Post by tahawi on May 26, 2017 19:30:50 GMT
The Relationship Between Politics and Hadīth in the Formative Period of Islam with Specific Reference to ‘Abd Allah ibn Saba’
Introduction
The relationship between politics and Hadith is an interesting area of study. A prime example of this is Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah’s (d. 235 AH) treatment of traditions related to the Prophet’s uncle al-‘Abbās in his multi-volume compendium al-Musannaf, as Qasim Zaman illustrates. The present essay will examine the phenomenon of Hadīth fabrication in the formative period of Islamic history and how it spilled into Islamic political life with particular reference to ‘Abd Allah ibn Sabā’.
Politics and Fabrication
According to classical Muslim historians like Ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī (d. 310 AH), immediately after the Prophet’s demise, the Companions discussed in length the question of who would succeed as the caliph. Eventually Abū Bakr was elected, and he ruled for roughly two years. Prior to the demise of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar was appointed as his successor. Next in line to take the office of the caliphate was ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān; during the first part of his tenure, the political and social affairs of the nascent Muslim community remained relatively stable. However, as the final years of ‘Uthmān’s reign drew closer political instability eventually culminated in his assassination in 35 AH. Later described as the strife (Fitnah), the assassination marks a major shift in the course of Islamic history. A dispute broke out among the Companions concerning the retribution of ‘Uthmān’s death, ushering in two civil wars, namely the Battle of Jamal (36 AH) and the Battle of Siffīn (37 AH).
With this brief outline of the most important political events after the Prophet’s demise, one can understand the degree of instability the Muslim community faced within the first half of the first century. The civil wars divided the Muslim community into three major camps: pro-Mu‘āwiyah, pro-‘A’ishah, and pro-‘Alī. Driven by a thirst to bolster their political and theological views, factions within the early Muslim community during this unstable period began to fabricate hadiths. For instance, in one apocryphal hadith the Prophet is said to have commanded the Muslims to kill Mu‘āwiyah if he ascends the pulpit, while in another he says that God entrusted his revelation to himself and Mu‘āwiyah on earth. Recounting this delicate phase, Ibn Sīrīn (d. 110 AH) explains, “In the early period, no one would ask about isnād. But when the strife occurred people would say, “Name for us your sources.” Contrary to popular opinion advocated by Joseph Schacht, it is untenable to delay the fabrication of hadiths to around 120 AH in face of strong evidence that suggests otherwise.
Some have dated fabrication as early as the reign of ‘Uthmān. This is based on a report that ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Udays, who opposed the political rule of ‘Uthmān, ascended the pulpit and narrated a hadith via Ibn Mas‘ūd that vilified ‘Uthmān. When news reached ‘Uthmān, he said, “By God, Ibn ‘Udays did not hear this from Ibn Mas‘ūd, and Ibn Mas‘ūd did not hear this from the Prophet. This would have been a good example of early attempts to fabricate hadiths for political agendas; the fabricated hadith would have been sufficient impetus to motivate the political movement against ‘Uthmān. The problem, however, is the report itself is transmitted via a broken chain and contains an impugned narrator known for his theological bias against ‘Uthmān.
The two major dynasties to follow were the Umayyads (r. 41-132 AH) and the ‘Abbasids (r. 132-656 AH). Hadīths were fabricated in order to prove or disprove the legitimacy of these dynasties. In 66 AH, al-Mukhtār al-Thaqafī, a rebel against the Umayyads who seized power of Kūfah, attempted to bribe scholars to fabricate hadiths that purported his rule as Caliph after the Prophet. His exact request was nonetheless rejected. A fabricated report where the Prophet prophesized the founding of Baghdad and likened it to an iron stake was employed for and against ‘Abbasid rule; supporters said it meant that the dynasty’s capital was “as firmly planted as an iron stake in the earth” while detractors claimed “it will sink faster than an iron stake in sandy ground.”
