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 other view
presented by Andreas Gorke 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,
1

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.

He also suggests that maghazi traditions were often reported by an omniscient narrator, however such a
narrator would not be accepted by hadith scholars who stipulated that the original narrator had to be an eye
witness.

Andreas Gorke suggests that both views are difficult to prove. He concludes that both maghazi and hadith
emerged as separate fields, each influenced by the other whilst maintaining their distinctive features.