HADITH i. A GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Hadith literature (often called in Western scholarship “Muslim tradition”) is understood to be the repository of the sonna (normative conduct; pl. sonan) of the Prophet, which is regarded as second in authority only to the Koran as a source of Divine truth. The Hadith, in other words, is an authoritative and prescriptive body of material relating to the Prophet Moḥammad: it records what the Prophet did and said in order that Moslems may – whether through direct mimesis of the actions of the Prophet, acceptance of specific Prophetic pronouncements on points of law and doctrine, or the extrapolation of law from both Prophetic actions and utterances – live in accordance with Divine truth. The vast and detailed corpus of Hadith literature establishes a significant proportion of the specific content of Islamic law, praxis and doctrine. Unlike the Koran, which is considered Divine speech, the Hadith is the Prophet’s own discourse; however, a subcategory of Hadith, known as al-aḥādiṯ al-qodsiya, is understood as representing the Prophet’s own verbal expression of Divine inspiration (elhām; see below).

Given the authority of Hadith as a source for the specific content of Islam, it became important for Muslims to ascertain the authenticity of each ḥadiṯ as a true and accurate (ṣaḥiḥ) record of Prophetic action or speech. Each ḥadiṯ consists of two parts: a text (matn, literally “body”) appended to a chain of transmitters (esnād, literally “support”), typically in the following format and using terms such as these: so-and-so said (qāla): I heard (sameʿto)from so-and-so who said: so-and-so told me (ḥaddaṯa-ni), saying : so-and-so informed us (aḵbara-nā), saying:so-and-so announced to us (anbaʾa-nā)on the authority of (ʿan) so-and so, who said: the Prophet said, or did, such-and-such. The authenticity of a ḥadiṯ is assayed on the basis of the reputation for veracity and reliability of the individuals in the chain, which should go back to an eyewitness (see below).

While there are reports of the existence of small Hadith compilations in the first century A.H., the collection of Hadithand their systematic organization by scholars into compendia seems to have begun in earnest from the mid-2nd/8th century. For a period of about 200 years, the scholars of the Hadith movement (ahl al-ḥadiṯ, or al-moḥaddeṯun)traveled throughout the Islamic world collecting local knowledge about the Prophet (al-reḥla fi ṭalab al-ʿelm). The early scholars of the Hadith movement were also preoccupied with pressing the claim that Hadith should be the primary source of Divine truth after the Koran, especially against the respective proponents of rational theology, and of customary law. That the claim of Hadith to primacy was not unchallenged is reflected in those works written expressly to defend the Hadith movement against its opponents, such as Ebn Qotayba’s (d. 276/889) Taʾwil moḵtalef al-ḥadiṯ fi’l-radd ʿalā aʿdāʾ ahl al-ḥadiṯ and Ḥamd b. Moḥammad Ḵaṭṭābi’s (d. 383/998) Aʿlām al-ḥadiṯ (see bibliography).

The Hadith compendia which were eventually compiled took two forms: the mosnad, in which aḥādiṯ are organized according to the transmitter; and the more prescription-friendly moṣannaf, in which aḥādiṯ are organized according to their subject matter. The most famous mosnad is the largest extant early Hadith work, that of Aḥmad Ebn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) of Baghdad, which contains over 30,000 aḥādiṯ. The earliest extant work that includes aḥādiṯ arranged by subject is not, strictly speaking, a Hadith collection, but rather a work of jurisprudence, namely, the Mowaṭṭaʾ of the Medinan scholar Mālek b. Anas (d. 179/795; see FEQH); however, the aḥādiṯ cited therein do not always have complete esnāds, and the work includes many reports about the words and legal decisions of Companions and Successors, as do the respective important published moṣannaf collections of ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Ṣanʿāni (d. 211/826), and of ʿAbd-Allāh Ebn Abi Šayba (d. 235/849).

The 3rd/9th century witnessed the compilation of the moṣannaf Hadith collections that would eventually acquire canonical status in Sunni Islam; these are composed exclusively of aḥādiṯ from the Prophet carried by sound (ṣaḥiḥ) esnāds. It is noteworthy that most of this compilation activity was carried out by scholars in Iran. In the case of the two works that are universally recognized as the most authoritative, the Jāmeʿ al-ṣaḥiḥ of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿil Boḵāri (d. 256/870), and the Jāmeʿ al-ṣaḥiḥ of Moslem b. Ḥajjāj Naysāburi (d. 261/874), the process of their being invested with authority by the Muslim community seems to have taken place within a century or so of the respective compilers’ deaths – ever since then, these have been considered the two most important texts in Sunni Islam after the Koran. (The Shiʿites have their own Hadith collections, on which see Section ii. below.) Of only slightly less elevated status are the respective Sonan of Abu Dāʾud Sejestāni (d. 275/888), Moḥammad b. ʿIsā Termeḏi (d. 279/892), Ebn Māja Qazvini (d. 273/886) and Aḥmad b. Šoʿayb Nasāʾi (d. 303/915) – the authority of these four works was almost universally accepted by the 6th/12th century. Supplementary to “the Sound Six (al-ṣeḥāḥ al-setta)” collections are the respective Sonan of ʿAbd-Allāh b. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Dāremi (d. 255/868), ʿAli b. ʿOmar Dāraqoṭni (d. 385/995) and Aḥmad b. al-Ḥosayn Bayhaqi (d. 458/1065). Other widely respected Hadith collections include al-Moʿjam al-kabir of Solaymān b. Aḥmad Ṭabarāni (d. 360/970), the Mostadrak of Ḥākem Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-Allāh Naysāburi (d. 403/1012), the Maṣābiḥ al-sonna of Ḥosayn b. Masʿud Baḡawi (d. 516/1122), which was expanded by Wali-al-Din Ḵaṭib Tebrizi (fl. 737/1337) under the title Meškāt al-maṣābiḥ, the popular Riāż al-ṣāleḥin of Yaḥyā b. Šaraf Nawawi (d. 676/1277) and the vast Kanz al-ʿommāl fi sonan al-aqwāl wa’l-afʿāl of ʿAli Mottaqi Hendi (d. 975/1567).

Over the centuries, several commentaries on “the Sound Six” were produced, some of which have acquired great fame in their own right. They include, in particular: on the Ṣaḥiḥ of Boḵāri, the Fatḥ al-bāri of Aḥmad Ebn Ḥajar ʿAsqalāni (d. 852/1449), the ʿOmdat al-qāri of Badr-al-Din ʿAyni (d. 855/1451) and the Eršād al-sāri of Aḥmad b. Moḥammad Qastallāni (d. 923/1518); on the Ṣaḥiḥ of Moslem, the Menhāj of Yaḥyā b. Šaraf Nawawi; on the Sonan of Abu Dāʾud, the ʿAwn al-maʿbud of Šams-al-Ḥaqq ʿAẓimābādi (d. 1329/1911); on the Sonan of Termeḏi, the Toḥfat al-aḥwaḏi of Moḥammad ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Mobārakpuri (d. 1354/1935); on the Sonan of Ebn Māja, the Šarḥ of Moḡalṭāy b. Qelej (d. 762/1361); and on the Sonan of Nasāʾi, the Zahr al-rabā of Jalāl-al-Din Soyuṭi (d. 911/1505), and the Šarḥ of Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Hādi Sendi (d. 1038/1629).

A sense of the content and arrangement of the moṣannaf collections may be obtained from surveying the chapter headings of a representative example, such as the Sonan of Nasāʾi: ritual purity (al-ṭahāra), water (al-miāh), menstruation (al-ḥayż wa’l-esteḥāża), bathing, and cleansing without water (al-ḡosl wa’l-tayammom), prayer (al-ṣalāt), appointed times (al-mawāqit), the call to prayer (al-aḏān), mosques (al-masājed), the direction of prayer (al-qebla), the office of Imam (al-emāma), the beginning of the prayer (al-eftetāḥ), the execution of the prayer (al-taṭbiq), forgetfulness in prayer (al-sahw), Friday prayer (al-jomʿa), shortening the prayer in travel (taqṣir al-ṣalāt fi’l-safar), the eclipse prayer (al-kosuf), prayer for rain (al-estesqāʾ), prayer of fear (ṣalāt al-ḵawf), the prayer of the two Eids (ṣalāt al-ʿidayn), staying up at night and giving up the day to pray (qiām al-layl wa-taṭawwoʿ al-nahār), funerals (al-janāʾez), fasting (al-ṣiām), alms-giving (al-zakāt), the rituals of the Pilgrimage (manāsek al-ḥajj), struggle in the cause of God (al-jehād), marriage (al-nekāḥ), divorce (al-ṭalāq), horses (al-ḵayl), mortmain (al-aḥbās), bequests (al-waṣāyā), gifts (al-noḥl wa’l-heba), conditional gifts (al-roqbā), lifetime gifts (al-ʿomrā), oaths and vows (al-aymān wa’l-noḏur), sharecropping (al-mozāraʿa), prohibition of bloodshed (taḥrim al-dam), the division of land that passes into the possession of the Muslim community (qesm al-fayʾ), pledging allegiance (al-bayʿa), sacrifice for new born children (al--ʿaqiqa), sacrifice of the first born camel foal, and of a sheep in Rajab (al-faraʿ wa’l-ʿatira), hunting and slaughtering (al-ṣayd wa’l-ḏabaʾeḥ), sacrifical animals (al-żaḥāyā), sales (al-boyuʿ), compurgation (al-qasāma), cutting the hand of the thief (qaṭʿ al-sāreq), faith (al-imān), adornment (al-zina), the conduct of judges (ādāb al-qożāt), seeking refuge in God (al-esteʿāḏa), and drinks (al-ašreba). The foregoing list is illustrative of the important role of Hadith in establishing religious praxis and law.