A far-reaching example of how hadith fabrication influenced politics in the Umayyad period is the case of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān and the hadith of the three Masjids. According to the Shī‘ī historian Ahmad al-Ya‘qūbī (d. c. 292 AH), the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān (r. 65-86 AH) prevented the people of the Levant from performing the annual pilgrimage (Hajj). The reason behind this mandate was that ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr (d. 73 AH), the ruler of Makkah and an ardent opponent of the Umayyad dynasty, would take advantage of the situation by taking a pledge of allegiance from the pilgrims. This decision caused outrage among the people of the Levant, and they began to complain harshly. In order to appease them, he told them that Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124 AH) narrated on the authority of the Prophet that a person is not allowed to travel accept to three Masjids: al-Masjid al-Harām, the Prophet’s Masjid, and the Masjid of Bayt al-Maqdis. And the Masjid of Bayt al-Maqdis, ‘Abd al-Malik continued, “takes the place of al-Masjid al-Harām and the Rock takes the place of the Ka‘bah.” He then built the Dome of the rock as a substitute for the Ka‘bah. Ignaz Goldziher, who will be visited in more detail shortly, stresses that al-Zuhrī was in fact given the task of fabricating the hadith of the three Masjids to justify ‘Abd al-Malik’s political agenda.
There are, however, a number of fundamental flaws with this report. For one, an incident of this catastrophic nature where people were obstructed from the pilgrimage and were instead directed to the Dome of the Rock would not escape the attention of early historians. Yet, no historian apart from al-Ya‘qūbī relates this incident. In fact, historians like Ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī mention that ‘Abd al-Malik himself went for the pilgrimage in the year 68 AH. Second, the age of al-Zuhrī at the time of Ibn al-Zubayr’s assassination was either fifteen or twenty-one, so the alleged fabrication took place when al-Zuhrī was young. It is highly unlikely that a person of that age, originally from Madīnah, could narrate one hadith to convince an entire province, the Levant, to change the direction of the pilgrimage. More importantly, al-Zuhri only met with ‘Abd al-Malik around a decade after Ibn al-Zubayr’s death. Finally, the hadith has been transmitted by numerous chains, many of which do not contain al-Zuhrī. It is, therefore, unlikely that the above report is accurate, and it is more unlikely—inconceivable for that matter—that al-Zuhrī fabricated the aforementioned hadith as a political manoeuvre against Ibn al-Zubayr.
In many cases, Modern scholars claim hadiths are fabricated because its contents show signs of certain political leanings; but these scholars contradict one another in explaining why that is the case. Take, for instance, Alfred Guillaume’s (d. 1965) and Joseph Schacht’s (d. 1969) respective explanations of a report found in an extant fragment of Mūsa ibn ‘Uqbah’s (d. 141 AH) Kitāb al-Maghāzī. The report under discussion is where some of the Ansār requested the Prophet after the battle of Badr to forgive the ransom of al-‘Abbās, who fought on the opposing side and was taken captive, and the Prophet replied, "By Allah, you will not leave a single dirham of it!” Schacht argues that this hadith is fabricated because it clearly shows signs of pro-‘Abbasid sentiments, the ruling class at the time of Mūsa ibn ‘Uqabah. On the other hand, Guillaume believes that the fragment of Kitāb al-Maghāzī contains anti-‘Abbasid sentiments because “al-‘Abbās is shown to have been a rebel against the Prophet who was forced to pay for his opposition to him to uttermost farthing.” This example demonstrates the subjectivity in claims of politically motivated fabrication.
