Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:48:39.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between maghāzī and ḥadīth in early Islamic scholarship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2011

Andreas Görke
Andreas Görke*
Affiliation:
Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between the traditional biographical material on Muḥammad (maghāzī- or sīra-material) and the narrations of his words and deeds (ḥadīth-material) has long been debated in Islamic studies. While some scholars have argued that the biographical material is fundamentally ḥadīth material arranged chronologically, others have argued the opposite: that ḥadīth material originally consists of narrative reports about the life of Muḥammad which were later deprived of their historical context to produce normative texts. This article argues that both views are untenable and that maghāzī and ḥadīth emerged as separate fields; each influenced the other but they preserved their distinctive features. While traditions that originated and were shaped in one field were sometimes transferred to the other, the transfer of traditions from one field to the other apparently did not as a rule involve any deliberate changes to the text.

Keywords

Biography of the Prophet MuḥammadEarly Islamic fields of learningHistoriographymaghāzīḥadīthsīraEarly Islamic literature
Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 171 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See for instance Kister, Meir J., “The Sīrah literature”, in Beeston, A.F.L. et al. (eds), The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature. Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 352Google Scholar: “The development of Sīrah literature is closely linked with the transmission of the Ḥadīth and should be viewed in connection with it”. Schöller, Marco (Exegetisches Denken und Prophetenbiographie. Eine quellenkritische Analyse der Sīra-Überlieferung zu Muḥammads Konflikt mit den Juden (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1998, 5)Google Scholar), argues that the sīra-traditions cannot be studied without taking into account the beginnings of Islamic legal thinking (fiqh) and the emergence of the isnād. Horovitz, Josef, “Alter und Ursprung des Isnād”, Der Islam 8, 1908, 39–47, 39 f.Google Scholar, points to the close relationship between the two fields regarding both form and content and claims that the material presented in sīra works and in ḥadīth collections is basically the same but is arranged according to different criteria.

2 For a discussion of the divergent usages of maghāzī and sīra see Hinds, Martin, “‘Maghāzī’ and ‘Sīra’ in early Islamic scholarship”, in Fahd, Toufic (ed.), La vie du prophète Mahomet. Colloque de Strasbourg (Paris, 1983), 57–66Google Scholar; cf. Sezgin, Fuat, Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums, 12 vols (Leiden, 1967–2000), I 251, 275Google Scholar; Jarrar, Maher, Die Prophetenbiographie im islamischen Spanien. Ein Beitrag zur Überlieferungs- und Redaktionsgeschichte (Frankfurt am Main, 1989), 1–43Google Scholar.

3 See e.g. Lammens, Henri, “Qoran et tradition, comment fut composée la vie de Mahomed”, Recherches de Science Religieuse 1, 1910, 27–51Google Scholar.

4 Becker, Carl Heinrich, “Prinzipielles zu Lammens’ Sīrastudien”, Der Islam 4, 1913, 263–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Becker, “Prinzipielles zu Lammens’ Sīrastudien”, 262; the translation follows W. Watt, Montgomery, “The materials used by Ibn Isḥāq”, in Lewis, Bernard and Holt, Peter Malcolm (eds), Historians of the Middle East (London, 1962), 23–34, 23Google Scholar.

6 See e.g. Crone, Patricia, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), 214 fGoogle Scholar.: “[I]t should be plain that much of the apparently historical tradition is in fact of exegetical origin”; Schöller, Exegetisches Denken, 128–33.

7 Wansbrough, John, The Sectarian Milieu. Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (Oxford, 1978), 77Google Scholar.

8 Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, 78.

9 Ibid., 87.

10 Ibid., 76–8, and see below.

11 Nagel, Tilman, “Ḥadīṯ – oder: Die Vernichtung der Geschichte”, in XXV. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 8. bis 13.4.1991 in München. Vorträge (Stuttgart, 1994), 118–28, 126fGoogle Scholar.

