Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

brill.nl/orie

Ghazzls Alteration of hadths: Processes and Meaning*

Adrien Leites
Universit de Paris-Sorbonne

Abstract This article starts from the hypothesis, tacitly made by traditional Muslim scholars, that Ghazzl tended to alter H adth texts when using them in his Revival of the Religious Sciences. It goes on to explore this hypothesis in four cases previously identified by the author, and attributes each case to a distinct process of alteration. These processes are shown to be triggered by specific concerns doctrinal as well as argumentative. The article concludes that Ghazzl departed from the Sunn principle of authority, and gave priority to argument. Keywords Ghazzl; H adth, Alteration, Argument; Zabd

Ab H mid al-Ghazzl (Muhammad b. Muhammad, d. 505/1111) has a reputation for having been a poor muh addith. He used h adths extensively nonetheless. The aim of this article is to make some sense of the alterations he made to h adths in his Revival of the Religious Sciences (Ih y ulm al-dn). I shall consider four cases of such alteration, which I identified previously, while exploring Ghazzls understanding of love (h ubb/mah abba) and martyrdom (shahda).1 We cannot be completely certain that we are dealing with instances of genuine alteration in these cases since we still lack a critical edition of the Revival for the purposes of comparison and since, moreover, we cannot be sure which H adth texts Ghazzl actually used. In this matter, however, I have illustrious predecessors, namely Ab l-Fadl al-Irq (Abd al-Rahm b. al-H usayn, d. 806/1404) and Zabd (Muhammad Murtad, d. 1205/1791).
* My sincere thanks are due to James Weaver (Cambridge) who carefully revised this article. His improvements of style and form were valuable indeed, and his remarks helped me to improve the argument. All shortcomings remain, of course, my own. 1 See: Adrien Leites, La rgle de lamour chez G azzl. la rencontre dune thique du tawh d, Arabica 54, no. 1 (2007): 25-66; Amour de Dieu et dsir de la mort. Le martyre selon Gazzl, Arabica 55, no. 1 (2008): 35-51.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/187783712X634689

134

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

These two scholars thought it worthwhile to compare the h adths used by Ghazzl with those recorded in H adth works, and thereby supported the hypothesis that he had made alterations. Drawing heavily on their work, I shall try to show that this hypothesis is a productive one. The four cases will be attributed to distinct processes of alteration, themselves triggered by specific concerns. In all four cases, we may assume that Ghazzl was quoting from memory, that is to say, not from written or formally memorized texts. It is the product of informal quotation that I shall present in what follows, and shall attempt to reconstruct as meaningful processes of alteration.

1. Permutation of Elements In the Book of Love (Kitb al-Mah abba) of his Revival of the Religious Sciences,2 Ghazzl argues that the joyful condition of the martyrs in the hereafter, as referred to by Koran 3:169-70, is not limited to those who die in battle. It is found in a report (wa f l-khabar), says the author, that the martyr wishes in the hereafter to be sent back to the world in order to be killed one more time ( yatamann f l-khira an yuradda il l-duny fa-yuqtala marratan ukhr). He wishes that return because of the great reward established for martyrdom, as he now sees it. Ghazzl adds that the martyrs wish they would be scholars ( yatamannawna law kn ulam) because of the high rank ascribed to scholars, as they now see it. The report alluded to by Ghazzl occurs in the H adth works that enjoy the consensual acknowledgement of Sunnis, and appears in different versions. Version 1, recorded by Bukhr (Muhammad b. Isml, d. 256/870)3 and Ibn H anbal (Ahmad b. Muhammad, d. 241/855),4 states that the martyr would be glad to go back ( yasurruhu an yarjia) in order to be killed one more time. In version 2, recorded by Bukhr,5 Muslim (b. al-H ajjj al-Naysbr, d. 261/875)6 and Ibn H anbal,7 the martyr wishes (yatamann) to go back in order to be killed again ten times ( fa-yuqtala ashra marrt). Version 3, recorded by Muslim8 and Ibn H anbal,9 states that the martyr wishes
Ghazzl, Ih y ulm al-dn (Cairo: Dr al-shab, n. d.), 16 volumes, vol. XIV: 2596. Sa h h , Jihd, VI, rep. 1 (Mawsat al-sunna, al-kutub al-sitta wa-shurh uh, Istanbul, 1992, Sa h h al-Bukhr, vol. III: 202-3). 4 Musnad Ibn H anbal (Beirut: Dr al-kutub al-ilmiyya, 1993), vol. III: 155 (rep. 12281). 5 Sa h h , Jihd, XXI (Mawsa, Sa h h al-Bukhr, vol. III: 208). 6 Sa h h , Imra, XXIX, rep. 2 (Mawsa, Sa h h Muslim, vol. II: 1498). 7 Musnad, vol. III: 212 (rep. 12777) and 338 (rep. 13934). 8 Sa h h , Imra, XXIX, rep. 1 (Mawsa, Sa h h Muslim, vol. II: 1498). 9 Musnad, vol. III: 341 (rep. 13972).
2 3

