The Example of the Uninformed – An Authoritative Exposition #2

This continues on from the previous part of the article …

‘Whence Islâm?’ – Fruits of Tasteless Polemic

It is self evident, and Smith will be the last to deny the allegation, that the bulk of the material and proposed hypotheses put forward in the arguments of Smith have been plagiarised from the infamous fruits of the work initially started by Wansbrough and then continued by Crone and Cook. His reliance on them is due to the simple fact that they are the only ones who ascribe themselves to these theories. Although it could never be assumed that credit could be given to Smith for concocting such strange theories, it would be hoped that his approach would be reflective of his mentors. One will sadly find, it is not. This is not to say that he is totally autonomous from the many mistakes and absurd assumptions (to be discussed later) carried in the work of Wansbrough, Crone and Cook, this is without doubt clearly apparent. The difference lies in Smith’s deep ignorance of the subject matter he is involved in. One cannot deny the astounding scholastic levels reached by the likes of Wansbrough. Juynboll writes about Wansbrough’s book Qur’ânic Studies, (See Appendix 4).

Can Smith really have a claim to associate himself with the likes of these academics? Perhaps if he did understand what they were actually saying he probably would not have chosen the avenue of thought that they have now become recognised with. It is well known to any student of Islamic Studies, whether they be Muslim or non-Muslim that the approach, now commonly known as the ‘de-mythologising’ approach propounded by Wansbrough, Crone and Cook is one of the poorest interpretations of Islamic History ever constructed. Totally lacking in any convincing evidence it is merely concerned with inventing a theory and then selecting any evidence which fits that theory, rather than looking for a real explanation of history. N. Daniel says:

The whole approach leaves established methods of Islamic historical analysis for methods which are so defective that at times they cause the authors themselves to abandon them for conventional ones.

What Wansbrough, Crone and Cook can be acknowledged for, and this illustrates the immense difference between them and the contemporary minion Smith is the following; Firstly, analysing history through one’s own criteria cannot cause a problem when all one is interested in is expressing one’s opinions. This is illustrated perfectly in Wansbrough’s own confession about the “conjectural nature” of his work and calls his analysis “strictly experimental” and the “emphatically tentative” nature of his conclusions (QS xi, SM, x). Secondly, if one starts from a position of an already fixed theory, and then looks for evidence to fit that theory, then obviously this is all the evidence one will have acquired. How many times does Smith echo the words: “ There is no evidence for . . . “, “ There is no mention of . . . “?

There is no evidence, obviously because the writers didn’t want the evidence. Again Crone and Cook are happy to admit this. In the preface to the book Hagarism, Crone and Cook tell us that they intend to ignore a rock inscription dated from the mid 600’s with the phrase “ AHL AL ISLÂM “. They then carry on in the book to inform that the words MUSLIM and ISLÂM appeared in the late 700’s!!!

It is in attempting to present this viewpoint as fact, something which his sources would not claim for an instance, that Smith reveals his ignorance and total incomprehension of the very material proffered as the foundation of his theories. If Smith feels that he has uncovered areas which appear to be unanswerable by Muslims due to their apparent ignorance of the questions that are raised then this is accepted. Muslims don’t know and do not need to know of the interpretations of any of these so called academics. Crone and Cook tell us this themselves;

This material was never aimed to be an authoritative exposition on the early history of Islâm, or to be read by the general masses, but rather aimed solely for the realm of academia and discussion in scholastic circles.
Humphreys summarises this aptly by saying;

Some rather less impressed critics are more direct in their reservations,

Leonard Binder, under the heading of ‘Bad Orientalism’, states:

R. B. Sergeant informs that:

And Joseph Van Ess seems to think that:

Lastly, it seems rather insincere for a Christian to use a particular work to criticise another religion, when the writers are as critical of Christianity as of others religions. Crone and Cook inform us that Christianity is an amalgamation of various different cultures, namely Judaism, Roman Imperialism and Hellenism, which clash together to form Christianity, but over time has lost its cohesion and has now fallen apart. This is what Muslims have been claiming for years. Smith should now accept this view of history, part and parcel with the one he is now propounding.

Perhaps one of the most clearly unacceptable positions offered by Crone and Cook is their refusal to accept the Muslim traditions outright. One might find room for sympathy in treating the Muslim reports with scepticism, as being liable to bias and exaggeration. Indeed this is the pattern in most historical documentation. It must be recognised however, that material written by non-Muslims is liable to be equally, if not more unreliable. To reject the whole corpus of Muslim documentation is in itself absurd, but to reject it in favour of purely hostile sources is even more ridiculous. We find it even more remarkable that Smith uses this type of argumentation when he has rejected it outright himself when used against his own prophet “Paul.”

This grave error in methodology has been pointed out by several scholars in their critique of the “demythologisers”:

What is noteworthy is that the accepted methodology is to use the Muslim sources, and not reject them, something which the present writers cannot escape. N. Daniel comments:

The charge levelled by Smith in his papers, that Muslims have been afraid to respond to the challenges of modern critical scholarship is either an expression of his ignorance or a blatant lie. He is obviously completely unaware of the devastating refutation against Goldziher and Schacht by the likes of Azmi and others. If Smith’s complaints are concerning Hagarism then even Crone and Cook admit in the preface to their book that:

The fact of the matter is that the so-called Christian and Jewish witnesses are less likely to produce a reliable source for our information about the origins of Islâm.

N. Daniel continues:

Smith is himself a proof of this very phenomena. We find his work replete with misunderstandings, errors and misinformation concerning Islâm. Incredibly simple mistakes are made, such as the Muslim’s five prayers all being in the day, and his mentioning the six beliefs of Imân. Even in his paper on the topic of the sources of Islâm he misunderstands the significance of different genres, he claims the Qur’ân is the “ mother of the books ” whereas in-fact the “ mother of the books ” are the preserved tablets in which everything is written concerning the beginning of creation to the end. He also mentions that Muhammad’s cousin was Waraka, when in fact it was his wife Khadîja’s cousin, and that “even Muslim sources state” he was a Catholic, and that Bahira was a Nestorian, whereas in fact Muslim sources say nothing of the sort. This was the propaganda of the medieval polemicists like John of Damascus. In fact Smith is so confused that he contradicts himself later on the same issue. Now if this is the case of someone who has a degree in Islamic studies, how about someone less informed? The fact is that these sources are not only likely to be replete with ignorant statements, but also with outright lies and distortions. Are we to believe, for example, that because Peter the Venerable added nine chapters to his “translation” of the Qur’ân, that in fact the Qur’ân at that time did have nine more chapters, and that the Muslim sources that report otherwise are not to be trusted, or for example, that Joseph Smith’s words are more likely to be trusted in respect to information about Islâm than these.

Joseph Van Ess in The Making of Islâm arrives at a similar conclusion:

Having taking the foolhardy step of rejecting Muslim sources (except, of course, when it is useful) Crone and Cook are left with a void that needs to be filled. This void is thus filled with the small amount of non-Muslim contemporary documentation available. It has already been shown that these are likely to give a significantly less accurate picture even with the assumption of biased Muslim documentation. So is this step an acceptable one to take?

So what is this evidence? Crone and Cook tell us it “ begins ” with “a Greek anti-Jewish tract . . . in the form of a letter from a certain Abraham, a Palestinian Jew” which was “in all probability” written in the seventh century by Rabbis in which a new Saracen Prophet was foretold. Who was this Jew? Can he be relied upon? Or is it the case that . . .

The next piece of evidence is provided by an Armenian chronicle of the 660’s; Jewish refugees from Edessa join with the Prophet to conquer the land of Israel. This story, the authors admit to be “geographically implausible” as well as chronologically impossible. Need one say more? Anyone unfamiliar with the book will be surprised to learn that this constitutes all of the evidence that they (and now Smith) have for their thesis. A whole colourful picture of the early history of Islâm is based upon it, with obviously more derived from their own imaginations than anything else.

A perfect example of:

But perhaps the best argument against using non-Muslim or hostile sources is the following statement:

Words of wisdom. And the source? Mr Jay Smith, in Who Founded Christianity?

A logical explanation for this type of behaviour is a mental condition known as schizophrenia. Smith should see a specialist at the earliest opportunity.

And is this evidence even authentic? Crone and Cook make no attempt to ascertain the authenticity of these materials, or even the Islamic evidence which was discounted in advance. ( N. Daniel, Journal of Semitic Studies and Wansbrough BSOAS.)

Having already examined the problems of using non-Muslim sources let us take a more in-depth examination of some of the conclusions Smith draws concerning the information contained in them.

Firstly, Smith talks of a papyrus dated 643CE (21AH) which speaks of the year twenty-two, suggesting something happened among the Arabs which coincides with the year of Hijra. Well there you go! Why does he expect us to presume that it was anything other than that? We are not told what the Nestorian ecclesiastical documents from 676CE (54AH) and 680CE (58AH) actually say. If it talks about the “exodus” of Arabs to the “Promised Land” then this is simply the language familiar to them, and cannot be construed to mean that the Arabs considered themselves to be partaking in an “Exodus”, and that they considered Jerusalem to be their “promised land.” Smith’s use of the tradition in the Sunan of Abu Dawood stating that “there will be Hijra after the Hijra, but the best Hijra is that of Abraham” proves absolutely nothing. First the word Hijra is not the same as the word exodus. Hijra simply means to leave one thing, or place for another. The “best” Hijra is explained in another Prophetic narration: “The best of those who perform Hijra are those who abandon that which Allah has prohibited and the best jihad is the one who strives against his own self for the sake of Allah the Mighty and Majestic.” (at-Tabaranee in al Kabir) So this is the Hijra of Abraham, the khalil of Allah, who abandoned disobedience for obedience to Allah. All this data rather confirms exactly what the Muslim sources say. Now Smith tries to support this nothing with more nothing.

