Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Yaʿqūb b. Isḥāq al-Saʿdī al-Jūzjānī (d. 259/873?; hereafter, al-JūzjānīFootnote 1) lived in the ninth century, when hadith collection, compilation and criticism flourished, and had become the intellectual pursuit and vocation of many towering figures of Muslim scholarly tradition. As the student of the founding fathers of hadith criticism, such as Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn (d. 233/848), Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) and ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234/849), and the contemporary of the compilers of what would later be known as the Sunnī “Six Books”, al-Jūzjānī was a well-established hadith critic. What distinguishes him from his teachers is his adoption of a systematic approach to the evaluation of hadith transmitters based on a definable methodological framework, paradigmatic of his contemporary compilers’ application of hadith criticism to their hadith works.
Al-Jūzjānī's centrality to the edifice of hadith criticism can be gauged by Lucas's study of the early development of hadith criticism. Surveying seven lists and three ṭabaqāt works, Lucas seeks to determine who the most significant hadith critics were by the end of the tenth century, whom he further divides into two grades, based on the frequency with which a critic is counted by these sources as the major authority in hadith criticism.Footnote 2 Lucas identifies the chief critics active in the period 200–300/815–912 as Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870), Abū Zurʿa al-Rāzī (d. 264/878) and Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 277/890), and recognizes al-Jūzjānī as a secondary critic of this time.Footnote 3 This speaks of the esteem in which classical hadith scholars held al-Jūzjānī.
Despite his role in the discipline of hadith criticism, his scholarship and his rijāl work have yet to be treated in detail in any European language.Footnote 4 Pavel Pavlovitch's recent entry on hadith criticism presents a brief overview of al-Jūzjānī's work, but his characterization of Aḥwāl al-rijāl (“The Situations of Hadith Transmitters”) as a work which “abounds in debasing allegations and accusations of heresy” does not quite do justice to this early endeavour of rijāl criticism.Footnote 5 Although in his Aḥwāl al-rijāl al-Jūzjānī appears unusually vocal in comparison with laconic and to-the-point early hadith critics, his contribution to rijāl criticism should not be disregarded due to the polemical elements of his work. Rather, a better understanding of al-Jūzjānī's conceptualization of hadith criticism is indispensable to a complete picture of the intellectual dynamics and socio-political contexts in which early Sunnī hadith scholarship took shape. This article provides a thorough analysis of al-Jūzjānī's evaluation of hadith transmitters and his methodological framework to further our current knowledge concerning early hadith criticism.
As no biography of al-Jūzjānī is available in English,Footnote 6 the first section will present a complete account of al-Jūzjānī's life, his travels in pursuit of knowledge and interpersonal networks. The second section will address al-Jūzjānī's work Aḥwāl al-rijāl by situating its production and characteristics in its context, and outlining its organizational structure. In the third section, al-Jūzjānī's approach to the evaluation of hadith transmitters, with regard to his engagement with the views of the predecessors to hadith criticism and the terms he uses in hadith criticism, will be studied in detail. The fourth section will examine his conception of the religious function and purpose of hadith and his methodology of naqd al-rijāl based on his own remarks and treatment of hadith transmitters. The article concludes with an assessment of al-Jūzjānī's contributions to hadith criticism, arguing that al-Jūzjānī is very likely the first and only critic to systematically and consistently implement the concept of doctrinal uprightness in rijāl criticism. His innovation, however, deviates from the established convention of ahl al-ḥadīth and thus inhibited his influence on the development of hadith criticism.
I. Al-Jūzjānī: a biography
The attributive al-Jūzjānī refers to a city, Jūzjān or Jūzjānān, in Khurāsān, between Balkh and Marrūdh.Footnote 7 Despite the association with this Khurāsānī city, there is no evidence that Ibrāhīm b. Yaʿqūb al-Saʿdī al-Jūzjānī was born or grew up there, contra al-Sāmarrāʾī and al-Ziriklī.Footnote 8 Given that many of al-Jūzjānī's teachers based in Kūfa or Baṣra died before 205/820–21, al-Bastawī speculates, convincingly, that in all likelihood he would have been born in 180–89/796–805.Footnote 9 His tribal attributive, Saʿdī, may be understood as a blood or cliental connection with a number of Arab tribes or the Companion Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ,Footnote 10 but sources do not provide a conclusive answer in this regard.Footnote 11
Like hadith scholars of his time, al-Jūzjānī travelled in pursuit of hadith and related knowledge. Yet, as his connection with Jūzjān seems unclear, it is hard to reconstruct his itineraries – it is plausible that he studied under scholars based in Khurāsānī cities, such as ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUthmān b. Jabala (d. 221/836), the leading scholar of Marw.Footnote 12 A reference in his Aḥwāl al-rijāl indicates his presence in Hamadhān in 230/844–45.Footnote 13 Yet, many of his shuyūkh originating in the eastern provinces or bearing the pertinent nisbas also travelled to or settled in the Ḥijāz, Jazīra or Iraq. Thus, it is difficult to estimate the influences of Khurāsān on al-Jūzjānī.Footnote 14
He studied and lived in Mecca, Basra and al-Ramla,Footnote 15 and was the student of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal in Baghdad the year when al-Wāqidī died (207/823).Footnote 16 He also studied under Wāsiṭī and Kūfan scholars, such as al-Faḍl b. Dukayn (d. 219/834), ʿUbaydallāh b. Mūsā (d. 213/829) and Yazīd b. Hārūn (d. 206/821).Footnote 17 Iraqi hadith scholars’ influence on him are evident in the composition of his teachers and students, as indicated by al-Mizzī's list, and his practice of hadith criticism, which was built upon the cumulative efforts of his most prominent teachers, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, as discussed in the third section.
Al-Jūzjānī came to Egypt in 245/859–60, where in all likelihood he met Saʿīd b. al-Ḥakam b. Abī Maryam (d. 224/838–39), ʿAbdallāh b. Ṣāliḥ b. Muḥammad (d. 223/837) and, perhaps, ʿAbdallāh b. Yūsuf (d. 218/833–34), before he finally settled in Damascus sometime between 232/846–47 and 241/855–56.Footnote 18 In Damascus, he remained in correspondence with Aḥmad b Ḥanbal, and is said to have read the latter's letters from the pulpit and collected two volumes of his responsa.Footnote 19 He was also liaised with Abū Zurʿa al-Rāzī and Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī.Footnote 20 Al-Jūzjānī was the teacher of Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī (d. 275/889), al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892) and al-Nasāʾī (d. 303/915?), in addition to several Damascene scholars.Footnote 21 Different death dates are given in the biographical sources: after 244/858–59,Footnote 22 256/869–70 or during Dhū al-Qaʿda 259/873.Footnote 23 The final date seems most plausible, as it was provided by al-Jūzjānī's Damascene student, Abū al-Daḥdāḥ Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl (d. 328/939–40),Footnote 24 who also narrated one of his works, Amārāt al-nubuwwa (“The Signs of Prophethood”), which survives in fragments.Footnote 25
Al-Jūzjānī is noted for his anti-ʿAlī tendencies (al-inḥirāf ʿan ʿAlī),Footnote 26 but a “Nāṣibī” accusation against him was rejected by the editors of Aḥwāl al-rijāl for numerous reasons.Footnote 27 It is important to keep in mind that the sectarian labels used during the first four centuries of Islam were highly fluid and ought to be understood in relative terms.Footnote 28 Al-Dāraquṭnī (d. 385/995) describes al-Jūzjānī as a reliable compiler with a retentive memory (kāna min al-ḥuffāẓ al-muṣannifīn wa-l-mukharrijīn al-thiqāt),Footnote 29 but al-Jūzjānī cannot be considered a prolific compiler by the standards of his time. In addition to the responsa of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, mentioned earlier, he authored a Tārīkh that does not survive and a collection of hadith about the miraculous acts and thaumaturgic knowledge of the Prophet, titled Kitāb Amārāt al-nubuwwa.Footnote 30 The latter survives in a fragment of four folios, consisting of 13 traditions, which were extracted from the sixth volume (juzʾ) of the original collection.Footnote 31 Al-Jūzjānī seems to have been among the earliest contributors to the topic of the proof of prophethood (dalāʾil or aʿlām al-nubuwwa).Footnote 32 It seems that the only surviving complete work of al-Jūzjānī is Aḥwāl al-rijāl, which is discussed in detail in the following section.
