Genre analysis and religious texts: a methodological model of ḥadīth commentary

Abstract

This article proposes a methodological model of genre analysis to apply to Muslim exegesis on the compilations of Prophetic traditions, known as ḥadīth commentary. Inspired by John Swales’s approach to genre analysis, and drawing upon 23 Sunni ḥadīth commentary texts from the tenth century to the present, the model consists of a number of analytical strategies and research questions, as well as specific generic analyses, in four steps: identifying the main generic features of these commentary texts, including the characteristics of their expository and hortatory discourses; examining their internal structures as constructed by commentators; and applying the move analysis of rhetorical structures twice—to both their introduction and the body of the text. The proposed model offers a way to make ḥadīth commentary texts more accessible and manageable, and helps explore the structural commonalities and differences within the commentary tradition across generations and throughout the Muslim world.

Introduction

Interdisciplinary work has increasingly been of interest in religious studies, to which this article aims to contribute by developing a methodological model with which genre analysis, an important textual analysis method, can be applied to Muslim exegetical works on the compilations of Prophetic traditions, known as ḥadīth commentary texts (shurūḥ). Genre analysis (GA) is the study of established textual conventions in the context of a discipline or institution. Often used in the fields of language education and linguistics, sociology, and business communication,¹ it has not been widely applied in Islamic studies.

Most texts produced in different civilizations from China to Islam and India to Europe had an exegetical character until the seventeenth century. Despite wide differences in canon types and origins, commentary texts became increasingly similar in form across cultures.² Commentary’s origins lie in the oral reading of omens, oracles, and dreams in ancient cultures. In medieval times, it evolved into the explanation of unknown or ambiguous words, and then took the form of encyclopedic commentary texts in different traditions, including Islamic exegesis.³

In Islamic culture commentary serves as a major genre through which scholars articulate their views, refute their opponents, and construct and affirm their intellectual standing. Reasons for commentary production include the need for responding to social (especially legal) changes, establishing the writer’s status in the scholastic division of labour, or simply explaining or reworking a previous work, and preserving and systematizing the accumulated knowledge with growing specialization.⁴ Moreover, commentary enables scholars to justify their views, building upon the accomplishments of the previous figures who assumed power and prestige. It also helps retain and modify previous authorities’ doctrines, thereby both safeguarding the identity and authority of their own school and engendering changes within that tradition.⁵

A part of this broader genre, ḥadīth commentary reveals Muslim scholars’ efforts to reproduce the Prophetic teachings, and makes them relevant to their communities. In its written form, ḥadīth commentary started out as dictation notes by ḥadīth transmitters and as chapter headings by ḥadīth collectors like al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870), followed by the explanation of ambiguous words in ḥadīths (gharīb al-ḥadīth). Then came line-by-line commentary in the form of mosque lessons and works written for teaching and practical uses (the latter particularly by jurists). Ḥadīth commentary matured under the Mamluks (1250–1517), where there emerged voluminous stand-alone commentary texts like Ibn Ḥajar’s (d. 852/1449), as well as commentary in the form of marginal or interlinear notes on ḥadīth collections. Many forty-ḥadīth commentary texts and those on secondary sources also appeared in this golden age of Sunni commentary. The Shiʿa ḥadīth commentary flourished later in the sixteenth century within the Akhbārī school. Commentarial activities proliferated in early modern India and the Ottoman Empire with many single-ḥadīth and thematic commentary texts produced and studied. The post-nineteenth-century ḥadīth commentary has been characterized by voluminous texts, appearing mostly in India, commentary writing in non-Arabic languages, and the use of technological innovations in academic and popular genres.⁶

Following the waning of the ‘decline thesis’⁷ in the 1990s, the commentary genre began to attract attention in Western academia. Concomitantly, ḥadīth commentary studies increased both quantitatively and qualitatively,⁸ paving the way for approaches going beyond traditional methods. This indicates the presence of a ready soil to develop methodological models for more nuanced analyses.

The GA model proposed here entails a systematic framework that will help examine ḥadīth commentary from a fresh perspective, enhancing the understanding of it by utilizing rigorous social-scientific techniques. We demonstrate GA’s applicability to a subfield where this methodological tool has been overlooked. It will facilitate further research by rendering the content of ḥadīth commentary texts more predictable and accessible. This article outlines our model, demonstrating how GA could be applied on ḥadīth commentary texts, including brief empirical applications on 23 texts by leading commentators (see below).

A particular challenge in this context is the application of this method, developed primarily for modern, English-language texts, to medieval texts written in classical Arabic and in a largely different scholarly and religious tradition. To address this challenge, we take into account the peculiar features of Islamic texts in our examination, including the unique aspects of ḥadīth commentary, such as the praises and prayers at the beginning of the texts’ introductions, and sections on narrators’ biographies. As a matter of fact, scientific methods such as GA tend to be resistant against context-bound variations, being applicable to cases from different cultures. After all, there is usually a convergence among scholars on the kinds of questions to be asked of texts produced in different traditions and epochs—hence the relative convergence in commentary form across civilizations.⁹ A second challenge concerns the structural diversity among ḥadīth commentary texts due to their spatial and temporal variation. As much as it is true that different commentators have composed their works in different ways, we contend that commentary writing has had some common generic features shared by scholarly communities in distant lands and across generations. We point to diversity in the genre’s construction by various commentators in our empirical analyses. Before presenting our model, we first review the relevant literatures on GA and ḥadīth commentary.

Literature Review

1. Genre analysis

Genre is a textual structure created by a specialized group within an institutional setting. It entails a ‘class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes’.¹⁰ Accordingly, genre analysis (GA) is the ‘study of situated linguistic behaviour in institutionalised academic or professional settings’.¹¹ The key elements of GA include purposes (communicative goals), products (books, brochures, etc.), practices (discursive acts), and players (genre community membership).¹²

Originally developed in the UK in the 1980s to enhance non-native speakers’ ability to use English effectively,¹³ GA has evolved from a lexico-grammatical analysis ‘towards a more interdiscursive and critical genre analysis and understanding of professional practice’.¹⁴ Today, it is used by sociologists, translators, cognitive scientists, advertisers, as well as linguists.¹⁵

Different linguistic approaches to GA have been developed, some of which we draw on in this article. Among them, Bhatia has proposed a socio-linguistic perspective that entails an analysis on three levels: lexico-grammatical features of the texts; ‘text-patterning’, for example, functions of adjectives, pronouns, past participles; and structural interpretation of the text-genre by identifying authors’ strategies and ‘moves’.¹⁶ He suggests focusing particularly on the ‘sentence level syntactical analysis’ and the structural patterns of the text.¹⁷

We also draw on Fairclough, who suggests that GA may proceed in three directions: analysis of ‘genre chains’ (different genres produced in interconnected texts); of ‘genre mixtures’ in a particular text; and of individual genres reproduced in a text.¹⁸ GA reveals that even a single text may combine several genres, as they are often used in mixed and hybrid form. Furthermore, genres can be identified on different levels of abstraction—thus, both ‘commentary’ in general and ‘ḥadīth commentary’ are genres at different levels. To differentiate these, Swales suggests the term ‘pre-genre’ for broader, more abstract ones,¹⁹ whereas Fairclough proposes to distinguish three levels: ‘situated’ (the least abstract genre) and ‘disembedded’ ones as well as ‘pre-genres’. Some genres are taken out, or ‘disembedded’, from their original context, and deployed by actors in different ones, constituting the middle level.²⁰ In this study, we take ‘ḥadīth commentary’ as a situated genre as part of the ‘commentary’ pre-genre, without further distinctions. However, we contend that introductions to ḥadīth commentary texts (see section 3 below) do have a disembedded structure that can be found as sub-genre in other Islamic commentary types; for example, fiqh commentary.

We also agree with Bhatia that genres are not fixed, but open to ‘innovation’ and modification, particularly by experts,²¹ such as ḥadīth commentators. Thus, generic structures entail both conventionalized patterns and innovation, that is, they are relatively rigid but open to novel interpretations by professional communities.²² Moreover, the model we propose here will pay attention to subtle power relations (re)produced in ḥadīth commentary texts’ generic structures. Genres help produce ‘authorial authority’ and solidarity among these professionals—this discursive authority is derived from established conventions, which in turn generate knowledge/power operating within a discursive community. For, technical aspects of genre provide privileged access to discourse for experts, which maintains solidarity and homogeneity among members, and their distance from outsiders.²³ Therefore genres often involve power relations. Those with well-defined purposes and generic structure, in particular, operate effectively as part of social systems based on instrumental (or strategic) rationality, such as academia or the corporate world, whereas loosely structured genres are more suitable for ‘communicative action’ in terms of the ‘system versus lifeworld’ dichotomy.²⁴

Our model follows Swales’s influential approach²⁵ based on the terms ‘rhetorical moves’ and ‘steps’ as central tools for GA. A rhetorical move is ‘a unit of text that has a communicative function, which adds to the major communicative purpose of the genre’,²⁶ steps being its constituent elements. Swales developed his earlier model of rhetorical organization found in the introductions of research articles (RAs)²⁷ into what he calls the ‘Create-A-Research-Space’ (CARS) model based on a three-move structure of RAs, including:

Move 1: Establishing a territory

• Step 1: Claiming centrality and/or Step 2: Making topic generalization(s) and/or Step 3: Reviewing items of previous research

Move 2: Establishing a niche

• Step 1A: Counter-claiming or Step 1B: Indicating a gap or Step 1C: Question-raising

• Step 1D: Continuing a tradition

Move 3: Occupying the niche

• Step 1A: Outlining purposes or Step 1B: Announcing present research

• Step 2: Announcing principal findings

• Step 3: Indicating RA structure.²⁸

We borrow Swales’s concepts of ‘move’ and ‘steps’ to apply to our source material, particularly in demonstrating their rhetorical structures. We also make a partial use of Bhatia’s model, especially what he calls the analytical perspective on genre. However, Bhatia tends to conflate GA with discourse analysis (DA), based on his ‘Discourse as Genre’ concept, which suggests extending the analysis beyond the text to incorporate both the professional context and the wider social context in terms of the production and reception of genre. Such a broad view contains considerable overlap with DA, which we consider as a separate and broader method than GA. As such, the present model does not include specifically DA-related themes and questions, such as the contextual, intertextual, and interdiscursive aspects of commentaries.²⁹

2. Ḥadīth commentary

To our knowledge, GA has not been fully applied to ḥadīth commentary. There are, however, studies that apply certain elements of GA on a particular ḥadīth or commentary texts. Below, we will review them in three categories by focusing on which parts of GA they seem to suggest. The first group focuses on either ḥadīth commentary as a genre or a particular commentary text, and incorporate certain instances of GA. Thus, Fadel demonstrates that Ibn Ḥajar employed a kind of GA in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, arguing that the formal structure of the compilation shapes ḥadīths’ content.³⁰ Tokatly³¹ focuses on the stylistic features of al-Khaṭṭābī’s (d. 388/998) Aʿlām al-ḥadīth claiming that it was written more as a polemical work against the rising Ashʿarī theology than a commentary on the Ṣaḥīḥ.

