Sie sind auf Seite 1von 839

Encyclopedia of Canonical \adÊth

Encyclopedia of Canonical \adÊth

By

G.H.A. Juynboll

Encyclopedia of Canonical \ ad Ê th By G.H.A. Juynboll LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007
Encyclopedia of Canonical \ ad Ê th By G.H.A. Juynboll LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

LEIDEN • BOSTON

2007

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN

978 90 04 15674 6

© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

v

To the late Abd a - amad Sharaf ad-D n

vi

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

vii

Contents

Preface.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

IX

List of technical abbreviations

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XI

List of (shortened) bibliographical references

 

XIII

General

Introduction .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XVII

An alphabetical list of persons with whom canonical traditions may be associated

 

1

Appendix: List of abd l

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

731

Index

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

733

List of Qur nic passages

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

802

viii

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

ix

Preface

When I was still an undergraduate, I was employed for half a year by Leiden University

Library. I was to take temporary charge of the Oriental reading room in order to relieve its keeper who was going on leave. One of the great privileges of this job was that I was granted free access to the otherwise closed stacks of the oriental collection, enabling me to browse to my heart’s delight. Some years later, on one of my wanderings amid the stacks,

I was one day intrigued by volume one of a series published in India, Tu fat al-ashr f bi-

b. Abd ar-Ra m n al-Mizz (d. 742/1341). Upon opening it I was

astonished to find that it contained virtually only names found in chains of ad th transmitters.

This series, once completed, was supposed to list all the isn ds of Prophetic traditions brought to- gether in the Six Books, eventually Islam’s revered canonical had th corpus. But the traditions were only referred to in this work by text snippets or a few salient features. At that time

I thought that I probably would never have use for a book seemingly solely devoted to

isn ds and for the next few years I forgot about it. However, as from the mid-seventies

I was working on designing a method for identifying the originators of ad ths which were

(rightly or wrongly) attributed to the Prophet Mu ammad. Gradually it began to dawn upon me that the common link phenomenon, as recognized in the fifties by J. Schacht, might come in handy. Thus, as from June 1993, I embarked upon reading all the thirteen volumes of the work. Mizzi’s Tu fa and subsequently the usefulness it proved to have for my research prompted me to dedicate the present volume to the late Abd a - amad Sharaf ad-D n, the Tu fa’s Indian editor. For the Tu fa turned out to be the indispensable sourcebook for finding plausible answers, at least in my eyes, to my questions. At this point I should like to acknowledge my indebtedness to J.J. Witkam, Leiden University Library’s erstwhile keeper of Oriental manuscripts. Throughout the years during which I have been researching and writing this book he, together with his staff, has always been most helpful in accommodating me and my private trolley of various yards of books in the Oriental reading room. Finally, I should like to express my gratitude to all those friends and colleagues who have helped me in one way or another or otherwise encouraged me in all those years it took me to compile this book, especially L.I. Conrad and W. van der Molen. The index/glossary, which can at the same time be utilized as a concordance of prominent words and phrases, is intended to be exhaustive, but it is probably not faultless. I would be grateful for any mistakes and shortcomings to be brought to my notice.

ma rifat al-a r f by Y suf

September 2007

Gautier Juynboll

x

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

xi

List of technical abbreviations

* and

# or ##

CL

ICL

MC

PCL

SCL

(S)CL

(S)PCL

SS

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

symbols of two categories of traditions associated with M lik b. Anas, for which see the introduction to his tarjama signs that a certain tradition occurs more than once on that page common link inverted common link matn cluster partial common link seeming common link (seeming) common link (seeming) partial common link single strand

xii

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

xiii

List of (shortened) bibliographical references

Abd All h b. al-Mub rak, Kit b az-zuhd wa

‘r-raq iq, ed. ab b ar-Ra m n al-A am , Malagaon [1966] Ab Ubayd = Ab Ubayd al-Q sim b. Sall m, Ghar b al- ad th, ed. Mu ammad Abd al- Mu d Kh n, Hyderabad 1964 Ab Ubayd, Amw l = Ab Ubayd al-Q sim

b. Sall m, Kit b al-amw l, ed. Mu ammad

Am ra, Beirut 1989 Arabica (I) = G.H.A. Juynboll, Dyeing the hair and beard in early Islam, in Arabica, XXXIII, 1986,

49-75

Arabica (II) = G.H.A. Juynboll, Some notes on Islam’s first fuqah distilled from early ad th literature, in Arabica, XXXIX, 1992, 287-314 Authenticity = G.H.A. Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature. Discussions in Modern Egypt, Leiden 1969 Azq. = Abd ar-Razz q, Mu annaf, ed. ab b ar- Ra m n al-A am , Beirut 1970-2 Bagh. = Abd All h b. Mu ammad al-Baghaw , Al-

ja diyy t, ed. R.F. Abd al-Mu alib, Cairo 1994 Ba shal = Aslam b. Sahl al-W si al-ma r f bi- Ba shal, Ta r kh W si , ed. K. Aww d, Bagh- dad 1967 Bay. = Bayhaq , As-sunna al-kubr , Hyderabad

1344

BiOr = Bibliotheca Orientalis BSOAS = Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Caskel = Werner Caskel, amharat an-nasab. Das genealogische Werk des Hiš m ibn Mu ammad al-Kalb , Leiden 1966 Conc. = Concordance et indices de la tradition musulmane, ed. A.J. Wensinck et alii, Leiden

1939-88

d = Ab D w d, Sunan as printed in A m b d , Awn al-ma b d, ed. Beirut 1990

D raqu n = Al b. Umar ad-D raqu n , Sunan, with cmt. by A m b d , 4th impr. Beirut 1986 D rim , Sunan = D rim , Sunan, ed. Faww z

A mad Zamarl and Kh lid as-Sab al- Alam ,

Cairo 1987

Dhahab , M z n = Dhahab , M z n al-i tid l, ed. A.