II. Aḥwāl al-rijāl: an early work of al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl
Al-Jūzjānī's Aḥwāl al-rijāl, which is examined closely here, is also known by other titles, such as al-Mutarjam, Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ and Maʿrifat al-rijāl.Footnote 33 It is preserved in only one manuscript, held in al-Maktabat al-Ẓāhiriyya, Damascus, copied after 511/1117–18.Footnote 34 The title found in the manuscript is Kitāb al-Shajara fī aḥwāl al-rijāl, but both al-Bastawī and al-Sāmarrāʾī rejected the word al-shajara, written in a different script, as an interpolation by a later scribe. Furthermore, the colophon of the manuscript (samāʿāt) refers to this work as Aḥwāl al-rijāl li-l-Jūzjānī, a title they considered more apposite to its content.Footnote 35 However, later on in the addendum of his edition al-Bastawī preferred Kitāb al-Shajara as the correct title, because Abū Bakr b. al-ʿArabī (d. 543/1148) refers to Aḥwāl al-rijāl as Kitāb al-Shajar li-l-Jūzjānī fī asmāʾ al-muḥaddithīn.Footnote 36
Aḥwāl al-rijāl seems to have been the first Syngramma exclusively dedicated to al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl, as it is mainly concerned with the (un-)reliability of hadith transmitters and their sectarian tendencies. While Ibn Saʿd's al-Ṭabaqāt includes the assessment of traditionists, it pertains to the adab genre rather than a proper rijāl work.Footnote 37 Furthermore, given the existence of al-Ṭabaqāt's different recensions and posthumous additions,Footnote 38 in its current state this work cannot be seen as a Syngramma in a strict sense. And although al-Jūzjānī's teachers, ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, are regarded as the leading hadith critics of their time, their literary output is more the result of the cumulative efforts of their students rather than their own. Rijāl and ʿilal works attributed to Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal were collated and collected by their students, whose authorial/editorial renderings palpably determined, to varying degrees, the organization and presentation of their teachers’ words and views.Footnote 39 Moreover, such collections of the opinions of al-Jūzjānī's teachers often contain rather miscellaneous content. A great deal of them treat hadith transmitters’ biographical information (teknonyms, patronyms, personal names, nicknames and/or nisbas), the quantity and quality of their narrations (how many hadith and by what means one transmits from a reputed source) and their interpersonal links (whether a transmitter truly narrates from a reputed source) – the evaluation of hadith transmitters’ credentials constitutes merely one of many subjects entertained by this generation of hadith critics.Footnote 40 Hadith scholars contemporary with al-Jūzjānī were accustomed to the emerging writerly culture, but their rijāl works were primarily preoccupied with the identification of hadith transmitters, that is, knowledge of their names and tribal and/or geographical affiliations. The assessment of their (un)reliability was only occasionally provided and was often interposed with other kinds of information.Footnote 41 For example, Melchert's analysis of al-Bukhārī's al-Tārīkh al-kabīr shows that few transmitters are evaluated, accounting for only 6 per cent of the sample. Thus, according to Melchert, “it seems unlikely that anyone could use TK [al-Tārīkh al-kabīr] directly to tell which transmitters to include in a collection of reliable hadith, which not”.Footnote 42 While al-ʿIjlī's (d. 261/875) Thiqāt mainly focuses on the assessment of hadith transmitters, it was probably collected by his son and preserved in the form of a hypomnēma.Footnote 43
In contrast, al-Jūzjānī's Aḥwāl al-rijāl is a product of his own design. It is clear that al-Jūzjānī divides this book based on the transmitters’ sectarian tendencies or geographical affiliations, as shown below. The work itself is also sandwiched by a preface and an epilogue – both unusual in the rijāl works of his predecessors and contemporaries. Hence, al-Jūzjānī's Aḥwāl al-rijāl can arguably be seen as the first Syngramma work on the appraisal of hadith transmitters, that is, the earliest known and surviving example of the genre al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl.Footnote 44
In terms of structure, Aḥwāl al-rijāl is partly influenced by an Iraqi compilatory convention prevalent among early scholars and ahl al-akhbār (the compilers of historical and biographical reports) – a systemization classifying subjects by their geographical affiliations.Footnote 45 While regional division is employed, al-Jūzjānī's innovation is manifest in the organization of Aḥwāl al-rijāl by sectarian divisions. Thus, the arrangement of Aḥwāl al-rijāl adheres to a two-fold scheme that is oriented by the geographical and sectarian affiliations of the treated subjects. Based on al-Jūzjānī's use of sectional headings and interpolation of comments or apologia, Aḥwāl al-rijāl can be divided into the following parts:
I. Al-Jūzjānī's prefaceFootnote 46
II. The KhārijīsFootnote 47
III. Al-Jūzjānī's citation of the reports concerning the fitna as the cause of hadith criticismFootnote 48
IV. Al-Jūzjānī's description of Shīʿī sects, the Sabaʾiyya and Mukhtāriyya, with emphasis on the latter's corruption of hadith,Footnote 49 followed by the Kūfan transmitters whose credentials are impugned due to their Shīʿī convictions or their untrustworthiness,Footnote 50 including Abū Ḥanīfa and his followers;Footnote 51 and the leading Kūfan hadith scholars, whose hadith are acceptable when provided with full isnāds.Footnote 52
V. The Baṣran transmittersFootnote 53
VI. The Medinans and transmitters based in other regions, including Mecca, Yemen, Ramla, Ayla, Jazīra, Syria and Egypt, among othersFootnote 54
VII. The reliable transmitters professing the QadarismFootnote 55
VIII. Al-Jūzjānī's apologiaFootnote 56
IX. A list of blameworthy transmitters whose hadith should be rejectedFootnote 57
X. Al-Jūzjānī's epilogueFootnote 58
Aḥwāl begins, after al-Jūzjānī's preface, with a list of the Khārijīs, and then, after an interval comprising the sayings of earlier hadith scholars concerning the origin and significance of rijāl criticism, introduces the “Ghulāt” groups,Footnote 59 the Sabaʾiyya and Mukhtāriyya, and the hadith transmitters associated with various forms of Shīʿism based in Kūfa, who are interposed with weak Kūfan transmitters without noticeable sectarian tendencies. This is followed by a section on impugnable Baṣran transmitters and one on their counterparts based in Medina and other cities, before moving to those accused of Qadarī belief. Then, al-Jūzjānī presents an apologia for including the transmitters whose credentials are called into question, even if some have repented of their sins, as their errors or forgery of hadith corrupted hadith corpus.Footnote 60 After this, he proceeds to list unreliable transmitters, before ending the book with his passionate epilogue.Footnote 61
The organizational structure of Aḥwāl al-rijāl well captures al-Jūzjānī's conception of rijāl criticism, which is informed by the earlier generation of hadith critics, especially his teachers, but departs from their shared premise by its emphasis on “correct” belief as a key factor in the evaluation of hadith transmitters. The sectional division is primarily sectarian and secondarily geographical, as the proportion of content shows. The Khārijī section is rather short, while that on Shīʿī-Kūfan comprises the lion's share of the work compared with those on Baṣra, Medina and other cities, the Qadarī and the last section. Al-Jūzjānī's methodological concerns and innovations in his approach to the evaluation of hadith transmitters will be explored in the following sections.