Blecher³² shows that ḥadīth commentary is not only a literary practice but is often a product of live oral lessons. He also presents ḥadīth commentary as a social practice that involves a web of relations, among the ulema, sultans, merchants, and others, emphasizing both the socio-political and intellectual contexts. Moreover, Blecher briefly outlines the evolution of ḥadīth commentary from the third/ninth century to the present.³³ Karagözoğlu has also provided an overview of the general structural features and historical development of ḥadīth commentary texts, as well as their institutional context and functions; for example, consolidating the commentator’s standing in intellectual circles, and advancing theological and legal doctrines.³⁴ Likewise, al-ʿAwnī enumerates nine ‘steps of ḥadīth commentary’, such as takhrīj, gharīb al-ḥadīth, and balāgha, though his approach is more prescriptive than descriptive, focusing on how contemporary ḥadīth commentary should be carried out properly.³⁵

Few studies adopt a comparative perspective towards ḥadīth commentary texts, such as Calder, who briefly examines al-Nawawī’s different fiqh writing style in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim vis-à-vis his three other works, al-Majmūʿ, Rawḍat al-ṭālibīn, and Minhāj al-ṭālibīn.³⁶ His study shows significant discursive similarities and differences between ḥadīth commentary and other genres such as fiqh or kalām. Furthermore, Brinkmann argues that early gharīb al-ḥadīth works constitute the nucleus of ḥadīth commentary, for they often go beyond explaining the meanings of obscure words, offering legal interpretation.³⁷ Dajani, on the other hand, argues that ḥadīth commentary produced by Sufis does not constitute an independent genre, for they do not typically employ unique methods and terminology.³⁸ Finally, Gharaibeh shows how Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī’s commentary on al-Nawawī’s forty-ḥadīth collection had an innovative character, by relocating it from the forty-ḥadīth genre to the tradition of jawāmiʿ al-kalim.³⁹

A second group concentrates on specific ḥadīths or chapters (abwāb), incorporating some elements of GA. Fadel, Burge, and Patel, respectively, all argue that a ḥadīth’s location, chapter heading, and the ordering of ḥadīths within a particular chapter are a kind of commentary: they should be examined not in isolation but in the context of the chapter they are located, or even the whole collection.⁴⁰ While these studies focus on Sunni sources, Klasova traces the circulation of the ‘ḥadīth’ about the creation of the intellect among Sunni and Shiʿi compilations and commentaries, demonstrating how once it acquired the form of ḥadīth (after its ‘ḥadīthization’), the saying gained currency well beyond its age and place of origin, early second/eighth-century Basra.⁴¹

Third, many studies apply certain aspects of GA to non-ḥadīth Islamic commentaries, such as Ahmed, who raises issues of intertextuality within the tradition of philosophical commentary on Muḥibballāh al-Bihārī’s (d. 1119/1707) Sullam al-ʿulūm.⁴² Likewise, Wisnovsky discusses certain generic features of philosophical commentary based on the concept of taḥqīq, which he argues is the primary function of the genre, in his examination of early commentaries on Avicenna’s al-Ishārāt.⁴³ In tafsīr, Wansbrough proposes a list of twelve ‘procedural devices’ (e.g., lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical explanations) commonly employed by pre-Ṭabarī Qurʾān commentators.⁴⁴ Saleh discusses a similar list of fourteen generic elements laid out by al-Thaʿlabī in the introduction to his tafsīr, such as linguistic analysis, occasions of revelation, legal rules and stipulations.⁴⁵ More recently, Bauer identifies the generic tropes of Qurʾān commentary introductions, arguing that exegetes’ ‘methods’ constitute the most important one used to justify their work.⁴⁶ Her approach is somewhat comparable to ours, though our model is more comprehensive in terms of analytical elements, encompassing other generic features as well as tropes. Moreover, our scope extends beyond introductions, and we utilize both classical and contemporary sources spanning over a millennium as the basis of our methodological proposal.

Methodology

Ḥadīth commentary can be defined broadly, encompassing any written or oral explanation on a given ḥadīth/ḥadīth collection per se, and the deployment of a ḥadīth in oral lectures or written texts.⁴⁷ For the purposes of this study, we adopt van Lit’s relatively narrow definition of (Islamic) commentary as ‘structural textual correspondence’ between a hypertext and a (previous) hypotext. Thus, commentary refers to ‘any text that derives its construction from an earlier text, by using specific terms from that earlier text in structurally significant places’.⁴⁸ Our model takes ḥadīth commentary as its (situated) genre, analysing its main elements, or ‘building blocks’ used by commentators to construct their corpus. The model consists of three main components: GA-based analytical strategies, the research questions generated by these strategies, and specific generic analyses.

We apply GA to ḥadīth commentary in four steps. First, we identify, à la Swales, the main generic features of the commentary (e.g., mamzūj vs qawluhu structures—see below), and their implications in terms of the author’s control over the text’s flow. This step also includes the examination of the genre type established in the commentary. Here we follow Longacre’s four types of genres: narrative and drama, procedural and instructional, expository and descriptive, hortatory and persuasive (see Table 2 below).⁴⁹

Second, we discuss other schematic features of the commentary, including its internal ordering, chapter and section structures, volume, and coverage of the base-text. For, examining the inner organization of a text as constructed by the commentator himself is an integral part of GA. Here we explore the implications of these structural elements to understand the extent to which the specific work reflects and/or constructs various conventions of the commentary genre.

Third, we apply GA to the ḥadīth commentary text’s introduction (muqaddima) where, as in most academic works, the author outlines the corpus’s organization and features. The introduction is a special section that not only outlines the particular work it opens up but also includes significant elements and conventions of the genre it embodies. For this reason, it has received special attention in the literature.⁵⁰ In fact, GA itself was refined by the examination of article introductions by Swales, as discussed above. Finally, we apply it to the commentary sections on a particular ḥadīth in the body of the work. In these latter steps we decipher the strategies for, and motivations behind, the author’s arrangement of his commentary’s building blocks. For each step, we also produce a table of rhetorical structures typically found in ḥadīth commentaries to illustrate these generic elements. By rhetorical structure we specifically refer to the rhetorical ‘moves’ and their constituent ‘steps’ ḥadīth commentators employ when structuring their work. They fill these structural blocks with various discursive and rhetorical content (e.g., linguistic analysis, methodological discussions); our analysis is not concerned with details of this content per se, but with their form.⁵¹

Our model thus applies a Swalesian textual-structural analysis, or what Connor calls a ‘contrastive rhetoric’ analysis, which primarily emphasizes generic or schematic structures and rhetorical function, such as ‘moves’ or ‘stages’.⁵² We also show power relations involved in these arrangements in terms of the commentator’s treatment of the base-text and its author as well as his own position vis-à-vis others—authors, commentators, books, and their disciplinary and madhhab memberships.

To construct the present model, we have drawn upon twenty-three Sunni ḥadīth commentary texts from the fourth century ah to the present (see Table 1 below).⁵³ Among many possible ways of categorizing ḥadīth commentary texts, classification according to the base-text’s type is a useful method for our technical model. Some commentary texts were written on identifiable collections—either primary collections with full isnāds from the Prophet to the compiler, or secondary adaptations from primary sources—while others were produced on a selection of ḥadīths from a variety of sources, such as single- or forty-ḥadīth commentary texts.⁵⁴ Though our model is also applicable to the latter group, we have first selected as the bulk of our sample nineteen complete and comprehensive line-by-line commentary texts on primary ḥadīth collections with isnād;⁵⁵ then we have added to our sample four texts written on the two most important secondary adaptations, al-Ṣaghānī’s Mashāriq al-anwār and al-Tabrīzī’s Mishkāt al-maṣābīḥ—one commentary text on the former, three on the latter—to test the extent to which our model is applicable to later adaptations too, thereby examining a total of twenty-three ḥadīth commentary texts.⁵⁶

The criteria we have used to construct our sample include the texts’ significance in, and influence on, the literature, combined with their temporal, spatial, and sectarian diversity. Because GA aims to reveal relatively time-resistant structures of these texts, we have paid special attention to chronological continuity; we have also tried to maintain a wide spectrum of geographical and madhhab representation. In Table 1, the ‘base-text and type’ column indicates the commented-upon ḥadīth collection and its type as described above. The ‘city’ column indicates the cities in which commentators penned much of their book;⁵⁸ it also includes the wider region if the city is less known. The ‘affiliation’ column includes a question mark for al-Khaṭṭābī and Molla Gūrānī as their affiliations are disputed by scholars.⁵⁹

The Genre Analysis Model of Ḥadīth Commentary

Consisting of the four dimensions introduced above, our model aims to reconstruct the ḥadīth commentary as a genre. In their basic structure, commentary texts, following collections of ḥadīths, usually consist of numerous parts, or books (kutub, sing. kitāb), with different numbered chapters (abwāb, sing. bāb) within them; they then provide explanations of one or several ḥadīths contained in those chapters. Within this framework, the basic information on the relevant book’s topic is given first (e.g., general information pertaining to renting under Kitāb al-Ijāra), followed by the chapter title and its explanation, and then commentary on specific ḥadīths within the chapter. When the ḥadīths in a chapter are close in meaning, they are usually commented on together. This basic structure forms the backdrop of the ḥadīth commentary texts’ generic features to be examined in detail below.

1. Main generic features of the ḥadīth commentary texts

Structurally, ḥadīth commentary texts are either in the qawluhu type or mamzūj type—or sometimes a mixture of both. In the mamzūj type, the main text is embedded within the commentary, whereas in the qawluhu type, main-text particles are quoted separately, often within parentheses.⁶⁰ The first analytical strategy is, therefore, to identify the commentary text’s main generic feature (whether it is Q-type or M-type) and its functions. While most ḥadīth commentary texts are of the Q-type, a few, such as al-Qasṭallānī’s Irshād al-sārī, prefer the M-type. With regard to its functions, Ingalls argues that the mamzūj structure (or what he calls the ‘matn-sharḥ amalgam’) provides strict control over the base-text and strengthens the commentary’s persuasiveness.⁶¹

A second GA strategy is to explore other main structural features of these commentary texts according to Longacre’s four types of genres mentioned earlier. These are based on his two-by-two matrix in classifying genres depending on their being chronological or non-chronological, prescriptive or non-prescriptive, as summarized in Table 2.

