Post by tahawi on Feb 5, 2017 4:20:49 GMT
A Comparative Study of al-Būtī’s and Hamidullah’s Respective Methodologies to Sīrah
Apart from being a simple narrative of the Prophet’s life, the Sīrah genre has had ramifications in a range of areas—from politics to theology. In a similar vein, the influences and methodologies of a given author has had a direct bearing on his treatment of the field of Sīrah. Therefore, a study of not only Sīrah works, but also of their authors will allow one to develop a holistic understanding of the field. The present essay will study two modern Sīrah scholars: Muhammad Sa’īd Ibn Ramadān al-Būtī (d. 2013) and Muhammad Hamidullah (d. 2002), with particular reference to their methodologies in examining historical reports and their approaches in engaging with Sīrah as a discipline. This will be carried out with an expose of key influences in their lives and a comparative analysis of their treatment of specific reports in Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography and The life and Work of the Prophet of Islam by al-Būtī and Hamīdullah, respectively.
Biographies
What concerns us here is not a detailed biographical account of the two authors’ lives. Instead, for the purpose of the present study, we will focus on particular influences in their lives that had a bearing on their exposition of Sīrah.
Let us begin with al-Būtī. When reading through the life of al-Būtī, the impressive educational influence upon him is striking. Although an expert in multiple Islamic sciences, a cursory glance at his educational upbringing and the titles of some his most prominent works reveals his passion for jurisprudence (Fiqh). For instance, he completed his doctorate at al-Azhar’s faculty of Shariah, and later he lectured on comparative law and the sources of Islamic law at the University of Damascus. Second, one cannot help but notice the political influence in the life of al-Būtī. He inherited a distaste for secularization tendencies from his father, which later got him in contact with the well-grounded socio-political movement at the time, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. He had close ties with leading members of the movement like Hasan Habannaka (d. 1978). A torchbearer for traditional Islamic thought, al-Būtī has written vehemently against a range of ideas and philosophies, including scriptural literalism, secularism, Marxism, and nationalism. As we will see, these two influences, i.e. a specialization in jurisprudence and a campaign against ideas he regarded as unorthodox, have left an indelible mark upon al-Būtī’s rendition of Sīrah.
As for Muhammad Hamidullah, he was likewise a polymath with expertise in a wide range of Islamic and extra-Islamic disciplines. He is particularly recognized for his interest in Sīrah and the historicity of Hadīth. His unique interest in the historicity of Hadīth literature, a trait inherited from his teacher Manazir Ahsan Gilani (d. 1956), can be gauged from his editorial work on the renowned Sahīfah of Hammām ibn Munabbih (d. 101 AH). Having mastered twenty-two languages, including French, Arabic, English, and Urdu, Hamidullah secured an unparalleled academic pedestal in Islamic scholarship. Aware of the plethora of research in different languages, Hamidullah was able to address contemporary issues via his rendition of Sirah. This becomes evident in his approach to dealing with modern criticisms on the Prophet’s life, in response to which he taps into various sources and methods of historical verification.
General Overview
Originally written in Arabic, the objective of Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography (Fiqh al-Sīrah) becomes clear from the sub-title, viz. an academic study of Sīrah focusing on lessons and foundational legal injunctions. In the introduction, al-Būtī outlines his methodology in unequivocal terms: he will employ a methodology based on the deduction of principles and legal injunctions, which he describes as the classical didactic approach (al-manhaj al-madrasī). Although he recognizes the worth of the modern “literary analytical approach” (al-manhaj al-adabī al-tahlīlī), he found that readers appreciated the former methodology.
In the extensive introduction, al-Būtī minces no words in informing his readers what he intends on addressing in this book. First, he will embark on a campaign to refute modern Sīrah writers like Husayn Haykal (d. 1956) who have, in his opinion, misconstrued the genre of Sīrah by stripping it of its miraculous nature and minimizing the Prophet’s accomplishments to a mere human endeavor. He believes that authors like Haykal have done a disservice to the field, because their writings reflect clear influences from Orientalist literary styles. As he bluntly puts it, he will therefore set out to correct the inaccuracies of modern Sīrah writers and to unveil the hidden agendas of the Orientalists, whose writings are the bedrock of the former.” Al-Būtī’s main contention with modern authors of Sīrah is their presentation of the life of the Prophet in compliance to “European methods that are distant from Islamic methods,” such as removing the miraculous accounts found in Sīrah. The only miracle, al-Būtī frustratingly continues, these writers are willing to accept as valid is the Qur’an. He is so committed to refuting modern detractors that his major focus throughout the book is to “erase any remnants of this school of thought.”
