The great cognitive transformation and the beginnings of the Tasnif of books in the era of the Atba’ al Tabi’in

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The great cognitive transformation and the beginnings of the Tasnif of books in the era of the Atba’ al Tabi’in

 

An important and distinctive stage began in the era of the Atba’ al Tabi’in, which was clearly distinguished from the stage of the Tabi’in and the Companions. This was the stage of Tasnif—an important scholarly event that greatly influenced the course of Hadith narration afterwards.

Below, I present this stage and what preceded it and I stop at what is called in our time ‘the Tadwin (formal collection and mass documentation) stage’, asking, “Did this stage precede the Tasnif stage? Is it an important stage as contemporaries deem it to be?” I then present the most important reasons for the shift from the stage of memorisation and personal writings to the stage of general Tasnif.

 

1. Narrations between the stages of memorisation and Tasnif

Narrations moved from the stage of memorisation and individual personal books to the stage of Tasnif for general dissemination in the second quarter of the second century. Imam al Dhahabi mentions it in his book Tarikh al Islam under the year 143 AH, in an important text, saying:

 

وفي هذا العصر شرع علماء الإسلام في تدوين الحديث والفقه والتفسير فصنف ابن جريج (ت ١٥٠ه‏) التصانيف بمكة وصنف سعيد بن أبي عروبة (ت ١٥٦ه)‏ وحماد بن سلمة (ت ١٦٧ه)‏ وغيرهما بالبصرة وصنف الأوزاعي (ت ١٥٧ه‏) بالشام وصنف مالك (ت ١٧٩‏) الموطأ بالمدينة وصنف ابن إسحاق (ت ١٥١ه)‏ المغازي وصنف معمر (ت١٥٤ه)‏ باليمن وصنف أبو حنيفة ( ١٥٠ه‏) وغيره الفقه والرأي بالكوفة وصنف سفيان الثوري (ت ١٦١ه)‏ كتاب الجامع ثم بعد يسير صنف هشيم (ت١٨٣ه)‏ كتبه وصنف الليث (ت ١٧٥ه)‏ بمصر وابن لهيعة (ت ١٧٤ه‏) ثم ابن المبارك (ت١٨١ه)‏ وأبو يوسف (ت ١٨٢ه)‏ وابن وهب (ت ١٩٧ه) وكثر تدوين العلم وتبويبه دونت كتب العربية واللغة والتاريخ وأيام الناس وقبل هذا العصر كان سائر الأئمة يتكلمون على حفظهم أو يروون العلم من صحف صحيحة غير مرتبة فسهل ولله الحمد تناول العلم وأخذ الحفظ يتناقص فلله الأمر كله

In this era, Islamic scholars began to compile Hadith, Fiqh, and Tafsir. Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 AH) wrote some books in Makkah while Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah (d. 156 AH), Hammad ibn Salamah (d. 167 AH), and others wrote in Basrah. Al Awza’i (d. 157 AH) wrote in the Greater Syria and Malik (d. 179 AH) wrote al Muwatta’ in Madinah. Ibn Ishaq (d. 151 AH) wrote al Maghazi. Ma’mar (d. 154 AH) wrote in Yemen. Abu Hanifah (150 AH) and others wrote Fiqh and Opinion in Kufah and Sufyan al Thawri (d. 161 AH) wrote Kitab al Jami’. Then after a little while, Hushaym (d. 183 AH) wrote his books. Al Layth (d. 175 AH) wrote in Egypt. Then Ibn Lahi’ah (d. 174 AH), Ibn al Mubarak (d. 181 AH), Abu Yusuf (d. 182 AH), and Ibn Wahb (d. 197 AH) wrote. Compilation and classification of knowledge increased and books on Arabic, linguistics, history, and chronicles of the people were written down. Before this era, all the Imams would speak from memory or they narrated knowledge from authentic, unorganised scripts. Then acquiring knowledge became easy—and all praise belongs to Allah. Memorisation began to diminish. All matters are entirely for Allah.^[1]

 

Several issues emerge from this important text:

• Tasnif spread in the second quarter of the second century, and it was not widespread before that.
• It included all the important Islamic cities: Makkah, Madinah, Basrah, Greater Syria, Yemen, Kufah, and Egypt. It was not limited to a specific city or situation, which means that the need for it included all these cities.
• It included various sciences. Tasnif took place in Hadith, Fiqh, Tafsir, Battles, Arabic, History, and chronicles of people. It was not limited to one skill and one science, meaning that the need for it included all these sciences.
• The stage preceding the stage of Tasnif was the stage of memorisation and unorganised scripts. Al Dhahabi did not mention a different stage between these two stages, which is what contemporaries call the stage of ‘official Tadwin.’

 

Since this stage included widespread cities, scholars differed as to who was the first to write in this stage. ‘Abdul Razzaq al San’ani (d. 211 AH) states:

 

أول من صنف الكتب ابن جريج وصنف الأوزاعي حين قدم على يحيى بن أبي كثير كتبه

The first to compile books was Ibn Jurayj. Al Awza’i compiled his books when he came to Yahya ibn Abi Kathir.^[2]

 

This is also an important text as ‘Abdul Razzaq is an eyewitness in that era and he is a student of most of these authors. This text displays a more precise specification of the date of Tasnif, as al Awza’i accompanied Yahya ibn Abi Kathir before his death. Yahya passed away in the year 129 AH;^[3] therefore, al Awza’i must have written it before that. Some texts indicate that he wrote it before the year 130 AH.^[4] Therefore, Ibn Jurayj wrote before that, as he was the first to write, according to ‘Abdul Razzaq’s expression. Imam Ahmed—’Abdul Razzaq’s student—confirms this notion when answering his son ‘Abdullah’s question, “Who was the first to write?” He replied:

 

ابن جريج وابن أبي عروبة—يعني ونحوهما—وقال ابن جريج ما صنف أحد العلم تصنيفي

Ibn Jurayj and Ibn Abi ‘Arubah—i.e. and others like them. Ibn Jurayj said, “No one has written knowledge as I have.”^[5]

 

However, this precedence was according to each city. Hence, al Daraqutni states:

 

أول من صنف سعيد بن أبي عروبة من البصريين وحماد بن سلمة وصنف ابن جريج ومالك بن أنس وكان ابن أبي ذئب صنف موطأ فلم يخرج والأوزاعي والثوري وابن عيينة وأول من صنف مسندا و تتبعه نعيم بن حماد

The first to write from the people of Basrah was Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah and Hammad ibn Salamah. Ibn Jurayj and Malik ibn Anas also wrote. Ibn Abi Dhi’b wrote Muwatta’, but it was not made public. Likewise, al Awza’i, al Thawri, and Ibn ‘Uyaynah also wrote. The first to write a Musnad with tracking the narration was Nuaim ibn Hammad.^[6]

 

Al Ramahurmuzi states:

 

أول من صنف وبوب فيما أعلم الربيع بن صبيح بالبصرة ثم سعيد بن عروبة بها وخالد بن جميل الذي يقال له العبد ومعمر بن راشد باليمن وابن جريج بمكة ثم سفيان الثوري بالكوفة وحماد بن سلمة بالبصرة

The first to write and classify narrations, as far as I know, was al Rabi’ ibn Subayh in Basrah. Then Sa’id ibn ‘Arubah wrote, also in Basrah. Then Khalid ibn Jamil, who was called al ‘Abd, and Ma’mar ibn Rashid wrote in Yemen. Ibn Jurayj wrote in Makkah, then Sufyan al Thawri in Kufah, and Hammad ibn Salamah in Basrah.^[7]

 

It is as though the matter was due to the Tasnif revolution that occurred in the Muslim Ummah, dispersed in various cities, without being limited to one city. Therefore, the precedence was relative.