Qibla

Smith claims that archaeological evidence points to mosques that are not aligned towards Makkah. Now what does this prove? In order to give any credibility to his theory he needs to show a consistent pattern of mosques pointing towards Jerusalem, but what he shows us is a selection of mosques pointing in a number of different directions.

It is quite noteworthy how unreliably archaeology can be. During a cursory glance through one of the internet sights that cover the Dead Sea Scrolls, one particular page was talking about the archaeological findings on the Qumran site. It mentioned that concerning the building, opinions differed as to whether it was a garrison, fort and military installation, a monastery, or a palace. The so called archaeological excavations of Father DeVaux claimed to discovered a scriptorium, which conveniently fitted his theories. However an impartial archaeological team from Scandinavia actually discovered it was not a scriptorium at all but a dinning hall.

This is what Creswell says concerning early mosques: ” . . their architectural resources , before they started in their career of conquest, were barely enough to give expression to their needs. In other words Arabia constituted an almost perfect architectural vacuum . . . The first mosques in the great hiras, or half nomadic encampments of the conquest, such as Basra, Kûfa and Fustat, were primitive in the extreme, and in Syria the first mosques were churches that had been converted or merely divided: in fact there is no reason for believing that any mosque was built as such in Syria unto the time of Al Walid or possibly Abdal Mâlik, For over a generation the Arabs remained quite untouched by any architectural ambitions.”It is worth noting that the Prophet disliked extravagance and impressive architecture in buildings, especially mosques. The relative simplicity of early mosques is in fact a historical example of how the Prophet’s Companions diligently followed his wishes.

Let us now turn our attention to the direction of these mosques. In the face of what Creswell says we wonder how exactly archaeologists determined that their discoveries were indeed mosques and how they decided in which direction the Qibla was. It is noteworthy that the use of the mihrab did not appear until its introduction by Coptic workers who were expanding the Prophet’s mosque in Medina (88AH) and placed a mihrab there. This mihrab still exists. The Prophet’s mosque is one of many examples of early mosques facing Makkah, as is the “ mosque of the two Qiblas ” in which the Prophet was praying while Allah revealed the command to change the Qibla from Jerusalem to Makkah, and also the Quba mosque in the outskirts of Medina which also still exists. Creswell gives further examples of early mosques that were converted from churches which contradict Smith’s conclusions:

Creswell also mentions examples of other Jamia mosques such as the one Basra, constructed 45AH(665CE), and Kûfa 50AH.

Furthermore if we do look at a map of the region, we find this very example, the mosque of Amr bin al As in Fustat outside Cairo, quoted by Smith as facing slightly south of east is in-fact facing towards Makkah, and not Jerusalem!!! What now becomes almost unbelievable is that Smith quotes Jacob of Edessa to support his argument that the Muslim Qibla was not fixed whereas Jacob of Edessa actually says:

This, in actuality, proves the opposite of Smith’s claim. The structure of the sentence clearly shows that there were two different places: Jerusalem and the Ka’ba. Any attempt to claim that there was more than one Ka’ba is merely clutching at straws. The word “Ka’ba” in Arabic means “cube” and the only Ka’ba is that found in Makkah.

Now to answer Smith’s question “What is happening here?” There is a simple answer to this issue of the Qibla, and the way that Smith tries to dismiss it, by telling us how the lives and livelihood of these camel traders depended on finding their way, is only illustrative of his ignorance The fact is that the means of accurately determining the Qibla was in fact not available. Even the means of determining the Qibla was disputed, as David King’s book Astronomy in the Service of Islâm, backed by the latest research into recently discovered documents, explains:

In the light of these facts the Wasit and Baghdad mosques being off by 33 and 30 degrees towards north respectively is not so bad. They certainly do not point directly to Jerusalem. As for Baladhûri’s comment, if correct, does not imply that the Qibla was pointing due west, but rather lay to the west, implying its being deviated towards the West.

Dome of the Rock

Having dealt with the issue of Qibla, we are left with the contentions concerning the Dome of the Rock and Jerusalem being a important shrine and the real object of Muslim aspirations. Firstly, that which the Jews call Temple Mount, is known in the Qur’ân as Masjid al Aqsa – the Furthest Mosque. It is the place from which God’s final Messenger Muhammad made his miraculous ascension through the heavens, where he saw the angel Gabrial and spoke with Allah beyond the furthest lote tree. All this is alluded to in the Qur’ân:

Smith claims that the inscriptions contain no mention of the Prophet’s night journey, whereas in fact this very verse is present along with seven verses of the same chapter according to Alister Duncan’s The Noble Sanctuary.

Mohammed Rafiq tells us that “just the existence of the four verses on the building alone negates, nay obliterated, all of your arguments concurring the Prophet, Mecca, the miraaj (ascension), the position of the People of the Book, the Qibla, the dating of the Qur’ân and the accuracy of the Qur’ân’s transmission.”

As if this were not in itself sufficient, we find in a pilgrims guide to Jerusalem and surrounding areas called De Locis Santis which is dated 80AH (702-9CE), comments of the Frankish Bishop Arculf who performed pilgrimage in 48AH (670CE) reports that he witnessed an argument between a believing and non-believing Jew over an alleged funeral shroud of Jesus, which was settled by the Saracen King Mavias, meaning of course the Caliph Mu’awiya, and he goes on to say:

Creswell tell us that “this may be called the first Aqsa Mosque”. In fact, he also mentions that Christian historians such as Theophanes, Elias of Nisibis, and Michael the Syrian tell us that a mosque was built by Umar ibn al Khattab at the capitulation of Jerusalem.

This proves that the al Aqsa mosque predates the Dome of the Rock (which is an octagon, not quadrangle) and that it was the only Saracen building of note and that it was a place of prayer, not of circumbulation.

Furthermore the Qur’ânic inscriptions contain the following verses:

I think these verses speak for themselves.

As for the other inscriptions inside the Mosque of al Aqsa and the claim of Smith that they differ from the Qur’ân today, (although he doesn’t show where and how they differ, which is obvious because they don’t), then this is also nonsense.

According to Brockett they are identical to the verses from the Qur’ân today:

Makkah

Here Smith introduces one of his favoured techniques, a technique which we find replete throughout his papers, and that is attributing a belief to the Muslims which they do not hold and then proceeding to refute it.

Smith tells us that “ Muslims maintain that Mecca was not only a great and ancient city, but it was, as well the centre of the trading routes for Arabia in the seventh century and before.” Having checked the famous Tafsîr’s of Ibn Kathîr, Tabari and Qurtubi, there is no mention of this at all. Nor indeed is there any such claim in Guilleme’s translation of the Seerah of Ibn Ishaak. Indeed the Qur’ân calls Makkah “ Umm ul-Qurâ “, literally translated as the “Mother of the Settlements”, not the “ Mother of all Settlements.”. But the meaning is not that which Smith assigns to it. Tabari explains that “ Umm ul-Qurâ ” means the centre of settlements in and around Makkah. Ibn Ishaak’s Seerah further explains this as the place were the sons of Ishmael spread out from into the surrounding areas. Ibn Katheer mentions the building of the Ka’ba by Adam, but this is not an authentic story, however we find that he attributes the following Hadîth to the Prophet, “ Makkah is the most beloved place to me and the most beloved place to Allah.” The importance of Makkah lies in the fact of its containing the first House raised for the worship of Allah alone, al Ka’ba, and thus the settlement (not city) that grew up around it was primarily for the worship of Allah alone, and this indeed reflects the very purpose for which mankind has been created.

Indeed we must agree that Mecca is situated in a barren valley, as the Qur’ân itself mentions the supplication of Abraham as saying this, leaving his firstborn Ishmael there. Nothing has greatly changed. Mecca until this day could hardly be described a great city, or the centre of trade, but the fact is that every year millions of people go there for essentially one purpose, and that is to worship the one true God, Allah, the One free of all imperfections. It is this that was then the primary attraction of Makkah, that caused this far away barren place to even come to mentioned by Ptolomy. In fact it seems he is not the only ancient historian to have mentioned Makkah, for according to Thomas Carlyle, Sisus who lived 70BC, stated that Makkah was the greatest centre of pilgrimage in the whole world and the oldest (Thomas Carlyle, . Heroes and Hero Worship). So it is on the religious dimension that Makkah is made important. Crone and Cook’s question as to why such a barren place should be considered so important, whilst Taieef, with plentiful water and greenery and even a sanctuary, was close by is in fact a proof of the high standing of Makkah amongst the Arabs.

“What commodity was available in Arabia that could be transported such an inhospitable environment, and still be sold at a profit large enough to support the growth of a city in a periphera; site bereft of natural resources” So we will ask exactly the same question about Mecca today: what commodity brings five million people every year from every corner of the world to the inhospitable, barren, inaccessible valley? Truly: “la illah il Allah.”

So what follows from Smith on this issue is entirely irrelevant, except that we feel obliged to point out that he completely misquotes Buillet in order to try and support his already baseless argument. According to Smith, Buillet says that:

However, Buillet does not contend anything of the sort. This is what he actually does say:

So Buillet agrees that it is situated “on the main trade route”, not “on the edge of the peninsula”, and goes on to explain how and why it became that way in spite of its unfavourable position:

Thus we can conclude from Buillet’s “extensive research” that: Mecca was the centre of settlements in that area, as the correct Tafsîr of the verse explains, and that it was on the trade routes. Another reason is offered for its choice as a centre (apart from the “undoubted” advantage of the sanctuary) is its strategic advantage.

We have further explanations concerning reasons for Mecca’s importance as a trading centre. Mohammed Rafîq points out in his refutation of Smith’s ideas;

The answer is, the cancer of humanity: usury. The big earner for the Quraish was their money lending and their highly profitable caravan financing. We find that under “ Makkah” the Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islâm by Leiden and Brik quotes Strabo, an early Roman historian as saying that: ” . . . every Arab was either a trader or a broker ” and the encyclopaedia tells us that Mecca was “ primarily a trading house, a banking town. Mecca has customs and institutions peculiar to this kind of transaction and to finance ” and that ” the Meccan tadjir was not distinct from the financier, his first article of trade was money.”

