Jump to content

Isnad-cum-matn analysis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isnād-cum-matn analysis (ICMA) is a method that seeks to date and trace the evolution of hadith by identifying how variation in the text or content (matn) of a hadith correlates with the variation in the listed chain of transmitters (isnād) across multiple versions of the same report.[1] ICMA enables a construction of a chronology of the textual development and transmission of hadith reports by reconstructing older versions and dating them on the basis of the time at which the transmitters of older versions were active.[2] Some consider it the most reliable method at-present for studying hadith.[3]

History[edit]

Background[edit]

Common-link theory originated in the works of Joseph Schacht and G.H.A. Juynboll. In many ways, ICMA emerged as an elaboration and systematization of earlier methods of common-link theory developed by G.H.A. Juynboll.[4] Forerunners to the ICMA approach, involving the combined study of the isnad and matn, included Jan Kramers' 1953 article "Une tradition à tendance manichéenne"[5] and Josef van Ess in his 1975 volume Zwischen Ḥadīṯ und Theologie.[6] The formal development of ICMA would only come with the work of Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler, and Andreas Görke in the 1990s.[4]

Invention[edit]

ICMA was invented twice independently in two publications that came out in 1996,[7] one by Harald Motzki[8] and the other by Schoeler.[9] Motzki, its primary advocate in the initial stages of ICMA scholarship, argued that the oral transmission of hadith would result in the progressive emergence of variation in its form. By pinpointing shared motifs, wording, and plots, the original version of a hadith before it began to accrue variants in different circles may be reconstructed. In addition, seeing how reports differ enables the identification of manipulations and other alterations.[10]

Methodology[edit]

The method of performing an ICMA can be described in a five-step process:[11]

  1. Exhaustively identify all versions of a hadith across hadith collections.
  2. Construct a diagram to visualize the transmission process based on the reported isnads. Identify Common Links and Partial Common Links.
  3. Inspect whether the Common Link is authentic. This is done by performing an extensive synoptic comparison between the texts of each version of a report and how their vary.
  4. Having completed this comparison and identified the variants, attempt to identify a correlation across the variants in the texts and the chains of transmission.
  5. If (4) is successful in establishing a correlation, the original wording of the report may be possible to reconstruct. Once this is done, the original version can be compared to the versions of the report that emerged across different subsequent transmitters to see who introduced which variants into the report.

Application[edit]

ICMA has been applied across a large number of hadith reports and traditions,[12] including on traditions concerning the annexation of Damascus,[13] the Raid of Hudhayl,[14] the torture of ʿAmmār b. Yāsir,[15] the letters of Urwa ibn al-Zubayr[16] and more.

Limitations[edit]

The method has several limitations, aside from the time-consuming process of conducting the ICMA itself. First, to produce the most reliable results, a tradition needs to have a large number of versions transmitted across many authorities. This requirement excludes the majority of hadith from being amenable to ICMA. Second, while the presence of variation in wording is important to conducting an ICMA, the "original" wording often cannot be entirely reconstructed in light of the variation. Third, hadith subject to ICMA analysis are still dated no earlier than sixty (or more[17]) years after the events that they describe. For this reason, ICMA only narrows the time gap between the events in question and when a narration entered into circulation. Fourth, though the transmission up to a certain point can be verified using ICMA, the historicity of the narration in question cannot.[18]

Terminology[edit]

The following list of terminology was largely developed by G.H.A. Juynboll and is taken from Little 2022.[19]

strand = a segment of ʾisnād, of any length

ʾisnād bundle = a network of multiple, intersecting ʾisnāds (which emerges or becomes visible when all of the ʾisnāds for a given hadith are overlaid against each other)

single strand (SS) = a segment of an ʾisnād that comprises a succession of individuals, or in other words: an ʾisnād in which one tradent transmitted to only one other, etc.

key figure = any converged-upon tradent in an ʾisnād bundle (i.e., a PCL, SPCL, CL, (S)CL, SCL, or spider)

partial common link (PCL) = a tradent who is converged upon by at least three non-SSs (i.e., direct collectors and/or other PCLs)

(seeming) partial common link ((S)PCL) = a tradent who is converged upon by only two non-SSs (i.e., direct collectors and/or other PCLs)

seeming partial common link (SPCL) = a tradent who is converged upon by a single non-SS (i.e., a direct collector or another PCL) and otherwise only SSs

common link (CL) = the earliest of those who are converged upon by PCLs when said PCLs are three or more in number

(seeming) common link ((S)CL) = the earliest of the tradents who are directly converged upon by PCLs, when said PCLs are only two in number

seeming common link (SCL) = the earliest of the tradents who are directly converged upon by PCLs, when said PCLs are only one in number and corroborated (in their transmission from the SCL) only by SSs

inverted common link (ICL) = a CL who cites a collective ʾisnād or multiple strands as their source(s), such that they appear as a bottleneck in the overall ʾisnād bundle.

dive = a (secondary, false) SS that specifically circumvents (i.e., “dives around”) a PCL or CL.

spider = a tradent who is only converged upon by multiple SSs, i.e., successive dives.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

  1. ^ Motzki 2000, p. 174.
  2. ^ Scheiner 2019.
  3. ^ Kara 2024, p. 4.
  4. ^ a b Reinhart 2010.
  5. ^ Kramers 2004.
  6. ^ Van Ess 1975.
  7. ^ Kara 2024, p. 14.
  8. ^ Motzki 1996.
  9. ^ Schoeler 1996.
  10. ^ Kara 2024, p. 14–15.
  11. ^ Kara 2024, p. 16–17.
  12. ^ Kara 2024, p. 17.
  13. ^ Scheiner 2010.
  14. ^ Boekhoff-van der Voort 2010.
  15. ^ Syed 2015.
  16. ^ Anthony 2020.
  17. ^ Pavlovitch 2018, p. 41.
  18. ^ Anthony 2020, p. 6–7.
  19. ^ Little 2022, p. 57–58.

Sources[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isnad-cum-matn_analysis&oldid=1234607928"