Here we argue that most ḥadīth commentary texts simultaneously entail features of both non-chronological–non-prescriptive (i.e., expository) and non-chronological–prescriptive (i.e., hortatory) genres. However, expository (descriptive and analytical) discourse is their primary feature, and hortatory (normative and persuasive) only secondary, due to their academic nature. The latter implicitly exists in many sections, often following technical explanations, where the commentator discusses moral lessons, in addition to linguistic analysis and theological-legal rulings to be derived from a particular ḥadīth—the latter section typically begins with ‘In this ḥadīth are the following…’ (fī al-ḥadīth…). To further explicate this double feature of ḥadīth commentary texts, consider the following example from al-Nawawī: when the Companion Abū Dharr (d. 32/653) vilified his slave because his mother was non-Arab, the Prophet said to him, ‘you are a person who has jāhiliyya in him’ (innaka imruʾ fīka jāhiliyya). After explaining the term ‘jāhiliyya’ as ‘a trait of pre-Islamic morals’, al-Nawawī draws a moral inference from the ḥadīth saying, ‘A Muslim should not have anything of their [jāhiliyya] morals. The ḥadīth forbids reproaching parents and finding fault with them, as this is a habit of jāhiliyya.’⁶²

In terms of the four aspects of these genre types, we see that (i) ḥadīth commentaries typically employ the third person in their expository and hortatory discourses, though the latter also implies the second person. For, as Longacre observes, ‘Hortatory discourse involves a second person component in its deep structure but may not have such a person in its surface structure.’⁶³ (ii) Regarding their objectives, commentaries’ expository statements are descriptive and analytical, and thus subject-matter oriented, just like their prescriptive discourse, which is only implicitly addressee oriented, as the subject-matter (e.g., lessons from a ḥadīth) remains visible on the text’s surface. (iii) As far as time is concerned, they frequently employ the past and present tense in both their expositions and hortatory suggestions, with the latter almost never encoded as imperatives on the surface. (iv) Finally, they integrate parts of their discourse through logical, rather than chronological, linkages. For, neither expositions nor prescriptions in commentaries require chronological succession, but a logical order covering one topic after another.

What do all these aspects tell us about ḥadīth commentary as a genre? That these texts are of expository type indicates their main generic features, such as containing technical and explanatory paragraphs rather than dialogues or narratives. The text type is also indicative of two main orientations of ḥadīth commentary: expanding on ideas mentioned in ḥadīths and deriving lessons from them. Accordingly, it shows the commentators’ textual aims, such as explicating relatively unknown words or obscure phrases and clarifying complicated sentences and ideas, as well as their scholarly objectives, including selecting the preferred opinion on a particular legal matter. Moreover, text type implies the intended audience of the book: ḥadīth commentary usually addresses students, scholars, and the reading public in general—though its production through oral lessons also targets the ordinary (non-reading) audience, particularly in mosque settings. Furthermore, the fact that ḥadīth commentary texts are of mixed type (expository being dominant, normative and persuasive secondary) reflects the multiplicity of their purposes—both providing explanation on complex matters, and giving advice on legal and moral issues, as exemplified above. Finally, the non-chronological and logical ordering of their textual elements indicates that providing detailed contextual information through historical narratives is not a top priority for ḥadīth commentators, even though one may sometimes witness subtle incorporation of such information in their comments.

In exploring the main generic features of a commentary text, it is important to determine, as a third GA strategy, if the work was produced as a discrete text, or was based on public lectures or lessons that were later turned into a text. Then one needs to explore the possible implications of this for the text’s volume, style, and so on. For instance, one of the earliest commentaries of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, al-Muʿlim by North African scholar al-Māzarī, was produced in a process where his students read al-Ṣaḥīḥ to him during the Ramadan of 499/1106, and recorded his comments on it, which they then presented back to him for his correction and revision. The final product became the commentary text that we have today.⁶⁴ Perhaps this is the reason why the book is concise and includes a limited number of ḥadīths. Three centuries later, in Western Anatolia, madrasa professor Ibn Malak reported that after he had completed his commentary on Mashāriq al-anwār, his students asked him to approach the base-text more analytically (ʿalā ṭarīqat al-ḥall), and he revised his Mabāriq al-azhār based on this feedback.⁶⁵ Likewise, most commentary texts produced in early twentieth-century India are based on madrasa lectures. For example, Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī’s (d. 1905) al-Kawkab al-durrī and al-Kashmīrī’s (d. 1933) al-ʿArf al-shadhī, both of which are on al-Tirmidhī’s al-Jāmiʿ, were produced by their students who edited (sometimes with additions) their lecture notes from their Tirmidhī classes.⁶⁶ Thus, an oral style of communication permeates both works.

A fourth strategy is to examine coverage of the base-text, that is, how much of the base-text the commentator opted to work on, and discuss the possible reasons and significance of this choice. For example, al-Khaṭṭābī, an early commentator on al-Bukhārī and Abū Dāwūd, left out over half of their compilations, possibly because the notion of a full commentary had not yet developed as part of the ulema habitus at the time. Only in later centuries did comprehensiveness become (and still remains) a major concern for commentators, as in the case of a recent work, Dhakhīrat al-ʿuqbā by al-Ityūbī, which is a complete commentary on Sunan al-Nasāʾī.

Finally, the commentary text’s generic features are also shaped by how much it borrows from other genres, or what one might call ‘intergeneric incorporation’. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate if and in what ways a particular ḥadīth commentary text synthesizes elements from other genres (e.g., tafsīr, biography, hagiography). For instance, al-Ityūbī’s commentary on Muslim, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ al-thajjāj, extensively quotes from rijāl books (biographies of narrators), particularly Ibn Ḥajar’s Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb. When discussing narrators, he quotes all available information on them from Tahdhīb, regardless of its relevance to the specific topic.⁶⁷ One might even say that Tahdhīb is reproduced in its entirety, albeit sporadically, in al-Baḥr. As such, al-Ityūbī’s commentary contains certain features of the biography genre as well. The examination of these generic features of commentary texts must be complemented by an analysis of their internal structures for a better understanding of them.

2. The internal structures of the ḥadīth commentary texts

In examining the internal structure of a commentary text, the first GA strategy is to understand its method of determining both chapter headings and chapter placement: does it follow the chapter headings and placement method found in the base-text, or does it have its own logic? While commentary texts often follow the structure of the base-text, sometimes they apply their own method, especially in cases where the former is impracticable. For example, Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Qurṭubī summarized Muslim’s al-Ṣaḥīḥ with his own chapter organization before writing his commentary on it, titled al-Mufhim. Likewise, Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sāʿātī summarized Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal’s al-Musnad (arranged on the basis of Companion-narrators) by reorganizing it thematically in his al-Fatḥ al-rabbānī before writing his commentary of it, Bulūgh al-amānī, rather than commenting directly on al-Musnad.

A second important strategy is to explore the contextual factors influencing the internal structure of a commentary text, such as its producers, especially in cases where the work might be collectively produced by the commentator (shāriḥ) and his students, its intended audience, and place and time of its production. For instance, al-Khaṭṭābī, an early commentator, loosely follows the organization of the base-text as he commented on about one-third of Abū Dāwūd’s al-Sunan in his Maʿālim. By contrast, the twentieth-century commentator Sahāranpūrī in his Badhl al-majhūd, on the same work, commented on all the chapters of al-Sunan, following Abū Dāwūd’s organization closely, thereby allowing the base-text’s chapters to determine the internal structure of his commentary.

Third, one must consider the determinants of the commentary text’s size: how long, or short, is it? What might have affected its length (e.g., the commentator’s scientific rigour, his aim in undertaking the commentary project, and its audience)? Thus, al-Nawawī himself explains why he opted for a middle-range commentary on Muslim:

Were it not for the weakness of determination, scarcity of knowledge seekers, and the fear that my book will not spread due to the lack of those seeking lengthy notes, I would have expanded it, so that it would have stretched to more than a hundred volumes without repetition or idle additions.⁶⁸

In this context, one needs to address the question of how the commentator deals with problems arising from the size of the commentary text, such as repetitions and potential inconsistencies. Most commentators analyse a repeated ḥadīth in its first appearance or in the chapter they deem most relevant; in other places, they simply refer the reader to either of the former. Thus, Ibn al-Mulaqqin says:

In cases where a ḥadīth is repeated, I explain it where it is first mentioned; in later instances, I refer [the reader] back to its original location. Likewise, in the case of a repeated phrase, I explain it in its first appearance, and then refer to it thereafter. I do the same with [proper] names encountered more than once.⁶⁹

Sometimes they content themselves with vague, even confusing references, like ‘previously mentioned’ (taqaddama). A few commentators such as al-Ityūbī, however, prefer repeating their comments every time a ḥadīth or phrase is mentioned again.⁷⁰

A final, and related, GA strategy is to determine to what extent the editor/publisher has intervened in the text; that is, whether the commentary contains an entire section from the base-text, or partial quotations only. In most cases, it is the (contemporary) editor who adds the ḥadīths that are not quoted in full in the original commentary. For instance, Ibn Ḥajar decided not to include Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī’s full text in his commentary text, as it would make it too long,⁷¹ but publishers have since inserted the Ṣaḥīḥ’s text in contemporary editions of Fatḥ al-bārī. Most classical commentators exclude parts of the base-text due to their concern for their commentary text’s volume; contemporary publishers often include it in its entirety probably to allow the reader to have easy access to both. Furthermore, the commentator and publisher may sometimes have utilized different versions of the base-text, which might lead to inconsistencies between the interpolated base-text and the commentary.

3. Rhetorical structure in introductions to ḥadīth commentary texts

As the next major GA strategy, this section dissects the rhetorical structure, à la Swales, in introductions to ḥadīth commentary texts. This consists in specifying the rhetorical moves and constituent steps employed in those introductory parts in an ideal-typical manner. Here we first present our findings from twenty-three different commentary texts in Table 3, and then explain these moves and steps one by one, with examples from these primary sources.⁷² Since ḥadīth commentaries’ introductions vary in structure, the moves and steps described below may not be found in their entirety in every work, nor may they strictly follow the order that we present below.

Move 1: praises and prayers

Like most Islamic books, ḥadīth commentary texts begin by mentioning God’s name, and praising and glorifying Him. The opening also often includes offering prayers for the Prophet and his Companions. These statements sometimes reflect the commentator’s literary knowledge and skills with rhyme and wordplay. This move serves to strengthen the work’s legitimacy by making it clear that it belongs to the long-established Islamic tradition. Thus, al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ starts his work by offering prayers to God and His Messenger:

Praise be to God, whose praise is the opening of every important matter, and may blessings be upon Muḥammad, the Chosen One, His prophet, and upon his family, the best family. I entreat Him, glory be to Him, to grant me success and guidance in my writing enterprise, and to save me from accomplishing it for anything other than His blessings.⁷³

The transition to the next section is usually achieved by the well-known phrase ‘Now then…’ (ammā baʿd).