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

135

( yatamann) to go back, while leaving the number of deaths unspecified ( fayuqtala f l-duny). In version 4, recorded by Tirmidh (Muhammad b. Sawra, d. 279/892),10 the martyr would like to go back (yuh ibb an yarjia) in order to be killed one more time. Version 5, recorded by Drim (Abd Allh b. Abd al-Rahmn al-Samarqand, d. 255/869),11 states that the martyr is keen on being killed again an indefinite number of times ( yawadd annahu qutila kadh marratan). Versions 6, 7 and 8 are recorded by Ibn H anbal. These versions state that the martyr would like to leave paradise ( yuh ibb an yakhruja),12 would be glad to go back to the world,13 and is keen on going back (wadda law annahu rajaa, var. law rajaa),14 while leaving the number of deaths unspecified ( fa-yuqtala in versions 6 and 7, fa-stushhida in version 8). In version 9, recorded by Ibn H anbal,15 the martyr is keen on going back (yawadd annahu yarji) in order to obtain martyrdom again ten times. Nowhere is the verb to wish (tamann) connected with the desire to return specifically one more time, as it is in Ghazzls text. I do not think there is any compelling reason why Ghazzl should have picked out the verb to wish (tamann) instead of to be glad (surra), to like (ah abba) or to be keen (wadda). Rather, he found in that verb a convenient way to convey his criticism of martyrdom. This criticism, as I have shown elsewhere,16 does not target the merit of martyrdom as such, but rather the superior character ascribed to that merit. You can earn merit through martyrdom, but you will earn yet more if you practise ilm, religious science is the core of Ghazzls argument. He does not explicitly advocate the intrinsic superiority of science over martyrdom although he is, in all likelihood, convinced of that superiority. The contrast between the two meritorious acts (that of science and that of martyrdom), as established by Ghazzl, lies in their relationship to time. Martyrdom is a transitory act. To become a martyr, you need but a single instant. Science, on the other hand, requires time. The happiest situation for the practice of science is, says Ghazzl using a phrase of the Prophet, to have the length of a lifetime at ones disposal. When the Prophet speaks of spending that duration in obedience to God, Ghazzl understands obedience as the performance of acts that exert the knowledge of

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Sunan, Fadil al-jihd, XIII, rep. 4 (Mawsa, Sunan al-Tirmidh, vol. IV: 177). Sunan, Jihd, XVIII (Mawsa, Sunan al-Drim, vol. I-II: 523). Musnad, vol. III: 127 (rep. 12009). Ibid.: 188 (rep. 12564) and 348 (rep. 14041). Ibid.: 307 (rep. 13635). Ibid.: 354 (rep. 14091). A. Leites, Amour, 38-9.

136

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

God (al-marifa bi-llah). To illustrate the contrast between the transitory act of martyrdom and the continuous act of science, Ghazzl augmented the material provided by the Tradition. If the martyr in the hereafter can project himself as being killed again, then he should also be able to project himself as transformed into a scholar. The various Arabic verbs found in the Tradition could express this double self-projection without significant variation. However, only the verbs to wish (tamann) and to be keen (wadda) can take both a subjunctive and a conditional clause as a predicate. The syntactic flexibility offered by the verb to wish (tamann), as well as its frequent employment in the Tradition (and therefore familiarity to Ghazzl and his readers), thus led Ghazzl to select this verb. Using to wish, it is straightforward to express both that the martyr wishes that he be returned (an yuradda) and killed again ( fa-yuqtala), and that the martyrs wish they would be scholars (law kn ulam). Both wishes, in other words, are legitimate, but only the first one is feasible and thus expressed in the subjunctive. The second wish is unfeasible, and thus expressed in the conditional, because, in order to actually become a scholar, the martyr would need time in the world. He would indeed need the length of another lifetime, and would have to be back for good. With this contrast in mind, Ghazzl could have hardly hesitated about which number of deaths to pick out from options available in the Tradition. A lack of specification concerning the number could be interpreted in different ways, and was thus unhelpful for his purpose. The ten times specification, on the other hand, manifestly had the unwelcome result of bridging the gap between martyr and scholar, for it meant that the martyr also could benefit from duration. In his case, however, the duration would be the sum of single instants. Only the one more time specification could emphasise the transitory nature of martyrdom, and serve to highlight the contrast between the feasible and the unfeasible wishes of the martyr. Now, to wish (tamann) occurs with a numerical specification only in version 2, while the one more time specification occurs with other verbs in versions 1 and 4. We can therefore assume that Ghazzl permuted the verb and specification found in version 2 with those found in version 1 or 4. Since Ghazzl does not mention his sources, however, we can hardly determine which works were involved in this permutation. We cannot determine either whether it involved two works (Muslim and Tirmidh, for instance) or a single one (Bukhr or Ibn H anbal). It was thus the distribution of religious tasks between martyr and scholar, as conceived by Ghazzl, that triggered the permutation just reconstructed. This concern led him to come up with a version unknown to Tradition, that of the martyr wishing to be killed one more time.