The practice of politically motivated fabrication by no means faded after the formative period of Islamic history. In the sixth century AH, an opponent of the Seljuq Turkish sultan Sanjar (d. 552 AH) fabricated a hadith that states, “Sanjar will be the last of the non-Arab kings; he will live eight years and then die of hunger.” In fact, examples of this nature can be found in the present day. It should be noted that political agendas were in no way the only factor that motivated the fabrication of hadiths. ‘Other factors include masked infidelity (zandaqah), sectarianism, pietistic gullibility, and monetary gains. But it is clear that politics played a significant, and perhaps the greatest, role in the fabrication of hadiths. The assassination of ‘Uthmān, before which there exists no evidence of fabrication, was the first existential trauma that afflicted Muslims on a large scale and became an impetus for mass fabrication. The rationale behind fabrication was that partisans of a particular group were hard-pressed to legitimize their political aims with evidence strictly from the Qur’ān, and until this point hadiths were not codified and widespread. It therefore made sense to amplify the authority of one’s views by adding prophetic authority to it—by any means necessary. Strengthening the veracity of a statement by falsely attributing it to an authority was not exclusive to prophetic hadīths. As al-Jāhiz (d. 255 AH) aptly notes, the appeal of even a random exhortation in praise of piety when falsely attributed to a prestigious figure like ‘Amir al-‘Anbarī will double because the attribution grants it a status it would not possess otherwise. It goes without saying that these fabrications did not pass unchecked; in fact, it was the fabrication of hadiths that prompted Muslims scholars to institute tools of verification such as the isnād system and narrator criticism.
‘Abd Allāh ibn Sabā
Let us now focus on a figure who allegedly played a significant role in the fabrication of hadiths, particularly in support of political agendas: ‘Abd Allah ibn Sabā’. According to traditional reports, a Yemenite Jewish convert to Islam by the name ‘Abd Allah ibn Sabā’, also known as Ibn al-Sawdā’—in reference to the Ethiopian decent of his mother, was the eponym of the Saba’iyyah (a faction of the Shī’ah), the first sectarian divide in Muslim circles. An ardent follower of ‘Alī ibn Abū Tālib, Ibn Saba’ was ever lurking in the underworld of early Islamic politics and eventually instigated the assassination of ‘Uthmān. He allegedly originated core Shī‘ī extremist views like the Parousia, succession, and divinity of ‘Alī. The role of ‘Abd Allah ibn Saba’ vis-à-vis politics and fabrications is significant for at least two reasons. First, some historians like Ibn Athīr (d. 630 AH) have regarded him as the first hadith forger. Second, he is said to have forged the doctrine that ‘Alī was the inheritor to the Prophet in political and religious matters, which served as a catalyst for the fabrications of innumerable politically themed hadiths.
There are considerable contradictions in the account of ‘Abd Allah ibn Saba’, with some even doubting his very existence. Three opinions on Ibn Saba’ interest us here. First is the mainstream Sunni version mentioned in the opening of this section. Second, scholars like ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Qurashi (d. 429 AH) and more recently Marshal Hodgson have regarded Ibn Saba’ as multiple persons; most common among these views is that Ibn Saba’ was different from Ibn al-Sawdā’. Third, the Imāmī theologian Murtadā al-‘Askarī and numerous Occidental scholars believe that Ibn Saba’s existence is a fabrication. Israel Friedlaender, in particular, goes to the extent of regarding Ibn Saba’ as a fabrication by the early Muslim historian Sayf ibn ‘Umar al-Tamīmī (d. c. 180 AH) in order to absolve the Companions of their participation in ‘Uthmān’s assassination by placing the burden on a fictional personality.
