“Muslim Tradition” expands upon the arguments of Joseph Schacht. As Schacht had proposed in the 1960s, Juynboll in the 1980s elaborated: that many Islamic traditions (Hadiths) were forged – so many, that the burden-of-proof for any given Hadith must rest upon the scholar making the assertion. Juynboll however fell into some of the same traps as Schacht had fallen into.
Juynboll’s book starts with an essay on the origins of the Hadith, as distinct from the origins of Islamic religious practice (Sunna). Much of this is based on Muslims’ own accounts of who did what “first”, the “Awwal” hadiths. From these, Juynboll sees Islamic law as not reliant upon hadith; where precedent was needed, the example of the Companions sufficed (and such an anecdote was not equipped with an “isnad” chain of authority). Under Umar II, there came to be hadiths; and afterward, there arose hadith-centres, in Egypt, Syria, the Hijaz and especially Iraq.
The next chapter sifts through these centres of hadith (and Sunna), and notes fundamental differences between the local judges’ attitude toward hadith. Egypt and Syria did not use hadith much. Madina did accept hadiths, but it did not *follow* those hadiths. Iraqian law at the other extreme relied heavily upon hadiths – especially Baghdad, which, as we know, was founded later than were Kufa and Basra and so *could not* rely upon precedent.
Then Juynboll goes for the jugular of the Hadith-based Sunna – the most famed “well-attested (mutawaatir)” traditions. Juynboll proves that these traditions are frauds; ergo, mutawaatir is invalid as a means to prove a hadith. The chapter after that looks at Muslims’ own critiques of the Hadith – mainly from Ibn Hajar’s Tahdhib – and concludes that some transmitters have been pulled apart to become duplicates with the same name (Ikrima), and that others were originally multiple people with the same name but have been amalgamated (“Zuhri”).
The last chapter, almost but not quite a conclusion, is a rambling essay that really should have been organised better. As best I can tell, it first sifts through how Ibn Hajar’s attitude differs from that of another Rijal author, Abu l-Qasim. It digresses into a list of hadith collections, then critiques the musnad of Abu Hurayra and ends by restating Schacht’s common-link theories.
So, this book almost could have been written by Schacht himself. It revives Schacht’s skepticism particularly of the Nafi < Ibn Umar chain, which chain is critiqued pp. 142-3. This book also follows Schacht in style: in that, where the book must make a digression on some minute point that cannot wait for its own journal article or appendix, the book inlines the point into the main text but offset.
Since the 1980s, we have had three decades to digest this book’s claims – and Western Islamic scholarship has controverted it strongly. One notably trenchant critique underlies SC Lucas’ book “Constructive Critics”.
Lucas in his own work has offered some valuable correctives to Juynboll that are worth reprinting here. Lucas rebutted Juynboll’s identification of Muslim b al-Hajjaj’s opponents (Juynboll, 168). Juynboll thought that Muslim intended Karabisi and the Jahmites, but Lucas (p. 12 n. 52) pointed out that Dhahabi said that Muslim intended no less than Bukhari and the latter’s teacher Ali Ibn al-Madini. “Muslim Tradition” asserted that the Islamic doctrine of the sahaba being honest was Ibn Abi Hatim’s (194-5). Lucas credited Waqidi (267-8); with reference to Waqidi’s impassioned essay toward the end of Ibn Sa`d’s Tabaqat v. 2 (English speakers may read this in full in tr. Moinul-Haq, 482-4).
Lucas reports that Juynboll has offered negative opinions about Shu`ba b. al-Hajjaj, mostly elsewhere; but in “Muslim Tradition”, Juynboll says mainly that Shu`ba was gullible (177, 182). Lucas defends Shu`ba’s reputation generally in his fourth chapter. Indeed Lucas proposes to overthrow most of Juynboll’s first chapter (Juynboll pp. 39-76), in Lucas’s own eighth chapter. Around here should be mentioned, also, that Juynboll follows Schacht that the qadi Shurayh did not exist (87-88); this is rebutted in Motzki tr. “The origins of Islamic jurisprudence”, 167-9.