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

137

2. Replacement of Speech and Suppression of Deed In the Book of the Norms of Familiarity (Kitb db al-ulfa),17 Ghazzl argues that love for God (h ubb Allh), when intense, extends to all being other than Him ( fa-yataadd il kull mawjd siwhu). The motive of this extension is that every being other than God is a mark of His power (athar min thr qudratihi). The universal extension of intense love for God is illustrated by a regular practice of the Prophet. When the first fruit of a tree was brought to him (idh h umila ilayhi bkra mina l-fawkih), he passed it over his eyes and honoured it. He said, pointing at the fruit, It has just left our Lord (innah qarbu l-ahdi bi-rabbin). Irq18 mentions three reports describing this practice. These reports are recorded by Ta barn (Sulaymn b. Ahmad, d. 360/971) in the Sa ghr, by Ab Dd (Sulaymn b. al-Ashath al-Sijistn, d. 275/889) in the Marsl, and by Bayhaq (Ahmad b. al-H usayn, d. 458/1066) in the Daawt. Irq notes that the three reports lack the phrase and honoured it and what follows in Ghazzls text. Ta barns report19 ascribes no speech to the Prophet, and describes a different course of action: the Prophet kisses the fruit, puts it on his eye, and then gives it to the youngest child present in the audience. Ab Dd records two versions of the same report. The first version20 describes yet another course of action, and ascribes a different kind of speech to the Prophet: the Prophet puts the fruit on his eyes, then eats from it, and then asks God to bless the Muslims with fruits throughout the season (kam at amtan awwalah fa-at imn khirah). Ab Dds second version21 contains the two initial deeds found in Ta barns report, but lacks the gift to the child, as well as the prayer found in the first version. Bayhaqs report is unavailable to us,22 but we can be sure that it includes a prayer of the Prophet. Irq mentions variants of Bayhaqs report recorded by the rest of the Sunan scholars, and notes that these variants lack the Prophets passing of the fruit over his eyes and what follows it in Ghazzls text. The versions of Mlik

Ih y, vol. V: 938. Apud al-Zabd, Ith f al-sdat al-muttaqn bi-sharh Ih y ulm al-dn, vol. VII (Beirut: Dr al-kutub al-ilmiyya, 1989): 43. 19 Al-Mujam al-sa ghr, ed. Kaml Ysuf al-H t (Beirut, 1986), 294 (rep. 778). 20 Al-Marsl, ed. Shuayb al-Arnt (Beirut, 1998), 331 (rep. 475). 21 Ibid., loc. cit. (rep. 476). 22 Only one volume of the Daawt has, to my knowledge, been published up to now: Kitb al-Daawt al-kabr, ed. Badr b. Abd Allh al-Badr (Kuwait: Manshrt markaz al-makhtt t wa l-turth wa-l-wathiq, 1989).
17 18

138

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

b. Anas (d. 179/796),23 Drim,24 Ibn Mja (Muhammad b. Yazd al-Qazwn, d. 273/887),25 and Tirmidh26 ascribe to the Prophet a different prayer, which is not preceded by any deed. Upon receiving the fruit, the Prophet asks God to grant the Muslims and their city prosperity in fruit crops and agricultural resources.27 In the four versions, this prayer is followed by the gift to the child. The evidence just adduced shows the existence of a first fruit tradition, which was associated with various speeches and deeds of the Prophet. To assess the alterations made in Ghazzls text, we shall consider the speech and deed associations separately. In our sources, the first fruit tradition is always associated with the same kind of speech, namely prayer. The two prayers we have encountered express gratitude for a blessing, and ask for the continuation or the extension of that blessing. The expression of gratitude and the request are uttered on behalf of a particular group, the Muslim community. In the dominant report, this community is identified with a particular city. What Ghazzl wanted to illustrate through the first fruit tradition was a different sentiment: loving a being for the mark of divine power exhibited in it. For the verbal expression of this sentiment, he could hardly use the profit-oriented and group-specific prayer of the Prophet. Instead, he turned to another kind of speech, namely praise. The Prophets praise, as found in Ghazzls text, expresses reverential love for a being upon the perception of its recent production by God, and disregards the profit derived from that being. Muhammad had this perception through his capacity as a prophet, that is to say, as a man endowed with exceptionally acute senses. He had it in no way as head of the Muslim community. Any sensitive man could perceive, though with less acuteness, the recent production of the being by God. Such a man should indeed have a perception, and experience a love, modelled on that of the Prophet. In other words, love based on the perception of divine provenance should be universally accessible and universally desirable. Now, we ought to assume that Ghazzl derived the account of the praise offered by the Prophet from some source available to him, rather than simply having made it up. Nothing in the text of the praise implies, however, that its original object was the first fruit. It

Al-Muwatt a , Jmi, I, rep. 2 (Mawsa, Al-Muwatt a , vol. II: 885). Sunan, At ima, XXXII (Mawsa, Sunan al-Drim, vol. I-II: 430). 25 Sunan, At ima, XXXIX (Mawsa, Sunan Ibn Mja, vol. II: 1105). 26 Sunan, Daawt, LIII (Mawsa, Sunan al-Tirmidh, vol. V: 506). 27 Brik lan f thamarin wa-brik lan f madnatin wa-brik lan f s in wa-brik lan f muddin in Mlik, brik lan f madnatin wa-f thamaratin wa-f muddin wa-f s in in Drim, brik lan f madnatin wa-f thimrin wa-f muddin wa-f s in in Ibn Mja and brik lan f thimrin wa-brik lan f madnatin wa-brik lan f s in wa-muddin in Tirmidh.
23 24