The first point to be noted is that the construction of the Ibn Saba’ narrative, ceding that it was a later construction, was definitely not the doing of Sayf ibn ‘Umar. Sayf’s account of Ibn Saba’ is conspicuous in its flowery presentation, but it is clear from a study of all the reports on the subject that he is drawing from earlier sources. As Albercht Noth demonstrates, Sayf ibn ‘Umar is only a transmitter of earlier material, and though he may modify material in the process, he is not the originator. Apart from Sayf ibn ‘Umar, other early historians have contributed material to the subject. For instance, Hishām ibn al-Hakam (d. c. 179 AH) a prominent Shī‘ī scholar and contemporary of Sayf ibn ‘Umar authored a treatise entitled “Kitāb Ikhtilāf al-Nās fī al-Imāmah” where he provides an account of Ibn Saba’. The treatise appears to have been reproduced with slight modifications by al-Hasan al-Nawbakhtī (d. c. 300) in his Firaq al-Shī‘ah. That being said, although Sayf ibn ‘Umar has been criticized by Hadīth scholars for poor transmission vis-a-via hadīths, he was not only reliable but even considered an authority (‘umdah) in the transmission of historical accounts.
In view of all extant evidence, the most convincing argument is that there definitely existed a follower in ‘Alī’s party by the name ‘Abd Allah ibn Saba’. One clear proof for this is the fact that historians with conflicting theological views—Sayf ibn ‘Umar being a Sunni and Hishām ibn al-Hakam being an Imāmī— have documented, inter alia, the existence of such a person, despite variations in their details. Based on the Principle of Dissimilarity, a central principle in the Historical Critical Method, there would be no incentive for Imāmī scholars like Hisham ibn al-Hakam, and later by al-Nawbakhtī, to construct a figure with such negative traits who espouses key Shi’ah beliefs.
Particular details attributed to him such as his Jewish origins and the Ethiopian decent of his mother alongside a number controversial theological views such as the divinity of ‘Alī, which allegedly was the subsequent cause of his execution—is possibly a partisan attempt to shed negative light on him. His involvement in the assassination of ‘Uthmān and the events that led to it should not be dismissed due to the poor standing of Sayf ibn ‘Umar because this account pertains to matters of history a field where he was, as mentioned earlier, regarded as an authority. That Ibn Saba’ was the first to fabricate hadiths cannot be accepted on face value because apart from the fact that no explicit examples have been provided. It is highly possible that those who maintained this view were referring to his theological innovations—not the fabrication of specific hadiths.
Goldziher
After examining the influence of a figure from the formative period of Islam in respect to fabrication and politics, a study of the views of a modern scholar is in order. Western criticism on the historicity of Hadīth started as early as the nineteenth century with Gustav Weil (d. 1889 CE) and Alfred von Kremer (d. 1889 CE). For the purpose of the present essay, we will look at the views of one influential Orientalist, as his views on Hadith fabrication are interlaced with early Islamic politics: the Hungarian Ignaz Goldziher (d. 1921 CE). Goldziher opines that the bulk of traditions concerning the Prophet and the Companions do not possess any worth as historical sources for that time. As this essay demonstrated thus far, part of his argument holds weight, i.e. political agendas motivated the fabrication of hadiths, but the extreme conclusion of doubting the validity of the bulk of the Hadīth corpus is simply untenable in face of strong evidence to the contrary. We will look at two instances where Goldziher attempts to support conclusions vis-à-vis politics and Hadīth fabrication.
First, he positively assumes that ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Khālid forged hadīths in support of the Umayyad state. He supports this claim with the evidence that “‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Khālid was for years an important official of Umayyad princes.” Such evidence requires a leap of faith to accept because simply working for a state does not mean that workers will lie on its behalf. Second, he asserts that the Abbāsid state appointed scholars to forge hadīths in their favour. He produces the name of Ghiyāth ibn Ibrāhīm who forged a hadīth in which the Prophet allowed raising pigeons for competition, knowing well that the caliph was fond of them. This anecdote, however, features in books of Hadīth nomenclature as an example of how a fabrication can be detected by analysing the narrator. Hadīth scholars were already aware that Ghiyāth was a liar and an unacceptable transmitter. What these examples reveal is how Goldziher is able to move from singular cases to a conclusion about the entire Hadīth corpus. It also shows how he attempts to deduce a fact from a mere possibility. Furthermore, Goldziher’s choice and use of source material, Herald Motzki explains, consists of two major weaknesses. First, his source material consists mostly of traditions about transmitters and rarely of the traditions themselves, and when doing so he relies on Hadīth that are seldom considered reliable according to Hadīth scholars. Second, he seldom questions the historical reliability of the reports he uses although the reports often have an anecdotal character.
