On The “Versions” Of Mālik's Muwaṭṭaʾ

M S M Saifullah, Hesham Azmy & Muḥammad Ghoniem

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 22nd May 2004

Last Updated: 26th June 2004

submit to reddit

Assalamu ʿalaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

It has become increasingly common for Christian missionaries to attack Islam by employing the polemics of the so-called the "Qur'an-only sect," a group that rejects ḥadīth literature as one of the sources of Islamic law. Prominent among such writings is the work of one Dr. Kamal Omar. Taking a cue from Dr. Omar, these Christian missionaries have claimed that "many traditions" by "unreliable" narrators were inserted into the Ṣaḥīḥ of al-Bukhārī upon his death. This claim was systematically critiqued and found to be without merit. In this essay, we will examine another claim by Dr. Omar, which concerns the Muwaṭṭaʾ, a treatise of Islamic law by the Medinan jurist, Mālik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH / 795 CE). The new claim, much like the previous one, has been recycled by the missionaries. Dr. Omar says:

It is because of this tampering with the books of Hadith that we do not get any uniformity in the bulk of this literature. To give another example, the Muwatta which is said to be Hadith-collection of Imam Malik is not one uniform Muwatta. There are more than one Muwatta-books and they drastically differ from one another.[1]

Commenting on Dr. Omar's writing, "Brother Mark" writes:

Indeed, one publication of Muwatta here in the U.K. - that of Islamic Academy U.K. - has notes relating how this one was chosen from among 50 ʿversions' of the Muwatta, and only 16 were considered "best transmitted".

Andrew Vargo, taking a clue from "Brother Mark's" writing, tauntingly asks:

... which of these 16 "best transmitted" editions of the Muwatta of Malik represents your authentic "early Hadith"? Personally, I do not trust the historical accuracy or authenticity of any of these versions. But, as you say, God knows best!

Not surprisingly, neither Dr. Omar nor the missionaries who resort to his writings have provided any evidence to show that the Muwaṭṭaʾ is "a collection hadiths" and that the "versions" of the Muwaṭṭaʾ are "drastically different" from one another. No books that deal with the Muwaṭṭaʾ and its "versions" are quoted and neither is any effort made to show the "drastic" differences between the "versions". This unfortunate laziness is representative of Dr. Omar's writings and no less representative of the work of polemical Christian missionaries who rely on his work, as we have noted earlier. In this essay, we will verify the claim that the "Muwaṭṭaʾ is said to be the hadith collection of Imām Mālik," along with a claim concerning the multiple "versions" of the Muwaṭṭaʾ, and verify if the "versions" are indeed "drastically" different from one another.

2. What Is The Muwaṭṭaʾ?

The Muwaṭṭaʾ, a title given by Mālik himself,[2] is one of the earliest formulation of Islamic law as well as being one the earliest collection of ḥadīths. Even though Muwaṭṭaʾ contains both legal judgements and ḥadīths, it is neither a book of fiqh nor a book of ḥadīth.[3] Muḥammad Zubayr Siddiqi says:

... the Muwaṭṭaʾ was not intended to serve as collection of ḥadīths. But it may be said with equal justice that it is not a book of fiqh in the same sense in which later books on fiqh are said to be works on the subject.[4]

Similarly, Mustafa al-Azami says:

Muwaṭṭaʾ is not purely a ḥadīth book. It contains the aḥadith of the Prophet, legal opinions of the Companions and the Successors and of some later authorities.[5]

In his introduction to the Muwaṭṭaʾ, Goldziher says:

The Muwaṭṭaʾ cannot be regarded as the first great collection of traditions in Islam, nor does it appear to have been considered as such in Muslim literature.... The work of Mālik is in fact not in the proper sense a collection of traditions, forming a counterpart to the sahihs of the next century, nor one which could, from the point of view of the literary historian, be mentioned as a member of the same literary group. It is a corpus juris, not a corpus traditionum.... Its intention is not to sift and collect the healthy elements of the traditions circulating in the Islamic world but to illustrate the law, ritual and religious practice, by the ijmaʿ recognized in Medinan Islam, by the sunna current in Medina...[6]

