Ils, g.h.a. Juynboll, 8iii (2001)

7/29/2019 Ils, g.h.a. Juynboll, 8iii (2001)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ils-gha-juynboll-8iii-2001 1/47

(RE)APPRAISAL OF SOME TECHNICAL TERMS IN

¼ADÁTH SCIENCE*

G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

Leiden

To the memory of my dear friend

Albrecht Noth (1937-1999)

Abstract

After an introduction in which I define some newly-coined technical termsdeveloped in recent ½adÂth analysis, such as Òisn¨d bundleÓ, Òcommon linkÓ,ÒspidersÓ and ÒdivingÓ, I argue (307) that SchachtÕs technical term Òcommon linkÓmay have in the term mad¨r an Arabic equivalent —never recognized as such inIslam—and which, like tafarrada, subsequently, never made it into Muslim ½adÂthhandbooks (311). Next I describe various technical terms that rarely occur as suchin Muslim handbooks, to wit, mut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨hid together with the apposite

verb t¨ba®a. These terms illustrate the ÒdivingÓ phenomenon (315). The termstaw¨tur and mutaw¨tir , well-known from Muslim handbooks, are re-appraised inconnection with a tradition on one of the ProphetÕs alleged miracles (322). I thendistinguish and define the terms taw¨tur ma®nawÂ and taw¨tur lafúÂ and point out the overall inapplicability of the term (326) with illustrative examples (332) suchas the mas½ ®al¨ Ôl-khuffayn cluster (335). Following a summary and someconclusions (341) the reader will find a list of M¨lik b. AnasÕ most important ÒfollowersÓ (345).

Introduction. Presentation of some basic technical terms

THROUGH THE AGES MUSLIM SCHOLARS and in their wake manyresearchers of ½adÂth in the West have been engaged in attempts toarrange certain features in ½adÂth evolution with the help of mu×ßala½¨t ,i.e. technical terms. But those technical terms were not always appliedin a consistent or correct manner. From some previous studies of mine,many of which found a niche in EI 2,1 it may have become obvious that

* I thank Monique Bernards, John Nawas and David Powers for a number of valuable comments.

1 See the lemmata MizzÂ , mu®ammar , mu®an®an, munkar , mursal, Muslim b.al-¼adjdj¨dj , musnad , raf®, R¨mahurmuzÂ , ridj¨l, ×a½Â½, ×¨li½, tadlÂs, thiÆa andTirmidhÂ .

Abbreviations used in the following are:kh for Bukh¨rÂ, quoted from Ibn ¼ajarÕs Fat½,m for Muslim, Ña½Â½, ed. M.F. ®Abd al-B¨qÂ, Cairo 1955-6,



304 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

the application of such terms in ½adÂths and their respective isn¨d strands has often led to confusion and contradictions. A case in point isthe term ×¨li½, lit. ÒpiousÓ, describing a transmitterÕs personality and

exemplary conduct as seemingly immune to the lure of fabricatingtraditions. However, many transmitters labeled ×¨li½ are widely knownto have invented hordes of traditions with which, in their naivet, theysought to promote the cause of Islam, being reviled for this by somesevere, but forgiven by numerous other, less severe, ½adÂth critics who,in the end, were enamoured of these ÒpiousÓ traditions. Furthermore,rij¨l handbooks listing thiq¨t , lit. Òreliable transmittersÓ, are more oftenthan not nothing of the sort, on the contrary, they comprise by and large

the names of unreliable or in the end strictly nondescript, not to saymajhâl (lit. unknown), transmitters.

This article is mainly concerned with several Arabic technical termsin the science of ½adÂth which, curiously enough, either do not occur inthe dictionaries and handbooks, or are glossed over in a way that isdownright misleading. Before the reappraisal of such terms asmut¨bi®¨t and taw¨tur , a brief general introduction of some basic,

western terms is in order. Throughout this article, when isn¨d s arediscussed, some newly-coined technical terms developed in recent isn¨d bundle analysis crop up time and again, such as Òisn¨d bundleÓ,Òcommon linkÓ (= cl), Òseeming common linkÓ (= scl), Òpartial commonlinkÓ (= pcl), ÒspiderÓ, Òsingle strand(s)Ó (= ss(Õs)), ÒdiveÓ, ÒmatnclusterÓ (= mc) and the like. What some of these western technicalterms stand for is illustrated in Diagram 1; more precise definitions canbe expected in the course of this article.

When all the isn¨d strands found in the collections in support of oneparticular, well-known tradition are put together on a sheet of paper,beginning at the bottom with the names of the oldest transmitters and

working oneÕs way upwards in time, a picture emerges which turns out to be similar to other pictures, whenever that exercise is repeated in

d for Abâ D¨wâd, quoted from ®AúÂm¨b¨dÂÕs ®Awn al-ma®bâd , ed. Beirut 1990,t for TirmidhÂ, Al-j¨mi® a×-×a½Â½, ed. A.M. Sh¨kir a.o., Cairo 1937-65,

s for Nas¨¾Â, Sunan bi-shar½ as-SuyâßÂ , Cairo 1930,q for Ibn M¨ja, Sunan, ed. M.F. ®Abd al-B¨qÂ, Cairo 1952-3,M¨lik for M¨lik b. Anas, Muwaßßa¾, ed. M.F. ®Abd al-B¨qÂ, Cairo 1951,I¼. for A½mad ibn ¼anbal, Musnad , ed. SamÂr Þ¨h¨ al-Majdâb, Beirut 1993,Þay., for Þay¨lisÂ, Musnad , Hyderabad 1321,®Azq. for ®Abd ar-Razz¨q, Mu×annaf , ed. ¼abÂb ar-Ra½m¨n al-A®úamÂ, Beirut

1970-2,¼um. for ¼umaydÂ, Musnad , ed. ¼abÂb ar-Ra½m¨n al-A®úamÂ, Beirut 1380-2,IASh. for Abâ Bakr b. AbÂ Shayba, Mu×annaf , ed. Hyderabad 1966-88,NawawÂ, Shar½ Ña½Â½ Muslim, ed. Ma½mâd TawfÂq, Cairo 1349/1930.



(RE)APPRAISAL OF SOME TECHNICAL TERMS IN ¼ADÁTH SCIENCE 305

Diagram 1

respect of other well-known traditions. Also because of the introductionof the isn¨d institution in the final quarter of the first/seventh century,



306 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

from the bottom up one finds first a single row or strand of mostlythree, four or more names beginning with the Prophet or another ancient authority. Where the names start fanning out in branches, we

find the common link (cl), and when the clÕs alleged pupils havethemselves more than one pupil we call such a pupil a Òpartial commonlinkÓ (pcl). All these branches together constitute a so-called isn¨d bundle. The more transmission lines there are, coming together in acertain transmitter, either reaching him or branching out from him, themore that moment of transmission, represented in what may bedescribed as a ÒknotÓ, has a claim to historicity. Thus the transmissionmoments described in single strands (ssÕs), i.e. ful¨n– ful¨n– ful¨n etc.,

link just one master with one pupil and then with one pupil and so on,sometimes traversing some 200 years. A ss cannot claim any measureof historicity: it is in all likelihood the handiwork of the collectors in

whose collections it found a place or the handiwork of their direct informants. But when the transmission from a cl branches out to anumber of pcls, each of whose transmissions branches out in turn to anumber of other pcls (see Diagram 1, upper half), then these ÒknotsÓ

give a certain guarantee for the historical tenability of that transmissionpath, at least in the eyes of the less skeptical isn¨d analyst.2 The morepcls a cl has, the more the authorship of (the wording of) that traditionunder scrutiny is probably to be ascribed to that cl. And that supplies at the same time answers to questions of provenance and chronology of the tradition thus supported. In other words, a transmitter in an isn¨d bundle can safely be called a cl, only when he has several pcls, and apcl can safely be called that, only when he has himself several other,

younger pcls. When the number of pcls of a cl is limited we rather speak of that cl as a seeming cl. Seeming cls (= scls, see Diagram 1,lower half) may emerge in bundles which, upon scrutiny, turn out to betwo or a few ssÕs which happen to come together in what looks like acl, but which is, for lack of pcls, not a real cl. Summing up, the vast majority of traditions in the Six Books are supported by isn¨d structures in the form of ssÕs. When several ssÕs seem to come together in a scl, which does not have the required minimum of plausible pcls,

we call the isn¨d structure of that tradition a ÒspiderÓ. In Muslimtradition literature we find thousands of ssÕs, a good many of which

2 The ½adÂth researcher who rejects even that and holds any conclusions as tochronology, provenance or authorship arrived at through an analysis of any isn¨d bundle, no matter what it looks like, as largely unproven and therefore untenable, will find him/herself at odds with most of the findings in this article.




form into otherwise undatable spiders. Traditions supported by isn¨d bundles that deserve the qualification of bundle are rarer, but do seemto offer data that may point to a tenable chronology, provenance and

even authorship.3

It is curious that certain technical terms developed in western studieshave no seeming equivalent in Muslim ½adÂth handbooks. A case inpoint is the term cl, first launched by J. Schacht in his The origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence, and later developed by myself.4 How-ever, reading between the lines of numerous rij¨l works comprisingreferences to ÒweakÓ (= á®Âf ) and ÒpiousÓ (= ×¨li½) transmitters andtheir traditions such as Ibn ®AdÂÕs K¨mil and Abâ Nu®aymÕs ¼ilyat al-

awliy¨¾, two of the best-known of such works, dozens of times onecomes across the word mad¨r , Òturning pointÓ, ÒpivotÓ. To my knowl-edge, this term never turns up in the numerous Muslim dictionaries andhandbooks of technical ½adÂth terms, but in my opinion it is unmistak-ably the Muslim scholarÕs equivalent of our cl or seeming cl.

The earliest transmitter whom I found to be associated with the termmad¨r is Abâ Õl-®¤liya Rufay® b. Mihr¨n ar-Riy¨½Â, a Ba×ran succes-

sor, allegedly a faqÂh and Qur¾¨n expert and mawl¨ of the Banâ Riy¨½,a branch of TamÂm.5 He is reported to have been born in the J¨hiliyya,but this is probably apocryphal; it is at any rate difficult to harmonize

with his statement that he was a young man (sh¨bb) at the time of theconflict between ®AlÂ and Mu®¨wiya, i.e. the early 40-s/ 660-s.6 He isdefinitely not one of the mu®ammarân, those men who were blessed byGod with long lives. In any case, he is not listed among them in a rij¨l

work devoted solely to these longeval transmitters.7 The year in which

he is said to have died is variously given as 90/709 or 93/712, but later years are also mentioned. It is recorded that he embraced Islam a few years after Mu½ammadÕs death and that he acquired a reputation asknowledgeable. He occurs fairly often in isn¨d s, and the traditions he is

3 For a more extensive introduction to these terms, see G.H.A. Juynboll,ÒN¨fi®, the mawl¨ of Ibn ®Umar, and his position in Muslim ½adÂth literatureÓ, Der Islam, LXX, 1993, esp. 207-16, and idem, ÒEarly Islamic society as reflected in its

use of isn¨d sÓ, Le Muson, CVII, 1994, esp. 151-9.4 Muslim tradition. Studies in chronology, provenance and authorship of early ½adÂth (hence MT ), Cambridge (CUP) 1983, chapter V.

5 Cf. DhahabÂ, Tadhkirat al-½uff¨ú, 3d impr., Hyderabad 1955-6, I, 61f.6 Cf. Ibn Sa®d, ed. Sachau et al, Leiden 1905-17, VII, 82, l. 18, Abâ

Nu®aym, ¼ilyat al-awliy¨¾, Cairo 1332-8, II, 219. The words sh¨bb and fat¨ (=boy) often being used alternatively, e.g. in I¼j., Fat½, XI, 397, l. -6f, he wasprobably not yet in his forties.

7 DhahabÂ, Ahl al-mi¾a fa-×¨®id¨, ed. Jacqueline Sublet in Cahiers dÕono-mastique arabe, Paris 1979, 99-159.



308 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

reported to have transmitted are labeled mustaqÂm, i.e. ÒuprightÓ, or indeed ×¨li½, i.e. ÒpiousÓ. In the well-known matn cluster (mc),8 ÒThereare three categories of q¨´Â s ... etcÓ, he occupies one of several scl

positions.9

(The ubiquitous mention of the qualification of mawl¨ with the vast majority of persons figuring in the following pages may provide fuelfor the point of view that ½adÂth gathering and ½adÂth science thankedits development in large measure to members of the conquered commu-nities, much more so than to native-born Arabs. This will not come as asurprise to those who hitherto suspected that this must have been thecase, but it is nonetheless a useful tool in a field in which the first

attempts at quantifying the different social groups in early Islam haveonly begun to appear.10 It may not come as too much of a surpriseeither that it is in Iraq that the maw¨lÂ who handle ½adÂths come intotheir own much sooner and on a wider scale than in the ¼ij¨z in spite of the ArabsÕ massive emigration from that territory.)

The mawl¨ Abâ Õl-®¤liya is, however, particularly well-known for one tradition which, in contradistinction to all the others with which he

is associated, is generally held to be questionable. This tradition is amursal (i.e. with an isn¨d without the name of a Companion) and doesnot occur in the canonical collections, but it is listed in Abâ D¨wâdÕs Mar¨sÂl. Abâ Õl-®¤liya once related—and now follows a paraphrase

8 This expression has been newly coined to indicate that the contents (= matn)of a particular tradition, rather than as an individual entity, should in the majorityof cases be viewed as one out of two to sometimes even ten or more facets of one

basic idea, which may pertain to a particular legal or ethical concept, or whichreflects the ongoing controversies regarding some point of Islamic ritual (cited from EI 2, Eng. ed, VII, 692, left column, infra).

9 WakÂ® (Mu½ammad b. Khalaf b. ¼ayy¨n), Akhb¨r al-qu´¨t , ed. ®Abd al-®AzÂz Mu×ßaf¨ al-Mar¨ghÂ, I, 18, Ibn ®AdÂ,3 Al-k¨mil fÂ ú®af¨¾ ar-rij¨l, ed. Ya½y¨Mukht¨r Ghazz¨wÂ, Beirut 1988, III, 164.