Finally, Smiths insistence on the remoteness of Makkah, and the absence of even a significant sanctuary in this most barren and tucked away of places, leaves us completely baffled as to how it ever came to be established as the centre of pilgrimage for the whole Muslim world? Who instituted it? Was it Hajjaj? If so why choose this insignificant inaccessible place, and how did he go about persuading everyone to make pilgrimage there?

Why not choose Taieef, or any place more accessible, or just leave it at Jerusalem.

The Jews

Again, Smith has got his facts wrong. Firstly by claiming that the Qur’ân states that Muhammad severed his relationship with the Jews in 2AH (624CE) is simply untrue. First because the Qur’ân does not contain any dates, and secondly Muhammad never severed his ties with the Jews (see Constitution of Medina) except those who had betrayed the fledgling state at Medina during the Battle of the Ditch, and others who acted treacherously, and even then he (peace be upon him) treated them with the utmost leniency. It was only on the Prophet’s death bead that he ordered that no two religions should remain in the Hijâz, but this order was applicable to both Jews and Christians.

As for the Doctrina Iacobi, all that this says is that this Jewish convert will not renounce his beliefs even if the Jews and Saracens catch him and cut him to pieces. Now you could understand a number of different things from this, but is by no means evidence that the Jews and Saracens worked hand in hand, or were part of a unified force. What has to be remembered when we examine these documents is the prevailing atmosphere at the time. Jews, it must be remembered, where hated and despised by all Christians at that time, and then, as now, the anti-Semite was ready to ally the Jews with any possible enemy. The anonymous Armenian chronicler only tells a similar story. It does not prove that this was the fact, rather it only shows us what some of the Christians perceived, or indeed the pure propaganda that they were using. This is one possibility, the other is that they simply perceived Islâm as some form of Judaism. There were indeed amongst the Muslims large numbers of Arab Jews who had reverted to Islâm, and the idea of a right to the Holy Land is also understood in the context of the fact that the Prophet Muhammad had prophesied that the Muslims would conquer Sham. If one was to examine these sources in this light we would see confirmation of Islamic histography, not a contradiction of it.

What is more telling is how Smith has completely ignored that piece of evidence (from non-Muslim writers) that without doubt supports what the Islamic sources tell us, namely John of Damascus!

Manuscript Evidence

Smith says: “Other Muslim scholars maintain that a further reason for the absence of early documentation can be blamed on old age. They believe that the material upon which the primary sources were written disintegrated over time, leaving us with few examples.”

In order to refute his own argument (he doesn’t mention any Muslim scholars who made this claim), Smith refers the reader to early Christian documents which have survived and were compiled well before early Islamic material. However, it is amazing to see that Smith points only to ‘secondary’ Christian artefacts (Codex Syniaticus and Alexandrinus) which are dated over four centuries after the advent of Christianity. Why does he not mention any ‘primary’ documents which are earlier than this, because if he had they would only have strengthened his argument? The fact is that he has no primary sources to refer to. We assume he would have wanted Muslims to write their books on materials similar to those used for early Christian documents about which we read: “ The original copies of the New Testament books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and perishable material.” [The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, under the heading ‘Text, NT’]

Can we really excuse Smith for making foolish claims about the supposed absence of early documentation. After all he has positioned himself as somewhat of an authority – or father figure – amongst his Christian peers. Alas, if only they knew how absurd his claims sound to an informed ear. One doesn’t even need to accept the view’s of biased Muslims, apparently so ready to ascribe anything to their Prophet without a question of authenticity. Are one’s eyes and ears closed and sealed to the work’s of many Orientalists who have documented and published very early Muslim documentation. How about Hasan al Basri’s Qadar letter to ‘Abd al-Mâlik, which according to some must have been written before 110AH. And what about al Alim wa’ l-muta’allim and Risala ila Uthman al Batti both ascribed to Abu Hanifa (d.150). Or even the manuscripts published by Van Ess, a Radd ala ‘l-Qadariyya attributed to al Hasan b. Muhammad b. Al Hanafiya, Ali’s grandson, died between 86 and 100 AH, and a Risala of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (d.101AH) in which he refutes the Qadarites. All the above mentioned manuscripts abound in Qur’ânic quotations, which present no textual variants, putting to rest equally absurd claims about the collation of the Qur’ânic text.

The final deadly blow in this one sided war against a weak and ill-equipped enemy comes from an extremely strange quarter. It is the legacy of one who was the fountain of all Christian polemic, namely the Christian hero, John of Damascus (to be disregarded, thrown to the dogs by his latter day minions?). Born in Damascus in the year 675 (i.e. 22AH), he was later regarded as the first Christian authority on Islâm. His tract De Haeresbius became the ‘armory for all future controversial writings against Islâm’. [J. W. Voorhis, John of Damascus]. John held in his book that the Qur’ân was not revealed, but created. He attempted to discredit the Prophet Muhammad by spreading false rumours that a Christian monk, Bahira, had helped in the creation of the Qur’ân. John also labelled Arabs as “Saracens” from a Jewish name, (ibid). The “Saracens” became the common name by which they were referred to in the early literature on Islâm in the West. So what was he writing about? A Qur’ân which wasn’t compiled? A Prophet which didn’t exist? A religion that had not yet been formulated? In this, finally, John of Damascus has given some real guidance to his Christian progeny.

Letters of the Prophet

There exist several letters attributed to the Prophet Muhammad which have been authenticated by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Our Dr M. Hamidullâh has attested to the authenticity of all of them. Most of the criticisms put forth by the Orientalists are not strong evidences against their authenticity and are based on the following points:

1. Mere claims: Regarding the letter to Muqauqis, Schwally declared that a letter wrote at the time of the Prophet would probably not contain so many “Kûfic” looking characters in it. However his predecessor Noldeke declared the letter to be authentic, as did Lamens.

2. Lack of knowledge: Especially concering ancient Arabic, spellings, character shapes and writing techniques.

Fisher, for example, claims the existence of mistakes in the letter to al Mundhîr. In fact his proof against turns out to be a proof for, because ancient Arabic spelling differed from the modern Arabic. These objections specifically refer to the use of double letters (for e.g. the letter TA) whilst in fact this is exactly the correct ancient usage.

In favour of the letters authenticity is the lack of any diacritical marks. Adolph Grohmann confirms that these letters predate Umar’s caliphate. Furthermore, a technical study of the letter sent to Heraculus using microscopes and ultraviolet light showed the skin on which the letter was written to be tanned using a method not as evolved as the one practised in the second century of Hijra. Likewise the quality of the ink is older than that used in the second century. Dr Reed of Leeds University declared the above scientific study accurate.

A further point worth mentioning is the presence of the seal from the ring of the Prophet which is in coloured ink. This seems to be a further guarantee of authenticity since clay seals were first introduced under the Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab.

The Constitution of Medina

Humphrey’s writes: “The first will focus on that rare beast, a document of almost unchallenged authenticity . . . the Constitution of Medina . . . As we shall see, this text is a very remarkable one both in content and language. Even more remarkable, no doubt, is that both Western and Muslim scholars agree unanimously that the piece is authentic . . . ” [Islamic History, pp. 91-95]

The Constitution, drawn up in the years immediately after the Hijra, (approx 625CE) clearly mentions the Prophethood and Messengership of Muhammad, as well as calling the believers ‘Muslims’.

Inscriptions

This is a red herring. We have already explained and quoted Creswell as to the complete lack or architectural pretensions of the early Muslims. We would hardly expect to find a dearth of inscriptions praising and eulogising the Prophet Muhammad. We do, however have two early examples of inscriptions containing the name, and mentioning the Prophethood of Muhammad, one in Ta’if, and the other in Khandaq, the latter is dated 5AH. There also exist a few other inscriptions, which have been photographed and published by Mohammed Hamidullâh.

As far as the so called extensive research of Yehuda Nevo, which Smith claims shows that there are no inscriptions which contain the title of Prophethood, then it is known by anyone who is familiar with the work of Yehuda (Smith obviously isn’t one of them) that his research was restricted to a very small section of the Negeb desert some 500-600km away from Makkah. Nevo’s research also conveniently excluded any inscriptions found in the Arabian peninsula This already means that his research is inconclusive.

Even if we look at Nevo’s research analytically we find nothing. Some rock inscriptions in some far-off desert, written by some anonymous people that do not mention the Prophethood of Muhammad. Why would we expect someone who doesn’t accept the Prophethood of Muhammad to refer to him as a Prophet? Do we refer to Smith as an expert on Islamic History, just because his cronies do?

Nevo’s research proves absolutely nothing.

Double Standards

What also may be mentioned here, if it hasn’t been picked up already, is another totally absurd characteristic of Smith’s approach. Smith is so emphatically insistent that any documentation that is provided must be checked, tested, burnt, radio-accelerated, and only by a list of people he is comfortable with. If this list includes his grandmother, then that is what must be done before he is willing to offer his acceptance. The documentation we have provided has been attested by both Muslim and non-Muslim experts as has been mentioned. What Smith is obviously unaware of, and if he had bothered to read anything himself, he would have known, that the documentation he is providing for his own theories have not themselves been attested. He is formulating a preposterous theory on the basis of unattested evidence! Such evidence does not remotely imply what Smith is claiming, whilst we are proving unequivocal facts from documentation that has been attested. Smith’s schizophrenia appears to be returning.

In conclusion, we can say that the various non-Muslim sources, even if authentic prove nothing. The dearth of material that contradicts Smith’s ideas and the admission by Crone and Cook that they are ready to ignore material that contradicts their views allows us to safely conclude that we can likewise ignore their hypotheses.