12 Hinds, ‘“Maghāzī’ and ‘Sīra’ in early Islamic scholarship”, 63; ibid., “al-Maghāzī”, in EI 2, V, 1161–4.

13 Cf. Görke, Andreas, “Eschatology, history, and the common link: a study in methodology”, in Berg, Herbert (ed.), Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 179–208, 182Google Scholar, for an overview of changes that typically occur in the course of transmission.

14 For a categorization of the different types of material included in works on maghāzī, cf. Watt, “The materials”, 24–31; Watt, , “The reliability of Ibn-Isḥāq's sources”, in La Vie du prophète Mahomet. Colloque de Strasbourg (octobre 1980) (Paris, 1983), 31–43Google Scholar; Wim Raven, “Sīra”, in EI 2, IX, 660–3, 662 f.; see also Leder, Stefan, “The literary use of the Khabar: a basic form of historical writing”, in Conrad, L. and Cameron, A. (eds), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I: Problems in the Literary Source Material (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1992), 277–315, 309fGoogle Scholar.

15 Cf. Kister, “The Sīrah literature”, 357–61; Monroe, James T., “The poetry of the Sīrah literature”, in Beeston, A.F.L. et al. (eds), The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature. Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period (Cambridge, 1983), 368–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Horovitz, , The Earliest Biographies of the Prophet and Their Authors (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 2002), 14Google Scholar.

17 Ibid., 27–9.

18 Ibid., 39; Khoury, Raif Georges, Wahb b. Munabbih. Teil 1: Der Heidelberger Papyrus PSR Heid Arab 23. Leben und Werk des Dichters (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972), 144, 146, 148Google Scholar.

19 Horovitz, The Earliest Biographies, 44 f.

20 Ibid., 66.

21 Ibid., 122.

22 For instance Shuraḥbīl b. Saʿd and Mūsā b. ʿUqba (cf. Horowitz, The Earliest Biographies, 30, 70).

23 For instance ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, ʿAbdallāh b. Abī Bakr, and Mūsā b. ʿUqba (cf. Horovitz, The Earliest Biographies, 27, 44, 71, 87).

24 Cf. Görke, Andreas and Schoeler, Gregor, Die ältesten Berichte über das Leben Muḥammads: Das Korpus ʿUrwa ibn az-Zubair (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 2008), 266 fGoogle Scholar.

25 See e.g. al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl, , Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 3 vols (Vaduz: Thesaurus Islamicus Foundation 2000)Google ScholarKitāb al-Shurūṭ, 15.

26 Cf. Günther, Sebastian, “Fictional narration and imagination within an authoritative framework. Towards a new understanding of Ḥadīth”, in Leder, Stefan (ed.), Story-Telling in the Framework of Non-Fictional Arabic Literature (Wiesbaden: Harrassovitz, 1998), 433–71, 440 f., 464 fGoogle Scholar.

27 Cf. Beaumont, Daniel, “Hard-boiled: narrative discourse in early Muslim traditions”, Studia Islamica 83, 1996, 5–31, 10, 18, 23Google Scholar.

28 The distinction between ḥadīth and khabar was controversial among Muslim traditionalists and remains so among scholars. For different views on the relationship between ḥadīth and khabar, cf. Larcher, Pierre, “Le mot de ḥadīṯ vu par un linguiste”, in Nagel, Tilman and Gilliot, Claude (eds), Das Prophetenḥadīṯ: Dimensionen einer islamischen Literaturgattung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 7–13Google Scholar, 12 f.; Landau-Tasseron, Ella, “Sayf Ibn ʿUmar in medieval and modern scholarship”, Der Islam 67, 1990, 1–16, 6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zaman, Muhammad Qasim, “Maghāzī and the muḥaddithūn: reconsidering the treatment of ‘historical’ materials in early collection of ḥadīth”, IJMES 28, 1996, 1–18Google Scholar; Faizer, Rizwi S., “The issue of authenticity regarding the traditions of al-Wāqidī as established in his Kitāb al-Maghāzī”, JNES 58, 1999, 97–106Google Scholar, 100; Beaumont, “Hard-boiled”, 26 f.