Move 2: significance of scholarship (al-ʿilm) and ḥadīth

Before introducing their book, commentators highlight the importance of Islamic learning and scholarship, which they consider as the broadest setting of their work. They often emphasize the importance of the study of ḥadīth within this framework, thereby anchoring their commentary in the tradition of ḥadīth scholarship. Thus, ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Dihlawī emphasizes the significance of religious scholarship, particularly the pursuit of ḥadīth, as an end in itself and as an elucidation of the Qurʾān:

What is essential for those with high aspirations in the pursuit of perfection and happiness, and the most important thing to which lives and times are devoted, is the knowledge of religion. Whomever God grants it, He raises their ranks and grades…And the best, most honourable, highest, and sublime science is the study of tafsīr and ḥadīth, for both are foundational and valuable in and of themselves…And the science of ḥadīth is the central reference. For it is an explanation of and commentary on the Book of God the Almighty…⁷⁴

Move 3: fundamentals of ḥadīth

A quite rare element of commentary introductions is a brief discussion on the subject, aims, and the main principles and problematics of ḥadīth as a discipline—implying variation in the genre across generations. Defining and classifying sciences was a common practice during the later period (mutaʾakhkhir) of Islamic literatures;⁷⁵ for this reason, a few commentators who had an affinity with the rational sciences added their discussion of the defining elements of the study of ḥadīth. This section is more technical and formulaic compared to Move 2 above, which is a more common move in commentary introductions. Only al-Kirmānī, al-ʿAynī, Molla Gūrānī, and Mubārakpūrī have this move in our sample. To quote al-ʿAynī:

Know that every discipline has its subject-matter, principles, and problems…The subject-matter of the ḥadīth discipline is the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) himself as a messenger of God. Its principles are what the researches are built upon, namely, different conditions and features of ḥadīth…⁷⁶

Move 4: history of ḥadīth literature

Sometimes commentators briefly discuss the history of their discipline and/or primary collections to locate their own work within this tradition, or to make a critical point about the existing studies on ḥadīth. Like the previous move, this one is also found less frequently in ḥadīth commentary texts: only Ibn Ḥajar, al-Qasṭallānī, and Mubārakpūrī have this discussion in our sample. Al-Qasṭallānī devotes a section to it within his introduction comparing the status of the study of ḥadīth in early periods of Islam with later generations to critically evaluate the literature in his own time. He also employs the term ‘sunna’ (path, Prophetic practice) with a wordplay in the title of this section:

Section two: on the first collector of ḥadīths and Prophetic practices (sunan) and those who followed him treading the best path (sunan).

Know that in early Islam when religion had a solid foundation, the Prophetic ḥadīth remained the most honourable and venerable science among the Companions, the Successors, and their followers, across generations…⁷⁷

Move 5: outline of the introduction

Only rarely do commentators include an outline of their introduction, especially if it is lengthy or complex, which helps the reader navigate the content more easily; short ones naturally do not require such a plan. Like some leading commentators (e.g., Ibn Ḥajar), Ibn al-Mulaqqin provides an outline for his lengthy introduction to his al-Tawḍīḥ:

Before embarking [on the commentary], we outline our introduction providing important information in sections on the rationale for its composition, how it was written and titled, and the number of its ḥadīths…⁷⁸

Move 6: the Prophet’s lineage

Another sign of variation in the genre is that a few commentators also include the Prophet Muḥammad’s lineage and note his date of birth, based on the belief that mentioning the Prophet’s name and lineage will bring blessings to their efforts (tabarruk). Moreover, as commentators often discuss the narrators’ lineages, which would intersect with that of the Prophet, this move also serves as part of the information on the narrators given in the body of the work. Thus, Molla Gūrānī lists the Prophet Muḥammad’s lineage, and presents different views on his date of birth in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:

Before embarking on its objectives, I would like to request blessings by beginning [the commentary] with the noble lineage of the Head of Messengers: He is Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib b. Hāshim b. ʿAbd Manāf b. Quṣayy…⁷⁹

Move 7: introducing the base-text’s author

All commentary introductions expectedly include a section on the author of the base-text, which provides information on his life (his place and date of birth, education, travels, mentors and students, and death) as well as a list of his works (Step 1). In addition to these, al-Māzarī, in his work on Muslim’s al-Ṣaḥīḥ, embellishes the latter’s life story with praise and by connecting him to the more prestigious al-Bukhārī’s story:

Muslim was among al-Bukhārī’s pupils. When al-Bukhārī arrived in Nishapur and was tested there on the famous question [of the Qurʾān’s createdness], his students left him alone, except for Muslim, who sided with him. Muslim died in the last ten days of Rajab in the year 261.⁸⁰

This is often followed by a section on the author’s scholarly reputation (Step 2). Like Ibn Ḥajar and others, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr devotes a separate section to the base-text’s author, Mālik, in his al-Tamhīd:

…Whoever is content with Mālik’s ḥadīths, may God have mercy on him, is saved from the burden of research and investigation, thereby placing his hand on a firm, unbreakable grip (ʿurwa wuthqā). For Mālik criticized, selected, and clarified; he also narrated only from the trustworthy and authoritative [transmitters]…⁸¹

These two steps allow the commentator to establish an authorial authority for the base-text’s author by emphasizing his status in the scholarly tradition.

Move 8: introducing the base-text

Perhaps the richest part of commentary introductions is the section on the base-text, which contains discussions on various aspects of it, including first and foremost the aim and significance of the work (Step 1). Al-Sāʿātī’s statements on the significance of Aḥmad’s al-Musnad are found in his discussion on its place within the ḥadīth literature, comparing it with the ‘Six Books’ and other musnad-type compilations:

A remark on Imām Aḥmad’s al-Musnad: Al-Imām al-Ḥāfiẓ Nūr al-Dīn Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Abī Bakr al-Haythamī, died in 807, may God have mercy on him, said in his book Zawāʾid al-Musnad on the Six Books that Aḥmad’s al-Musnad is more authentic and sounder than others. No other musnad-type book equals Aḥmad’s al-Musnad in terms of its volume and composition…⁸²

The base-text is then placed in the ḥadīth literature through a comparison with other ḥadīth compilations (Step 2). Thus, al-Ityūbī compares his base-text al-Sunan al-ṣughrā by al-Nasāʾī with both his other, lengthier collection, al-Sunan al-kubrā, and other ḥadīth compilations in the literature:

…Abū Dāwūd has discussed flawed ḥadīths in more detail than al-Nasāʾī. However, al-Nasāʾī surpassed the former in terms of rigour in his selection of transmitters and ḥadīths…The ninth question: in comparing al-Nasāʾī’s al-Sunan al-ṣughrā and al-Sunan al-kubrā, know that al-Kubrā is distinguished from the former in the following aspects…⁸³

As in Move 4, these steps allow the commentator to construct a scholarly authority for the base-text itself, by highlighting its significance vis-à-vis other similar works.

These steps are often followed by a full title of the base-text (Step 3). Commentators include it in this context because there are sometimes disagreements on the exact title, which this step clarifies, and the title contains first-hand information on the content of the text. Thus, Mubārakpūrī devotes a separate section to (different versions of) the full title of al-Tirmidhī’s work that he comments on:

Section eight: on explaining the title of al-Tirmidhī’s book: Kashf al-ẓunūn’s author said on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī: The book is better known with respect to its author as ‘Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī’. It is also known as ‘al-Sunan’, though the former is more common…⁸⁴

Then commentators discuss the author’s methodology in the base-text (Step 4). This section provides information on the arrangement of ḥadīths, the use of transmission words such as ḥaddathanā and akhbaranā, repetitions and shortening of the repeated ḥadīths, as well as suspended (muʿallaq) ones—the latter being particularly prevalent in commentaries on al-Bukhārī. Thus, Ibn Ḥajar’s account of al-Bukhārī’s method focuses on his repetitions and shortening of the repeated ḥadīths, and on suspended ḥadīths:

The third chapter is on explaining how he [al-Bukhārī] splits and shortens ḥadīths, and the usefulness of his repeating them in different chapters…The fourth chapter is on explaining the reason for including suspended (muʿallaq) ḥadīths, be they marfūʿ [Prophetic ḥadīths] or mawqūf [the Companions’ words and deeds], and discussing his methodology.⁸⁵

Next, they discuss the transmission of the base-text from its author (Step 5). This includes a list of important scholars who played a part in the book’s transmission process, and in some cases, like Ibn Ḥajar and al-Nawawī, a discussion on different recensions of it and possible reasons for variation. Ibn al-Mulaqqin, on the other hand, simply emphasizes the critical role of a few transmitters, particularly al-Firabrī’s (d. 320/932):

Section: Imām Abū ʿAbdallāh al-Bukhārī’s al-Ṣaḥīḥ was massively transmitted (mutawātir) from him, yet al-Firabrī’s recension has become more common. Abū ʿAbdallāh al-Firabrī said: ‘Ninety thousand people heard “the Ṣaḥīḥ” from Abū ʿAbdallāh, and no one has remained to narrate it except me…’⁸⁶

Commentators also try to establish the number of ḥadīths contained in the base-text (Step 6). Here al-Kirmānī states the number of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī’s books and chapters as well that of its Prophetic (marfūʿ) ḥadīths:

The number of books (kutub) in the Jāmiʿ exceeds 100, and that of chapters (abwāb) is 3,450, with a slight difference among some manuscript copies. The number of Prophetic ḥadīths with full isnāds is 7,275, nearly half of which are duplicates.⁸⁷

Step 7 involves a discussion on the soundness of the ḥadīths in the base-text. However, well-known Ṣaḥīḥayn commentators like al-Nawawī and Ibn Ḥajar examine the issue only in the context of the controversial ḥadīth types in the base-texts such as muʿallaq (Step 4), the author’s conditions for including the ḥadīths (Step 8), and responding to criticisms against him (Step 14), rather than addressing the issue fully. Early non-Ṣaḥīḥayn commentators like al-Khaṭṭābī, on the other hand, often emphasize the soundness of their base-text’s ḥadīths:

Know that a ḥadīth according to its experts is of three types: the sound, fair, and weak … The sound ḥadīth is [defined as]…The fair ḥadīth is [defined as]…Abū Dāwūd’s book brings these two types together. As for the weak…Abū Dāwūd’s book is free of it all…⁸⁸

Demonstrating that the base-text primarily consists of sound ḥadīths not only establishes its scholarly authority but also enhances the commentary text’s value as a reference work for a highly regarded compilation. The fact that Ṣaḥīḥayn commentaries do not devote a specific section to this implies these renowned collections’ already established statuses and high prestige.