Lucas faults “Muslim Tradition” overall for relying upon too few sources (scil., Ibn Hajar: Lucas, 111-2). I can take Lucas’s and Motzki’s word for most of these critiques.
Lucas (368) and Motzki also undermine Juynboll’s extreme rejection of legalistic hadiths. Juynboll is not Schacht; “Muslim Tradition” nowhere pins the blame for the “hadith explosion” upon Shafi`i. Juynboll says only that the explosion itself was real. We could revert Lucas’s own arguments, on why Malik and his students canonised as few Prophetic traditions as they did, fewer than those hadiths which were contemporary with their work, and indeed fewer than those which they themselves re-transmitted outside the Muwatta. We could assert that the Malikis *already* were living in the Hadith Explosion – and resisted it. What went into the Muwatta was binding upon Madinans. As for what did not: hadith in the remainder might be worthy of transmission (elsewhere) as a *possible* authentic “musnad” / “marfu`” hadith, or as an archaeological artifact of a post-Muhammadan age; but it was not, for Malikis, *law*. Such a hadith was suspect. Juynboll notes that very Madinan tendency to transmit hadiths that Madinans refused to follow, in p. 89.
This book to be chaotic and dense, like much of Juynboll’s work, and is for specialists only; and even specialists should treat it with caution.
Although I have posted this earlier, I am attaching Jonathan Brown’s review of Juyboll for relevance:
Review of Juynboll’s Encyclopaedia of Canonical Hadith:
Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith
By G. H. A. Juynboll (Leiden: Brill, 2007), xxxiii, 804 pp. Price HB $289.00. EAN 978–9004156746.
G. H. A. Juynboll’s contribution to the Western study of the hadith tradition has been substantial and groundbreaking. From his earliest book on twentieth-century Egyptian debates over the authenticity and proper function of hadith (The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature: Discussions in Modern Egypt, Brill, 1969) to a myriad of articles dealing with subjects from mass transmission (tawatur) to unnaturally old transmitters (muammarun) and controversial, ‘woman demeaning’ hadiths, Juynboll has investigated and elucidated a wide range of topics in the hadith universe. Basing his work on Schacht’s premise of using the isnad of a hadith to determine when it entered circulation, Juynboll developed an elaborate and idiosyncratic method of uncovering the ‘originator’ of a hadith—the person responsible for attributing a statement to the Prophet. In his case-by-case analysis of many hadiths, Juynboll developed a vocabulary for describing the different phenomena of isnad and matn fabrication. Juynboll’s method is revisited and explained in the introduction to this, his latest work (see pp. xvii–xxxiii).
In Juynboll’s own words, the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith is an effort to translate and analyse ‘most of the major traditions from the canonical collections’ (the publisher’s description on the back of the book says ‘all canonical hadiths’) of Sunni Islam. He attempts this by presenting chapters structured not according to hadiths, but rather around the hadith transmitters that Juynboll identifies as ‘Common Links’, those individuals responsible for forging and circulating hadiths. In the chapters on these transmitters, Juynboll discusses only select hadiths, basing his discussions, as he says, on a ‘sometimes merely tentative identification of their [the hadiths’] respective originators’. In these biographically organized chapters Juynboll then presents isnad analysis of selected hadiths ‘in an attempt to justify, or the case so being, speculatively postulate, the identification of that originator’ (p. xvii).
The biographical information and analysis of the careers and contributions of the individuals to whom Juynboll devotes chapters in this Encyclopedia are valuable. Entries range from Companions such as IbnAbbas (d. 68/686–88) to major hadith transmitters such as al-Zuhri (d. 124/742) and collectors like Malik b. Anas (d. 179/796) and even to the authors of the canonical Six Books. Scholars interested in these individuals, their place in the network of hadith transmission and evaluations of their scholarly activity would be well rewarded by consulting this work. Another useful feature of the book is the translations and explanations of the hadiths that Juynboll incorporates into his discussion.