29 Günther, “Fictional narration”, 464; Leder, “The literary use of the Khabar”, 307.

30 E.g. Gibb, Hamilton A. R., “Ta'rīkh”, in Enzyklopaedie des Islām. Geographisches, ethnographisches und biographisches Wörterbuch der muhammedansichen Völker, Ergänzungsband (Leiden: Brill, 1938), 249–63Google Scholar, 251; al-Dūrī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, The Rise of Historical Writing among the Arabs, ed. and trans. Conrad, Lawrence I. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 29Google Scholar; Lecker, Michael, “Wāqidī's account on the status of the Jews of Medina: a study of a combined report”, JNES 54, 1995, 15–32, 19 fGoogle Scholar.

31 Cf. al-Dūrī, The Rise, 29, 111; Horovitz, “Alter und Ursprung”, 43.

32 Görke and Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte, 63, 68, 74–7, 90–1, 99.

33 Widengren, Geo, “Oral tradition and written literature among the Hebrews in the light of Arabic evidence, with special regard to prose narratives”, Acta Orientalia 23, 1958, 201–62, 234–9Google Scholar.

34 Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, 76–8.

35 Schoeler, Gregor, Charakter und Authentie der muslimischen Überlieferung über das Leben Mohammeds (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1996), 142–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Nagel, “Ḥadīṯ – oder: Die Vernichtung der Geschichte”, 127; Nagel, , “Verstehen oder nachahmen? Grundtypen der muslimischen Erinnerung an Mohammed”, in Jahrbuch des Historischen Kollegs 2006, 73–94, 80–84Google Scholar.

37 al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Kitāb al-hiba, 3.

38 See e.g. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Kitāb jazā’ al-ṣayd, 2–5; ibid., Kitāb al-jihād, 46, 88; ibid., Kitāb al-aṭʿima, 19; ibid., 2 vols, Kitāb al-dhabā’iḥ wa-l-ṣayd, 10, 11; Muslim b. Ḥajjāj, , Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, (Vaduz: Thesaurus Islamicus Foundation, 2000) 8. Kitāb al-ḥajjGoogle Scholar; Aḥmad b. al-Nasā’ī, Shuʿayb, Sunan, (Vaduz: Thesaurus Islamicus Foundation, 2000), Kitāb Manāsik al-ḥajj, 78Google Scholar, 80, 81; ibid., Kitāb al-ṣayd wa-l-dhabā’iḥ, 32; Abū Dā’ūd, Kitāb al-Manāsik, 42; Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad b. al-Tirmidhī, ʿĪsā, Sunan al-Tirmidhī, 2 vols (Vaduz: Thesaurus Islamicus Foundation, 2000)Google Scholar, Kitāb al-ḥajj, 25; Muḥammad b. Māja, Yazīd Ibn, Sunan Ibn Māja (Vaduz: Thesaurus Islamicus Foundation, 2000)Google Scholar, Kitāb al-Manāsik, 93; Anas, Mālik b., al-Muwaṭṭa’ (Vaduz: Thesaurus Islamicus Foundation, 2000)Google Scholar, Kitāb al-ḥajj, 24; Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, V: 296, 301, 302, 304, 305 f., 307, 308.

39 E.g., al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Kitāb jazā’ al-ṣayd, 2–3; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, Kitāb al-ḥajj, 8; al-Nasā’ī, Sunan, Kitāb Manāsik al-ḥajj, 80; Ibn Māja, Sunan, Kitāb al-Manāsik, 93; Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, 5: 301, 304.

40 al-Wāqidī, al-Maghāzī, II, 576.

41 Nagel, “Ḥadīṯ – oder: Die Vernichtung der Geschichte”, 127; Nagel, “Grundtypen”, 82 f.

42 Görke and Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte, 122, 142–4, 183–4, 215, 221, 248, 252, 254, 266–7.

43 Cf. Juynboll, Gautier H. A., “Some isnād-analytical methods illustrated on the basis of several women-demeaning sayings from ḥadīth literature”, al-Qanṭara. Revista de estudos árabes 10, 1989, 343–83, 352Google Scholar; Juynboll, Gautier H. A., Encyclopedia of Canonical Ḥadīth (Leiden: Brill, 2007), I, xxCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Schacht, Joseph, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950), 171–5Google Scholar.