All of this confirms that a turning point in the history of Islamic sciences began in the second quarter of the second century, and it is a stage subsequent to the stage of personal writings and memorisation, without passing through the stage of official Tadwin, as I see it. More details and additional texts will come in due course.

Therefore, in my opinion, they are two stages:

The stage of memorisation and personal writings: This stage passed previously in the era of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and Tabi’in. The focus in it was memorising Hadith and not writing, even though writing existed as mentioned previously. It is well-known that some of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum wrote from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. There were some well-known manuscripts, such as the manuscript of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, the manuscript of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, the manuscript of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhum, etc.^[8] Similarly, there were some books of some of the Tabi’in such as Sa’id Ibn Jubayr, Abu Qilabah al Jarmi, al Hassan al Basri, al Zuhri, etc.^[9] However, these writings were scattered, dispersed, and unsystematic. They were mainly for personal purposes, rather than being for general dissemination.^[10] It was natural—as mentioned previously—for people to rely on memory and the oral narration of the Sunnah more than on writing, due to the strength of their memorisation and the lack of writing tools in that era.

Although some of these Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and Tabi’in wrote, others forbade that and did not approve of it. Among the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum who were known for that is Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Some of his students said to him:

 

لو كتبتم لنا فإنا لا نحفظ قال لا نكتبكم ولا نجعلها مصاحف كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يحدثنا فنحفظ فاحفظوا عنا كما كنا نحفظ عن نبيكم

“If only you would write for us as we cannot memorise.”

He said, “We will not write for you. We will not make them (like) copies of the Qur’an. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would narrate to us and we would memorise, so memorise from us as we would memorise from your Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”^[11]

 

This was also the case with Abu Musa al Ash’ari radiya Llahu ‘anhu. His son Abu Burdah wrote ahadith from him. When Abu Musa radiya Llahu ‘anhu became aware of that, he erased them and said,

 

خذ كما أخذنا وفي رواية احفظ كما حفظت

“Learn as we learned.”^[12]

According to another narration, he said, “Memorise as I memorised.”^[13]

 

Other narrations regarding this are reported from Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, and other Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum.^[14]

In this stage of writing for personal purposes, one can notice a developed trend beyond writing for memorisation only, which is writing for purposes related to disseminating Hadith. Sometimes the Sheikh may write to recall what he should deliver to the student.^[15] Sometimes he may give what he has written to the student to copy and compare his copy with the original. At times, he may give him what he has written to narrate directly from it, which is what was later called al Munawalah. Sometimes the student may present to the Sheikh his ahadith that reached him, in writing. There are many texts concerning this, from Muhaddithin at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century.^[16] In any case, they were not for the purpose of Tasnif for general dissemination. Thus, they remain under the stage of personal writings.

Thereafter, from that stage of personal writings, the second stage emerges, which is the stage of Tasnif for general dissemination, the details of which I have mentioned earlier. There is no middle stage between them called the official Tadwin stage. Hereunder are the details for it.

 

2. The official Tadwin stage: An Unsuccessful Attempt

Most contemporaries^[17] mention that an important stage existed between the two stages, which was the stage of official Tadwin, when the official authority, represented by Khalifah ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd a-’Aziz, who assumed the Caliphate in the year 99 AH and died in the year 101 AH, intervened. He passed a resolution to collect the ahadith and entrusted some of the scholars of the city at that time to do so.

They mention that ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd a-’Aziz—the Khalifah famous for his knowledge and righteousness before assuming the Caliphate—carried out great works in spreading the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Hadith. Among them is his sending of many scholars to various Islamic cities to teach and guide people. He sent Nafi’, Mawla of Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to Egypt, and he sent a group of Tabi’i scholars to Africa, and so on.^[18]

Among them is his Tadwin of the Sunnah. He sent a message to all the horizons stating:

 

انظروا حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فاجمعوه واحفظوه فإني أخاف دروس العلم وذهاب العلماء

Look for the Hadith of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Collect it and preserve it, for I fear the extinction of knowledge and the departure of the scholars.^[19]

 

He appointed two eminent scholars for this purpose:

1. Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm (d. 120 AH), who was the judge of Madinah during the reign of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, and there was no one in Madinah at that time more knowledgeable about the judiciary than he was.^[20] He sent a message to him thus:

 

اكتب إلي بما ثبت عندك من الحديث عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وبحديث عمرة فإني خشيت دروس العلم وذهابه

Write to me what is proven to you from the ahadith of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the ahadith of ‘Amrah, for I fear the extinction and disappearance of knowledge.^[21]

 

2. Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Shihab al Zuhri (d. 124 AH). He also ordered him to collect the Sunnah^[22] in a ‘comprehensive endeavour to collect the Sunnah’ as some contemporaries describe it.^[23] When the Khalifah asked him to collect the Sunnah, it coincided with a desire found within him. Perhaps he took assistance from the Sunnah he had written before this assignment.^[24]

When he completed this assignment, he sent copies to the Khalifah, who sent them to the various cities. Ibn Shihab al Zuhri states:

 

أمرنا عمر بن عبد العزيز بجمع السنن فكتبناها دفترا دفترا فبعث إلى كل أرض له عليها سلطان دفترا

‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ordered us to collect the Sunnah. Accordingly, we wrote them down, notebook by notebook, and he sent a notebook to every land over which he had authority.^[25]

 

This means that it was not a small, ordinary attempt, but rather this was the first attempt to collect the Hadith and write it down comprehensively and extensively.^[26]

However, I do not see it as a comprehensive, general stage as some contemporaries exaggerated it. What I see is that it is an event or a scholarly activity in which ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz made a small attempt, but it did not succeed. It is as if some contemporaries amplified that event and made it an important, general stage in opposition to the Orientalists’ criticisms related to the importance of writing down the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam Hadith.

Rather, I see it as a scholarly event or intellectual activity without it being a huge, important stage in writing, due to various reasons, which I detailed in another study.^[27] I can summarise it here as follows:

1. The narrations that mention ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz assigning the scholars with this mission differ. Some of them state that the matter was directed to Abu Bakr ibn Hazm,^[28] some of them mention the people of Madinah,^[29] and some of them mention the horizons.^[30] The narration of ‘the horizons’ is widely spread in the books of contemporaries, as it carries the meaning of the spread of writing in all the Islamic cities. However, the objection with it is that it is a shadh narration narrated by Dirham ibn Muzahir, contradicting reliable narrators.^[31] Hence, it cannot be relied upon. The authentic and established narration is the narration that mentions Abu Bakr ibn Hazm, and all the narrations emerge from the same person, namely ‘Abdullah ibn Dinar.^[32]

The narration that mentions the instruction of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz to al Zuhri did not come from the senior reliable students. Rather, some of the objections in the chains of transmission hover over some of the narrations of al Zuhri’s Tadwin. Ibn Abi Khaythamah and Ibn ‘Abdul Barr narrated this narration through Sa’id Ibn Ziyad, the mawla of the Zuhri clan, the teacher of the book of Dar Anas. I did not find any jarh or ta’dil about him. In any case, he is not one of the senior students of al Zuhri. In fact, there is neither mention of al Zuhri among his teachers nor of Ma’n ibn ‘Isa amongst his students.^[33] No one mentions such an important text, upon which this huge ideology was built, except him.

The matter comes back to the fact that the issue of widespread Tadwin arose from narrations that were not strong. Therefore, it is not possible to prove a huge, important stage based on those narrations.