Manuscript Evidence

The first point that we need to highlight is that the absence of manuscripts does not prove that the Qur’ân in the hands of the Muslims is not the Qur’ân that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. Secondly, the existence of early documentary evidence does not actually prove that these were the words spoken by Muhammad, or indeed any other historical character. Although this is something that Western historian like, or indeed demand, it is in fact not necessarily that reliable. The Muslims of the earliest generations, including that of the Prophet, indeed the Prophet himself considered writing a useful tool, both of preservation and reference, but it has never been accepted as sufficient in and off itself. An example of this is when Umar ibn al Khattâb was approached by a group of Jews from Khaibar claiming that they had a document from the Prophet guaranteeing their right to stay. Umar rejected it, claiming it was a fake on the basis that it contradicted what was orally transmitted from the Prophet on the issue. This highlights three issues of benefit to our discussion. First the possibility of forgery of a document, even though contemperious and secondly the benefit and need for a sound chain of oral transmission, and thirdly that hostile parties certainly do not formulate a more reliable source of information.

Early Qur’ânic Manuscripts in our Possession

Most of the early original Qur’ân manuscripts with us now date from after the 2nd century. There are however a number of odd fragments of Qur’ânic papyri which date from the 1st century as mentioned in Die Entstehung des Qur’ân. There is also a complete Qur’ân in the Egyptian National Library on parchment made from gazelle skin which has been dated 68AH.

Narrations differ as to how many copies were directly ordered and sent out by the Caliph ‘Uthmân, but they range from four to seven. It seems certain from various Muslim historical sources that several were lost, through fire amongst other things. There are four copies that are attributed to Uthmân.

1) The Tashkent manuscript.

It seems that the copy in Tashkent also known as the Samarkand manuscript may be the “Imâm” manuscript which Uthmân kept for himself and was killed while reading it. A book has been written called Tarikh al Mushaf al Uthman fi Tashkent by Makhdun in which he gives a number of reasons for the authenticity of the manuscript;

1. The mushaf is written in a script used in the first 50 years of Hijra.

2. It is written on parchment made from gazelle.

3. There are no diacritical marks which is indicative of early manuscripts.

4. It does not have the vowelling marks which were introduced by Du’ali who died in AH68 suggesting that it is earlier than this.

As for Smith’s objections to the Tashkent document, then concerning the presence of illuminations between the surahs, this does not necessarily mean that it is not the Uthmanic manuscript. Two other possibilities present themselves: a) that these medallions were used from an early time, and b) they were added at a later date.

Secondly, the irregularity of the codex also suggests two possibilities a) as suggested by Lomax, that the manuscripts have been repaired as the pages disintegrated or b) the document was originally written by several different scribes.

As for the difference between the Samarkand and Tashkent manuscripts in terms of the number of lines per page, etc., then these are not arguments that in any way disprove the early dating of these manuscripts or their attribution to the scribes working under Zaid ibn Thabit.

Smith further exposes his ignorance when he talks about the various scripts.

The Kûfic Script

To begin with the quote of a Muslim, al-Kalkashandi, he maintains (Kitâb al-A’sha 3/p.15) that Kûfic is said to have been the earliest script from which the others developed, he writes: “The Arabic script (khatt) is the one which is now known as Kûfic. From it evolved all the present pens.” This is a very profound statement as its findings differ greatly from Smith’s assertions! Though Nabia Abbott’s conclusions perhaps may not go so far as to agree ad totum with this conclusion we find that she does say: ” . . . the Muslim tradition that the original Arabic script was Kûfic (that is, Hiran or Anbaran) is one of those statements which, though known to be half wrong, may yet be half right.” [Abbott, Rise and Development, p.17]

The terms that came to be applied to these scripts by early Arabs themselves could not have the chronological significance that some later Arabs and most Western writers have put to them. For is it the case that the name of a thing (e.g. Kûfic) necessarily indicates its ultimate origin? The fact is that the script which later came to be known as Kûfic has its origin far earlier than the founding of the town of Kûfah. Atiq Siddiqui writes: “The Kûfic or the angular variety of the Arabic script, has been traced about a hundred years before the foundation of the town Kûfa, 638CE (AH17) to which place the style owes its name.” [Siddiqui, The Story of Islamic Calligraphy, p.9] That is to say, the town was founded in AH17, and the Kûfic style originated 100 years before that time! Where does this leave Smith’s theory? This conclusion is agreed upon by other writers; we read in The Splendour of Islamic Calligraphy: “However, Kûfic script cannot have originated in Kûfa, since that city was founded in 17/638, and the Kûfic script is known to have existed before that date.” [Sijelmasi and Khatibi, The Splendour of Islamic Calligraphy, p.97]

Smith’s arbitrary dating of the origins of this script also contradicts early coin and rock inscriptions which have been commented upon by Western writers, some of them being:

31 A. H.

Tombstone of Abdar-Rahmân ibn Khair al-Hâjari

Nabia Abbott writes: “ The earliest Muslim inscription, the tombstone of Abdar-Rahmân ibn Khair al-Hâjari, dated 31/652 . . . It is certainly not Makkan and can safely be considered as poor Kûfic.” [Abbott, Rise and Development, p.19]

Pre-93 A. H.

The milestone, dated from the time of the Caliph Abdal-Mâlik (reign 685 – 705CE), written in Kûfic script. [see Welch, Calligraphy in the Arts of the Muslim World, p.44]

107 A. H.

Umayyad coin, minted in Damascus, inscribed in early Kûfic script. The inscription reads: “ There is none worthy of worship but Allah, He is One and has no partner ” [British Museum, Room 34]

108 A. H.

Umayyad coin, minted at Wasit, Iraq, inscribed in early Kûfic script. The inscription reads: “There is none worthy of worship but Allah, He is One and has no partner” [British Museum, Room 34]

These dates alone are from between 60 years to 140 years before the period to which Smith alludes!

Smith insists that if the Qur’ân had in fact been first compiled in the Hijâz during the Caliphate of Uthmân then it we should expect it have been written in one of two other script’s, amongst which he names the Mashq script. Little does he realise that the Mashq script itself had its origins in the same region (Iraq) as the Kûfic. Why should then the Kûfic script be excluded from its usage especially now that we have shown its early origin?

Baladhuri’s account of the origins and spread of the North Arabic script [Futuh al-Buldaan, pp.471-74] points, as do other sources, to Hirah as the seat of the North Arabic script by the close of the 5th century. What is of note here is that it is the Hiran (or Anbaran) script which later came to be classified as the Kûfic. Abbott writes: “. . . Kûfah and Basrah did not start their careers as Muslim cities until the second decade of Islâm But these cities were located closer to Anbar and Hirah in Irak, Kûfah being but a few miles south of Hirah. We have already seen the major role the two earlier cities played in the evolution of Arabic writing, and it is but natural to expect them to have developed a characteristic script to which the newer cities of Kûfah and Basrah fell heir, so that for Kûfic and Basran script one is tempted to substitute Anbaran and Hiran . . . our study so far shows that the script of Hirah must have been the leading script in the 6th century and as such must have influenced all later scripts, including the Makkan – Madinan.” [Nabia Abbott, Rise and Development, pp.6-7]

The city of Kûfah therefore inherited and took on the script which was already prevailing in Hirah. The script, as we have mentioned, which was later to be titled as Kûfic.

Baladhuri states further that Bishr ibn Abdul-Mâlik, a Christian, used to frequent Hirah, where he learned to write Arabic. Later Bishr came to Makkah and taught the writing there. Abbott in discussing the Makkan, Madinan, Kûfic and Basran scripts highlights that: ” . . . one need hardly expect any spectacular variations in the scripts of these four leading cities, for as we have already seen, increased activities in writing in Makkah and Madinah date from the days of Bishr (note: approx 500CE), who avowedly taught the script he had himself learned in Hirah. Thus a fundamental similarity of the four scripts is to be expected.” [Abbott, ibid, p.18]

The use, therefore, of a script which was later recognised as Kûfic in the Hijâz during the time of the Prophet and after is no surprise since Bishr, who himself had learnt this script from its point of origin in Hirah, had already begun to teach it in the Hijâz some 100 years earlier!

Smith also argues that it is the view of both Martin Lings and Yasin Safadi that the Kûfic script ‘did not appear until late into the eighth century (790’s and later)’. It is difficult to see how this view can be ascribed to Safadi, because he himself, in his work Islamic Calligraphy (p.11), details the tombstone from the period of the Caliph Abdal-Mâlik (see above) which he describes as being in the Kûfic script. This is a minimum of 80 years before the date which Smith ascribes to Safadi. Safadi writes: “The Kûfic script, which reached perfection in the second half of the eight century . . . ” [ibid, p.10]. Can we then assume from this, taking into account the previous evidence, that Safadi held the belief that the script first originated at this time? No, rather he is clearly stating that it is here when it reached its ‘perfection’. Martin Lings and Safadi again arrive at a similar conclusion for their book in honour of the 1976 Qur’ân exhibition at the British Museum (p.12)!

Smith is found to be not only incorrect in his dating of the origins of the Kûfic script, but also erroneous in his opinion that Kûfic is not a script that we would expect to have been employed in the Hijâz during the Caliphate of Uthman. In respect to Lings and Safadi, he has merely misread their claims.

To conclude, Abbot thinks that the Uthmanic Qur’ân’s probably were in Makka-Madini scripts ” . . . yet when these Qur’âns were written Kûfa was already in the foreground, and indeed, even before the edition of Uthman was undertaken, prominent Kûfans were working on a similar, though non-official project. Furthermore Sa’id ibn al Kais, a member of Zaid’s Qur’ân committee, was at the same time governor of Kuffa.” [Rise and Development]

2) The Topkapi manuscript.

Concerning the Topkapi manuscript there is an interesting clause in the Treaty of Versailles Article 246: “ Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to his majesty King of Hijâz, the original Qur’ân of Caliph Uthman.”

It seems that the manuscript reached Istanbul but not Medina. However, again, the suggestion is that it is actually just after the first century.