Commentators then try to establish the author’s criteria for including ḥadīths in the base-text (Step 8). Because compilers like al-Bukhārī did not explicitly state their criteria, many commentators discuss them through later scholars’ accounts of them, including particularly Abū al-Faḍl Ibn Ṭāhir (al-Maqdisī; d. 507/1113) and al-Ḥāẓimī (d. 584/1188). Mubārakpūrī quotes both of them starting with al-Maqdisī:

Section four: on explaining al-Tirmidhī’s criteria in his al-Jāmiʿ: Al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Faḍl Ibn Ṭāhir said in the book Shurūṭ al-aʾimma: ‘…As for Abū ʿĪsā al-Tirmidhī, ḥadīths in his book are of four types: The first type is definitely sound, based on the same rigorous standards as in al-Bukhārī and Muslim’s ḥadīths. The second type consists of ḥadīths that meet Abū Dāwūd and al-Nasāʾī’s criteria…’⁸⁹

Step 9 involves the rationale behind compiling ḥadīths in the base-text. Unlike many classical commentators, contemporary scholar al-Ityūbī devotes a separate section in his Dhakhīrat al-ʿuqbā to discussing al-Nasāʾī’s reasons for compiling his anthology:

Al-Nasāʾī’s purpose, may God the Almighty have mercy on him, in his al-Sunan: His intention in his al-Sunan was to collect what came down from the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) in a reliable manner, which jurists could use as evidence, but he also retained technical ḥadīth scholarship. Indeed, he combined jurisprudence and ḥadīth, following a method that merges legal argumentation and isnād issues.⁹⁰

Step 10 entails a discussion on the structure of the base-text and, if necessary, its chapter headings. Here Ṣaḥīḥayn commentators like al-Nawawī and Ibn Ḥajar focus on Muslim’s and al-Bukhārī’s chapter headings rather than the structuring of their books. Because commentators examine the meaning of chapter headings and their relation to the ḥadīths contained in them, this section partly overlaps with Step 4 (on the base-text’s methodology) above. Al-Nawawī discusses Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim’s internal organization with a long quotation from Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ:

[Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ said:] Muslim, may God have mercy on him, arranged his book into chapters, so it is in fact organized in terms of its subject-matters, but he did not entitle the chapters so as not to make it too long, or for some other reason…

At the beginning of the introduction to his al-Ṣaḥīḥ, Muslim, may God have mercy on him, states that he divides the ḥadīths into three categories: the first is what was narrated by meticulous and accurate transmitters, the second is what was narrated by the pious ones who are average in memorization and accuracy, and the third is what was narrated by the weak and abandoned; and that he starts with the first group and follows with the second, leaving out the third.⁹¹

Step 11 involves a review of studies on different aspects of the base-text, including quotations from some of them. Some commentators have begun citing an entire treatise on the base-text in the introduction, like al-Ityūbī, who reproduced al-Sakhāwī’s (d. 902/1497) treatise on al-Nasāʾī’s al-Sunan in his commentary text.⁹² The quantity and fame of the studies reviewed signify the base-text’s authority and reputation. In this context, al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ reviews the literature by highlighting two famous studies on Muslim’s al-Ṣaḥīḥ that he deems important:

There is no monograph focusing on the tasks I have outlined, nor a study that pays attention to other aspects [of Muslim’s work], with the exception of the book by our master, Ḥāfiẓ Abū ʿAlī Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Ghassānī al-Jayyānī, on problematic chains of transmission in it…and of al-Muʿlim by Imām Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Māzarī al-Tamīmī, on the explanation of its ḥadīths’ meanings, even though he incorporated a good deal from Ḥāfiẓ Abū ʿAlī’s analysis of its chains of transmission. Both books are masterpieces, representing the highest level of scholarship in the field…However, exhaustive examination is an impossibility, and intellectual capabilities widely differ. We often come across problematic ḥadīths in [Muslim’s] book, for which they offer no explanation…⁹³

Also, very rarely do introductions include a glossary of unfamiliar words. Ibn Ḥajar’s is one of the very few that has such a section (Step 12):

Section five: on the explanation of unfamiliar words in al-Ṣaḥīḥ, arranged alphabetically: To make them easy to find, I have listed the majority of these words as they appear in the commentary, rather than based on their root. But as you will see, I have pointed to the roots of some words. I included most of the unfamiliar words here to collect them in one section even though they are also explained in the body of the commentary…⁹⁴

Commentary introductions occasionally have a section on ḥadīth narrators of the base-text (Step 13), which includes information on the vocalization of ambiguous proper names, the full identification of the narrators, their reliability, and so on. This allows for the correct pronunciation of their names, the separation of those with similar names, and the identification of unknown figures in isnād chains and ḥadīth texts. Some commentators like al-Nawawī devote long sections to this topic to enhance the text’s accessibility:

The section on the accurate pronunciation of the names repeated in the Ṣaḥīḥs of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, and difficult to discern. Among them (أبي): All of them are pronounced as the following: hamza with the vowel ḍamma, a bāʾ with the vowel fatḥa, and a yāʾ with tashdīd; except for Ābī al-Laḥm, as it has an extended hamza with the vowel fatḥa, a bāʾ with the vowel kasra, and a yāʾ without tashdīd. [He was named such] because he did not eat meat, but it is also said that he did not eat what was slaughtered on idols…⁹⁵

As the reliability (or lack thereof) of ḥadīths’ narrators directly affects the prestige of the base-text, this step is important for establishing an authoritative position for the latter—and its author.⁹⁶

The same is true for the next, and last, step that involves a discussion on, and response to, criticisms regarding the narrators and narrations of the base-text (Step 14). For, existing critiques of these compilations, like those of al-Dāraquṭnī (d. 385/995) on the Ṣaḥīḥayn, are often hard to ignore regardless of the prestige of these collections. Commentators summarize and respond to these criticisms, attempting to show that the base-text’s flaws are not as serious as to undermine its well-established status and authoritative position. Thus, al-Qasṭallānī devotes a section to critiques of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī’s narrations and narrators:

As for the response to criticism [of al-Bukhārī], know that the two masters [al-Bukhārī and Muslim] cannot be discredited on the grounds that they include ḥadīths from criticized narrators. For, al-Ṣaḥīḥ’s inclusion of any narrator requires his uprightness and accuracy by al-Bukhārī’s standards…More specifically, the two masters’ ḥadīths that are criticized are divided into six groups…⁹⁷

Move 9: introducing the commentary text

A discussion on the commentary text itself is typically included in virtually all introductions. Here the author first explains the significance of his work, often locating it in the commentary literature, along with a short critical review of it (Step 1). Molla Gūrānī sharply criticizes the previous commentary texts on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, before highlighting the significance of his own work:

Virtuous scholars across generations have produced commentaries on it [Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī], but when I examine them, I develop sores and wounds. This is because some of them delve into unnecessary details regarding narrators and their biographies…Others can’t cut to the chase, and fail to fully comprehend ḥadīths’ variants and provide adequate explanation. They also often contradict themselves in their commentary…⁹⁸

Clearly this step is important for the author to forge a niche in the scholarly ‘market’, building a reputable position for himself and his work in the literature.

Step 2 concerns the content of the commentary text, particularly its thematic foci. This step both explains the scope of the book and narrows down its breadth, specifying which aspects of the ḥadīths that the analysis will focus on. In this context, al-Qurṭubī provides an account of the themes he will discuss in his work, and the angles through which he will analyse the ḥadīths:

We have made it [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim] more useful for students and more accessible for researchers by explaining its unfamiliar words, providing the grammatical analysis of, and legal inferences from, its ḥadīths, and solving its problems by revising its arrangement and composition. So, we have brought together what we heard from our masters and what we found in our eminent scholars’ books, as well as the wisdom God has generously bestowed upon us.⁹⁹

Less commonly, introductions include information on the organization of the commentary text (Step 3). While most authors simply follow the arrangement (tartīb) of the base-text, without interfering with its own structure and chapter organization (see Move 8, Step 10), a few others may make changes and provide their own work’s outline, explaining how it differs from the base-text’s original arrangement. Thus, Ibn Ḥajar follows al-Bukhārī’s arrangement, whereas Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr lays out the organizational changes he made on his base-text, al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, in his al-Tamhīd:

I have composed this book [al-Tamhīd] by giving precedence to uninterrupted ḥadīths, and to those whose contiguity is controversial but ultimately analogous to them, followed by interrupted (munqaṭiʿ) and loose (mursal) ḥadīths. I have arranged it on the basis of Mālik’s mentors, may God have mercy on them, for practical use.¹⁰⁰

Step 4 concerns the commentator’s methodology, which includes discussing the following topics: the commentary text’s length (whether it is concise or comprehensive), referencing other authors or works, handling repeated ḥadīths and narrators (whether the author comments on them on the first occasion and refers the reader back to it later, etc.). Sahāranpūrī emphasizes the distinctive aspects of his methodology in his Badhl:

This commentary has a number of distinguishing features.

Among them: Most of my explanations are quoted from the early great scholars’ interpretation of ḥadīths and other issues. For this reason, I openly cite my original source for most of them…

Also among them: I present the narrators’ biographies in their first appearance; if their name appears again afterwards, I do not repeat it…¹⁰¹

Some commentators also provide information on the reasons why they penned their book, hence on its historical, particularly institutional and scholarly, context (Step 5), which may partly or fully overlap with Step 1. This step might be important in terms of understanding power relations outside the text, with implications for the author’s institutional role, social influence, and relations with other social groups, especially contemporary scholars. They often start this section with the phrase ‘Once I saw that…’ (lammā raʾaytu…) followed by a presentation on the conditions preceding the commentary’s production. Yūsuf Efendi-zāde prefers starting with ‘When I was given the privilege…’ (lammā shurriftu…) to explain his rationale for his work, where he also points to the institutional context of his commentary:

When I was given the privilege of teaching at the service of our greatest sultan…Aḥmad Khān, son of Sultan Muḥammad Khān al-Ghāzī…I happened to teach the Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in order to pray for the good of the noble sultan, and was given the opportunity to write my book by combining insights from previous commentary texts with what God had granted me, so that it would assist this poor servant in teaching. Therefore, I have embarked on it, seeking help from our Lord the Helper…¹⁰²

The author then specifies the full title of his commentary text, often starting with the phrase ‘I have titled my work …’ (Step 6). This information is particularly important for accurately identifying the book’s title, for its different manuscripts may often contain varying titles. Moreover, establishing the title by its own author is important as some titles provide insights into its unique contributions and its contents. Ibn Malak is one of many commentators who simply provide the full title of their work:

…and I have titled it Mabāriq al-azhār fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār.¹⁰³

Some commentators provide a list of the main sources of the commentary, often classifying them based on their genre or subject-matters (Step 7). This step allows the reader to quickly reference the sources used without having to search through the entire text. Some classical authors like al-Nawawī and Ibn Ḥajar do not list their references in their introductions. More recently, Sahāranpūrī includes such a list classified by subject-matter:

When I dictated this commentary, I consulted various books from different disciplines. From the science of ḥadīth and commentary: al-Ṣiḥāḥ al-sitta [The Six Sound Collections], the Muwaṭṭaʾs by Mālik b. Anas and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, and Sunan al-Dārimī…From Qurʾān commentary: al-Tafsīr by Ibn Jarīr and al-Durr al-manthūr by al-Suyūṭī…From biographical dictionaries: compilations by Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, the leading scholar of this discipline, including…From the books of ḥadīth methodology: Sharḥ al-Nukhba by the Ḥāfiẓ. From the books of Ḥanafī jurisprudence: Badāʾiʿ al-ṣanāʾiʿ, al-Mabsūṭ by al-Sarakhsī…¹⁰⁴

Also, a few commentators explain their terminology and abbreviations in their introductions (Step 8), which allows the reader to follow the frequently used symbols throughout the text. While al-Nawawī and Ibn Ḥajar do not need such an explanation (perhaps because they do not have too many of them), al-Ṭībī provides a list of his abbreviations as follows:

List of symbols used in the book:

‘خط’: [al-Khaṭṭābī’s] Maʿālim al-Sunan and Aʿlām

‘حس’: [al-Farrāʾ al-Baghawī’s] Sharḥ al-Sunna…¹⁰⁵

Move 10: topics in ḥadīth methodology

Commentary introductions often contain a discussion on select topics of ḥadīth methodology. Here the aim is not, however, to provide a full examination of ḥadīth methodology, but some useful information on these subjects to prevent misunderstandings about the base-text on the part of the reader. For instance, the issue of mursal ḥadīths is critical for commentaries on al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, whereas topics like sound ḥadīths and additions by trustworthy narrators (ziyādat al-thiqa) are emphasized in commentaries on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Dihlawī discusses methodological issues only to the extent he deems necessary for his readers to know:

