Life of Prophet Muhummad (Sira)

MF7 108
Dr. Abdullah Sahin

Critical review of The Relationship between

Maghazi and Hadith in Early Islamic
Scholarship by Andreas Gorke, and, Maghazi
and the Muhaddithun: Reconsidering the
Treatment of Historical Materials in Early
Collections of Hadith by Muhummad Qasim
Zaman

Abid Khan

What follows in this short essay is a critical review of two writings, firstly, The Relationship
between Maghazi and Hadith in Early Islamic Scholarship by Andreas Gorke, and secondly,
Maghazi and the Muhaddithun: Reconsidering the Treatment of Historical Materials in Early
Collections of Hadith by Muhummad Qasim Zaman.
Andreas Gorke in his article seeks to address the relationship between maghazi and hadith in early
islamic scholarship. He examines the early development of both fields, how they differed as well as
their mutual influence. He suggests that at the turn of the twentieth century two opposing views on
the relationship between maghazi and hadith literature emerged. The first view, purported by the
likes of Henri Lammens and C.H. Becker, argues that maghazi is not an independent historical
source. They put forward the notion that maghazi literature is simple exegetical and juridical
hadith chronologically arranged. Therefore, this position holds maghazi to be hadith material
arranged in biographical order, which leads to the conclusion that the exegetical and juridical
ahadith existed before they were used in maghazi tradition. The second view is that the maghazi
material is older than hadith literature. This view argues that maghazi traditions were deprived of
their historical setting and simply reduced to the juridical and theological aspects they contained.
We can observe that both views suggest the traditions originated in one field but were then
transferred to another, although both disagree from where the traditions originated.
The author presents the opinions of John Wansbrough and Tilman Nagel who opined that the
maghazi literature was more valued and sought after then material on Muhummad as a legal
authority. Nagel strongly argues that from the aims of hadith literature was to remove any historical
contexts in order to create timeless statements which could universally be applied until the end of
time. Groke then goes on to highlight how any observations being made with regards to the
relationship between maghazi and hadith only applies to selections of the material. This is due to
the undeniable fact that there are a number of traditions in hadith collections which do not exist
within the maghazi literature and vice versa.
The muhaddithun and maghazi scholars both had differing aims, the muhaddithun were concerned
with the preservation of material according to set standards, examination of chains as well as
individual narrators, and establishing the reliability and legally binding nature of ahadith. The
maghazi scholars on the other hand focused on establishing a continuous narrative of the life of

Muhummad. They were experts in identifying when an event took place, its cause, as well as its
relationship with other events.
Andreas Gorke argues that one of the indicators which differentiate a maghazi tradition from a
hadith tradition is that the former would omit the chain of narrators (asanid), especially in long
traditions. He believes that these long narrations consist of several independent units which are
combined into a coherent narrative. It is mentioned that Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri was the one who
introduced this technique of combined reporting, although there is evidence which suggests the
practice of combined reporting existed amongst the early authorities of maghazi. Although these
long traditions seem to have originated in the field of maghazi, it cannot be denied that a number of
them are also found in hadith collections. Therefore it can be inferred that maghazi literature pre
dated hadith literature.
Groke then discusses Warnsbroughs study of the hadith al-ifk and looks at his analysis of three
versions of the tradition. The research of Wansbrough re-affirms the assertion that hadith collections
are derived from maghazi narrations. He argues that the narration of hadth al-ifk in al-Bukhari is a
late reworking of the basic narrative recorded by Ibn Ishaq. Schoeler on the other hand opined that
the version in al-Bukhari is very close to the oldest recension of the story, thus, one cannot conclude
that there was a deliberate reshaping of the tradition by hadith scholars. Another important point
highlighted by Groke is that hadith scholars would often quote only part of a tradition, but this did
not necessarily mean that they were reshaping the tradition.
Groke discusses two case studies to further examine the relationship between maghazi and hadith in
early Islamic scholarship. The first is a critique of the narrations which discuss the permissibility of
eating game whilst being in the state of ihram. These narrations were used by scholars such as
Nagel to support their view that ahadith were derived from maghazi literature. He presents the
narration recorded in al-Bukhari, reported by Abu Qatada. In this narration no mention is made of
the place name or context surrounding the hadith. The historian al-Waqidi mentioned in his account
that the incident took place in the year of al-Hudaybiya, on the the way to Mecca. What is argued is
that these details were omitted by hadith scholars in order to create a timeless, universally valid
statement.. However, this view can also be challenged as highlighted by Gorke. The narration in
question does not appear in any of the maghazi literature pre al-Waqidi. There are many versions of