M. al-Baj w , Cairo 1963

—, Siyar = Dhahab , Siyar a l m an-nubal , ed. Shu ayb al-Arna , 4th impr., Beirut 1986 EI 2 = Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition (English) F kih = Mu ammad b. Is q b. al- Abb s al-F kih ,

Akhb r Makka f qad m ad-dahr wa- ad thihi,

ed. Abd al-Malik b. Abd All h b. Duhaysh, Mecca 1986-8 Fasaw = Ya q b b. Sufy n al-Fasaw (also spelled al-Basaw ), Kitab al-ma rifa wa ‘t-ta r kh, ed. Akram iy al- Umar , 2nd impr. Beirut 1981 Fat = Ibn ajar al- Asqal n , Fat al-b r bi- shar Sa al-Bukh r , the Mu af B b al- alab edition, Cairo 1959 Festschrift Wagner = G.H.A. Juynboll, On the origins of the poetry in Muslim tradition literature, in Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag. Studien zur arabischen Dichtung, ed. W. Heinrichs and G. Schoeler, Beiruter Texte und Studien, LIV, Beirut 1994, 182-207 GAL = Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Leiden 1937-49 GAS = F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, vol. I, Leiden 1967 GdQ = Th. Nöldeke, F. Schwally a.o., Geschichte des Qor ns , Leipzig 1909-38 Goitein, Studies = S.D. Goitein, Studies in Islamic History and Institutions, Leiden 1968 Goldziher, Muh. Stud. = I. Goldziher, Muham- medanische Studien, Halle 1889-90 Graham = W.A. Graham, Divine Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam. A reconsidera- tion of the sources, with special reference to the divine saying or ad th quds , The Hague/Paris

1977

Gribetz = Arthur Gribetz, Strange Bedfellows:

mut at al-nis and mut at al- ajj. A study based on sunni and sh sources of tafs r, ad th and fiqh, Berlin 1994 ilya = Ab Nu aym al-I fah n , ilyat al-awliy ,

Cairo 1332-8 Hinz = W. Hinz, Islamische Masse und Gewichte, Leiden 1955 um. = Abd All h b. az-Zubayr al- umayd , Musnad, ed. ab b ar-Ra m n al-A am , Cairo

1380-2

IASh. = Ibn Ab Shayba, Mu annaf, ed. Hyderabad 1966-88; new edition by M. A. Sh h n, Beirut

1995

Ibn Ad 3 = Abd All h b. Ad , Al-k mil f u af

ar-rij l, third edition, ed. Ya y Mukht r Ghazz w , Beirut 1988 Ibn al-Ath r = al-Mub rak b. Mu ammad Ibn al- Ath r, An-nih ya f ghar b al- ad th wa ‘l- athar, ed. Ma m d a - an & hir az-Z w , Cairo 1963-5 Ibn As kir, TMD = Ibn As kir, Ta r kh Mad nat

xiv

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Dimashq, ed. Umar b. Ghar ma al- Amraw ,

Beirut 1995-2000 Ibn ujr = Hadith Al b. ujr as-Sa d an Ism il b. Ja far al-Madan , ed. Umar Raf d b. Raf d as-Sufy n , Riy 1998 Ibn al-Mub rak, Zuhd = Abd All h b. al-Mub rak, Kit b az-zuhd wa ‘r-raq iq, ed. ab b ar- Ra m n al-A am , Malagaon [1966] Ibn at-T n = Ab Mu ammad Abd al-W id b. at-

T n a - af qis al-Maghrib al-M lik ; his book

entitled Kit b al-mukhbir al-fa f shar al- Bukh r as- a has not (yet) been edited

I . = A mad ibn anbal, Musnad, ed. Sam r h al-Majd b, Beirut 1993

I j. = Ibn ajar al- Asqal n

Fat al-b r bi-shar a al-Bukh r , the Mu af B b al- alab edition, Cairo 1959

Hady as-s r . Muqaddimat Fat al-b r , ed. Ibr h m A wa Iwa , Cairo 1963

Al-i ba f tamy z a - a ba, ed. Al Mu ammad al-Baj w , Cairo 1383-92

Lis n al-m z n, Hyderabad 1329

Tahdh b at-tahdh b, Hyderabad 1325-7

IJMES = International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies ILS (I) = G.H.A. Juynboll, (Re)appraisal of some technical terms in ad th science, in Islamic Law and Society, VIII, 2001, 303-49 IS = Ibn Sa d, Kit b a - abaq t al-kab r, ed. E. Sachau et alii, Leiden 1905-17 IS 2 = idem, ed. I. Abb s, D r dir, Beirut [n.d.] IS qm = idem al-qism al mutammim Islam (I) = G.H.A. Juynboll, N fi , the mawl of Ibn Umar, and his position in Muslim ad th literature, in Der Islam, LXX, 1993, 207-44 Islam (II) = G.H.A. Juynboll, An excursus on the ahl as-sunna in connection with Van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, vol. IV, in Der Islam, LXXV, 1998, 318-30 JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society JESHO = Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies JSAI (I) = G.H.A. Juynboll, Muslim’s introduction to his a , translated and annotated with an excursus on the chronology of fitna and bid a, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, V, 1084, 263-311 JSAI (II) = G.H.A. Juynboll, Some new ideas on the development of sunna: as a technical term in early Islam, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, X, 1987, 97-118 JSS = Journal of Semitic Studies Juynboll, Th.W., Handbuch = Juynboll, Th.W., Handbuch des islamischen Gesetzes nach der Lehre der schafi itischen Schule, Leiden 1910 Kattani = Ja far al-Katt n , Na m al-mutan thir f ‘l- ad th al-mutaw tir, [Aleppo 1328] kh = Bukh r , a , ed. L. Krehl and Th.W.