2. The scholars divided the narrators of al Zuhri into classes, to give preference between their narrations if they differed in determining the wording of the Hadith of al Zuhri. Among the first class were the senior Huffaz and Imams such as Malik, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, ‘Aqil, Yunus ibn Yazid, Ma’mar ibn Rashid, ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Umar, Shu’ayb ibn Abi Hamzah, and others.^[34] These seniors differed from al Zuhri. However, no critic preferred one narration to another because it was in conformance with al Zuhri’s Tadwin disseminated in the various cities. If the Tadwin had been an important stage, we would have found mention of it in something like this due to the severe need of critics for something like this, as it would be a reliable, accurate, and clear source of al Zuhri’s Tadwin. I have examined most of the defective ahadith narrated by al Zuhri and mentioned by Ibn Abi Hatim in Kitab al ‘Ilal. They were hundreds of ahadith. I did not find any hadith in which Abu Hatim or Abu Zur’ah mentioned the Tadwin of al Zuhri or any writing by him, using it to confirm the authenticity of al Zuhri’s hadith, particularly when the reliable narrators disagreed about it. I only found him in some places preferring one narrator to another due to the strength of his memorisation and attachment to al Zuhri.^[35] In other cases, he preferred a narrator due to him hearing twice from al Zuhri, once by dictation and once by listening.^[36] In an important text, he preferred Malik and Ibn ‘Uyaynah to Yunus and ‘Aqil in a narration, because Malik and Ibn ‘Uyaynah had better memory. Hence, his son checked on him and questioned him regarding that preference. He said:

 

إن عقيلا ويونس أصحاب الكتب‏ فيجيب مالك صاحب كتاب وصاحب حفظ

‘Aqil and Yunus are the authors of books. He answered. “Malik is an author of a book and a person of memory.”^[37]

 

It is also possible to review the dozens of reasons through which al Daraqutni gave preference between the narrations of the students of al Zuhri. There is nothing in them except preference based on majority, memory, and longer attachment, not on what was in al Zuhri’s Tadwin and in his books.^[38]

This is despite the fact that the critics used to give preference to what was in the writings of the Imams from the Atba’ al Tabi’in over what was not in them. Some of these Imams were students of al Zuhri himself and they passed away about twenty to thirty years after him, which means that the era is very close. Among them is Imam Ibn Jurayj, one of the greatest students of al Zuhri, the Sheikh of Hadith and Fiqh in Makkah. The critics preferred his narration because Imam Sufyan al Thawri (d. 161 AH) discovered it in his book, so they preferred it to other incomplete narrations.^[39] In another place, Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal explains a narration wherein Ibn Jurayj is mentioned, saying:

 

كتب ابن جريج مدونة فيها أحاديثه… فلو كان محفوظا عنه لكان هذا في كتبه ومراجعاته

Ibn Jurayj’s books are compiled, containing his ahadith… If it had been preserved from him, this would have been in his books and reviews.^[40]

 

In fact, in some places, they compare the narration of Ibn Jurayj with the narrations of others and give preference to others, even if they declare that it is proven in his book.^[41]

The situation is the same in the compilations of Hammad ibn Salamah, as al Daraqutni says:

 

ولا يثبت هذا الحديث لأنه ليس في كتب حماد بن سلمة المصنفات

This hadith is not proven because it is not found in the compiled books of Hammad ibn Salamah.^[42]

 

Similar is the situation of Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah. Abu Hatim al Razi said regarding a hadith that he denounced, even though it is from the narration of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah from Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah:

 

لو كان صحيحا لكان في مصنفات ابن أبي عروبة

If it were authentic, it would have been in the writings of Ibn Abi ‘Arubah.^[43]

 

Similar is the situation of Ibrahim ibn Sa’d (d. 183 AH). Imam Ahmed was asked about a hadith of his and he said:

 

ليس هذا في كتب إبراهيم لا ينبغي أن يكون له أصل

This is not found in the books of Ibrahim; it necessary to have an origin.^[44]

 

There are many texts in that era in this regard.

What I mean by this is that if the Tadwin of al Zuhri—who is an Imam of great knowledge and whose students differ greatly from him in the narrations—had been what some contemporaries describe as a turning point in the history of the narration, we would have found some, even if very few, statements about those books, so that scholars could utilise them to prefer some of al Zuhri’s narrations over others. However, there is none of this—as far as I know—which makes al Zuhri’s Tadwin a passing event, not a defining stage.

3. The statements of the senior Imams that describe the history of Hadith narration do not stop at that event for a long time. They only stop at two distinct stages, the stage of memorisation and personal writings and this stage of Tasnif. Al Dhahabi’s previous text is clear about this. Several texts from the senior Imams who wrote the history of the Hadith narration can be added to it.^[45] Among them are:

The statement of Imam al Khatib al Baghdadi:

 

لم يكن العلم مدونا أصنافا ولا مؤلفا كتبا وأبوابا في زمن المتقدمين من الصحابة والتابعين وإنما فعل ذلك من بعدهم ثم حذا المتأخرون فيه حذوهم واختلف في المبتدئ بتصانيف الكتب والسابق إلى ذلك فقيل هو سعيد بن أبي عروبة وقيل هو عبد الملك بن عبد العزيز بن جريج

Knowledge was not compiled into categories nor was it written in books and chapters during the time of the former Companions and Tabi’in. It was only done after them. Then the latter ones followed suit. There was a difference of opinion regarding who initiated the writing of books and the one who was first to do that. Some say it was Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah while others say that it was ‘Abdul Malik ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Jurayj.^[46]

 

Thus, according to him, there are two stages, a stage in which there was no Tasnif and no classified books, and a stage in which there was Tasnif and books.

Likewise, Hafiz Ibn Rajab stated only these two stages in his statement:

 

اعلم أن العلم المتلقى عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أقواله وأفعاله كان الصحابة رضي الله عنهم في زمن نبيهم صلى الله عليه وسلم يتداولونه بينهم حفظا له ورواية ومنهم من كان يكتب كما تقدم في كتاب العلم عن عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص رضي الله عنهما ثم بعد وفاة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان بعض الصحابة يرخّص في كتابة العلم عنه وبعضهم لا يرخّص في ذلك ودرج التابعون أيضا على مثل هذا الاختلاف والذي كان يكتب في زمن الصحابة والتابعين لم يكن تصنيفا مرتبا مبوبا إنما كان يكتب للحفظ والمراجعة فقط ثم إنه في عصر تابعي التابعين صنفت التصانيف وجمع طائفة من أهل العلم كلام النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وبعضهم جمع كلام الصحابة قال عبد الرزاق أول من صنف الكتب ابن جريج وصنف الأوزاعي حين قدم على يحيى بن أبي كثير كتبه

Know well that the knowledge received from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, such as his words and deeds, the Companions in the time of their Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam circulated it among them by memorising and narrating. Some of them would write, as mentioned previously in the book of knowledge from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al ‘As radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.

After the demise of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, some of the Companions permitted writing down knowledge from him and some did not permit. The Tabi’in also followed these differences.

What was written during the time of the Companions and the Tabi’in was not an organised, classified Tasnif. Rather, it was written for memorisation and reference only. Then, in the era of the Atba’ al Tabi’in, Tasnif took place.

