Here is a good illustration of what I mean when I say early Hadith critics were doing isnad-cum-matn analysis. A diagram I made a while ago from al-Daraqutni’s (d. 385) analysis of a hadith in Bukhari (may have some inaccuracies but the general idea is right). Look familiar?
After tracing all these chains (not relying on the books that survive till today), Daraqutni still holds the version given by al-Bukhari is the best. But he sounds a note of concern over the degree of differences being cited on the authority of Abu Ishaq, i.e. the common link.
Now consider that al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Hatim, etc, weren’t just engaging in this process for individual or at most isolated clusters of hadith. They assessed interlocking webs of the corroborations between narrators over thousands of isnads and their varying mutun.
Does that mean they were beyond the possibility of error? Of course not (and they never claimed such). But their huge intellectual contribution (which makes ICMA today even possible) should be better recognised in academic scholarship and its fruits not lightly dismissed.
Back to the diagram: this is based on the chains al-Daraqutni himself has through al-Bukhari. In other words, this is the scaffolding for each hadith that we don’t see when we read the Sahih. It is what is meant by picking the collection from 100,000s of hadiths (i.e. chains).
Bonus point: the middle chain with the black line is Bukhari’s version. In his Sahih he responds to the version with the dotted line through Abu Ubayda (recorded by Tirmidhi). He says: Abu Ubayda didn’t narrate it rather… (Abu Ubayda is the son of Abd Allah b. Mas’ud…
But was known to be too young to have received his father’s hadiths). So, al-Bukhari prefers the longer chain going through Ibn Mas’ud’s confirmed students. This shows how al-Bukhari is using other information to judge the credibility of the so-called single strands past the CL.
A clarification on the source of the isnads in the diagram.
Good to see Hythem lay this out so clearly. I have been discussing it with him and others for a couple of years and IMO this is the historically viable position. Those who oppose the idea of scribal errors - and I get the controversy! - usually do so for theological reasons.
Now, I understand why theological commitment to the Arabic Qur’an as divine attribute can lead to what Hythem calls “special pleading”. But it is perfectly possible to account for these minor variations without generating any theological problem. In fact, there are multiple ways.
What really matters for “what counts as Qur’an” is that the Prophet gave permission for its recital. Thus, whatever one holds on attribute theology, one can argue that even if unintentional, these minor variations come under the permission given by the name sab’at ahruf.
I need to correct a mistaken assumption. I didn't take what I'm saying from Dickinson (or Brown) at all, useful though their works are, but from actually having studied primary hadith texts with a world-class muhaddith (Dr Akram Nadwi). When I was writing the book I asked him
for a handy reference for this point I had noticed about isnad-matn and he was a bit baffled. He said to the effect it was everything. It's very revealing that you assume Muslim tradition didn't preserve such knowledge and that it had to be "discovered" by a Western academic.
So, if I am guilty of tadlis, it is only in making use of insights gained from my training. I also think at some point we internalise what we learn from teachers and it becomes our own, though I generally try to acknowledge my intellectual debts.
Hi @DrJavadTHashmi. You've asked me lots of questions on a bunch of threads and unfortunately I don't have spare time to discuss them all. I will try to mention the main points as I see them. I think the heart of our disagreement is that I don't think that the main Western
academic proponents of Hadith studies (from Goldziher to Motzki) truly understood what Hadith critics were doing. This is obvious from reading their works and comparing with study of primary texts (not just Western secondary literature on them). Their dismissal of the enterprise,
or at least what they think can't be reconstructed from written sources according to ICMA, seems naive at best (I'm being kind here). It has become somewhat orthodoxy in the Western academy for several reasons, but the whole subfield needs a serious reevaluation by scholars
Al-Fiqh al-akbar is probably one of the most famous theological treatises ascribed to Abu Hanifa, but there is debate around it. Wensinck argued for it being a later work and some Muslim scholars such as Shibli Nu'mani agreed. Others have argued it is genuine. Here is a thread.
First of all there are two completely distinct texts called al-Fiqh al-akbar, a narration from Abu Hanifa's son Hammad (Wensinck called this al-Fiqh al-Akbar II for reasons I won't go into) and another one by his student Abu Muti' al-Balkhi which is often called Al-Fiqh al-absat.
The one with earlier manuscripts and commentaries is Al-Fiqh al-absat which was obviously important in the Transoxianan Hanafi tradition. Notable is the 4th century commentary ascribed to al-Maturidi but widely accepted to be of Abu Layth al-Samarqandi.