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

139

is of course possible that Ghazzl found the Prophets praise already associated with the first fruit tradition in a report we do not know of. He could hardly have been unaware, however, of the widespread association of this tradition with a prayer of the Prophet. If he did not replace prayer by praise, then he at least picked out a marginal association instead of the dominant one. Let us now turn to the deed associations. The Prophets kissing of the fruit and putting of it on his eyes (or eye) appear, except in one case (Ab Dds first version), in the texts devoid of prayer. These deeds certainly express love, and were picked out for that reason by Ghazzl. The variant form and order they take in his text may suggest that he got them from a source unknown to us, but could equally indicate that he is responsible for the variance. The gift to the child is associated with the first fruit tradition in all the texts containing prayer but one (again, Ab Dds first version), and in one text devoid of it (Ta barns report). To assess the absence of this deed from Ghazzls text, we must examine the specific idea that Ghazzl wants to illustrate. The extension of intense love for God to those other than Him is an idea dear to Ghazzl. He mentions elsewhere, as objects of this extension, the Prophet together with the scholars and the pious. Another list comprises the invocation of God, the Koran and the Prophet, together with the Companions and the Followers. In the latter context, Ghazzl considers the man who loves God so intensely that he ends up loving all of His creatures. If he does so, says Ghazzl, how could he not love the Koran, the Prophet, the Companions and the Followers? The hypothetical example of the man who loves all of Gods creatures thus serves to bring to the fore the love for creatures close to God.28 That Ghazzl may actually have excluded mankind from the universal extension of intense love for God is suggested by his use of the first fruit tradition. It might seem that the human newborn would have been better suited for the illustration of love, yet this possibility was left unexploited. Of course, we may assume that Ghazzl did not have at his disposal from the Tradition a speech of the Prophet expressing love for the human newborn. He did have, however, a widely reported deed: the Prophets gift of the first fruit to a young child. Through that deed, the Prophet established an analogy between fruit and child. This analogy expresses, when preceded by the prayer of the Prophet, gratitude for a similar blessing, and the desire of continued or extended blessing. When preceded by the Prophets kissing of the fruit and putting of it on his eyes, it expresses love for the child as a being similar to the fruit. The latter analogy could hardly fit in with the motive that Ghazzl wanted to illustrate.
28

For the text of Ghazzls argument, and a fuller interpretation, see A. Leites, Rgle,

42-4.

140

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

The fruit clearly bears the mark of divine power, and should be loved for that reason. The child may bear other marks and, in particular, the differentiated mark of his parents relationship with God. If this relationship is one of disobedience, love for the child is out of the question. If the childs parents have a relationship of obedience with God, he will be loved for the mark that this relationship has imprinted on him, and not for the mark of divine power exhibited in him. Here again, I do not intend to say that Ghazzl necessarily suppressed the gift to the child when shaping his own text. Nevertheless, even if he used a text devoid of this deed, he still disregarded its widespread association with the first fruit tradition. In general then, the alterations occurring in Ghazzls text stem from two distinct concerns. Firstly, a concern to emphasise the equal access to love shared by all men (as a result of their ability to perceive the mark of Gods power in a being) triggered the replacement of the prayer directed towards the benefit of the Muslim community by praise for the divine origin of the fruit. Secondly, it was a concern that love for human beings should be based on religious differentiation, and granted only to the obedient kind, that triggered the suppression of the gift to the child.

3. Alternative Ascription and Anonymization of the Speaker In the Book of Science (Kitb al-ilm),29 Ghazzl mentions contentment (rid) among the fruits of acknowledgement of the unicity of God (tawh d ), and adduces two sayings to illustrate a related fruit. The first saying was uttered by Ab Bakr during his fatal illness. When people offered to fetch a doctor for him, he replied, It was the Doctor who made me ill (al-ta bb amradan). The second saying was uttered, in similar circumstances, by another man (khar). When asked about the doctors diagnosis, the ill man answered, He said, I do as I will (inn fal li-m urd ).30 Zabd devotes a long discussion to the two sayings.31 He notes that the second saying is ascribed by means of sound transmission to Ab Bakr (al-marwiyyu l-thbit an h adrati l-si ddq). He quotes a report exhibiting this ascription from the Kitb al-thabt li-l-mamt of Ibn al-Jawz (Abd al-Rahmn b. Al, d. 597/1200)32 and the H ilya of Ab Nuaym (Ahmad b. Abd Allh al-Isf ahn, d. 430/1038).33 Zabd then notes that the
Ih y, vol. I: 56. Adaptation of Koran 11:107 and 85:16 ( fal li-m yurd ). 31 Ith f, vol. I: 377. 32 Or al-Thabt inda l-mamt, as in GAL, I: 664. 33 Zabds text appears nearly verbatim in H ilyat al-awliy, Beirut, Dr al-kitb al-arab, 1980, vol. I: 34.
29 30