The Muwaṭṭaʾ is a compendium of accepted principles, precepts and precedents which has become established as the ʿamal of Madinah. The name Muwaṭṭaʾ means "the well-trodden [path]", i.e., the path followed and agreed upon by the scholars of Madinah up to and including the time of Mālik.[7]

It should be pointed out that some Muslim authorities such as Ibn al-Athīr, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr and ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Dihlawī included the Muwaṭṭaʾ in the six canonical collection in the place of the Sunan of Ibn Maja. The majority, however, do not include the Muwaṭṭaʾ among the six canonical collections, because almost all the important traditions contained in it are included in the Ṣaḥīḥs of al-Bukhari and Muslim.[8]

3. Reason For Different Transmissions Of The Muwaṭṭaʾ

The reason for different transmissions ("riwayah") of the Muwaṭṭaʾ can be known if one understands that Mālik did not produce the Muwaṭṭaʾ in one sitting. He spent more than 30 years, making serious editorial changes in the Muwaṭṭaʾ as opposed the implicit assumption of a fixed text of the Muwaṭṭaʾ by Dr. Omar and his Christian missionary counterparts:

The Muwaṭṭaʾ in its final form is the result of lifetime spent by Mālik in gathering and disseminating this knowledge of Madinan ʿamal, of which it is the distillation. The basic text was in place by the year 150 AH, but underwent serious editorial changes over the next thirty years which are reflecting in various transmissions that have survived today.[9]

That Mālik used to revise his Muwaṭṭaʾ regularly, year after year, as mentioned in many Islamic sources and especially those dealing with the Māliki school of jurisprudence. Qādī ʿIyād in his Tartīb al-Madarik says:

ʿAtiq al-Zubayrī said: "Mālik included some ten thousand ḥadīths in his Muwaṭṭaʾ. Each year he would revise it and drop some narrations from therein so much so that we are left with this amount of it. Had he lived longer he would have dropped the rest of it."[10]

He also adds:

Sulayman Ibn Bilal said: "When Mālik wrote the Muwaṭṭaʾ, it included four thousand ḥadīths - or did he say more than four thousand ḥadīths. When he died, it contained one thousand and some ḥadīths, as he screened it year after year according to what he believes fulfills the interest of the Muslims and that of the religion."[11]

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr in his Al-Tamhīd says:

... On authority of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Wāhid, the companion of Al-Awzaʿī, that he said: We displayed the Muwaṭṭaʾ before Mālik in forty days. He [Mālik] said: "A book whom I authored in forty years, you took in forty days. Little indeed is what you consider in it!"[12]

The fact that the Muwaṭṭaʾ has a number of transmissions is hardly a revelation. As early as 350 AH, the great ḥadīth scholar al-Daraqutnī compiled a book giving the ḥadīths in different transmissions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. His work was published and was entitled Aḥadith al-Muwaṭṭaʾ wa-Ittifaq al-Ruwat ʿan Mālik wa-Ikhtilafuhum fiha Ziyādatan wa-Naqsan[13] ("The Aḥadith of Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ: The Agreement of Narrators from Mālik and Their Differences in Terms of Addition and Omission").

Given the fact that Mālik revised the Muwaṭṭaʾ year after year, it is very likely that two students hearing the Muwaṭṭaʾ and then transmitting it, one during Mālik's early life and the other towards the end of his life, will hear two very different versions of the same book simply because Mālik was constantly in the process of adding and subtracting from the text. This is the principal reason for the differences between the transmissions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Keeping this in mind let us now move over to various transmissions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.