The growth of the Hadith movement was accompanied by an elaboration of the Hadith sciences (ʿolum al-ḥadiṯ). The historical development of the Hadith sciences may be traced through a study of the content of the important works in this field, such as al-Moḥaddeṯ al-fāṣel bayna’l-rāwi wa’l-wāʿi by Ḥasan b. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Rāmahormozi (d. 360/971), al-Kefāya fi ʿelm al-rewāya by Ḵaṭib Baḡdādi (d. 463/1071), Maʿrefat ʿolum al-ḥadiṯ by Ḥākem Naysāburi, the Moqaddema by Abu ʿAmr ʿOṯmān Ebn Ṣalāḥ (d. 643/1245), and Fatḥ al-Moḡiṯ by Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Saḵāwi (d. 902/1497), which is a commentary on a 1,000-line pedagogical poem (alfiya) on the Hadith sciences by Zayn-al-Din ʿErāqi (d. 806/1404). The purpose of the Hadith sciences was to address the issue of how to establish the authenticity of reports; this, as noted above, was done on the basis of assaying the esnād. To this end, a “science of men” (ʿelm al-rejāl, encompassing also the women who transmitted Hadith) was formalized between the 2nd/8th and 4th/10th centuries, in which biographical notices were compiled for transmitters of Hadith, noting such details as their dates, locations, teachers and students. Of particular importance was the inclusion in biographical notices of the judgements of later Hadith scholars as to the veracity and reliability of the individual subjects, which could range from ṯeqa (trustworthy) and ṯabt (strong) to matruk (avoided) and kaḏḏāb (liar). From this crucial latter function derives the technical name for this science, al-jarḥ wa’l-taʿdil, or “the science of discrediting and accrediting.” The Companions (ṣaḥāba)of the Prophet are, as a category, regarded as being necessarily trustworthy under the principle called taʿdil al-ṣaḥāba (a doctrine which, for obvious reasons, is not accepted by the Shiʿites, who judge trustworthy only the aḥādiṯ transmitted by their own authorities).Among the most important of the early works of al-jarḥ wa’l-taʿdil are the Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabir of Moḥammad Ebn Saʿd (d. 230/845), Kitāb al-tāriḵ al-kabir of Boḵāri, and Kitāb al-jarḥ wa’l-taʿdil of ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Ebn Abi Ḥātem Rāzi (d. 327/938). Later rejāl works collated data from earlier ones and thus grew increasingly lengthy: especially well-regarded are the Mizān al-eʿtedāl of Šams-al-Din Mo-ḥammad al-Ḏahabi (d. 748/1348), the massive Tahḏib al-kemāl fi asmāʾ al-rejāl of Yusof b. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Mezzi (d. 742/1341), and the Tahḏib al-tahḏib of Ebn Ḥajar ʿAsqalāni.

A complete esnād is called mottaṣel, marfuʿ or mosnad, and a ḥadiṯ supported by a complete esnād made up of unimpeachably ṯeqa transmitters is classified as ṣaḥiḥ (sound, authentic). One level down is the ḥasan (good) ḥadiṯ,which is also supported by a complete esnād made up of ṯeqa transmitters, but with a chain that is less strong than that of the ṣaḥiḥ. A ḥadiṯ that is not supported by a complete esnād is by definition żaʿif (weak), and can be categorized as progressively weaker according to whether the esnād is, for example, morsal (complete until the generation of the Successors (tābeʿun), but not originating from as far back as a Companion), monqaṭeʿ (missing a transmitter in the chain), moʿżal (missing two transmitters), or modallas (containing a false claim by one of the transmitters about having heard it from the next individual in the chain), to mention only four of several categories. A forged Hadith is called mawżuʿ. Hadith are also classified according to the number of esnāds by which the report is supported. The most authoritative category is the motawāter, which is supported by a sufficient number of esnādsand ṯeqa transmitters, making collusion on its contents seem virtually impossible. Ḵabar al-āḥād is the term used for a ḥadiṯ that is supported by esnāds and transmitters which, although ṯeqa, are insufficient to render it motawāter. Ḵabar al-wāḥed is a ḥadiṯ transmitted from a single ṯeqa person; the status of this category has been the subject of extensive debate among the moḥaddeṯun. (It should be noted that the terms ḵabar and aṯar (pl. āṯār) are sometimes used synonymously with ḥadiṯ, but more usually denote reports about the Companions of the Prophet; the term ḥadiṯ is also used more loosely to refer to any and all reports about the Prophet, including those that appear in genres other than Hadith literature, such as in theepic biographical genres, sira and maḡāzi – these are, however, more accurately denoted by the neutral term rewāya, or “report”). The sciences of Hadith also addressed the issue of how to account for contradictory aḥādiṯ on the same subject transmitted by sound esnāds: this was done through applying the doctrine of nasḵ (abrogation) to identify only one of the aḥādiṯ as the chronologically final ruling on the issue in question: see, for example, Moḥammad b. Musā Ḥazemi Hama-ḏāni (d. 584/1188), al-Eʿtebār fi’l-nāseḵ wa’l-mansuḵ men al-āṯār.

According to the ʿolum al-ḥadiṯ manuals, the ideal mode of Hadith transmission is oral. This does not mean that written transmission played no role – apparently from quite early in the history of the Hadith movement, note-taking was standard practice – however, while a great moḥaddeṯ would keep books,he was ideally expected to teach from memory. Hearing Hadith from a Shaikhis called samāʿ, while reciting or reading Hadith back to the Shaikhfor his approval is called ʿarż. The Shaikh’s certifying the right of a student to transmit on his authority is called ejāza (q.v.). Transmission solely on the basis of written materials was a categorically inferior, although permissible, method, whether by monāwala (the handing over of written materials), mokātaba (correspondence) or wejāda (discovery of written materials). The ʿolum al-ḥadiṯ manuals also emphasize the necessity of word-for-word transmission of ḥadiṯ (al-rewāya be’l-lafẓ), while acknowledging that this ideal was not always observed in the earliest period of transmission when what was conveyed might have been the meaning (al-rewaya be’l-maʿnā), rather than the exact wording.

The first scholar to systematically address the place of Hadith in Islamic jurisprudence seems to have been Moḥammad b. Edris Šāfeʿi (d. 204/820), the eponymous founder of the Shafiʿite legal rite,about one-quarter of whose foundational work, the Resāla, is dedicated to formulating a method for utilizing Hadith as a source of law. The recognition of the importance of Hadith as a source of religious praxis and law resulted in the establishment of the study of Hadith as a primary element in the education of the Moslem jurist, as well as a fundamental subject in the curriculum of the madrasas (see EDUCATION iv.),following their proliferation throughout the Islamic world from the 5th/11th century onwards. Institutions dedicated to the study of Hadith, known as dār al-ḥadiṯ, were also established.