He speaks of another group who found fault in earlier editions of the work, like his approach to the issue of asking intersession from the Prophet during and after his life and the permissibility of standing for a guest out of respect. Despite presenting definite proofs in support of these matters, al-Būtī says that they still felt the need to refute his position on these matters. It is rather obvious that here he is referring to the Salafi movement, with whom al-Būtī had debated throughout his life and even authored an entire monograph against. This is important to note because it means that he will also, explicitly or otherwise, emphasize issues of this nature, which reflect his theological and juridical leanings. In terms of his methodology, he assures the reader that he will assess historical facts based on the principles of Hadīth criticism. In al-Būtī’s opinion, Sīrah reports were the first set of information to be collected; subsequently, general historical reports and Hadīth were documented. As such, if the principles of Hadīth criticism apply to hadiths, al-Būtī argues, then they should, a fortiori, apply to Sīrah reports.
Next is Muhammad Hamidullah’s “The Life and Work of the Prophet of Islam” (Le Prophete del’ Islam: Sa Vie et Son Oeuvre). Originally written in French, Hamidullah’s book is a culmination of a life-long study of Sīrah. He explains two factors that motivated him to take up the project of writing on the life of the Prophet. First, although numerous works were written on the subject, one area has escaped the attention of researchers: the administrative institutions and organizations set up in the interest of the Muslim community. Second, there is a need for further research on the evolution of the Prophet’s relations with other communities. He therefore sets out to fill the void in these areas. It is important to keep in mind that the book was originally in French. This is because another reason for writing the book was the lack of literature on the subject in French, and to repay the hospitality he so long received from the French. Hence, the book is meant for a general audience, not just specialists.
In the introduction. Haidullah provides a useful list of sources on the Prophet’s life. These include the primary sources of the Qur’ān and Hadīth, inscriptions of Makkah and Madīnah, and early Sīrah works. He concludes the list of sources by remarking, “I have taken advantage of the works of my predecessors, both from the East and the West, some of which are learned.” In so doing, he informs his readers that he has benefited from Western literature on the Sīrah and even regards their authors as predecessors. Contrast this with the approach of al-Būtī, who has a distaste for such literature and their authors, as mentioned above. Hamidullah’s ability to tap into eclectic sources truly distinguishes his book from other Sīrah books. From Aristotle’s Politics to Jewish and Christian Scriptures to Dante’s Divine Comedy to Ignaz Goldziher’s Kultar det Gegenwart, Hamidullah demonstrates unparalleled erudition by exploring a wide range of sources to address all aspects of the Prophet’s life. As will be seen shortly, this expansive approach to research allows him to answer modern criticisms by employing cutting edge historical methods to verify reports.
Methods of Analyzing Historical Information
To understand the methods both scholars employed in analyzing historical reports, a comparative study of their treatment of specific incidents is in order. To this end, the present essay will examine how they assessed reports on the early days of the Prophet’s life and a letter he sent the Byzantine emperor in 6 AH.
With regards to the early days of the Prophet’s life, Hamidullah writes, “One expects a prophet to work miracles as from his very birth: so his mother had a painless childbirth; the child was born circumcised; he was washed and stamped by the seal of prophet hood on the back, between the shoulders by the angels.” He carries on to list a number of other miracles, such as Halīmah’s flock of sheep coming home satisfied after grazing unlike other animals who had grazed in the same fields. He cites the following works as his reference: Sirat Ibn Hishām, al-Tabaqāt of Ibn Sa‘d, and al-Ansāb of al-Balādhurī, without engaging in the authenticity of these reports. Many of these reports, however, have been criticized in terms of their authenticity. Take, for instance, the miraculous birth with circumcision. As Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 751 AH) explains, there is not a single reliable hadith to support such an occurrence, and neither is this from the exclusive traits of the Prophet.
There are two possible reasons Hamidullah decided not to delve deeper into the authenticity of these reports. First, as is clear from the purpose of writing his work, he intended to address a general audience, and therefore to engage in an intricate discussion on the historical reliability of these reports would defeat the purpose of writing such a book. Instead, he expends more energy in dealing with the authenticity of reports that have been criticized by Orientalists. Second, these reports fall under the category of historical reports without legal significance, particularly since they pertain to the pre-prophethood period. Scholars of Hadīth have expressly allowed for a more lenient treatment of reports of this nature.