10 Cf. John Nawas & Monique Bernards, ÒA preliminary report of theNetherlands Ulama Project (NUP): The evolution of the class of ulama in Islam with special emphasis on the non-Arab converts (mawali) from the first throughfourth century A.H.Ó, in Law, christianity and modernism in Islamic society, ed. U.Vermeulen & J.M.F. van Reeth, Leuven 1998, 97-107; Monique Bernards, ÒSocial

data as indicators for cultural diffusion: Arabic grammar as a case studyÓ, in Proceedings of the l9th Congress of the Union europenne des arabisants et islami-sants, held at the Martin-Luther-UniversitŠt Halle-Wittenberg, ed. Stefan Leder,Hilary Kilpatrick and Bernadette Martel-Thoumian, Halle (Saale), Germany,August-September 1998 (in press); Monique Bernards, ÒGrammariansÕ circles of learning in the first quarter of the third century of Islam: a social network analy-sisÓ, Israel oriental studies, vol. XXI (in press); John Nawas, ÒBirth of an elite:mawali and Arab ulamaÓ, Israel oriental studies, vol. XXI (in press); idem, ÒTheemergence of fiqh as a distinct discipline and the ethnic identity of the fuqah¨¾ inearly and classical IslamÓ, in Stefan Leder etc (see above; in press).





310 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

Wa-li-AbÂ Õl-®¤liyati Õr-Riy¨½Â a½¨dÂthu ×¨li½atun ghayra m¨dhakartu wa-aktharu m¨ nuqima ®alayhi min h¨dh¨ Õl-½adÂthi ½adÂthuÕ´-á½iki fÂ Õ×-×al¨ti wa-kulli man raw¨hu ghayrahu fa-innam¨

mad¨ruhum wa-rujâ®uhum il¨ AbÂ Õl-®¤liyati waÕl-½adÂthu lahu wa-bihi yu®rafu wa-min ajli h¨dh¨ Õl-½adÂthi takallamâ fÂ AbÂ Õl-®¤liyati wa-s¨¾iru a½¨dÂthihi mustaqÂmatun ×¨li½atun, i.e. Abâ Õl-®¤liya is asso-ciated with ÒpiousÓ traditions other than the ones I mentioned but of allthese traditions he is censored most for the tradition dealing withlaughter during the ×al¨t ; all those who transmitted it also are likewisecensored, but their ÒpivotÓ (Ar.: mad¨ruhum) and their authority (Ar.:rujâ®uhum) is Abâ Õl-®¤liya; the tradition is his, it is known through

him and because of this tradition experts have criticized (takallamâ fÂ )Abâ Õl-®¤liya, while all the other traditions he transmitted are straight-forward and ÒpiousÓ.17

That the á½ik tradition remained nonetheless of vital importance,also in much later years, may be substantiated by a remark Awz¨®Â isalleged to have made. Not knowing what to think, he once asked hisfellow-jurist ThawrÂ, who was at the time sharing a house with him in

Mecca, what the final verdict was on laughter during the ×al¨t . ÒIt necessitates a repeat of the ×al¨t as well as of a preceding wu´â¾Ó,ThawrÂ is said to have answered.18

Another ancient tradition deserves to be cited in this context,although the term mad¨r does not figure in the commentaries dealing

with it. Its isn¨d structure and additional data from another sourceallow us however to identify a possible cl responsible for its prolifera-tion. The Prophetic tradition in question runs as follows: ÒAdorn the

Qur¾¨n with your voices.Ó It is supported by a complex isn¨d bundle in which the position of the early Successor and Qur¾¨n expert Þal½a b.Mu×arrif (d. 112/730) may be construed as that of cl.19 In fact, after theAbâ Õl-®¤liya tradition this tradition is, as far as its cl is concerned, thesecond-oldest I unearthed from the entire canonical ½adÂth corpus. WithÞal½aÕs purported Qur¾¨n expertise in mind, he might conceivably bethis traditionÕs originator. Moreover, the matter of his supposed

17 Ibidem, III, 170, ll. 19-22. Here and in what follows the term mad¨r issolely used in connection with isn¨d s, but it also functions occasionally in respect of the matn of a ½adÂth, cf. NawawÂ, XI, 27, l. 8.

18 Cf. al-KhaßÂb al-Baghd¨dÂ, Ta¾rÂkh Baghd¨d (abbreviated to TB), IX, 162,18ff. Cf. also ibidem, IX, 379, where the tradition figures in a much later context.

19 Cf. Mz., II, no. 1775 (cf. d , ®Awn al-ma®bâd , IV, 239, s, q, confirmed inÞay., no. 738, IASh., II, 521f, X, 462, I¼., IV, 283, 285, 296, 304, D¨rimÂ,Sunan, ed. Faww¨z A½mad ZamarlÂ & Kh¨lid as-Sab® al-®AlamÂ, Cairo 1987, II,565).




authorship may be considered as clinched by the enumeration of thirty-one (!) people mentioned in the ¼ilya of Abâ Nu®aym al-I×fah¨nÂ whoare reported to have transmitted it from him.20

ÒOccupying the position of a mad¨r Ó is also expressed in the verbd¨ra / yadâru. The early ½adÂth expert, the mawl¨ ®AlÂ b. ®Abd All¨h ibnal-MadÂnÂ (d. 234/849), began his work on the deficiencies of tradi-tions, entitled ®Ilal,21 with a parade of the most important transmitters of each ½adÂth center of the Islamic empire, using the expression: Ò... andthe traditions of such and such a center yadâru on the followingpersons ...Ó All the individuals listed then appear to be more or lessfamous and prolific cls in their own right, when the traditions with

which they are identified are studied in MizzÂÕs Tu½fa, the most eminent source for establishing chronology, provenance and authorship of thecanonical traditions in Muslim ½adÂth literature (cf. my lemma in EI 2).But it is not only ®Abd ar-Ra½m¨n b. MahdÂ and Ibn al-MadÂnÂ whouse the terms mad¨r or d¨ra / yadâru . Various important ½adÂthscholars also used the term in its specific sense of seeming cl or cl.Moreover, d¨ra ®al¨ has an equivalent in the intransitive verbs

tafarrada and infarada. Saying: ÒSomeone is the mad¨r of such andsuch a traditionÓ can also be put in the terms: ÒSomeone tafarrada or infarada bihiÓ. Both terms are used in contexts conveying suspicion, or the case so being admiration, on the part of the commentator in respect of a certain transmitter of a particular tradition, but they are alsoemployed in a strictly non-committal setting, as is indeed also the case

with the term mad¨r . Here follow a few examples:(1) A tradition from the cluster on mas½ ®al¨ Õl-khuffayn, i.e. Òwiping

over the shoesÓ—about which more will be said below—and goingback to the Companion Ñafw¨n b. ®Ass¨l is considered remarkablebecause of the number of transmission lines sprouting forth from theseeming cl of its bundle, the mawl¨ ®¤×im b. AbÂ Õn-Najâd Bahdala (d.127/745), the famous Qur¾¨n expert, who seems to be identified with it by Abâ Nu®aym al-I×fah¨nÂ.22 This is clearly attested in MizzÂ.2 3

Bukh¨rÂ called this tradition Ò... the best that could be found on thesubjectÓ, although, strangely enough, he chose not to include it in hisÑa½Â½. This remark prompted one of Bukh¨rÂÕs pupils, TirmidhÂ, to addthat, beside ®¤×im, there were other traditionists who transmitted the

20 Cf. V, 27.21 Ed. Mu½ammad Mu×ßaf¨ al-A®úamÂ, Beirut [n.d.], 39ff.22 ¼ilya, V, 22.23 Cf. Mz., IV, no. 4952 (t , s, q, Þay., nos. 1165ff, ¼um., no. 881, I¼., IV,

239).



312 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

Ñafw¨n report,24 a comment that could be construed as TirmidhÂÕsacknowledgement that some people did some judicious ÒdivingÓ under the cl level. (For more on this ÒdivingÓ, see below.) Then, in his turn,

TirmidhÂÕs editor, A½mad M. Sh¨kir,25

adds in a note on the samepage: wa-qad ash¨ra Õt-TirmidhÂ bi-h¨dh¨ il¨ Õr-raddi ®al¨ manza®ama anna mad¨ra h¨dh¨ Ôl-½adÂthi Õal¨ ®¤×im b. AbÂ Õn-Najâd waÕdda®¨ Õnfir¨dahu bi-hi (i.e. ÒWith this remark TirmidhÂ referred tothe counterargument directed against the person who claims that thistradition centers on ®¤×im b. (Bahdala) Abâ Õn-Najâd and asserts that ®¤×im is the only transmitter of this tradition).Ó The person hinted at bythe relative pronoun man is not identified, nor is it clear whether that

person or perhaps Sh¨kir himself introduced the term mad¨r . But onething seems certain: if we have to translate mad¨r in this context, thetechnical term Ò(seeming) common linkÓ is by far the most appropriateand, what is more, it is directly followed by its cognate infir¨d .Moreover, Sh¨kir uses the verb yadâru in another instance to indicate a(s)cl.26

(2) In a report apparently taken from the beginning of his Kit¨b ar-

ridda with a strand peopled by wholly obscure transmitters attestednowhere, the early mawl¨ historian W¨qidÂ is called its mad¨r.2 7

Although it may at first sight sound somewhat odd that the contro-versial akhb¨rÂ is labeled a mad¨r ,28 the fact is that his akhb¨r , with or

without W¨qidÂÕs characteristically untraceable ssÕs as authenticationdevices, show up in a host of later historiographical works.

(3) Nas¨¾Â, the author of the fifth of the Six Books, is recorded tohave said in respect of the highly controversial transmitter Nu®aym b.

¼amm¨d (d. 227/842): qad kathura taffaruduhu ®ani Õl-a¾immati al-ma®râfÂna bi-a½¨dÂtha kathÂratin fa-×¨ra fÂ ½addi man l¨ yu½tajju bi-hi(i.e. He was often the only transmitter who transmitted a number of particular traditions on the authority of the well-known masters and

24 Cf. t , I, 162.25 For this twentieth century mu½addith, see my article ÒA½mad Mu½ammad

Sh¨kir (1892-1958) and his edition of Ibn ¼anbalÕs MusnadÓ, Der Islam, XLIX,1972, 221-47.

26 Cf. ibidem, I, 329, no. 399 in note.27 Cf. Qasßall¨nÂ, Irsh¨d as-s¨rÂ li-shar½ ×a½Â½ al-Bukh¨rÂ , Bâl¨q 1288, III, 7.28 In the tarjama devoted to him in Ibn ¼ajarÕs TahdhÂb we find two

diametrically opposed qualifications of W¨qidÂÕs activities in transmittingmaterial: on the one hand he is called a kadhdh¨b, a liar, on the other hand he isdeemed an amÂr al-mu¾minÂn fÂ Õl-½adÂth, Òa Commander of the faithful in ½adÂthÓ,by far the loftiest qualification ever applied to transmitters. There are no more thana dozen other men sharing it.




thus he became one of those whose traditions may not be used asarguments [namely in a juridical or theological discussion]).29

(4) Bay¨n b. Bishr (d.?) is called by Ibn ®Abd al-Barr (d. 463/1071)

the mad¨r of the tradition describing the people who recite the Qur¾¨nas humming like bees in their villages. A person like Bay¨n, Ibn ®Abdal-Barr adds, is not a binding argument underlining the veracity of thetradition.30 But whatever he says about this Bay¨n, much more bizarreis the observation that this man is in all probability a majhâl. Havinganalyzed all the isn¨d bundles in which he occurs, I formulated thehypothesis that he seems to have been invented in order to function askey figure in bundles supporting traditions from W¨sißÂ transmitters, a

particular feature of the phenomenon called Òthe W¨siß connectionÓ.31

That what we might call an ÒartificialÓ cl like Bay¨n, of whom Ibn®Abd al-Barr was excusably not fully aware, receives the appellativemad¨r at all is then an additional irony.

(5) We find the term tafarrada associated with M¨lik b. Anas whosits in a bundle supporting a tradition describing how Mu½ammadentered Mecca on the day of its conquest with a helmet on his head. Ibn

®AdÂ is quoted as saying that this tradition ... yu®rafu bi-M¨lik , i.e. Ò... isknown through M¨likÓ, where we encounter again a passive form of ®arafa as in the text cited under no. (1) above. M¨lik turns out to be theunmistakable cl of its isn¨d bundle.32

(6) ÒThe ½adÂth of Kâfa yadâru on Abâ Is½¨q and his sons andgrandsonsÓ, as it says in an early source.33 This is fully borne out bytheir occurrences in MizzÂÕs Tu½fa. Abâ Is½¨q ®Amr b. ®Abd All¨h as-SabÂ®Â, an Arab from a south-Arabian tribe, was one of the leading

Kâfan ½adÂth transmitters well-known for his ShÂ®Â sympathies.34

29 Cf. Ibn ¼ajar, TahdhÂb at-tahdhÂb, ed. Hyderabad 1325-7, X, 461, l. -3ff.30 Cf. Ibn ®Abd al-Barr, J¨mi® bay¨n al-®ilm wa-fa´lihi, Cairo 1346, II, 122.31 Cf. the appendix to my paper in Le Muson, CXI, 1998, 225f.32 Cf. Mz., I, no. 1527 (the Six, m , II, 989 f, confirmed in M¨lik, I, 423,

¼um., no. 1212, Ibn Sa®d,2 Kit¨b aß-ßabaq¨t al-kabÂr , ed. I. ®Abb¨s (hence IS2), II,139, IASh., XIV, 492, I¼., III, 109, 164, 186, 231, 232, 240). Cf. Ibn a×-Ñal¨½,

Muqaddima [ fÂ ®ulâm al-½adÂth], ed. Bint ash-Sh¨ßi¾, Cairo 1974, 177, and Ibn¼ajar, An-nukat ®al¨ kit¨b Ibn a×-Ñal¨½, ed. RabÂ® b. H¨dÂ ®Umayr, Medina 1984,II, 654-69. That the term tafarrada was sometimes associated with suspicionappears from a remark attributed to t . Speaking about a certain tradition he says:... ½adÂth ½asan ×a½Â½ gharÂb l¨ na®rifuhu ill¨ min ½adÂth M¨lik ya®nÂ wa-huwaim¨m ½¨fiú fa-l¨ yaúrruhu at-tafarrud , i.e M¨likÕs reputation does not incur damage because of his being the only one to transmit that tradition, cf. Zurq¨nÂ, II,24.

33 Cf. Ibn ®AdÂ3, VII, 179.34 Cf. Ibn ¼ajar, TahdhÂb, VIII, 66, penult.



314 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

(7) The highly controversial Egyptian transmitter ®Abd All¨h b.La½Â®a (d. 174/790) is labeled a mad¨r in a certain context by Ibn¼ajar in Fat½, V, 241.

