CHAPTER 4

THE EVIDENCE OF ISNĀDS

WE have often had occasion, particularly in the preceding chapter, to use indications contained in the isnāds for the dating of traditions. In the present chapter we shall consider some of these indications in detail. Although the isnāds constitute the most arbitrary part of the traditions, the tendencies underlying their creation and development, once recognized, enable us to use them for the dating of traditions in many cases. It is common knowledge that the isnād started from rudimentary beginnings¹ and reached perfection in the classical collections of traditions in the second half of the third century A.H. This, together with our previous results concerning the growth of traditions, makes it impossible for us to share the confidence of the Muhammadan scholars in what they consider first-class isnāds. Their whole technical criticism of traditions, which is mainly based on the criticism of isnāds,² is irrelevant for the purpose of historical analysis. In particular, we shall see in the following chapter that some of those isnāds which the Muhammadan scholars esteem most highly are the result of widespread fabrications in the generation preceding Mālik³.

The isnāds were often put together very carelessly.⁴ Any typical representative of the group whose doctrine was to be projected back on to an ancient authority, could be chosen at random and put into the isnād. We find therefore a number of alternative names in otherwise identical isnāds, where other considerations exclude the possibility of the transmission of a genuine old doctrine by several persons. Such alternatives are particularly frequent in the generation preceding Mālik, for instance Nāfi' and Sālim (passim), Nāfi' and 'Abdallāh b. Dīnār (Muw. iv. 204 and Ikh. 149 f.), Nāfi' and Zuhrī (Muw.