Sheikh Mohammed Shaibanee from the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society in Kuwait certainly considers it as Uthmanic. Mohammed Hamidullah also seems to agree but with more caution. Martin Lings, amongst others, considers it second century. The reason for this late attribution is the development of the writing style (not script) and its comparative sophistication suggests a later period that the first century

3) The Islamic Museum in Istanbul.

This again does not seem to be an original Uthmanic manuscript, but the oldest copy from the original. It is written in Makki script, and is almost certainly before the end of the first century.
4) Hussain mosque in Cairo.
This is the oldest of all the manuscripts, and is either original or an exact copy from the original with similarity to the Madini script.

There are also other Qur’âns attributed to Uthmân.
Ibn Nadim and Ibn Ain Aba claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib wrote three Qur’âns of which there is one in Dar al Qutb, Najaf in Iraq and it has written on it “Ali ibn Abi Tâlib wrote it in the year 40H”, one in Egypt and one in Iran. It seems almost impossible that the Imân Riba manuscript in Iran is actually written by the hand of Ali because the script, although developed at his time, would not have been learnt by him since the dissentions in his rule kept him too busy to be able to learn such an art. It is however possible that he ordered someone else to write it.

The most significant Qur’ân attributed to Ali ibn Talib is that in the Hussain Mosque in Egypt. The writing is early Kûfic, it has many similarities to Madini, which is the form of writing that Ali would have used. It could well be Ali’s own writing.

There is also existing Qur’ânic writings attributed to Hassan and Hussain and Zain al Âbidîn (sons of Ali ibn Tâlib.). There are also other Qur’âns such as the one attributed to Hajjâj ibn Muwawiya dated AH49 and Ukba ibn Amir dated AH52 in Turkey. More information on this topic can be found in Tarikh al Khatim al Arabi of Dr Salah ud Din al Munjid from where these details have been extracted.

It is also worth mentioning that there is no deviation in these manuscripts from the Qur’ân in our possession today.

The “ Institute fur Koranforschung ” of the University of Munich, Germany, had collected and collated some 42,000 complete or incomplete copies of the Qur’ân, gathered from all over the world. After some fifty years of study they reported that in terms of differences between the various copies there were no variants, except occasional mistakes of copyists which could easily be ascertained. The institute was destroyed by American bombs during the Second World War.

The Qur’ân: Histography

The first problem that we encounter with the suggestion that the Qur’ân was not written until two hundred years after Hijra is that of histography, i.e. what we know of the history of that period makes this an impossibility, most notably the fact that Mâlik ibn Marwan, and his general Al Hajaj, were fighting against the claim of Caliphate by Abdullah ibn Zubair, whose mother Asma was the sister of Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammad. In fact the explanation that Creswell gives for the impressive construction of the Dome of the Rock is because Mecca was under the control of his rival, Abdullah ibn Zubair. It was his attempt, he claims, to set up al Aqsa as an attractive alternative to the Hajj that lead him to construct the Dome. This theory that the Dome of the Rock was given such importance rather works against Smith’s ideas. If he proposes that the Qur’ân that we have today was compiled and enforced under Al Hajjaj, and he must admit that that same Qur’ân calls mankind to make Hajj, to Mecca, and to the house built there by Abraham, for the worship of the one God Allah. This poses a problem. Why would Mâlik ibn Marwân expend so much time and effort to build the Dome on the Rock and then turn people away from that to Makkah. Furthermore, how would he persuade the people of this empire stretching from Spain to India to make Pilgrimage to a hot, barren, remote, desolate place, the journey to which itself is a danger to life and limb, and which, he is reluctant to admit, contained anything at all of any significance?

Secondly, if, as Smith asserts, the Qur’ân’s sophistication is a product of the Arabs contact with other civilisations. More likely than this is that a unsophisticated, primitive people would adopt the religion of their subjects as happened with the Goths and Tartars and each group of Arabs would have developed their own distinct religious tradition according to the land they conquered. Even a successful conqueror such as Alexander and his successors with a strong Macedonian/Greek culture behind him could not resist the lure of adopting the various religions of the various conquered nations. Indeed it would seem unique in history that a primitive nomadic people managed not to get absorbed into the cultures and religions of their respective conquered people, but rather managed to establish their own unique culture and civilisation. Smith openly admits this himself in his introduction:

In fact Crone and Cook consider it a fault that the Arabs failed to assimilate. Strange therefore that Smith has described the Qur’ân as a product of assimilation.

The rapid expansion of Islâm also poses another serious problem for Smith’s thesis, and that is the task of imposing a single text on such a vast empire. Indeed not only the Qur’ân, but also the history, and story of the life of Mohammed, his sayings, Prophethood, and the lives and histories of his companions and family and all the theological and legal issues that were already being debated at that time, and all of this without a single voice of objection from any of the Arabs or Muslims? Joseph Van Ess comments in The Making of Islâm:

Abu Hanifa was already teaching in Kûfa. It seems that he might have supported the claim of rulership of Abdullah ibn Zubair, and sent monies to help him. It is incredible that no mention was made of this “new” Qur’ân being introduced, since Abu Hanîfa’s rulings were based heavily on it. R. B. Sergeant comments in Journal of Royal Asiatic Society on this issue that:

Furthermore, one of the arguments that secular historians have always used to explain the phenomenal conquests of the Muslims was the fervour of their faith, and their unity upon one Book and one Prophet calling to universal brotherhood of all believers before God, whatever their race or colour. “ These are the things that made Islâm a power in human affairs . . . “, as H. G. Wells comments in A Shorter History of the World. How does one then explain this phenomena that H. G. Wells goes on to call “ the most amazing history of conquest in the history of our whole race.”
Another devastating fact that makes the 200 AH compilation theory next to impossible are the existence of various sects, namely the Shi’a and the Khawarij, who trace the origins of their factionalism to the Caliphates of Ali ibn Talib and Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan. They had every reason to try and prove their claims by referring to their own versions of the Qur’ân, but the undeniable fact of their agreement until this day upon a single text of the Qur’ân, and their inability to even bring one single different ayaat proves that a standard text had become completely established at a very early stage. These groups would have been the first to exploit any attempt by Hajjaj to compile and introduce a new version, let alone a completely different book. This fact has been well recognised by many Orientalists, including Muir who comments in his Life of Mohamet [sic]:

The fact is that the greatest evidence in this regard is the lack of evidence. The statement of Crone and Cook concerning Hajjaj “destroying the writings of the hagerines” is not enough to prove anything. It has several other acceptable historical explanations. Furthermore it seems, according to Wansbrough’s review of Crone and Cook’s book (Hagarism) published in the BSOAS that the non-Muslim source Levond, who is supposed to have reported Leo’s description of this event, does not contain any such account! Is it possible that this book, compiled or even authored under the dictates of Hajjaj, then enforced upon an empire was done so without a single word recorded anywhere by anyone? Then there comes a list of questions that this fairytale poses. Who were the authors of this book that until this day captures the hearts and minds of millions, which moves men to tears, and which history testifies that the masters of the Arabic language, even after the time of Hajjaj, have been unable to emulate? Why refer back to Muhammad as a Prophet, in fact why should not Hajjaj announce himself as a Prophet?

Yet again the Qur’ân has all the hall marks of an oral, not of a written form, as Smith himself admits disparagingly in his apologetic.

There remain several other important issues. One of them is the content of the Qur’ân itself. How does one explain a vast array of verses that Smith declares himself in another paper, that contradict completely these assertions, that they “ reflect the mind of Mohammed.” What does “ He frowned and turned away . . . ” mean? Who frowned and turned away, and from whom?
Then there is the issue of Meccan and Medinan surahs. G. H. A. Juynboll remarks:

In conclusion it seems that one of the strangest positions taken by Crone and Cook and Wansbrough in all of their restructured offering is their assertions on the Qur’ân . This is an area which has probably the most unanimous agreement upon by all Muslim as well as non-Muslim Orientalist researchers. How they arrive at such an extraordinary position?
R. B. Sergeant comments on the work of Crone and Cook:

And on Wansbrough he comments:

The claims of both groups, Crone and Crook and Wansbrough, on the issue of the Qur’ân have been almost universally rejected by all recognised scholars. This isn’t surprising however, when one considers the superficial nature of the work of both groups in comparison to the depth of the studies carried out by the likes of Watt and Muir. Both contemporary and traditional Orientalists excluding of course, the present writers, have researched extensively into the collection and codification of the Qur’ânic text and the emergent view is unanimous. One recent writer, John Burton, who’s book was published at the same time as the work of Crone, Cook and Wansbrough, arrives at precisely the same position regarding the Prophet’s direct association with the Qur’ân as his preceding learned progenitors. R. B. Sergeant remarks:

Even Wansbrough himself comments:

The list of earlier scholars who correspond to this unified position include Watt, Muir, Arberry, Rodwell, Gibb, Margolouith, Guilliame, Glubb and Paret.
A brief examination into a few statements from some of these writers would be indicative of the majority opinion on the issue and of its Divine nature.

Adrian Brockett:

Arthur J, Arberry:

John B. Taylor:

Harry Gaylord Dorman:

Laura Veccia Vaglieri:

It is in the disregard of the legacies of these writers that have caused the divergence from the authoritative position by the present writers, and have lead to the unanimous rejection of their theories by critics.

Smith says: “ Schacht pinpoints the origin for this undertaking, stating that it was the scholar Shâfiî (died in 820 C.E.) who stipulated that all traditions of law must be traced back to Muhammad in order to retain their credibility.”

Smith shows a blatant ignorance of the works of ash-Shâfi’î, his contemporaries and predecessors. His claim is erroneous because the printed works of ash-Shâfi’î’s contemporaries and predecessors had for so long insisted on this and taken this view to be the natural and correct one:

1. The Muwatta of Mâlik (compiled by ash-Shafi’î’s teacher) traces its knowledge back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Smith admits this in a later paper when he says “the Mudawwana does not speak of Muhammad’s Prophetic authority whereas the Muwatta does.” Consequently, he is now endeavouring to cast doubt on the authentic dating of the Muwatta; his assertions will be answered elsewhere.