On the other hand, al-Būtī decides to exclude most of these incidents in his account of the Prophet’s early life. He suffices on a handful of widely-transmitted reports such as the fact that he was born an orphan and was later placed under the foster care of Halīmah. Although he is focused on a particular dimension of Sīrah, as per the conditions laid out in the introduction, it is worth noting his selection of miracles in his description of the Prophet’s early days. This can be understood better by examining his approach to two particular incidents. First, he writes that “transmitters of Sīrah unanimously agree” that the flock of Halīmah would come home satiated despite that particular year being one of drought. Second, he writes that while the prophet was at the village of Banū Sa‘d (the tribe of Halīmah), the incident of the splitting of the chest took place “as narrated by Muslim.” These two pieces of information exemplify al-Būtī’s methodology of analyzing historical facts: he is extremely scrupulous about authenticity according to the traditional method. If the report is cited in either of the two Sahīh compilations of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, whose authenticity is unanimously accepted by Sunnīs, he will include it. Otherwise, he will attempt to prove its authenticity through other traditional methods like the consensus of Sīrah scholars. These examples reinforce that he is concerned with miracles—he is emphatic about this in the introduction— but not at the expense of authenticity.
It is interesting that while describing the chest splitting incident, al-Būtī emphasizes its authenticity and provides further clarification. He writes that the incident has been reported via “multiple authentic routes from numerous Companions.” He then explains the rationale behind the action. It was to declare the mission of the Prophet and prepare him for infallibility and revelation through material means, which would serve as a compelling reason for people to bring faith. He goes on to write that the scale for testing the authenticity of reports is the accurate transmission, and hermeneutical gymnastics should be avoided in understanding its content. This example shows that insofar as the traditional methods of verifying historical reports are concerned, al-Būtī demonstrates more rigor than Hamīdullah. It is beyond the scope of the present essay to cross-examine other reports. However, if one is to appreciate the expertise of Hamidullah as an historian, it is imperative to examine his usage of modern historical tools.
While recounting the Prophet’s relationship with the Byzantine empire, Hamidullah discusses the famous letter the Prophet sent to Heraclius shortly after the truce of Hudaybiyyah. He then discusses the various opinions among Western scholars on the authenticity of the report, beginning with Ignaz Goldziher (d. 1921) who finds no problem with its reliability to Frants Buhl (d. 1932) who rejects it altogether. One argument is support of its authenticity is the existence of the original letter reported by historians like al-Suhaylī (d. 581 AH). More importantly, the manuscript of this letter has reappeared in the last century. Instead of taking the manuscript’s authenticity for granted, Hamidullah presents a textual analysis and carbon dating of the manuscript to prove its reliability. In terms of textual analysis, he points out how certain letters such as hā in the word al-hudā is written as T, a well-known method of writing in early Islam. In respect to the carbon dating, he quotes microscopic studies on the skin used for the manuscript and ultra-violet-rays analysis of the ink, both of which suggest the letter is reliable. It is clear from this example that Hamidullah is not only aware of modern objections to the Prophet’s biography, he employs critical and modern methods of verification to respond to these criticisms. On the other hand, when al-Būtī approaches the letter, he takes its authenticity for granted since it is reported in the two canonical works of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, as expected from one who suffices on the traditional methods of authentication.
Conclusion
From the above study, a number of inferences can be made. First, al-Būtī’s book is a reactionary work. He intended to disprove the claims of modern Sīrah writers like Husayn Hykal, who he felt misrepresented the Sīrah genre. Second, he focused on a particular dimension of Sīrah, that is, lessons and juridical dimensions of the Prophet’s life. Hamidullah’s book was written as a way to document his life-long study, and was meant for a general audience. He also placed emphasis on particular dimensions of Sīrah: the administrative institutions set up in the interest of the community and the Prophet’s relations with other communities. Al-Būtī is careful in citing reports that are of considerable authenticity as per the traditional methods of authentication. As he mentions in the introduction, he adopts the methodology of Hadīth scholars, i.e. the science of Hadīth of nomenclature and narrator criticism, to historical reports, which he dutifully adheres to throughout the book. This was due in part to his book being a reaction to modern writers and Salafī detractors, who were extremely particular about such methods. Failing to meet these standards would have impeded in his attempt to adequately respond to both groups. Hamidullah, on the other hand, took liberties at times in respect to the reliability of certain reports because his work was meant for, among others, the French laity. This is not to suggest he lacked rigor in selecting reports. Rather, he took concession when possible (e.g., pre-prophethood reports). However, Hamidullah’s academic prowess as an historian manifests in his treatment of modern criticisms, such as carbon dating manuscripts.
In brief, both scholars have done a great contribution to the field with their respective works. In view of the influences in their lives and the audiences for which they were writing, both books naturally took different approaches. While al-Būtī is to be commended on his unflinching adherence to traditional methods of verification, Hamidullah is to be praised for his usage of modern techniques of historical analysis.