possible tocompletely separate the latter from the hadith literature. He tried to establish the chronology of theisnad by employing the methods of Ibn Ishak (85/704-151/768). According to Horovitz, the isnad firstemerged in the last quarter of the first century AH. Although this is an earlier date for the start ofthe isnad than that given by previous orientalists, Horovitz was still skeptical about the isnad interms of its role in establishing the ‘sources of hadiths, unlike other orientalists, such as G. H. A.Juynboll, who traced the isnad back to the same date. Likewise, although Horovitz differs from hispredecessors on the issue of the chronology of the isnad, he occupies common ground with them interms of the assertion that Islam contains many elements from other religions and cultures. Hedescribes Islam as an area where syncretism dominates.The same assertion was also made by the Dutch orientalist Arent Jan Wensinck (1882-1939), whowas a leading member of the famous Concordance project. A study on the Dutch orientalist traditionreports that while he was working on his PhD dissertation on Prophet Muhammads relationshipswith the Jews in Medina, Wensinck realized the significance of the hadiths for Islamic theology, andthus started the Concordance project in order to make sure that the hadiths could be used moreefficiently in studies on Islam. He claims that the scope of the provisions of the Quran was limited tothe Medina context, and with the expansion of Islam beyond the Arabian Peninsula there emergedthe need for different moral and legal sources; these Muslims found in Roman and Jewish law,Christian ethics and asceticism, and Hellenism. Elements taken from these external traditions,according to him, compensated for the missing traditions, and they are contained in the hadithliterature. He further claims that this literature includes not only those elements borrowed from theabove-mentioned traditions, but also the hadiths fabricated by competing groups, as Goldziherargued before him. For this reason, Wensinck sees the hadiths as an important source for the historyof Islamic theology. Assuming that the Quran was authored by the Prophet, he claims that thehadiths were produced by Islamic society after him, and that this is the reason why they have beenso popular among Muslims.Another Western scholar working on the prophetic traditions, Alfred Guillaume (1888-1965), differsfrom his predecessors with his claim that the different ways in which the hadiths were fabricatedreflect the political and religious tendencies of competing groups. He also argues that only a few ofthe hadiths can belong to the authorities to whom they were attributed, based on mistakes made during the narration process. His work on the hadith literature entitled The Traditions of Islammakes it necessary to mention his name in this context.It can be observed that all of the orientalists mentioned so far share a common skeptical attitudetowards the hadith literature. At this point, we may refer to a different view in the orientalistliterature, namely that of Johann Fueck (1894-1974), who criticizes the skeptical approach of hispredecessors, arguing that the Prophet had set an ideal example for Muslims from the beginning. Hestresses the uniting, as opposed to dividing, aspects of the hadith literature, focusing onindependent and neutral hadith scholars rather than an idea of competing groups fabricatingprophetic traditions. According to Fueck, those who see the hadith literature as simply a collection ofviews of later generations ignore the deep influence of the Prophet on believers. They thus fail tosee the originality of the hadith literature, regarding it instead as a ‘mosaic composed of manyforeign elements. Consequently, they accept the hadiths as fabricated until proven otherwise. ForFueck, however, despite the fact that hadith scholars were not completely successful in eliminatingfabricated hadiths, the hadith literature contains many authentic traditions. For when the activitiesof collecting hadith started fifty years after the death of the Prophet, only the younger Companionswere still alive and the ulema of hadith narrated only from them. In this context, the fact that thereare very few traditions narrated from such companions as Abu Bakr and Omar, who were closer tothe Prophet, increases the credibility of the hadith scholars. (For, according to Fueck, if thesescholars had been fabricating the hadiths as was claimed, they would have attributed them to oldercompanions who were closer to the Prophet, rather than the younger ones, for this would supportthe soundness of their [fabricated] hadiths; but the fact that they did not do so proves theirtrustworthiness.) On the other hand, Fueck argues that the narrative chains of hadiths can ultimatelybe traced back only to the second century (AH), while there is no sound evidence for the precedingperiod. Although he admits the idea that the roots of the sunnah can be found in the first century,he claims that some modifications and revisions in the hadiths were made by later generations.Nevertheless, he still differs from earlier orientalists in arguing that in many