2. The Kitâb az-Zuhd of Ibn al-Mubârak traces its knowledge back to the Prophet.

3. The Musnad of Dawûd at-Tayalasi gives its ahadîth with chains of transmission back to the Prophet.

4. The recent discovery of the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabih (compiled prior to 59 AH, English translation available). In it we find that Hammam introduces his text with the words: “Abu Hurairah told us in the course of what he related from the Prophet”, thus giving the source of his information in the form of an isnâd and tracing it back to the Prophet.

These are but a few of those which may be cited, limiting ourselves to some of those which are available in print, let alone the many which are still in manuscript/papyrus form (some of which are described herein). One of the above alone is sufficient to show the falsity of Smith’s claim.

From an Islamic viewpoint, the issue of tracing knowledge back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and seeking his verdicts is answered by the Qur’ân itself. The reader is referred to the following verses: Qur’ân 4:65, 24:51 and 63, 33:21, 33:36 and 59:7, amongst others.

It should be noted that Smith here, as elsewhere, relies heavily on the theories of Joseph Schacht, quoting him a number of times in his paper. In fact, Smith in his discussion of Hadîth brings neither any new argument nor fresh analysis to the works from which he has simply lifted his grievances. Because Smith’s criticism here is not dissimilar from that of Schacht it will be good to briefly discuss Schacht’s level of competence in the field of Hadîth so that there will be little need for us to refer to it later:

Examples from the Errors of Joseph Schacht:


1. Schacht (Origins, pp.176-77) criticises the isnâd – Mâlik from Nâfi from Ibn Umar on the grounds that Mâlik was too young at the time of Nâfi’s death, and therefore could not have heard Hadîth from the latter. It is strange to see that that Schacht says: “ Nothing authentic is known of Mâlik’s date of birth “. If he believes this then how can he adduce that Mâlik was too young?

This argument, however, assumes that the reader will not check the facts for himself, for Mâlik was almost 23 years of age when Naafi died, and was hence in a perfectly good position to study under him, as can be adduced from a study of their respective biographies.

2. Schacht (Origins, pp.36-37) takes the statement of Ibn Sirin that: “ They did not ask about the isnâd but when the fitna (civil war) occurred they said: ‘Name to us your men . . . ‘ . . . ” and declares it to be a fabrication on the basis that the civil war referred to in the statement was the one which started with the death of the Umayyad Caliph Walîd bin Yazîd who died in 127AH, whereas Ibn Sirîn had already died in 110AH!

Schacht’s whole argument rests on his arbitrary interpretation of the word fitna (civil war). The death of Walîd bin Yazîd has never been a conventional date in Islamic History. Furthermore, there were many civil wars before this date, which Schacht appears to have overlooked. There was the unrest at the time of the death of the Caliph Uthmân, the rift which occurred between Ali and Mu’âwiyah, and that between Ibn az-Zubair and Abd al-Mâlik bin Marwan, all of which occurred between 40 to 80 years before the death of Ibn Sirîn.

Schacht takes the work fitna in the sense which suits his preconceived theory, without any historical justification. This, of course, is logically absurd.

3. Schacht (Origins, p.60) says that Ibrahîm an-Nakhai confirms certain things by “pointing out the absence of any information on that matter from the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar” and Schacht refers to the work of Abu Yusuf, Athar, pp.349-52. Schacht assumes then that the Hadîth from the Prophet on the matter under discussion must have been fabricated after the time of Ibrahim, otherwise he would not have failed to mention them. This is erroneous for two simple reasons:

Firstly, the very reference which Schacht cites, namely, Abu Yusuf, pp.349-52, has explicit statements which contradict his own assertions. Here we find two traditions, both narrated by Ibrahîm, describing the practice of the Prophet.

Secondly, even if we accept that Ibrahîm did not know of any Hadîth from the Prophet on the subject at hand. Schacht is then guilty of making the absurd assumption that Ibrahim must have known all of the Prophetic Hadîth on every subject. He fails to take into consideration the obvious possibility that Ibrahim’s failure to mention a narration was because he himself was unaware of one, not that one did not exist.

4. Schacht (Origins, pp.241-42) in order to support his theory that incomplete and broken isnâds were perfected and completed by later authors gives an example of one such broken isnâd from the works of ash-Shafiee which he asserts was corrected and remedied by Mâlik in his book al-Muwatta.

Schacht blatantly reverses the evidence to prove his point. He fails to inform the reader that Mâlik’s book al-Muwatta was compiled some forty years earlier than ash-Shafiee’s. In other words the correct and complete isnâd is dated earlier than the one which Schacht quotes as broken. So, according to Professor Schacht, the mistake was remedied before it was ever committed!

It is analysis such as this on the part of Schacht and at times his complete lack of understanding of the source material which has subsequently led Western scholars to express grave doubts about his work. For example, we find that those who have studied his all too readily formulated and at the same time sweeping theories, have said that:

“Some Western scholars, too, have expressed reservations about the hypotheses of Goldziher and Schacht. My own position is that the wholesale rejection of the Hadîths as mere invention and fabrication misses the point that many of the Hadîths can be shown to spring from an ancient source in the primitive exegeses.” [John Burton, An Introduction to the Hadîth, p.181: Edinburgh University Press:1994] “Schacht’s references to Umayyad administrative or to popular ‘practice’ are always mere blunt assertion. Not one single instance of such presumptions has been substantiated.” [ibid, p.xxii – Introduction] “The present writer regards Schacht’s conclusion as too rigid, particularly because his arguments concerning the ‘relative position’ of a Hadîth ‘in the history of the problem with which it is concerned’ are not always wholly convincing.” [The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature, pp.232-33] “Schacht’s approach, then might be considered somewhat too narrow because he rigidly identifies the development of law with the growth of Hadîth and fails to take proper account of intrinsically legal issues of this kind.” [ibid, p.320]

Similar objections to Schacht’s opinions are aired by N. J. Coulson, who finds them “Too rigid” and “not wholly convincing” [N. J. Coulson, European Criticism, p.319] while James Robson and Nabia Abbott are even more critical. However, the most rigorous articulation of this scepticism comes from Muhammad M. Azami, whose Studies in Early Hadîth Literature and On Schacht’s Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence can be considered the definitive rebuttal of Schacht’s theses. We find that M. M. Azami says:

“It does not appear that Professor Schacht has made any thorough investigation of isnâds of a considerable part of legal traditions necessary to put forward a theory of this nature, let alone his investigation of all of them or most of them. A theory of such common application is unacceptable on such meagre evidence. It seems that he has two kinds of measurements for research. To formulate a theory, he uses the term ‘common occurrence’, basing his research on a few examples that suit his theory; and if there are cases which cover 99% of the subject that refute his theory, then he uses the word ‘occasionally’ to minimise their effect. This dual standard of argument shows his prejudice and bias and consequently jeopardises the conclusions of his whole research.” [M. M. Azami, Studies in Early Hadîth Literature, p.235: 1992]

• Smith says: “ As a result the great mass of legal traditions which invoke the authority of the Prophet originated during the time of Shafiî and later . . . ”

This is answered by Abbott in her study where she concludes that: “One must therefore question sweeping statements that, toward the end of the second century, isnâd’s that go back to Muhammad were manufactured freely in response to Shafi’î’s insistence on such isnâd’s. For it seems much more likely that a strict process of selection rather than a wholesale fabrication of isnâd’s accounts for the bulk of the Hadîth al-nabi that has survived in the standard collections and particularly in the Sahîhain of Muslim and Bukhârî.” [Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, Vol. II, p.174. Chicago: 1967]

If there was a need to project Hadîth back into the mouth of the Prophet, why is it that some legal doctrines are traced back only as far as one of the four rightly guided Caliphs, or other of the Companions, and not to the Prophet himself?

It is also worth replying here to the comments of other European scholars who have envisaged a natural course of events in which those who associated with the Prophet for a long period would have reported more traditions from him than those who only knew him for a short while. This, however, was not the case. The younger generation of Companions reported far larger numbers of Hadîth than their older brethren. These questions have already been raised by classical Hadîth scholars themselves, who point out that since the older Companions passed away not long after the death of the Prophet, they had less time to pass on all the traditions known to them, whereas the younger Companions, such as Ibn Abbâs, Abu Hurairah, Aisha, lived for a longer period, and were therefore able to disseminate the narrations known to them much more extensively. This serves as an argument against the accusation of later fabrication as J. Fuch points out, it in fact supports the veracity of the traditionists; for if all the isnâd’s had been forged by them, they would have tried to produce isnâd’s from the older Companions in larger numbers. [J. Fuch, Die Rolle des Traditionalismus, p.17. ZDMG XCIII: 1939]

• Smith says: “ Patricia Crone takes the arguments one step further by contending that credibility for the traditions has consequently been lost due to the bias of each individual compiler.”

Crone’s works and conclusions are no more reliable than any of the others which Smith quotes as the basis for his hypotheses. D. S. Powers of the Cornell University – writing in the Journal of Semetic Studies (discussing the book Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law) comments on some of Crone’s views regarding the Prophetic Hadîth and their development, he says:

“Stated in these terms, Crone’s position will be unacceptable to many non-Muslim scholars, for several reasons. First, in my view, Crone has merely replaced one a priori assumption (authenticity) with another (inauthenticity); between these two extreme positions, however, lies much ground for historical investigation . . . in at least one instance Crone has exaggerated an alleged discrepancy between the early jurists and Prophetic Hadîth. To corroborate her conclusion about the contribution of Near Eastern provincial law to the origins of Islamic law, she attempts to demonstrate conclusively that the legal maxim ‘no bequest to an heir’ could not have been instituted by the Prophet, as Islamic tradition maintains, because all of the early Iraqi jurists appear to have forgotten what the Prophet allegedly had said (pp.93-6). But her analysis rests upon a clear misreading of the Prophetic Hadîth, making it appear as if the early jurists disagreed with the Prophet when in fact they did not (for a detailed critique of her argument, see again my article ‘On Bequests in Early Islâm’). One wonders whether a close examination of other instances in which Crone attributes ‘wild disagreement’ to the early jurists might not yield similar results. Be that as it may, Crone’s inability to demonstrate the inauthenticity of this Prophetic Hadîth does not inspire confidence in her blanket rejection of the authenticity of all statements attributed to the Prophet.”

