A study of bayan al-lu a in Umdat al-Qari', al- Ayni's commentary on the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad

Abstract

Before constructing a lexical analysis based on Hadīth language, which originated from the Prophet himself and is thus held in high esteem, an overview on the Hadīth is provided in chapter 1. In this section, the aim is to outline the relevance and importance of these Prophetic traditions in the life of the Muslim community. It is evident that for the believers nothing related to the Prophet’s behaviour was regarded as insignificant and thus, any source of information transmitted through his words and deeds was stored in human memory, discussed and, most importantly, put into practice. Besides offering reasons and evidence reflecting the value of Hadīth, this dissertation also aims to expose controversies and debates surrounding these texts, many of which have been raised especially by non-Muslim scholarship and later rigorously dismissed by their Muslim counterparts. This is evidenced in the views perceived through the works of critics like Alfred Guillaume (d. 1966), Ignaz Goldziher (d. 1921), Maulana Muḥammad ‘Alī (d. 1951) and Muḥammad Zubayr Ṣiddīqī. Through their contributions to the study of Hadīth origin, formation, verification and authenticity, various contrasting outlooks can be noted. The basis of what comes to be known as ‘the non-Muslim approach’, represented mainly by Goldziher and Guillaume, is rooted in the theory that interest in the words and deeds of the Prophet essentially grew after his death. As is suggested, many were those who would use the Hadīth as a political and religious weapon and consequently attributed false doctrines and ideals to the Prophet Muḥammad. Other controversies noted include the method adopted during the verification, classification and collection of Hadīth which were met at a later stage, as the Prophetic traditions started being gathered, analysed and put down in writing. In this respect, the judgements brought forth by non-Muslim authors rest on the view that the method adopted by compilers of these oral traditions is in itself erroneous, as it only gives weight to the authenticity of the chain of transmitters or narrators (ʾisnād) rather than the content of the texts (matn). These aspects are further discussed in the light of other contrasting hypotheses which accompanied the evolution of the Hadīth science from the process of its dissemination, collection and verification till its eventual compilation in the form of a musnad and later a muṣannaf. In this respect, the final part of the chapter comprises an overview of the most important Hadīth collections, the Ṣiḥāḥ Sitta, which are known to be the most authentic compilations. Chapter 2 presents the reader with a brief review about the work of two of the most important Islamic scholars, namely Abū ‘Abdallāh Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl al-Buḫārī and Muslim ibn al-Haǧǧāǧ, the authors of the most authoritative compilations of Hadīth, known as al-Ṣaḥīḥān. In this section, focus is placed on the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Buḫārī, one of the two compilations discussed and from which a selection of hadīth will be later extracted for a lexical study. In the light of the above, chapter 3 focuses on one of the most celebrated commentaries concerning al-Buḫārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ namely that composed by Badr al-Dīn al-‘Aynī who, as a historian and religious scholar, has greatly contributed to the Islamic community with a 25 volume commentary known as ‘Umdat al-Qarīʾ fi Šarh Ṣaḥīḥ al-Buḫārī. The expertise and knowledge of al-‘Aynī in the area of hadīth studies is made evident through a brief biography together with a review of his most renowned works, especially the ‘Umdat al-Qarīʾ. In his exposition on the Arabic language entitled the bayān al-luġa, which is comprised in the above-mentioned commentary, he exposes the hadīth language as presented in al-Buḫārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ whilst providing philological interpretations on it. In this way he offers a valuable record of the Medieval Arabic lexicography which opens up a variety of possibilities for further linguistic studies. Basing the choice of lexemes on the bayān al-luġa, in chapter 4, a lexical corpus of approximately 150 words is analysed and presented. The lexemes are selected from the first three volumes of his commentary and cover familiar topics such as the daily cleansing rituals Muslims are enjoined to perform before performing the prayer. The main motive leading to the choice of such themes is that of exploring reasons why al-‘Aynī felt the need to make semantic observations about words concerned with such familiar topics. Primarily, the study is based on al-‘Aynī’s philological exposition (composed in the 15th century) about alBuḫārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ (composed in the 9th century) together with recourse to various dictionaries published since al-‘Aynī’s commentary. One of the aims of this lexical study includes the exposition of al-‘Aynī’s philological observations about the language of the hadīth as perceived circa six centuries later. Through lexicographical sources of authors such as John Penrice, Edward Lane, Hans Wehr and Munir Baalbaki, an attempt is made to examine the diachronic development of the lexemes. Various linguistic processes undergone by the lexemes are noted and discussed in chapter 5. Language phenomena include semantic change, phonemic change, linguistic borrowing and morphological adaptation, amongst others. Through the lexemes presented in the bayān al-luġa, a rather well-defined picture of the way of life of the Arabs during the early centuries of Islam can be portrayed.