the hadith, yet only the versions narrated by Abu Qatada mention that the incident happened on the
way to al-Hudaybiya or in the year of al-Hudaybiya. This, as Groke asserts, is due to the fact that
all narrations mentioning al-Hudaybiya, except one, share the common transmitter Yahya b. Abi
Kathir. He, as Schacht would state, is the common link and therefore the first to make the
connection to al-Hudaybiya. Yahya is considered to be a trustworthy narrator and thus it is highly
unlikely that this hadith originated in the maghazi literature on al-Hudabiya. Therefore we can
conclude that Gorke disagrees with the assertion of Nagel that this hadith is an example of
muhaddithun deriving narrations from maghazi literature and then reshaping them.
The second case study presented by Gorke discusses the narrations concerning the woman who
committed theft and was punished by having her hand cut off. Most of the versions do not indicate
where and when the incident mentioned in the hadith took place. However there are other narrations
in which these details are mentioned. After discussing the various traditions with there differences
Gorke concludes the likelihood that the narration is a legal tradition which was later included in the
works on maghazi.
Gorke ends his article by concluding that there is a possibility that the occurrence of a tradition in
one field preceded its use in another. Thus it is possible that a tradition was included in to the field
of hadith after it took its basic form in maghazi literature. The opposite is also true, juristic hadith
only appeared in the field of maghazi after they had circulated among hadith scholars. Ultimately he
concludes that both maghazi and hadith emerged as separate fields, each influenced by the other
whilst maintaining their distinctive features.
Maghazi and the Muhaddithun - Muhummad Qasim Zaman
The second article, written by Muhammad Qasim Zaman, Maghazi and the Muhaddithun, seeks to
argue that collections of hadith should not be treated as a single entity which can be compared with
historical works as a unit. He believes no collection of hadith can be considered a representative
sample as there are considerable differences among the differing hadith collections. He tries to
address the differences within the hadith collections in terms of methods and purposes which
govern the selection and use of maghazi materials.

The author studies kitab al-maghazi from three classical sources, the Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq
(d. 826), the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba (d. 849) and the Sahih of al-Bukhari. Firstly Zaman
attempts to clarify the original source of kitab al-maghazi in the different collections. He argues that
much of Abd al-Razzaqs kitab al-Maghazi may have originated from a similar work by mamar ibn
Rashid (d. 770), however there is of course a possibility that it was from the outset a part of the
Musannaf. Zaman argues that kitab al-Maghazi from the Musannaf of ibn Abi Shaybah is more or
less the same as his Tarikh.
The structure of kitab al-Maghazi in the three different collections differs. Al-Bukhari presents a
chronological order of the military campaigns of the Prophet in Medina and ends with the death of
the Prophet. Ibn Abi Shayba provides a much broader scope in his kitab al-Maghazi. He starts with
the story of the elephant prior to the birth of the Prophet and then advances narrations detailing the
life of the Prophet in Mecca and some of the major events which took place during the Meccan
period. However he does not proceed in an entirely chronological fashion, reports of the migration
from Mecca to Abyssinia appear after traditions about the Prophets migration to Medina. The topics
and their sequence relating to the Medinan period are similar to what is presented by al-Bukhari.
However ibn Abi Shayba goes further than al-Bukhari in that he does not stop at the death of the
Prophet, rather he continues on to narrations about the four caliphates. The author suggests this is a
clear indication that the scope of early works on maghazi extended beyond the death of
Muhummad. The kitab al-Maghazi of Abd al-Razzaq is similar to Ibn Abi Shaybas in that it is very
broad in scope, however, there is very little chronological order maintained. Abd al-Razzaq
includes exegetical traditions about ashab al-ukhdud and ashab al-kahf as well as traditions post
Muhummads death.
Zaman provides examples to illustrate the peculiarities of the three different texts and how they are
distinguished from one another. The first example he provides is the battle of Badr. The general
content recorded in the three collections is very similar, al-Bukharis tendency to allude to
theological issues is apparent from the first tradition he quotes. Both al-Bukhari and Ibn Abi Shayba
exhibit a concern for juridical matters although they differ in the exact areas of focus. Ibn Abi
Shaybas focus is on questions of booty, ransom, treatment of prisoners and so forth. Al-Bukhari on
the other hand is more concerned with establishing the merit of the companions who participated in
the battle of Badr. In contrast to the relatively detailed accounts in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba

and al-Bukhari we find the account presented by Abd al-Razzaq is fairly brief and limited in scope.
However Abd al-Razzaq does provide some form of narrative structure which seems to be missing
from the collections of al-Bukhari and Ibn Abi Shayba.
Zaman purports the notion that ideological commitments of the compilers influenced their recording
of hadith. He provides the example of Ibn Abi Shayba who records a number of traditions of
al-Abbas in reference to the battle of Badr. This is in contrast with al-Bukhari and Abd al-Razzaq
who only have one tradition concerning al-Abbas. Zaman suggest that Ibn Abi Shayba was
influenced by the ruling Abbasid dynasty and this is reflected in his pro Abbasid narrations. He
argues that the collection of ahadith recorded by Ibn Abi Shayba regarding al-Abbas are integral to
the way he choses to recount the history of Badr.
The next example Zaman provides is that of Hudaybiyya. Al-Bukhari focuses on the juristic and
theological matters such as traditions highlighting the miracle of the Prophet by providing an
increase in the supply of drinking water. Other traditions include prohibition of the flesh of
domesticated donkeys ad well as a theological tradition about some of the concomitants of right
belief in God. Ibn Abi Shaybas and Abd al-Razzaqs accounts differ from that of al-Bukhari in that
they focus on the historical context and narrative.
The way the three different compilers conclude their kitab al-Maghazi differs significantly. AlBukhari ends with the death of the Prophet as well as some traditions which seek to legitimise the
ascension of Abu Bakr. Ibn Abi Shaybas narrations extend beyond the Prophets death to the four
successors and Abd al-Razzaqs narrations range end wider. Ibn Abi Shayba organises his
narrations on the khulafa al-rashidun in accordance with the historical sequence of their succession.
Zaman highlights the significance of this organisation by stating: it would seem that in placing
Ali in the fourth place he is not only deferring to considerations of historical sequence but also
implicitly affirming the view that this sequence also reflects the hierarchy of religious merit..
Whilst Ibn Abi Shaybah was compiling his book this was not the established orthodox sunni view as
such a view did not exist at the time.
Zaman concludes his article by reiterating his belief that as far as maghazi is concerned, no one
collection of hadith can be taken as representative of what hadith sources in general have to offer in
5

respects to maghazi. He also criticises Wansbroughs view of a development from Ibn Ishaq through
al-Waqidi to al-Bukhari. He suggests that in the late second and early third centuries AH a practical
distinction was made between the muhaddithun and akhbariyyun. He argues that one must make a
distinction between the traditionalists and the historians as the methods and concerns of each group
varied. He coined the term traditionist historiography referring to the likes of Ibn Abi Shayba and
Abd al-Razzaq who were traditionalists with historical interests. He argues that traditionist
historiography is vitally important in shedding light on how traditionalists viewed early islamic
history.
Conclusion
When reviewing both articles we can observe that the aims of each author differ, although the
themes presented in their articles overlap. Groke is examining the relationship between hadith and
maghazi, from where both fields originated and how they developed. Zaman on the other hand
focuses his article on addressing the question of whether a single collection of hadith can be
compared to historical works, and whether the single collection of hadith can be seen as
representative of the corpus of hadith collections. Groke doesnt seem to have a discontent with
treating hadith literature as a whole single entity and comparing it with maghazi traditions. This is
of course contrary to Zamans belief, he opines that each collection of hadith differs from the other,
thus, no single collection can be seen as representative of the whole hadith literature. He would
therefore not examine the relationship between hadith and maghazi as a whole, rather he would
select one collection from the hadith literature and examine the relationship of that particular
collection with maghazi. Groke seems to refrain from commenting in any real detail on kitab alMaghazi in the hadith collections when examining how the two fields of literature relate. Both
Groke and Zaman seem to hold the view that hadith and maghazi were separate fields although
Zaman would argue that many of the hadith scholars had a distinct interest in maghazi and therefore
could have been to some extent influenced by maghazi narrations. Both authors agree that the aims
of both sets of scholars differed and thus what they eventually ended up producing was significantly
effected by their initial aims. The hadith scholars were concerned with the juristic and theological
aspects of traditions where as the maghazi scholars were more interested in the historic context of a
tradition. Both authors also agree that a distinction was made between the muhaddithun and
historians although Zaman suggests this distinction was made towards then end of the second
century AH, this considerably later than what was argued by Gorke.

After studying both articles I find myself in agreement with what has been presented by Gorke. It
cannot be denied that there are instances in which a tradition may have appeared in one field and
then later included in another, however, considering the different aims of both sets of scholars it is
more probable that both maghazi and hadith emerged as two separate fields.