III. Al-Jūzjānī's approach to hadith criticism and hadith terminology
While the organizational structure of Aḥwāl al-rijāl suggests al-Jūzjānī's departure from his predecessors’ approach to hadith criticism by dividing his rijāl work on the basis of the subjects’ sectarian affiliations in addition to their geographical connections, he does honour the authority of the earlier critics and benefits from their knowledge and evaluations. In his apologia, al-Jūzjānī elucidates his selection of the transmitters treated in his Aḥwāl: “All I mentioned [as to the flaws of the transmitters] come from one of the [following] ways: a report I heard (samāʿ) with an isnād; a report I heard from the imams of the people of knowledge;Footnote 62 and analysis of his [of the subject being evaluated] hadith, but that [the last way] may be few.”Footnote 63 Throughout Aḥwāl, it is not uncommon to find him examining, citing or disputing the opinions of earlier hadith authorities.Footnote 64 The most important authority al-Jūzjānī adduces in Aḥwāl is Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, cited 16 times throughout, followed by ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, cited seven times; and Ibn ʿUyayna (d. 198/814), Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/776?) and Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, each cited five times.Footnote 65 These five all feature in the lists of prominent hadith critics identified by Lucas.Footnote 66
Al-Jūzjānī quotes the views of these towering figures in hadith criticism to form his opinions. Regarding Juwaybir b. Saʿīd, ʿUbayda b. Muʿattib and al-Kalbī, al-Jūzjānī states that he was informed by someone that they heard Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal say, “None should bother themselves with their hadith.”Footnote 67 Al-Jūzjānī also cites Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal's description of Qurra b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥaywaʾīl as being “munkar al-ḥadīth”.Footnote 68 He notes that Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal rates the hadith of ʿUmar b. Rāshid as “nothing”,Footnote 69 whereas Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn does not praise the hadith of ʿUthmān b. Abī al-ʿĀtika.Footnote 70 Asked why he did not write Saʿīd b. Sinān's traditions, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn retorts, “Who would write those traditions?” When al-Jūzjānī told him that he did write those hadith for corroboration (iʿtibār), Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn replied, “Those are not even for corroboration. Those are lies (bawāṭīl).”Footnote 71
Al-Jūzjānī also relies on his predecessors for the reports exposing the mendacity of the subjects treated in his Aḥwāl. He was informed that Abū Muqātil al-Samarqandī “created isnād for pious sayings (yunshiʾ li-l-kalām al-ḥasan isnādan)”,Footnote 72 whereas he learnt from ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī of the confession of Abū Ṣāliḥ that all the traditions he narrated were lies.Footnote 73 Al-Kalbī (d. 146/763–64) used to add things to hadith (tadhrīf), according to al-Aṣmaʿī (d. 213/828?).Footnote 74
Quite often, al-Jūzjānī cites these authorities’ judgements to buttress his own evaluations. Al-Jūzjānī considers al-Ḥakam b. ʿAbdallāh b. Saʿd to be an “ignorant liar” and then recounts Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal's order to throw the hadith of al-Ḥakam and that of Isḥāq b. Abī Farwa into the Tigris.Footnote 75 Al-Jūzjānī judges Jābir b. Yazīd as a liar and mentions Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal's report that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī dropped Jābir's hadith to find peace of mind.Footnote 76 For al-Jūzjānī, the judgement that al-Wāqidī is not satisfactory (muqniʿ) is supported by the fact that Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal recycled his books into book covers (ẓahāʾir li-l-kutub).Footnote 77 Abū Dāwūd al-Nakhaʿī, who forged hadith according to al-Jūzjānī, claims to have met and narrated from Yazīd b. Abī Ḥabīb at Derbend (al-Bāb wa-l-abwāb);Footnote 78 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal exclaims, “What was Yazīd doing in Derbend? Look at his audacity, his boldness and his disregard for the sedition he brought about.”Footnote 79 ʿĀṣim b. Abdallāh, judged by al-Jūzjānī as weak in hadith, is defamed by Ibn ʿUyayna due to his poor memory.Footnote 80 Al-Jūzjānī describes Ismāʿīl b. Muslim as “very frail in hadith (wāhī al-ḥadīth jiddan)”, as ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī confirms, “Our companions agree on dropping his hadith.”Footnote 81 Al-Jūzjānī bases his judgement that ʿUthmān b. Miqsam al-Burrī is a liar on Sufyān al-Thawrī's view, quoted via ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, and buttresses this view with Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn's discovery that al-Burrī allegedly transmitted from Nāfiʿ a statement by Ibn ʿUmar, of which Nāfiʿ had never heard.Footnote 82 ʿAbdallāh b. Ziyād b. Samʿān is “baseless in hadith” (dhāhib), for Abū Mushir heard that he allowed students to add things to his notebooks and he would read the altered notebooks afterwards.Footnote 83 Al-Ḥasan b. ʿUmāra's hadith is fallen (sāqiṭ) for Shuʿba discovered that the seven traditions he claimed to have heard from al-Ḥakam were never uttered by the said source.Footnote 84 The view that Baqiyya b. al-Walīd (d. 197/812–13?) and Ismāʿīl b. ʿAyyāsh (d. 181/797) were only reliable when they narrated from the reliable is based on Abū Mushir.Footnote 85
Less frequently, al-Jūzjānī relies on hadith authorities for biographical information on the transmitters he addresses, especially with regard to their sectarian tendencies. During a session of mudhākara (“a memory contest”), ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī names Sālim b. Abī Ḥafṣa as one who became excessive in rafḍ (rejection of the caliphs before ʿAlī).Footnote 86 Al-Jūzjānī cites Ibn ʿUyayna's report that Ibn Abī Labīd is a Qadarī.Footnote 87 Khilās b. ʿAmr is identified by Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal as part of ʿAlī's police enforcers.Footnote 88
Rarely, al-Jūzjānī cites earlier critics’ views in order to disagree with or refute them. In the entries on ʿAlī b. Ṣāliḥ and al-Ḥasan b. Ṣāliḥ, Ibn ʿUyayna considers the former to be better than the latter, but al-Jūzjānī holds that their reliability is equally poor.Footnote 89 Although Mūsā b. ʿUbayda's hadith was narrated by Sufyān al-Thawrī and Shuʿba, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal told al-Jūzjānī that if Shuʿba had known what was obvious to others, he would not have narrated from Mūsā b. ʿUbayda.Footnote 90 Concerning ʿAmr b. Wāqid, although Muḥammad b. al-Mubārak al-Ṣūrī believes in his honesty, al-Jūzjānī maintains that his hadith were uncorroborated.Footnote 91 Despite Ibn Abī Maryam's praise for Rishdīn b. Saʿd's piety, al-Jūzjānī stresses that the latter's hadith are unsubstantiated and unknown.Footnote 92 Although Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal narrates from Talīd b. Sulaymān, al-Jūzjānī regards him as a liar.Footnote 93