4. Transmissions Of The Muwaṭṭaʾ

The number of people who transmitted the Muwaṭṭaʾ in its entirety directly from Mālik exceed over ninety. Al-Zurqānī mentions 81 names; Qādī ʿIyād adds 8 more names; al-Nayfar (through Ibn Tulun) adds another four; making a possible 93 names.[14] But the number of transmissions known to us through the existing texts and quotations of the authors is considerably less. The modern editors of the Muwaṭṭaʾ mention between fourteen and sixteen transmissions.[15] The most important of them are listed below:[16]

1. Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī (d. 234). Yaḥyā studied the Muwaṭṭaʾ under Mālik during the last year of Mālik's life (i.e., 179 AH) and his transmission therefore represents the text as Mālik was teaching it at the end of his life. It is by far the best known transmission and is the one that is generally meant when reference is made to 'the Muwaṭṭaʾ'. It has been published many times.

2. Al-Shaybānī (d. 189). This transmission is usually referred as "the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Muḥammad" (i.e., Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī), rather than as his transmission of Mālik's Muwaṭṭaʾ. This transmission, which differs markedly from the others, has also been published several times. We will discuss the reason for differences between al-Shaybānī's transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ below.

3. Ibn Bukayr (d. 231). This transmission was published under the title Muwaṭṭaʾ al-Imām al-Mahdi by the Gouvernement General de l'Algerie (Algiers, 1323/1905). The copies of this transmission are extremely rare.

4. ʿAlī ibn Ziyād (d. 183). This is one of the earliest known transmissions, having been transmitted from Mālik before 150 AH. An early parchment fragment of this transmission (dated 288 AH) containing chapters on game and slaughtered animals (al-sayd wa-l-dhaba'ih) has recently been edited and published.[17] This transmission is again remarkably similar to that of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā but not quite as much as al-Qaʿnabī, Abū Musʿab and to a lesser extent Suwayd.

5. Al-Qaʿnabī (d. 221). This is said to be the longest (akbar) transmission. A number of chapters of this transmission, corresponding to the initial portion of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā's transmission up to and including the section on iʿtikāf as well as a few chapters from the section on business transactions (buyuʿ) have recently been edited and published. This transmission is quite similar to that of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā.

6. Abū Musʿab al-Zuhrī (d. 242). Abū Musʿab is said to have been the last to have related the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Mālik and, indeed, his transmission is very close to that of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā. A manuscript of this transmission in Hyderabad, India, has recently been edited and published.

7. Suwayd al-Hadathanī (d. 240). The incomplete, but substantial, fragment of this transmission in the Zahiriyya library in Damascus has recently been edited and published. This transmission is close to that of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā, but not as close to it as those of al-Qaʿnabi and Abū Muʿsab, there being greater divergence of wording and also a seeming omission of several reports contained in the other three.

8. Ibn al-Qāsim (d. 191). Fragments of this transmission, including a large part of the section on business transactions (for which knowledge Ibn al-Qāsim was famous), exist in manuscript form in Tunis and Qayrawan. Al-Qabisi's Mulakhkhas (or Mulakhkhis), which contains all the musnad ḥadīths from this transmission, has recently been published under the title Muwaṭṭaʾ al-Imām Mālik ibn Anas Riwāyat Ibn al-Qāsim wa Talkhis al-Qabisi. According to Schacht, this transmission closely resembles that of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā.[18]

9. Ibn Wahb (d. 197). According to Schacht, the published fragments of Ṭabarī's Kitāb Ikhtilāf al-Fuqaha contain 'fairly comprehensive' extracts from the transmission of Ibn Wahb on the subjects of jihad and jizya. Schacht says that this transmission 'follows that of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā quite closely'.[19] Schacht also considered the manuscript fragment in Qayrawan entitled Kitāb al-Muharaba min Muwaṭṭaʾ ʿAbdallāh ibn Wahb to be part of Ibn Wahb's transmission of Mālik's Muwaṭṭaʾ.[20] However, it now seems clear from the the recent edition of this fragment published by Muranyi that it is part of Ibn Wahb's own "Muwaṭṭaʾ" rather than his transmission of Mālik's book, for this text, as well as containing distinctively 'Muwattan' material - such as reports containing expressions relating to Madinan ʿamal - also contains extensive materil now recorded specifically in either the Mudawwana or the ʿUtbiyya. Indeed much of the material is closer textually to the Mudawwana than to the Muwaṭṭaʾ. Given the basic similarity between the known transmissions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ - including according to Schacht, the other fragments of Ibn Wahb's transmission available - one has to conclude, with Muranyi, that this particular text is not the part of Ibn Wahb's transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik but rather of his own Muwaṭṭaʾ.