Juynboll, Leiden 1862-1908 and as quoted in I j., Fat al-b r LA = Ibn Man r, Lis n al- arab Lech = K. Lech, Geschichte des islamischen

Kultus. Rechtshistorische und ad -kritische Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung und Systematik der Ib d t, vol. I, das Rama n Fasten, part 1, Wiesbaden 1979

Lis n al- arab = Ibn Man r, Lis n al- arab

m

Fu d Abd al-B q , Cairo 1955-6 MT = G.H.A. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition. Studies in Chronology, Provenance and Authorship of Early ad th, Cambridge 1983 Muj hid = Tafs r al-im m Muj hid b. Jabr, ed. Mu ammad Abd as-Sal m Ab N l, Cairo, Mad nat Na r 1989 M s b. Uqba = E. Sachau, Das Berliner Fragment des M s ibn U ba, etc., in SB Pr Ak. W., XI, 1904, pp. 445-70

Muséon (I) = G.H.A. Juynboll, Early Islamic society as reflected in its use of isn ds, in Le Muséon. Revue d’études orientales, CVII, 1994, 151-94 Muséon (II) = G.H.A. Juynboll, Shu ba b. al-

= Muslim b. al- ajj j, a , ed. Mu ammad

ajj j (d. 160/776) and his position among

the traditionists of Ba ra, in Le Muséon. Revue d’études orientales, CXI, 1998, 187-226 Muséon (III) = G.H.A. Juynboll, The role of non- Arabs, the maw l , in the early development of Muslim ad th, in Le Muséon. Revue d’études orientales, CXVIII, 2005, 355-86 MW = Muslim World Mz. = Y suf b. Abd ar-Ra m n al-Mizz , Tu fat

al-a r f bi-ma rifat al-a r f, ed. Abd a - amad Sharaf ad-D n, Bhiwandi 1965-82 Mz., Tahdh b = Mz., Tahdh b al-kam l f asm ar-rij l, ed. Bashsh r Aww d al-Ma r f, Beirut

1992

Nawaw = m’s a edited with the commentary of Nawaw , ed. Ma m d Tawf q, Cairo

1349/1930

Paret = R. Paret, Der Koran. Kommentar und Konkordanz, Stuttgart etc., [1971]

q = Ibn M ja, Sunan, ed. Mu ammad Fu d Abd al-B q , Cairo 1952-3 Qan ara (I) = G.H.A. Juynboll, Some isn d- analytical methods illustrated on the basis of several woman-demeaning sayings from ad th literature, in al-Qan ara. Revista de estudos árabes, X, 1989, 343-83

R mahurmuz = al- asan b. Abd ar-Ra m n ar-

R mahurmuz Amth l al- ad th, ed. Amatul

Qureshi, Hayderabad 1968

s = Nas , Sunan bi-shar as-Suy , Cairo 1348 (= al-Mujtab )

Kubr = Nas , Kit b as-sunan al-kubr , ed. Abd al-Ghaff r Sulaym n al-Bund r and Sayyid Kasraw asan, Beirut 1991

Amal al-yawm = Nas , Kit b amal al-yawm

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

xv

wa ‘l-layla, Beirut 1986 Schacht, Origins = J. Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford 1950 —, Introduction = J. Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, Oxford 1964

S ra = Ibn Is q/Ibn Hish m, As-s ra an-nabawiy- ya, ed. Mu af as-Saqq , Ibr h m al-Iby r , Abd al- af Shalab , Cairo 1936 Studies etc. = G.H.A. Juynboll, Studies on the Origins and Uses of Islamic ad th, Variorum, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot 1996 Suy , Is f = Suy , Is f al-muba a bi-rij l al- Muwa a , ed. F r q Sa d, Beirut 1979

t = Tirmidh , Al-j mi a - a , ed. A.M. Sh kir

a.o., Cairo 1937-65 abar , Tafs r = Ab Ja far Mu ammad b. Jar r a - abar , J mi al-bay n an ta w l y al-qur n, the Mu af al-B b al- alab edition, second impr., Cairo 1954

T j = Zubayd , T j al- ar s

ay. = ay lis , Musnad, Hyderabad 1321 TB = al-Kha b al-Baghd d , Ta r kh Baghd d, Cairo 1931 tm = Tirmidh , Ash-sham il al-mu ammadiyya,

ed. Abd al-Maj d a ma alab , Beirut 1996 Uqayl = Mu ammad b. Amr al- Uqayl , Kit b a - u af al-kab r, ed. Abd al-Mu Am n Qal aj , Beirut 1984 Van Ess, TG = J. van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft, Berlin 1991-7 W hid = Al b. A mad al-W id , Asb b an-nuz l, the Mu af al-B b al- alab edition, sec. impr. Cairo 1968 W qid = Mu ammad b. Umar al-W qid , Kit b al-magh z , ed. Marsden Jones, London 1966 WI = Die Welt des Islams WKAS = Wörterbuch der klassisch arabischen Sprache WZKM (I) = G.H.A. Juynboll, The role of mu ammar n in the early development of the isn d, in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, LXXXI, 1991, 155-75 ZDMG = Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlän- dischen Gesellschaft Zurq n = Mu ammad az-Zurq n , Shar al ‘l- Muwa a al-im m M lik, edition al-Maktaba at-tij riyya al-kubr , Cairo 1954