There are numerous similar reports on mad¨r , infir¨d and tafarrud to be found, but the examples listed here should suffice. I have found just one passage related to ½adÂth in which the term mad¨r turns up inan unusual way. It is no fewer than three times used to indicate that certain links between three transmitters in a particular strand are eachotherÕs mad¨r . This usage does not seem to fit in with any other context in which the term emerges. MizzÂ, whom we know as the author of theTu½fa, is also the author of a gigantic rij¨l work, the TahdhÂb al-kam¨l

(which was excerpted and improved upon by Ibn ¼ajar in his TahdhÂbat-tahdhÂb). MizzÂ once used the term as follows:

The mad¨r of the ½adÂth of Mu½ammad b. ®Abd All¨h b. AbÂ ®AtÂq isupon Sulaym¨n b. Bil¨l and the mad¨r of the ½adÂth of Sulaym¨n b.Bil¨l is upon ®Abd al-¼amÂd b. AbÂ Uways and the mad¨r of the ½adÂthof ®Abd al-¼amÂd b. AbÂ Uways is upon his brother Ism¨®Âl b. AbÂUways and upon Ayyâb b. Sulaym¨n b. Bil l.35

How we have to interpret this particular use of mad¨r may becomeapparent when we compare it with the equivalent text in Ibn ¼ajarÕs write-up of Ibn AbÂ ®AtÂq. Ibn ¼ajar says: ÒAs far as I know, nobodybut Sulaym¨n b. Bil¨l transmitted traditions from him ... had it not beenfor Sulaym¨n b. Bil¨l, his traditions would not have survived.Ó36 Fromthe fact that Ibn ¼ajar did not introduce the term mad¨r in his rewordedexcerpt from MizzÂÕs tarjama of Ibn AbÂ ®AtÂq, not even once, but choseto rephrase the passage totally, we may perhaps conclude that Ibn

¼ajar did not agree with MizzÂÕs use of it in this particular context.One final aspect concerning cls in general needs to be highlighted at

this point. There are many bundles in which the key figure, who seemsat first sight a well-nigh indubitable cl, is, upon closer inspection,nothing of the sort. This phenomenon has led to various misconceptions

with two scholars and this for quite different reasons. One tried toprove that particular bundles had much more ancient cls than stated in

isn¨d bundle analyses published by someone else.37

And the other —

if Iread him rightly—sought to prove the opposite, namely that cl assess-ment is neither workable nor historically reliable.38 Cl identification in a

35 Mz., TahdhÂb al-kam¨l fÂ asm¨¾ ar-rij¨l, ed. ®Aww¨d Ma®râf, Beirut 1992,XXV, 551.

36 Cf. Ibn ¼ajar, TahdhÂb, IX, 277.37 Cf. H. Motzki in Der Islam, LXXIII, 1996, 40-80, 193-231.38 Cf. M. Cook in Princeton papers in Near Eastern studies, I, 1992, 23-48.




bundle that is analyzed supporting a certain tradition entails more thansimply looking up the man in whom the most strands come together.There is much more work to be carried out like, for instance, the

weighing of the pcls against one another, or the appraisal of a certainscl amidst all the other traditions with seemingly analyzable isn¨d bundles with which he is associated.39

The terms t¨ba®a-hu, mut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨hid: the ÒdivingÓ phenomenon

Let us now turn to a crucially important technical term which was

rarely, if ever, recognized in the West as a specific ½adÂth-related term.We find it cropping up frequently in ta®lÂq¨t 40 of various ½adÂth collec-tors, e.g. Bukh¨rÂ, but not always in the significant way to be intro-duced shortly. It is also occasionally used by Ibn ¼ajar in hiscommentary Fat½ al-b¨rÂ of Bukh¨rÂÕs Ña½Â½.41 On the other hand, it isextensively resorted to by Zurq¨nÂ in his commentary on M¨lik b.AnasÕ Muwaßßa¾ and, taken together, those occurrences point to the

correct interpretation, which is so meaningful in the present context. Imean the verb + suffix t¨ba®a-hu, lit. Òto follow himÓ but, as willbecome clear, better interpreted as Òto copy himÓ sc. a certain fellow-traditionistÕs tradition on the alleged authority of the same informant.Most scholars in the West, from I. Goldziher to the present day, havealways felt, although they never substantiated their suspicion with morethan snippets of evidence from the sources, that this is the case.42 For the traditions copied in this way and supported by ÒfollowingÓ strands

we find the participle—mostly in the plural—mut¨bi®¨t.43 That the

39 I have described the method in detail in my paper on N¨fi® (esp. 228-37).40 This is a ½adÂth-related technical term for ÒappendicesÓ in which collectors

join additional matn and/or isn¨d information to the title of a b¨b. They alsooccasionally attach them to a matn as some sort of afterthought.

41 E.g. I, 225, l. -6. He even defines it on p. 218, ll. 6f. See furthermore V, 82,passim.

42 Closest to what will be studied here is M. CookÕs essay on what he calledthe Òspread of isn¨d sÓ, cf. his Early Muslim dogma, Cambridge 1981, chapter XI.

43 ÒFollowingÓ strands are called mut¨bi®, pl. mut¨bi®¨t . The practice of adducing Òfollowing traditions + strandsÓ is called with the ma×dar of t¨ba®a:mut¨ba®atun (e.g. Ibn ¼ajar, Fat½, V, 343, l. 16), a word which occasionally alsocrops up in the plural mut¨ba®¨t , to be interpreted as Òcases of mut¨ba®aÓ, and theperson producing such a strand is called mut¨bi®, cf. SuyâßÂÕs commentary of NawawÂÕs TaqrÂb, entitled TadrÂb ar-r¨wÂ , ed. ®Abd al-Wahh¨b ®Abd al-LaßÂf,Cairo 1966, I, 233, 241-45. I once found the dual of the participle in the followingcontext: akhrajahu (sc. a tradition for the gist of which ZuhrÂ was responsible, cf.Mz., VIII, no. 10663) fÂ Õl-a´¨½Â min ßarÂq Yânus (b. YazÂd al-AylÂ ) wa-Ma®mar (b. R¨shid ) ®an Ibn Shih¨b bihi t¨mman fahum¨ mut¨bi®¨ni li-M¨lik , cf. Zurq¨nÂ, I,



316 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

interpretation offered here is the correct one can be amply demonstrated with overwhelming evidence from MizzÂÕs Tu½fa. When Zurq¨nÂ usesthe term, which he does hundreds of times, his context makes abun-

dantly clear that we should not interpret the term t¨ba®a-hu in a narrowsense: ÒHe upheld his (i.e. M¨likÕs) legal or ritual point of viewÓ, but simply as: ÒHe followed his wordingÓ of a certain tradition, whether that tradition pertained to a juridical matter or any other matter usuallyfound in a ½adÂth.

Although it is generally acknowledged that Bukh¨rÂÕs Ña½Â½ isIslamÕs most prestigious ½adÂth collection, it is arranged by its author ina way which, more often than not, confuses the issue which is presently

subject of discussion. Bukh¨rÂ only occasionally groups together thetraditions on one and the same subject in one and the same paragraph(b¨b) and prefers mostly to reiterate (versions of) it in various b¨bs,

which are often spread over more than one chapter (kit¨b). However,Muslim b. al-¼ajj¨j, the author of IslamÕs second most prestigious½adÂth collection, arranged his traditions on one subject in one singleb¨b and hardly ever repeated them in another b¨b or kit¨b. Thus we

can survey MuslimÕs approach to multiple isn¨d strands which hecollected in support of one single issue in one glance. And that iscrucial for seeing through his judicious subdivision.44

As his commentator, the q¨´Â ®Iy¨´ (d. 544/1149) demonstrated,Muslim divided his traditions into three categories, the u×âl, the mut¨-bi®¨t and the shaw¨hid.45 He used to begin virtually any new ½adÂthsubject in his collection with an a×l (lit. root),46 i.e. a tradition supportedby what he apparently considered to be the most authoritative isn¨d

strand. In the strands of MuslimÕs u×âl we encounter very often thename of such traditionists as the maw¨lÂ A®mash and Shu®ba as well asthat of M¨lik b. Anas or figures of comparable stature who, upon

364, ult.44 The other four canonical collections, although certainly useful in some cases

where they supplement the data in Muslim, are to be ignored in this particular context, since they lack MuslimÕs overall stringent arrangement and classification,although they do resort occasionally to this tripartite subdivision.

45 For some preliminaries on MuslimÕs application of the terms, see mylemma in EI 2 ÒMuslim b. al-¼adjdj¨djÓ. In this lemma I have pointed out whyMuslimÕs Ña½Â½ is so much more conveniently organized than Bukh¨rÂÕs Ña½Â½ that I always prefer to illustrate ½adÂth-technical essays on the basis of the formerÕscollection. Zurq¨nÂ also occasionally used the terms mut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨hid intandem, cf. his Muwaßßa¾ commentary, Cairo 1954, III, 155, 16 and 17. Besidesthat, we find the term ßuruq used in tandem with mut¨bi®¨t , where it obviouslystands for shaw¨hid , cf. ibidem, II, 300, l. -3.

46 One also occasionally encounters the technical term ½adÂth al-b¨b, which isvirtually synonymous with a×l.




scrutiny of all the available strands found in support of (that versionof) the tradition, turn out to be the cl of that tradition/version. After thea×l Muslim lists his mut¨bi®¨t , generally (versions of) the same tradi-

tion supported by what he considered were slightly less authoritative

Diagram 2

strands, always ending in the same Companion and Successor but bypassing the cl figuring in the strand of the foregoing a×l. And then,after the mut¨bi®¨t versions preceded by their respective strands, moreoften than not we find mentioned MuslimÕs shaw¨hid , the plural of sh¨hid.47 This term stands for something like Ò(additional) testimoniesÓ,i.e. closely related versions supported by ssÕs or at most spiders usuallyending in the same Companion but not necessarily so, however alwaysbypassing the key figures of the strands supporting the foregoing u×âl

47 Producing shaw¨hid is called istishh¨d . NawawÂ states in his TaqrÂb (cf.SuyâßÂ, TadrÂb, I, 243) that the transmission path directly onto the informant of the½adÂth colleague whose tradition is copied is called mut¨ba®a t¨mma and that allthe deeper ÒdivesÓ, including shaw¨hid , are called mut¨bi®¨t . We will limit ourselves to the definitions as given above.



318 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

and mut¨bi®¨t . In previous studies48 I introduced for the strandssupporting mut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨hid the newly-coined technical termÒdiving strandsÓ. Diagram 2, a theoretical bundle of strands supporting

one particular theoretical matn, is meant to provide a visual aid to thedifferences between u×âl, mut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨hid . Examples with which Zurq¨nÂÕs commentary of M¨likÕs Muwaßßa¾ abounds may illus-trate this. They leave us with the impression that, for Zurq¨nÂ, M¨lik

was often solely responsible for transmitting a certain tradition which was then ÒfollowedÓ— we would simply say: copied—by older,contemporary or younger ½adÂth colleagues, each supporting their copy

with ÒdivesÓ onto M¨likÕs alleged informant. Rather than stating: ÒSo-

and-so and so-and-so transmitted the same tradition as presented byM¨lik on the authority of the same informant M¨lik transmitted it fromÓ, Zurq¨nÂ says: ÒT¨ba®a-hu ... bihi ®an ... Ò, i.e. ÒSo-and-so andso-and-so ÒfollowedÓ M¨lik in that tradition on the authority of ...(follows the name of M¨likÕs alleged informant, e.g. N¨fi®, ZuhrÂ,Sumayy, Suhayl, Ya½y¨ b. Sa®Âd al-An×¨rÂ or others)Ó. Instead of one,a few, or up to as many as ten names, we very often find as subject of

the verb t¨ba®a-hu the word jam¨®atun, i.e. an indefinite number, best interpreted as Òa group of transmittersÓ. It is especially with informantssuch as N¨fi®, who allegedly died some sixty years before M¨likÕsdeath, and ZuhrÂ, who died some fifty years earlier, that we find theÒfollowersÓ referred to with the word jam¨®atun. A good number of examples of those ÒfollowersÓ are listed in an appendix which is,because of its length, given at the end of this article. This appendix of M¨likÕs most frequently occurring imitators is meant first and foremost

to illustrate the wide scale on which diving was practised among earlytraditionists.

That it was not the imitators of other ½adÂth masters who areparaded there, but specifically those of M¨lik, finds its justification inthe fact that it was especially M¨likÕs commentator Zurq¨nÂ who drawsattention to them and not, for example, Bukh¨rÂÕs commentators Ibn¼ajar or Qasßall¨nÂ, or MuslimÕs commentator NawawÂ,49 althoughthey do occasionally resort to the term t¨ba®a and/or its participlemut¨bi®¨t. It never ceases to astonish me that those three commentators,

who were well aware of MizzÂÕs Tu½fa, simply did not (yet) attachthe—in my eyes—inescapable conclusion to the evidence of thousands

48 Cf. Studies on the origins and uses of Islamic ½adÂth, Variorum CollectedStudies Series, Aldershot 1996, index s.v. Òdive, divingÓ.

49 But see X, 209, l. 13.




of ssÕs listed in it illustrating the ÒdivingÓ or ÒfollowingÓ phenomenon.It must hereby be realized from the start that Zurq¨nÂ should in no waybe thought of as meaning to imply with his comprehensive enumeration

that they all plagiarized M¨lik, or ÒstoleÓ from him as the early Arab½adÂth critics at the time labeled it (using the word sariqa = theft). No,they simply ÒfollowedÓ M¨likÕs matn rather than that they claimed that they themselves had heard the ÒfollowedÓ traditions from the mouth of M¨likÕs alleged informants, such as N¨fi®, ZuhrÂ etc. On the contrary, it goes without saying that it would indeed be inconceivable that aMuslim scholar like Zurq¨nÂ (d. 1122/1710) would ever dare to speakin terms of ÒtheftÓ or ÒplagiarismÓ when describing the activities of

M¨likÕs ½adÂth colleagues, most of whom were generally respected, not to say revered, also by Zurq¨nÂ. It is perhaps the fact that he died somuch later than the other commentators just mentioned that the lapse of time granted him a more down-to-earth perspective. MizzÂÕs signifi-cance, listing one by one these thousands of ssÕs, has until todayalmost completely escaped attention.