A group of scholars compiled the sayings of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and some of them collected the sayings of the Companions. ‘Abdul Razzaq said, “Ibn Jurayj was the first to compile books and al Awza’i compiled his books when he came to Yahya ibn Abi Kathir.”^[47]

 

Similar is the text of Hafiz Ibn Hajar:

 

اعلم علمني الله وإياك أن آثاره صلى الله عليه وسلم لم تكن في عصر أصحابه وكبار تبعهم مدونة في الجوامع ولا مرتبة لأمرين أحدهما أنهم كانوا في ابتداء الحال قد نهوا عن ذلك كما ثبت في صحيح مسلم خشية أن يختلط بعض ذلك بالقرآن العظيم وثانيهما لسعة حفظهم وسيلان أذهانهم ولأن أكثرهم كانوا لا يعرفون الكتابة ثم حدث في أواخر عصر التابعين تدوين الآثار وتبويب الأخبار لما انتشر العلماء في الأمصار وكثر الابتداع من الخوارج والروافض ومنكري الأقدار

Know—may Allah teach me and you—that the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam narrations were not compiled in books or arranged, in the era of his Companions and the senior Tabi’in, for two reasons:

Firstly, they were initially forbidden from this, as was proven in Sahih Muslim^[48] for fear that some of that would be mixed with the Qur’an.

Secondly, because of their great memory and flowing intellect and because most of them did not know how to write.

Then, at the end of the era of the Tabi’in, the recording of transmissions and the classification of narrations began, when scholars spread throughout the cities and innovations increased from the Khawarij, the Rawafid, and the deniers of Taqdir (predestination).^[49]

 

Thus, according to Ibn Hajar, there are two stages, and they are related to writing tools, the spread of scholars in various cities, and the abundance of opinions that contradict the Ahlus Sunnah.

It is possible to benefit from an indication in a very advanced text in the history of the narration, which is the text of the former critic Imam, ‘Ali ibn al Madini, wherein he describes the development of the narration’s movement. He says:

 

نظرت فإذا الإسناد يدور على ستة

I observed that the chain of transmission revolves around six people.

 

Thereafter, he mentioned al Zuhri (d. 134 AH) in Madinah, ‘Amr ibn Dinar (d. 126 AH) in Makkah, Qatadah ibn Di’amah (d. 117 AH) in Basrah, Yahya ibn Abi Kathir (d. 129 AH) in Yamamah, Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i (d. 129 AH) in Kufah, and al A’mash (d. 148 AH) in Kufah. Then he said:

 

ثم صار علم هؤلاء الستة إلى أصحاب الأصناف ممن صنف

Then the knowledge of these six was transferred to the authors who compiled books.^[50]

 

Then he mentioned Malik, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Jurayj, Ibn ‘Uyaynah, Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah, Hammad ibn Salamah, al Thawri, Shu’bah, and others. His statement that these are the authors of books indicates to the fact that those before them had no books or known writings. Fundamentally, ‘Amr ibn Dinar would forbid writing, as will be mentioned soon.

In addition to all of this, if the stage of official Tadwin was an important turning point, we would have found traces of it in these texts. Its omission by the former scholars indicates that the contemporaries’ amplification of it is exaggerated.

4. We do not find anyone among al Zuhri’s contemporaries who was affected by this event, especially ‘Amr ibn Dinar (d. 1326 AH) and Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i (d. 129 AH), who are among the senior scholars and narrators. We do not find any transmitted texts from them indicating to the importance of Tadwin and writing. If it were a turning point, we would have seen some kind of impact on other cities.

In fact, texts from ‘Amr ibn Dinar show that he disliked writing and forbade it. Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah states:

 

قيل لعمرو بن دينار إن سفيان يكتب فاضطجع وبكى وقال أحرّج أي أنهى على من يكتب عني

Someone said to ‘Amr ibn Dinar, “Sufyan writes down Hadith.”

He lied down, cried, and said, “I forbid anyone writing from me.”

 

Sufyan said:

 

فما كتبت عنه شيئا كنا نحفظ ونهى المكيين أن يكتبوا عنه

I thus did not write anything from him; we would memorise. He forbade the people of Makkah from writing from him.^[51]

 

There is nothing in Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i’s biography that indicates to any importance of writing and Tadwin. This is despite the large number and magnitude of his narrations, which makes them similar in multitude to al Zuhri’s narrations.^[52]

If it had been an important turning point, we would have found a clear impact outside Madinah.^[53]

From the above, it can be said that the issue of al Zuhri’s Tadwin on such a large scale is debatable and is almost not proven. As for the Tadwin of Abu Bakr ibn Hazm, it was just a desire of the Khalifah. He ordered and tried, but he passed away before the books reached him.

Malik narrates:

 

أن عمر بن عبد العزيز كان يكتب إلى الأمصار يعلمهم السنن والفقه ويكتب إلى أهل المدينة يسألهم عما مضى ويعملون بما عندهم ويكتب إلى أبي بكر بن حزم أن يجمع له السنن ويكتب إليه بها فتوفي عمر وقد كتب ابن حزم كتبا قبل أن يبعث بها إليه

‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz would write to the various cities teaching them the Sunnah and Fiqh. He would write to the people of Madinah, asking them about what had passed and to what extent they were practicing on knowledge they possessed. He would write to Abu Bakr ibn Hazm to collect the Sunnah for him and write to him. However, ‘Umar passed away—whilst Ibn Hazm had written books—before the latter could send them to him.^[54]

 

It is as if Abu Bakr ibn Hazm had completed his task and collected the Sunan, but it did not reach the Khalifah, so it did not spread.

However, this means that a great Tadwin had taken place, so where is its impact?

It appears in another narration that this entire Tadwin had been destroyed. It is reported in another narration from Malik that ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz asked Abu Bakr ibn Hazm to write down the Sunan, and that he wrote it. Malik states:

 

فسألت ابنه عبد الله بن أبي بكر عن تلك الكتب فقال ضاعت وكان أبو بكر عزل عزلا قبيحا

I asked his son ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr about those books and he said, “They were destroyed.”

Abu Bakr was dismissed in a disgusting way.^[55]

 

It is as if nothing came out of every attempt at Tadwin. Therefore, the previous scholars did not mention it with interest; however, the contemporaries stopped at it in order to prove extensive writing in the face of the criticisms of the Orientalists.

In my opinion, the problem is at the basis of the Orientalist ideology that says:

 

إن التوثيق إنما يكون بالكتابة

Authentication is only through writing.

 

This ideology spread in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, as I mentioned in the first chapter.^[56] Through it, the Orientalists criticised early Islamic sources.

In fact, I say that the problem lies in the origin of this ideology, because it is a projective ideology, which judges distant history to the documentation system in the modern era, whereas each era has its own tools and systems. Therefore, it is necessary to take it into consideration and study history through it, in addition to the fact that the critical authority is the cornerstone in establishing that history, not writing or oral transmission, as both are flawed. The West itself turned against this ideology decades later, but it remained dominant in the field of Islamic studies in that time. Muslims continued to defend it by establishing the antiquity of written texts, but Western studies turned against this ideology after the emergence of the science of oral history in the late 1940s, as I previously mentioned in the first chapter.

This distant projection has a methodological problem. In fact, the early critics did not have a close projection. We notice a big difference—in the system of criticising narrations among contemporary Hadith critics regarding the development of narrations—between the method of criticising narrations in the first century and the first half of the second century, before the spread of paper and writing, and between the method of criticism in the third century, when writing became widespread among them. We find the statements of criticism by Shu’bah related to criticism of memorisation, as will be mentioned in the third chapter, and there is little criticism of writing. Unlike the method of criticism according to Ibn Ma’in, in which there is a lot of checking and criticising the book, considering the type of handwriting and the place of its writing, etc., as will be mentioned in the fourth chapter. Critics in those eras did not project their reality in criticising writing onto a generation before them, then how could it be projected after centuries?