xvi

LIST OF (SHORTENED) BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

xvii

General introduction *1

AOld and new technical terms. Mizz ’s Tu fa

This encyclopedia of Muslim ad th proposes to present in English translation most of the major traditions of the canonical collections, simply called the Six Books (al-kutub as-sitta). In addition to those, it draws upon a number of other, earlier, non-canonical collections. The traditions were se- lected on the basis of a—sometimes merely tenta- tive—i den ti fi ca tion of their respective o rig i na tors, who are enumerated in alphabetical order below, each with the tradition(s) for which he conceivably is, or possibly may be held, responsible. The origi- nators form the backbone of this book and consti- tute together at the same time some sort of chapter division. Every ad th within the corpus—or tarja- ma—of every transmitter/originator is followed by a list of loci where it can be traced in the collections. An analysis of the chains of transmitters (isn ds) of each is added as well in an attempt to justify, or the case so being speculatively postulate, the identifica- tion of that originator. In the Islamic world such an identification exercise was—and still is—generally held to be otiose. After the introduction of the isn d as au- thenticating device had been accomplished, and after this device had become accepted everywhere among the orthodox of Islam, it was believed that the religion had in this tool a more or less foolproof instrument to determine the origin of the sayings and deeds ascribed to the Prophet Mu ammad. After a tradition with its supporting isn d strand had found a place in those ad th collections which, some time later, were considered to ascend to an unassailable level of sanctity, only second to the Qur n, the attribution was generally taken at face value. It was thought that the canonical collections such as those of Bukh r and Muslim were guar- antee enough for the ascription to the Prophet to be believed and acted upon. However, medieval Muslim isn d investigation was almost solely built up on the ex per tise dis played

* For the referencing methods employed in this book, see the final chapter of this introduction and also the list of abbreviations and (shortened) references immediately preceding this introduction.

by the biographers of ad th transmitters. More- over, in recent research their way of establishing the historicity and hence acceptance of isn ds has been opened up and placed on an unsure footing 1 . Especially because of its relatively late introduc- tion into Islam towards the end of the first/seventh century 2 , close scrutiny of the isn d phenomenon leads to the question of whether or not the ascription of a tradition should rather be deferred, until certain recently developed analytical methods have been tried out on isn ds. In the conviction that not only the transmitters’ dictionaries, but all relevant Mus- lim sources surveyed together tell a different story, this book is set up to tell that story. In short, it tackles the question of the historicity of the ascription of tra- ditions to their purported originator(s) anew. And it does not only deny this historicity, as was done by Goldziher and later researchers, it attempts to furnish also positive data in order to arrive at a feasi- ble reconstruction of the developmental history of Muslim ad th. In this book, one major characteristic of Muslim

a d th is pur pose ful ly cir cum vent ed: its re pet i tive- ness. Whenever that appeared practicable, the is-

n ds as well as the texts (= matns) of each tradition

were condensed, so as to give each separate idea or concept expressed in Muslim ad th literature, for which an originator could be brought forward, no more than one mention. Occasionally we find more than one. If all the traditions from all the six canon- ical collections had been listed without this conden- sation having been carried through, the resulting translation would have grown to colossal, and in the end strictly unmanageable, proportions. Howev- er, often enough one and the same idea crops up more than once scattered over the so-called compos-

1.

Cf. MT, esp. chapters IV and V, and index, s.v.

li .

2.

Cf. MT, index s.v. isn d, chronology of—. More-

over it is stated in the biographical entry in Dhahab , Si- yar, V, p. 231, on amm d b. Ab Sulaym n, a mawl and faq h from K fa, that he did not transmit many tra- ditions because he died already in 120/738 and that was before the aw n al-riw ya, i.e. before the time ad th transmission proper took shape. This indication of time is one of those ultra-rare examples from which becomes clear that ad th transmission was not always, or by every- one, thought to have started as early as was generally con- ceived, namely directly after the Prophet’s death.

xviii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

ites. Such unavoidable repetitions will be marked in each single instance.

Collector

Mizz and his Tu fa

This book is modelled on the arrangement, which an important medieval ad th scholar chose for his isn d presentation of all the canonical tradi- tions from the Six Books and some major other collections. This scholar is Ab ‘l- ajj j Y suf b. Abd ar-Ra m n b. Y suf al-Mizz , a Syrian tradi- tionist who lived from 654/1256 until 742/1341 1 . His arrangement of the ad th material is quite unique, at least in print. His Tu fat al-ashr f bi-ma - rifat al-a r f was edited by the Indian scholar and printer Abd a - amad Sharaf ad-D n, Bhiwandi (Bombay) l965-81 2 . Printed in thirteen volumes, the work contains all the traditions from the canon- ical collections organized on the basis of the alpha- betical order of Mu ammad’s companions who al- legedly transmitted one or more ad ths from him. Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are here- with introduced.

Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are
Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are
Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are
Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are
Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are
Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are
Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are
Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are
Of necessity and in order to avoid prolixity, several new technical terms were coined, which are

ful

ful

ful

ful

(ful

n

n

n

n

n)

Successor

Successor

Companion

Companion

Prophet

Prophet

single

single

strand

strand
Diagram 1

Diagram 1

= SS

Single strands, spiders and isn d bundles

Mizz (henceforth abbreviated to Mz.) presented the material as follows. Each tradition is identified by its araf, i.e. an abbreviation of the contents, or one significant single line—mostly the first one —, or one or a few crucial terms by which the tra- dition is deemed to be instantly recognizable. This is then followed by a list of all the isn d strands in all the collections, with references to chapters and paragraphs, which are found to support the tra- dition. The traditions are numbered by the editor from number 1 to 19,626.

1. For this author and an introduction to his major works, see Qan ara (I), and EI 2, s.n. Furthermore, see the introductory remarks of the editor of Mz.’s Tu fa in vol. III, pp. iii ff. 2. When the Leiden Oriental publisher, Brill, had almost finished printing the first four volumes of Con- cordance et indices de la tradition musulmane, this firm decided to cut the by then astronomically high costs of printing Arabic texts and to put out the job of printing the remaining volumes, to wit as from IV, p. 321, with a printer in India. For this purpose it put at the disposal of Abd a - amad Sharaf ad-D n its own Arabic type in four different sizes. The printer then gratefully used this type also for bringing out his edition of Mz.’s Tu fa as well as a number of other text editions.

The majority of traditions appears to be found in the sources supported by a so-called ‘single strand’ (henceforth: SS) of transmitters (see diagram 1).