Although al-Jūzjānī does not always agree with previous scholars, his engagement with their opinions illustrates the breadth of his knowledge, which he accumulated painstakingly during his journey. In addition to collecting the views of earlier critics who he did not meet in person, al-Jūzjānī further sought the opinions of the authorities to whom he had direct access, such as Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, by consulting their studentsFootnote 94 or through correspondence.Footnote 95 That al-Jūzjānī's pursuit of the study of rijāl criticism was a long-term commitment is well illustrated in the following entry:
Regarding Abū al-Mahdī Saʿīd b. Sinān al-Ḥimṣī, I fear that his traditions are forged, as they do not resemble people's traditions. Abū al-Yamān praised him for his virtue and piety and said: “We prayed for rains through him.” I [al-Jūzjānī] examined his hadith and found his traditions uncorroborated (muʿḍila). Thus, I informed Abū al-Yamān of that, and he said: “Indeed, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn did not write anything from it [Saʿīd's hadith].” When I [al-Jūzjānī] returned to Iraq, I mentioned Abū al-Mahdī to Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn and asked: “O Abū Zakariyyāʾ [Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn's teknonym], what kept you from writing [his] traditions?” He said: “Who would write those traditions? Where did he find them?”Footnote 96
In order to verify Abū al-Yamān's remark on Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn's evaluation, al-Jūzjānī asked the latter about Saʿīd b. Sinān when he returned to Iraq. Al-Jūzjānī's keen and diligent pursuit of such evaluations of hadith transmitters does not entail blind imitation of their appraisal. While well entrenched in ahl al-ḥadīth's scholarly community, al-Jūzjānī's analytical, critical approach to rijāl criticism is unmistakable, as shown in his disagreements with other critics. Furthermore, his critical approach is displayed in his practice of parallel comparison and, more importantly, in his use of the terms of hadith criticism, both discussed below.
Parallel comparison of traditions derived from a narrator (al-iʿtibār or al-mutābaʿa), a technique employed by his predecessors and contemporaries, is adopted by al-Jūzjānī, who refers to the term iʿtibār in the entry on Saʿīd b. Sinān, quoted above.Footnote 97 Whether a transmitter's reports accord with those of others is indicative of his credibility in al-Jūzjānī's view, as his expositions of the mendacity of two Shīʿī transmitters suggest. First, concerning al-Ḥārith b. ʿAbdallāh al-Hamdānī, al-Jūzjānī first evokes al-Shaʿbī's (d. 104/722–23?) judgement that al-Ḥārith is a liar and notes the subject's claim to have learnt revelation beyond that in the Quran – against the Muslim consensus that the revelation is only to be found between the two covers of the Holy Book. Al-Jūzjānī further stresses the point: “al-Ḥārith's issue in his hadith is obvious to anyone whose heart is not blinded by God. He narrates from ʿAlī the testimony (tashahhud) therein disagreeing with the umma.”Footnote 98 Second, on ʿĀṣim b. Ḍamra, whom al-Jūzjānī holds no better than al-Ḥārith, pace Sufyān al-Thawrī, on the basis that his traditions about the number of rakʿa performed by the Prophet and the number of camels liable to taxation contradict the majority reports.Footnote 99 These two entries are unusually lengthy compared with others in Aḥwāl. While al-Jūzjānī's decision to place al-Ḥārith b. ʿAbdallāh and ʿĀṣim b. Ḍamra in the Shīʿī category already undermines their credentials, given the critical framework he set out in the prologue (see below), his examination of their traditions highlights his reliance on iʿtibār. Through parallel comparison, al-Jūzjānī confirms Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal's verdict that Farqad's hadith is munkar, for none of the Kūfan transmitters reports the traditions that he narrated from Abū Bakr via Murra.Footnote 100 Likewise, he judges that Saʿīd b. Sinān's traditions are frail (aḥādīthuhu wāhiya), as they do not resemble the narrations reported by other students of Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795).Footnote 101 The reliance on parallel comparison as a means to detect hadith forgery or evaluate one's reliability also impacts on al-Jūzjānī's use of the terms of hadith criticism.
Pavlovitch's study of the technical hadith terms employed by Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, al-Bukhārī, al-ʿIjlī, Abū Zurʿa al-Rāzī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim (d. 327/938) and al-Nasāʾī highlights that “during the third/ninth century ḥadīth criticism was an emerging science whose representatives used terminology in a subjective and unsystematic manner”.Footnote 102 Despite this, there are terms used for positive and negative evaluations that are significantly shared by these hadith critics – thiqa (“reliable”), lā baʾs bihi (“it is fine”), ḍaʿīf (“weak”), ṣāliḥ al-ḥadīth (“alright in hadith”), munkar (“unknown” or “uncorroborated”) and laysa bi-(l)-qawī (“not strong”).Footnote 103 Most of these terms are also found in al-Jūzjānī's evaluations.Footnote 104
Ḍaʿīf is used 44 times throughout Aḥwāl, which addresses 388 subjects,Footnote 105 whereas the opposite of thiqa, ghayr thiqa (“not reliable”), is used 33 times. The phrase, laysa bi-(l)-qawī, and its equivalents appear ten times. Other negative critical terms, which al-Jūzjānī shares with other ninth-century hadith critics, comprise munkar and its derivatives, used ten times in Aḥwāl; matrūk (“abandoned”) and its derivatives, five times; and kadhdhāb (“liar”) and its derivatives, approximately 30 times. It is noteworthy that al-Jūzjānī does not adhere to the one and same term when judging one as a liar or suggesting that one's hadith be dropped. To kadhdhāb, al-Jūzjānī adds muftarin (“falsifier”) four times and Dajjāl (“false messiah”) twice. Perhaps as alternatives to matrūk, sāqiṭ (“fallen”) and saqaṭa fulān/ḥadīth fulān (“someone/someone's hadith is fallen”) are found 21 times, whereas dhāhib, dhāhib al-ḥadīth, or dhahaba ḥadīth fulān (“baseless”, “baseless in the transmission of hadith” or “someone's hadith is baseless”) appear seven times.