In conclusion, and as further illustration of the diving phenomenon,

one example illustrating this time the diving-under-the-level of another cl, Ya½y¨ b. Sa®Âd al-Qaßß¨n (d. 198/814) from Ba×ra, will be presentedhere. This man was himself one of M¨likÕs most prolific ÒfollowersÓ,but that is now not the point of discussion. Although we should not hold this Ya½y¨ personally responsible for the masses of ssÕs support-ing as many (versions of) different traditions we find through his namevia ®Ubayd All¨h b. ®Umar onto the latterÕs purported informant N¨fi®,50 the bundle presented here shows him up as the well-nigh

undeniable cl. At the same time his matn lies at the ÒrootÓ of a number of mut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨hid transmitted by Ya½y¨ b. Sa®ÂdÕs ½adÂthcolleagues in support of their own matns which are then in a time-honored fashion routinely embellished with a number of additionalideas and narrative trimmings that reflect in a crystal clear manner thestages through which the juridical debate on the issue was conducted.51

50 Apart from the few traditions that are supported by comparable bundles in

which he is the relatively unshakable cl, and a dozen or so spiders most of whichare shared by kh and m, there are as many as twenty ssÕs through him and ®UbaydAll¨h b. ®Umar onto N¨fi® that are only found in m. To hold m responsible for allthese is not neccessary, for he had the habit to be inspired more than once byexamples set by Ibn ¼anbal, who can rightly be labeled one of IslamÕs most inventive mut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨hid originators. And Ibn ¼anbal had learned a thingor two from ®Azq., whom he more than once used himself in ssÕs attested nowhere,not even in ®Azq.Õs Mu×annaf !

51 These stages, dealing among other issues with the fractions half, a third or a fourth stipulated in similar contracts, or whether Khaybar was allegedly






matn with or without various additions. Ya½y¨Õs a×l matn, composedin his habitually clipped and concise style, reads as follows:

The Prophet concluded a contract (®¨mala) with the Jews of Khaybar to

submit half of its produce in fruit or grain.52

Then Muslim adds two mut¨bi®¨t :(1)ÊÊWith a diving strand onto ®Ubayd All¨h b. ®Umar etc. support-

ing the addition:

... The Prophet used to give each year 100 wasq to his wives: eightywasq of dates and twenty wasq of barley. When ®Umar [b. al-Khaßß¨b]reigned, he divided [all of] Khaybar, letting the ProphetÕs wives choose

between [ownership of] the land and its water or allotting them each year its [100] wasqs [of produce]. The wives made different choices,some choosing the land and its water, others opting for the yearlywasqs. ®¤¾isha and ¼af×a chose its land and water.53

(2)ÊÊWith another strand onto ®Ubayd All¨h b. ®Umar etc.: ashortened version of the previous matn.54

Next Muslim adds three shaw¨hid :(1)ÊÊWith a diving strand directly onto N¨fi® etc., bypassing not only

Ya½y¨ but also ®Ubayd All¨h:When Khaybar was conquered, the Jews implored the Prophet to let them stay there on the condition that they lease it for half its produce of fruit and grain. The Prophet said: ÒI will keep you here as long as we

wish.Ó55 [Then follows more or less the same matn as supported by themut¨bi®¨t plus the addition:] ÒHalf of KhaybarÕs fruit was divided intolots and the Prophet took possession of a fifth part (khums).Ó56

(2)ÊÊWith another diving strand directly onto N¨fi® etc.: a shortenedversion of the one above.57

52 See Mz., VI, no. 8138 (kh , m , III, 1186, d , t , q, confirmed in I¼., II, 17,D¨rimÂ, II, 349). The question of whether or not this contract is historical cannot bestudied in the present context. The incident did find a place in Ibn Is½¨qÕs SÂra, cf.III, 352, but how that is to be construed is as yet unclear.

53 See Mz., VI, no. 8069, a ss in m, and, with one minor variant, another ssin kh = Mz., VI, no. 7808.

54 See Mz., VI, no. 7984, a ss in m.

55 Interpreted as either: ÒIÕll keep you here as long as I wishÓ, or ÒWeÕll keep you here as long as we wishÓ.

56 See Mz., VI, no. 7472, a spider in m and d .57 See Mz., VI, no. 8424, a spider in m , d and s. Its key figure is Layth b.

Sa®d, but the strands coming together in him are no more than ssÕs. Curiously,LaythÕs alleged informant, labeled muq¨rib al-½adÂth = ÒaverageÓ, is the obscureMu½ammad b. ®Abd ar-Ra½m¨n b. ®Anaj (or Ghanaj), who only occurs in this onetradition in the entire canonical corpus, a sure sign that his persona was inventedby Layth, who nonetheless is said to have maintained that he had transmitted inall some sixty traditions from him, cf. Mz., TahdhÂb al-kam¨l, XXV, 618f., Ibn



322 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

(3)ÊÊWith another one launched by ®Azq., eventually ending up inN¨fi® etc. supporting a more elaborate matn than the ones above,containing details about the exile of the Khaybar Jews.58

More elaborate or much simpler examples could be given by thehundreds, but this one should suffice, for, in the end, apart fromrespective details, they amount to more or less the same. One questionremains: where did Ya½y¨ b. Sa®Âd al-Qaßß¨n get his matn from? Did hehave a model? It is highly feasible that it was again M¨lik b. Anas, oneof whose mursal traditions Ya½y¨ may simply have shortened. Withthe strand M¨lik—ZuhrÂ—Sa®Âd b. al-Musayyab (mursal):

The Prophet said to the Jews on the day he had conquered Khaybar: ÒIshall let you live here as long as God will let you live here on thecondition that its fruit produce will be divided between us and youetcÓ.59

It is now time to address another major technical term, this inconnection with several miracles and early ritual prescripts attributed tothe Prophet.

Miracles in ½adÂth. A first case study of the taw¨tur phenomenonThe life of the Prophet Mu½ammad is characterized by, among other features, a number of miracles which he is said to have worked.Through these God was seen to emphasize the greatness of His Prophet and to underline his prestige. The accounts of most of these miraclesfound a place in the ½adÂth, each account supported by an isn¨d , theauthentication device of the day. As was outlined above, a multitude of

different isn¨d strands all authenticating one and the same account of one such miracle can sometimes be seen to form into an isn¨d bundle,

which often enables the isn¨d analyst to formulate a hypothesis as to who may be held responsible for bringing that account into circulation.

Miracles were popular with the first Muslim generations and foundscores of people ready and able to transmit accounts thereof to later

¼ajar, TahdhÂb , IX, 300 f. Whether this information can after all be taken aspointing to Layth as a plausible cl in a bundle, rather than as a mere key figure ina couple of ssÕs, must remain an open question. I opt for the second possibility.

58 See Mz., VI, no. 8465, a spider in kh and m. For a complete survey of themut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨hid strands with the ensuing matn changes of this tradition,see m, III, 1186ff.

59 Cf. Muwaßßa¾, II, 703. Zurq¨nÂ (III, 364) points out that the expressionÒbetween us and youÓ is tantamount to saying Òeach party will be allotted half of its produceÓ.




Diagram 4

generations. An example of one such miracle is supported by lots of

ssÕs as well as by one eminently analyzable isn¨d bundle (see Diagram4) in which the Medinan jurist M¨lik b. Anas (d. 179/795) turns out tobe the cl. The account runs as follows:

With a strand on the authority of Is½¨q b. ®Abd All¨h b. AbÂÞal½a60—Anas b. M¨lik, who related:

[My stepfather] Abâ Þal½a said to [his wife, my mother] UmmSulaym: ÒI just heard the ProphetÕs voice which sounded weak and it occurred to me that he might be hungry. Do you have something to

eat?Ó ÒYesÓ, she answered and produced some flat breads of barley.Then she took a cloth, wrapped the bread in part of it, shoved it under my dress and draped the other part over my head. Then she sent me tothe Prophet. I went out and found him sitting in the prayer site amidst a

60 According to FasawÂ, Kit¨b al-ma®rifa waÕt-ta¾rÂkh, ed. A.¯. al-®UmarÂ,Beirut 1981, II, 466, he was the administrator of the ×aw¨fÂ (for which see EI 2,s.v. ×¨fÂ ) and the estates (íy¨¾) in the Yam¨ma. This Is½¨q was M¨likÕs sole link with the conveniently longeval Companion Anas b. M¨lik.



324 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

number of people. As I approached him, he asked: ÒDid Abâ Þal½asend you?Ó ÒYesÓ, I replied. ÒBecause of food?Ó, he asked. ÒYesÓ, Isaid. Then he addressed those who were there with him and said:ÒStand upÓ, and he went out, with me walking ahead of them. When I

came to Abâ Þal½a, I told him what had happened. Abâ Þal½a said tohis wife: ÒThe Prophet is on his way with a number of people and wedo not have enough food to give them!Ó But she said: ÒGod and HisMessenger know best [what should be done]Ó.61 Abâ Þal½a went out tomeet the Prophet and thereupon they came inside. The Prophet said:ÒUmm Sulaym, show us what you have got.Ó She produced the bread.The Prophet ordered it to be crumbled and she squeezed from a leather sack some clarified butter over it to season it. Next the Prophet utteredsome words over it 62 and said: ÒInvite ten men to come inÓ. Inside they

ate until they were satisfied and then they left. Then he ordered that another group of ten men be let inside. They ate until they were satisfiedand then they left too. The Prophet told other groups of ten men to comeinside, all of whom ate until they were satisfied. In all, seventy or eightymen were thus fed.

This important tradition describing one of the ProphetÕs recognizedmiracles is found in a considerable number of slightly differingversions. It is alleged that this event took place when Medina wasbesieged by the Confederates (a½z¨b), at the so-called battle of theDitch (Ar.: khandaq) in 5/627.63 The ProphetÕs warriors were not gathered in the main mosque of Medina but rather on a prayer siteprepared especially for the congregational ×al¨t s during the siege.Blessed with a sizeable number of pcls,64 it is M¨lik here, who may becredited with the wording of this account. He may have modeled hisdescription of the ProphetÕs miraculous distribution of food to his

fellow-diggers of the Khandaq on a story with a few similar features which is found in the SÂra.65 But, as is to be expected in view of his widely recorded disgust with Ibn Is½¨q, he did not let out that he had it from that source. Or otherwise, M¨lik could have modeled his story onthe miraculous distribution of food— found in the Gospels as themiracle of the loaves and fishes—ascribed to ®Ás¨ b. Maryam which he

61 Zurq¨nÂ, IV, 298, remarks that these words demonstrate Umm SulaymÕs

excellence as well as her superior intellect.62 Literally: ÒThen he uttered those words over it which God wanted.Ó63 Cf. Zurq¨nÂ, IV, 296f.64 Ya½y¨ b. Ya½y¨, Ibn R¨hawayh and Ma®n are all three the names of

authors of collections in their own right, while Qutayba is in any case a plausiblepcl.

65 Ed. Mu×ßaf¨ as-Saqq¨, Ibr¨hÂm al-Aby¨rÂ and ®Abd al-¼afÂú ShalabÂ, Cairo1936, III, 229. Next to a lamb slaughtered for the occasion, a bread made of barleyis mentioned. The people acting as hosts who distribute the food are in this case theCompanion J¨bir b. ®Abd All¨h and his wife, but the story is in outline the same.




may have come across in the ancient tafsÂr work by Muq¨til b.Sulaym¨n, an exact contemporary of Ibn Is½¨q.66 However, insideinformation like that is hardly ever revealed in the sources. It is in any

case impossible to say with certainty from where he got the story. It does already occur in earlier collections, which he might have seen, but that is all one can say. Among the names in the single strands support-ing variant versions as alluded to above, the names of Ibn Is½¨q or Muq¨til do not occur. Even so, the similarities between M¨likÕs versionand the variant versions are striking enough to venture the hypothesisthat it is from the SÂra, or from a source utilized by the author of theSÂra, that M¨lik may have acquired his inspiration, but he would of

course never say that. Neither would he say that he had ÒborrowedÓfrom his Iraqi colleague, the mawl¨ Shu®ba b. al-¼ajj¨j (d. 160/776 inBa×ra), the persona of Anas as a suitable Companion for his isn¨d strand.67 W¨qidÂ68 presents also a miraculous feeding story containinga few trimmings which have unmistakable parallels in the SÂra. IbnSa®d69 gives only a brief reference to the barley bread offered to theProphet on that occasion. A particularly interesting common feature of

the three versions, Ibn Is½¨q, W¨qidÂ and Ibn Sa®d, is that it is not Anas who figures as eyewitness, but J¨bir b. ®Abd All¨h, a slightly lessÒlongevalÓ Companion. ÞabarÂ does not mention anything in the wayof miracles in his Khandaq report. It is astonishing that all the other variant versions are supported by ssÕs.70 In other words, the one and only version I could find that is supported by a proper bundle with adiscernible key figure who looks like a cl is the one translated here withM¨lik as likely originator.71

66 Cf. Muq¨til b. Sulaym¨n, TafsÂr , ed. ®Abd All¨h Ma½mâd Shi½¨ta, Cairo1979-89, I, 517ff, IV, 903f.

67 For the historicity of a Companion called ÒAnasÓ in isn¨d s in canonical½adÂth collections as untenable, as well as for my hypothesis that it was Shu®ba who is to be credited with the creation of such a persona, see my study ÒShu®ba b.al-¼ajj¨j (d. 160/776) and his position among the traditionists of Ba×raÓ, L e Muson, CXI, 1998, esp. 205-10.

68 Magh¨zÂ , ed. Marsden Jones, London 1966, II, 452.

69 IS,2 II, 70.70 For these ssÕs, see, Mz., I, nos. 516 (kh), 845 (m), 898 (kh), 966 (m), 985(m), 1113 (m), 1467 (kh), 1623 (m), 1669 (m), and 1705 (m, III, 1614). See alsoAbâ Ya®l¨ al-Maw×ilÂ, Musnad , ed. ¼usayn SalÂm Asad, Beirut 1984, III, 18, V,215f. For this J¨bir tradition, cf. Mz., II, no. 2263 (kh , m , III, 1610f); it issupported by a ss which forks into a spider at a´-¯a½½¨k b. Makhlad (d. 212/827)from Ba×ra.

71 Cf. Mz., I, no. 200 (kh, m , III, 1612, t , s, confirmed in M¨lik, II, 927f,®Abd b. ¼umayd, ed. Ñ. al-BadrÂ as-S¨marr¨¾Â, Cairo 1988, Al-munthakhab minmusnad ..., no. 1238).



326 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

Most western scholars are not inclined to impute historicity to thetransmission of ½adÂths supported solely by ssÕs, but Muslim scholarshave always held them in high esteem. They constitute after all the vast

majority of isn¨d structures in canonical and other tradition literature.The fourteenth century Syrian historian Ibn KathÂr (Abâ Ôl-Fid¨¾Ism¨®Âl, d. 774/1372) concludes that all the strands supporting thismiraculous distribution of food story determine that the present Anastradition may therefore be considered to have been transmitted muta-w¨tir , or put differently: constituting a case of taw¨tur.72 That is a rashstatement, however, which cannot be upheld, if it is taken literally withfull consideration being given to the limited applicability of that term. A

definition is otherwise not so simple to produce. Its formulation hassuffered various fluctuations which make it applicable to certain½adÂths in certain contexts, but utterly inapplicable to others.