Of all the published transmissions, the transmission that shows the most marked differences from others is undoubtedly that of al-Shaybānī. Firstly, the order, chapter divisions and the titles used for his material are very different from those of the other transmission that we know. Secondly, and more importantly, al-Shaybānī consistently excludes Mālik's own comments and references to Madinan ʿamal (as well as excluding other reports, especially from the Successors, but also, on occasions, ḥadīths from the Prophet) and, instead, includes his own refereces to the views of Abū Hanifa and the fuqaha of Kufa, often adding his own ḥadīths. Thus in the transmissions of Yaḥyā, al-Qaʿnabi, Abū Musʿab and Suwayd for instance, the various sections on tayammum and reciting when praying behind an imam (to take random examples) are almost identical in content (although that of Suwayd somewhat less so than others), whereas al-Shaybānī, although retaining the Prophetic and Companion ḥadīths excludes all the comments by Mālik, adds his own comments, and, in the case of second section mentioned, adds thirteen more ḥadīths from various authorities (including the Prophet). In his chapter on liʿan, al-Shaybānī only relates one Prophetic ḥadīth from Mālik, to which he adds a comment that this is in accord with the Kufan position, whereas Yaḥyā's and Abū Musʿab's transmission contains, in addition to the short ḥadīth, another much longer one about the sabab al-nuzul of the liʿan verses (which does not accord with the Kufan position), a quotation from Mālik of the verses in question, and numerous reports from his concerning details arising from the same.

Al-Shaybānī's editing is even more evident when we consider ʿAli ibn Ziyād's transmission, which, although some thirty years earlier than Yaḥyā's, is nevertheless remarkably similar to it (although perhaps not quite as much as those of al-Qaʿnabi, Abū Musʿab, and, to a lesser extent, Suwayd): the chapter on 'Game of the Sea' (ṣayd al-baḥr) and 'The Aqiqa Sacrifice', for instance (to take random examples), are very similar to those in the other transmissions (although Ibn Ziyād) includes some extra comments from Mālik). Al-Shaybānī, on the other hand, excludes most of the later, i.e., post-Companion - material and again adds his own comments. It would seem clear that the difference is that whereas Yaḥyā, al-Qaʿnabi, Suwayd, Abū Musʿab and ʿAli ibn Ziyād agreed with Mālik's madhhab and method - or at least with the presentation of his material - al-Shaybānī did not, but chose rather to include in his version only that material which he considered useful for his own teaching purposes, i.e., which accorded with what was taught in Iraq. In other words, al-Shaybānī was firmly commited to Kufan fiqh. Due to these reasons al-Shaybānī's transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is usually referred to as "the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Muḥammad", rather than his transmission of Mālik.

Al-Shaybānī's transmission is thus very much, as Goldziher puts it, "a revision and critical development of Mālik's work",[21] and clearly his choice of what material to transmit was occasioned by the theoretical concerns of the Kufans, who preferred ḥadīths from the Prophet and the Companions to the opinions of the later authorities and/or the ʿamal of the people of Madina.

