Maghāzī and the Muḥaddithūn

Reconsidering the Treatment of “Historical” Materials in Early Collections of Hadith

Datos Bibliográficos

ID8965102
AutoresM Q Zaman (0000-0002-6689-2289, Quaid-i-Azam University, autor de correspondencia)
Año1996
Volumen28
Número1
Páginas1-18
Fecha de publicación1996-02-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaInternational Journal Middle East Studies (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0020-7438 • E-ISSN: 1471-6380
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0020743800062759
OpenAlexW2110197444
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas17

Islamicists have long been interested in the historiography of the sīra and maghāzī literature. Ibn Ishaq's Sīra has been fruitfully compared with al-Waqidi's Maghāzī , and both have been compared with sections in al-Bukhari's Ṣaḥīḥ or with other collections of hadith. It has often been observed that the materials constituting the Sīra of Ibn Ishaq or the Maghāzī of al-Waqidi—works which may for convenience, but only with reservations, be designated “historical”—are often the same as those preserved in collections of hadith such as al-Bukhari's. It has also been observed that what distinguish these materials from one another are essentially the former's narrative and chronological structures and the motives and methods governing these structures. John Wansbrough, who has compared these texts, postulates as well a “development from loosely structured narrative to concise exemplum & [which] illustrates perfectly the stylistic difference between Sīra and sunna , between the mythic and normative preoccupations ( Geistesbeschäftigungen ) of early Muslim literature.”

Archaeology · Art · Epistemology · Historiography · Literature · Narrative · Normative · Education and Islamic Studies · Historical and Linguistic Studies · History · Islamic Studies and History · Philosophy