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

141

speaker of the first saying is, to his knowledge, never identified as Ab Bakr. The author quotes from the Fawid of Ab Abd Allh al-Thaqaf (al-Qsim b. al-Fadl, d. 489/1086),34 where the ill man is Ibn Masd. He mentions, as further sources for the ascription of the saying to Ibn Masd, al-H rith b. Ab Usma (al-Baghdd, d. 282/895), Ab Yal (Ahmad b. Al al-Mawsi l, d. 307/919), Ibn al-Sunn (Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Dnawar, d. 364/974),35 Bayhaq in the Shuab36 and Ibn Abd al-Barr (Ysuf b. Abd Allh al-Qurtub, d. 463/1070) in the Tamhd.37 Thalab (Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Naysbr, d. 427/1035), who records a report exhibiting the same ascription,38 may be added to this list. Other attributions of the saying, however, are known to Tradition. The ill man is Anas b. Mlik in a report recorded by Ibn Askir (Al b. al-H asan al-Dimashq, d. 571/1176),39 and H udhayfa b. al-Yamn in one recorded by Ibn al-Adm (Umar b. Ahmad al-H alab, d. 660/1262).40 In his discussion of the legitimacy of applying generic names to God, Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz (Muhammad b. Umar, d. 606/1209) adduces the saying and ascribes it to Ab Bakr.41 The two sayings used by Ghazzl belong to similar stories, and express the same attitude: recognition of God as the sole agent of health and illness alike, and contentment with His action, whichever of the two forms it takes. In view of these common features, we may reconstruct a process of alteration which affected the two sayings according to their order of appearance in Ghazzls text. The evidence from the Tradition just adduced shows that, although the first saying had several ascriptions, its speaker was dominantly identified as Ibn Masd. When Ghazzl adduced this saying, he alternatively ascribed it to Ab Bakr. He may have regarded Ab Bakr as somehow a more appropriate mouthpiece for the expression of contentment than Ibn Masd, let alone Anas and H udhayfa. He may also have found the saying ascribed to Ab Bakr

Al-Fawid al-awl in GAL, S I: 602. On the works of these H adth scholars, see GAS, I: 160, 170 and 198 respectively. In the three cases, the best candidate is not obvious to me. 36 Shuab al-mn, ed. Muhammad al-Sad b. Basyn Zaghll, vol. II (Beirut, 1990): 491 (rep. 2497). I owe this reference, and the five ones to follow, to the expansive knowledge of Jonathan Brown. 37 See the report recorded in al-Tamhd li-m f l-Muwatt a min al-man wa-l-asnd, ed. Must a f Ahmad al-Alaw et al. (Rabat, 1967-1986), vol. V (ed. Sad Ahmad Arb, 1976): 268-9. 38 Al-Kashf wa l-bayn, ed. Ab Muhammad b. shr, vol. IX (Beirut, 2002), 199. 39 Trkh Madnat Dimashq, ed. Muhibb al-Dn Ab Sad Umar b. Gharma al-Amraw, vol. IX (Beirut, 1995): 368. 40 Bughyat al-ta lab f trkh H alab, ed. Suhayl Zakkr, vol. V (Damascus, 1988): 2172-3. 41 Al-Tafsr al-kabr (Tehran, Dr al-kutub al-ilmiyya, n. d.), 1:152.
34 35

142

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

in a report we do not know of,42 but then he favoured this marginal ascription over the dominant one. With this preference for Ab Bakr, it is hardly conceivable that Ghazzl suppressed independently the established ascription of the second saying to him. The alteration made to this saying was rather the result of the initial ascription. When Ghazzl adduced the second saying, he had just ascribed the first to Ab Bakr. This led him to suppress the ascription of the second saying to Ab Bakr. There are two different ways, I think, to look at this process. It may be seen, first, that Ghazzl was concerned with argumentative consistency. In order for an argument to be convincing, its parts should fit in nicely with one another, lest it be left open to the charge of prejudice.43 Traditional sayings are part of Ghazzls argument, and thus are required to display such consistency. Ab Bakr cannot have uttered both sayings. He cannot have said that he had no use for a doctor, since the Doctor had made him ill and, in the same circumstances, that the Doctors diagnosis was that the disease was His will. The ascription of both sayings to Ab Bakr would thus suggest a divergence in the Tradition, which Ghazzl chose to overlook in order to promote, on the authority of a major figure, his own interpretation of contentment. In the process whereby the ascription of the second saying to Ab Bakr was suppressed, we may also perceive Ghazzls concern to maintain a certain degree of imperfection in order to avoid the appearance of artificiality. If the evidence presented in an argument fits together too neatly, it will give the impression that the selection of the evidence was prejudiced by the motives of the author. The first saying is a reply to an offer, and the second an answer to a question. Ab Bakr could have replied that the Doctor had made him ill, and have answered that the Doctors diagnosis was that the disease was His will. That he could have uttered both sayings was possible, but not desirable. The ascription of both sayings to Ab Bakr might have given the impression of a convergence of Tradition constructed by the author, as the reader would suspect at least some measure of divergence in the Tradition. Similar sayings may have been uttered by other figures, perhaps less major ones. Ab Bakr, on the other hand, may have offered other versions of contentment, perhaps less radical ones. Whether underlying divergence or artificial convergence was at stake, Ghazzl would have weakened the support for the model of content-

This is suggested by the separate evidence Rz provides unless, of course, he is dependent upon Ghazzl. 43 I borrow this idea, and the one to follow shortly, from Jon Elster, Alchemies of the Mind. Rationality and the Emotions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 347-9. The author speaks of a consistency constraint and an imperfection constraint.