Introducing and explaining technical terms in ḥadīth methodology, to the extent necessary for the readers to understand the commentary avoiding wordiness and redundancy:

[Definition of ḥadīth:] Know that ḥadīth, in the terminology of the majority of ḥadīth scholars, refers to the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his actions and tacit approvals…¹⁰⁶

Move 11: commentator’s isnād

Commentators present their own chain of narration from the author of the base-text, indicating that they have acquired the book through appropriate traditional methods, and are therefore qualified to explain it. Modern commentators, too, continue with this practice despite their long chains of narration over the centuries. This move is critical in terms of establishing authorial authority for the commentator as well as for his mentors and the author of the base-text. For, through this chain the commentator integrates his own interpretations into those of the original author, thereby reinforcing his comments’ claim to authenticity. Like most commentators, modern scholar ʿAẓīmābādī establishes his position by presenting his chain of narration:

…I narrate Sunan Abī Dāwūd and other ḥadīth books on the authority of a group of distinguished scholars, including the erudite ḥadīth scholar Muḥammad Nadhīr Ḥusayn al-Dihlawī…¹⁰⁷

Move 12: prayer for blessing

Finally, commentators often pray to God for blessings and successfully completing their work. This prayer usually comes at the end of their introduction, also functioning as a transition to the body of the commentary text. Some commentators simply repeat the specific praises and prayers, with which all commentary texts begin (i.e., Move 1), at the end of the introduction. ʿAlī al-Qārī, too, ends this part of his book with a short prayer:

I ask God the Almighty that He accept, out of His grace, my book for His sake only, and that He make it useful for Muslims…Thus I say: By God is success, and in His hand are the reins of achievement.¹⁰⁸

Having examined the rhetorical structure of commentary introductions through the different moves and steps they contain, we can now turn to the GA of commentary on a particular ḥadīth in these books.

4. Rhetorical structure of commentary on a ḥadīth

The primary strategy in examining how a commentary of a particular ḥadīth proceeds is to explore the following two questions: does the commentary have unchanging, fundamental generic elements, or do they differ from one ḥadīth to another? If it has a fixed structure, what is its logic, and how are these elements ordered? In general, we observe that there indeed are some common generic elements such as identifying the ḥadīth’s sources and its variations to philological analysis and moral-legal inferences; however, many commentators loosely follow a broad structure rather than applying a specific template. While this observation is true for most classical commentaries, some authors, like Ibn al-Mulaqqin and al-ʿAynī who had a certain idea of a plan, applied set templates in the early chapters of their works. However, they were unable to maintain consistency throughout their books, as seen in al-ʿAynī’s use of about twenty different subheadings in the first ḥadīths he commented on, which decreased in number as he progressed. Contemporary commentators such as al-Ityūbī, in contrast, use standard headings for each ḥadīth, repeatedly applying these commentary templates throughout their works.

Regardless of the rigidity/flexibility of their structures, a survey of classical and contemporary commentary texts reveals several shared discursive elements in their treatment of a ḥadīth, as summarized in Table 4. However, as in the case of introductions, there is some variation in these texts: as they are based on different frameworks, ḥadīth commentaries may not include all of the moves and steps described below, nor may these elements follow the exact order in Table 4.

Case study: commentary on the ‘what is permissible is clear’ ḥadīth

Let us now explain this part of the model and apply it to a ḥadīth that has been subject to intense commentary in terms of both its content and linguistic features, which is why we have chosen it. Known as the ‘what is permissible is clear’ ḥadīth, it is featured in all essential compilations but al-Muwaṭṭaʾ.¹⁰⁹ For, it is considered one of the fundamental Prophetic statements on the foundations of Islam (madār al-Islām), to which virtually all commentators allude.¹¹⁰ The ḥadīth reads:

Narrated al-Nuʿmān b. Bashīr: I heard God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) say: ‘What is permissible (ḥalāl) is clear, and what is forbidden (ḥarām) is clear, and between them are doubtful matters that many people do not know. Thus, whoever avoids the doubtful will purify his religion and honour, and whoever falls into suspicions is like a shepherd grazing around a private pasture, which he might trespass at any moment. Beware! Every ruler has such a pasture, and what is forbidden is God’s private pasture on earth. Indeed, there is a lump of flesh in the body: if it is sound, the body will be sound; and if it is corrupted, the entire body is corrupted. And that is the heart.’¹¹¹

Here is a brief analysis of the rhetorical structure of commentary on this ḥadīth featured in our primary sources.

Move 1: quoting the ḥadīth in full or in part

Generally speaking, quoting the ḥadīth in full is more common among recent commentary texts, whereas many classical commentators prefer partial quotation, as exemplified by those in our sample. Also, since secondary collections often drop isnāds from the ḥadīths, commentary texts on these collections do not include them, either. However, (contemporary) publishers often reinsert the whole ḥadīth into these texts. In our case, while al-Khaṭṭābī fully quotes both versions of the ḥadīth recorded by Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Baṭṭāl omits its isnād, except for the Companion-narrator. Al-Nawawī, on the other hand, omits the parts that he would not comment on in both its isnād and text—the fully quoted ḥadīth in the published version has been added by the editor.¹¹²

Move 2: explaining the ḥadīth’s relationship to the chapter heading

As mentioned above, a ḥadīth’s placement in a collection has implications for how the author interprets it. For this reason, commentators usually discuss the ḥadīth’s relationship to the chapter (and the book) that contain it—and sometimes the chapter’s relationship to other chapters. This move is most frequently found in commentaries on al-Bukhārī’s al-Ṣaḥīḥ due to the special significance attributed to its chapter headings, whereas others include it only for those ḥadīths they deem necessary. On the other hand, commentaries on secondary collections contain this move least frequently. Our case ḥadīth is placed in the chapter on ‘purifying religion’ (bāb faḍl man istabraʾa li-dīnih) under the Book of Faith, and in the chapter on ‘what is permissible and impermissible’ (bāb: al-ḥalāl bayyin wa-l-ḥarām bayyin wa-baynahumā mushabbahāt) under the Book of Sales in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Ibn Ḥajar comments on its relevance to the Book of Faith thus:

It is as if he [al-Bukhārī] wanted to make clear that piety is one of the supplements of faith; that is why he mentioned the ḥadīth in the Book of Faith.¹¹³

Influenced by Ibn Ḥajar and al-ʿAynī, Yūsuf Efendi-zāde makes the same comment on the chapter’s relationship to the previous one:

The relationship between the two chapters is the following: what was in the previous chapter was an explanation of faith, Islam, and excellence (iḥsān), and here [al-Bukhārī offers] an explanation of piety, which is one of the supplements of faith.¹¹⁴

On the other hand, Molla Gūrānī explains the reason why the ḥadīth is also located in the Book of Sales by saying ‘the inclusion of the ḥadīth in the Book of Sales indicates that a person should avoid suspicious matters in transactions’, whereas al-ʿAynī states that the chapter heading is actually a part of the ḥadīth and therefore the accord between them is obvious.¹¹⁵ Finally, in Sunan Abī Dāwūd, the ḥadīth is included only in the chapter on ‘avoiding suspicions’ (bāb fī ijtināb al-shubuhāt) under the Book of Sales. Sahāranpūrī adds to it ‘especially suspicions that arise in transactions’, thereby trying to make it consistent with the ḥadīth, which is not directly related to economic activities.¹¹⁶

Move 3: examining the ḥadīth’s isnād

This move usually includes two steps. Step 1 consists of information on the narrators in the isnād, focusing on the narrators’ identity, vocalization of their names, their mentors and pupils, their dates of death and the generation they belong to, their reliability, and the identification of unknown figures. Al-Kirmānī, for example, provides more or less detailed information on each of our ḥadīth’s narrators, including a certain Zakariyyā. Al-Kirmānī explains the type of the letter (alif) at the end of his name as both short (maqṣūr) and long (mamdūd), before identifying his full name, hometown, and date of death: ‘Abū Yaḥyā Ibn Abī Zāʾida Khālid b. Maymūna al-Hamdānī al-Kūfī. Died in the year 147, 148, or 149’.¹¹⁷

Step 2 involves information on various features of the isnād, usually focusing on whether it is continuous or broken, narrative phrases in it, its authenticity, and other relevant information (total number of narrators in the isnād, whether the narrators are from the same city, same generation, etc.). In our case, many commentators also discuss if the Companion-narrator al-Nuʿmān b. Bashīr heard the ḥadīth directly from the Prophet. Among them, al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ states:

Consider what al-Nuʿmān b. Bashīr said in this ḥadīth: ‘I heard God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) saying’, leaning his fingers to his ears. This confirms that al-Nuʿmān b. Bashīr actually heard it from the Prophet (peace be upon him) as Iraqi scholars argue, and disproves what Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn related from Madinan scholars that they reject his hearing (samāʿ) directly from the Prophet (peace be upon him).¹¹⁸

Commentator al-ʿAynī, unlike others, usually devotes separate sections to these steps, entitling the first one as ‘Explanation on its [the ḥadīth’s] narrators’, and the second one as ‘Explanation on the intricacies of its isnād’.¹¹⁹

Move 4: identifying the ḥadīth’s sources (takhrīj)

The takhrīj move consists of two basic steps: identifying if and where the ḥadīth appears again within the base-text (Step 1), and demonstrating whether and how the ḥadīth is recorded in other collections (Step 2). Both steps may also involve the demonstration of textual and isnād differences, if any, among various narrations of the ḥadīth. Since our case ḥadīth is recorded by al-Bukhārī in both the Book of Faith and the Book of Sales, Ibn al-Mulaqqin includes both steps, pointing to its second appearance in the Ṣaḥīḥ and showing its locations in other sources.¹²⁰ On the other hand, in his commentary on Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, Mubārakpūrī passes over Step 2 lightly by saying ‘al-Bukhārī and Muslim both recorded the ḥadīth’, whereas al-Sāʿātī refers to its sources by using symbols only.¹²¹

Move 5: discussing differences among the base-text’s recensions

This is one of the main functions of ḥadīth commentary. Ḥadīth collections are transmitted by different students of their author, which causes textual differences in them to appear over time. Thus, when commentators begin their work, they have to tackle these differences. In our case, al-Qasṭallānī, known for his expertise on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī’s recensions, refers to the following differences: the term ‘mushabbahāt’ in the ḥadīth is recorded as ‘mushtabihāt’ in the Aṣīlī (d. 392/1002) and Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571/1176) recensions; the word ‘istabraʾa’ in Aṣīlī becomes ‘qad istabraʾa’ in Abū Dharr (d. 434/1043); the phrase ‘li-dīnihi wa-ʿirḍihi’ is transposed to ‘li-ʿirḍihi wa-dīnihi’ in Ibn ʿAsākir and Aṣīlī; and the word ‘kulluhu’ in the phrase ‘al-jasad kulluhu’ is absent in Ibn ʿAsākir.¹²² Likewise, ʿAẓīmābādī states in his ʿAwn al-maʿbūd, which is particularly strong on the Sunan Abī Dāwūd’s recensions, that the word ‘يجسر’, which Abū Dāwūd’s version of the ḥadīth includes, is recorded in a recension as ‘يخسر’.¹²³