• Smith says: “A further problem with these traditions is that of proliferation” and he also says, “Furthermore, the sheer number of Hadîths which suddenly appear created a good deal of suspicion. It has been claimed that by the ninth century there were over 600,000 Hadîth, or early stories about the Prophet.”
Smith is somehow under the delusion that 600,000 Hadîths means 600,000 separate bodies of text! He fails to remember that a Hadîth consists of both a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnâd), in the science of Hadîth the same text with ten chains of transmission is not one Hadîth but rather ten Hadîths (despite the fact that the text attached to each chain is the same in every case.)

This increase in the number of Hadîths included in the later collections is easily fathomed by anyone conversant with the history of the collection of Hadîth. With the expansion of the Islamic empire, the custodians of the Hadîth’s travelled widely and settled throughout the new dominions, narrating those aHadîth known to them to create a provincial corpus. It was only after students of Hadîth had travelled through all these countries and collected together the traditions known to the specialists living there, and narrated them to their own students, that larger and more complete collections of Hadîth could be compiled.

Take a high simplified example of one Companion narrating a single Hadîth from the Prophet onto two students, these students themselves teaching that narration again to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of Bukhârî and his contemporaries. We will find that in Bukhârî’s generation at least 16 individuals will be hearing the Hadîth from their respective teachers. Because each individual chain of transmission counts as a separate Hadîth, what started out as a single narration transmitted by one Companion only, has evolved within a short period of time to 16 Hadîth’s; an increase of 1600%. The true nature of affairs, however, being far greater, with a far greater number of Companions transmitting a far greater number of narration’s to a far greater number of students. This then is the form in which proliferation took place, the dispersion of narrators and chains of transmission, not, as Smith seems to think, by the emergence of newly formulated texts!

Nabia Abbott writes: ” . . . the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islâm was not primarily growth of content, so far as the Hadîth of Muhammad and the Hadîth of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission.” [Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, Vol.II, p.2: Chicago: 1967]

She also finds that: “. . . using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand Companions and senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each would bring us well within the range of the total number of traditions credited to the exhaustive collections of the third century. Once it is realised that the isnâd did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhârî seem not so fantastic after all.” [Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, Vol.II, p.72: Chicago: 1967]

• Smith says: “. . . the ruling Caliph asked Al-Bukhârî, the well-known scholar, to collect the true sayings of the Prophet out of the 600,000.”
Wrong again! Rather it was his teacher Ishaq ibn Rahâwaih who urged him onto this task as is well-known to those who have taken it upon themselves to study the matter. Smith, in his eagerness, has obviously confused himself with similar instructions given by the Caliph Umar ibn Abdul Aziz to az-Zuhri some 130 years earlier!

• Smith says: “ Bukhârî never spelled out the criteria which guided his choice, except for vague pronouncements of ‘unreliability’ or ‘unsuitability ‘ (Humphreys 1991:73).”
Smith again puts his words into the mouths of his sources. Humphreys doesn’t make mention of Bukhârî at all on page 73! Furthermore, Humphreys uses the words ‘reliability’ or ‘suitability’ which Smith magically transforms into ‘unreliability’ or ‘unsuitability’ to add extra emphasis to an already weak argument.

In actual fact the criteria for adducing the weak from the authentic Hadîth had already been determined by Bukhârî’s teachers and the scholars that went before him; the likes of Yahya ibn Maeen, Ali ibn Madini, Ibn al-Mubarak, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, ash-Shafi’ee, Mâlik, az-Zuhree and so on. Bukhârî’s own printed works – Tarikh as-Saghir, Tarikh al-Kabir and ad-Du’afa – help us determine the standards he maintained in evaluating the isnâd. Al-Hazimi, al-Ayni and al-Qastallani in their respective commentaries to the Sahîh have all given details of the very exacting principles set by Bukhârî in compiling his work.

• Smith says: “In the end, he retained only 7,397 of the Hadîth. Allowing for repetition, the net total was 2,762, gathered, it is said, from the 600,000. What this means is that of the 600,000 Hadîth 592,603 of them were false, and had to be scrapped! This beggars belief!”

Rather it beggars belief as to why Smith even dares to speak on a subject which he clearly knows very little about! Who before Smith said that the 592,603 were false and had to be scrapped? A number of inaccuracies have to be cleared up here:

1. Where does Bukhârî claim that he intended to include ALL of the authentic Hadîth known to him? Rather he said the exact opposite in that: “I left out many more authentic traditions than this to avoid unnecessary length.” [al-Khateeb in his Tarikh 2/8-9]. We find Muslim making a similar statement in his Sahîh where he says: “I have not included in this every Hadîth which I deem authentic.” [Sahîh Muslim, English translation, Vol. 1, p.222, no.801., India:1987]. How many of the 592,603 were authentic with Bukhârî and Muslim but they chose not to include them?
2. Smith is again under the delusion that 600,000 Hadîths somehow means 600,000 separate narrations or bodies of text! In theory, the 592,603 Hadîth omitted by Bukhârî could have had the same single text through 592,603 separate isnâds, to him that would have counted as 592,603 Hadîth – albeit in theory that is, but this simply goes to show that the situation is not quite what Smith imagines it to be. It would be more accurate to say, for Smith’s benefit if nothing else, that the figure of 592,603 alludes to individual chains of transmission, not texts.
3. The fact that Bukhârî has compiled other works in which he has included authentic Hadîth not found in his Sahîh clearly shows that other authentic Hadîth were known to him. For example, his printed works Juz Raf’al-Yadain, Qiraa’at Khalf al-Imaam, Khalq Af’al al-Ibaad, Al-Adab al-Mufrad and others.
4. The fact that the works of other writers contain many authentic Hadîth (not included by Bukhârî) is again ample proof that the figure of 592,603 does not consist merely of false narrations. We have the Sahîh books of Muslim, of Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaimah, Abu Awanah and the vast library of Sunan, Musnad and Musannaf titles. Mention should also be made here of the Mustadrak of al-Haakim who compiled his work on the criteria that he would include in it some of the authentic Hadîth which met the standards of either Bukhârî or Muslim but they did not themselves include them in their respective works. All of these have to be catered for in the 592,603!
5. The Sahîh (authentic) Hadîth is itself split into two categories. That which is Sahîh li-dhatihi (authentic of its own accord) and Sahîh li-ghairihi (authentic due to supporting narrations). Bukhârî intended only to collect those Hadîth in his book which were of the level of Sahîh li-dhatihi. Therefore the countless number of Hadîth classified as Sahîh li-ghairihi have all to be catered for in the 592,603!
6. The Sahîh Hadîth is not the only authentic type of Hadîth, there are also those of the hasan (good) class. Since Bukhârî intended only to collect the authentic Sahîh Hadîth, the countless number of Hadîth classified as hasan have all to be catered for in the 592,603!
7. The 600,000 narrations were not purely traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) but included the individual sayings of the Companions and their Successors, their legal decisions and commentaries; the word ‘Hadîth’ covers all of these subject matters in some scholars’ terms. Therefore the countless number of non-Prophetic narrations have to be accounted for in the figure of 592,603!
8. R. S. Humphreys (who Smith is so apt to quote elsewhere) clearly states in his work: “These compilations did not claim to include all the materials which the ancient historical tradition had produced. On the contrary, a compiler would select only a small number of those known to him.” [Humphreys, Islamic History – Revised Edition, p.73. Princeton University Press:1991]

Where does all this leave Smith’s theory? Or rather the theory he transcribed from others without any verification on his own part!
• Smith says:“Ironically it is just this sort of scenario which puts doubt to the authenticity for any of the Hadîths.”
Smith would want us to accept that because SOME of the Hadîth may have doubt concerning them then we should simply discard ALL of the other narrations on the same basis! This is akin to a coinsmith who finds a forgery amidst his pile and promptly proceeds to dispose of the rest of the coins without giving to them the individual scrutiny that they deserve. This would be ludicrous! (Using the same analogy, we could say that Christians should dispose of the the four canonized gospels because of the existence of numerous apocryphal gospels!)

If Smith accepts that Bukhârî and other compilers endeavoured to sift the authentic from the weak, then why doesn’t he accept their efforts and himself reject only those narrations which were shown to be false? This certainly would be more just and exacting in the end. Of course we don’t expect Smith to be so welcoming.

• Smith says: “The fact they suddenly materialised at this period (ninth century), and were just as suddenly rejected, seems to suggest either their creation or their adoption at this time, and not at an earlier date.”

Why would Muslims create a host of traditions which they themselves would promptly reject? Smith is also under the delusion that nothing exists until it is put into writing. For him the spoken word holds no lasting value whatsoever. The mere compilation of a work at a given time in no way implies that its contents were not available or did not exist well beforehand. Smith says: ” . . . seems to suggest either their creation or their adoption at this time.” Which is it going to be: ‘creation’ or ‘adoption’? The first (creation) implies something new and the other (adoption) the acceptance of something already in existence. Smith can’t have it both ways. (Medication still absent)

• Smith says: “ This echoes the statement made earlier by Schacht concerning the need by compilers of the ninth century to authenticate borrowed laws and traditions by finding a link with the Prophet.”