In short, the term is often loosely used, some would say wrongly.

A definition of taw¨tur 73

Taw¨tur as a technical term in the science of ½adÂth amounts tosomething like Òbroad authenticationÓ. It is the ma×dar , often usedadverbially, of form VI of a verb which means Òto come in rapidsuccessionÓ, Òto come one after the otherÓ. It indicates that a historicalreport or a Prophetic tradition is supported by such a large number of isn¨d strands, each beginning with a different Companion or other ancient authority, that its authenticity/truthfulness is thereby assumed tobe guaranteed.

The reasoning behind this was that a sizeable number of people,engaged in transmitting one and the same text, would never by sheer coincidence, or indeed collusion, all relate a falsehood.74 As far ashistoricity is concerned, something transmitted taw¨tur an is consideredby Muslim ½adÂth scholars as unassailable. Although the term was

72 Cf. his Sham¨¾il ar-rasâl wa-dal¨¾il nubuwwatihi wa-fa´¨¾iluhu wa-kha×¨¾i×uhu, ed. Mu×ßaf¨ ®Abd al-W¨½id, Cairo 1967, 206.

73 The following excursus was originally planned as part of my article ontaw¨tur in EI 2, but that was severely shortened by the editors, because it hadgrown beyond the allotted space. As a consequence, some of the most essentialdata of the article, duly dealt with here, did not find a place in EI 2.

74 As quoted in Mu½ammad b. Ja®far al-¼usnÂ al-IdrÂsÂ al-Katt¨nÂ ( Naúm al-mutan¨thir fÂ (or mina) Õl-½adÂth al-mutaw¨tir , ¼alab [1328/1910], 5, ll. -4 f), ®AlÂb. Mu½ammad al-Jurj¨nÂ (d. 816/1413) put it this way in his Mukhta×ar : al-khabar al-mutaw¨tir m¨ balaghat ruw¨tuhu fÂ Õl-kathrati mablaghan a½¨lat al-®¨datutaw¨ßu¾ahum ®al¨ Õl-kadhib wa-yadâmu h¨dh¨ fa-yakânu awwaluhu ka-¨khirihi wa-wasßuhu ka-ßarafayhi ka Õl-qur¾¨ni wa Õ×-×alaw ti al-khamsa.




already in existence, the first full-flegded ½adÂth theoreticians such asar-R¨mahurmuzÂ (d. 360/971) and al-¼¨kim an-Nays¨bârÂ (d.405/1014) did not make use of it in their handbooks. It apparently took

some time to emerge as technical term in a ½adÂth-related context. Whenthe number of strands, or ßuruq, is mentioned which a certain traditionmust be supported by to be classified under the qualification taw¨tur ,figures differ considerably: from four or five to several hundred.75

When the ßuruq are scrutinized individually, it is of the utmost importance that they are classified as ssÕs or otherwise. If a number of ssÕs, scrutinized together, appear to have, say, the first three or four transmitters in common, then we may be starting to think in terms of a

bundle rather than as a bunch of superimposed and altogether not overlapping ssÕs. Mutaw¨tir traditions have from the beginning beendistinguished from one another by the number of ßuruq supportingeach. But what does that number tell us? Does it refer to a bunch of ssÕs that show no overlap enabling us to discern an isn¨d bundle, or abunch of ssÕs that constitute a datable bundle when superimposed uponeach other? It is only referral to all the loci in the sources which

supplies the required answers.As from the seventh/thirteenth century the term began to be appliedon a wide scale, albeit loosely. As from the time of the ½adÂth scholar Ibn a×-Ñal¨½ al-ShahrazârÂ (d. 643/1245), the concept was studied inmore detail and the definition as to what precisely the word stood for

was refined by a subdivision, in which taw¨tur lafúÂ , i.e. the verbatimmutaw¨tir transmission of a text, became distinguished from taw¨tur ma®nawÂ , i.e. transmission in respect of only the gist or one salient

feature of a given text. It was generally admitted that the number of reports transmitted ma®nawiyyan vastly outnumbered those transmittedlafúiyyan.

Looking now again at the report about the ProphetÕs miraculousdistribution of food during the siege of Medina, we find that there are

just two Companions who figure at the beginning of isn¨d strandssupporting versions of the story, Anas b. M¨lik—for which see above—and J¨bir b. ®Abd All¨h, a version which is supported by a latespider and is only found in khÊand m as well as the three early akhb¨r collections. Strictly speaking these two Companions are not sufficient to make the term mutaw¨tir applicable to their transmission of thestory, but Ibn KathÂr may be assumed to have employed the term to

75 Tah¨nawÂ, Dictionary of technical terms, ed. W. Nassau Lees a.o., Calcutta1862, II, 1472.



328 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

indicate the number of ßuruq blossoming forth from Anas alone. Andthere we find on the one hand the one bundle featuring the cl M¨lik asset forth in the diagram and, on the other hand, the ten ssÕs listed in

note 70. What one often reads in the context of multiple strands76

is that they are Òsurrounded by equalsÓ, mu½taff bi-qar¨¾in, and m¨ Õ½taffa biÕl-qar¨¾in arja½u mimm¨ khal¨ ®anh¨, i.e. ÒWhat is surrounded byequals deserves more to be adduced than what lacks themÓ. This isespecially apparent in al-Katt¨nÂ. Whenever that author encountered theterms taw¨tur or mutaw¨tir being used rightly (or as it turns out

wrongly) by any collector/commentator in connection with a traditionor just some concept, he added that reference to his collection entitled

Naúm al-mutan¨thir fÂ Õl-½adÂth al-mutaw¨tir . Scores of allegedlymutaw¨tir traditions thus brought together were anything but ÒbroadlyauthenticatedÓ and many of these did not even find a place in any of theSix Books.

Thus the concept Òmore of the sameÓ, which we know from, amongother disciplines, modern psychology, makes its entrance in isn¨d strands supporting one and the same tradition. The Òmore of the sameÓ

concept is nowhere better illustrated than in the case of the best-knownmutaw¨tir tradition of all time: man kadhaba ®alayya muta®ammid an

faÕl-yatabawwa¾ maq®adahu mina Õn-n¨r , i.e. ÒHe who deliberately putsfalse statements into my mouth must prepare for himself a seat inHell.Ó77 In later times, collecting as many isn¨d strands supporting(versions of) man kadhaba as could be unearthed became for tradition-ists a popular line of research. Apparently the first to make such acollection was the ½adÂth expert ®AlÂ b. ®Abd All¨h ibn al-MadÂnÂ,78

who is said to have listed twenty Companions. More recent collectionsof ßuruq of man kadhaba display in the course of time a strikingincrease in ßuruq: each subsequent collection lists a larger number of Companions allegedly heading strands supporting the saying: aß-Þabar¨nÂ (d. 360/971) who lived some 100 years after Bukh¨rÂ and

whose collection of such ßuruq is preserved in manuscript 79 presentsmore than sixty; in the introduction of his K. al-maw´â®¨t Ibn al-JawzÂ(d. 597/1200) gives more than ninety; Ya½y¨ b. Sharaf an-NawawÂ (d.

76 Cf. Katt¨nÂ, 17, l. 4. For this author (1857-1927), cf. ZiriklÂ, Al-a®l ¨m ,Beirut, 4th impr. 1979, VI, 72f.

77 For a detailed analysis of all the bundles supporting this tradition as wellas its closely related alternatives complete with their authors, see my study ÒShu®bab. al-¼ajj¨j etc.Ó, 191-200.

78 Cf. GAS , I, 108.79 Cf. GAS, I, 197, l. 4.




676/1277), the author of a commentary of MuslimÕs Ña½Â½, mentionsthe figure 20080 etc.

Muslim scholars who collected such ßuruq asserted time and again

that many, indeed the majority, were weak or fabricated but, curiously,the report that these ßuruq allegedly supported remained qualified asmutaw¨tir nonetheless. A neat survey of these cumulative ßuruq mankadhaba collections is found in Ibn ¼ajarÕs Fat½.81

What the foregoing amounts to is that taw¨tur , applied according tothe strict definition of the term, does not occur, in spite of the manyefforts of later ½adÂth collectors to bring together as many strandssupporting the same tradition as they could devise. What is after all that

strict definition of the term? Ibn ¼ajar leaves no room for manoeuvre:absolute taw¨tur constitutes transmission by a group of transmitters onthe authority of another group of transmitters from the beginning of thetransmission until its end and this in every generation. (In his conciseArabic this runs: riwÿatu Õl-majmâ®i ®ani Õl-majmâ®i mini Õbtid¨¾ihi il¨Õntih¨¾ihi fÂ kulli ®a×r ; but then he gives a few examples to which thisstrict criterium is never seen to apply.)82

At this point an observation should be made which, curiouslyenough, has never been duly publicized. Nobody, among Muslimscholars (or among other researchers of Islam) has ever noticed that one major condition for mutaw¨tir transmission to be valid—a condi-tion already formulated in the ninth/fifteenth century—is merely otiose.

FFFFoooorr r r ooooff f f aaaallllllll ccccaaaannnnoooonnnniiiiccccaaaallll oooorr r r nnnnoooonnnn----ccccaaaannnnoooonnnniiiiccccaaaallll tt t t rr r r aaaaddddiiiitt t t iiiioooonnnnssss,,,, llllaaaabbbbeeeelllleeeeddddmmmmuuuutt t t aaaawwww¨ tt t t iiiirr r r oooorr r r oooott t t hhhheeeerr r r ww w wiiiisssseeee,,,, tt t t oooo bbbbeeee ff f f oooouuuunnnndddd iiiinnnn MMMMuuuusssslllliiiimmmm ½½½½aaaadd d d ÂÂ Â Â tt t t hhhh lllliiiitt t t eeeerr r r ----aaaatt t t uuuurr r r eeee,,,, nnnnoooott t t aaaa ssssiiiinnnngggglllleeee oooonnnneeee hhhhaaaassss aaaa pppprr r r oooott t t oooo---- ww w woooorr r r ddddiiiinnnngggg ssssuuuuppppppppoooorr r r tt t t eeeedddd bbbb yy y y

iiii ssssnnnn ¨dd d d sssstt t t rr r r aaaannnnddddssss ww w whhhhiiiicccchhhh,,,, ww w whhhheeeennnn aaaannnnaaaallll yy y ytt t t iiiiccccaaaallllllll yy y y ssssuuuurr r r vvvveeee yy y yeeeedd d d tt t t ooooggggeeeett t t hhhheeeerr r r ,,,,

80 Cf. I, 68.81 Ibn ¼ajar, Fat½, I, 213, apud ®ilm no. 38 (b¨b ithm man kadhaba ®al¨ Õn-

nabÂ ).Collecting quantities of ßuruq of a particularly significant tradition eventually

considered mutaw¨tir developed also among ShÂ®Â authors into a separate disci-pline. And the phenomenon of the gradually increasing number of reported isn¨d strands for one and the same tradition is equally apparent in all their collections.

For example, there is that well-known tradition dealing with the ProphetÕs allegedhinting at ®AlÂ b. AbÂ Þ¨lib as his successor to the Islamic community after hisdeath, a tradition that goes by the name of GhadÂr Khumm, a water hole in thedesert where the suggestion was supposedly made. This tradition enjoyed ever-growing attention at the hands of oriental scholars, see the vols. VI, VII, VIII andIX( !) of Nafa½¨t al-azh¨r fÂ khul¨×at ®abaq¨t al-anw¨r of ®AlÂ al-¼usaynÂ al-MÂl¨nÂ, Qumm 1414 q, a twelve(!) volume work on all the ßuruq of just five for theShÂ®a fundamental, originally Sunni traditions, believed to have been transmittedtaw¨tur an ma®nawiyyan.

82 See Ibn ¼ajar, Fat½, I, 214, l. 5.



330 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

sssshhhhoooo ww w w uuuupppp tt t t hhhheeee rr r r eeeeqq q q uuuuiiiissssiiii tt t t eeee nnnnuuuummmmbbbbeeeerr r r ooooff f f aaaauuuutt t t hhhhoooorr r r iiiitt t t iiiieeeessss— tt t t hhhhrr r r eeeeeeee,,,, ff f f oooouuuurr r r ,,,,ff f f iiiivvvveeee oooorr r r mmmmoooorr r r eeee— iiiinnnn eeeevvvveeeerr r r yy y y tt t t iiiieeeerr r r ,,,, iiii....eeee.... oooonnnn eeeevvvveeeerr r r yy y y sssseeeeppppaaaarr r r aaaatt t t eeee lllleeeevvvveeeellll ooooff f f tt t t rr r r aaaannnnssssmmmmiiiissssssssiiiioooonnnn,,,, ff f f rr r r oooommmm tt t t hhhheeee vvvveeeerr r r yy y y bbbbeeeeggggiiiinnnnnnnniiiinnnngggg tt t t oooo tt t t hhhheeee vvvveeeerr r r yy y y eeeennnndddd....

The only criterion that is found to apply to various so-calledmutaw¨tir transmissions is that of the requisite number of different transmitters in the oldest tier, i.e. the number of Companions allegedlytransmitting one and the same saying from the Prophet or reporting onone and the same event in his life. But in later tiers of the isn¨d strands

within these transmissions this requisite number cannot be established.With the help of an isn¨d lexicon such as MizzÂÕs Tu½fa a thoroughanalysis of all available so-called mutaw¨tir traditions produces the

result as outlined here. If every Companion in every strand supportingone so-called mutaw¨tir tradition is found to have an equally appro-priate number of Successors—at least three—transmitting that traditionfrom him to the next generation, and this multiple transmission isrepeated from every single Successor to an equally appropriate number of later transmitters, and this in every subsequent tier , or ßabaqa, fromthe beginning of the isn¨d strands to the end , then, and indeed only then,

could Muslim tradition literature have boasted of the taw¨tur phenomenon. But true taw¨tur can only be said to apply in Islam to the wholesale transmission in an unstandardized fashion (in other wordswithout the support of isn¨d strands) of certain concepts and ideasthrough the ages from the time of their origin before, during, or shortlyafter, the life of Mu½ammad until their general acceptance into everylayer of Muslim society in every region of the Islamic world. Theusually adduced, classical examples of phenomena or concepts

transmitted taw¨tur an in this unstandardized fashion are the Qur¾¨n,or —once the number of five obligatory ×alat s had been established—the obligation to perform them every day. But also the exemplaryhospitality of the ancient tribal chieftain ¼¨tim aß-Þ¨¾Â or the courage of ®AlÂ b. AbÂ Þ¨lib displayed in his wars are mentioned as having beentransmitted taw¨tur an in this unstructured, unstandardized manner.