Move 6: linguistic analysis

Consisting of five steps, this move is one of the most common elements in commentary texts. Step 1, which operates within the contours of Arabic language, includes the explanation of grammatical features, rhetorical tropes, and unfamiliar words (gharīb al-ḥadīth) found in the ḥadīth. Commentators also often discuss vocalization of certain words in its text—just as they do with the names of narrators in its isnād (see Move 3, Step 1). In our case, they often explain the vocalization of the word ‘بين’ as ‘bayyin’: ‘the letter yāʾ has a vowel kasra and with shadda’, says ʿAlī al-Qārī.¹²⁴ Al-Ṭībī, on the other hand, provides the following information on the composition and function of the particle ‘ألا’ that is mentioned several times in the ḥadīth:

ألا is composed of the interrogative hamza and the letter of negation. [This is] to indicate the certainty of what comes next…[As for] repeating the ألا in his saying ‘Indeed, it is the heart’ after the vague statement ‘Indeed, there is a lump of flesh in the body’, it refers to the heart’s significance and high status.¹²⁵

In addition to these, many of our commentators explain the unfamiliar word ‘muḍgha’ in the ḥadīth as ‘a chewable piece of meat’.¹²⁶ Finally, they provide explanations of the simile (comparing the field of the impermissible to a private pasture) and the grammatical features of other sentences.¹²⁷

Step 2 involves general, non-technical meaning of the ḥadīth’s sentences, which sometimes remains at the level of paraphrasing. At other times commentators go beyond this by narrowing or expanding the meanings of words and phrases to apply them to specific cases. They also make frequent references to Qurʾānic verses and other ḥadīths to corroborate their understanding of the ḥadīth. With short ḥadīths consisting of one or two sentences, they provide a more compact, wholistic meaning; but lengthy ḥadīths often force them to divide the texts into several segments and to analyse them in a piecemeal manner. Thus, al-Khaṭṭābī explains a central part of our case ḥadīth in a relatively long passage:

The meaning of his statement ‘And between them are matters that are doubtful’, meaning that they are suspicious for some people and not others, and not in their essence, for they have been clarified in the sources of the shariʿa [but] through a sophisticated explication that only elite scholars can understand…¹²⁸

Ibn Malak, on the other hand, divides some of the ḥadīth’s sentences into short pieces to briefly clarify their meaning:

The phrase ‘whoever falls into suspicions’ means whoever does it, and makes a habit of it; ‘falls into the forbidden’, meaning, gets close to doing it.¹²⁹

Step 3 includes both historical-contextual information to make the ḥadīth easier to understand, and (sometimes) specifically identifying the ḥadīth’s context (sabab al-wurūd). The former is more common, as the sabab al-wurūd for most ḥadīths is unknown. In our case, too, the occasion of the Prophet saying ‘What is permissible is clear, and what is forbidden is clear…’ is not known. Thus, commentators could not discuss its specific context; however, they do present historical information for ‘Every ruler has such a pasture…’:

Thus, the Arabs knew in pre-Islamic times that their rulers enclosed meadows and wide spaces, so others did not dare to approach them, afraid of their power and for fear of trespassing their property. God’s prohibitions are similar to this: whoever abandons what is close to them is further away from falling into the midst of prohibitions.¹³⁰

Step 4 concerns reconciling possible conflicts. Scholars of ḥadīth and jurisprudence have since early Islam tried to solve the apparent conflicts among religious texts.¹³¹ Ḥadīth commentators, too, attempt at reconciliation through various methods to achieve textual uniformity. These possible conflicts might be with other ḥadīths, Qurʾānic verses, or other religious sources (e.g., Companions’ practices and ijmāʿ). In our case, the above ḥadīth posits the heart’s dominant status over the body whereas some other ḥadīths state that the heart is affected by bodily practices. For instance, Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī quotes the Prophet: ‘Verily, when the slave [of God] commits a sin, a black spot appears on his heart. When he refrains from it, seeks forgiveness, and repents, his heart is polished clean.’¹³² In our sample, al-Qurṭubī refers to this ḥadīth, trying to resolve the apparent contradiction:

Even though the limbs are subordinate to the heart, the heart may be affected by their actions, due to the connection between the inner and the outer. The heart’s status vis-à-vis the limbs is like a king’s over his subjects. If he is good, they will be good, too. Then their goodness will return to him multiplied. That is why they say: The king is like a market—whatever is popular in it, vendors bring more of it.¹³³

Finally, Step 5 entails a review of the literature on the ḥadīth’s linguistic aspects. Previous scholars’ views are an integral part of commentary, as commentators report what has been said about the ḥadīth (or its parts) when commenting on it. Sometimes they provide a critical evaluation of these reports, too. For instance, while al-Qurṭubī argues that ‘the heart’s deeds and conditions’ are presented in detail in Sufi works, the Salafī al-Ityūbī criticizes him (and Sufis) after quoting al-Qurṭubī:

On the contrary, they [the heart’s deeds and conditions] have been detailed in the Qurʾān and Sunna, so whoever carefully examines and reflects upon them will grasp their objectives. As for the later scholars’ conceptualizations, the believer has no need for them.¹³⁴

Move 7: interpretation and inferences

Consisting of three steps, this move is a section where the commentator’s genuine contributions to the understanding of the ḥadīth are most clearly visible, as he articulates his own inferences and interpretation of it in terms of legal, theological, and moral topics. Step 1 includes the commentator’s—often critical—review of intra- and inter-madhhab legal debates as well as his own inferences from the ḥadīth. In matters that are of dispute among the madhhabs, commentators frequently present a long discussion trying to prove that their own madhhab’s view has a greater value.

Because our ḥadīth does not speak of a specific legal issue, commentaries usually bring up certain principles and methodological points, rather than engaging in inter-madhhab legal debates. For instance, Mālikī commentators Ibn Baṭṭāl and al-Māzarī make a methodological inference arguing that this ḥadīth functions as the foundation for legal rulings based on the principle of ‘blocking the means’ (ḥimāyat al-dharāʾiʿ, more commonly known as sadd al-dharāʾiʿ), which is stressed by Mālikīs more than others.¹³⁵ A more common theme is the issue of mushabbahāt (the suspicious), the third category after ḥalāl (the permissible) and ḥarām (the impermissible): the commentators often debate whether the former should be treated as closer to ḥalāl or ḥarām.¹³⁶ They also bring up some specific legal questions to which our ḥadīth could be indirectly related, including: what is the status of neat dress and wearing perfume? If someone swears not to eat meat but then eats an animal’s heart, does this amount to breaking one’s oath?¹³⁷ Is it necessary to obey a parent who orders something of the suspicious category?¹³⁸

Discussing theological issues constitutes Step 2. One example in the case of our ḥadīth is the distinction between the vigilance towards suspicious things, which is praised in the ḥadīth, and devilish apprehensiveness. Some commentators draw attention to the difference between the unnecessary dread for what is clearly permissible and the attentiveness praised here.¹³⁹ The main theological question they debate, however, is whether the mind is located in the heart or the brain, for which virtually all commentators argue that its location is the heart due to its high status as the ‘ruler’ of the body’s organs.¹⁴⁰ Here we see an astonishing continuity in generic formation in commentary on our case ḥadīth. Many commentators present their views, as well as relating those of previous authorities (e.g., Abū Ḥanīfa), on the location of the mind in the body. In our sample, Ibn Baṭṭāl is the first to present this discussion; al-Nawawī, among others, had an influential view; and Ibn al-Mulaqqin and others relate this and other views without adding anything new. Thus, a discussion on a part of a sentence in the ḥadīth has continued for many centuries, reproducing a step in a stable form in many different contexts, thereby contributing to the formation of the ḥadīth commentary genre.

Step 3 involves moral and/or practical lessons derived from the ḥadīth, which is quite common in commentary, often via phrases like yanbaghī, lā-budd, fī (hādhā) al-ḥadīth… Moral lessons (including prayer phrases) frequently also permeate into other steps, especially general meanings, even into explanations of grammar. Because our case ḥadīth obviously has a moral content, the commentators extract several lessons from it either explicitly or implicitly. For instance, al-Nawawī mentions the necessity of putting effort into reforming the heart as one of the lessons arising from the ḥadīth: ‘In this ḥadīth, there is an emphasis on striving to rectify the heart and protect it from corruption.’¹⁴¹ ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Dihlawī, on the other hand, alludes to the need to avoid suspicious things, feeding it into his explanation of the simile in the ḥadīth:

[The Prophet] likened forbidden things to a private pasture in that it is an obligation to avoid falling into it, so one should not graze around for fear of falling into it. By the same token, one should not approach sin by committing doubtful things. For, if he engages in them, he is on the verge of falling into the field of the forbidden.¹⁴²

Lastly, this ḥadīth is often taken as evidence for the legitimacy of the criticism of ḥadīth transmitters, making those who relate suspicious ḥadīths vulnerable to impugnment by experts. Accordingly, those who avoid transmitting doubtful reports would safeguard their ‘religion and honour’.¹⁴³

Move 8: answering anticipated questions

Finally, authors complement their commentary on a ḥadīth by answering possible questions about any part of its isnād or text. They transition to this move mostly via the phrase ‘fa-in qīla/qulta…qultu’. In our case al-Kirmānī takes up a potential linguistic question about the use of a particle in a sentence of the ḥadīth (idhā ṣalaḥat ṣalaḥa al-jasadu kulluhu wa-idhā fasadat fasada al-jasadu kulluhu):

If you say: That the sentence begins with idhā requires that [the action, ṣalaḥat] must have occurred already, whereas that is not the case here due to the possibility of corruption.

I say: Given that its opposite is also mentioned, idhā here means in. One is therefore presented as the binary alternative to the other.¹⁴⁴

Having analysed moves and steps comprising the rhetorical structure of the commentary on our case ḥadīth, we may now turn to a final strategy that will reveal a significant element of the ḥadīth commentary genre.

Identifying transitional elements

This strategy involves examining which phrases or subheadings, if any, are used when transitioning from one element to another in the flow of commentary. Commentators may use headings that specify the content, such as ‘bayān rijālih’, ‘bayān al-lughāt’, and ‘bayān al-maʿānī’,¹⁴⁵ as well as headings that do not indicate any specific subject-matter, such as ‘masʾala’, ‘tanbīh’, and ‘takmila’.¹⁴⁶ Some, like Ibn al-Mulaqqin, use numbers instead to list what they call different ‘aspects’ (wujūh) of the ḥadīth.¹⁴⁷ As mentioned above (see Move 7), commentators may also use phrases such as ‘fīh (min al-fiqh, min al-fawāʾid)’, ‘fī (hādhā) al-ḥadīth…’ to show their inferences, and to transition from one inference to another. This strategy also involves identifying phrases used to refer to the author(itie)s quoted (e.g., ‘qāla ṣāḥib al-Mashāriq…’), and show how the commentator himself enters the discussion (e.g., ‘qāla al-muṣannif’, ‘qāla kātibuh’, ‘qultu…’), which also helps us to understand the implications of the utterances that indicate whose opinions are worth discussing in terms of authorial authority and power relations in the text. Typically, the phrase qīla is used to undermine the authority of the quoted view.