The history of the compilation and authenticity of Hadith literature is one of the most contested subjects in the study of Islam. Muslim orthodoxy holds that the recording of Hadith began in the lifetime of the Prophet himself, and culminated in the third century of the Hejra in the successful distinguishing of authentic from unreliable and fabricated aḥādiṯ; the authentic aḥādiṯ, which were gathered from all parts of the Islamic world, were compiled in the major collections whose canonical authority was swiftly recognized. This narrative, however, has been subject to criticism from the end of the 13th/19th century until the present day, primarily in the Western academy, but also by certain Muslim scholars. In 1898, Ignaz Goldziher pointed out the existence of many contradictory aḥādiṯ supported by sound esnāds,to argue that these could not represent authentic Prophetic discourse; he suggested that they were fabricated later, either by various political and religious factions in their efforts to legitimate themselves and discredit their rivals, or in discrete attempts to provide answers for specific religious issues that were in need of clarification. Half a century later Joseph Schacht argued that many legal aḥādiṯ were put into circulation only from the late 2nd century A.H. onwards, when they were furnished with wholly, or at least partially, false esnāds. Schacht’s ideas have effectively been taken as a datum-line by a prominent school of Western historians skeptical not only of the authenticity of Hadith literature, but also, on the same methodological basis, of early Muslim historiography in general. However, the validity of Schacht’s methods and conclusions has also been called into doubt, and other scholars have furnished narratives for the historical development of Hadith that tend, in different degrees, towards accepting their authenticity (see bibliography for a classified list of such studies). The questions of whether it is possible to distinguish between authentic and fabricated aḥādiṯ at all, and whether it is possible to date when a particular ḥadiṯ was put into circulation continue to be investigated, and new and more nuanced arguments about the historical development and authenticity of Hadith have begun to emerge.

The debate among Muslims in recent centuries over the authenticity of Hadith, which has included occasional reference to Western scholarship, has been concerned with the implications of the issue for the content of Islamic law. Two broad trends may be identified: the first trend has been to re-authenticate the received authoritative corpus of Hadith, sometimes on the basis of a particularly stringent application of established Hadith methodology, and sometimes using entirely new criteria for assaying the soundness of reports. The goal of this approach is to sift out definitively any remaining weak reports. Scholars such as Moḥammad ʿAbdoh (d. 1323/1905), Rašid Reżā (d. 1354/1935), Abu’l-Aʿlāʾ Mawdudi (d. 1399/1979) and Nāṣer-al-Din Albāni (d.1420/1999) strove, in different ways, towards such a goal. The second approach has been the categorical questioning of the actual methods of traditional Hadith criticism, and of the authenticity of the received Hadith corpus. This was first seen in the Muslim modernist project in the Indian subcontinent in the late 19th century where the historicizing arguments of Čerāḡ ʿAli (d. 1313/1895) preceded even those of Goldziher; and where those of Sir Sayyed Aḥmad Ḵān (d. 1316/1898), who viewed the excessive reliance on Hadith as an obstacle to reform, developed into a hostile debate between proponents of authenticity, the ahl-e ḥadiṯ, and those who argued for the exclusive authority of the Koran.

In a series of articles published between 1962 and 1963, the Pakistani scholar, Fazlur Rahman (d. 1988), argued that the sonna of the Prophet was not originally understood by the early Moslem community to be contained in the specific words and practices recorded in the Hadith (the authenticity of which cannot, in any case, be definitively ascertained), but that this putative relationship between the two was actually a concept successfully promulgated by the Hadith movement itself. Instead, Rahman asserted that the original and true meaning of sonna is the general spirit of the Prophet’s discourse and action as understood by the early community, and that sonna may therefore be identified without reference to Hadith being necessary. Rahman’s ideas provoked the hostility of the Pakistani ulema and resulted in his exile. Less radical views on the authenticity of Hadith were put forward in Egypt by Maḥmud Abu Rayya in 1958, but they also precipitated considerable controversy. In 1986, the Malaysian author, Kassim Ahmad, raised the question in South East Asia, with the result that his book was banned by the Malaysian authorities. Arguments against the authenticity of Hadith have, in general, had only limited purchase in the modern Islamic world, and the debate on the issue among Muslims seems, for the moment at least, largely to have died down.

HADITH ii. IN SHIʿISM

The Twelver Shiʿite conception of Hadith is generally in line with that of the Sunnites as discussed in Section i above. In Shiʿism, however, in addition to Hadith about the Prophet those about the Imams are authoritative as well. To a certain extent, this is comparable with the fact that Companion Hadith have been considered authoritative in Sunnism, since the Imams, as members of the Prophet’s house, are considered as representing the Prophet’s knowledge. However, most Shiʿite sources assert unambiguously that the Imams could also speak directly for God: “The Imam speaks for God concerning the Book” (yanṭequ’l-emāmu ʿan Allāhi fi’l-ketāb; Kolayni, I, p. 14). The Imam whose utterances constitute the bulk of Shiʿite Hadith literature is the sixth Imam, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq (d. 148/765). While some of his companions, such as Nawfali and Sokuni, transmitted from him only aḥādiṯ on the authority of the Prophet and Imam ʿAli (see Kolayni, I, pp. 134, 200; Aḥmadi Faqih, p. 65), there is evidence that others among them also “believed that the Imams, just like the jurists of those times, practiced independent judgment (raʾy) or analogical reasoning (qiās)” (Modarressi, p. 28). The majority of Shiʿite scholars have treated the utterances and conduct of the Imams in the same way as those of the Prophet.

Shiʿite authors generally acknowledge the authenticity of most of the traditions presented in the “Six Sound Collections” (al-ṣehāḥ al-setta) of Sunnism, but these are mainly used in historical and polemical contexts rather than as proof texts in legal discussions, as long as alternative Shiʿite traditions are available. The eminent Shiʿite scholar ʿAllāma Ḥelli (q.v.; d. 726/1327) wrote that “all our aḥādiṯ, except for a few, lead back to the Twelve Imams, from whom in turn they lead back to the Prophet. Their knowledge is acquired from that niche. The Hadith of the Imams which are included in the [Shiʿite] books add much to what is in the [Sunnite] “Six Sound Collections,” as is manifest to one who studies the books of both sects” (Ḥorr ʿĀmeli, XX, p. 66).

Shiʿites began to circulate their own Hadith literature at about the time of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq (q.v.). At this stage, it is not known whether the classification ḥadiṯ was applied to the Imams’ own utterances or only to their narrations about the Prophet. During this period the term aṣl (pl. oṣul) was applied to the Imams’ written traditions, to indicate that they represent the original documentation of their words (Kohlberg, p. 128). However, none of such writings now exist in any form, apart from about a dozen which have come down to us through the works of 4th/10th century Shiʿite authors. Among the earliest extant Shiʿite Hadith writings are Abu Jaʿfar Ṣaffār Qommi’s (d. 290/902) Baṣāʾer al-darajāt and Aḥmad b. Moḥammad Barqi’s (d. 274/887) Ketāb al-maḥāsen. However, such works are far from comprehensive, since they often focused exclusively on legitimizing the status of the Imams and the rituals of Shiʿism.

The oldest of the four canonical collections of Shiʿite Hadith, which have a similar status to the “Sound Six” in Sunnism, is Moḥammad b. Yaʿqub Kolayni’s (d. 329/941) al-Kāfi fi ʿelm al-din. He combined an interest in elements of the Shiʿite extremism of the time (ḡoluw; see ḠOLĀT) with his talents in research and eloquent expression. It is divided into sections dealing with Shiʿite theology (oṣul) and applied law (foruʿ), followed by a final appendix called Ketāb al-Rawżaʾ, which contains miscellaneous aḥādiṯ (based mainly on the authority of Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq through five or six generations of transmitters).

The relatively conservative traditionist, Ebn Bābawayh (q.v.), Shaikh Ṣaduq, compiled Man lā yaḥżoroho’l-faqih, the second of the four canonical Shiʿite Hadithcollections. Its title, “The One Who has no Jurist Present,” suggests that it can enable the reader to practice Shiʿism in the absence of a juriconsult. This work places more emphasis on aḥādiṯ that are relevant to Shiʿite jurisprudence. It is noteworthy that all the above-mentioned Imami authors were born and educated in the two isolated traditionist centers of Ray and Qom, in western Iran. Most had traveled to Iraq and Arabia; however, as in the cases of Boḵāri and Moslem, their inclination towards research and literary compilation seem to have provided the main impetus behind their works.

In reaction to the type of traditionism represented by these authors, the “rationalist” Oṣuli Shiʿism of the time, under Shaikh Moḥammad Mofid (d. 413/1022), presented another approach to Hadith literature. Mofid proposed that “it is the task of the discriminating, intelligent person to accept what is agreed upoŋand to hesitate about that wherein they [the traditionists] differ” with respect to Hadith (McDermott, pp. 306-7). He criticized all traditionists, and especially his own teacher Ebn Bābawayh, for their “unintelligent” approaches (Modarressi, p. 41). In writing his main legal book, al-Moqneʿa, he based Shiʿite jurisprudence for the first time on his personal opinion, supported by Hadith, rather than by citing directly the text of individual aḥādiṯ (Mofid, 1990; Kazemi Moussavi, p. 23).