It would have been better for contemporaries to be occupied with proving the existence of a critical method that controls the transmission of texts, whether written or oral. This was clearly the case with the narration during its activity. Critics sometimes trusted memorisation more than writing, whilst at other times they trusted writing more than memorisation. The matter was based on the evidence accompanying each narrator and each narration. They did not look at writing in the same way that contemporaries looked at it and exaggerated it.

Hence, their criticism of the writings of narrators increased, as they would notice the slightest change or contradiction in them and criticise them. The texts on that are many. I will limit myself here to quick examples of some of their criticism of the writings related to al Zuhri. From amongst them is what was mentioned previously that critics mentioned that the writings of al Walid al Muwaqqari from al Zuhri were ‘from copies of the Diwan’. However, they noticed errors in them, so they made tad’if of his Hadith despite it being written. In fact, they mentioned severe statements against him. They explained the reason for that, which is that a man came to him and changed his books, while he did not know,^[57] or that the objections in his Hadith came from the fact that when the soldiers entered Greater Syria, people came to him and corrupted his Hadith.^[58]

Likewise, Ahmed ibn Hanbal criticised some of Abu al Yaman’s narrations from the book of Shu’ayb ibn Abi Hamzah from al Zuhri because al Zuhri’s book was mixed with books of others.^[59]

Imam al Dhahabi mentioned clear texts of their criticism of writing when he presented the narration of Ibn Jurayj, the Sheikh of Makkah, from al Zuhri. He explained that there were some objections in them and the reason for that was that he narrated what was written in the Munawalah method and it was not through verbal reception. He said regarding Ibn Jurayj:

 

ومن ثم دخل عليه الداخل في رواياته عن الزهري لأنه حمل عنه مناولة وهذه الأشياء يدخلها التصحيف ولا سيما في ذلك العصر لم يكن حدث في الخط بعد شكل ولا نقط بخلاف الأخذ من أفواه الرجال

From here, weakness crept into his narrations from al Zuhri because he acquired it from him through the Munawalah method. These things are susceptible to misspelling, especially in that era, as forms and dots^[60] were not yet invented in the script, contrary to acquiring verbally.^[61]

 

Therefore, the critical approach lurking behind written or memorised texts is the strong way to document them. As for always preferring writing over memorisation or vice versa, this is not a documented approach, as everyone is exposed to error and illusion. Some narrators would burn their books for fear that it would reach an undeserving person who may read it incorrectly. This shows the need for extra measures sometimes in written narrations for the fear of error.^[62] It would be preferable for contemporary researchers to be occupied with proving that method instead of proving the abundance of writing and exaggerating it and misleading the reader that most of the texts transmitted to us, even in the first century, were written and are therefore reliable.^[63] This, in my opinion, is incorrect, and I do not see it as natural, as writing tools were not widespread in the first century, the most important of which is the paper industry, as details will follow in due course.

In any case, the extensive discussion of this stage is in that research. So refer to it.^[64]

 

3. Factors for the transition from the stage of memorisation and personal writings to the stage of general Tasnif

It was mentioned previously, that Hafiz Ibn Hajar attributed three things to the scholars’ interest in Tasnif:

1. The spread of knowledge of writing.
2. The spread of scholars in various cities.
3. The abundance of innovations.

In my opinion, these factors were the main factors in that transformation, but the strong factor among them was the spread of writing and its tools. This can be likened in their time to the invention of the printing press centuries before our time and its impact on the printing of books, or to the spread of electronic writing in our time, which is a natural development that spread widely in just a few years, especially with travels spreading throughout the Islamic world.

It can be said that the introduction of papermaking into the Islamic world was one of the most important factors for the spread of writing. It was a new emerging industry, but Muslim scholars invested in it greatly at that time with a large number of books and writings. Before that, they would write on skins of animals such as camels, sheep, goats, deer, zebras and antelope, or on palm branches, or on papyrus paper, which were made in Egypt and from there moved to some cities of the Islamic world.^[65]

It seems that Chinese paper began to enter Islamic cities in the first quarter of the second century. It flourished a little in the second quarter and scholars benefited from it. Then it spread and settled in the third quarter, competing with parchment and papyrus until it prevailed over it,^[66] after the Khalifah ordered its official adoption in Baghdad.^[67]

However, that reliance does not mean that papermaking began at that time in Baghdad. When historians mentioned that reliance, they explained that it was the result of the abundance of paper and its spread among the people and they did not mention it (official adoption) as a reason for that.^[68] The reports from Hadith critics confirm the spread of papermaking among scholars and their students before that. It has been reported that the craft of papermaking was widespread in Baghdad during the Caliphate of Abu Jafar al Mansur. Yahya ibn Ma’in falsified a narrator because he was seen in the time of Abu Jafar, seeking these books from the scribes, and then laying claim to them.^[69] Abu Jafar al Mansur passed away in the year 158 AH. In the text, there is evidence of the spread of paper manufacturing, not that it was something special, which indicates to its spread in the second quarter of the second century. In fact, it has been said that the Chinese paper industry entered Muslim countries during the era of the Umayyads,^[70] which means the first quarter of the second century.

In any case, Muslims were introduced to Chinese papermaking at the end of the first century when Samarqand was conquered in the year 87 AH, as it was the first Islamic city in which paper was made.^[71] It began to spread in the Islamic world through merchants gradually. Then it seems that the spreading increased after the Battle of the Taraz River in the year 133 AH, between the Muslims and the Chinese. Victory to the Muslims and the capture of twenty thousand Chinese had an impact in transferring this industry—according to some historians, while others disagree with them^[72]—and it settled and spread strongly in the second half of the second century.^[73]

Its spread in the second quarter of the second century was an important reason for the abundance of writings among Islamic scholars, as it had many advantages over writing on leather or papyrus, because it makes it easy to preserve, care for, and carry. Added to that is the ease of its spread, the availability of raw materials for it, and its affordability. However, that does not mean the end of the era of leather and papyrus as it remained for a period after that before paper gained complete dominance.^[74]

It is as though the scholars of that era were waiting for such an industry. Thus, they invested extensively in it, because the Islamic society was a scholarly society par excellence. The system of education in it, the attachment to scholars, and the dissemination of knowledge were strong and well established, as was previously mentioned in the stages of the Companions and the Tabi’in. When paper became widespread, the scholars raced to record their knowledge in it in an organised, classified, and written way. Perhaps, academic competition between scholars or cities was influential in this, as it is sufficient for a scholar from Kufah or Makkah to embark on taking benefit from paper and Tasnif, to prompt the scholars of Madinah to compete in the Tasnif and Tadwin of their knowledge, especially with the high level of competition between Islamic cities at that time.^[75] In fact, there was competition among the scholars of Madinah itself.^[76] This is what Hafiz Ibn Hajar meant by the spread of scholars in the cities.

The same can be said about the desire of scholars to spread their knowledge in confrontation of opposing opinions and heretical sects. The spread and expansion of these sects required confronting them in the spreading and compiling of their knowledge of Fiqh and Hadith.

Nevertheless, the main reason, for me, remains the spread of writing and its tools, especially paper, as the Tasnif revolution in that era was strongly dependent on that. This becomes clear in the fact that Tasnif included many sciences, not limited to Hadith, Sunnah, and Fiqh. It included linguistics, history, people’s chronicles, Arabic, wars, etc., as mentioned previously in al Dhahabi’s text. There must be a reason that suits this inclusion; and I only see it as paper.

