al-Tadwin al-Mubakkir lil-Sunna bayna al-Duktur Subhi al-Salih wa al-Mustashriqin
- Author died
- -
- Editions
- Research presented to the International Conference on Landmarks of Renewal in the Thought of Dr. Subhi al-Salih - may Allah have mercy on him - (held at Jinan University 3-4 November 2006 CE)
al-Tadwin al-Mubakkir lil-Sunna bayna al-Duktur Subhi al-Salih wa al-Mustashriqin: Qira'ah fi Kitab «Ulum al-Hadith wa-Mustalahuh» (The Early Recording of the Sunna Between Dr. Subhi al-Salih and Orientalists: A Reading of the Book "Hadith Sciences and Its Terminology") is an academic study by Majid Ahmad Niazi al-Darwish evaluating how the Lebanese scholar Subhi al-Salih addressed Orientalist critiques regarding the early documentation of Prophetic Hadith.
Background and Context
The work was prepared as a conference paper for the International Conference on "Features of Renewal in the Thought of the Martyr Dr. Shaykh Subhi al-Salih," held at Jinan University in Tripoli, Lebanon, on November 3–4, 2006 CE. Published as a single volume comprising 28 pages, the study examines the pioneering critical methodology applied by al-Salih in his foundational book Ulum al-Hadith wa-Mustalahuh (first published in 1959 at Damascus University Press).
The author notes that following World War II, particularly between 1954 and 1960 CE, Orientalist scholars actively edited and analyzed Islamic heritage texts using academic methods that appeared rigorous but frequently contained distortions arising from linguistic misunderstandings or preconceived hostility. Al-Salih stood out as an early scholar who engaged directly with Western scholarship in its original French sources during his studies at Sorbonne University—having encountered scholars such as Louis Massignon—allowing him to critique Orientalist assertions from firsthand knowledge rather than relying on Arabic translations.
Content and Themes
The study focuses on the opening chapter of al-Salih's Ulum al-Hadith wa-Mustalahuh, analyzing his defense of the early recording and preservation of the Sunna against Western historical-critical claims:
- Literacy and the Early Arab Context: Al-Salih contested Orientalist arguments regarding widespread Arab illiteracy before Islam and criticized uncritical historical reports that claimed only a dozen men in Mecca could write, demonstrating that such reports cannot serve as definitive statistical evidence.
- The Concept of Unletteredness (Ummiyyah): The study highlights al-Salih's critique of the Orientalist interpretation of the Quranic term ummi, which some Western scholars and certain commentators selectively glossed as merely "ignorant of divine scripture" rather than "unable to read and write," aiming to claim that the Prophet was literate and had compiled earlier scriptures.
- Reconciling Reports on Writing Hadith: The work details how classical scholars resolved the apparent contradiction between narrations prohibiting the writing of Hadith and those permitting it—concluding that the prohibition applied initially to prevent confusing Hadith sheets with the Quran, after which permission abrogated the restriction.
- Refutation of Ignaz Goldziher: Al-Salih targeted what he termed the "scientific delusion" championed by Ignaz Goldziher, who alleged that early Islamic factions recorded only what suited their sectarian interests. To refute this, al-Salih cited reports showing the extreme reluctance of the Successors (such as Jabir ibn Zayd) to allow their personal opinions (ra'y) to be written down alongside sacred texts, as well as narrations illustrating widespread transcription among the Successors, including Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab and al-Sha'bi.
Appraisal
Al-Darwish highlights al-Salih's pioneering role alongside contemporary scholars such as Mustafa al-Siba'i (author of al-Sunna wa-Makanatuha fi al-Tashri' al-Islami), noting that al-Salih had completed his work before al-Siba'i's was printed. He also observes a methodological deficiency among certain later modern researchers—such as Imtiyaz Ahmad in his 1974 study on the early documentation of the Sunna—who overlooked al-Salih's direct contributions while citing secondary works that relied on him.
Answer updated