As far as the basic content is concerned, the transmission of al-Shaybānī is remarkably similar to that of Yaḥyā bin Yaḥyā, ʿAli bin Ziyād, al-Qaʿnabi, Suwayd and Abū Musʿab. The minor differences between them are not surprising given the fact we know now the Muwaṭṭaʾ for Mālik was primarily a text for teaching which he used for that purpose for over thirty years or so, during which he made editorial changes. Making comparisons between various transmissions, Dutton says:

... the overall similarity between the different transmissions speak highly for the authenticity of the text and its attribution to Mālik.[22]

Examples of comparison between various transmissions can be seen in Dutton's study on "Juridical Practice and Madinan ʿAmal: Qada' in the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik".[23]

A further comment needs to be added concerning the "unfavourable impression of the reliability of Islamic tradition in the second century" as gained by Goldziher from different transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ.[24] He criticized Mālik for his alleged looseness in his methods of transmission. However, Goldziher's comments were based on the two transmission available to him, i.e., of Yaḥyā bin Yaḥyā and al-Shaybānī. We have already seen that these two hardly form an archetypal pair. If Goldziher would have had the access to the transmission of al-Qaʿnabi, Abū Musʿab, Suwayd and Ibn Ziyād, for instance, he would have doubtlessly arrived at a different conclusion.

Following a similar line as that of Goldziher, Schacht said that it was not Mālik who fashioned the text; rather it was his students who modelled the text according to their own ways.[25] Commenting on the differences between the transmission of the text, Schacht claimed that "in those days very little stress was laid on an accurate repetition of such texts and great liberty was taken by the transmitters".[26] As with Goldziher, Schacht's observation about the differences between the transmissions are due to the transmitters is true for the case of al-Shaybānī, but would not seem to apply to the transmissions of ʿAli ibn Ziyād, whose chapter headings are less detailed than Yaḥyā's but whose main text, even though considerably earlier, is remarkably similar, or al-Qaʿnabi, Abū Musʿab and Suwayd, whose chapter headings and the main text are all very close if not almost identical to Yaḥyā's.[27] Furthermore, Schacht admits that the transmissions of Ibn Wahb and Ibn al-Qāsim closely resemble the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Yaḥyā bin Yaḥyā.[28]

5. The Authenticity Of The Muwaṭṭaʾ

Now that the issue of alleged "drastic" differences between the "versions" of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is refuted, let us now turn our attention to the authenticity of the text. The erroneous claim of Dr. Omar and his minions concerning the "drastic" differences between the "versions" of the Muwaṭṭaʾ has also bearing upon the authenticity of the text of the Muwaṭṭaʾ itself. There is considerable amount of evidence that the Muwaṭṭaʾ is not only a product of Mālik in Madina before his death in 179 AH, but was also substantially in place before the year 150 AH. The evidence for this is following:

A. Papyrus Fragment of the Muwaṭṭaʾ from Second Century AH: Nabia Abbott published a papyri of the Muwaṭṭaʾ that she dates by textual evidence, in particular the characteristics of the script and most significantly in her opinion, the consistent use of ʿan in the isnads together with the absence of initial transmission formula such as qala, akhbarani, haddathani, etc.

This fragment is present in the Austrian National Museum, Vienna and is classified as PERF no. 731 and is called "the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik ibn Anas". Below are the recto and verso sides of the papyrus fragment.

PERF No. 731, "the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik ibn Anas". Recto Side.

PERF No. 731, "the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik ibn Anas". Verso Side.

The fragment has been dated to Mālik's own day in the second half of the second century AH. She says:

Thus the paleography, the scribal practices, the text, the order of the traditions and the isnad terminology in the papyrus show a remarkable degree of conformity with the scholarly practices of Mālik and his contemporaries. On the strength of this internal evidence the papyrus folio can be safely assigned to Mālik's own day.... The codex represented by our folio therefore originated sometime during the quarter century or so that elapsed between the writing of the Shaibani and the Laithi recensions and hence must represent one of the many lost recensions of that interval. Inasmuch as the papyrus text shows only minor variations from the printed text of the Laithi vulgate it is even possible that it represents the vulgate text as it was before it received....[29]

The fragment also shows slight difference in the "order of traditions" , which can easily be explained by assuming a different transmission of the text.