It is in the promise suggested by its title, however, that the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith is unsatisfactory: it is specifically not an encyclopedia of canonical hadiths. Even in a book organized as a biographical dictionary, we would expect to find at least the bulk of the hadiths from the Six Books listed accessibly and with reference to Juynboll’s discussion of their circulation and originator. But this is not the case; indeed the book has no index of hadiths, either in Arabic or transliterated. One finds only an extensive index of technical terms, subjects, and proper names. Thus, in order to find the famous hadith narrated by Abu Hurayra on how one should rinse a bowl that a dog has licked, one must either look under all the entries for ‘Abu Hurayra’ (138 pages listed) or ‘dog’ (36 pages listed). Out of a sample of twenty well-known hadiths from the Six Books (such as the hadith ‘Woe to you Ibn Sumayya, you will be killed by the rebellious party’) I was able to find only six in this book. Because, despite its title, the book makes no claim at comprehensiveness, it is impossible to know if one should even expect to find a specific hadith in the work. I fear that the book has only limited utility if it were to be used for the function that its title suggests, namely a source for analysis of the contents of the canonical Six Books.
The Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith is also the sizable product of one man’s scholarship, not a collaborative effort. As such, readers consulting it should be aware of Juynboll’s position towards the hadith tradition and his methods of evaluating how and when a hadith came into circulation. Begging the reader’s indulgence, I will summarize this position and will then summarize existing criticisms of Juynboll’s methods, since one would expect that a work published in 2007 would reflect critical responses and the general state of the field of hadith studies.
Juynboll’s operating assumption is that one should assume that all reports attributed to the Prophet are forged. As is well known, Schacht had declared that he would consider that an isnad had ‘grown backward’ from a legal maxim into a Prophetic hadith if he found a Prophetic hadith in a collection like Sahih al-Bukhari that had appeared in an earlier collection as a statement of a Companion or Successor. Juynboll generalizes this conclusion. In his view, even if you cannot find a Companion/Successor opinion that corresponds to a Prophetic hadith, the fact that so many Prophetic hadiths seem to have originated from these kinds of non-Prophetic statements leads Juynboll to consider ‘any “prophetic” saying suspect as also belonging to that genre …’.1
Building on Schacht’s Common Link Theory, Juynboll asserts that the more people transmit a hadith from a scholar, ‘the more historicity that moment has’—the more people narrated a hadith from a transmitter, the more attestation there is that the hadith actually existed at the time.2 This hadith must therefore have been forged at some earlier date. Any links in an isnad that lack such multiple attestations are of dubious historical reliability, especially in light of the supposed adoration that early Muslims had for hadiths and their preservation.3 Juynboll feels that concluding that a hadith must have been forged because more transmissions of it do not exist (an argument e silentio) is well justified in his opinion. Since Muslim hadith scholars habitually collected all the available transmissions of a hadith they could find, their omission of any transmission must entail that it did not exist.4 For Juynboll, then, the only historically verifiable ‘moment’ in the transmission of a hadith occurs with a Common Link. Because it is inconceivable that a real hadith could be transmitted by only one isnad from the Prophet, anything before this Common Link must have been fabricated by him.5 A hadith that has no Common Link, only a set of unrelated single strand chains (which Juynboll terms a ‘Spider’), is not historically datable in any sense.6
According to Juynboll, isnads that are found in hadith collections post-dating the ones in which the Common Link’s chains of transmission are found are called ‘diving’ isnads, which Juynboll assumes were forged by these later collectors in order to appear to have unique or shorter links to the Prophet for this hadith. Consequently, Juynboll’s judgment on ‘diving’ chains of transmission leads him to dismiss the whole notion of corroborating transmissions (mutabaa) among Muslim hadith scholars. Because these chains of transmission appear independently and lack any Common Link, they cannot be verified in his view and should be assumed to be forgeries. They are simply plagiarisms of the Common Link’s isnads claiming to make the hadith seem more reliable. Juynboll notes that it ‘never ceases to astonish’ him that master Muslim hadith scholars like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852/1449) did not realize that corroborating isnads were in fact groundless fabrications.7
In recent years, Juynboll’s operating assumptions and methods have come under severe criticism, however. In light of his continued adherence to his methods in the volume under review here, it seems fair to discuss the salient objections to Juynboll’s approach and the extent to which the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith has taken them into account. I will try to summarize criticisms of Juynboll’s work.