cases the authenticessence beneath these modifications can be established on the basis of certain criteria.It is clear that all the orientalists mentioned so far, with the notable exception of Johann Fueck,basically agree with, and expand upon, the views put forward by Goldziher. Nevertheless, JosephSchacht (1902-1969), who made an impact on his successors similar to that of Goldziher, complainedthat the findings of the latter had been ignored and consequently the ‘standards lowered. By‘lowered standards he meant, of course, the abandonment of Goldzihers skepticism towardshadiths. He saw his own studies as an extension of Goldzihers work, and started from the basicpremise that the hadiths were not traditions that conveyed the Prophets sayings and practices, butwere rather simply a reflection of developments and dominant views in second-century Islamicsociety. According to Schacht, it was al-Shafis (150/767-204/820) efforts that allowed the hadiths tobecome a legitimate source of Islamic law, gaining an ultimately authoritative position vis-à-visopinion; within 50 years there was a great wave of marfu (hadiths that belonged to the Prophet)narrations. Accordingly, Schacht alleges that the marfu hadiths first emerged in the middle of thesecond century (AH), and the legitimate hadiths belonging to the Companions (mawkuf traditions)emerged in the early second century. As is apparent from this periodization, he claims that theadoption of the hadiths of the Prophet as a source of law in Islam took place at a later date than thatof the traditions of the Companions - that is, the latter were adopted at a time closer to the Prophethimself. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the date he provides for the traditions of the Companions does not reach further back than 100 (AH), which also invites another of his assertions.According to Schacht, it is not possible to find any authentic tradition among those attributed to theCompanions either. He argues that authentic legal traditions can only be found among thoseattributed to the subsequent generation, the generation of Successors (tabiun). Thus, theimplications of his allegations are serious. Furthermore, although he admits that the hadiths abouttheological issues could be dated to an earlier time than the legal traditions, Schaht neverthelessasserts that not all of these hadiths can be dated to the first century. He also maintains that hisconclusions about legitimate hadiths can be applied to historical narratives as well. Considering allthis, his assertions might be said to have far-reaching implications. Thus, Schacht became a majorfigure in orientalist literature, greatly influencing the later scholars - so much so that the subsequentgenerations of orientalists have been divided into either those who accept his claims or those whodo not, making him a central figure in the literature.The orientalists briefly discussed so far are those who represent the mainstream tradition of Islamicstudies in the West. The designation of Schacht as a turning point is not only due to his greatinfluence on his successors, but also because he shaped the direction of the discipline by generatinga strong reaction against his assertions. The common allegation of his own work and this period ingeneral can be summarized thus: contrary to what Muslims think, there was no intense activity ofhadith narration or any systematic scientific effort on the part of Muslim scholars in this area duringor after the lifetime of the Prophet. For this reason, the orientalists of this period do not believe inthe authenticity of the hadith literature, nor do they ever directly relate it to the Prophet in any way.However, this attitude makes it impossible to say anything about the first century and preventsfurther research, turning it into a closed period. Those Western scholars who have realized this andtried to make use of the hadiths on the basis of certain criteria they have established, on the otherhand, are accused (by Schacht) of lowering the standards.ReferencesBerg, Herbert, The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam, Great Britain 2000.Fueck, Johann W., The Role of Traditionalism in Islam, Hadith (ed. Harald Motzki), Great Britain2004, pp. 3-24.Goldziher, Ignaz, Muslim Studies (trans. C.R. Barber, S. M. Stern), II, London 1971. _______ Disputes over the Status of Hadith in Islam (trans. Gwendolyn Goldbloom), Hadith (ed.Harald Motzki), Great Britain 2004, pp. 55-66.Guillaume, Alfred, The Traditions of Islam- An Introduction of the Study of the Hadith Literature,(nd).Hatiboglu, Ibrahim, Osmanlý Aydýnlarýnca Dozynin Târîh-i Ýslâmiyyetine Yöneltilen Tenkitler,Ýslâm Araþtýrmalarý Dergisi, n. 3, 1999, pp. 197-213. Horovitz, Josef, The Antiquity and Origin of the Isnad (tr. Gwendolyn Goldbloom), Hadith (ed.Harald Motzki), Great Britain 2004, pp. 151-158. _______ Further on the Origin of the Isnad (tr. Gwendolyn Goldbloom), Hadith (ed. Harald Motzki),Great Britain 2004, pp. 159-161.Horovitz, The Growth of the Lawan Sheriff Mohammed
Posted on: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:47:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015