B. Similarity of Content & Diverse Geographical Location of Transmitters: As mentioned earlier, ʿAli ibn Ziyād's is the earliest known transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ and a fragment dated 288 AH was published recently.[30] ʿAli ibn Ziyād, who is also credited with being the first to introduce the Muwaṭṭaʾs into Ifriqiya, returned to Tunis in 150 AH, which year his transmission must therefore predate.[31] A comparison of Ibn Ziyād's tranmission (the earliest one) with later transmissions currently available either wholly or partly in printed form as discussed above (those of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā, al-Shaybānī, al-Qaʿnabi, Suwayd and Abū Musʿab), shows, as mentioned above, remarkable similarities in their basic content and thus clearly represent one text. Furthermore, when they were transmitting this text, ʿAli ibn Ziyād was in Tunis, Yaḥyā bin Yaḥyā in Cordoba, al-Shaybānī in various parts of Iraq, Syria and Khurasan, al-Qaʿnabi in Basra (or perhaps Makka), Suwayd in al-Haditha in northern Iraq, Abū Musʿab in Madina, and Ibn Bukayr, Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn Wahb in Egypt, the common link from which these transmission could have derived is precisely that which is claimed in the sources to be the case, i.e., Mālik in Madina.[32]

C. Transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ & its Commentaries: The evidence of numerous individuals transmitting the Muwaṭṭaʾ directly from Mālik and several commentaries being written on it comes from the biographical literature. From the biographical sources, we have seen that the number of people who transmitted the Muwaṭṭaʾ in its entirety directly from Mālik exceed over ninety. As for the commentaries, for example, an early parchment fragment of Ibn Wahb's (d. 190 AH) Tafsir Gharib al-Muwaṭṭaʾ[33] dated 293 AH and a fragment of al-Akhfash's (d. before 250 AH) Tafsir Gharib al-Muwaṭṭaʾ[34] exist in Qayrawan. Furthermore, extensive fragments of Ibn Muzayn's (d. 259 AH) Tafsir al-Muwaṭṭaʾ compiled from the commentaries of ʿIsa ibn Dinar (d. 212 AH), Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā (d. 234 AH), Muḥammad ibn ʿIsa (d. 218 AH) and Asbagh ibn al-Faraj (d. 225 AH) exist, again in, Qayrawan.[35] These transmissions and commentaries would not have been possible had the text not existed at the first place.

6. Conclusions

It was claimed by Dr. Omar and the Christian missionaries that the Muwaṭṭaʾ is "a collection ḥadīths" and that the "versions" of the Muwaṭṭaʾ are "drastically different" from one another. Regrettably, neither Dr. Omar nor the missionaries produced any evidence to support their claim.

On the contrary, we have seen that the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik is neither a collection of ḥadīths nor a book of fiqh in the traditional sense. The name Muwaṭṭaʾ means "the well-trodden [path]" and illustrates the record of accepted principles, precepts and precedents which has become established as the ʿamal of Madinah. It was also shown that the reason for different transmissions of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is due to Mālik making serious editorial changes in it for more than 30 years. Hence it is very likely that two students hearing the Muwaṭṭaʾ and then transmitting it, one during Mālik's early life and the other towards the end of his life, will hear two very different versions of the same book simply because Mālik was constantly in the editing the text year after year.

As far as the basic content of the text is concerned, all the transmission are remarkably similar as opposed to the claim of "drastic" differences between the versions. The most marked difference visible in the transmission of Muwaṭṭaʾ is that of al-Shaybānī's when compared with other transmissions. Al-Shaybānī's choice of what material to transmit in his riwayah was guided by the theoretical concerns of the Kufans, who preferred ḥadīths from the Prophet and the Companions to the opinions of the later authorities and/or the ʿamal of the people of Madina. Therefore, his transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ shows extensive editing. Hence it is not surprising that al-Shaybānī's transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is usually referred to as "the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Muḥammad".