45 Cf. Motzki, Harald, “Dating Muslim traditions. A survey”, Arabica 52, 2005, 204–53, 222–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Görke, “Eschatology, history, and the common link”, 188.

46 Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿUthmān al-Dhahabī, Ta'rīkh al-Islām wa-wafayāt al-mashāhir wa-l-aʿlām, ed. ʿU. Tadmurī, 51 vols (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī 1409/1989–1421/2000), 8: 297–9.

47 Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. al-Ṭabarī, Jarīr, Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk (Annales), ed. Goeje, M. J. de et al. , 15 vols (Leiden: Brill 1879–1901), III, 2503Google Scholar.

48 In the 34th category on abrogating and abrogated ḥadīth. al-Shahrazūrī, Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, ʿUlūm al-ḥadīth, ed. ʿItr, Nūr al-Dīn, (Dimašq: Dār al-Fikr, 1406/1986), 286–8, esp. 288Google Scholar.

49 Shāhīn, Ibn, Kitāb Nāsikh al-ḥadīth wa-mansūkhihi, ed. ʿAlī, Karīma bt. (Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmiyya, 1420/1999), 55–7Google Scholar.

50 Leder, “al-Wāḳidī”, EI 2, XI, 101.

51 Horowitz, The Earliest Biographies, 115.

52 al-Wāqidī, al-Maghāzī, II, 576.

53 al-Wāqidī, al-Maghāzī, III, 1092 f.

54 E.g. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, al-Shahādāt, 8; ibid., Aḥādīth al-anbiyā’, 57; ibid., al-Maghāzī, 55; ibid., al-Ḥudūd, 12, 13; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, al-Ḥudūd, 2; Abū Dā’ūd, Sunan, al-Ḥudūd 4, 15; al-Trimidhī, Sunan, al-Ḥudūd, 6; al-Nasā’ī, Sunan, Qaṭʿ al-Sāriq 5, 6; Ibn Māja, Sunan, al-Ḥudūd, 6; Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, VI, 162; al-Ṣanʿānī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Ḥammām, Kitāb al-Muṣannaf, ed. al-Aʿẓamī, H. R., 11 vols (Beirut: al-Majlis al-ʿilmi, 1970–72),Google Scholar X, 201 f.; al-Nīsābūrī, Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak ʿalā l-Ṣaḥīḥayn, ed. ʿAtā, M. ʿA., 5 vols, 2nd. ed. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmīya, 1422/2002)Google Scholar, 379 f.; Saʿd, Ibn, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, ed. Sachau, E. et al. , 9 vols, (Leiden: Brill, 1904–28), VI.1, 48 f.Google Scholar; VIII, 192 f.

55 al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥiḥ, Ḥudūd, 12.

56 E.g. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥiḥ, al-Shahādāt, 8; ibid., Maghāzī, 55; Muslim, Ṣaḥiḥ, al-Ḥudūd, 2; Abū Dā’ūd, Sunan, al-Ḥudūd. 4; al-Nasā’ī, Sunan, Qaṭʿ al-Sāriq, 6.

57 Görke and Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte, 240, 242–4.

58 ʿAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, x, 201 f.

59 Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, Ḥudūd, 2 (last tradition).

60 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, VIII, 192 f.

61 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, IV.1, 48 f.

62 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, VIII, 192 f.

63 al-Dhahabī, Ta'rīkh al-Islām, XIII, 264–9.

64 al-Dhahabī, Ta'rīkh al-Islām, IX, 674.

65 These circles, of course, should not be regarded as exclusive. We know of several authorities in maghāzī who were also considered to be experts in law or ḥadīth, and they may be partly responsible for the traditions spreading from one circle to the other. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the different conventions prevailing in the different fields led to different changes.

66 Cf. Horovitz, The Earliest Biographies, 12, 23, 27, 55, 60 ff.; see also Leder, “The literary use of the Khabar”, 313.

67 Cf. Landau-Tasseron, “Sayf Ibn ʿUmar”, 9, who comes to a similar conclusion.