Dating of Isnād and Western Scholarship

Isnād system is the distinction of Muslim Ummah which is praised by its critics too because it is a source of access to the origin of every information. Muslim scholarship called it religion and did not accept hadith without Isnād . Especially after the first Civil War -when the fabrication of hadīth appeared in Muslim societythe Muhaddīthūn thoroughly scrutinised the traditions and transmitters to differentiate the authentic Aḥādīth from the weak and fabricated. On the other hand, when Western scholarship started source criticism, they considered Isnād system as a source of dating Ḥadīth. Therefore, most of their theories and conclusions about the authenticity of Ḥadīth based on it. They put in question the Isnād system as Prophetic Ḥadīth and tried to find out its dating in their studies. Some of them claimed that Muhaddīthūn fabricated it in the second century and onwards while the others argued that it was used after the first half of the first century. However, both considered it later addition to the hadith literature. This study deals with the theories of Western scholars about the dating of Isnād and its comparison with historical facts.

with it. Muhaddīthūn considered it as a tool of access to the grad of Ḥadīth, while the Western scholars supposed it as a source of dating Ḥadīth. Moreover, Western scholarship believed that Isnād system was not used in the early ages of Islam as Muhaddīthūn claimed. The theories of Western scholars about the dating of Isnād could be divided into two groups as follow.

Use of Isnād Later Than First Century:
A group of Orientalists believe that using Isnād was not in practice during firstcentury A.H, and supported their thesis with historical traditions. A thorough review of Western scholars works revealed that the Italian orientalist Leone Caetani was the first one who put in question the authenticity of Isnād as well as its provenance in the first century A. H. He argued that Urwa b. al-Zubaīr (d. 94/713) was the oldest collector of the Prophetic Aḥādīth. However, he neither used Isnād nor mentioned his source except the Holy Qur'ān as al-Tabarī (d. 310/923) narrated from him. M. M. Azamī discussed Leone Caetani's theory and elucidated that Urwa b. al-Zubaīr was in the reign of Abdulmālik (80-70), which indicate to the conclusion of Caetani that Isnād was not familiar among the Muslims at least until (70) after Ḥijra. Furthermore, Leone Caetani claimed that Muhaddīthūn fabricated and added Isnād to the cluster of ahādīth in the period between Urwa bn al-Zubaīr and Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150/767), which could be supposed the end of the second century, and perhaps also in the third . Aloys Sprenger followed the same method and concluded that the letters of Urwa b. al-Zubaīr was free of Isnād, and considered his Isnād in some sources is the later ascription to him. Joseph Schacht linked the dating of Isnād with the dating of hadīth criticism and considered it later addition as well. He countered the wellknown narration of Muhammad b. Sīrīn (d. 110/729) regarding the questioning of Muhaddīthūn about the source of a narrator ,and concluded that it is a fabricated narration which ascribed to Ibn Sīrīn after his death because it is included information related the Civil War which is occurred in (126/744), and it is not possible that he could talk about what would be occurred after his death. Consequently, Schacht challenged the authenticity of this tradition as well as denied the origin of Isnād before the second century .

Use of Isnād at the End of the First Century:
The prominent Western scholars such as J. Horovitz, Ignaz Goldziher, and Robson believe that Isnād used in the first century A. H. J. Horovitz countered the theory of those western scholars who criticised the Isnād of Urwa b. al-Zubaīr in his letters to Abdulmālik b. Marwān, and claimed that these letters are free of Isnād as al-Tabarī quoted. J. Horovitz argued that al-Tabarī was not the single source for the letters of Urwa. There were other earlier sources like Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124/742) who narrated it on his chains. However, these critics did not investigate all sources of Urwa b. al-Zubaīr's letters in the classical canonical books and predicated their theories on al-Tabarī, which is insufficient for the final scientific conclusion . Robson followed the same method in the dating of Isnād in the first century and supported his thesis that many of the Companions were dead in the first half of the first century, and the Successors who had not seen the Prophet would be narrating Aḥādīth of him. Naturally, it is possible that students might have asked them about their sources, and they referred to them. Additionally, he illustrated that we know that Ibn Ishāq, in the first half of the second century, could give much of his information without an Isnād, and much of the remainder without a perfect one. His predecessor would almost certainly be even less particular than he in documenting their information. However, we are not justified in assuming that Isnād is a development of al-Zuhrī's period and was unknown to Urwa bn al-Zubaīr . G. H. A Juynboll also studied the same subject and developed the theories of early scholars regarding the dating of Isnād in his works, and argued that Isnād was not used among the Muslims in the early ages of the first century. Juynboll supported the thesis of Joseph Schacht about the criticism of hadīth with new arguments and concluded that it is started after the second quarter of the second century because he belive that Shu'ba b. al-Hajjāj (d. 160/777) was the first critic of hadīth transmitters who later followed by Yahya b. Saīd al-Qatān (d. 198/814). However, he did not agree with Joseph Schacht's conclusion about the narration of Ibn Sīrīn. He agreed with J. Robson that it is an authentic narration and Ibn Sīrīn talked about the Civil War which occurred between Abdullāh b. al-Zubaīr (d. 72/692) and Abdulmālik b. Marwān. Hence, he credited the conclusion of J. Horovitz and others that Isnād used in the second half of the first century .