Commentary texts on secondary collections: is there a generic difference?

We have stated above that we would test the applicability of the model we propose to the commentary texts on secondary ḥadīth collections, for which we have included in our sample four texts written on two prominent secondary adaptations, Mishkāt and Mashāriq. Our analysis shows that the strategies we have offered for the first three dimensions of our model are also relevant for these commentary texts. (One should note, though, that in the case of introductions, the model’s strategies are also applicable to the commentator’s remarks on the secondary collection’s introduction, in addition to the introduction to his own text.) With regard to the fourth dimension, however, these commentary texts do not usually contain Moves 1–5, though they typically contain linguistic analyses and legal, theological, and moral inferences, with no significant difference content wise. Therefore, our model is applicable to these later adaptations to a great extent.

Conclusion

This article has demonstrated that ḥadīth commentary writing has produced certain common structural elements over the centuries, which allows us to speak of a distinct scholarly genre. There is a clear continuity in the generic features and rhetorical structures (consisting of ‘moves and steps’) of the sources we have examined. We have already shown how a theological debate has been carried on for almost a millennium by the commentators of our case ḥadīth. Another factor in the stabilization of the genre is the integration of information from previous commentaries by later commentators. For instance, Ibn al-Mulaqqin frequently ‘quotes’, or relates information from, other commentators, while al-ʿAynī famously uses Ibn Ḥajar’s comments freely (for which the latter accused him of plagiarism), and frequently draws on al-Kirmānī’s commentary. Yūsuf Efendi-zāde, in turn, relies heavily on Ibn Ḥajar and especially al-ʿAynī. Even reviews of legal and linguistic debates and contextual information are sometimes directly taken from previous commentaries. Leaving the question of plagiarism aside, these ‘free quotations’ contribute to the formation of a stable genre by making the same moves and steps repeat across generations and different regions.

We have thus tried to establish ḥadīth commentary as a genre, proposing a comprehensive model of it to help students of Islamic studies better understand the classical and contemporary sources on ḥadīth. Drawing on the genre analysis (GA) literature and that of ḥadīth commentary, our model consists of four dimensions: ḥadīth commentary texts’ main generic features and internal structure, and the rhetorical structure of their introduction and main body, that is, commentary sections on particular ḥadīths. For the first two dimensions, we have outlined the structural elements of a ḥadīth commentary text, and provided analytical questions and strategies for examining them. For the latter two dimensions, we have identified the building blocks (rhetorical structure) of these works, and applied them to their introductions and specific sections on ḥadīth commentary in the twenty-three classical and contemporary Sunni commentary texts. Table 5 summarizes the model proposed here.

Our model offers a number of benefits to ḥadīth scholarship and beyond. First, a GA of a commentary text helps determine if, and to what extent, there is a ‘structural textual correspondence’ between it (the hypertext) and its base-text (the hypotext).¹⁴⁸ Second, because ḥadīth commentary texts are voluminous and complex works, and thus difficult to navigate, our model may help researchers anticipate their structures and find what they are looking for more easily. It will thus help researchers and students study ḥadīth commentary more efficiently and conveniently, making them more accessible and manageable. Third, the model may be used to complement the digital analyses of ḥadīth commentary; for example, digital methods help locate instances of text reuse,¹⁴⁹ but they still need a theoretical or methodological framework to interpret these instances. Our model offers one such framework, potentially contributing to the creation of ḥadīth metadata. Fourth, beyond these practical benefits, the proposed model may help explore the structural commonalities and differences among ḥadīth commentary texts across generations and throughout the Muslim world. It can thus contribute to ‘mapping out’ lines of continuity and rupture in ḥadīth commentary production, with its implications for integrity and diversity of Islamic intellectual traditions. Fifth, it may also contribute to the wider literature on Islamic commentary, as many components of our model can be adapted in the analysis of fiqh, philosophical, and Qurʾān commentaries, too—e.g., the sub-genre of commentary introductions, the mamzūj vs qawluhu structures, and components of the text’s internal structures. Sixth, the model developed here may also facilitate the application of the GA method, which has been devised primarily for contemporary English-language texts, to a different linguistic, religious, and scholarly context. Finally, it contributes to the GA literature by integrating it with Islamic studies, and providing a template that could be used in the field of commentary in non-Islamic contexts. It may thus make a modest contribution to the social-scientific literature on qualitative textual methods by expanding it to a non-traditional area of research, Islamic studies, which is an uncharted territory for GA.

Though systematic and comprehensive, the model proposed here does not include a full application to any work of ḥadīth commentary, for it is intended to be general and eclectic. Therefore, it can be improved by a GA of particular works in their entirety. Moreover, its application to non-ḥadīth commentaries may also help refine the model. Likewise, our GA model can be complemented with discourse analysis (DA), as the former focuses only on the structural features of texts. Thus, a thorough treatment of ḥadīth (and other) commentaries needs to include an examination of both generic and discursive elements.

Footnotes

Appendix: List of ḥadīth commentary texts consulted

ʿAlī al-Qārī, Mirqāt al-mafātīḥ: sharḥ Mishkāt al-maṣābīḥ (ed. Jamāl ʿAytānī; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 11 vols., 2001).

al-ʿAynī, Badr al-Dīn Maḥmūd b. Aḥmad, ʿUmdat al-qārī: sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (ed. ʿAbdallāh Maḥmūd Muḥammad ʿUmar; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2nd edn., 25 vols., 2009).

ʿAẓīmābādī, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Sharaf al-Ḥaqq Muḥammad Ashraf [and Abū al-Ṭayyib Shams al-Ḥaqq], ʿAwn al-maʿbūd: sharḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd (Damascus: Dār al-Fayḥāʾ–Dār al-Manhal Nāshirūn, 14 vols., 2009).

al-Dihlawī, ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq, Lamaʿāt al-tanqīḥ fī sharḥ Mishkāt al-maṣābīḥ (ed. Taqī al-Dīn al-Nadwī; Damascus: Dār al-Nawādir, 10 vols., 2014).

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd li-mā fī al-Muwaṭṭaʾ min al-maʿānī wa-l-asānīd: fī ḥadīth Rasūl Allāh ṣalla Allāh ʿalayhi wa-sallam (ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf et al.; London: Muʾassasat al-Furqān, 17 vols., 2017).

Ibn Baṭṭāl, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (ed. Abū Tamīm Yāsir b. Ibrāhīm; Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd, 10 vols., 2004).

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī: sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (ed. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿAbdallāh b. Bāz; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 4th edn., 18 vols., 2003).

Ibn Malak Firişteoğlu, Mabāriq al-azhār fī sharḥ Mashāriq al-anwār (ed. Tawfīq Maḥmūd Tukla; Istanbul: Dār al-Lubāb, 3 vols., 2019).

Ibn al-Mulaqqin, al-Tawḍīḥ li-sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaḥīḥ (ed. Dār al-Falāḥ; Damascus: Dār al-Nawādir, 36 vols., 2008).

al-Ityūbī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Wallawī, Sharḥ Sunan al-Nasāʾī: dhakhīrat al-ʿuqbā fī sharḥ al-Mujtabā (Riyadh–Makka: Dār al-Miʿrāj–Dār Āl Burūm, 42 vols., 1996–2007).

al-Khaṭṭābī, Abū Sulaymān Ḥamd b. Muḥammad, Maʿālim al-Sunan: sharḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd (ed. Saʿd b. Najdat ʿUmar; Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla Nāshirūn, 4 vols., 2016).

al-Kirmānī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Yūsuf, Sharḥ al-Kirmānī ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-musammā  al-Kawākib al-darārī fī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (ed. Muḥammad ʿUthmān; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 12 vols., 2010).

al-Māzarī, Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, al-Muʿlim bi-fawāʾid Muslim (ed. Muḥammad al-Shādhalī al-Nīfar; Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 3rd edn., 3 vols., 2012).

Molla Gūrānī, Shams al-Dīn Aḥmad b. Ismāʿīl, al-Kawthar al-jārī ilā riyāḍ aḥādīth al-Bukhārī (ed. Muḥammad b. Riyāḍ al-Aḥmad; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 12 vols., 2012).

Mubārakpūrī, Abū al-ʿUlā Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Tuḥfat al-aḥwadhī bi-sharḥ Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī (Damascus: Dār al-Fayḥāʾ – Dār al-Manhal Nāshirūn, 10 vols., 2011); al-Muqaddima [unnumbered volume].

al-Nawawī, Abū Zakariyyā Muḥyī al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Sharaf, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bi-sharḥ al-Imām Muḥyī al-Dīn Abī Zakariyyā Yaḥyā b. Sharaf al-Nawawī, al-musammā al-Minhāj sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj (ed. Muwaffaq Marʿī; Damascus: Dār al-Fayḥāʾ – Dār al-Manhal Nāshirūn, 6 vols. [18 parts], 2010).

al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim li-l-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, al-musammā Ikmāl al-Muʿlim bi-fawāʾid Muslim (ed. Yaḥyā Ismāʿīl; Mansoura: Dār al-Wafāʾ, 9 vols., 1998).

al-Qasṭallānī, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Irshād al-sārī li-sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (ed. al-Maktab al-ʿIlmī bi-Dār al-Kamāl al-Muttaḥida; Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 20 vols., 2021).

al-Qurṭubī, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. ʿUmar, al-Mufhim li-mā ashkala min Talkhīṣ Kitāb Muslim (ed. Muḥyī al-Dīn Dīb Mustū et al.; Damascus–Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr–Dār al-Kalim al-Ṭayyib, 7 vols., 1996).

al-Sāʿātī, Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Bannā, Bulūgh al-amānī min asrār al-Fatḥ al-rabbānī: sharḥ tartīb Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal al-Shaybānī (ed. Ḥassān ʿAbd al-Mannān; Amman: Bayt al-Afkār al-Dawliyya, 4 vols., 2007).

Sahāranpūrī, Khalīl Aḥmad, Badhl al-majhūd fī ḥall Sunan Abī Dāwūd (Beirut: Dār al-Bashāʾir al-Islāmiyya, 14 vols., 2006).

al-Ṭībī, al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAbdallāh, Sharḥ al-Ṭībī ʿalā Mishkāt al-maṣābīḥ al-musammā bi-l-Kāshif ʿan ḥaqāʾiq al-sunan (ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Hindāwī; Makka: Maktabat Nizār Muṣṭafā al-Bāz, 13 vols., 1997).

Yūsuf Efendi-zāde, ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad, Najāḥ al-qārī li-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥafīẓ Muḥammad Bayḍūn; Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 31 vols., 2021).