Curiously, laysa bi-(l)-shayʾ (“nothing”) or its equivalents, often employed by al-Jūzjānī's teachers, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, appears only once.Footnote 106 In contrast, the occurrence of wāhī al-ḥadīth (“frail in hadith”), rarely used by his teachers, is prominent in Aḥwāl (18 times). The only other critic who utilizes this term significantly is Abū Zurʿa al-Rāzī.Footnote 107 Layyin (“tender”) is used a mere three times in Aḥwāl, whereas al-Jūzjānī uses the phrase lā yushtaghal bi-ḥadīthihi (“none is bothered with his hadith”), which occurs eight times, more frequently than others.
Another term al-Jūzjānī inherits from his teacher ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī is muʿḍil or its derivatives. Later compilers of encyclopedias on hadith science define muʿḍil as a hadith which lacks two or more transmitters below the level of the Companions in an isnād, in contrast to mursal, which refers to a hadith narrated by a Successor without the mediacy of a Companion, based on a statement attributed to ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī.Footnote 108 However, ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī applies the term muʿḍil to any hadith with a broken link.Footnote 109 The mismatch between the technical definition of the term muʿḍil and its (mis)use by early hadith critics is also observed by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449) and al-Sakhāwī (d. 902/1497), who found that the term was used to refer to hadith with dubious meanings instead of those with broken isnāds.Footnote 110 It seems that al-Jūzjānī understood the term as equivalent to munkar. Muʿḍil and its derivatives are found in ten subjects, and are more or less employed as an alternative to munkar. For example, Mīnā b. Abī Mīnā is condemned by the imams of hadith due to “his profession of vice belief and the obscure traditions he transmitted (ankara al-aʾimma ḥadīthahu li-sūʾ madhhabihi wa-li-mā ḥaddatha min al-ʿuḍal)”, according to al-Jūzjānī.Footnote 111 Mīnā's credentials are impugned because of his transmission of unknown hadith that cannot be corroborated, such as the hadith in which the Prophet implicitly designated ʿAlī as his successor, used to bolster the Shīʿī claim.Footnote 112 Regarding Saʿīd b. Sinān, al-Jūzjānī suspects that his hadith were fabricated, as they do not resemble those of others, saying, “I examined his hadith. His traditions are muʿḍila.”Footnote 113 Thus, Saʿīd b. Sinān is evaluated poorly, for his hadith are neither known nor corroborated, despite his piety and virtues.Footnote 114 That most of the transmitters whose hadith al-Jūzjānī considers muʿḍil narrated traditions that cannot be corroborated suggests that he used the term synonymously with munkar.Footnote 115 It is even telling that when assessing Rishdīn b. Saʿd, al-Jūzjānī describes his narrations as maʿāḍīl and manākīr,Footnote 116 the plurals of muʿḍil and munkar, indicating an overlap in connotations.Footnote 117
Much less commonly, al-Jūzjānī evaluates the transmitters in a derisive manner. The hadith of Ḥarām b. ʿUthmān, as al-Jūzjānī puts in a pun, is prohibited (al-ḥadīth ʿan Ḥarām ḥarām).Footnote 118 He sarcastically describes ʿAwbad b. Abī ʿImrān al-Jawnī as “one of the miracles”.Footnote 119 Noting that Shahr b. Ḥawshab's traditions are unlike others, al-Jūzjānī first cites Ibn ʿAwn's judgement that his hadith be dropped and, commenting on Shahr b. Ḥawshab's narrations about two Companions holding the reins of the Prophet's she-camel, mockingly writes, “as if he were obsessed with the reins of the Prophet's she-camel”.Footnote 120 Al-Jūzjānī rates Muqātil b. Sulaymān as a daring Dajjāl, and recounts a story that, when Muqātil b. Sulaymān haughtily invited people to ask him any question to display his erudition, a man asked him where the entrails of an ant are, leaving him speechless.Footnote 121 Perhaps the most malicious comment throughout Aḥwāl is found in the entry on Abū al-Ṣalt al-Harawī, who, according to an unnamed leading scholar, is “more mendacious than the faeces of al-Dajjāl's donkey”.Footnote 122
It is beyond doubt that al-Jūzjānī benefits from and relies on the existing inventory of hadith terminology, but in rijāl criticism he also employs a dozen highly idiosyncratic phrases and adjectives, scarcely seen elsewhere, which are informed by his methodological concerns. Al-Jūzjānī's unusual inventory comprises phrases including the triliteral roots q-n-ʿ and ḥ-m-d as well as their derivatives.Footnote 123 Al-Jūzjānī considered the following to be unworthy of praise (in hadith): Yaḥyā b. ʿAbdallāh al-Jābir, Ismāʿīl b. Mujālid, Bādhām, al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Ḥumra, Nahshal b. Saʿīd (ghayr maḥmūd or ghayr maḥmūd al-ḥadīth),Footnote 124 and Abū al-Jaḥḥāf Dāwūd b. ʿAwf (min ghayr al-maḥmūdīn fī al-ḥadīth).Footnote 125 The verb “praise” is in the entry on Yamān b. al-Mughīra, regarding whom al-Jūzjānī states, “People do not praise his hadith (lā yaḥmad al-nās ḥadīthahu).”Footnote 126 Evaluations containing terms derived from the root ḥ-m-d are found 24 times throughout Aḥwāl, more often than laysa bi-(l)-qawī. Similarly, al-Jūzjānī describes the unreliable as ghayr muqniʿ (“not satisfying”), lā/lam yaqnaʿ al-nās bi-ḥadīthihi (“people are/were not satisfied with his hadith”), or, with its synonym, ghayr marḍī (“unsatisfactory”) 20 times in Aḥwāl.Footnote 127
The frequency with which al-Jūzjānī employs these extraordinary phrases confirms their terminological status in al-Jūzjānī's epistemology of hadith criticism. Furthermore, the phrases derived from the triliteral roots ḥ-m-d highlight that he conceives of a transmitter's conformity to a certain moral standard or doctrinal position as essential to rijāl criticism, since “being praiseworthy” involves hadith transmission as well as other aspects, such as moral conduct, approach to law, and sectarian convictions. The nature of these terms aligns with al-Jūzjānī's approach to hadith criticism, which takes into consideration both transmitters’ honesty and their adherence to the correct belief, as explored in the next section.
IV. Al-Jūzjānī's epistemological and methodological framework
To understand al-Jūzjānī's peculiar use of hadith terms in his evaluations, it is imperative to study his methodology in relation to his conception of the function of hadith. In the preface, al-Jūzjānī first cites a hadith in which the Prophet encourages Muslims to speak up when seeing something conflicting with God's guidance or which would displease Him: “Let one of you not belittle himself by seeing a matter for which God would say something without speaking up so that God will say to him, when he meets Him: ‘What held you from saying it on such and such day?”’Footnote 128 The hadith justifies al-Jūzjānī's cause for the work in question. That is, it is in adherence with God's guidance and truth that al-Jūzjānī can assuredly disregard any animosity by those whom his work targets and whom he identifies as follows: first, who cannot secure the knowledge of hadith; second, accused of or associated with “innovation” (bidʿa); and, third, the foolish who, unable to differentiate sound and unsound traditions, collect everything they hear, seeking ease and comfort in their pursuit of hadith.Footnote 129 On these groups, al-Jūzjānī declares
I shall not care who is pleased and who is angered, as God determined that [path] for me, after I sought good from Him, since I am fighting for His religion, defending the sunna of His Prophet, protecting it from the people of deviation, exposing the godless liars who lied about the Prophet, may God bless him, and preferring the obligation of commanding [right] and forbidding [wrong], so that the ignorant will learn and those who seek certainty will refrain [out of discretion from narrating hadith carelessly], having faith in God and relying upon what He delivered through His Prophet.Footnote 130
Seeing himself as defending God's dīn and His Prophet's sunna, al-Jūzjānī practises naqd al-rijāl to fulfil a religious obligation stipulated by God without compunction, although it had been morally contested as it involves speaking negatively of others, which approaches slander (ghība).Footnote 131
After clarifying his motivation and purpose, al-Jūzjānī proceeds to describe the opponents of his work, who are classified into four types based on their “ranks and sects” (ʿalā marātibihim wa-madhāhibihim).