IIIInnnn sssshhhhoooorr r r tt t t ,,,, tt t t aaaawwww¨tt t t uuuurr r r llllaaaa ff f f úúúúÂÂ Â Â iiiissss aaaa hhhhiiiisssstt t t oooorr r r iiiiooooggggrr r r aaaapppphhhhiiiiccccaaaallll ccccrr r r iiiitt t t eeeerr r r iiiioooonnnn ww w whhhhiiiicccchhhh aaaappppppppeeeeaaaarr r r ssss nnnneeeevvvveeeerr r r tt t t oooo hhhhaaaavvvveeee hhhhaaaadddd aaaannnn yy y y ddddeeeemmmmoooonnnnssss tt t t rr r r aaaabbbblllleeeeaaaapppppppplllliiiiccccaaaabbbbiiiilllliiii tt t t yy y y....

On the other hand, it is apposite to consider the purported mutaw¨tir saying: umirtu an uq¨tila Õn-n¨s ½att¨ yaqâlâ l¨ il¨ha ill¨ Õll¨h, i.e. ÒIhave been ordered to fight the [unbelieving] people until they say:ÔThere is no god but GodÕÓ—occasionally standing alone in a tradition,but more often functioning as an insert in longer traditions for added




emphasis—as having been transmitted taw¨tur an lafúiyyan, even thoughits multiple isn¨d strands fail to meet the necessary criteria for genuinetaw¨tur as outlined above. Since numerous Qur¾¨n verses became

generally known in which the believers were openly encouraged toengage in Holy War against the infidels (e.g. IX: 5, 29, 36, 111), theassumption is plausible that, from an early period on, the umirtu saying

was on everybodyÕs lips. This type of maxim or slogan allegedlytransmitted mutaw¨tir an lafúiyyan is extremely rare and it is never foundto be supported by strands remotely fulfilling the conditions meriting tobe labeled mutaw¨tir in the definition quoted above from Ibn ¼ajarÕs Fat½ al-b¨rÂ .

Another example of purported taw¨tur

A second tradition, this one forming a bridge between personal faithand Muslim law, is also reported to have been transmitted mutaw¨tir an,although that turns out not to be the case. It plays an important role inboth fields:

With a strand on the authority of Abâ Ñ¨li½ Dhakw¨n—

A bâHurayra who related the ProphetÕs words:

The adulterer does not commit adultery while he is a believer, the thief does not steal while he is a believer, someone drinking wine does not drink wine while he is a believer, repentance is still open for him.83

This at first sight enigmatic statement has elicited from Muslim com-mentators some remarkably ingenious interpretations. These amount tosaying:84 Even if a Muslim toys with the idea of engaging in adultery,stealing something or drinking wine, the purity of his faith will in theend prevent him from committing these offences and will prompt him torepent of his evil intentions. This is in line with a ½adÂth that seems tohave originated somewhat later: ÒAnyone of my community who dies

without having denied GodÕs oneness (i.e. without having committedshirk ) will enter Paradise, even if he has committed adultery or theftÓ.Of this tradition Shu®ba is the cl.85 In other words, God will forgive any

83 Cf. Mz., IX, no. 12395 (kh, m, I, 77, s, confirmed in ®Azq., VII, 416, ®Abdb. ¼umayd, no. 919, Abâ Is½¨q al-Faz¨rÂ, Siyar , ed. F¨râq ¼am¨da, Beirut 1987,no. 568, I¼., II, 376, 479, KhaßÂb, TB, II, 142). For the theological discussion onthis tradition, see Van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft , Berlin/New York 1991, I,204, V, 118.

84 Cf. NawawÂ, II, 41, l. -5, Qasßall¨nÂ, Irsh¨d , IV, 311 f, Ibn ¼ajar, Fat½,XV, 61ff.

85 Cf. Mz., IX, no. 11915 (kh , m, II, 687 f, t , s, confirmed in Þay., no. 444,Abâ Nu®aym, ¼ilya, VII, 171). Zayd b. Wahb, a well-known mu®ammar and



332 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

sin except shirk . This reflects the ongoing theological discussion that even those who commit grave sins (with the exception of shirk ) are not automatically unbelievers but are just failing in their faith; if they

repent, their punishment is lifted and if they die while still persisting intheir offences, they are at the mercy of God. If He wills, He either forgives them and allows them to enter Paradise, or He punishes themand then allows them to enter Paradise. The tradition has given rise to averitable deluge of late ssÕs which all but smother the bundles from

which cls could be distilled. Those ssÕs that are clearly concocted bylater transmitters who coveted a share in the popularity engendered bythis tradition can be found in various sources.86 In the bundles support-

ing all the numerous references of the saying, the oldest discernible clseems to be the mawl¨ Sulaym¨n b. Mihr¨n al-A®mash (d. 147/764). At first sight it would seem safer to say that he is its scl, but he happens tobe identified with it twice in so many words in Abâ Nu®aymÕs ¼ilya.87

(For a survey of all these ssÕs, see Abâ Ya®l¨.)88 ZuhrÂÕs frequent occurrences in spiders and ssÕs supporting the saying may possibly beconstrued as ¼ij¨zÂ and Syrian diving attempts at participating in a

discussion that was originally Iraqi. Its proliferation in Egypt may bedue to Layth b. Sa®d.89 In some versions a fourth sin is added, that of openly appropriating something that does not belong to you, for whichlater cls seem responsible.

A purported mutaw¨tir tradition on the variant Qur¾¨nic readings

With a strand on the authority of ZuhrÂ—®Urwa b. az-Zubayr —®Abd

ar-Ra½m¨n b. ®Abd al-Q¨rÂ (and al-Miswar b. Makhrama)—®Umar b.al-Khaßß¨b:

I heard Hish¨m b. ¼akÂm b. ¼iz¨m recite sârat al-furq¨n (XXV) in a way that differed from mine as the Messenger of God had taught me

Shu®baÕs purported ½adÂth informant, is in this bundle a perfect example of a so-called artificial cl. Shu®baÕs position gains in strength because of a spidery bundle,no. 11982, where we find three strands (kh, m, s, I¼., V, 161) via other transmitters

back to Abâ Dharr which also come together in Shu®ba. Abâ Nu®aym seems toidentify this tradition with him in any case.

86 Cf. Ibn ®AdÂ3, KhaßÂb, TB, and Abâ Nu®aym, their fihrist s of traditionsunder l¨ yaznÂ Õz-z¨nÂ wa-huwa mu¾min.

87 ¼ilyat al-awliy¨¾, VIII, 117, where the tradition is qualified as th¨bit ×a½Â½min ½adÂth al-A®mash raw¨hu ®anhu al-a¾imma wa Ôl-qudam ¾ Zayd b. AbÂ Unaysawa Õth-ThawrÂ wa-Shu®ba wa-H¨rân b. Sa®d wa-Abâ ¼amza as-SakkânÂ. Andibidem, 257, it says: mashhâr th¨bit min ½adÂth al-A®mash raw¨hu ®anhu Õn-n¨s.

88 Abâ Ya®l¨, XI, 188-91.89 Cf. Mz., X, no. 13209.




and I was about to pounce on him, but then I let him be until he made togo. At that point I grabbed him by his cloak, brought him before theMessenger of God and said: ÒI heard this man recite sârat al-furq¨n ina way that differs from the way in which you taught me this sâra.Ó The

Prophet ordered me to release him and him to recite it, which he did.ÒThus it was revealed to me,Ó the Prophet said and then he ordered meto recite it, which I did. Again the Prophet said: ÒThus it was revealedto me; this Qur¾¨n was sent down in seven readings, so recite it in the

way that is easiestÓ.90

When the diagram of its bundle is scrutinized, ZuhrÂ looks like itsundeniable cl, but when his recorded pupils are surveyed, it is M¨lik

who is his only plausible pcl, all the other strands coming together inZuhrÂ constituting mere dives launched by transmitters from one or more generations after him. And it is of course located in the Muwaßßa¾.That is why it is probably wiser to ascribe the wording to M¨lik,although the discussion about the issue may conceivably date to a timeas far back as ZuhrÂÕs. The observation that ZuhrÂ is recorded to havesaid that the Òseven readingsÓ are only applicable to issues in whichthere is no question of ÒpermissibleÓ (½al¨l) and ÒforbiddenÓ (½ar¨m)

may lead some to conclude that the tradition is ZuhrÂÕs rather thanM¨likÕs, but this statement is only found in ®Azq. (XI, 219) andnowhere else, not even in Ibn ¼anbalÕs matn variant supported by thestrand Ma®mar —®Abd al-A®l¨ b. ®Abd al-A®l¨. The Companion Hish¨mb. ¼akÂm b. ¼iz¨m is an obscure figure who is mainly known becauseof this tradition. He was probably invented for its isn¨d by M¨lik, the clof this bundle. Hish¨mÕs father was supposedly a mu®ammar who diedat the age of 120 years.91 Inventing non-existing sons of otherwise

conceivably historical fathers is a phenomenon that has been observedon other occasions, fairly often in M¨likÕs corpus of isn¨d strands as

well as in that of his fellow-traditionists. This is one of the earliest andat the same time best-known and most extensive versions within the mcon the various readings (qir¨¾¨t or a½ruf , the plural of ½arf ) of theQur¾¨n. With this tradition is implied that one particular word or phrasein the Qur¾¨n may be found in any of up to seven different variants,

whereby the number seven is assumed to stand for ÒseveralÓ in thesame manner as seventy often stands for several tens and seven

90 Cf. Mz., VIII, no. 10591, 10642 (kh, m, I, 560, d , s, confirmed in M¨lik, I,201, Sh¨fi®Â, Ris¨la, ed. A½mad M. Sh¨kir, Cairo 1938, no. 752, ®Azq., XI, 218f,I¼., I, 40).

91 Cf. ÞabarÂ, Annales, ed. De Goeje, III, 2378. For the mu®ammar phenome-non, see my EI 2 lemma mu®ammar .






But many other interpretations of the number seven were offered as well.94 In the course of time several spiders and ssÕs were super-imposed upon this M¨lik bundle, two with ®Abd All¨h b. Wahb as key

figure,95

and two with ®Azq.,96

in which ZuhrÂ is again (s)cl. Another clin the a½ruf mc may be Shu®ba.97

Another case of taw¨tur? The Òwiping over the shoesÓ cluster

When scrutinized closely, many cases of purported taw¨tur are, strictlyspeaking, nothing other than conglomerates of a number of mostly very

well attested, more or less closely related, but nonetheless dissimilar

traditions, each dealing in various ways with one particular point of ritual or law. In other words, using the terminology introduced in thisarticle, these conglomerates are matn clusters (mcs).

Often the individual traditions making up the mc are supported byclear isn¨d bundles which show up cls who can safely be presumed tohave been responsible for the wording thus attested. But the strict criteria of taw¨tur are again not seen to apply except for the oldest tier,

or ßabaqa, in its isn¨d strands, that of the Companions. A case in point is the cluster that grew out of one central issue: the wiping over theshoes as part of the minor ritual ablution, the wu´â¾. In Arabic thisimportant, and in ½adÂth collections and legal as well as theological

understanding one another because they are neighbors. The number seven is further-more explained as referring to Quraysh, Hudhayl, Taym ar-Rib¨b, Azd, RabÂ®a,Haw¨zin and Sa®d b. Bakr. But Ibn Qutayba is quoted rejecting this: ÒsevenÓ refers

to seven baßns from within Quraysh, for God has said: ÒWe have sent no messenger except one speaking the language of his tribe (XIV: 4)Ó. Then another opinionamounts to saying that ÒsevenÓ refers to Muár: Hudhayl, Kin¨na, Qays, ¯abba,Taym ar-Rib¨b, Asad b. Khuzayma and Quraysh.

94 The number is occasionally identified with modes of expression: verses or phrases containing incitement (zajr ), command (amr ), permission (½al¨l), prohibi-tion (½ar¨m), secure or ambiguous statements (mu½kamÊand mutash¨bih) andsimiles (amth¨l), Ibn ¼ajar Fat½, X, 404. SuyâßÂ, Itq¨n fÂ ®ulâm al-qur¾¨n, ed.Mu½ammad Abâ Õl-Fa´l Ibr¨hÂm, III, 236 f, cites the Qur¾¨n expert ®AlÂ b. A½madal-¼ir¨lÂ (d. 637/1239, cf. GAL, G I, 414) who attaches a purely metaphoricalinterpretation to the seven a½ruf . For the way in which ½arf came to be interpreted

as qir¨¾a, see Nšldeke/Schwally, Geschichte des Qor¨ns, Leipzig 1909-38, I, 48-51, Ibn ¼ajar, ibidem, 397-414, apud fa´¨¾il al-qur¾¨n, ch. 5, and EI 2, s.v.Æur¾¨n, V, 408f.

95 Cf. also Mz., V, no. 5844.96 Mu×annaf , XI, 218ff.97 Cf. Mz., VII, no. 9591: ®Abd All¨h b. Mas®âd said: ÒI heard how a man

recited a Qur¾¨nic verse in a manner that differed from that of the Prophet, so I tookhim by the hand and went with him to Mu½ammad. When we had informed him, Isaw his face distort (with irritation) and he said: ÔEach of you is right, do not quarrel about this, for people in the past did that and they perishedÕÓ.