A single transmitter in a strand is in the following

diagrams generally referred to as ful n, i.e. the

Arabic word for ‘so-and-so’. A sizeable percentage

of SS-supported traditions occurs in two or a few

more collections, resulting in the case of each of

such traditions in as many partly overlapping SSs forming together configurations, which are called ‘spiders’ 3 , diagram 2. The tripartite division of isn d structures into SSs, ‘spiders’ and ‘bundles’ was elaborated upon

and introduced in a number of earlier publications,

to which the reader is referred for closer inspec-

tion 4 . Now follows a digest gleaned from those ear- lier studies.

The overall ruling principles in the historical appraisal of isn d strands can be compressed into several adages. The first of these adages runs:

3. After a method of presenting them in computer-

drawn diagrams was developed, the name was inspired

by the ‘spidery’ appearance of such isn d constellations. The arachnid in question (from the phalangida) is the common harvest spider (BE), or daddy-longlegs (AE). In French the name is faucheur, in Spanish: opilion, in Ger- man: Weberknecht and in Dutch: hooiwagen.

4. See Studies etc., the papers VI - XI.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

xix

Collector B Collector A ful n ful n ful n ful n ful n ful
Collector B
Collector A
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n a
ful n
ful n
ful n b
ful n
ful n
ful n c
Successor
spider of
four SSs

Companion

Prophet

Diagram 2

Collector

diving SS Collector Collector ful n Collector Collector Collector PCL PCL PCL PCL PCL PCL
diving SS
Collector
Collector
ful n
Collector
Collector
Collector
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL
PCL

COMMON LINK

(Successor)

Successor

Companion

Prophet

isn d bundle of believable strands and with one SS

Diagram 3

The more overlap the individual SSs display in support of one particular matn, the more clearly visible becomes an isn d structure, which will be called ‘bundles’. See diagram 3. Most bundles are characterized by a SS from the oldest authority— the Prophet or a companion—to the common link, after whom the branches fan out in a number of directions.

The more strands of one particular bundle come together in one transmitter, either converging in

him and/or blossoming forth from him, the more that moment of transmission, which can be seen as a ‘knot’, deserves to be considered historically ten- able. The degree of transmission historicity de- termines then the degree of plausibility for the hy- pothesis that that transmitter has indeed had a hand in the formation and/or transmission of the matn of that tradition. Conversely, postulating any measure of trans mis sion his tor ic ity for SSs, in which the transmission of a tradition is allegedly achieved at

xx

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

the hands of one single individual to another single individual to another single individual and so on, requires an act of faith of which most dispassionate historians are not capable 1 . In other words, we are not well served with only SSs, including those ‘propping up’ veritable bundles, when the task is first and foremost on our minds to look for an orig- inator. But isn d bundles do tell us a lot. In the end, the main purpose of isn d analysis is to identify the person who may be held to be a likely candidate for bringing (the wording of) that tradition into cir- culation. In short, we would like to find out when, where and, if possible, at the hands of whom certain traditions we wish to study originated.

who is well-nigh undeniable, he is the one. It stares

one in the face, as it were.

But there are more considerations to be taken

into account, for instance we must ask: how was it

passed on to following generations? The tradition was transmitted by Ya y b. Sa d to some other transmitters, each of whom had his own pupil, in some cases more than one. When a pupil of a CL has himself two or more pupils, he is called a partial CL (henceforth: PCL). Some of these PCLs have their transmitted tradition directly end up in a collection currently available in a printed edition, as in this

diagram marked by names in capital letters.

The examples from the diagram are:

 

CL

Ya y b. Sa d al-An r /M lik (Muwa a ) +

Some more technical terms: common links and

Isn d analysis aims at the identification of Islam’s

Ibn

al-Mub rak (Kit b az-zuhd wa ‘r-raq iq);

partial common links

common links. They may be thought of as the

PCL Sufy n b. Uyayna/ umayd (Musnad); PCL Yaz d b. H r n/Ibn anbal (Musnad) + Ibn Ab Shayba (Mu annaf); PCLs amm d b. Zayd + Zuhayr b. Mu ammad/

and from PCL M lik:

conceivable, often even more or less historically ten- able, originators of a tradition under scrutiny, and

ay lis (Musnad) 4 ;

that is in the end the main purpose of this exercise,

PCLs Ya y b. Qaza a + Qa nab /Bukh r ( a ).

as pointed out above. One such common link, in the following abbreviated to CL, together with his main pupils, the partial CLs (henceforth: PCLs, see diagram 3 above) will now be presented, and this for reasons which will soon become obvious: Ya -

The CL/PCL ratio gives rise to a second major adage:

y

b. Sa d b. Qays al-An r (d. 144/761) and his

When a key figure—as we loosely label every trans- mitter whose position is assessed in a first attempt

tradition listed in Mz.’s Tu fa, VIII, no. 10612 2 , which occurs in the Six Books:

‘Deeds are to be appraised on the basis of their intentions 3 ’. This is arguably one of the best-known traditions of the entire canonical corpus. It is supported by an isn d bundle (cf. diagram 4) beginning in a SS from the Prophet Mu ammad via Umar b. al-Kha b

to identify a CL if any—who has in a bundle two or more key figures as pupils, the position of the first mentioned key figure becomes consolidated there- by. Or to use the new technical terms: the more favourable the ratio CL/PCLs in a certain bundle appears to be, the more credible is the position of that CL in that bundle. It may be a source of never-ceasing amazement

and two other persons upwards, after which it fans

that

there still are various scholars, who maintain

out as from the CL, in this case Ya y b. Sa d al-

that

a bundle such as this one does not tell us any-

An r . After a comprehensive analysis of all the

thing. No, they say, nothing tangible can be deduced

bundles and other isn d configurations from Mz.’s Tu fa was carried out, the overall conclusion was reached that Ya y , in this bundle, can be regarded

from it, even with its seemingly clear SS back to the Prophet which, as stated above, constitutes a salient characteristic of any bundle, and in spite of its CL

as the clearest, not to say the most spectacular, illus-

and

his six plausible PCLs via transmission strands

tration of the CL phenomenon in the entire Muslim tradition literature. In short, if there ever was a CL

spreading out to some twelve different sources.