Objections to Juynboll’s methods8 have centred on three main points: the questionable accuracy of the assumptions that he takes to be indisputable, the limited number of sources from which he draws hadith evidence, and the fact that his arguments ask the reader to make leaps of faith far greater than those asked by the Muslim scholars Juynboll criticizes.
(1) The leading critic of Juynboll’s methods has been Harald Motzki, who proffers two main criticisms of Juynboll’s scholarship. First, he argues that the argument e silentio is invalid. Second, Motzki argues that, rather than being consummate forgers of hadiths, major ‘Common Link’ hadith transmitters such as al-Zuhri and Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767) were in general reliably passing on reports from the previous generation.
As for the assumption that if a hadith was transmitted via only one isnad in the early period then it must have been forged, Motzki argues that we should not expect to find numerous isnads from figures like the Successors back to the Prophet. Isnads, after all, only came into use during the Successors’ generation in the late 600s/early 700s. Even for those early hadith transmitters and legal scholars who provided isnads to the Prophet at that time, it was only necessary to provide one isnad for a hadith, not a bundle, as became common in the second half of the 700s and the 800s.
As for Juynboll’s argument that Muslims obsessively transmitted hadiths, with hundreds of students attending their teachers’ dictation sessions, there are many reasons why history could have preserved only one person’s transmission from that teacher instead of those of many students. Just as only a small percentage of any teacher’s students go on to become teachers themselves, so it is not inconceivable that only one of a hadith transmitter’s students would go on to become a transmitter as well. Juynboll had argued that only the transmission of one-to-many can be considered a historically documented ‘moment’ in the life of a hadith. But, Motzki counters, if we only consider transmission from one person to a number of people historically reliable, then why do we have only a few transmissions of actual written hadith collections from their authors or people transmitting from a Common Link? If we assume, like Juynboll, that the hadith came into existence with the Common Link, and that any hadith that actually existed must have been transmitted by all those who heard it from a teacher, then after the Common Links we should find thousands of chains of transmission in the fourth and fifth generations. But this did not occur. Thus, the fact that we find very few transmissions from the Common Links strongly suggests that Common Links were the exception rather than the rule in the transmission of hadiths. Their absence thus cannot be construed as proof for a hadith not existing at that time.
(2) Another of Motzki’s central criticisms of Juynboll’s work is the small number of sources from which he draws hadiths in determining the Common Link. In collecting transmissions of a hadiths to locate a Common Link, Juynboll relies principally on the Tuhfat al-ashraf of Jamal al-Din al-Mizzi (d. 742/1341), a work that collects all the chains of transmission for a hadith but is limited to the traditions and transmissions found in the Six Books (and a few other small books). Indeed, in the preface to the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith Juynboll recalls how he discovered the Tuhfa and dedicates the book to its editor. Motzki notes how, if one draws on a much larger and more diverse body of sources, including early ones such as the Musannaf of lhringAbd al-Razzaq al-Sanlhringani (d. 211/826), and later ones, such as al-Bayhaqi’s (d. 458/1066) Dalarhringil al-nubuwwa, one finds that the real ‘Common Links’ for many hadiths he analyzes are found in the time of the Companions in the second half of the seventh century. This is much earlier than the figures that Juynboll typically identifies as the originators of hadiths.