Mofid’s rationalist method was maintained for a generation, but one of his own pupils, Shaikh al-Ṭāʾefa Moḥammad b. Ḥasan Ṭusi (d. 460/1067) proposed a greater commitment to Hadith, which has remained as the main tendency in Twelver Shiʿism ever since. Shaikh Ṭusi is responsible for introducing the new conformity between traditionism and rationalism. He first wrote Tahḏib al-aḥkām, a commentary on al-Moqneʿa which provided references, based on Hadith, for Mofid’s juristic verdicts, before compiling a further collection of traditions, al-Estebṣār, in order to supplement the first book with new cases which Mofid had not dealt with (Ṭusi, 1956, I, p. 2). Through these two Hadithworks, Ṭusi not only doubled the number of what were to be considered the canonical Shiʿite collections from two to four, but at the same time he effectively endorsed the methodologies and compilations of his precursors Kolayni and Ebn Bābawayh.

In addition to the above legal and Hadith works, Ṭusi also wrote ʿOddat al-oṣul, dealing with the methodology of acquiring certainty, or a degree of authority, in religious knowledge. He discussed the problem of the validity of the Hadith of the so-called deviant traditionist groups, whom he alternatively called “imitators” and “generalists” (i.e. who do not engage in reasoning). He accepted their Hadith on the principle that “it is not impossible that they were generalists who had acquired knowledge, but just had difficulty in establishing their knowledge on the basis of reasoning” (Ṭusi, 1983, p. 349). Most of these aḥādiṯ, however, were isolated traditions (aḵbār āḥād), lacking the standard of validity of a sound ḥadit¯. In order to give a degree of efficacy to them, Ṭusi based his argument on the precedent of the eminent Shiʿites, namely, the “practice of the righteous sect” (ʿamal al-ṭāʾefa), a notion which had never before been employed in such a manner in Shiʿism. Ṭusi admitted that most of the Hadith were isolated reports, but argued that they were practiced by the Shiʿites of past generations, and particularly by the contemporaries of the Imams (Ṭusi, 1983, pp. 236, 350), and should therefore be considered authoritative. A parallel can be witnessed between Ṭusi’s way of taking into consideration the practice of the community for the validation of Hadithand that of Moḥammad b. Edris Šāfeʿi (e.g. compare Šāfeʿi, p. 545, with Ṭusi, 1983, p. 236).

Ṭusi’s method of reproduction and validation of Shiʿite Hadith was theoretically criticized by subsequent generations of Imami authors, especially by scholars from the Shiʿite center of Ḥella in Iraq, but it was effectively adopted by most of them. Moḥaqqeq Jaʿfar b. Ḥasan Ḥelli (d. 676/1277) refashioned Ṭusi’s thesis, and acknowledged the efficacy of the isolated traditions by the mediation (tawassoṭ) of the fact that they are either accepted by Imami jurists or confirmed by other indicators (Calder, 1989, p. 66). Moḥaqqeq’s pupil, ʿAllāma Ḥasan b. Yusof Ḥelli (d. 726/1325), wrote an independent treatise on the science of Hadith in which (according to ʿĀmeli), by adopting Sunni categories, he disregarded certain parts of the corpus of Imami traditions as obscure and confused (Ḥorr ʿĀmeli, XX, pp. 66-69). The next major Shiʿite work to be written on the science of Hadith was that of Zayn-al-Din b. ʿAli ʿĀmeli al-Šahid al-Ṯāni (d. 966/1559) from the school of Jabal ʿĀmel in Lebanon, who in his al-Reʿāya fi ʿelm al-derāya established categories for the recognition of Imami Hadith according to the existing terminology of the Sunnite and Shiʿite ulema.

The reign of the Safavids in Persia, and the Qezelbāš movement in particular, encouraged a trend of devotional attachment to the figures of the Imams which paved the way for the revival of traditionism in the form of the Aḵbāri school (see AḴBĀRĪYA). The founder of this school, Moḥammad-Amin Astarābādi (q.v.), developed the notion of “customary certainty” (yaqin ʿādi) as a theoretical basis for the legitimation of all Shiʿite Hadith (Astarābādi, pp. 19, 129). According to this approach, outright acceptance of them is better, for it brings about more uniformity than the application of preponderant probability, because the latter generates diverse opinions (Astarābādi, pp. 7, 41, 45). Within a century after the spread of Astarābādi’s ideas, the Twelver Shiʿite world witnessed another wave of the (re-)collection of the Hadith of the Imams. This included a combination of the four early collections (see above) in the form of al-Wāfi, compiled by a Sufi-oriented traditionist called Moḥsen Fayż Kāšāni (q.v.; d. 1091/1680), the most voluminous Shiʿite Hadith work, the Beḥār al-anwār by the pioneer of post-Safavid popular Shiʿism, Moḥammad-Bāqer Majlesi (q.v.; d. 1111/1699), and the most practical Shiʿite Hadithwork, Wasāʾel al-Šiʿa, compiled by the moderate 11th/17th century Aḵbāri author Ḥorr ʿĀmeli (q.v.). This last author tried to classify and moderate Shiʿite Hadith, whereas both Majlesi and Kāšāni aimed at a more indiscriminate inclusion of the entire corpus of Hadith that was attributed to the Imams.

The impact of these new Hadith collections on the Shiʿite community can be witnessed in the rise of a new type of popular Shiʿism based on mourning rites and pilgrimage, which has prevailed for the last two centuries. Although the later Oṣuli revival put an end to the Aḵbāri domination since the late 12th/18th century, more recent Hadith collections, especially the Wasāʾel al-Šiʿa, have continued to emphasize the importance of Shiʿite traditions. The Oṣuli authors of the 19th and 20th centuries generally used Hadiths from these collections to support their juridical opinions based on their rational interpretation, but reorientation of the tradition-reports nevertheless continued through different means. The last well-known traditionist, Mirzā Ḥosayn b. Moḥammad-Taqi Nuri (d. 1320/1902), compiled a supplementary collection of Hadiths, the Mostadrak, based on the Wasāʾel al-Šiʿa (but rearranged and with additional subject-headings).

Fifty years after Nuri, Ayatollah Ḥosayn b. ʿAli Borujerdi (q.v.; d. 1961), the supreme “model for emulation” (marjaʿ-e taqlid) of the Shiʿite world, produced a different version of Imami Hadith, the Jāmeʿ aḥādiṯ al-Šiʿa. This version takes into consideration the proto-Sunni circumstances surrounding the utterances of the Imams (see Ostādi). As a result, Borujerdi made a new Oṣuli rendering of Shiʿite Hadith. His reorientation of Imami Hadith may not have changed the content of materials used in Shiʿite law, but it contributed to a degree to the supra-sectarian spirit among Shiʿites that led to the Sunni-Shiʿite rapprochement during his leadership in Qom. More recently, the late Ayatollah Ḵoʾi (d. 1992) also set forth new approaches to classifying the transmitters of the Hadith of the Imams in his Moʿjam rejāl al-ḥadiṯ (1970).

See also SHIʿITE DOCTRINE.

HADITH iii. IN ISMAʿILISM

Ismaʿilis had neither a Hadith collection of their own nor a distinct Ismaʿili law before the establishment of the Fatimid dynasty in North Africa in 297/909. As Ismaʿili law began taking definite shape under the patronage of the Fatimid caliphs, the need for a separate collection of clearly defined legal traditions became urgent; espe-cially since by this time Hadith had come to be recognized, both by Sunnis and Shiʿites alike, as second only to the Koran in authority. It was Qāżi Noʿmān (d. 363/974) who undertook the task at the suggestion of the first Fatimid caliph Mahdi (297-322/909-34), while he was still exclusively at the service of the caliph. In the introduction to his Ketāb al-eqteṣār (p. 9), Noʿmān states that he had embarked on the collection of traditions transmitted from the family of the Prophet (ahl al-bayt) dealing with customary practices, legal provisions and precepts, and formal legal opinions on what is lawful and unlawful, by scrutinizing the sources accessible to him by way of samāʿ (direct oral transmission from a shaikh or an Imam), ejāza (license to transmit from a shaikh), monā-wala (a copy of the shaikh’s traditions handed over to a student with ejāza), or ṣaḥifa (book). He further states that he had selected only the well-known and authentic traditions described as mašhur (with more than two transmitters; considered by some as equivalent to motawāter, with many transmitters, all known to be reliable), maʿruf (acceptable but weak and confirmed by another weak tradition), and maʾṯur (handed down from generation to generation). Most of the material that he had consulted was not in classified form (ḡayr moṣannaf); he therefore had arranged the traditions into appropriate chapters and sections according to categories of religious law, indicating the points on which the narrators agreed and disagreed, and denoting with evidence and proofs what was firmly established doctrine of the ahl al-bayt in respect to those categories. This work, entitled Ketāb al-iżāḥ “The Book of Elucidation,” was apparently a voluminous composition, comprising some 3,000 folios (waraqa) or about 220 chapters (ketāb). In it Noʿmān cited the entire chain of transmission for each tradition, recalling several relevant traditions on each legal matter. Unfortunately, however, except for a small fragment from the chapter on ritual prayer, the entire work is lost. Wilferd Madelung has analyzed the extant fragment and identified twenty books listed in it by Noʿmān as sources (Madelung, pp. 33-40). With the exception of part of al-Kotob al-jaʿfariya, none of these works is extant. The surviving section, although comparatively small given the massive size of the original work, arguably provides valuable information about earlier collections of Shiʿite legal Hadith that have not survived the vicissitudes of time.