42

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

143

ment that he wanted to provide. He was thus led to suppress the ascription of the second saying to Ab Bakr. Whichever of the two concerns may have been at work in this process, Ghazzl did not come up with an alternative ascription, as he had done in the case of the first saying. Ab Bakr remained his preferred figure, or at least the one most salient in his mind. He thus confined himself to making the second saying anonymous.

4. Addition, Suppression of the Speaker and Transfer of Speech In the Book of the Norms of the Secluded Life (Kitb db al-uzla),44 Ghazzl considers the man who devotes himself exclusively to God in the struggle he leads against his own soul (nafs). That man, he argues, is a martyr whenever death strikes him as he is moving forward and not backward. This status is illustrated by a saying of the Prophet: The man who struggles [on the path of God] is the one who struggles against his soul and his passion (al-mujhid man jhada nafsahu wa-hawhu). Ghazzl adds that the greater struggle is the struggle led against the soul (wa-l-jihdu l-akbar jihdu n-nafs). This precept is in turn illustrated by the saying of some Companion (bad al-sa h ba): We have returned from the lesser struggle to engage in the greater struggle (rajan mina l-jihdi l-asg har il l-jihdi l-akbar). Zabd45 quotes Irq, who mentions al-H kim (Muhammad b. Abd Allh al-Naysbr, d. 405/1014) as source for the saying of the Prophet, and notes that al-H kims report lacks the phrase and his passion. Zabd adds Ibn H anbal, Tirmidh, Ibn H ibbn (al-Bust, d. 354/965), Ta barn and Qud (Muhammad b. Salma, d. 454/1062). He notes that these sources likewise lack the reference to passion. This particular saying of the Prophet is seldom the object of a distinct report, and appears in different combinations. In report 1, recorded by Ibn H anbal,46 Ta barn47 and al-H kim,48 it is part of a series of etymologically based and ethically minded definitions.49 In report 2, recorded by Ibn H anbal,50 Tirmidh51
Ih y, vol. VI: 1076. Ith f, vol. VII: 413. 46 Musnad, vol. VI: 24 (rep. 24013) and 26 (rep. 24022). 47 Al-Mujam al-kabr, ed. H amd Abd al-Majd al-Salaf, vol. XVIII (Baghdad, 1986): 309 (rep. 796). 48 Al-Mustadrak al l-Sa h h ayn, vol. I (Beirut: Dr al-marifa, n. d.): 10-1. 49 man aminahu n-ns al amwlihim wa anfusihim (var. al anfusihim wa amwlihim) for mumin, man salima l-muslimn (var. n-ns) min lisnihi wa yadihi for muslim, man hjara (var. hajara) l-khat y wa dh-dhunb for muhjir. 50 Musnad, vol. VI: p. 23 (rep. 23406). 51 Sunan, Fadil al-jihd, II (Mawsa, Sunan al-Tirmidh, vol. IV: 165).
44 45

144

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

and Ibn H ibbn,52 the definition of the man who struggles follows a statement of the privileges of the man who dies in frontier fighting.53 In report 3, recorded barn,55 the saying appears separately. Ibn H anbals by Ibn H anbal54 and Ta two versions of report 1, as well as Ta barns, have the one who struggles against his soul in obedience to God ( f t ati llah), while al-H kims version mentions struggle through an act of obedience ( f t a). Ibn H anbals version of report 2 as well as Ibn H ibbns have who struggles against his soul for God (li-llah), while Tirmidhs version makes no reference to God whatsoever. Ibn H anbals version of report 3 has who struggles against his soul on the path of God ( f sabli llah), while Ta barns version mentions struggle in God ( f llah). The latter phrase also appears, as a variant, in Ibn H anbals version of report 2.56 The saying of the anonymous Companion appears as a saying of the Prophet in a report recorded by Bayhaq57 and al-Khat b al-Baghdd (Ahmad b. Al, d. 463/1071).58 On his return from a military expedition, the Prophet addressed his men, You have arrived at the best of destinations (qadimtum khayra maqdamin). You have arrived from the lesser struggle to engage in the greater struggle (mina l-jihdi l-asg har il l-jihdi l-akbar). When asked about the nature of the greater struggle, he answered, The struggle led by the servant against his passion (mujhadatu l-abd hawhu). From the above, we can see that in order to illustrate the martyrdom gained by the man who dies while fighting against his soul, Ghazzl had no specifically relevant data from the Tradition at his disposal. The data that he did have could merely provide an illustration of the priority of the struggle against the soul over the struggle against the enemy. For lack of specifically relevant data, Ghazzl instead looked for an eloquent illustration of the latter doctrine. It is this concern with eloquence that accounts for the alterations made in Ghazzls text. In view of the variety of elements found in Ghazzls text, these alterations can hardly be reconstructed as a two-stage process. It seems better to assume
Ibn Balbn, al-Ih sn bi-tartb Sa h h Ibn H ibbn, ed. Kaml Ysuf al-H t, vol. VII (Beirut, 1987): 69 (rep. 4605). 53 His work grows until the day of resurrection and he is relieved of the trial of the tomb. 54 Musnad, vol. VI: 25 (rep. 24020). 55 Al-Mujam al-kabr, vol. XVIII: 309 (rep. 797). 56 Quds report is unavailable to me. It can perhaps be found in the work published as Dastr malim al-h ikam wa-mathr makrim al-shiyam, ed. Barakt Habbd, (Beirut: Dr alarqam). For other titles of Quds main work, see GAL, I: 419. Whether Quds report is a version of report 1, 2 or 3, and whether or not it makes any reference to God, we know from Zabd that it lacks and his passion. 57 Kitb al-zuhd al-kabr, ed. Taq al-Dn al-Nadw (Ab Dhabi: al-Mujamma al-Thaqf, 2004), 294-5 (rep. 380). I owe this reference, once again, to Jonathan Brown. 58 Trkh Baghdd, vol. XIII (Cairo, 1349/1931): 493 (rep. 7345).
52