 

 

NEXT⇒ The most important books in the era of the Atba’ al Tabi’in and its impact on Hadith Narrations

---

^[1]  Al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 3/775. It is noticeable here that Imam al Dhahabi did not mention al Maghazi of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah (d. 141 AH). He said in his biography in Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 6/114:

وكان بصيرا بالمغازي النبوية ألفها في مجلد فكان أول من صنف في ذلك

He had insight into the Prophetic battles and he wrote it in a volume. He was the first to write about it.

Perhaps he did not mention it because the system of the book was different from other books, or because there was no need for it due to other reasons. This needs further study and investigation.

^[2]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 1/184; al Khatib: al Jami’ li Akhlaq al Rawi, 2/281.

^[3]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 2/27.

^[4]  Ibn Shahin: Tarikh Asma’ al Thiqat, pg. 149, where he narrates through his chain of transmission:

سمعت الوليد بن عتبة يقول احترقت كتب الأوزاعي زمن الرجفة ثلاثة عشر فنداقا فأتاه رجل بنسخها فقال له يا أبا عمرو هذه نسخة كتابك وإصلاحك بيدك فما عرض لشيء منها

I heard al Walid Ibn ‘Utbah say: Thirteen houses of al Awza’i’s books burned at the time of the tremor. A man came to him with some of its copies and said to him, “O Abu ‘Amr, this is the copy of your book with your personal corrections.” He did not pay attention to anything in it.

The year of the tremor was 130 AH.

^[5]  Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, 2/311 (2383).

^[6]  Al Daraqutni: al ‘Ilal, 12/246; al Khatib: al Jami’ li Akhlaq al Rawi, 2/290.

^[7]  Al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 611.

^[8]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Taqyid al ‘Ilm, pg. 84 onwards.

^[9]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Taqyid al ‘Ilm, pg. 99 onwards.

^[10]  Refer to the study of Gregor Schoeler: al Kitabah wa al Shafawiyyah fi Bidayat al Islam (writing and oral narration in the beginnings of Islam), pg. 25-47. See his important discussion about ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair’s book on Battles, that it was not a book in the commonly known meaning, pg. 87, with the possibility that it was a book written for personal purposes.

^[11]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Taqyid al ‘Ilm, pg. 36.

^[12]  Al Baghawi: Mujam al Sahabah, 4/43.

^[13]  Al Ramahurmuzi: al Muhaddith al Fasil, pg. 381.

^[14]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Taqyid al ‘Ilm, pg. 38 onwards.

^[15]  I derived this idea from Schoeler: al Kitabah wa al Shafawiyyah fi Bidayat al Islam, pg. 99-99; however, his claim of al Zuhri being the founder of the Munawalah method requires scrutiny and consideration, especially since the texts he resorted to from al Zuhri do not illustrate that clearly.

^[16]  Al Humaidi: al Musnad, Hadith: 36921, wherein Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah states:

إن المكيين إنما أخذوا كتابا جاء به حميد الأعرج من الشام قد كتب عن الزهري وكان المكيون يعرضون ذلك الكتاب على ابن شهاب فأما نحن فإنما كنا نسمع من فيه

The people of Makkah merely took a book that Humaid al A’raj brought from Greater Syria, which was written from al Zuhri. The people of Makkah would present that book to Ibn Shihab. As for us, we would only listen from his mouth.

See Ibn Abi Khaythamah: al Tarikh al Kabir, 1/248 regarding Ibn Jurayj’s relationship with Nafi’. See Ibn Jurayj’s relationship with al Zuhri and Hisham ibn ‘Urwah in 1/251, and the statement of Yahya Ibn al Zubair:

أخرج إلي هشام بن عروة دفترا فيه أحاديث فقال هذه أحاديث أبي سمعتها منه فخذها عني هكذا ولا تقل كما يقول هؤلاء لا آخذها عنك حتى أعرضها عليك فخذها فقد صححتها وعرضتها

A notebook containing ahadith was brought to Hisham Ibn ‘Urwah. He said, “These are the ahadith of my father that I heard from him, so take them from me like this and do not say as these people say that I will not take them from you until I present them to you. Take them, for I have authenticated them and presented them.”

Likewise, the statement of ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar:

كان ابن شهاب يؤتى بالكتاب فينظر فيه ويقلبه ثم يقول خذوا ما فيه عني

A book would be brought to Ibn Shihab. He would look at it; turn its pages, then say, “Take what is in it from me.” (1/252)

Similarly, the statement of al Layth ibn Sa’d:

أن عبد الله بن أبي جعفر كتب لي كتبا فحدثتها عنه ولم أعرضها عليه

‘Abdullah ibn Abi Jafar wrote a book for me. I narrated it from him and did not present it to him. (1/254)

Also see: al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 1/649; Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 5/320; al Khatib: al Kifayah, pg. 266, 282, 318. In the chapter, there are numerous texts that deserve to be studied independently by analysing the development of writing and teaching them by expressing them using terms of reception and delivery(Tahammul and Ada’).

^[17]  Most contemporaries emphasised the importance of the official Tadwin stage. Refer to Mustafa al Siba’i: al Sunnah wa Makanatuha fi al Tashri’ al Islami, pg. 123; Akram Diya’ al ‘Umari: Buhuth fi Tarikh al Sunnah al Musharrafah, pg. 298 onwards; Muhammad ‘Ajaj al Khatib: al Sunnah Qabl al Tadwin, pg. 328-332.

^[18]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 5/330 onwards. Refer to our teacher Sheikh Muhammad ‘Awwamah’s introduction to Musnad ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, pg. 14-15.

^[19]  Abu Nuaim al Asbahani: Tarikh Asbahan, 1/366. According to the narration of al Darimi, Hadith: 505, he wrote that to the people of Madinah, and according to the narration of al Bukhari, he wrote that to Abu Bakr ibn Hazm.

^[20]  Al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, part on agnomens, 9/10.

^[21]  Sunan al Darimi, chapter on those who gave permission to write down knowledge, Hadith: 504.

^[22]  Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Jami’ Bayan al ‘Ilm wa Fadlihi, 1/331.

^[23]  Akram Diya’ al ‘Umari: Buhuth fi Tarikh al Sunnah al Musharrafah, pg. 299.

^[24]  Al Imam al Zuhri wa Atharuhu fi al Sunnah, pg. 292-293.

^[25]  Ibn Abi Khaythamah: al Tarikh al Kabir, 2/274; Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Jami’ Bayan al ‘Ilm wa Fadlihi, 1/331.

^[26]  Akram Diya’ al ‘Umari: Buhuth fi Tarikh al Sunnah al Musharrafah, pg. 299.

^[27]  Ahmed Snubar: ‘Ilm al ‘Ilal wa I’adat Tarikh Riwayat al Hadith: A study of the historical evidence of the stage of Official Tadwin, to be published soon, Allah willing, in the Journal of the Recep Tayyip Erdogan College of Theology, in December 2021.

^[28]  Sunan al Darimi, chapter on those who gave permission to write down knowledge, Hadith: 504.

^[29]  Sunan al Darimi, chapter on those who gave permission to write down knowledge, Hadith: 504.

^[30]  Abu Nuaim: Tarikh Asbahan, 1/366.

^[31]  My expression that it is shadh is a bit of a downgrade, as there is no jarh or ta’dil regarding Dirham. In fact, it is as if he is not known for narrating any narration. He is not mentioned in the books of jarh and ta’dil and I did not find a narration of his, except what was mentioned in his biography in Tarikh Asbahan. When al Dhahabi mentioned him in Tarikh al Islam, he sufficed by mentioning his virtues and acts of worship, and that he performed thirty Hajj. Thereafter he said:

ولم يذكره ابن أبي حاتم في كتابه

Ibn Abi Hatim did not mention him in his book. (Al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 5/569.)

