robert spencer-did muhammad exist__ an inquiry into islams obscure origins-intercollegiate studies institute (2012) (1)

was self-contradictory or absurd on its face; so long as its isnad chain was clear of anomalies, and it did
not contradict the Qur'an, the tradition had no obstacles to being accepted as reliable. 57 Bukhari and
Muslim, as well as their counterparts, also tended to favor traditions that they received from multiple
sources, but this indicates only that a hadith had circulated widely, not that it was authentic.
If a hadith could be forged, however, so could its chain of transmission. There are numerous
indications that isnads were forged with the same alacrity with which matns—that is, the content of the
hadiths—were invented. The scholar of Islamic law Joseph Schacht notes one anomalous hadith that
indicates the liberties taken with the isnads. He points out that ash-Shafii, a renowned Islamic jurist of the
early ninth century, described a particular hadith as mursal, meaning “hurried,” and “generally not acted
upon.” Shafii's description implies that the hadith “is not confirmed by any version with a complete
isnad,” Schacht explains. But, he continues, the same hadith “appears with a different, full isnad in Ibn
Hanbal…and Ibn Maja.” 58
Schacht notes many instances of hadiths with obviously forged or altered isnads. He recounts one
passed on by Malik in his Muwatta. Malik heard from Muhammad ibn Abdalrahman ibn Sad ibn Zurara,
who heard from one of Muhammad's wives, Hafsa, that once Hafsa killed one of her slaves who practiced
witchcraft and had cast a spell on her. In another place we learn that Malik heard from Abul-Rijal
Muhammad ibn Abdalrahman ibn Jariya, who heard from his mother, Amra, that another one of
Muhammad's wives, Aisha, sold one of her slaves who practiced witchcraft and had cast a spell on her.
“One of these versions is modeled on the other,” Schacht observes, “and neither can be regarded as
historical.” 59
But Are They All Unreliable?
That hadiths were forged is admitted by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike. For the Muslim scholar
Muhammad Mustafa Azami, the existence of obviously faulty isnads is in itself enough to establish the
reliability of the hadiths that have been deemed authentic. 60 After all, he argues, if the isnads were forged,
why would the forger buttress his work with an unsatisfactory chain of transmission? If the whole thing is
fictional in the first place and fabricated for political reasons, why not attribute the tradition to none but
respected members of the Islamic community, passing on Muhammad's words in an unbroken and clearly
reliable chain? But Amazi's argument falters on the fact that hadiths were manufactured by competing
factions, and the old adage that the victors write the history books applies: If a well-known hadith did not
promote a perspective favorable to the ruling faction, altering the isnad was an easy way to cast doubts
on its authenticity. Moreover, a transmitter whom one faction saw as a reliable and pious could be
considered a villainous fabricator by another faction.
The contemporary scholar Harald Motzki has also challenged on several fronts the idea that the Hadith
as a whole is unreliable. He points to the hadiths collected by scholar Abd ar-Razzaq (744–826) as
evidence that hadiths were circulating by at least the early eighth century. But in truth, Abd ar-Razzaq did
the bulk of his work toward the end of the eighth century. 61 Like Azami, Motzki cites the very existence of
suspect isnads to argue that the other hadiths must be authentic. He notes that Abd ar-Razzaq sometimes
attributes hadiths to sources that he considers of doubtful reliability, and even presents hadiths with no
known source. If hadiths were being manufactured wholesale and fitted out with impressive isnads, why