Books

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Footnotes

Orality of \adíth

The <adíth literature underscores the fact that authority was vested in individuals who could reproduce oral evidence that link them to a major authority.  In other words, legal scholarship was a living tradition and not much attention was paid to the written words even if such written records had existed.[46]  In all the collections I have studied there were only two references to written documents: `Ali’s book mentioned in Bukhárí’s tradition (tr. 747) and another less famous collection of <adíth written by Ibn `Umar.[47]  As far as the a<ádíth were concerned, al-@i<á< al-Sittah must be the first generation of written documents and if there was a written document prior to that, we simply have no evidence that such a document (or documents) were necessarily used in order to produce these @i<á<.[48]  In the collection of Bukhárí, Abú Dáwúd, and in other books that we have examined, we found no reference whatsoever to the Muwa>>á’ which is said to have been the first written book of law and <adíth.[49]  There was ample reference to traditions reported on the authority of Málik and his companions, but the book was never referenced.

Khilafah

Nationalism

Usul

Archives

  The language of all these works was dominated by words and phrases that only suggest oral transmission of information.  What all these collections have in common is the obvious features of an engaged oral discourse like “say”, “ask”, “answer”, etc…  These features were present in all the major collections of <adíth in Sunni and Shi`ite books as well as in the commentaries on those materials.  In order to show the prevalence of speech in these materials, we have surveyed the following books searching for the verb qála only to find that it occurs at least twice per tradition compared to zero occurrences of the words kataba or qara’a and the close derivatives such words. 

Another piece of evidence we would like to present in order to underscore the orality of the <adíth and the early exegetical literature is the use of the word “thintayn”[50] which had been used instead of the word “ithnatayn.”  Just like in modern spoken Arabic, that form could be the vernacular adaptation for the classical Arabic “ithnatayn.”  This peculiar form of the word was used 181 times in the <adíth collections, and nearly 200 times in the early tafsír works,[51] but was never used in the text of the Qur’án, and its use sharply decreased in later a<kámic and philosophical writings.  This would suggest that <adíth, being an oral discourse, adopted variations of some Arabic words that are common in the spoken language.  However, the Qur’án, being purely recited in the standard Arabic; and the later works, being reflective of the standard (written) Arabic, conformed more to the standard Arabic than to the spoken words of the <adíth that were reported in the language of the community.  In any case, words like “thintayn” and many other forms and adaptation are strong evidence supporting the oral formulation, transmission, and maintenance of the <adíth and the early disciplines that relied on <adíth. 

          The body of <adíth literature, as it is compiled today, is essentially a record of oral utterings.  Those utterings had placed the content (ma<múl) of any legal ruling beyond human considerations regardless of the outcome. With this evidence regarding the importance of the oral discourse in Semitic communities in general and in Islamic world in particular, one can only wonder if the Western bias towards the written word has affected our modern understanding of the intricacies and the fundamentals of classical Islamic legal tradition. 

  With the continuous and undeniable influence of classical Islamic law on modern formulation and codification of contemporary laws, it is of paramount importance that a serious look at this matter is considered.  The data we have compiled is just another confirmation of the orality not only of the Qur’ánic discourse, but also of the <adíth and major commentaries that are considered, by all accounts, as foundational sources of classical Islamic law.  Notwithstanding this, it remains my contention that the <adíth literature, as is today, or as it has existed throughout, by itself, is utterly inconclusive to be the basis for producing the highly developed legal tradition of the laws of inheritance.  The practicum of the Prophet then could only be partly responsible for codifying the system of inheritance.  As the generation of Málik seems to repudiate[52] to take any—or full—credit for the initiation of Islamic law; it is highly possible that the better part of Islamic laws on inheritance originated during al-Khiláfah al-Ráshidah, and to a lesser extent, in the first few years of the Umayyad Caliphate but on the hands of independent scholars.

One more important remark that must be taken seriously when considering <adíth as it may well force us to change the way we understand the concept of \adíth altogether.  Many modern scholars have devoted time and resources to the study of the <adíth texts as they are recorded in the so-called al-@i<á< al-Sittah.  Their theories and hypotheses were essentially based on the philological treatment of these documents.  However, even if we were to credit the masters of madháhib of originating part—or all—of Islamic law, we should remember that Islamic law was formulated and systematized well before these books came into existence.  Even A<mad Ibn \anbal, being the last master jurist who lived during the recording of the a<ádíth, did not rely on the other five collections; rather, he used his own sources of <adíth.  All the other jurists had actually lived in the century that preceded the recording of <adíth as shown in the scholars’ timeline that we have developed.[53]

With the exception of less than three Prophetic traditions, the body of <adíth, as we have demonstrated,[54] does not provide a solid grounding for the rules of inheritance. Yet, the a<kám works repeatedly refer to the Sunnah as the basis for the specific rules contained therein.  The sayings and the practice of the Prophet in regards to the interpretation of the verses of inheritance are more problematic than inducing of a proper understanding of the Qur’ánic sanctions.  For example, the two traditions that are reported to be the occasions of the revelation of [Q4: V11-2] are either not specific—as in the case of Jábir who appears not to have had any children of his own; or partly applicable—as is the case of the tradition of the wife of Sa`d Ibn al-Rabí`.[55]

Copyright ©  SOUAIAIA. All rights reserved.