Sunni, and thus an anti-ShÂ®i, point of view. We also find two earlydefinitions of what it takes to be identified as a member of the sunnaparty, or as it says literally madhhab ahl as-sunna waÕl-jam¨®a. One

creed is attributed to Anas b. M¨lik: to love the two shaykhs Abâ Bakr and ®Umar, not to attribute vices to the ¼asan¨ni, i.e. ¼asan and¼usayn, the two sons of ®AlÂ and F¨ßima az-Zahr¨¾, and to practise al-mas½ ®al¨ Õl-khuffayn. And the other is said to hail from Abâ ¼anÂfa: togive preference to the two shaykhs, to love the two sons-in-law (sc. of the Prophet), i.e. ®Uthm¨n and ®AlÂ, and to uphold (the concept of) al-mas½ ®al¨ Õl-khuffayn. Although the attribution to Anas is not tenablebecause of the overall unhistoricity of any ascription to that controver-

sial transmitter,99 the ascription to Abâ ¼anÂfa is historically feasible.Looking now at the issue a bit more closely, one of the most contro-versial points within the ßah¨ra chapter concerns this wiping over oneÕsshoes as substitute for the washing of oneÕs bare feet, an essential part of the wu´â¾. The controversy and the ensuing casuistry reached vast proportions and endless ramifications, all of which resulted in a host of mcs consisting of many bundles with or without superimposed spiders,

which in turn are smothered under a deluge of ssÕs. The outcome of allthis is that a detailed chronological analysis of each of its multipleisn¨d bundles seems impossible. In all the regions in which legaltraditions took shape, and this for a period of more than 100 years,there participated so many ritual experts-cum-cls in the debate that afinal overall assessment will probably prove to be unattainable. Pclsdiscernible in older bundles often emerge in cl positions in later ones. Inother words, we can no longer identify the first Muslim ßah¨ra expert to

formulate a definitively worded matn on the matter of mas½. Probably just after the ProphetÕs demise the mas½ issue became a lively point of discussion, if not already during his lifetime. The wu´â¾ verse in Q V: 6does not broach the subject in so many words, but the obligatory

washing or wiping of the feet referred to in that verse was an injunctionthat the Muslim community must have felt to be a difficult one tocomply with, not only in cold weather, but generally for lack of enough

washing water. ManÕs innate reluctance to practise personal hygienemust also have played its part. Much more so than is the case withother issues, the mas½ debate is abundantly documented, especially inthe pre-canonical collections, and it is the chapters on mas½ from thesecollections that are surveyed here first.100

99 See my paper in Le Muson, CXI, 1998, 205-11.100 An attempt to systematize the numerous reports dealing with the Qur¾¨n



338 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

Diagram 6

verse on wu´â¾ and the evolution of the fiqh ruling on wu´â¾ as related to the mas½®al¨ Õl-khuffayn issue was undertaken by R. Strothmann, Kultus der Zaiditen,Strassburg 1912, chapter III, and also J. Burton in a paper in BSOAS, LI, 1988, 21-

58. These authors review a multitude of reports but they do not indicate whether they assume all the information, which is given in the multiple isn¨d strandsbetween the Prophet and the cls of the various bundles supporting these reports, tobe factual or not. One moment they seem to do so, at other moments their wordsexpress doubt, most of the time they are just vague. Transmitters conceivablyresponsible for the various wordings of the traditions, i.e. the cls, are left unidentified as such, although some of them receive mention in passing. Myoverall treatment of mas½ will be seen to be quite different from theirs. But adefinitive, cohesive analysis of the chronological development of the jurisprudenceon the issue, if at all feasible, still remains a desideratum.




®Abd ar-Razz¨q and Ibn AbÂ Shayba both have lengthy chapters onthe issues. In both, the reports supported by sophisticated marfâ®strands precede all others. The marfâ® traditions (i.e. those that go back

via an uninterrupted strand to the Prophet) are followed by mursal¨t (i.e. reports with strands without a Companion being inserted betweenProphet and Successor) and those with strands that are otherwisemunqaßi® (i.e. interrupted). Then follow a few mawqâf¨t reports (i.e.

with strands that ÒstopÓ at the Companion while leaving the Prophet unmentioned) with or without two or more Companions being depictedas arguing over the issue, followed by three or more khulaf¨¾ r¨shidânhaving resorted to it. Next the great first/seventh century fuqah¨¾ are

recorded as having seen or heard various Companions perform mas½ without mention of the Prophet as having been present. Finally their own opinions are listed, with or without reference being made to earlybattlefield scenes and conquests where the practice was resorted to: al-Q¨disiyya, al-Mad¨¾in, Jalâl¨¾, ¤dharbayj¨n etc.101 Of these fuqah¨¾virtually everyone is on record with an opinion on the issue or adetailed description of how to go about it, or an opinion on how long

one wiping remained valid, that is to say: in the field mostly three daysand nights, at home mostly one day and one night. In this sea of partlyconflicting, partly overlapping and partly agreeing reports, it isimpossible to pinpoint the first person who may be assumed to havebroached the subject first.

The mas½ issue is not concerned solely with the wiping over shoes,khuff¨ni, but really over any footwear, such as tas¨khÂn, mostly trans-lated as ÒbootsÓ, but also ÒstockingsÓ ( jawrab¨ni), ÒsandalsÓ (na®l¨ni),

and ÒgalochesÓ ( jurmâq¨ni). Closely related are the paragraphs in thewu´â¾ chapter on the wiping over the head and the hair on the forehead(n¨×iya) as well as the wiping over the turban (®im¨ma or ®i×¨ba). Inthis context even the permissibility of wiping over splints ( jab¨¾ir ) andthe dressings of injuries is mentioned.

Several Companions turn up time and again in mas½-related tradi-tions that result in mcs as well as isn¨d Êclusters, i.e. several bundles

which MizzÂ superimposes one upon the other because of their commonpivotal point in that one Companion. The most striking example of sucha Companion is MughÂra b. Shu®ba whose musnad in MizzÂÕs Tu½fashows up no less than thirteen bundles and spiders supporting mas½traditions with cls and scls, as well as ssÕs.102

101 Cf. ®Azq., I, 216, IASh., I, 180, ll. 3, 9, 18.102 Mz., VIII, no. 11521: superimposed ssÕs with the Ba×ran m a w l ¨



340 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

There is one report of the aw¨¾il genre which, with all the provisothat taking aw¨¾il reports literally entails, may be thought of as con-stituting the breeding ground for the particular identification of MughÂra

b. Shu®ba with mas½: in the early aw¨¾il collection of A½mad b. AbÂ®¤×im an-NabÂl (d. 287/900) we read that it was he who was seen toput on footwear called khuff¨ni.103 Moreover, there is a tradition for

which the transmitter WakÂ® b. al-Jarr¨½ (d. 196/812) may be respon-sible that describes how the Prophet was at one time presented with apair of simple shoes (khuff¨ni s¨dhij¨ni) by the Negus or Naj¨shÂ.104

Among the oldest fuqah¨¾ to formulate an opinion on the mas½ issueis ®¤mir b. Shar¨½Âl ash-Sha®bÂ. But he is also scl of a text supported

by a vast bundle with a strand via ®Urwa b. al-MughÂra to his father MughÂra b. Shu®ba,105 which shows up also another scl, ZuhrÂ:

With a strand on the authority of ®Urwa b. MughÂra b. Shu®ba—hisfather MughÂra b. Shu®ba:

While on a journey I stayed during a certain night with the Prophet. Heasked me whether I had water with me. Upon my affirmative answer he descended from his camel and walked away until he had dis-appeared in the dark night. After his return I poured from the water skinso that he could wash his face. Since he was wearing a woolengarment from which he could not stretch out his arms, he stuck them out from under its hem and washed them and wiped [with his hand] over his head. Then I bent down to undo his shoes, but he said: ÒLet them be,I put them on while my feet were clean.Ó Then he wiped over his shoes.

Sha®bÂ is the oldest key figure in this bundle and that is why this text is presented here under his name. But he is recorded as also having

aired his personal views in the mas½ discussion.106

Besides, there is onekhabar which may be thought of as constituting an early starting point for the mas½ debate to come into existence. This report describes howone Qays b. Sa®d b. ®Ub¨da, a police officer of ®AlÂ, wiped over his

Mu½ammad Ibn SÂrÂn (d. 110/728) as scl and two tiers above him there sits the cl,the mawl¨ Ibn ®Ulayya (d. 193/809); no. 11528: kh, m , s, q, cl is A®mash; no.11534: d , t , s, q, stockings and sandals ( jawrabayn wa-na®layn), cl is WakÂ® b. al-

Jarr¨½; no. 11537: d , t , q, cl is the mawl¨ al-WalÂd b. Muslim (d. 195/811).103 Ed. Zaghlâl, Beirut 1987, 62.104 Mz., II, no. 1956.105 Cf. Mz., VIII, no. 11541 (kh , m, I, 230, d , s, confirmed in Sh¨fi®Â, TartÂb

musnad ..., Cairo 1950, I, 42, IASh., I, 176, ¼um., no. 758, I¼., IV, 245, 251,255, Abâ ®Aw¨na, Musnad , Hyderabad 1362, I, 255, D¨raqußnÂ, I, 194).

106 In ®Azq., I, no. 755, an indirectly transmitted mawqâf from ®AlÂ b. AbÂÞ¨lib, and in no. 853 a description of how he used to wipe over his shoes, cf.IASh., I, 185, ll. 8 and 11, 186, l. 19, 187, ll. 9 and 16, and I¼., Kit¨b al-®ilalwa-ma®rifat ar-rij¨l, ed. T. Koy»it & I. Cerraho»lu, Ankara 1963, I, no. 1292.




shoes while on the bank of the Tigris.107 Summing up, Sha®bÂ, who isthe cl in the above-mentioned khabar -like version featuring MughÂra isconceivably the oldest cl in all the bundles supporting the many mas½

versions.An overall assessment must be that mas½ as a ßah¨ra issue in thebroadest sense certainly does not constitute a case of taw¨tur lafúÂ , but at most a case of taw¨tur ma®nawÂ —and that only as far as the twokey words mas½ and khuffayn making up the issue is concerned. Themcs growing out of some of MughÂraÕs fellow-Companions are eachmarked by certain characteristics. Thus the JarÂr-centered tradition canbe seen as settling the controversy about the precise time that mas½ was

for the first time introduced in Islamic ritual purification. The permissi-bility of urinating while standing is broached in a tradition going backto the Companion ¼udhayfa b. al-Yam¨n supported by a bundle withagain A®mash as cl.108 Furthermore, the combination of wiping over theshoes and over the turban is also probably due to A®mash who, thistime, leads his strand back to the Prophet via the Companion Bil¨l.109

Surveying, finally, all the dozens of mas½ versions supported by isn¨d

strands through as many different Companions as paraded in Kat-t¨nÂ,110 it appears that the vast majority are not even listed in the SixBooks. Only in ®Azq. and IASh. do a number of them turn up, but thenmore often than not without mention of the Prophet being included, inother words: via mawqâf strands. In none of its multiple isn¨d strandsdoes the mas½ Õal¨ Ôl-khuffayn cluster meet the strict criteria for taw¨tur lafúÂ , just as in the purported taw¨tur cases listed up to this point in theforegoing pages.

Summary and conclusions

(1)ÊÊWe have known for a long time how early Muslim ½adÂth expertsintroduced certain technical terms to create some sort of systematizationin their appraisal of ½adÂths. The corpus of traditions deemed to becanonical was in the beginning limited to the collections of Bukh¨rÂ andMuslim b. al-¼ajj¨j. However, in the course of the following centuriesthree more collections were added, those of Abâ D¨wâd, TirmidhÂ and

107 IS, VI, 34, l. 21, cf. ®Azq., no. 852, and IASh., I, 182.108 Cf. Mz., III, no. 3335 (the Six, m , I, 228, confirmed in Þay., no. 406,

®Azq., I, 193, ¼um., no. 442, I¼., V, 382*, 402, D¨rimÂ, I, 179).109 Cf. Mz., II, no. 2047 (m, I, 231, t , s, q, confirmed in Þay., no. 1116, ®Azq.,

I, 188, I¼., VI, 12, 14, 15).110 Cf. Katt¨nÂ, 42-6.



342 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

Nas¨¾Â, to include eventually also that of Ibn M¨ja, which was the last to be labeled canonical. This huge corpus could only fruitfully beassessed and its transmitters be properly appraised with the intro-

duction of a number of technical terms. Thus terms like ×a½Â½, á®Âf ,½asan, gharÂb and the like made their entrance, as well as the isn¨d labels musnad , marfâ®, mawqâf , mursal, mutta×il etc.

In the foregoing we may have been made aware that, among those,one crucially important technical term was as yet absent and onlyrecently made a hesitant appearance: the Òturning pointÓ or mad¨r ,derived from the verb d¨ra / yadâru . These terms were—and as yet are—nowhere found in the dictionaries of technical ½adÂth terms,

dictionaries or word lists that gradually began to appear with studiessuch as Ibn al-MadÂnÂÕs and R¨mahurmuzÂÕs.

It has been a major aim of this essay to make a case for equating theIslamic term mad¨r with the western labels cl (or the case so beingÒseeming clÓ) and to offer a workable definition. It is with the help of cls that we can begin to formulate answers to the three major questionsgenerally to be asked when confronted with canonical ½adÂths, ques-

tions as to chronology, provenance and/or authorship. Muslims, on theone hand, have mostly no need for answers to these questions, inas-much as they put their trust in the data contained in the so-calledÒsoundÓ isn¨d strands in the canonical ½adÂth collections. On the other hand, the skeptics among researchers and historians of the first threecenturies of Islam have no use for them either, inasmuch as they areinclined to dismiss out of hand any conclusion, no matter how carefullyor cautiously formulated, based on ½adÂth analysis. But for all those

who favour a middle position between those two extreme points of view, the equation: mad¨r = cl is showing signs of accumulating grad-ually increasing recognition, especially among some western scholars.Studying the mad¨r s in tradition literature may turn out to develop intoa productive line of research. And that research may have to comprisealso the earliest stages of the evolution of Muslim ½adÂth, the first identified cl already dating back to the final years of the first/seventhcentury.

(2)ÊÊAnother technical term figuring nowhere in western ½adÂthhandbooks is the verb t¨ba®a, which was in the foregoing equated withÒcopyingÓ or Òimitating with a diving strandÓ. Its participle mut¨bi®(¨t )does occur, together with the related term shaw¨hid , in Q¨´Â ®Iy¨´Õsanalysis of Muslim b. al-¼ajj¨jÕs isn¨d handling. But what mut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨hid strands amounted to, namely shallow (or not so shallow)




dives under the level of the a×l—in the center of whose isn¨d strand wefind the cl or scl—has not been recognized as such. That ÒdivingÓ at thehands of early ½adÂth transmitters did occur has not been denied by

anyone who made a study of the field, but the wide scale on whichdiving was resorted to has escaped notice. It is only with the correct interpretation of the term t¨ba®a and its participle mut¨bi®(¨t ) that anappreciation of the scale of that ÒdivingÓ can be arrived at, and thisespecially on the basis of the ubiquitous occurrence of the terms in Zur-q¨nÂÕs Muwaßßa¾ commentary. Reading through the collectorsÕ deluge of ssÕs and spiders, which more often than not all but conceal proper bun-dles with otherwise eminently discernible cls, and finally recognizing

them for what they are, it is with insight into the mut¨bi®¨t and shaw¨-hid phenomenon that one can make a beginning with bringing to thefore the persons responsible for proliferating certain traditions. MizzÂÕsTu½fat al-ashr¨f is in mut¨bi®¨t research a truly indispensable tool.