(3) But perhaps the most problematic aspect of Juynboll’s method, in my opinion, is that it collapses under Occam’s razor. Juynboll carries scepticism towards the Muslim hadith tradition to such an extreme that the reader is asked to believe in the existence of a web of lies, forgeries and conspiracy so elaborate that it is easier to believe that—from time to time—the Prophet might actually have said some of the hadiths attributed to him. For Juynboll, anything other than the well-attested isnads emanating from a Common Link is assumed to be a forged chain of transmission. This includes all corroborating transmissions (mutabilhringat) and, using his terminology, ‘Single Strand’ hadiths, ‘Spiders’ and ‘diving’ chains. Thus the vast bulk of the material sorted through by Muslim hadith scholars over centuries and recorded in their voluminous works was not only forged, but all the thousands of scholars from Spain to Iran involved in transmitting and analysing this material from the eighth to the fifteenth centuries were able to orchestrate, contain and conceal this titanic, common forgery endeavour. Here we must remember that the fiercest critics of Muslim hadith transmitters and the jurists who employed their material were other Muslim hadith critics and opponent jurists. It is thanks to their collective obsession with documenting the failings of their colleagues’ hadith transmission that Western scholars even have the raw material needed to perform isnad analysis.
It is most unreasonable to assume that many hadiths attributed to the Prophet are forgeries. While one can certainly question some of the credulity and naiveté of Muslim hadith critics, it is unreasonable to entertain that the preponderance of pages filling the thousands of volumes lining any hadith library, not to mention the pervasive critical ethos that motivated their production, could have been stuffed there speciously by the continentally-separated, internally-diverse and virulently divided community of pre-modern Muslim hadith scholars. Although less glamorous, this suggestion is as far-fetched as that made by Père Hardouin, the eighteenth-century French Jesuit who, relying on numismatic evidence, concluded that all works of classical Greek and Roman literature (with the exception of Cicero’s letters and a smattering of other works) had been forged by a cadre of fourteenth-century Italian tricksters.9
Going back to the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith, the reader finds no echo of the objections raised against Juynboll’s methods. The work’s introduction dwells on the subjects to which Juynboll has already devoted articles: the failure of Muslim hadith critics to associate the notion of madar (the ‘pivot’ of a hadith) with the Common Link (p. xxv), the absurdity of corroborating narrations in al-Zurqani’s (d. 1710) commentary on Malik’s Muwattarhring (p. xxvi–ii), and the topic of preternaturally long-lived hadith transmitters (p. xxviii–ix). Only tangentially does Juynboll refer to criticisms of scholars like Motzki and Ozken. In a footnote to the entry on Nafilhring the mawla of Ibn lhringUmar, Juynboll suggests that the reader ‘compare (cf.)’ with Motzki’s ‘overall unconvincing excursions in Der Islam LXXIII’ (p. 435). Despite Motzki’s extensive rebuttal of Juynboll’s article on Nafilhring, Juynboll maintains steadfastly in the Encyclopedia that the figure of Nafi the great hadith transmitter is the ‘spectacular’ creation of Malik b. Anas and other Iraqi, Makkan and Egyptian Common Links who were seeking earlier sources for their forgeries (p. 435; cf. 283).
Most surprising is Juynboll’s statement in the introduction of the Encyclopedia that ‘[i]n the main, medieval Muslim hadith scholars view an isnad strand, which they find attached to a particular hadith, individually …’ without looking at how and where it overlaps and interacts with other isnads (p. xxiii). ‘It seems,’ Juynboll continues, ‘as if they [Muslim hadith critics] never studied with the constant help of a work such as [al-Mizzi’s] Tuhfa, at least not in any meaningful way …’ (ibid).