The crowning achievement of Noʿmān’s long and arduous efforts in collecting legal traditions came when he was commissioned by the fourth Fatimid caliph Moʿezz le-Din-Allāh to compile his most famous work, Daʿāʾem al-Eslām “The Pillars of Islam,” under the caliph’s close supervision (Poonawala, 1996, pp. 126-30). As it was proclaimed the official code of the Fatimid state, authority for the traditions in the Daʿāʾem was confined to Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq for the simple reason that Jaʿfar and the Imams preceding him were accepted as trustworthy sources by both the Sunnis and Shiʿites. Although the Daʿāʾem is a book of law, it is at the same time a collection of Ismaʿili traditions considered as authentic, and arranged according to the subject matter of feqh (jurisprudence) in the style of Imam Mālek’s al-Mowaṭṭaʾ and Kolayni’s al-Kāfi fi ʿelm al-din. It is divided into two volumes, the first dealing with ʿebādāt (worship) and the second with moʿāmalāt (worldly affairs and business transactions). It is considered by the Mostaʿli-Ṭayyebis as the greatest authority on Ismaʿili law, and has remained to the present time a source of supreme authority in legal matters. It is important to note that the Daʿāʾem contains in total approximately five hundred traditions from the Prophet, a very small number compared to Sunni works.

Another of Noʿmān’s major works is a collection of non-legal traditions which he compiled during the reign of Moʿezz le-Din-Allāh, titled Šarḥ al-aḵbār fi fażāʾel al-aʾemma al-aṭhār “Explication of traditions about the excellent qualities of the pure Imams.” It contains approximately 1,460 traditions, all of which, according to the author, are well known and authentic (described as mašhur, maʿruf, maʾṯur, ṣaḥiḥ, and ṯābet) and are related both by Sunnis (al-ʿāmm) and Shiʿites (al-ḵāṣṣ) alike. Like his previous work the Daʿāʾem, it was revised and approved by the caliph. The traditions are arranged topically and the chain of authorities is kept to the bare minimum. Two-thirds of the work deals with the fażāʾel of Iman ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb, making it one of the most detailed and comprehensive accounts of the Shiʿite case for ʿAli, and related issues. The rest of the work enumerates the fażāʾel of the ahl al-bayt, Ḵadija bt. Ḵowayled, Jaʿfar b. Abi Ṭāleb, Ḥamza b. ʿAbd-al-Moṭṭaleb and the early Imams up to Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq, and it concludes with the traditions concerning the rise of the Fatimid Caliph/Imam Mahdi from the West (i.e., North Africa). The traditions are culled from a wide variety of Hadith, maḡāzi, and siar works. Some of the sources mentioned by Noʿmān are: Ebn Esḥāq (d. 150/767), al-Maḡāzi, al-Sira; Wāqedi (d. 207/822), [al-Maḡāzi]; Ṭabari (d. 310/923), Ketāb ḏakara fihe fażāʾelʿAli [Fażāʾel ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb or Ketāb Ḡadir Ḵomm], of which more than forty pages are cited (Rosenthal, pp. 91-93); Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-Allāh Eskāfi (d. 240/854), Fi tafżil ʿAli ʿalā sāʾer al-ṣaḥāba [Ketāb al-maqālāt fi tafżil ʿAli or Ketāb fażāʾel ʿAli] (“ISKĀFĪ, ABŪ DJAʿFAR” in EI2 IV, pp. 126-27); Zobayr b. Bakkār (d. 256/870), [Nasab Qorayš or Ketāb al-mofāḵarāt] (Sezgin, I, pp. 317-18); Moḥammad b. Salām Kufi (fl., second half of the 2nd/8th century); Yaḥyā b. Salām [Ṭaymi Baṣri] (d. 200/815), al-Tafsir (Sezgin, I, pp. 39, 47). The importance of this work lies in the fact that most of the sources used by Noʿmān are no longer extant. Another work by Noʿmān titled Ketāb al-manāqeb le-ahl bayt rasul Allāh al-nojabāʾ wa’l-maṯāleb le-bani Omayya al-loʿanāʾ "The Book of the excellent qualities of the noble family of the Prophet and the unworthy qualities of the damned house of Omayya,” is interspersed with traditions.

There is no reference in Noʿmān’s works to any of the six Sunni canonical Hadith collections. This suggests that, at the time when Noʿmān was writing, these collections had probably not yet gained wide currency and acceptance. Also questions connected with the reliability of the Hadiths as well as criteria for their acceptance had not been finally settled. After Noʿmān’s works no fur-ther Hadith collection of significance was compiled by Ismaʿilis. Excessive emphasis on the bāṭeni (esoteric) sciences, identified with the ʿolum ahl al-bayt (sciences derived from the Prophet’s family), as opposed to the ẓāheri sciences (exoteric, especially Hadith and jurisprudence) probably accounts for this lack of interest. Hadith was not a crucial ingredient of religious learning among the Ismaʿilis and consequently it never assumed much importance in their later history. It may be said that Ismaʿili Hadith-collection began with Noʿmān under special circumstances dictated by the needs of the emerging Fatimid state, and also ended with him.

HADITH iv. IN SUFISM

In keeping with all other categories of Islamic literature, the writings of the Sufis are replete with not only Koranic citations but also quotations of Hadith. This holds true not only for prose texts but also for poetry, to such an extent that the correct understanding of much of Sufi verse depends on recognizing allusions made to well-known traditions of the Prophet or paraphrases of them. This permeation of Sufi literature by Hadith is comprehensible, given that the prophetic model recorded in the Hadithis regarded by the Sufis as a principal source for their discipline, second only to the Koran, for the comprehension of which the Hadith are in any event indispensable. Moreover, Sufism emerged as a distinct expression of Islamic religiosity during the same period that witnessed the compilation and sifting of Hadith, and many of the earliest Sufi authors were themselves scholars of Hadith, examples being Ḥāreṯ Moḥāsebi, Abu’l-Qāsem Jonayd, Abu ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Solami, and Abu’l-Qāsem Qošayri. This is perhaps not surprising in the case of Sufis such as these, who have been classified as “sober,” but even the most notorious of “intoxicated” Sufis such as Ḥallāj were well grounded in Hadith, making liberal, if sometimes questionable, use of them. Once the Sufis began citing the dicta of their spiritual forebears as a source of authority, they would sometimes introduce them with a chain of transmission akin to that used in Hadithscholarship. It is also likely that the citation of chains of transmission by scholars of Hadithled to the increasing use by Sufis of initiatic chains (selselas), which similarly stretched back to the Prophet in order to confirm the authenticity of their path (Aydınlı, pp. 194-200).