^[32]  See the referencing of the narration with its chains by Ahmed Snubar: ‘Ilm al ‘Ilal wa I’adat Tarikh Riwayat al Hadith: A study of the historical evidence of the stage of Official Tadwin, to be published soon, Allah willing, in the Journal of the Recep Tayyip Erdogan College of Theology, in December 2021.

^[33]  Al Bukhari: al Tarikh al Kabir, 3/473; Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 4/22-23; al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 10/441; Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 4/32. Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al Thiqat, 6/356, as is his habit of mentioning those regarding whom al Bukhari and Abu Hatim remain silent.

^[34]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, 2/613.

^[35]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 3/410. It contains his statement when preferring Ma’mar’s narration from al Zuhri. He states:

كان ألزم للزهري

He was more attached to al Zuhri.

^[36]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 6/389.

^[37]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 1/489.

^[38]  See dozens of ahadith about which there was disagreement from al Zuhri in Musnad Anas. There is no mention of writing or Tadwin. See them in al Daraqutni: al ‘Ilal al Waridah fi al Ahadith al Nabawiyyah, 12/165-206. Also see a number of ahadith that al Zuhri narrates from ‘Urwah from Aisha in al ‘Ilal, 15/10-35. There is no mention of writing at all. See other reasons in al ‘Ilal al Waridah fi al Ahadith al Nabawiyyah, 7/41, 8/13, 9/194, 213,224, 381.

^[39]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 6/163-166 (2516).

^[40]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 4/27 (1224).

^[41]  Al Daraqutni: al ‘Ilal, 12/212 (2631).

^[42]  Al Daraqutni: al ‘Ilal, 5/345 (940) and 12/246 regarding the books of Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah as well.

^[43]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 1/44 (60).

^[44]  Ibn Qudamah: al Muntakhab Min ‘Ilal al Khallal, pg. 129 (89).

^[45]  In addition to what will follow is the text of Hafiz Ibn al Athir in Jami’ al Usul, 1/40. It does not contain any reference to the stage of official Tadwin. There are only two stages.

^[46]  Al Khatib: al Jami’ li Akhlaq al Rawi, 2/281.

^[47]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, 1/341; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/241-242.

^[48]  Sahih Muslim, book on asceticism and Raqa’iq (narrations that soften the hearts), chapter on verifying the Hadith and the ruling on writing knowledge, Hadith: 3004. The discussion on it and the differences regarding it were previously mentioned in the first chapter.

^[49]  Ibn Hajar: Hady al Sari, pg. 6.

^[50]  Ibn al Madini: al ‘Ilal, pg. 36-38.

^[51]  Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat, 5/479-480; Ibn Abi Khaythamah: al Tarikh al Kabir, 1/233; Tarikh Abi Zur’ah, pg. 513. This is an authentic narration to ‘Amr.

^[52]  Abu Hatim al Razi said about him:

يشبه بالزهري في كثرة الرواية واتساعه في الرجال

He is similar to al Zuhri in his abundance of narrations and extensive knowledge regarding narrators. (Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 6/243; al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 22/111.)

^[53]  In fact, its impact on Madinah was not clear, as I mentioned previously.

^[54]  Al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah w al Tarikh, 1/443; Ibn ‘Abdul Barr, al Tamhid, 1/80-81. It is reported in the Tarikh of Abu Zur’ah al Dimashqi, pg. 444 that Abu al Zinad said:

وكان أبو بكر بن عمرو بن حزم كتب إلى عمر ابن عبد العزيز في ثمر بيع سنين فتوفي عمر بن عبد العزيز قبل أن يرد جواب الكتاب

Abu Bakr ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm wrote to ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz regarding the transaction of fruits for several years. ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz passed away before he gave the answer to the letter.

^[55]  Al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah w al Tarikh, 1/645; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 66/45.

^[56]  Daniel Berto: Imkanat Kabirah fi Muwajahat ‘Awa’iq Taqlidiyyah, published with the book, al Tarikh al Shafawi Muqarabat fi al Mafahim wa al Manhaj wa al Khibarat, 1/111; Thomas Rix: al Tarikh al Shafawi wa al Qadiyyah al Falastiniyyah, an article in the book, Man Yasna’ al Tarikh al Tarikh al Shafawi li al Intifadah, pg. 84, quoted from ‘Adnan Abu Shabikah: Manhaj Naqd al Wathiqah al Rasmiyyah al Mudawwanah wa Imkaniyyat al Tatbiq ‘ala al Riwayah fi al Tarikh al Shafawi, pg. 482, an article within the proceedings of the Oral History Conference, Reality and Aspiration, from publications of the Islamic University of Gaza.

^[57]  Al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 31/78.

^[58]  Al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 31/78.

^[59]  Abu Zur’ah al Dimashqi: al Fawa’id al Mu’allalah, pg. 248-249 (203).

^[60]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 6/331.

^[61]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 5/174.

^[62]  Professor Dr. Ahmet Yücel conducted a valuable study in his book Hadis Tarihi printed in the Turkish language, pertaining to measures taken regarding problems resulting from the written narrations. In it he explained the positions of some narrators regarding burning or burying their books and their increased alertness to errors in copying, etc. (Refer to Ahmet Yücel: Hadis Tarihi, pg. 46.)

^[63]  This way of exaggerating the importance of proving writing in the first and second centuries can be represented by two books, the book of Dr. Muhammad Mustafa al A’zami, Dirasat fi al Hadith al Nabawi wa Tarikh Tadwinihi and the book of Dr. Hakim Al Mutayri: Tarikh Tadwin al Sunnah wa Shubuhat al Mustashriqin.

^[64]  Ahmed Snubar: ‘Ilm al ‘Ilal wa I’adat Tarikh Riwayat al Hadith: A study of the historical confirmation of the stage of official Tadwin, to be published soon, Allah willing, in the Journal of Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, December 2021.

^[65]  See details of this by Nasir al Din al Asad: Masadir al Shi’r al Jahili, pg. 77-78.

^[66]  Al Jahiz (d. 255 AH) compares, in an important ancient text, between writing on paper and writing on skins. He prefers paper because the skins are dry in mass and heavy in weight. If water touches them, they become spoilt and they have a foul smell, are more expensive, carry more possibility of deceit and the writing fades quicker in it. If a scholar wanted to carry what he needs during his travel, a camel’s load would not suffice, etc. (Al Jahiz: al Rasa’il al Adabiyyah, pg. 341-342.) The comparison indicates to the existence of writing on leather until that era, but writing on paper was better and easier and it is as if the matter settled for paper after that. Al Tha’alabi states in Thimar al Qulub, pg. 543:

كواغد سمر قند هي من خصائصها التي عطلت قراطيس مصر والجلود التي كان الأوائل يكتبون فيها إلا أنها أنعم وأحسن وأرفق ولا تكون إلا بسمرقند والصين

Paper of Samarqand: One of its specialities is that it disrupted the paper of Egypt and the leather on which the early people would write, except that it is pleasant, better, and softer, and is only found in Samarqand and China.