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

145

that the various data were brought together simultaneously, and were reshaped in combination with one another. Such combined reshaping resulted in three distinct statements. The general statement of the Prophet was widely reported, although only in combination with other statements. This statement was sufficiently autonomous to be detached from its context, and adduced separately. If we assume, following Irq, that Ghazzl got it from report 1, the other definitions present there were simply unhelpful for his purpose. If, as Zabd seems to think, report 2 is an equally suitable candidate, Ghazzl could easily overlook the praise of frontier fighting, which would have been harmful indeed to his argument. If, finally, some version of report 3 was available to him, no selection of content was needed. In all versions of the statement, Ghazzl had the soul as single target of the struggle. As I have just contended, Ghazzl was looking for an eloquent illustration of the priority of the struggle against the soul. A way to make the statement more eloquent was offered to him by another general statement of the Prophet. This statement was less widely reported, but belonged to a coherent story. In the narrative report, Ghazzl had something found nowhere else, namely passion as target of the struggle. He borrowed the targeting of passion from this report, and added it to the first statement. Ghazzl thus came up with a target for the struggle unknown to Tradition: that of the soul and passion together. The double target implied no practical difference, but it met the requirements of eloquence. In the struggle against the soul, it is the force of passion with which we are faced. Once he had improved the general statement of the Prophet, Ghazzl had no use for a second statement ascribed to the Prophet. The statement found in the narrative report was thus deprived of its ascription, and turned into a general, unattributed precept: the greater struggle is the struggle led against the soul (wa-l-jihdu l-akbar jihdu l-nafs). For such a precept, eloquence is the product of concision. Ghazzl thus suppressed the servant, the agent of the struggle in the narrative report. He then replaced the original target of the struggle, namely passion. The reason for the latter process lies in a syntactic feature specific to the use of the term struggle with passion. As a target of struggle, the force of passion has to be personalised. It must be the struggle specifically against ones own passion, not against passion in general. The soul, on the contrary, can remain impersonal. The phrase struggle against passion, as opposed to against ones passion, does not seem to exist in Arabic, at least not Ghazzls, whilst struggle against the soul is common. The specific struggle led by the servant against his passion thus became, when elevated to the rank of a general precept, simply the struggle against the soul. The particular statement of the Prophet concerning the return from the lesser struggle, as found in the narrative report, did provide further illustration

146

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

for the doctrine. It would seem more eloquent, however, if uttered by the very people about to engage in the struggle. Rather than being encouraged by the Prophet, they would express their own determination to lead the struggle. For increased eloquence, the speech had only to be transferred to the addressee. The statement addressed by the Prophet to his men was thus transformed into the statement of an anonymous Companion speaking on behalf of his troop. These alterations of ascription (in the former case, the suppression of the speaker, and in the latter, the transfer of speech) are explained only in part by a concern for eloquence. They should also be seen, I think, as the outcome of a concern to avoid artificial neatness. To have had the Prophet utter two general statements and a particular one, all three with very similar content, would have suggested a convergence of Tradition constructed by the author to promote his own preference for struggle against the soul. Similar statements, the reader would again suspect, may have been uttered by figures invested with less authority. More problematically, the Prophet also uttered statements praising struggle against the enemy, and disregarding altogether the struggle against the soul. To avoid giving the impression of artificial construction, varying ascription was needed. It was thus his concern to include sufficient imperfection to render his argument credible, in addition to his concern for eloquence, which made Ghazzl come up with a general precept and a Companions saying illustrating the doctrine. This situation was unknown to Tradition, which had both statements as sayings of the Prophet. H adth scholars were right to insist that h adths should be quoted from written or formally memorized texts. When this practice is not followed, the texts can easily fall victim to alteration. As we have seen, h adths can be adjusted to suit doctrine, and are affected by argumentative concerns. Such alterations, of course, do not imply that Ghazzl dismissed H adth as a normative source. The fact that he was prepared to alter ascription for the sake of consistency-based or imperfection-based credibility, however, indicates an understanding of authority departing from the normative principle common among Sunni scholars. According to this principle, authority is something vested in specific figures and, in particular, the Prophet. That the Sunni principle of authority was in non-legal matters quite foreign to Ghazzl became apparent when we saw him introducing the celebrated h adth on the wish of the martyr with the phrase: It is found in a report. We later saw that Companions are interchangeable, and could be anonymized when necessary. Lastly, it appeared that the sayings of the Prophet could be ascribed to a Companion, or absorbed into a general precept where it was helpful to do so. It could be argued that Ghazzl adopted a globalizing principle of authority, and acknowledged the authority of the Ancestors (salaf ) collectively. I rather

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

147

tend to think that he had no definite principle and that, for him, authority was a function of argument.