In the handbooks of Sufism, one or two aḥādiṯ are typically cited in the opening passage of each chapter, immediately after a Koranic citation apposite to its topic. They are also found interspersed throughout the text, often in truncated form, familiarity with the complete ḥadiṯ in questionon the part of the readerbeing assumed. The contents of the aḥādiṯ cited in Sufi texts bear, naturally enough, on distinctive concerns of Sufism, such as ethical self-improvement, the modes of invocation of God (ḏekr) and the behavioral norms (ādāb) that define the path. The sources from which theyare derived are, for the most part, the collections deemed canonical by Sunnites, and at least the first link in the chain of transmission from the Prophet is usually mentioned (although Ḥallāj cites heavenly bodies as his authorities for the aḥādiṯ that he cites).The Sufis have nonetheless often been criticized for recourse to aḥādiṯ of dubious authenticity; even the widely accepted Abu Ḥāmed Ḡazāli (q.v.) stands accused of including large numbers of spurious traditions in his Eḥyāʾ ʿolum al-din (by, for example, Ebn Qayyem al-Jawzi, 1340/1921, pp. 160, 278, 342; for an exhaustive critical analysis of the aḥādiṯ cited in the Eḥyāʾ, see Zayn-al-Din ʿErāqi’s al-Moḡni). However, it is generally agreed that the criteria governing the citation of a ḥadiṯ for the purposes of moral edification need not be as rigorous as in the context of feqh (q.v.; jurisprudence), for no legally binding act (ʿamal šarʿi) is intended to be based on such a ḥadiṯ.

The “Sacred Hadith,” or ḥadiṯ qodsi, is a category of Hadith in which the Sufis have shown particular interest. They are so called because their meaning is held to be of divine origin although the wording in which they are couched is from the Prophet. They thus contrast with those which were uttered by the Prophet without such direct inspiration (known therefore as ḥadiṯ nabawi). Sayyed Šarif Jorjāni, who himself had a Sufi affiliation, offers this definition: “With respect to meaning, it is from God Almighty, and with respect to wording, from the Messenger of God. It is that which God Almighty conveyed to His prophet by means of inspiration (el-hām), or in a dream, which he then communicated in words of his own choice. The Koran is superior to it because its wording also is revealed” (1983, pp. 83-84). The criteria for assessing and classifying the aḥādiṯ qodsiya are identical to those for the aḥādiṯ nabawiya and many of them are to be found in the canonical Sunnite collections. They are, however, infinitely fewer than the aḥādiṯ nabawiya, and they deal with a narrower range of topics, principally God and His attributes, the proper observance of devotional duties, preparation for the meeting with God in the hereafter, and the means of drawing close to Him while still in this world. It is precisely these subjects that engaged the particular interest of the Sufis.

A few Sufis compiled collections of aḥādiṯ qodsiya, prominent among them being Ebn al-ʿArabi (q.v.); during his sojourn in Mecca in 599/1203 he made a compilation of 101 traditions divided into three chapters, each of the first two containing forty hadiṯs and the third twenty one (Meškāt al-anwār, 1994). Far more common are the references to aḥādiṯ qodsiya in the course of a Sufi text. The most frequently cited of all is probably the “Hidden Treasure” tradition (ḥadiṯs-e kanz-e maḵfi), which is presented as the divine response to the Prophet David’s query about the purpose of creation, as related by the Prophet Moḥammad: “I was a hidden treasure, and I wished/loved (aḥbabto) to be known. I therefore created creation in order to be known.” Several key themes of Sufism are implicit in this, namely the divine emergence from manifest to non-manifest state, the function of creation as a means of the divine self-disclosure, the connectedness of love with gnosis, and the uniquely intimate nature of man’s relationship with God. The text of this ḥadiṯ is cited in part or in whole in a wide variety of Sufi works, including ʿAbd-Allāh Anṣāri’s Ṭabaqāt al-Ṣufiya (pp. 639, 645), ʿAyn-al-Qożāt Hamadāni’s Zobdat al-ḥaqāʾeq (pp. 265-70), Rumi’s Maṯnawi (see Foruzānfar, pp. 28-29), Ruzbehān Baqli’s Mašrab al-arwāḥ (p. 6), Najm-al-Din Rāzi’s, Merṣād al-ʿebād (pp. 49, 122, 124, 401), and ʿAlāʾ-al-Dawla Semnāni’s al-ʿOrwa le-ahl al-ḵalwa wa’l-jalwa (p. 466). Thinly veiled in paraphrase, it serves as the foundation for the opening passage in the first chapter of that profoundly influential text, Ebn al-ʿArabi’s Foṣuṣ al-ḥekam (pp. 48-49) and is accordingly discussed in the numerous commentaries elicited by the Foṣuṣ. The most detailed commentary on this hadithis that provided by Najm-al-Din Rāziin his Marmuzāt-e asadi dar mazmurāt-e dāʾudi (pp. 12-23). Scholars critical of the Sufis, such as Ebn Taymiya, Ebn Ḥajar, and Zarkaši, have argued that it cannot be authentic, since it lacks even a weak chain of transmission. However, there is nothing in its content to warrant rejection (Qāwoqji, p. 61).

Another ḥadiṯ qodsi which frequently recurs in Sufi literature, because of its promise of divine love, is “the tradition about supererogatory acts” (ḥadiṯ-e nawāfel), which reads in part: “My servant does not draw near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the devotional duties I have enjoined on him; and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works until I love him: when I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks.” It was invoked by the early Sufi Ḏu’l-Nun Meṣri, according to an 11th-century biography (Abu Noʿaym Eṣfahāni, 1932-38, IX, p. 385) alluded to in Rumi’s Maṯnawi (see Foruzānfar, pp. 18-19), and cited in ʿAbd-Allāh Anṣāri’s Ṭabaqāt al-Ṣufiyya (p. 650), Najm-al-Din Rāzi’s Marmuzāt-e asadi (p. 80), and ʿAziz-al-Din Nasafi’s al-Ensān al-kāmel (p. 136). Similar in its promise of progress to the divine presence is the following, sometimes treated as part of the preceding ḥadiṯ qodsi: “When he [My servant] approaches me by a span, I approach him by a cubit, and when he comes walking, I come running,” (cited inter alia in Sarrāj, Ketāb al-lomaʿ, p. 59; ʿAyn-al-Qożāt, Tamhidāt, p. 220; Rāzi, Merṣād al-ʿebād, p. 143; idem, Marmuzāt-e Asadi, p. 29).

Popular, too, is this ḥadiṯ qodsi which bestows on the purified heart of the believer high status as the privileged locus of a divine presence: “Neither My earth nor My heavens contain Me, but the tender and humble heart of My believing servant does contain Me.” Among many other instances, it occurs in Ḡazāli’s Eḥyāʾ (III, p. 12), Sohravardi’s ʿAwāref al-maʿāref (II, p. 520), ʿAyn-al-Qożāt’s Tamhidāt (p. 24), Rāzi’s Merṣād al-ʿebād (pp. 207, 274), as well as his Marmuzāt-e asadi (p. 46), and it is alluded to in Rumi’s Maṯnawi (see Foruzānfar, p. 26). Another ḥadiṯ qodsi that relates to the heart is the one in which God is said to affirm: “I am with those whose hearts are broken for My sake.” This is sometimes presented as God’s answer to Moses’ question, “Where should I seek You?” (Foruzānfar, p. 151). “Brokenness” is interpreted in this context to mean the volitional collapse of the ego. Primordial intimacy between Man and his Creator with respect to even his corporeal form can be deduced from the ḥadiṯ qodsi that states: “I kneaded the clay of Adam with My hands for forty days” (Foru-zānfar, p. 198; Ruzbehān Baqli, Šarḥ-e šaṭḥiyāt, p. 305; Rāzi, Merṣād al-ʿebād, pp. 65, 211, 282; idem, Marmuzāt-e asadi, p. 35).

Much favored is the ḥadiṯ qodsi which establishes the spiritual perfection manifested by the Prophet as the ultimate purpose of creation, for it is seen to confirm the Sufi concept of the ḥaqiqat al-moḥammadiya: “Were it not for you, I would not have created the firmaments” (see Foruzānfar, p. 172; Rāzi, Merṣād al-ʿebād, p. 37; Semnāni, al-ʿOrwa, p. 456). The Sufis also see the protected and hidden status of the foremost among them proclaimed by the ḥadiṯ qodsi: “My saints (awliāʾi) are beneath My domes, none knows them but Me” (Foru-zānfar, pp. 52, 85; Rāzi, Merṣād al-ʿebād, pp. 226, 242, 379, 543; Semnāni, al-ʿOrwa, p. 530).

