اہل سنت کے ابتدائی حدیثی ورثے کی تشکیل کے متعلق سمیع اللہ سعدی کی آراء کا تنقیدی مطالعہ

A Critical Review of Samiullah Saadi's Views Regarding the Formation of the Early Hadith Heritage of Ahl al-Sunnah

Abstract

In his series of articles, Samīʿullāh Saʿdī presents a comparative study of the hadith heritage of the Shiʿa and Ahl al-Sunnah. In his initial paper, he advances a significant claim that, prior to the period of hadith codification, the hadith-related activities of Ahl al-Sunnah—both written and oral—were far more extensive, organized, and robust than those of the Shiʿa. The present study undertakes a critical examination of this primary claim, specifically concerning the formation of the written hadith heritage of Ahl al-Sunnah in the first century Hijri.

The methodology adopted in this study is historical-analytical. It seeks to analyze the socio-intellectual conditions of that period and the tendencies of prominent figures in light of available evidence and indicators, in order to understand the internal dynamics of hadith thought that developed during this era. Within this framework, Saʿdī’s position is critically evaluated.The findings of the research demonstrate that it is methodologically unsound to equate “the writing of hadith” (kitābat al-ḥadīth) directly with “fully compiled and independent hadith collections.” In the first century, the concept of Sunnah was also broader than in later periods, encompassing not only Prophetic traditions but also the statements of the Companions and practical precedents. Therefore, the codification of Sunnah cannot be reduced merely to the formal compilation of Prophetic hadith.

Furthermore, the jurists among the Tābiʿūn, like the Companions before them, would present their juristic opinions alongside hadith material. The term “knowledge” (ʿilm) was likewise applied to multiple disciplines. Consequently, the limited written materials from that period were not confined to hadith alone; rather, they also included jurisprudence (fiqh), exegesis (tafsīr), genealogy (ansāb), and accounts of military campaigns (maghāzī), among other subjects.It is also important to note that early Arab society was fundamentally characterized by an oral culture, in which writing was regarded as contrary to the prevailing norm and thus an exceptional practice. The reported act of several prominent Companions destroying their written materials—out of concern that Muslims might fall into deviation similar to that of the People of the Book (Jews), who relied on the Mishnah (Mathnāh)—played a crucial role in sustaining an oral culture of knowledge for nearly a century. In this context, the encouragement of hadith writing by ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, as well as the fear of hadith being lost or effaced, becomes historically intelligible.In light of these considerations, it is more accurate to regard the writing of hadith in the first century not as a dominant or majority trend, but rather as a minority tendency. Thus, Saʿdī’s claim appears to be confronted with multiple historical challenges.