This is a difficult statement to scan. If Juynboll means that Muslim hadith critics did not look at how isnads of a hadith interacted, interwove and contrasted holistically, then this is simply incorrect. Virtually all that Muslim hadith critics concerned themselves with was analysing all the available transmission of a hadith to determine if it was corroborated or collecting all the available transmissions narrated by a certain person to see if he or she was corroborated as a transmitter. A brief look at the Ilal al-hadith of Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (d. 327/938) and the Kamil fi duafa’ al-rijal of Ibn Adi (d. 365/975–6) would illustrate this sufficiently, if not ad nauseam. If, on the other hand, Juynboll means to fault Muslim hadith critics for not basing their evaluation of hadiths on the Tuhfa and similar digest works, then this was because they were too busy writing them and the hundreds of other hadith-critical and hadith-analytical works that preceded them and built up the edifice on which the fourteenth-century Tuhfa is but a minor decoration. Indeed, relying on the Tuhfa to dismiss classical Muslim hadith scholarship as atomistic is like calling a whole society disorganized based on a reading of its voluminous, intricately ordered phonebook.
Juynboll’s ahistorical perspective and his limited concentration on the Tuhfa explain much of the methodological failings of his Encyclopedia. The Tuhfa is a digest of the isnads found in the canonical Six Books of Sunni Islam. These Six Books are the finished and refined products of six ninth-century Muslim scholars who produced them as references for Muslim legal and doctrinal life. The Six Books were a distillation, indeed samplings, of a massive universe of hadith criticism and transmission, the horizons and methods of which Juynboll’s above statement means he is still evidently unaware. Anyone interested in a glimpse into that world could do so easily by consulting that genre in which classical Muslim hadith critics did lay out their critical methods, and the vast sea of material to which they applied it, for full viewing: books of ilal (hadith flaws) such as that of al-Tirmidhi (d. 279/892) or al-Daraqutni (d. 385/995). It is no surprise that in the select bibliography of Juynboll’s Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith no such references appear.
The study of the hadith tradition in the West owes much to G. H. A. Juynboll’s many contributions. Unfortunately, for an encyclopedia like this most recent work to claim in its very title to be concerned with canonical hadith and then limit itself to an indeterminate sampling is misleading. Furthermore, the excessive scepticism based on a stubbornly parochial understanding of classical Muslim hadith scholarship that informs this work prevents it from genuinely advancing this still underdeveloped field.
Jonathan A. C. Brown
1 G. H. A. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition: Studies in Chronology, Provenance and Authorship of Early Hadith (London: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 72–4.
2 Juynboll, ‘Some Isnad-Analytical Methods Illustrated on the Basis of Several Women-demeaning Sayings from Hadith Literature,’ in Studies on Origins and Uses of Islamic Hadith (Aldershot: Variorum, 1996), 352.
3 Juynboll, ‘Some Isnad-Analytical Methods’, 353.
4 Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, 98.
5 Juynboll, ‘Some Isnad-Analytical Methods,’ 353.
6 Juynboll, ‘Nafilhring, the mawla of Ibn lhringUmar, and his position in Muslim hadith literature’ in Studies on the Origins and Uses of Islamic Hadith, 215.
7 Juynboll, ‘(Re) Appraisal of some Hadith Technical Terms,’ Islamic Law and Society 8/3 (2001), 318.
8 For more details on objections to Juynboll’s methods, see Halit Ozken, ‘The Common Link and its Relation to the Madar,’ Islamic Law and Society 11/1 (2004): 42–77; Harald Motzki, ‘Der Fiqh des Zuhri: die Quellenproblematik’, Der Islam 68 (1991): 1–44; id., ‘The Murder of Ibn Abi Huqayq’ in Harald Motzki (ed.), The Biography of Muhammad, (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 170–239; id., ‘The Musannaf of lhringAbd al-Razzaq al-Sanlhringani as a Source of Authentic Ahadith of the First Century AH’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50 (1991): 1–21; and especially, id., ‘Quo vadis, Hadit-Forschung? Eine kritische Untersuchung von G. H. A. Juynboll: “Nafilhring the mawla of Ibn lhringUmar, and his position in Muslim Hadit Literature” ’, Der Islam 73/1 (1996): 40–80.
9 Arnaldo Momigliano, Studies in Historiography (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966), 16.