First, one who is deviant from truth and mendacious in his hadith (minhum al-zāʾigh ʿan al-ḥaqq kadhdhāb fī ḥadīthihi).
Second, one who is mendacious in his hadith; I have not heard of an innovation about him, while mendacity itself suffices to be an innovation (minhum al-kadhdhāb fī ḥadīthihi lam asmaʿ ʿanhu bi-bidʿa wa-kafā bi-l-kidhb bidʿatan).
Third, one who is deviant from truth but honest. His hadith has been circulated by people, as people left out his innovations but trusted his narrations. As to this group, in my opinion, the only remedy is to take what is well known among their hadith, as long as it does not support their innovations and appear suspicious.
Fourth, one who is weak in his hadith. It is not permissible for the pious to use his hadith as evidence alone, unless it is strengthened by the hadith of one who is stronger than him; then, his hadith can be used for corroboration.Footnote 132
The four categories of opponents he targets illustrate al-Jūzjānī's determination to expose the flaws of the partisans of innovation and his approach to the appraisal of hadith transmitters, which is based on a transmitter's reliability and theological/sectarian tendencies. While scepticism towards mendacious transmitters was a given, the concept that weak hadith can only be used for the purpose of iʿtibār was also not foreign to al-Jūzjānī's predecessors.Footnote 133 That he equates lying in hadith with innovation also aligns with ahl al-ḥadīth's overall attitude.
However, al-Jūzjānī is original in the extent of his incorporation of “deviation from truth” into the framework of hadith criticism. Admittedly, caution against the sectarians or ahl al-bidʿa was present in the thought of ahl al-ḥadīth before him, but it does not entail rejection of their traditions unless they use hadith to propagate their ideas.Footnote 134 According to this framework, for al-Jūzjānī, the honesty of a transmitter alone is not sufficient to secure the authenticity of his transmission: their “uprightness” in faith is no less important as a guarantor of his reliability. As the narrations of an honest transmitter tarnished by bidʿa can only be accepted when they agree with well-known traditions by not betraying any partisanship towards the bidʿa in question, such narrators are essentially downgraded to a rank slightly better than that of the weak ones, whose narrations can be used for corroboration only.
Al-Jūzjānī's solicitude to sectarian deviations pervades the commentary between the sections. When introducing Shīʿī and Khārijī groups, he stresses, by invoking the authority of the Prophet and the earlier hadith scholars such as Muḥammad b. Sīrīn (d. 110/729) and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728), how these groups diverged from the consensus of the community and how their “innovations” corrupted the togetherness of the Muslim umma and the legacy of the Prophet.Footnote 135 His persistent and consistent application of this innovative approach, which is particularly concerned with the hadith transmitters’ adherence to “orthodoxy”, is illustrated by how he perceives the leading Kūfan ahl al-ḥadīth associated with Shīʿism:
There were a group of ahl al-Kūfa, whose beliefs are not praised by people and who were the heads of the Kūfan traditionists, such as Abū Isḥāq ʿAmr b. ʿAbdallāh (d. 127/744–45?), Manṣūr b. al-Muʿtamir (d. 133/750–51?), al-Aʿmash (d. 148/765?), and Zubayd b. al-Ḥārith al-Yāmī, as well as their like in their generation. People tolerated them for the honesty of their tongues, but refrained [from transmitting their narrations] when they omitted isnāds (arsalū), fearing that their sources [of traditions] were not sound. (iḥtamalahum al-nās ʿalā ṣidq alsinatihim fī al-ḥadīth wa-waqafū ʿindamā arsalū lammā khāfū allā takūna makhārijuhā ṣaḥīḥatan).Footnote 136
This uncompromising attitude towards all forms of innovation and deviation stems from al-Jūzjānī's conception of a believer's accountability for the hadith he takes as guidance. Thus, hadith offering religious and legal guidance, which determine one's final destination on the Day of Judgement, must be transmitted through a continuous chain of the reliable and “orthodox”, as al-Jūzjānī opines:
I do not reckon that when one day, we are scrutinized and inquired at the site before God about the evidence in support of our endeavours in the matter of religion, an isnād involving a dubious man deviant from truth or one involving a man unknown to the people of knowledge is equal to a glowing isnād without any man whose standing in religion is blemished and whose sincerity in following sunna attacked, although that [kind of isnād] is paltry. God the exalted says, “Say: ‘Not equal are things that are bad and things that are good even though the abundance of the bad may dazzle thee.”’ (5:100)Footnote 137
As people acting on traditions will be called upon by God to identify their sources of information, al-Jūzjānī asserts in the epilogue that “This matter is serious, not a jest, as one will come closer to heaven or hell, between which there is no station. Let any of you know that he is responsible for his religion and what he learnt as lawful and unlawful acts.”Footnote 138 Based on al-Jūzjānī's own words throughout Aḥwāl, it can be argued that his epistemological conception of hadith is infused with his methodological framework. This fusion is reflected by al-Jūzjānī's use of hadith technical terms and his persistent identification of hadith transmitters’ sectarian tendencies, which are judged with a moralistic tenor.
In 15 instances, al-Jūzjānī qualifies his subjects professing an extreme form of Shīʿism as ghālin or its derivatives.Footnote 139 Ghālin is also used with other qualifiers: Yaḥyā b. al-Jazzār is ghālin mufriṭ (“excessive extreme”),Footnote 140 whereas ʿUthmān b. ʿUmayr is ghālī al-madhhab (“extreme in belief”) and munkar al-ḥadīth (“uncorroborated in hadith”).Footnote 141 Ḥusayn b. Ḥasan al-Ashqar is ghālin and shattām, one who anathematized the Companions.Footnote 142 In reference to Shīʿī belief, the verbal form of ghālin, ghalā is used: “Sālim b. Abī al-Ḥafṣa, according to ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, is one of those who become extreme in rafḍ (man yaghlū fī al-rafḍ).”Footnote 143 Less commonly, ghālin is connected with zāʾigh and sūʾ al-madhhab, each used twice.Footnote 144 Likewise, zāʾigh, or its synonyms, feature prominently in al-Jūzjānī's critical terminology, phrased as being deviant (zāʾigh, māʾil, or, rarely, ḥāʾid) or as being deviant from the truth, the right path, or the way.Footnote 145 More often than not, the judgement of the transmitters’ belief is issued without any reference to their credentials as hadith transmitters.Footnote 146
Given al-Jūzjānī's antagonism towards “innovations”, as emphatically reiterated in his preface and epilogue, it is not surprising that he mentions subjects’ associations with or practice of bidʿa. Ibrāhīm b. Abī Yaḥyā practises “different kinds of innovations. Thus, none should be bothered with his hadith. He is not satisfactory nor [does he provide reliable] evidence (fīhi ḍurūb min al-bidaʿ fa-lā yushtaghal bi-ḥadīthihi fa-innahu ghayr muqniʿ wa-lā ḥujja).” Muḥammad b. Isḥāq is “accused of more than one innovation”.Footnote 147 However, the type of innovations these subjects are associated with is never defined.