The authenticity of the text was established by showing the existence of a papyrus fragment of the Muwatta dating from Mālik's own time. The similarity of the content, the diverse location of numerous transmitters and the presence of early commentaries clearly establish the common link going back to the person from whom the text began, namely, Imām Mālik of Madinah.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Abū Hudhayfa for giving them interesting information about the Muwaṭṭaʾ and that enabled us to write a comprehensive refutation. We are also grateful to the Austrian National Library, Vienna, for providing us the manuscript.

And Allah knows best!

Bookmark and Share


References

[1] Dr. K. Omar, Deep Into The Quran With A Non-Committal, Non-Sectarian, Scholastic Mind Discovers The Pristine And Is, Therefore, Much Ahead Of Our Times, 1987, Karachi, p. 286.

[2] M. M. Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications (Indianapolis), pp. 298-299.

[3] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwaṭṭaʾ And Madinan ʿAmal, 1999, Curzon Press: Richmond (UK), p. 22.

[4] M. Z. Siddiqi, Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features, 1993, The Islamic Texts Society, p. 8.

[5] M. M. Azami, Studies In Hadith Methodology And Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications (Indianapolis), p. 82.

[6] I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, George Allen & Unwin Ltds.: London (UK), p. 198.

[7] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwaṭṭaʾ And Madinan ʿAmal, 1999, op. cit., p. 22; J. Schacht, "Mālik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, E. J. Brill: Leiden, p. 264.

[8] M. Z. Siddiqi, Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features, 1993, op. cit., p. 8.

[9] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwaṭṭaʾ And Madinan ʿAmal, 1999, op. cit., p. 22.

[10] ʿIyad Ibn Musa Ibn ʿIyad al-Sabti, Tartib al-Madarik wa-Taqrib al-Masalik li-Maʿrifat aʿlam Madhhab Mālik, 1966(?), Volume II, Silsilah al-Tarikhiyah: Rabat (Morocco), p. 73.

[11] ʿIyad Ibn Musa Ibn ʿIyad al-Sabti, Tartib al-Madarik wa-Taqrib al-Masalik li-Maʿrifat aʿlam Madhhab Mālik, 1966(?), Volume II, op. cit., p. 73; also see Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Baqi al-Zurqānī, Sharh ʿala Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muwaṭṭaʾ li-Mālik ibn Anas, 1893, Volume I, Al-Qahirah, p. 8.

[12] Abi ʿUmar Yusuf Ibn ʿAbdullah Ibn Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr al-Namari al-Andalusi, Al-Tamhid li-ma fi al-Muwaṭṭaʾ min al-Maʿani wa-al-Asanid, 1967, Volume I, Al-Shu'un al-Islamiyyah: Rabat (Morocco). p. 78; also see ʿIyad Ibn Musa Ibn ʿIyad al-Sabti, Tartib al-Madarik wa-Taqrib al-Masalik li-Maʿrifat aʿlam Madhhab Mālik, 1966(?), Volume II, op. cit., p. 75 and Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī, Sharh ʿala Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muwaṭṭaʾ li-Mālik ibn Anas, Volume I, op. cit., p. 8.

[13] Abi al-Hasan ʿAli ibn ʿUmar al-Daraqutnī, Aḥadīth al-Muwaṭṭaʾ wa-Ittifaq al-Ruwat ʿan Mālik wa-Ikhtilafuhum fiha Ziyādatan wa-Naqsan, 1946, Maktabat al-Khanji: Al-Qahirah.