1. Even among Muslim scholars the SS phenomenon

appears to have led once in a while to raised eyebrows, cf. the tarjama (i.e. chapter) of Mu ammad b. Is q under no. 7305.

2. For more data on this person as well as a comprehen-

sive treatment of this tradition, see below the tarjama of Ya y b. Sa d al-An r himself under this number.

3. In Arabic: innam ‘l-a m l bi ‘n-niyy t.

4. In this enumeration one person, Ab Kh lid Abd al- Az z b. Ab n (d. 207/822), is missing. He would have been included here, if the source in which his traditions found a place had been edited, but that is not the case. Is q b. Ibr h m b. Makhlad ibn R hawayh (d. 238/853) is a well-known author and collector in his own right, but for a small part his work remains in manuscript. Only his chapter on isha is available in a recent Cambridge (UK) doctoral dissertation.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

xxi

IBN M JA NAS MUSLIM TIRMIDH Ibn R hawayh al-H rith b. Misk n IBN
IBN M JA
NAS
MUSLIM
TIRMIDH
Ibn R hawayh
al-H rith
b. Misk n
IBN ANBAL
IBN AB
SHAYBA
M. b. Al.
b. Numayr
Ab
Kh lid
Ar. b. al-
AB D W D
Suwayd
BUKH R
Q sim
b. Na r
. b. al-
Muthann
Ab ’r-
Rab
Ab
M. b. Y.
Sul. B.
Man r
Kurayb
Qutayba
b. A.
Umar
M. b.
Mu . B.
Rum
Musaddad
Kathir
Ab
Nu m n
Ya y b.
abib
UMAYD
af b.
Ghiy th
Layth
AY LIS
Al. B.
al-MUB RAK
amm d
Sufy. ath-
Abd al-Wahh b
Sufy n b.
Uyayna
Y. b.
Qaza a
Yaz. b
Qa nab
Thawr
H r n
b. Zayd
Zuhayr
M LIK
b. Mu .

YA Y B. SA D al-AN R Mu ammad b. Ibr. at-Taym Alqama b. Waqq Umar b. Al-Kha b PROPHET: Innam ’l-a m l bi ’n-niyy t

Diagram 4

Those scholars claim, if they claim anything at all, that a bundle, even one like this one, must have been the handiwork of one or more, otherwise strict-

ly anonymous, unidentifiable isn d forgers, busily copied in the course of time by a number of equally unidentifiable fellow-forgers. Several years ago, at

a Paris conference on early Islamic transmission of

religious knowledge, at least two senior colleagues

could be observed from close quarters, both tak- ing their time peering at the same diagram. After pensive scrutiny, both confessed that they had no inkling of who it was that might conceivably be

held responsible for the SS down to the Prophet and the text of the tradition, the matn. However, in this book the point of departure is taken that, with this example, the CL phenomenon can be considered,

if not clinched, then at least as a provisional, work-

able tool for arriving at plausible conclusions as to

chronology, provenance and/or authorship of cer- tain canonical ad ths, arguably the main purpose of any tradition analysis.

Yet more technical terms: seeming CLs and seeming PCLs

It is regrettably not always possible to be sure about

the identification of the originator of (the wording of) a particular tradition. Quite a few isn d constel-

lations listed in part II of this book are of a kind that allows us only to surmise that a certain key figure is its CL/originator. For the sake of convenience and in order to introduce some sort of grading refine- ment, a key figure’s position in the bundles to be studied has therefore been divided into three cate- gories:

1. that of CLs;

and, where the isn d strands fail to convince outright because, for example, the CL/PCL ratio

in a bundle is not immediately convincing and the ad th researcher is in other words compelled to adopt a more speculative stance:

2. that of (seeming) CLs, henceforth: (S)CLs;

and, where he is even less convinced of the tenability of his conclusions:

3. that of seeming CLs, hence: SCLs.

Thus, when analysing a bundle in order to unearth the originator of the (wording of) one particular tradition, on the plausibility curve, the (S)CL is deemed to be sitting between the CL and the SCL. Put differently, when an analytical probing does not allow the investigator to be sure about a CL in a particular bundle, because he does not have three or more credible PCLs to assess, he has two gradations at his disposal. The admittedly somewhat fluid delimitations of these gradations are the following:

The investigator either identifies the key figure

xxii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

in a particular bundle not as a CL but rather as a (S)CL, because he has no more than two believable PCLs in the currently available ad th collections fanning out from him 1 and further only SSs; or he identifies the key figure in a particular bundle as a SCL, because he has only one PCL in addition to a few SSs. Let us now return for a moment to diagram 4 with the bundle of Ya y b. Sa d al-An r . Next to the CL Ya y and his PCLs identified above, we could attach the label of seeming PCL (= henceforth: SPCL) to Abd al-Wahh b, whilst the strands through Thawr , af b. Ghiy th and Layth b. Sa d are here no more than SSs. But to- gether with the undeniable PCLs identified above, all these strands blossoming forth from Ya y tak- en together make Ya y in the eyes of many isn d analysts the unmistakable CL.