On the basis of al-Jūzjānī's propensity to evaluate the transmitters by noting their sectarian or theological tendencies only, it can be argued that such moralistically judgemental terms as zāʾigh, among others, are chosen by him in accordance with his methodological principle, which downgrades the “innovators” to the lower rank in terms of reliability, regardless of their honesty and accuracy in transmission. Al-Jūzjānī's methodical incorporation of the religious uprightness of hadith transmitters into the edifice of naqd al-rijāl through the fourfold framework, which he set up in the prologue to Aḥwāl, is remarkably innovative in both the theoretical and the practical sense. His teachers, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī, identify and analyse hadith transmitters case by case. By engaging with a huge number of hadith narrators and their narrations, they attempt, to varying degrees, to organize such data in a way that facilitates the practice of hadith criticism, but they hardly articulate a systematic framework in the appraisal of rijāl.Footnote 148 Conversely, al-Jūzjānī first sets up a methodological framework and then he imposes it upon the subjects he treats. It is thus imperative for him to alert his readers and fellow hadith scholars to a transmitter being associated with a “deviation” or “innovation” of some sort, without judgement as to their (un-)reliability.
This does not mean that there was no attempt to theorize the qualities of reliable and unreliable transmitters before al-Jūzjānī. Al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820), addressing the evidentiary validity (al-ḥujja) of the hadith transmitted by one narrator only at every level, stipulates the following:
The proof for such a report is not established unless it possesses certain qualifications. He who narrates it should merit confidence in his religion, be known for his truthfulness in his speech, aware of what he reports and knowledgeable about how different wordings can result in distortion of the meaning of the hadith-report (an yakūn man ḥaddatha bihi thiqatan fī dīnihi maʿrūfan bi-l-ṣidq fī ḥadīthihi ʿāqilan limā yuḥaddithu bihi ʿāliman bi-mā yuḥīl maʿānī al-ḥadīth min al-lafẓ). He should transmit the hadith-report verbatim as he heard it and not in his own words; because if he transmits it paraphrastically and is unaware of what might alter its meaning, he would not know whether or not he has naively made the lawful unlawful. But if he narrates it verbatim, there is no ground for fearing a change of the meaning of the hadith-report. [The transmitter] should be a good memoriser if he transmits from his memory, and he should preserve his notes carefully if he narrates from his notes. If he possesses the same hadith-report as [do] eminent transmitters, his hadith-report should be in agreement with theirs. He should be above suspicion of tadlīs (false ascription), that is, reporting on the authority of those whom he has met that which he has not heard from them, or reporting on the authority of the Prophet something that differs from that which trusted reporters transmit.Footnote 149
Although al-Shāfiʿī's first condition concerns a narrator's religious uprightness, it is clear that his emphasis is on one's accuracy (that is, in one's ability to deliver the tradition verbatim) and honesty in the identification of one's sources.Footnote 150 His “confidence in religion” would seem to be an unsubstantiated statement in comparison with al-Jūzjānī's indictment of ahl al-ahwāʾ and ahl al-bidʿa. Moreover, al-Shāfiʿī addresses hadith criticism as part of his jurisprudential project without being a practitioner himself, and his knowledge and authority in this discipline are not recognized.Footnote 151
Al-Jūzjānī's contemporary Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 261/875) presents a systematic description of hadith transmitters classified into three categories. The first rank comprises people whose reports are “purified and free from the defects found in others”, who are “people of integrity in hadith with mastery in what they narrated (ahl istiqāma fī al-ḥadīth wa-itqān limā naqalū)” and whose “narrations are not too inconsistent or overly confusing (lam yūjad fī riwāyatihim ikhtilāf shadīd wa-lā takhlīṭ fāḥish)”.Footnote 152 In the second rank are people “who are not qualified by retentive memory and mastery (al-ḥifẓ wa-l-itqān)”, like those in the first rank, but they are shielded [from grave sins?], honest and devoted to knowledge (fa-inna ism al-satr wa-l-ṣidq wa-taʿāṭī al-ʿilm yashmuluhum).Footnote 153 Finally, the lowest rank, whose hadith Muslim excludes from his Ṣaḥīḥ, comprises people accused by ahl al-ḥadīth of “forgery of traditions and fabrications of reports (man uttuhima bi-waḍʿ al-aḥādīth wa-tawlīd al-akhbār)”, and those whose hadith are mostly uncorroborated or erroneous (man al-ghālib ʿalā ḥadīthihi al-munkar wa-l-ghalaṭ).Footnote 154 Muslim also makes it obligatory for everyone to distinguish between sound and unsound narrations, with calls to refrain from traditions derived from those of questionable credentials and the obstinate among the “innovators” (ʿan ahl al-tuham wa-l-muʿānidīn min ahl al-bidaʿ).Footnote 155
Similar to al-Shāfiʿī, Muslim warns against the hadith of “the people of innovations”, but only to the degree that agrees with the earlier generation of ahl al-ḥadīth, since, as Abu-Alabbas suggests:
there is little disagreement among commentators on the Ṣaḥīḥ that Muslim himself related material from sectaries who advocated their doctrines, yet did not transmit hadith-reports in support of their dogma. It is likely that “obstinate innovators” refer to those who did relate information supportive of their thought.Footnote 156
This seems to quite literally tally with al-Jūzjānī's description: “As to this group, in my opinion, the only remedy is to take what is well known among their hadith, as long as it does not support their innovations and appear suspicious.” Nevertheless, the implications of the different approaches to the ahl al-bidaʿ taken by Muslim and al-Jūzjānī are epitomized by their respective treatment of the leading Kūfan traditionists, al-Aʿmash and Manṣūr b. al-Muʿtamir. They are both given in the highest rank by Muslim, whereas al-Jūzjānī counts them among those whose “beliefs people do not praise (lā yaḥmad al-nās madhāhibahum)”: “People tolerated them for the honesty of their tongues, but refrained [from transmitting their narrations] when they omitted isnāds (arsalū), fearing that their sources [of traditions] were not sound.”Footnote 157 By extension, both al-Aʿmash and Manṣūr b. al-Muʿtamir are assigned to the third rank of al-Jūzjānī's four-fold framework, that is, those who are deviant from truth but honest.Footnote 158 Hadith of this rank, according to al-Jūzjānī's final remarks cited above, cannot serve as evidence upon which legal and ritual prescriptions and proscriptions are carried out.