Appraisal of Orientalists Theories about the Dating of Isnād:
Muhaddīthūn considered Isnād is a part of religion as Abdullāh b. al-Mūbārak (d. 181/797) stated: "Isnād is part of the religion. If it were not for the Isnād, anyone would say whatever he wishes to say". Therefore, Muhaddīthūn paid sufficient attention to its uses . On the other hand, Western scholarship also focused on Isnād and considered it a source of access to the dating of hadīth. Joseph Schacht introduced the Commonlink theory to find out when a hadīth came into being or circulated in the hadīth's centres. G. H. A Juybnboll developed Schacht's theory for the same purpose and tried to find out the Partial, Seeming and Real Common-link through the studying of Isnād system, which could be considered an addition to Schacht's theory of Common-link . Besides, Western scholars tried to find out the dating of Isnād, which is a subject of discourse among them and Muslim scholarship as well. The following lines are the appraisal of their theories and arguments related to the dating of Isnād.

Hadīth Criticism and Western Scholarship:
Joseph Schacht and G. H. A. Juybnboll linked the dating of Isnād with the dating of hadīth criticism and concluded that it had appeared in late years after the death of the Prophet. It might be considered a scientific approach, but they avoided the historical facts and based their premises on insufficient historical information that referred them to a conclusion which does not match with the actual historical facts.
A thorough comparative study of their premises and historical facts reveals that it is not more than a claim that Shu'ba b. al-Hajjāj was the first scrutiniser because hadīth criticism started in the early ages of Islam after the death of the Prophet and the well-known companions like Abū Bakr (d. 13 Besides, it is notable that hadīth criticism in the early ages of first-century was not like the second half of the first century and at the beginning of the second century. In the early ages, the Companions criticised the narrators on forgetfulness, lack of attendance and late coming to the lectures of the Prophet rather than questioning their probity (Adālatu'l-Rāwī) . However, when the first Civil War occurred, and the fabrication of hadīth took place in Muslim society. Hence, Muhaddīthūn started investigating the probity of transmitters aimed to receive Aḥādīth from reliable and trustworthy sources. The science of Ḥadīth developed with time and Muhaddīthūn introduced different sciences for the preservation of Prophetic Aḥādīth as well as for the differentiating the authentic from the weak and fabricated Aḥādīth. They compiled books in biographies and Jarha wa't-Tadīl of transmitters which considered the characteristic of this Ummah that has complete written information about those people who narrated their heritage from the early ages .

Isnād before the Second half of the First Century:
The dating of Isnād is a subject of discourse among Orientalists, as mentioned above. J. Horovitz, Robson, and G. H. A Juynboll concluded that it was used after the first half of the first century which could be considered an early dating in Western scholarship. However, it revealed that their conclusion based on the dating of hadīth criticism, while it is proved, that companions like the first two Caliphs and 'Aīsha scrutinised hadiths before the second half of the first century, which is an evidence of using Isnād at that time. Moreover, it is an established fact that every Companion did not hear each hadīth from the Prophet because they were busy in their everyday life, and it was not possible for everyone to attend every lecture of the Prophet as could be witnessed in the tradition of Anas b. Mālik (d. 90/709) and Umar b. al-Khattāb .Both ahādith denote that they had mediations, but due to their reliability on each other, they usually referred to the Prophet instead of primary source.  (31) and others referred to their sources, which prove that it is a baseless claim that Isnād was not used before the Second half of the first century.

Conclusion:
The Western scholarship studied Islam and its primary sources and developed various theories about its authenticity and historical position. However, the primary purpose of their study of Prophetic hadīth was to collect the historical information about the early ages of Islam that would help them in the rewriting of the Islamic history, and thus they considered the source criticism indispensable. During the source criticism, Western scholars put in question the dating of Isnād system, and despite their difference in opinion, they called it later addition to the Aḥādīth. Leone Caetani, Aloys Sprenger, and Joseph Schacht argued that Ḥadīth system was not used in early ages of Islam and they dated it in the second century and onwards. While J. Horovitz, Ignaz Goldziher, Robson, and G. H. A Juynboll believe that Isnād used after the first half of the first century A. H. The main arguments of Leone Caetani, Aloys Sprenger, is the letters of Urwa b. al-Zubaīr to Abdulmālik b. Marwān which are quoted al-Tabarī in his compilation. They concluded that Ibn al-Zubaīr was the oldest collecter of hadīth, but he did not use Isnād and nor referred to his source except the Holy Qurān. However, it proved that it is not more than a claim because al-Tabarī is not the single source for Ibn al-Zubaīr's letters. There are other earlier and authentic sources than al-Tabarī like al-Zuhrī, who quoted these letters with his chains. Abbās, Abū Saīd al-Khudrī and others referred to their sources whenever someone asked, or they realised it essential because they did not hear each hadith from the Prophet, but due to probity and reliability on each other, they usually referred to the Prophet without mediation. In sum-up, the dating of Isnād is a subject of discourse in Western scholarship. Most of the Western scholars based their theories on the assumption or insufficient sources and avoided historical facts. Therefore, their conclusion does not match with the authentic, established facts.