Professor Schacht’s capabilities have already been discussed. Schacht was of the view that the law and the practice existed first [Origins, p.63] and were then given an air of authority by linking them to the Prophet! To support his argument he quotes Ibn Qasim from the Mudawwana (4/28) who concludes by saying: “ So the traditions remained neither discarded (in principle) nor adopted in practice . . . and actions were ruled by other traditions which were accompanied by practice.”

Schacht fails to grasp the meaning behind his source. Ibn Qasim’s whole discussion is based on the point that there are two groups of traditions: one group which is accompanied by the practices of the Companions and the Successors, and another group which is not accompanied by any sort of practice. So, if there were a conflict between these two groups, then the one accompanied by the practice would be given precdence. No where does he indicate that the practice came first and the tradition later!

• Smith says: “The Maghazi, which are stories of the Prophet’s battles and campaigns, are the earliest documents which we possess. They should have given us the best snapshot of that time, yet they tell us little concerning the Prophet’s life or teachings.”

If Smith admits that such works were concerned with describing the battles and campaigns of the Prophet, why should we expect them to cover other aspects of his life and teachings also? Smith is asking to much, he would have us believe that from any book written about the Prophet and Islâm we should be able to draw all the relevant information we could wish to have. Why should a book on battles be anything other than that?


• Smith says: “ A further problem with the traditions is that of internal contradictions. Certain authors wrote reports which contradict other reports which they had themselves written (Humphreys 1991:73).”

Smith is adept at making claims without giving suitable examples. He refers here to Humphreys who himself similarly fails to quote any examples. Despite this, in terms of offering a general response, we can say: There is no doubt that some Hadîth appear to contradict others. However, Smith should bear two strong possibilities in mind:

1. That it is often the case of a weak/inauthentic narration contradicting one that is established as authentic.

2. That it is often the case of a later tradition abrogating an earlier one.

For it is a natural thing for the leader of a fast-developing movement to change the instructions he issues to his followers in order to respond to a changing situation. Hence we find that the Prophet at times issued advice or instructions which superseded those which he had given earlier. In some cases, the clashes can be resolved by pointing out the different circumstances under which the apparently differing instructions were given. Is this then regarded as contradiction?

One cannot but be surprised to find that some European scholars have cited traditions as evidence of contradictions in the literature when Muslim scholars have for a thousand years and more dismissed those very traditions as spurious, or cases of abrogation. On other occasions, they have cited narrations traditionally considered authentic as forged!
• Smith says: “ Al-Tabari, for instance, often gives different, and sometimes conflicting accounts of the same incidents (Kennedy 1986:362).”

Smith again is silent by way of examples, and I have been unable thus far to obtain a copy of Kennedy’s work to see what he has to say. Therefore, without discussing specific grievances, we can say in terms of a general response:

Smith has himself previously indicated that such authors were not themselves writers but rather compilers who drew together the information passed on to them. Al-Tabari himself alludes to this in the Introduction to his History when he says: “Let him who studies this book of ours know that in everything I say about the subjects which I have decided to recount here, I rely only on what I transmit from explicitly identified reports and from accounts which I ascribe by name to their transmitters . . . And if we mention in this book any report about certain men of the past which the reader finds objectionable or the hearer offensive . . . let him know that this is not our fault, but is rather the responsibility of one of those who has transmitted it to us. We have presented (them) only in the form in which they were presented to us.”

That is to say, Al-Tabari did not take it upon himself to extensively edit the sources in his History but faithfully displayed them in the manner in which he received them. Can he then be accused if any conflicting accounts should arise?

Furthermore, Smith expects that once a scholar arrives at a given writing then there is no allowance for him to alter his standing at some later stage. If due to progressive research an individual finds it necessary to amend a previously held viewpoint are we then to label him with contradiction and conflicting reports?
• Smith says: “. . . many of the traditions reflect the same material as the others, implying the recycling of the same body of data down through the centuries.”

In the previous section Smith pushed forward the accusation of contradiction and then here promptly proceeds to contradict himself! He conludes that because of similarity this data must have been recycled ‘through the centuries’. Yet in the very next passage he asserts that ‘Because of their similarities, they seem to point to a singular source early in the ninth century.” What happened to his theory of ‘through the centuries’?
• Smith says: “take for example al-Tabari’s History of the life of the Prophet which is much the same as Ibn Hisham’s Sira, and much the same as his Commentary on the Quran, which is much the same as Bukhârî’s Hadîth collection. Because of their similarities, they seem to point to a singular source early in the ninth century . . . ”

To say that al-Tabari’s History, which covers the period from the creation of Adam to life in al-Tabari’s own generation (printed in approx. 30 volumes in English) is “much the same as Ibn Hisham’s Sira”, whose main aim is to detail the 23 years of the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); and also that al-Tabari’s ‘Commentary’ on the Qur’ân which covers the entire scripture from beginning to end in approx. 15 volumes, is “ much the same as Bukhârî’s Hadîth collection ” which dedicates only a small portion to Quranic commentary and even then covering only 350 or so verses, is deception at its highest level. Smith assumes that his readers/listeners are unable to check the true facts for themselves.

Despite this, what difficulty is there in accepting that three authors writing about a common event (i.e. the life of the Prophet), all from the same Islamic and historical perspective, should produce works which hint of similarity? Why should we expect their works to differ?


Smith on Isnaad


• Smith says: “ The larger the list within the chain the greater its credibility.”

This is a laughable error and reeks of ignorance! Had he even bothered to read the most basic, introductory work in the field of Hadîth and isnâd he would have realised without fail that great efforts were always exerted in trying to obtain the shortest chain for each narration. The following few quotes should help clarify the matter:

” . . . the students of Hadîth are concerned chiefly with attaining the briefest isnâd.” [Ibn al-Jawzi in Sayid ul-Khaatir, p.216]

“ Seeking for the shortest isnâd is a sunnah from those who have preceded.” [al-Khateeb in Al-Jaami li-Akhlaaqir Raawee, 1/123]

“ Seeking brevity of isnâd is a means of drawing closer to Allah – the Most High.” [ibid]


Documentary Evidence


• Smith says: “ Earlier written material, they say, was no longer relevant for the new Islâm, and consequently was either discarded or lost.”

Which Muslim scholar has said that earlier written material “was no longer relevant for the new Islâm”? I fear Smith, as usual, is misquoting his sources, not even having the decency to copy with any degree of accuracy. He refers the reader here to R. S. Humphreys Islamic History, page 72. I have the revised edition which reads: “So great was the prestige of the classical compilations, and so compelling were the interpretations that they proposed, that most of the texts written earlier simply ceased to be copied or read in any systematic way, though it is clear that many titles were still available (and occasionally studied) down at least to the 7th/13th century.”

• Smith says: “ While there is some credence to this theory, one would assume that even a few of these documents would have remained, tucked away in some library, or within someone’s collection. Yet there is nothing.”

A little amount of thought is sufficient to show that Smith’s statement “Yet there is nothing” (before the 200-300 years he mentions earlier in the paper) can only backfire on him and help to show his deep lack of skill in the field of research. Perhaps he overlooked (or ignored) the following works, all compiled before the dates to which he alludes and available today, covering various topics:

Sahifah of Hamaam ibn Munabih – edited and printed edition.

Nuskhah of Suhail bin Abu Salih – Ms. Zahiriyah Library; Damascus.

AHadîth ibn Juraij of Ibn Juraij – Ms. Zahiriyah Library, Damascus;

Musnad of Ishaaq ibn Rahaawaih – Ms. Zahiriyah Library, Damascus;

Yazid ibn Abu Habib – his traditions transmitted by al-Laith ibn Sa’d – Ms. Zahiriyah Library, Damascus;

Musannaf of Abdur Razzaq – edited and printed edition;

Jaami’ of Ma’mar ibn Rashid – printed along with Musannaf of Abdur Razzaq;

Musnad of Humaidi;

Musnad of Dawud at-Tayalasi;

Kitab az-Zuhd of Ibn al-Mubarak;

Muwatta of Mâlik ibn Anas – edited and printed edition;

Al-Athar of Abu Yusuf;

Muwatta of Muhammad ash-Shaibani;

and others . . .

• Smith says: “ But unlike those who write forwards today, the ninth century compilers had no documentation to prove that their sources were authentic.”

Smith may be excused here for slipping up in an area where his forefathers were wont to do the same. Smith has a misconception about isnâds which to him implies solely oral transmission, whereas in many instances a chain of transmission actually comprised of a series of books which were referred to by the name of their author rather than the name of the book itself. The main reason for this assumption is usually due to a misunderstanding of the term – hadathana – (i.e. he narrated/informed to us) which outwardly seems to suggest oral transmission but which was regularly used for the transmission of books also. In some instances a document is referred to directly in the isnâd. Take the following four examples:

– In the Musnad (1/418) of Ahmad the isnâd: “ Yahya bin Adam informed us that Abdullah ibn Idris dictated to him from his book.” Here a book is employed for the transmission of a narration yet still the words “ informed us ” are used for this purpose.

– Abu Dawud transmits a portion of the booklet of Samurah in various chapters of his Sunan without mentioning the document but at all times referring to the author and employing the term “ he narrated/informed to us “.

– In the Sunan (1/45) of an-Nasa’i the isnâd: “ Muhammad bin al-Muthnee narrated to us, saying, Ibn Abi Adee narrated to us from his book and then from his memory.”

– The Muwatta of Mâlik is a well known book. The book was entitled by the author himself. Yet the authors from the later period, utilising the material of the Muwatta freely, referred only to Mâlik without mentioning the book.

Therefore, the use of an isnâd does not necessarily imply that no books were present for the purpose of transmission or that they were not available for consultation. But again, it must be said that Smith is assuming that authenticity lies only in documentation!

(NOTE: If you want to build a strong and powerful relationship with Allah, check out Islamia TV, where you can watch Islamic speakers from across the globe deliver inspiring and motivational courses. Learn more at www.islamia.tv.)





0
0