(3)ÊÊAmong the authors of the ÒSix BooksÓ, it is Muslim b. al-¼ajj¨j who is especially important because of the transparent way in which hearranged his material: first the a×ls, followed by mut¨bi®¨t and

shaw¨hid . Much more so than his even more famous ½adÂth colleagueBukh¨rÂ or the other four collectors, Muslim, more often than not, withhis particular tripartition of traditions provides the user of his collectionat one glance with a survey of isn¨d lines along which the various (ver-sions of) traditions have served the current debate on the separateritual, legal, ethical, behavioral, theological or any other issues. Put differently, when one desires to find out whether or not a tradition isperhaps an item from within a mc, one look in MuslimÕs Ña½Â½ mostly

suffices, whereas the other collectorsÕ arrangement of their materialfalls far short compared with MuslimÕs clarity. And although theauthors of all Six Books show throughout their collections at one timeor another their respective prowess in devising multiple ssÕs to sub-stantiate the point they are trying to make, it is MuslimÕs Ña½Â½, evenmore so than the works of the other five, which shows his unbridledenergy in producing these—mostly ×¨li½— ss or spider-supported(versions of) ½adÂths. To be sure, other, older collectors (e.g. ®Azq., IbnAbÂ Shayba and Ibn ¼anbal) had preceded Muslim in this activity but,as becomes clear from MizzÂÕs hundreds of ss-supported ¨½¨d traditions with just the initial m label, it was he who succeeded inhoning the method to an art.

(4)ÊÊWith the introduction of the technical terms taw¨tur andmutaw¨tir in the ninth/fifteenth century, Muslim ½adÂth investigators



344 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

were convinced that they had produced a yardstick of ultimate authen-tication for certain ½adÂths and their respective isn¨d strands thustransmitted. But, as the foregoing pages may have demonstrated,

delineating the term developed in a haphazard fashion and its finaldefinition was never free of equivocation. Only with Ibn ¼ajar (d.852/1449) did it reach a point of unambiguousness which, takenliterally, was sure to guarantee historicity-cum-authenticity. But then,after a stringent review of all so-called mutaw¨tir traditions, severalexamples of which were analyzed in this essay, it emerged that taw¨tur lafúÂ , i.e. verbatim transmitted mutaw¨tir traditions, was a never-realized theory or, at most, a confusing misnomer in the case of certain

traditions, while taw¨tur ma®nawÂ only occurred in an unstandardizedmanner in a limited number of cases, with its individual traditions never meeting unadulterated taw¨tur criteria. In short, the entire taw¨tur phenomenon, born out of its official definition, turned out to be a deadletter, an observation nowhere attested in any appraisal of ½adÂth,ancient or modern, no matter how skeptical.

(5)ÊÊFrom the examples of taw¨tur ma®nawÂ , and much more so from

those of taw¨tur lafúÂ given in the article, we may have come to therealization that, although meant as a state-of-the-art authenticationdevice, these criteria are the opposite of what they purport to validate.But having seen through their unworkability, we may be emboldenedmomentarily to put aside those tangles of spiders and ssÕs that together are supposed to make up these criteria. It is then that, from underneaththose, we are able to uncover perfectly analyzable isn¨d bundles that show up plausible cls. These cls we can on good grounds hold account-

able for (the wording of) certain traditions which, as we have seen, areof major importance for a better understanding of early Islam in its—inmy opinion—fascinating, but often so opaque, developmental stadia. It may have come as a largely unexpected surprise that scrutiny of ssÕs,as well as of the many spiders generated by these, produces anytangible data at all. But it is the ssÕs and spiders such as those paradedin a source like MizzÂÕs Tu½fa that finally enable us to fully grasp andappreciate the roles played by IslamÕs collectors of Prophetic traditionseventually labeled canonical. Paradoxical as it may sound, analyzingisn¨d structures that at first sight belie the drawing of any concreteconclusions that help to reconstruct a plausible picture of the first twoand a half centuries, does indeed help the student of Islam who is not

weighed down by a paralyzing skepticism.




Appendix

A short list of ÒfollowersÓ of M¨lik b. AnasÕ traditions

In all, I collected from Zurq¨nÂ the names of some 110 persons figuringin dives around the figure of M¨lik b. Anas, the most prolific cl of the¼ij¨z. Evidence from sources other than Zurq¨nÂ might yield anadditional number. But one major point seems unescapable: shallow as

well as deep ÒdivingÓ under the level of the cl was one of the mainfeatures of Islamic isn¨d construction. If the same research were to becarried out pertaining to all the other cls of canonical tradition literature,lists containing many more than 110 persons could be produced. A

complete list of these names can be expected to become available, whenmy forthcoming, comprehensive study of all the cls in early Islam willbe published, together with all the traditions, for (the wording of) whicheach of these cls can be held responsible.

Distilled from Zurq¨nÂ as well as from some other sources, the per-sons mentioned in this appendix are those who, at one time or other —insome cases even very frequently—, ÒfollowedÓ M¨lik in his matns.

They are enumerated here in roughly chronological order. Where thereference ÒpassimÓ is given, it means that their dives are most numer-ous in M¨lik/N¨fi® and M¨lik/ZuhrÂ-supported traditions. It goes with-out saying that Zurq¨nÂ did not think of the transmission paths throughthese ÒfollowersÓ onto M¨likÕs alleged informants as anything other than ordinary strands, and he would not dream of holding the respec-tive ÒpupilsÓ of those followers responsible for having brought thosestrands into circulation, as I have done, even when their dates of death

were some forty or more years earlier than the year in which M¨likdied. Zurq¨nÂÕs older colleagues, such as NawawÂ and Ibn ¼ajar,considered them as ordinary transmission paths and did not visualizethem as dives, as I do. But Zurq¨nÂÕs distance from the time which hedescribes probably made him more aware of what really had takenplace. Curiously, MizzÂÕs Tu½fa with its overwhelming ss and spider evidence was already there, when NawawÂ and Ibn ¼ajar composedtheir commentaries, but they apparently did not draw the far-reachingconclusions their younger colleague Zurq¨nÂ was to do. In the followingselection from the 110 alluded to, only the most prominent ÒdiversÓ areenumerated:

Among M¨likÕs sssseeeennnniiiioooorr r r ½adÂth colleagues we find a number of alleged ÒimitatorsÓ, who are said to have died three four or even fivedecades before M¨lik himself. I should point out from the start that, if



346 G.H.A. JUYNBOLL

anything, the next few persons listed here were entirely innocent of anyhistorically tenable transmission or copying from M¨lik, having beeninserted in diving strands onto M¨likÕs purported informants by his

collegae proximi who were his contemporaries.Az-ZuhrÂ, Mu½ammad b. Muslim ibn Shih¨b (Medina/Syria, d.124/740); his ÒcopyingÓ was definitely not historical and is to berejected out of hand, since his name occurs only in two diving ssÕs

which are anything but assured and which were probably launched by®Abd All¨h b. Wahb (d. 198/814) and ®Azq.; even so, Zurq¨nÂ informsus that ZuhrÂ did copy M¨lik in a matn on the prohibition of reciting theQur¾¨n during the bow and the prostration, cf. I, 167, l. 13;111

Ayyâb b. AbÂ TamÂma as-Sakhtiy¨nÂ (mawl¨, Ba×ra, d. 131/748);his mut¨bi®¨t from M¨lik/N¨fi®-supported traditions were virtuallyalways transmitted to later generations by M¨likÕs contemporaries, themaw¨lÂ ¼amm¨d b. Zayd (d. 179/795) and/or Ism¨®Âl b. Ibr¨hÂm b.Miqsam Ibn ®Ulayya (d. 193/809), the latter doubtless being inspiredby the former, cf. Zurq¨nÂ, passim;

Ñ¨li½ b. Kays¨n (mawl¨, Medina, d. ca. 145/762, at the alleged age

of some 160 years);112

he formed a link between ZuhrÂ, who was in anycase some years his junior, and the so-called Iraqi ZuhrÂs, for whichsee my MT , index s.n., cf. Zurq¨nÂ, II, 292, l. -5;

Mâs¨ b. ®Uqba (mawl¨, Medina, d. 141/758); he is the author of amagh¨zÂ collection especially recommended by M¨lik, who assertedthat it was far more reliable than other such collections, doubtless abarely hidden swipe at Ibn Is½¨q, whom M¨lik detested, cf. Ibn ¼ajar,TahdhÂb, X, 361, and Ibn Sayyid an-N¨s, ®Uyân al-athar , I, 60; he was

used by, among others, Abâ Khaythama Zuhayr b. Mu®¨wiya (d.173/789) for dives onto N¨fi®, cf. Zurq¨nÂ, passim;

®Uqayl b. Kh¨lid b. ®AqÂl al-AylÂ (mawl¨ of the Umayyads, d.between 141/758 and 144/761); allegedly one of ZuhrÂÕs trusted clerksknown for some tafarrud from his master; Layth often placed him be-tween himself and ZuhrÂ in diving strands; Zurq¨nÂ expressly mentionshim as copying M¨lik in a tradition which he had received together withtwo others from ZuhrÂ, cf. III, 228, l. -11;

111 Zurq¨nÂ (III, 224) has preserved a peculiar passage from Ibn Manda (d.395/1005) which conveys the idea that M¨lik was once taken for one of ZuhrÂÕslesser known informants. This passage reads: ... ®an Ibn Shih¨b ½addathanÂ man yuq lu lahu M¨lik b. Anas.

112 Cf. Mz., TahdhÂb al-kam¨l, XIII, 83. He was in other words one of themu®ammarân. That this was never taken seriously is proved by the observation that it was never even suggested that that early birth must have enabled him to set eyeson the Prophet !




Ya½y¨ b. Sa®Âd b. Qays al-An×¨rÂ (Medina, d. 143-4/760-1, M¨likÕsmost important ½adÂth master); he was sometimes even preferred toZuhrÂ, at least in Medina; he ÒfollowedÓ M¨lik via—among others—

¼anúala b. Qays, the informant of M¨likÕs informant RabÂ®at ar-Ra¾y,another major informant of M¨lik, cf. Zurq¨nÂ, III, 375;®Ubayd All¨h b. ®Umar b. ¼af×, one of the seven fuqah¨¾ (?),113

(Medina, d. 147/764). In spite of the fact that, in his tarjama in the rij¨llexicons, he is many times preferred to any other transmitter from N¨fi®,including M¨lik, he allegedly ÒfollowedÓ M¨lik in N¨fi® and ZuhrÂtraditions according to Zurq¨nÂÕs commentary perhaps more frequentlythan anybody else. But it must be stated here from the onset that he did

nothing of the sort. Even if we did not have the evidence for this fromZurq¨nÂ, we have MizzÂÕs Tu½fa which lists no less than 435 mostly ss-and spider-supported traditions, the vast majority of which are embel-lished, or the case so being condensed, or verbatim, repeats of M¨likÕsoriginal texts.114 Among the transmitters from him who used his namebetween themselves and N¨fi® or ZuhrÂ and who are cls in their ownright we find (1) the mawl¨ Abâ Us¨ma ¼amm¨d b. Us¨ma (d.

201/816) with lots of ssÕs in kh and/or m, (2) ®Abd All¨h b. Numayr (d.199/814) with some fifty ssÕs devised by m and many more by theother collectors, (3) ®Azq. with or without Ma®mar b. R¨shid beinginserted between them, and, most prominent of all (4) Ya½y¨ b. Sa®Âdal-Qaßß¨n (d. 198/814), through whom we find in addition a deluge of ssÕs from five of the six collectors;115

Ibn Is½¨q (Mu½ammad, the author of the SÂra, mawl¨, Medina/Iraq,d. 150/767); he figures time and again in the ta®lÂq¨t of various

collectors who lead dives through him onto N¨fi®; among the trans-mitters using him between themselves and N¨fi® we find ®Abda b.Sulaym¨n al-Kil¨bÂ (d. 187/803), cf. Zurq¨nÂ, IV, 154, l. 13;

Ibn Jurayj (®Abd al-Malik b. ®Abd al-®AzÂz, mawl¨, Mecca, d.150/767); there must have been some rivalry between M¨lik and IbnJurayj whom the former labeled a Ònight gathererÓ (a ½¨ßib layl), adenigrating qualification by any standard; Ibn Jurayj is said to have

113 Although Ibn ¼ajar (TahdhÂb, VII, 38) mentions him as one of the Òseven fuqah¨¾ of MedinaÓ, this is most probably one of those ultra-rare mistakes on thepart of Ibn ¼ajar. This information is not confirmed in any other work, in any casenot in his direct source, MizzÂÕs TahdhÂb al-kam¨l, of which his own TahdhÂb at-tahdhÂb constitutes a digest.

114 Cf. my paper on N¨fi® in Der Islam, LXX, 1993, 231-4.115 For a demonstration of one of the bundles in which this Ya½y¨ is the cl

which supports through ®Ubayd All¨h b. ®Umar a matn inspired by M¨lik, seediagram 3 above.






Abâ Mu®¨wiya Mu½ammad b. Kh¨zim (mawl¨, Kâfa, d. 195/811);cf. Zurq¨nÂ, passim;

Sufy¨n b. ®Uyayna (Mecca, d. 198/814); his ÒimitationsÓ of M¨lik

are particularly numerous; ÒintermediariesÓ used by him are amongothers Ayyâb b. Mâs¨ (Mecca, d. 132/749), ®Uthm¨n b. AbÂ Sulaym¨n(Mecca, d. ca. 140/757), Mu½ammad b. ®Ajl¨n (mawl¨ , Medina148/765), Ziy¨d b. Sa®d (Mecca, d. ?); cf. Zurq¨nÂ, passim;

WakÂ® b. al-Jarr¨½ (Kâfa, d. 196/812);®Abd All¨h b. Wahb (Egypt, d. 198/814);Ya½y¨ b. Sa®Âd al-Qaßß¨n (Ba×ra, d. 198/814); although he is listed

among M¨likÕs prolific pupils, he never owned up that he simply

ÒcopiedÓ with supporting dives and he rarely figures among M¨likÕsdirect pupils in MizzÂÕs bundles;

®Abd All¨h b. Numayr (Kâfa, d. 199/815);Abâ Us¨ma ¼amm¨d b. Us¨ma (Kâfa, d. 201/817);®Abd ar-Razz¨q b. Hamm¨m a×-Ñan®¨nÂ (mawl¨, Ñan®¨¾, d. 211/827)

made use of Ism¨®Âl b. Umayya (Mecca, d. 144/761) in dives throughIbn Jurayj, cf. Zurq¨nÂ, III, 161, ult., but most of all through Ma®mar,

see above.

Documents

Ils, g.h.a. Juynboll, 8iii (2001)