Another genre of literature beloved of Sufis, although not cultivated exclusively or even primarily by them, consists of collections of forty ḥadiṯs. The compilation of such works came as a response to the ḥadiṯ in which the Prophet promised that whoever memorizes forty of his traditions will be counted as a scholar on the day of resurrection. The earliest collection of this type, with its contents determined by the emphases of Sufism, is that attributed to Maʿruf Karḵi (d. 200/815), namely the Fotuḥ arbaʿin (see bibliography for mss. details). Later examples of this genre include Abu Noʿaym Eṣfahāni’s Ketāb al-arbaʿin ʿalā maḏhab al-motaḥaqqeqin men al-Ṣufiya (1993), Ḥakim Termeḏi’s Nawāder al-oṣul fi aḥādiṯ al-rasul (1293/1876), and Solami’s al-Arbaʿin fi’l-taṣawwof (1950). As has been noted above, the first two chapters of Ebn al-ʿArabi’s collection of aḥādiṯ qodsiya were deliberately arranged so that they would each contain forty of them. Ebn al-ʿArabi’s pupil and interpreter, Ṣadr-al-Din Qunawi, compiled his own collection of forty aḥādiṯ, titled Šarḥ al-arbaʿin ḥadiṯ, commenting on them at some length in the terminology of his master (see Yılmaz). An unusually comprehensive work of this kind is Ḥosayn Kāšefi Sabzavāri’s al-Resālāt al-ʿaliya fi’l-aḥādiṯ al-nabawiya. Written in Persian, it is divided into eight chapters, each divided into five sections headed by a ḥadiṯ, followed by a substantial amount of expository material, including other relevant traditions together with excerpts from the Maṯnawi and other verse from both Arabic and Persian sources. It was translated twice into Turkish in the eleventh/seventeenth century. However, the Arbaʿin of Kāšefi’s contemporary and fellow Naqšbandi, ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Jāmi, was more influential. Rather than translating them or commenting on them, Jāmi paraphrased each ḥadiṯ in the form of an easily memorizable Persian quatrain, thus contributing to the purpose for which this genre had been instituted. This compendium proved to be particularly popular among the Ottomans, and at least six translations have been made of it into Turkish so far (see Karahan, 1952).

HADITH v. AS INFLUENCED BY IRANIAN IDEAS AND PRACTICES

The contact of Arabia with ancient Iran started even before Islam, and there are definite traces of the presence of Iranian religious notions in the Koran. Several points demonstrating this presence were listed by Alessandro Bausani (pp. 138 ff.), and the entire field of early Arabic literature has been surveyed by Ehsan Yarshater.

The body of Hadith contains evidence of various kinds for the contacts of the Islamic community in the early centuries of its history with Persians and Zoroastrian notions. The following paragraphs illustrate this by some examples, but as no monographic work on this subject has yet appeared, this article cannot claim to be a comprehensive study. It may be noted that no attempt is being made in this survey to distinguish between “genuine” Hadith material and the later accretions to the Hadith literature. The interest of treating this body of literature as a single undifferentiated bloc lies in the fact that, even if it does not reflect the authentic words of the Prophet, at least it contains ideas and notions current in the first period of Islam, which were considered important enough to be given the seal of approval as being the words of the Prophet himself, or of his Companions, and in some cases of Imam ʿAli.

The Hadith contains quite a few quotations of Persian words and phrases. These are clearly differentiated from the numerous Persian loan words that entered classic Arabic and became part of the language. Some representative examples may be given: hrš b’yd bwd wa-huwa be’l-fāresiya tafsirohu koll šayʾen qoddera yakun, “harča bāyad bovad,it is in Persian, and its meaning is ‘all that has been decreed will come about’ “ (Moḥammad b. Ḵa-laf, I, p. 345); al-ʿenab do do wa’l-tamr yak yak “grapes are [eaten] two by two, dates are [eaten] one by one” (ʿAli Qāri, p. 248, no. 305; also in Abu Ḥafṣ ʿOmar, p. 43, where other Persian expressions of the Prophet are quoted). In Ebn Ḥebbān’s Ketāb al-majruḥin (I, p. 291), the Prophet is quoted as saying nik nik tknyt [the last word perhaps to be read: to koni to], which possibly means: “Well, you have done well, you.” ʿOmar b. Moḥammad Mawseli also mentions the words škmt drd (you have bellyache) and swr (banquet) that, according to him, were spoken by the Prophet (IV/2, p. 269).

More interesting than these words for the topic of Iranian elements in the Hadith, but usually more difficult to pin down, are the various so-called Persian, that is to say (usually) Zoroastrian, customs and ideas, echoes of which exist in the Hadith literature. Such an echo or reminiscence can be expressed either by an Islamic adopt-ion of a Persian practice or by an explicit (or sometimes implicit) objection to and outright prohibition of such a practice. It may be remarked that the literary form of the Hadith itself, the ones consisting of short sayings quoting the Prophet’s words, is akin to the collections of Persian andarz (q.v.)texts. Even though the Hadith was for some time at the beginning strictly oral in its mode of transmission, there should be nothing surprising in talking of its literary form as well. There are of course Jewish, Christian, and Manichean analogies to the words of a spiritual authority being communicated as material to be studied and followed, but the literary form of a com-position, written or oral, devoted to the maxims of a single authority is perhaps most closely reminiscent of the Sasanian treatises devoted to the memorable say- ings (ayādgār) of sages such as Bozorgmehr-e Boḵta-gān, Ādurbād ī Mahrspandān (qq.v.), or others. The term Hadith is literally akin to the notion of logion, used for the sayings of Jesus, but it also corresponds to the notion of wāzag (saying, word), which is used for the collections of words transmitted on the authority of the great sages of Zoroastrianism. Judaism, in contrast, has no collections of the sayings pertaining to a single rabbi that might be compared to the Hadith. The chain of transmission attached to each individual maxim seems to be a Muslim novelty in this genre of literature.

Some examples for practices and notions that refer to Persia, or are borrowed from Persia in the Hadith literature, or for which there is at least a strong probability of such a borrowing, are the following:

(A) The use of the Persian language became a subject for Prophetic maxims, some of which, as is often the case in the Hadith literature, lend support for the use of Persian while others express objection to its use. One explicit prohibition refers to writing a codex of the Koran in Persian (Šaṭṭā Demyāṭi, I, p. 65; cf. Shaked, 1992, p. 148-49). We also read “When God wishes (to convey) something with softness in it, He reveals it to the angels in His presence in dari Persian; but when he wishes (to convey) something which has harshness in it, He reveals it in manifest Arabic,” and “when God is angry, He reveals His message in Arabic; when He is pleased, He reveals it in Persian” (Shaked, 1992, p. 149, with reference to sources).

(B) The prohibition to walk with one shoe is a clear case of an Iranian idea in the Hadith literature. It occurs in several places in Arabic literature (Hayṯami, V, p. 139; Ṭahāwi, II, pp. 141-43; Fākehi, fol. 507b; Maʿmar b. Rašid, fol. 143b; ʿIsā b. Jarrāḥ, Jozʾ, Ms. Chester Beatty 3495, fol. 34b; Badr-al-Din Zarkaši, p. 65; see also the material quoted in Goldziher, 1896-99, I, p. 49, n. 4). This injunction is formulated in very strong terms in the Zoroastrian books in Pahlavi (e.g., Mēnōg ī xrad 1.37; Šāyest nē šāyest 4.12; Bundahišn, TD, 183.8; Pahlavi Rivāyat 11.2; Ardā Wirāz-nāmag 25.3). The prohibition in Persia and Islam has caused some confusion and misunderstanding among scholars (for a discussion of the scholarly literature see Shaked, 1992, p. 151 and n. 45). Its occurrence in both cultures, however, leaves no room for doubt that what is meant is literally that one should strictly avoid walking with one shoe, and it seems likely that in the Iranian tradition this was associated with the practice of the demons. An echo of this is found in the Arabic expression which describes walking with one shoe “the clothing fashion of Satan” (Goldziher, 1896-99, I, p. 50).

(C) The Islamic tradition forbids one to urinate while standing; one place, where several traditions for and against this practice are quoted, is in Badr-al-Din Zarkaši (pp. 86-87), but the theme is widespread in the Hadith literature. The same injunction is found stressed in Zoroastrian literature (e.g., Pahlavi Rivāyat 11.3; Ardā Wīrāz-nāmag 25.3; Mēnōg ī xrad 2.37; for comments on this see Ardā Wīrāz-nāmag, p. 253, and Williams’s edition of the Pahlavi Rivāyat II, p. 144; cf. Shaked, 1992, p. 152). Ebn Qotayba Dinavari (III, p. 221) mentions this as a Persian custom. The same idea is also attested in the Jewish Talmudic literature (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot, 40a), and it is possible, although not entirely certain, that this is a Persian custom that was borrowed by both the Jewish and the Muslim traditions.