By exercising rijāl criticism based on the theoretical framework he puts forward, al-Jūzjānī thus presents a step beyond his teachers in the disciplinary development of hadith criticism. However, his approach inevitably parted ways from that of his predecessors, who did not consistently consider theological, legal and sectarian tendencies.Footnote 159 Furthermore, he implicitly questions hadith authorities who were previously unanimously recognized as thiqa. It comes as no surprise that al-Jūzjānī's approach exerts little impact on the succeeding generation of hadith critics in their formulation of the concept of “uprightness” (ʿadāla) – a term never used by al-Jūzjānī, although it is conceptually relevant to and compatible with his four-fold critical framework.
The term ʿadāla and its derivatives, ʿadl and ʿudūl,Footnote 160 are defined by Ibn Abī Ḥātim as predominantly conditioned by one's reliability, accuracy and retentive memory in transmission: “what the condition of uprightness entails in transmission and narration of hadith is [for narrators] to be trustworthy themselves, knowledgeable in their religion, and be pious, God-fearing men with retentive memory, masterful and accurate in hadith transmission”. Thus, upright transmitters “are not blemished by negligence, overwhelmed by baseless claims over what they memorized and understood, nor confused by unintentional mistakes”.Footnote 161 Ibn Abī Ḥātim's phrasing, with its emphasis on a transmitter's discretion, accuracy and trustworthiness, set in contrast to poor memory, negligence and mendacity, highlights an inherent difference from al-Jūzjānī's conception of reliability. In this regard, Ibn Abī Ḥātim is conventional, as his definition of ʿadāla parallels Muslim's description and aligns with al-Jūzjānī's teachers’ disregard of a transmitter's sectarian affiliations as a crucial factor in forming an evaluation.
Similarly, the compilers of the encyclopedias of hadith science, aligning with Muslim's attitude towards the ahl al-bidaʿ, only notionally consider transmitters’ adherence to “orthodox” doctrines but in practice lean towards latitudinarianism.Footnote 162 In the chapter on “the characteristic of those whose transmission is accepted”, Ibn Ṣalāḥ enumerates the conditions for a transmitter to be considered upright (ʿadl): “Specifically, he must be Muslim; adult; of sound mind; free of tendencies toward impiety and defects of character; alert, careful; retentive, if he transmits from memory; and accurate in handling his text, if he transmits from it.”Footnote 163 Yet, the consideration of whether a transmitter is free from tendencies is toned down when he endorses the view that “the sectarian's transmission is to be accepted if he is not a proselytizer (tuqbalu riwāyatuhu idhā lam yakun dāʿiyatan ilā bidʿatihi)” as the doctrine embraced by the majority, arguing that the works of hadith authorities such as Ṣaḥīḥayn contain many traditions of the ahl al-bidaʿ.Footnote 164 His verdict on the people of innovation is more or less followed by commentators on his work.Footnote 165
Because of his epistemological and methodological premises, which depart from those of the earlier and later generations of hadith critics, al-Jūzjānī's four-fold framework did not seem to have appealed to later hadith critics.Footnote 166 Consequently, al-Jūzjānī's appraisals are often considered to be immoderate, and he is considered to be among the harshest critics.Footnote 167 His negative evaluations of the Kūfan Shīʿī traditionists came to be translated as antagonism towards ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. Rejecting al-Jūzjānī's evaluation of Ismāʿīl b. Abān, a Kūfan traditionist professing tashayyuʿ, Ibn ʿAdī describes al-Jūzjānī as “extremely inclined to the way of Damascenes in wronging ʿAlī (kāna shadīd al-mayl ilā madhhab ahl Dimashq fī al-taḥammul ʿalā ʿAlī)”.Footnote 168 Although his individual views on reliable transmitters of Shīʿī, Qadarī and other tendencies are not uncontested, al-Jūzjānī's authority as a hadith critic is recognized and his evaluations are cited by later compilers of rijāl works. He is one of the most oft-quoted sources by Ibn ʿAdī in his al-Kāmil,Footnote 169 and among later scholars who cite and adduce his views and opinions one can count Abū Zurʿa al-Rāzī, al-Dūlābī (d. 310/923), al-ʿUqaylī (d. 322/933–34), Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Ibn ʿAsākir, al-Mizzī, al-Dhahabī and Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī.Footnote 170
Conclusion
This article addressed a much neglected ninth-century hadith scholar and critic, Ibrāhīm b. Yaʿqūb al-Jūzjānī, with regard to his work Aḥwāl al-rijāl, his approach to naqd al-rijāl and his overall contributions to the science of hadith criticism. In the first section, this article outlined his life and works, presenting the first biography about him in English. It then introduced Aḥwāl al-rijāl emphasizing its organizational structure, which is informed by the Iraqi compilatory convention prevalent among ahl al-ḥadīth, and marked its importance as the first Syngramma solely dedicated to the genre al-jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl.
Al-Jūzjānī's conception of desirable and undesirable qualities of hadith transmitters and formation of opinions concerning their credentials are manifest in his remarks, his use of technical terms and his reliance upon the views of earlier hadith authorities, treated in the third and fourth sections. A close reading of Aḥwāl al-rijāl reveals his indebtedness to earlier hadith scholars and his reliance on the repertoire of the hadith terms they created and employed. However, al-Jūzjānī's approach marks a significant departure from his predecessors in his systematic integration of the moral or doctrinal uprightness of hadith transmitters into the framework of rijāl criticism. This constitutes a methodological advance in the discipline of hadith criticism, but al-Jūzjānī's approach, which disproportionately scrutinizes the transmitters’ conformity to “correct” beliefs and doctrines and harshly appraises the hadith authorities with Shīʿī or Qadarī leanings,Footnote 171 was too innovative and too extreme to be compatible with the established convention among ahl al-ḥadīth. Thus, it failed to appeal to succeeding contributors to hadith criticism, who, following Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj's principle, accepted sectaries’ traditions as long as they did not propagate their ideas.
In addition to noting the lack of success of al-Jūzjānī's approach in influencing later hadith scholarship, this detailed study of al-Jūzjānī's epistemological and methodological framework allows for the following conclusions, which may complement the current understanding of early hadith criticism. First, Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj's introduction to his Ṣaḥīḥ and Kitāb al-Tamyīz have been taken as the first systematic description of hadith criticism.Footnote 172 However, al-Jūzjānī's Aḥwāl al-rijāl, with his exposition of the reasons why a transmitter's traditions are rejected, is at least as early as Muslim's works. Second, it has been established that extrinsic factors, such as sectarian tendencies, were not consistently considered by early hadith critics, as they judged transmitters’ (un)reliability more upon the parallel comparison of their narrations.Footnote 173 Although this may well have been true for most early hadith critics, al-Jūzjānī is an exception. Third, analysis of al-Jūzjānī's inventory of the terms of hadith criticism suggests that some of his idiosyncratic phrasings and descriptions are likely to have been devised in accordance with his methodological concerns. While early hadith critics had yet to agree on hadith terminology, this does not imply that they employed such terms in an arbitrary manner. Finally, Melchert concludes that the approaches to hadith criticism in the ninth century cannot be reduced to the binary of ahl al-ḥadīth's isnād comparison versus the Muʿtazilī/rationalist evaluation of the personal probity of informants. Rather, for each camp, there existed a spectrum of opinions.Footnote 174 Ardently identifying with ahl al-ḥadīth,Footnote 175 al-Jūzjānī, with his fusion of these two approaches, presents an insightful lens to explore the spectrum of opinions among ninth-century hadith critics.
Open access