^[67]  Al Qalqashandi said in Subh al A’sha, 2/515-516:

وبقي الناس على ذلك (أي الكتابة على الرق) إلى أن ولي الرشيد الخلافة وقد كثر الورق وفشا عمله بين الناس أمر ألا يكتب الناس إلا في الكاغد لأن الجلود ونحوها تقبل المحو والإعادة فتقبل التزوير بخلاف الورق فإنه متى محي منه فسد وإن كشط ظهر كشطه وانتشرت الكتابة في الورق إلى سائر الأقطار وتعاطاها من قرب وبعد واستمر الناس على ذلك إلى الآن

The people remained in that state (i.e., writing on parchment) until al Rashid assumed the Caliphate. Paper had become abundant and its use had become widespread among the people. He ordered that people should not write except on paper, because leather etc., is susceptible to erasure and correction. Hence, forgery is possible. Unlike paper, for when it is erased, it becomes spoiled, and if it is scratched, the scrape is apparent. Writing on paper spread to all regions and people dealt with it from near and far. People have continued to do so until now.

Also, see Ibn Khaldun: al Muqaddamah, 1/532.

^[68]  This becomes evident from the previous text mentioned by al Qalqashandi, which is his statement:

إلى أن ولي الرشيد الخلافة (١٧٠-١٩٣ه) وقد كثر الورق وفشا عمله بين الناس أمر ألا يكتب الناس إلا في الكاغد

Until al Rashid assumed the Caliphate (170–193 AH). Paper had become abundant and its use had become widespread among the people. He ordered that people should not write except on paper.

It was as if the official order was a result of the spread and not a cause of it. This means that there was a strong presence of paper before that quarter. See some transmissions about the presence of paper in the first century by Nasir al Din al Asad: Masadir al Shi’r al Jahili, pg. 88-93. See the opinion of Dr. Sha’ban ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Khalifah on the prosperity of the paper industry in Samarqand and the merchants’ transferring it to Baghdad before the establishment of the paper factory in Baghdad in the second half of the second century, in his book al Kutub wa al Maktabat fi al ‘Usur al Wusta, pg. 192.

^[69]  Al Khatib: Tarikh Baghdad, 12/443. Yahya ibn Ma’in was very close to that era, and the one who narrated to him was a truthful Sheikh, as he said in the narration. See Yahya ibn Ma’in’s view regarding this narrator (whose name is ‘Abdul Mun’im ibn Idris) in Ma’rifat al Rijal, 1/65–66, 2/236. See his biography by al Khatib: Tarikh Baghdad, 12/441-445.

^[70]  Al Nadim: al Fihrist, pg. 63.

^[71]  Corgis ‘Awad: al Waraq aw al Kaghid Sana’atuhu fi al ‘Usur al Islamiyyah, pg. 417.

^[72]  See the details of that battle by Ibn al Athir: al Kamil, 5/40 and al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 3/595. The text that historians relied on regarding the spread of papermaking from that battle is the text of al Tha’alabi in Thimar al Qulub, pg. 543:

وذكر صاحب المسالك والممالك أنه وقع من الصين‎ ‏إلى سمرقند في سبى سباهم زياد بن صالح في وقعة أطلح من اتخذ الكواغيد ثم كثرت‎ الصنعة واستمرت العادة حتى صارت متجرا لأهل سمرقند فعم خبرها والارتفاق بها جميع البلدان في الآفاق

The author of al Masalik wa al Mamalik mentioned that among the captives that Ziyad ibn Salih captured from China to Samarqand in the battle of Atlah were those who made paper. Then the profession increased and the custom continued until it became a market for the people of Samarqand. Its news and usefulness spread to all countries on the horizon.

I did not take guidance from the author of al Masalik wa al Mamalik, as the books printed under this title do not contain this text. See Corgis ‘Awad: al Waraq aw al Kaghid Sana’atuhu fi al ‘Usur al Islamiyyah, pg. 418.

In any case, this text cannot be completely trusted, as none of the previous historians mentioned that, in addition to the fact that it was in a book that was not prepared purely for history and that there were long centuries between it and the incident. The fact that the battle was made a turning point in the issue of the spread of paper based on such a text regarding it is risky. Therefore, I agree with Jonathan Bloom in his doubts regarding this text, especially since he mentioned that the Chinese sources do not mention anything about this, even though some of them enumerate some of the industries that were widespread among Chinese prisoners at that time but did not mention papermaking. See Jonathan Bloom, Qissat al Waraq Tarikh al Waraq fi al ‘Ilm al Islami Qabl Zuhur al Taba’ah (The Story of Paper, The history of paper in Islamic Science before the advent of printing), pg. 109.

^[73]  The manufacture of paper can be traced through the books of narrator criticism. Through it, the impact of papermaking on the narration of Hadith becomes evident. It is a useful research. Examples of this include the biography of ‘Ali ibn ‘Asim (d. 201 AH) which shows it wide spread, likewise, in the biography of Abu Zakariyya al Farra’ (d. 207 AH). Refer to al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 13/407, 16/224.

^[74]  Orientalist researcher Nabihah ‘Abud has made an important effort in collecting and tracking papyrus papers. See that by Corgis ‘Awad: Aqdam al Makhtutat al ‘Arabiyyah fi al Maktabat al ‘Alam al Makhtutah Mundh Sadr al Islam Hatta Sanah 500 (The oldest Arabic manuscripts in the world’s libraries written from the inception of Islam until the year 500 AH), pg. 70-71. See a complete chapter on papyri in that book, pg. 69-76, and see some remnants of papyri from the works of the second century by Qasim al Samarra’i: al Iktinah al ‘Arabi al Islami, pg. 231-232, and see his book al Kitabah ‘ala al Julud fi al Nisf al Thani min al Qarn al Thani, pg. 239. Also see Ittila’ al Samarra’i ‘ala Makhtut fi Qarn al Thalith Kutiba ‘Ala Raqq al Ghazal, pg. 254.

^[75]  Competition becomes evident in some of the statements of the people of Madinah and others against the people of Iraq. From amongst them is the statement of al Zuhri as reported by al Fasawi: al Ma’rifah wa al Tarikh, 2/757:

اذا سمعت بالحديث العراقي فأردد به ثم أردد به

If you hear of an Iraqi hadith, repeat it, and then repeat it.

Likewise, the statement of al Awza’i, 2/363:

كانت الخلفاء بالشام فإذا كانت الحادثة سألوا عنها علماء أهل الشام وأهل المدينة وكانت أحاديث العراق لا تجاوز جدور بيوتهم فمتى كان علماء أهل الشام يحملون عن خوارج أهل العراق

The khalifas were in Greater Syria. When the incident occurred, the khalifas would ask the scholars of the people of Greater Syria and the people of Madinah about it. The ahadith of Iraq would not go beyond the walls of their homes, so when did the scholars of the people of Greater Syria narrate from the Khawarij of Iraq?

Similarly, the statement of Ibn al Mubarak who said, 2/758:

ما رحلت إلى الشام إلا لأستغني عن حديث أهل الكوفة

I did not travel to Greater Syria except to be free from the Hadith of the people of Kufah.

There are many sayings of Malik regarding the ahadith of Iraq. From amongst them is his saying, ‎1/444:

لم يأخذ أولونا عن أوليكم قد كان علقمة والأسود ومسروق فلم يأخذ عنهم أحد منا فكذلك آخرونا لا يأخذون عن آخريكم

Our former scholars did not take from your former scholars. ‘Alqamah, al Aswad, and Masruq would pass by, but none of us would learn from them. Likewise, our latter scholars would not take from your latter scholars.

Refer to Ahmed Ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, 1/294 (475), and see some of his other sayings in Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Jami’ Bayan al ‘Ilm wa Fadlihi, 2/1107. See Imam al Dhahabi’s comment regarding that in Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 8/68. This was before the news of their conditions.

^[76]  Some narrations mention that when Imam Malik saw what al Majishun had written, he decided to compile al Muwatta’. (Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: al Tamhid, 1/86.)