Conclusion
During the formative period of Islamic history, one of the greatest challenges that faced the nascent Muslim community was political feuds. Debates sprung up immediately after the demise of the Prophet on the issue of who will succeed him in rule. However, it was the assassination of the third caliph ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affan that exacerbated the situation. This tragic event set in motion a trend of fabricating hadiths to further political agendas—once fabricators realized the power the Prophet’s words yielded. During the aftermath of the first civil wars, sectarian groups began fabricating hadiths to elevate or disprove the authority of a certain party. Once the Ummayyads seized power of the Muslim world, this trend only intensified. As we have seen, people like al-Mukhtār al-Thaqafī sought to fabricate hadiths to rebel against them and take rule for themselves. Likewise, the pro and anti-Abbasid camps used the same fabricated hadith to justify their respective causes. As for ‘Abd Allah ibn Saba’, the present study demonstrated that most likely he existed, but a number of actions attributed to him, such as the first fabrication, is hard to believe.
Although politics played a role in fabrication, and vice versa, it was not the only motivation for fabrication. And more importantly, not every purported case of politically motivated fabrication is true, as in the case of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān and the hadith of the three Masjids. This is clear in Ignaz Goldziher’s study of hadith fabrication in the formative period. In an attempt to substantiate his thesis that the bulk of hadiths are forged due to, inter alia, political agendas, he used feeble and manipulative evidences. The use of hadiths to bolster political agendas did not come to an end with the dawn of modernity. A case in point is the recent political upheaval in Egypt. Supporters of the Egyptian army would spur the soldiers on by citing a forged hadith that Egypt’s military comprised “the best soldiers on earth.” On the one hand, protesters who died in Tahrir Square were being hailed as martyrs while, on the other, they were stripped of that accolade since, as one critic put it, they were fighting fellow Muslims—a judgment he justified from a hadith to that effect.
References
Zaman, Muhammad (1996) Maghāzī and the Muhaddithīn: Reconsidering the Treatment of ‘Historical’ Materials in Early Collections of Hadith, International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol.28, no.1, p.7. Pro-‘Abbāsid traditions permeated the works of a number of early scholars, such as Muhammad ibn Ishāq (d. 150 AH) the renowned early Muslim historian. As Brown argues, Ibn Ishāq makes a case for ‘Abbāsid legitimacy through the elevation of al-‘Abbās in seminal moments in the Prophet’s life. See: Brown, Jonathan (2011) Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.87.
The formative period of Islamic history is said to have ended around 10thCE/3rdAH century. See: Robinson, Chase (2003) Islamic Historiography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.xviii. The term ‘formative period’ has also been used in other contexts, like Islamic law. See: Shamsy, Ahmad (2012) The Canonization of Islamic Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 2 ff., 168-169.
Al-Tabarī, Ibn Jarīr (1970) Tarīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, vol.2, p.234.
Ibid. vol.2, p.352.
Ibid. vol.2, p.561.
Mullā Khātir, Khalīl (2008) Bid‘at Da‘wā al-I‘timād ‘alā al-Kitāb Dūn al-Sunnāh, p.18.
Al-Tabarī, Tarīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk, vol.2, p.234.
Abū Ghuddah, ‘Abd al-Fattāh (1993) Lamahāt min Tārīkh al-Sunnah wa ‘Ulūm al-Hadīth, Beirut: Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyyah, p.73.
Ibid. vol.3, pp.3, 79; al-Sibā‘ī, Mustafā (1983) al-Sunnah wa Makānatuhā fi al-Tashrī‘ al-Islāmī, Bierut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, p.151.