(D) There are several places in Arabic literature where the prohibition to show too much grief after the passing away of a close relative is expressed. The reason given is that this hampers the dead person’s passage to the next world. This is discussed by Goldziher (1900, p. 129) and Louis Gray, (p. 169), but it has received the most exhaustive treatment by Fritz Meier, (pp. 207-29), who considers a Zoroastrian connection but is not entirely convinced that this is a case of direct influence. The Islamic idea is paralleled by a similar notion attested in Zoroastrianism (cf. Ardā Wīrāz-nāmag 16.7-10, and further evidence in Meier’s article, pp. 219 ff.). In Zoroastrianism this sentiment is part of the general notion that gloom and despondency are demonic sentiments, and that one should avoid, as far as possible, feeling sad and dejected (references in Shaked, 1992, p. 144, n. 12; cf. also the remarks of Goldziher, 1900, p. 129).

(E) The idea of the heavenly ascent of the Prophet, the meʿrāj,an important theme in the Islamic traditional literature, has been shown (see Blochet, 1899) to have close Iranian parallels in the book Ardā Wīrāz-nāmag. We now know that the importance of this theme in Sasanian Zoroastrianism goes much deeper and wider, for the discovery of Kirdēr’s inscriptions showed that heavenly journeys in order to obtain visions of the other world and to propagate the truths that can be deducted from them were a major religious preoccupation of the early Sasanian period. A contemporary Jewish parallel exists to this phenomenon, in the form of the Hekhalot literature (some brief remarks in Shaked, 1994, pp. 49 f.), which are also concentrated on visions of the superior worlds undertaken by a few selected individuals. It is possible here again to think of an Iranian idea that might have found echoes in different milieus. Since early Islam was also open to Jewish ideas, it cannot be excluded that we have here a double channel of transmission of ideas into Islam, through both Zoroastrian and Jewish traditions, the latter itself perhaps carrying some Zoroastrian ideas. A telling detail is the name of the celestial mount of Moḥammad, Borāq, in the story of his meʿrāj. It is of Persian origin, derived probably from *barāg or bārag “a riding beast, mount” (New Pers. bāra), but used in Arabic exclusively for the proper name of the animal in this particular story (cf. Blochet, 1899, p. 213). It may be noted that the descriptions of the heavenly ascent of the Prophet remain somewhat isolated in Islamic literature until a similar theme is taken up by the early mystics, who experienced other-worldly journeys and visions of the beyond. Among the earliest ones are Abu Yazid Besṭāmi (d. 234/848 or 261/875, see BESṬĀMĪ, BĀYAZĪD) and Abu ʿAbd-Allāh Moḥammad b. Ḵafif (d. 371/982), and it may not be a pure accident that both of them were of Iranian extraction (ʿAṭṭār, pp. 202-7; Daylami, pp. 190-91). The visionary literature in Persia, Islam, and Judaism, has been connected by several scholars with the phenomenon of Shamanism.

(F) The precise counting of the weight of merit accrued by the performance of individual good deeds is typical of the Zoroastrian texts and of several sayings attributed to the Prophet in the Hadith, and the tendency to use certain model numbers, such as 33 or other numbers based on multiplication of 3 (Darmesteter, I, p. 13, n. 36; Mālek b. Anas, al-Mowaṭṭaʾ I, p. 81, Boḵāri, Fażāʾel al-aṣḥāb, no. 10, and Abu Ṭāleb Makki, Qut al-qolub I, p. 83, apud Goldziher, 1900, pp. 130-33).

(G) The imposition of five daily prayers in Islam has been shown by Goldziher (1900, pp. 132-33) to be a development due to Zoroastrian influence.

(H) Ignaz Goldziher, (1900, pp. 145-46) argued that the choice of Friday as a special day, but not a day of rest, is due to the influence of Zoroastrian polemics against the idea of the Jews that God needed a rest after the creation of the world. This seems questionable, as the Zoroastrian polemics are only attestedin Mardān-Farrox ī Ōhrmazddādān’s Škand gumānīg wizār,a composition of the post-period. It may, however, be speculated that the sixth day of the week, that is, Friday, acquired a special place under the influence of the Iranian view of six, nine or twelve millennia, all multiples of three, which constitute the full chronology of the world’s existence, up to and including eschatology. There is, however, no evidence from Zoroastrian sources for a special dignity given to the sixth day, and it should be remarked that the idea of a week as it is observed in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is absent from Zoroastrianism (see HAFTA).

(I) The Hadith literature insists on the use of a tooth-pick, called in Arabic meswāk or sewāk (a word which is probably derived ultimately from an unattested Middle Persian word *sawāg), as a great virtue to which several religious advantages are attributed: It was a tradition of the prophets (men sonan al-morsalin), enrages Satan, the value of a prayer when preceded by the rubbing of the teeth with a tooth-pick is greatly enhanced, and the burden of a dying person is made lighter when the teeth are cleaned with this instrument (Yaʿqubi, Taʾriḵ, II, p. 121; Goldziher, 1900, pp. 133-35). This is an equally important Zoroastrian practice of purity. The instrument with which it is associated is called dandān-frašn or dandān-frēš in the Pahlavi sources (see Šāyest nē šāyest 10.20, 12.13, with the editor’s notes, where further references are given; Dādestān ī dēnīg,purs. 39.6; Pahlavi Texts, ed. Jamasp-Asana, pp. 123 f., secs. 18-19; some further material is in Shaked, 1992, p. 149, n. 35).

Several practices enjoined or condemned in the Hadith can best be explained as a reaction against Persian customs or ideas. Here are some examples:

(J) A strong aversion is expressed with regard to dogs in some of the traditions attributed to the Prophet, to the point that it is recounted that the Prophet ordered to kill all the dogs of Medina, especially those with a dark color (references and other material in Goldziher, 1900, pp. 135-37). It is further reported, apparently in an effort to harmonize conflicting traditions, that the Prophet first ordered to kill all dogs, but then forbade the killing of dogs, and only warned against “a black, dark dog, with two dots over its eyes” (Jāḥeẓ, I, p. 292). Islamic commentators were at a loss to explain the source of this attitude, and in fact there are also expressions of fondness for dogs in the Islamic literature. There are even, as shown by Goldziher, reports of dogs being allowed into the mosques at the time of the Prophet (Goldziher, 1900, p. 136, with references). The negative attitude toward dogs is most probably a reaction to the favorable treatment of dogs in Zoroastrianism, where a dog is regarded as an animal with particularly good qualities and a special affinity with man (on the dignity of dogs in the Zoroastrian view, see Boyce, Zoroastrianism I, pp. 302-3; idem, 1977, passim; see also DOGS ii). The function of a dog is essential in the ritual surrounding death. A prominent part of that ritual requires that a dog, specifically one with two dots over its eyes, be brought to “look” at the corpse of a newly dead person (this is known in Zoroastrian ritual as sagdid); and it is said that this has the merit of driving away the demons from the corpse (Šāyest nē šāyest 2.1-3, 56, 63, 84-85; 10.10, 2-33; cf. Boyce, Zoroastrianism I, pp. 303-4; idem, 1977, pp. 140, 149, 151).

(K) There are Hadith traditions that forbid the killing of frogs (Zamaḵšari, IV, p. 441). In Zoroastrianism the killing of noxious creatures, called xrafstar (Av. xrafstra-), among which the frogs are considered to be the worst representatives of the demons, is thought to carry great merit (cf. Boyce, Zoroastrianism I, pp. 91-91, with reference to primary sources).

(L) There is a prohibition in the Hadith against the use of a Persian bow (Mottaqi Hendi, IV, pp. 213-14, nos. 1756-58), although other views are also mentioned.

(M) A prohibition to stay in a house where Persian luxuries are in sight is found in the Hadith (Aḥmad b. Moḥammad b. Ḥanbal, pp. 83, 85). This prohibition reflects an ascetic tendency that is found in the early period of Islam, and at the same time it indicates the association that must have existed in the minds of many Arabs in that period of fine ornaments and other luxuries with Iranian culture.

(N) There is an early injunction, attributed to the caliph ʿOmar b. al-Ḵaṭṭāb, against employing in prayer what is known as raṭānat al-ʿajam, a term which indicates praying in an indistinct manner, like the Persians (Ebn Tay-miyya, pp. 199-200). The term raṭāna was borrowed into Arabic from Syriac reṭnā, where it was also used to designate the Zoroastrian mode of praying (Greenfield, pp. 63-69; Shaked, 1992, p. 149).

(O) We also come across a prohibition to celebrate Nowruz and Mehragān, with the warning that those who celebrate them will be find themselves among the impious on the day of Resurrection (Ebn Taymiya, pp. 199-200).

This is not by any means an exhaustive list of the Iranian elements in the Hadith, but it may be taken to be representative of what may still be found in the vast Hadith literature.