The artificial CL. Diving. Superimposition of spiders and SSs

When the key figure in a tangle of strands supporting

a particular tradition has only SSs sprouting forth

from him, there is no question of a CL, a (S)CL, or

a SCL. That key figure is then nothing more than

the person in whom a number of SSs are seen to come down together, in other words we are looking at a spider, and not at a bundle. There are quite a few of such tangled isn d constellations found in Mz. which, at first sight, suggest that we have a bun- dle, but which, upon closer scrutiny, turn out to be no more than spiders. In fact, they easily outnumber veritable bundles. In Mz.’s practice of presenting his material, concentrating it around one particular companion with one particular successor 2 , we often find two or more of these spiders superimposed

upon one another, supporting exactly the same or one or more closely resembling matn wording(s), resulting in isn d constellations which, at first sight, leave us with the (false) impression that we have a veritable bundle in front of us. Since SSs have to be visualized as the handiwork of the youn- gest transmitter mentioned, i.e. either the collector or—in certain cases—his immediate informant or

1. There is no chauvinism at play here: in the entire

canonical tradition literature there is not one single isn d bundle found with a woman as CL. Women occur in abun- dance in isn ds but only as ful ns in SSs and a handful of spiders.

2. Followed in several cases by yet another successor

or later transmitter, cf. our EI 2 lemma on Mizz and the explanation given for Mz.’s use of one *, two ** or three *** preceding transmitters’ names in the preliminary matter of each of the thirteen volumes.

Collector B

Collector A ful n ful n ful n ful n ful n ful n ful
Collector A
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n
ful n a
ful n
ful n
ful n b
ful n
ful n
ful n c
Successor
spider of four
diving SSs
or dives

Companion

Prophet

Diagram 5

ad th master, such SSs reflect the attempts of their originators to hide themselves under the cover of a certain older transmitter, namely one who sits some- where down a few steps below the originator of that SS. In other words, collector A’s SS is plagiarized by collector B in three different ways. For a visual aid, see diagram 5. This spider diagram can be interpreted as first representing a SS in support of a tradition brought into circulation by collector A (ful nful n a—fu- l n b—ful n c—successor, etc.). His junior—or in rare cases: senior—colleague, collector B, eager to share in the prestige of his colleague A’s strand and matn, but unwilling to own up from where he re- ceived the tradition with this SS, devises his own strand by diving—as it is called here—onto some- one well-known from A’s SS, namely ful n a. This not being enough in his eyes, he devises another strand, this time diving onto ful n b. And then he adds for good measure a third SS diving onto the successor of A’s original SS, thus ‘asserting’ that he had received A’s original tradition via not one but three ‘independent’ strands. Through this, B is at the same time outdoing A by boasting of more strands for the same tradition, resulting in some sort of competition as to who may claim to have the most strands. Throughout their collections entitled the two a s, Bukh r and Muslim, for example, could be observed to be locked in rivalry, competing with one another in this manner. In short, this is a theoretical visualization of the ‘diving phenom- enon’. Without a full grasp of this phenomenon, Muslim isn d analysis is bound to founder or, to use another metaphor, more often than not derails in a direction of unwarranted credulity with those unwary analysts who discard it. Very often diving

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

xxiii

SSs are still assumed by those analysts to be just as significant and ‘historically relevant’ as strands peopled by a demonstrable CL and demonstrable PCLs. Besides, ‘dives’ launched by a contemporary or younger ad th colleague need not necessarily bypass one or more ful ns in the SS of a fellow-tra- ditionist, on the contrary they can either be targeted in a particular bundle onto a certain PCL, or a cer- tain CL, or a certain informant of that CL, or an informant of that last informant, etc. Throughout Mz.’s arrangement of his material we encoun- ter a host of bundles supporting their respective traditions with, more often than not, superimposed upon them one or more SSs, often together forming one or more spiders. In connection with dives, a third major adage in isn d appraisal can be formulated as follows:

‘Shallow’ dives are on the whole older, i.e. are launched at an earlier point in time, than ‘deep’

ones. The ‘deeper’ a certain dive is, the later is

the moment in time, when its originator thought

of circulating it. This boils down to stating that ‘diving’ SSs onto a CL are on the whole of earlier origin than those with a successor sitting under that

CL

as target, whereas a ‘diving’ SS to a compan-

ion

sitting under that successor is of even younger

origin. The deeper the dive, the later it came into existence. To sum up, the crucial difference between spiders and bundles presented and analysed in the diagrams found in this book is that a bundle reflects the transmission history of a certain tradition from old times until the lifetime of the collectors, in other words: it is to be viewed upwards, whereas the spider reflects the transmission ‘history’ of a certain tradition by back projection, beginning with the collections and, via various ‘diving’ strands, work ing its way down wards . Dif fer ent ly put, the historically tenable CL in a bundle of a certain tradition is formed out of a historically tenable transmission path via PCLs from the past into the present, while the historically untenable key figure in a spider supporting a certain tradition is the re- sult of back projection at the hands of collectors or their direct spokesmen/ ad th masters from the present into the past 1 . We may therefore also label the historically untenable key figure as an ‘artificial CL’. Ironically, at the same time quite a few of the

1. A rare case of a collector (Bukh r ) openly jug- gling with SSs and textual variants is found in I j., Fat , XII, p. 338, -4.

‘artificial CLs’ unearthed from Mz. could on good grounds also be qualified as fictitious, or to use the Arabic term majh l, (unknown), since there are no data found on them in the sources at all, or the data are scant, contradictory or otherwise unsubstantial, failing to result in the identification of a believable or otherwise plausible ad th figure.