Khan, Israr (2010) Authentication of Hadīth: Redefining the Criteria, p.4.
Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Mawdū‘āt, vol.1, pp.331, 335.
There is considerable debate on the interpretation of ‘Fitnah’ in the words of Ibn Sīrīn. Some scholars opine that it refers to the assassination of ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān. See: al-Qurtubī, al-Mufhim, vol.1 p.123. Based on a statement of Ibrāhim al-Nakha‘ī that people only began asking for isnād during the era al-Mukhtār ibn Abī ‘Ubayd al-Thaqafī (d. 67 AH), some argue for a later date. See: Ahmad, al-‘Ilal wa Ma‘rifat al-Rijāl, vol.3, p.380. With variations on the specific date, many contemporary scholars agree that fabrication began around the year 40 AH. See: al-Hasanī, Ma‘rifat Madār al-Isnād, vol.1, p.385. For a study of Orientalist views on the date of the origins of isnād, see: al-A‘żamī, Studies In Early Hadīth Literature, pp.216-217.
Muslim, Introduction to al-Musnad al-Sahīh, p.11; al-A‘żamī, Studies In Early Hadīth Literature, p.217.
See: Schacht, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, pp.36-37. For instance, look at the report of Ibn ‘Abbās (d. 68 AH) who refused to listen to hadiths and legal material attributed to ‘Alī (d. 40 AH) from his contemporaries due to the circulation of fabrications. See: Muslim, Introduction to al-Musnad al-Sahīh, p.12; cf. Azami, Mustafa (1978) Studies in Early Hadith Literature, p.216. One of the reasons Schacht opted for a later date is his theory that legal material did not make a presence until 70 AH. If he were to accept that fabrication began in the first half of the first century, then he would have to accept that there existed genuine legal material in that time. This is because the production of “the fake proves that the genuine is in circulation.” See: Stodolsky, Volkan (2012) A New Historical Model and Periodization for The Perception of the Sunnah of the Prophet and His Companions, (Unpublished PhD - ProQuest), p.239.
Ibn ‘Asākir, Tārikh Madīnat Dimashq, vol.35, p.114.
Al-‘Umarī, Akram (1984) Buhūth fī Tārīkh al-Sunnah al-Musharrafah, p.23. A similar answer can be given to alleged reports of fabrication during the lifetime of the Prophet. See: ibid., p.21; al-Fallātah, al-Wad‘ fī al-Hadīth, vol.1, p.185 ff.
Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Mawdū‘āt, vol.1, p.39.
Al-Suyūtī, Jalāl al-Dīn (1980), al-La’ālī al-Masnū‘ah, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, vol.1, p.80; Brown, Jonathan (2014) Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenges and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy, London: Oneworld Publication, p.22
Al-Ya‘qūbī, Ahmad (1937), al-Tārīkh, Najif: Maktabat al-Ghazzī, vol.3, pp.7-8.
Goldziher, Ignaz (1971) Muslim Studies II, Atherton: New York and Aldine: Chicago, pp. 44-45.
Al-Tabarī, Ibn Jarīr (1964) Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk, Beirut: Dār al-Turāth, vol.6, p.139.
Azami, Mustafa (1978) Studies in Early Hadith Literature, p.290.
For other reasons, see: al-Sibā‘ī, Mustafā (1980) al-Sunna wa Makānatuhā fī al-Tashrī‘ al-Islāmī, Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, pp.243-246.
Ibn ‘Uqbah, Mūsa, Kitāb al-Maghāzī, no.6.
Schacht, Joseph (1953) On Mūsa b. ‘Uqbah’s Kitāb al-Maghāzī, Acta Orientalia, p.290.
Guillaume, Alfred (1955) The Life of Muhammad, Oxford: Oxford Press, p. xIvii; cf. Azami, Studies in Early Hadīth Literature, pp.260-262.