[14] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwaṭṭaʾ And Madinan ʿAmal, 1999, op. cit., note 6, p. 188. Fore more details see Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī, Sharh ʿala Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muwaṭṭaʾ li-Mālik ibn Anas, Volume I, op. cit., p. 6; Mālik bin Anas (Ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī), Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ (riwayah of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī), 1951, Dar al-Ihya al-Kutub al-Arabiyyah: Al-Qahirah (Egypt), p. 4-7 for different transmissions; Muḥammad al-Shadhili al-Nayfar, Muwaṭṭaʾ al-Imām Mālik: Qitʿa minhu bi-Riwayat Ibn Ziyād, 1980, Dar al-Gharb al-Islami: Beirut (Lebanon), pp. 80-83.

[15] Mālik bin Anas (Ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī), Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ (riwayah of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī), 1951, op. cit., pp. 9-15 (14 transmissions); I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, op. cit., p. 206 (15 transmissions); J. Schacht, "Mālik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, op. cit., p. 264 (15 transmissions); Muḥammad al-Shadhili al-Nayfar, Muwaṭṭaʾ al-Imām Mālik: Qitʿa minhu bi-Riwayat Ibn Ziyād, 1980, op. cit., pp. 67-71 (16 transmissions).

[16] Much of the material in this section is from Dutton's work with some of our additions. See Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwaṭṭaʾ And Madinan ʿAmal, 1999, op. cit., pp. 22-26 for complete discussion.

[17] Muḥammad al-Shadhili al-Nayfar, Muwaṭṭaʾ al-Imām Mālik: Qitʿa minhu bi-Riwayat Ibn Ziyād, 1980, Dar al-Gharb al-Islami: Beirut (Lebanon); J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis", Arabica, 1967, Volume XIV, p. 227.

[18] J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis", Arabica, 1967, op. cit., p. 230.

[19] J. Schacht, "Mālik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, op. cit., p. 264.

[20] J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis", Arabica, 1967, op. cit., pp. 230-231.

[21] I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, op. cit., p. 206.

[22] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwaṭṭaʾ And Madinan ʿAmal, 1999, op. cit., p. 24.

[23] Y. Dutton, "Juridical Practice and Madinan ʿAmal: Qada' in the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik", Journal Of Islamic Studies, 1999, Volume 10, No. 1, pp. 1-21.

[24] I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, op. cit., p. 204.

[25] J. Schacht, "Deux Editions Inconnues Du Muwaṭṭaʾ", in G. Levi Della Vida (Ed.), Studi Orientalistici In Onore Di Giorgio Levi Della Vida, 1956, Volume II, Istituto Per L'Oriente: Roma (Italy), p. 477.

Another variant of such skepticism in the transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ is seen in the work of J. E. Brockopp, Early Māliki Law: Ibn ʿAbd al-Hakam And His Major Compendium Of Jurisprudence, 2000, E. J. Brill: Leiden, pp. 74-77. For a critique of Brockopp's position see Y. Dutton's review of Brockopp's book in Journal Of Islamic Studies, 2002, Volume 13, No. 1, pp.42-45.

[26] J. Schacht, "Mālik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, op. cit., p. 264.

[27] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwaṭṭaʾ And Madinan ʿAmal, 1999, op. cit., note 44, p. 190.

[28] For Ibn Wahb see, J. Schacht, "Mālik b. Anas", Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1991, op. cit., p. 264; for Ibn al-Qāsim see, J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis", Arabica, 1967, op. cit., p. 230.

[29] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri: Qur'anic Commentary And Tradition, 1967, Volume II, University of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 127.

[30] See ref. 17.

[31] Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwaṭṭaʾ And Madinan ʿAmal, 1999, op. cit., note 5, p. 188.

[32] ibid., p. 27.

[33] Assuming that this commentary refers to a commentary on Mālik's Muwaṭṭaʾ rather than on his own. See Y. Dutton, The Origin Of Islamic Law: The Qur'an, The Muwaṭṭaʾ And Madinan ʿAmal, 1999, op. cit., note 68, p. 191.

[34] J. Schacht, "On Some Manuscripts In The Libraries Of Kairouan And Tunis", Arabica, 1967, op. cit., pp. 244-245.

[35] ibid., pp. 235-237.

Back To Issues Concerning Hadith