Three medieval Arabic technical terms and their uselessness in the present discussion: a , asan and a f

First of all, some terms originating in the Middle- Ages should be introduced in order that we gain insight into their overall impracticableness. In the main, medieval Muslim ad th scholars view an is-

n d strand, which they find attached to a particular

ad th, individually—we would say: as a SS. At times they may talk about it as a strand within a tangle of other strands, all supporting the same idea, but when they do, they fail to draw plausible conclusions from them: they do not study the links the strands have in common, or where they cross or overlap each other. Most ad th experts do of course

admit that there is the occasional pile-up of strands supporting one and the same tradition, but isn ds,

in their approach, more often than not, boil down to

enumerations of five or some more names of single individuals. It seems as if they never studied ad th

with the constant help of a work such as Mz.’s Tu fa, at least not in a meaningful way, although

it was often referred to. Its usefulness for assessing

at a glance the spread of a tradition over the main ad th sources does not appear to have been appre-

ciated. A crucial difference between the terminolo- gy used in the medieval Arab’s point of view and

in the foregoing survey is that, in the latter, there is

a continuous differentiation between SSs, spiders

and bundles, whereas the medieval scholar nearly always speaks of ‘the isn d of a tradition’, without distinguishing between SSs, spiders and bundles, or even hinting at the existence of such. In short, in

the Middle Ages they were hardly ever on the look- out for CLs or SCLs, although they do seem to have coined a technical term for them. For them an isn d

is either ‘sound’ ( a ), ‘fair’ ( asan) or ‘weak’

( a f), and that sufficed them for evaluating the (un)historicity of its transmission. The definitions of these three terms are the following 2 :

a is an isn d strand in which the transmission is achieved along an uninterrupted chain of

2. Ibn a - al h ash-Shahraz r (d. 643/1245), Muqad-

dima, ed. Bint ash-Sh i , pp. 82-118.

xxiv

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

transmitters, preferably from the ad th collection all the way down to the Prophet Mu ammad, whereby the lifetimes of every pair of two transmitters show sufficient overlap (mu ara). This overlap is necessary to allow the conclusion that they could have met one another and that there

workable and constitute no more than a fossilized convention. If they convey anything, it is some- thing about a certain SS supporting a certain tra- dition, and that is, especially in view of what was said above about SSs in general, on the whole im- material. Besides, the individual appraisals of the

is

a conceivable, if not established, master/pupil

transmitters enumerated in the rij l lexicons in

relationship. Furthermore, every transmitter has to

such a SS are, more often than not, based upon high-

be

known for his capacity to understand fully and

ly ambiguous epithets like li , uwayli or a-

to

transmit accurately every ad th he hears and/or

d

q, or meaningless ones like thiqa 3 . Moreover, the

writes down from his similarly well qualified ad th master. As far as the transmitted text is concerned, a a tradition can be either generally recognized

or controversial, either ‘well known’ (mashh r) or

‘strange’ (ghar b), or anything in between those perimeters.

asan is an isn d 1 when its provenance and its transmitters (rij l) are known, without anyone of these being identified with mendacity (kadhib).

A late definition has it that there may be some

conceivable weakness in a asan tradition, but the idea laid down in its matn should be beneficial in the

main and, where it concerns a rule or prescription, it deserves to be put into practice. Ibn ash-Shahraz r says that the transmitters of a asan tradition are not exempt of undisclosed defects, but they should

in any case not be heedless (mughaffal) and they

should not make too many mistakes in what they transmit. They should not be suspected of any de-

liberate mendacity or any other feature that leads to ungodliness. A matn of a asan tradition should be well-known through other, similar versions. This includes matns transmitted through strands with al- ternative companions and/or successors 2 ; thus they avoid belonging to the genres of unique (sh dhdh)

or objectionable (munkar) matns. Its transmitters

should preferably be known for their veracity and reliability but to a degree that falls short of com- parable qualities in transmitters of a material because of the former’s defective memories or ac- curacy. asan thus falls short of a . a f is every isn d strand that does not meet the standards of either a or asan. In what follows these three terms will not occupy us any further. Within the new analytical methods introduced in this book they are strictly un-

1. The asan isn d is, according to Ab Sulaym n al-Kha b (d. 388/998), the overall basis (the term he uses for basis is mad r!, for which see below) for most of the ad ths accepted by the majority of scholars and used by most fuqah , cf. Ibn ash-Shahraz r , Muqaddi- ma, p. 103. 2. See the definitions of the terms mut bi t and shaw hid further down.

collections of the two shaykhs, Bukh r and Mus- lim, are chockfull of transmitters who receive no more than one or two such, on the whole irrelevant, qualifications in the lexicons, in spite of the general idea developed in the Middle Ages that occurrence of a tradition in one of the two a s or both, au- tomatically entitled it to the qualification a . These Arabic terms are only useful in that they amply illustrate the overall impotence, inconsisten- cy, and superficiality of medieval Muslim isn d appraisal. Often the observation sufficed in the Mid- dle Ages that a tradition was incorporated in one of the Six Books, preferably in one of the two a s, to be henceforth accepted as basically ‘sound’. Ac- ceptance for practical purposes of what is in fact no more than a khabar al-w id 4 became widespread. In Islamic handbooks on jurisprudence many para- graphs, sometimes entire chapters, are based on one or a few traditions supported by ‘sound’ but nonethe- less asthenic SSs. And questions as to chronology, provenance and/or authorship of such ad ths are not posed, let alone answered, nor those concern- ing the historicity of a ad th’s transmission as ten- able or untenable. Without further ado, if the isn d strand of a tradition from the canonical collections, preferably those of the two shaykhs, ended in the Prophet Mu ammad, then that was enough for de- termining the authorship, and thus the overall relia- bility, of that tradition.

More terms over and above a : mutaw tir vis- à-vis mashh r

The tradition on the intentions mentioned a few pages above and here associated with Ya y b. Sa d always figures in discussions on two technical terms, the participle mutaw tir and the verbal noun taw tur. Taw tur is the technical ad th term for such broad attestation of a particular ad th through multiple isn d strands in the sources that large- scale mendacity in that tradition thus supported is

3. For these technical terms, see our lemmata in EI 2,

s.vv. li and thi a.

4. Cf. our EI 2 lemma on this concept.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

xxv

considered to be absurd (mu l), or: out of the ques-

Some more technical terms: mut bi t and sha-

tion. For an exposé on the terms mutaw tir— ta-

w

hid

w

tur, their evolution and their practical use, see

elsewhere 1 . It is true that the Ya