Bibliography
Ab Dd, Sulaymn b. al-Ashath al-Sijistn. al-Marsl, ed. Shuayb al-Arnt. Beirut, 1998. Ab Nuaym, Ahmad b. Abd Allh al-Isf ahn. H ilyat al-awliy. Beirut: Dr al-kitb al-arab, 1980. al-H kim al-Naysbr, Muhammad b. Abd Allh. al-Mustadrak al l-Sa h h ayn. Beirut: Dr al-marifa, n. d. al-Bayhaq, Ahmad b. al-H usayn. Kitb al-Zuhd al-kabr, ed. Taq al-Dn al-Nadw. Ab Dhabi: al-Mujamma al-thaqf, 2004. . Shuab al-mn, ed. Muhammad al-Sad b. Basyn Zaghll. Beirut, 1990. Brockelmann, Carl. Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. Erster Band. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1943; Erster Supplementband. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1937. al-Bukhr, Muhammad b. Isml. al-Sa h h, in Mawsat al-sunna, al-Kutub al-sitta wa-shurh uh. Istanbul, 1992. al-Drim, Abd Allh b. Abd al-Rahmn al-Samarqand. al-Sunan, in Mawsat al-sunna. Istanbul, 1992. Elster, Jon. Alchemies of the Mind. Rationality and the Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Fakhr al-Dn al-Rz, Muhammad b. Umar. al-Tafsr al-kabr. 32 vols. Tehran: Dr al-kutub al-ilmiyya, n. d. al-Ghazzl, Ab H mid Muhammad b. Muhammad. Ih y ulm al-dn. 16 volumes. Cairo: Dr al-shab, n. d. Ibn Abd al-Barr, Ysuf b. Abd Allh al-Qurtu b. al-Tamhd li-m f l-Muwatt a min al-man wa-l-asnd, ed. Must a f Ahmad al-Alaw et al. Rabat, 1967-86. Ibn al-Adm, Umar b. Ahmad al-H alab. Bughyat al-ta lab f trkh H alab, ed. Suhayl Zakkr. Damascus, 1988. Ibn Askir, Al b. al-H asan al-Dimashq. Trkh Madnat Dimashq, ed. Muhibb al-Dn Ab Sad Umar b. Gharma al-Amraw & Al Shr. Beirut: Dr al-Fikr al-Lubnn, 1995-8. Ibn Balbn. al-Ih sn bi-tartb Sa h h Ibn H ibbn, ed. Kaml Ysuf al-H t. Beirut, 1987. Ibn H anbal, Ahmad. al-Musnad. Beirut: Dr al-kutub al-ilmiyya, 1993. Ibn Mja, Muhammad b. Yazd al-Qazwn. al-Sunan, in Mawsat al-sunna. Istanbul, 1992. al-Khat b al-Baghdd, Ahmad b. Al. Trkh Baghdd aw Madnat al-Salm. 14 volumes. Cairo, 1349/1931, repr. Beirut: Dr al-Kitb al-Arab, 1968. Leites, Adrien. Amour de Dieu et dsir de la mort. Le martyre selon G azzl. Arabica 55, no. 1 (2008): 35-51. . La rgle de lamour chez G azzl. la rencontre dune thique du tawh d. Arabica 54, no. 1 (2007): 25-66. Mlik b. Anas. al-Muwatt a , in Mawsat al-sunna. Istanbul, 1992. Mawsat al-sunna. Istanbul, 1992. Muslim b. al-H ajjj al-Naysbr. al-Sa h h , in Mawsat al-sunna. Istanbul, 1992. Sezgin, Fuat. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. Band I. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967. al-Ta barn, Sulaymn b. Ahmad. al-Mujam al-kabr, ed. H amd Abd al-Majd al-Salaf. Baghdad, 1986. . al-Mujam al-sa ghr, ed. Kaml Ysuf al-H t. Beirut, 1986.

148

A. Leites / Oriens 40 (2012) 133-148

al-Thalab, Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Naysbr. al-Kashf wa l-bayn, ed. Ab Muhammad b. shr. Beirut, 2002. al-Tirmidh, Muhammad b. Sawra. al-Sunan, in Mawsat al-sunna. Istanbul, 1992. al-Zabd, Muhammad Murtad b. Muhammad. Ith f al-sda al-muttaqn bi-sharh Ih y ulm al-dn. Beirut: Dr al-kutub al-ilmiyya, 1989.