Al-Rāfi‘ī, al-Tadwīn fī Akhbār Qazwīn, vol.1, p.452.
Brown, Hadīth, p.72.
Mustafā al-Sibā‘ī enumerates seven factors that prompted the fabrication of hadīths. See: al-Sibā‘ī, al-Sunnah wa Makānatuhā fī al-Tashrī‘ al-Islāmī, pp.96-105.
Here Sherman Jackson’s translation of the term zandaqah is being used. See: Jackson, On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid al-Ghazali's Faysal al-Tafriqa Bayna al-Islam wa al-Zandaqa, p.xi. On the meaning of zindīq, see: Anthony, The Caliph and the Heretic, p.176.
Fallātah, al-Wad’ fi al-Hadīth, p.218 ff.
As Misfar al-Dimīnī points out, politics was the greatest cause for Hadīth fabrication as it was the starting point for sectarian divides, the motivation behind most fabricated hadiths. See: al-Damīnī, Misfar (1984) Maqāyīs Naqd Mutūn al-Sunnah, p.30.
Al-‘Umarī, Buhūth fī Tārīkh al-Sunnah al-Musharrafah, p.15.
This is not to negate any attempt by partisan groups to misinterpret verses of the Qur’ān for their political agendas. See, for instance: Cook, Michael (2000) Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.59, note 69.
Ibid.p.16; and Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, p.22.
Quoted in A. Kilito, The Author and His Double, trans. By M. Cooperson (2001) Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, p.62; cf. Mourad, Suleiman (2005) Early Islam between Myth and History, Leiden: Brill Publishers, p.8.
Al-Tabarī, Ibn Jarīr (1964) Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk, Beirut: Dār al-Turāth, vol.4, p.340.
Moojan, Momen (1985) An Introduction to Shi’I Islam, Yale University Press, p.46.
Khan, Authentication of Hadīth: Redefining the Criteria, p.2.
Sayf ibn ‘Umar, Kitāb al-Riddah, p.136.
Al-Baghdādī, ‘Abd al-Qāhir (1977) al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, Beirut: Dār al-Afāq, p.60; Hodgson, M.G.S., “ʿAbd Allāh b. Sabaʾ”, in: Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Al-‘Askarī, Murtadā (1991) ‘Abd Allah ibn Saba’ wa Asātīr Ukhrā, Beirut: Dār al-Zahrā’, p.35 f.
Tucker, Frederick (2008) Mahdis and Millenarians: Shī'ite Extremists in Early Muslim Iraq, Cambridge University Press, p.12
Anthony, Sean (2011) The Caliph and the Heretic: Ibn Saba' and the Origins of Shi'ism, pp.139-140.
Ibid., p.13.
Ibid., p.149.
Al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol.12, p.324; Ibn Hajar, Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb,
Jakob Perizonius (d. 1715) developed the Principle of Dissimilarity which meant that a report that went against orthodoxy or accepted views of a nation is probably true because one trying to build an Orthodoxy would not have made it up. The French philosopher Voltaire (d. 1778) made a similar remark about the science of history when he wrote, “We can believe people in what they say about themselves if it is to their disadvantage.” See: Brown, Muhammad, p.80; idem, Hadīth, p.203.
Tucker, Frederick (2008) Mahdis and Millenarians: Shī'ite Extremists in Early Muslim Iraq, Cambridge University Press, p.11.
Hallāq, Wael (1972) The Authenticity of Prophetic Hadīth: A Pseudo-problem, p.1; Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence, p.8.
Goldziher, Muslim Studies, p.52.
Ibid.
Brown. Hadith, p.209.
Goldziher, Muslim Studies, pp.74-75.
Motzki, Herald (2010) Dating Muslim Traditions: A Survey, Leiden: Brill, p.209.
Al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-I‘tidāl, vol.3, p.337.
Motzki, Dating Muslim Traditions: A Survey, p.208.
Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, p.5.
Ibid.