Muhammad Qasim Zaman and Görke both deal extensively with the contextual treatment of various types of Islamic texts. In The relationship between maghāzī and haḍīth in
early Islamic scholarship, Görke explores some of the foundations of the different treatment of maghazi and hadith works, noting that these two particular fields of study have originated on their own, influencing one another. This argument stands in contrast to some of the contemporary prevailing views, which tend to believe that these traditions are intertwined in some ways. Zaman digs somewhat deeper than this base level analysis in his work. In his article, he dives into the different types of maghazi – principally, sira work and maghazi work – noting the distinct differences between the two types, and highlighting that these differences are born out of not only stylistic preferences, but also differences in author intention.
In addition, the author argues that one can only very carefully use the word “historical” to describe the different kinds of maghazi, even if there are some similarities between the things found in maghazi and those things found in the hadith. This essay will seek to critically review the two works in question, noting the differences in argument between the two authors. In addition to simply pointing out the two arguments and their differences, this particular essay will seek to show the interplay between the two works, noting how they interact and tangle with one another, providing context for one another along the way.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Islamic Texts Critical".
Görke writes primarily about the various fields of study that company the maghazi and hadith in early Islamic scholarship. The author notes how in this field, there is a tremendous amount of dissention about the development of these two traditions. The narratives of Muhammad and the “traditional” biographic material can sometimes conflict, which causes such stern interest in discovering which of these two approaches is more authentic or otherwise more reliable. Likewise, the author argues primarily that there have been a number of different ways of looking at these two traditions. Some, he argues, believe that these are intertwined, and in essence, they have grown up with one another. Context-dependent writings of Muhammad’s actions have had that context removed down the line, some argue.
The author in this work argues that these two ways of breaking down the life of Muhammad have developed on their own, and he argues that there is some mutually exclusivity to the two approaches. Beyond that, the author argues primarily that there has been some influence on each tradition from the other. Namely, he argues that over time, the two different styles have drawn things from one another, but it would be false to assume that the writings had come from the same place or the same motivation. Rather, the author seems to argue in this sense that these two traditions fill very different purposes. In fact, the author argues that there are distinctive features to both fields that are necessary, and that keep them from falling into the same category for those who are looking to understand their basic development.
When one looks at Zaman’s work, it is easy to spot some similarity in his line of thought, comparing to Görke. Zaman begins by noting, almost condescendingly, that it would be necessary to classify the things found in maghazi as being “historical” only in an artificial sense. It is clear from this, from the earliest paragraphs of his writing, that he views these writings as being much more contemporary, especially considering the fact that these writings are so full of context that is not necessarily included in some of the traditional hadith writings. The two authors come off differently in terms of tone, of course, with Görke being much more respectful of the role and place of maghazi writings in the historical Islamic cannon, but they are very similar in argumentation, both noting that these context-heavy documents are to be considered, at the very least, as something different.
One of the overarching points consistently made in Zaman’s work is that it is sometimes necessary to understand that even people within similar traditions, seeking to analyze various documents, will see differences in how to handle various works. He argues in favor of what he calls a “slow realization” within the Islamic tradition of understanding this and understanding just why people chose to include some materials and not others. Zaman seems to acknowledge that there has been some picking and choosing, and this may explain why certain maghazi materials have made their way into the hadith, while other materials have been conspicuously absent. Görke, at the same time, acknowledges the human element in the changing of maghazi documentation years after its creation.
He calls this the “normative” effect, and he speaks to the fact that many of these works were taken out of their original context in order to fit other roles. In this, one can see that these two authors are acknowledging that the often black and white view of how these things work together cannot be the entire view. Rather, in order to have a fuller understanding, one must both acknowledge and appreciate the full extent to which human beings have been involved in altering all of the works. Görke argues, in principal, that it is foolish for individuals to try and understand the connection between maghazi and hadith materials without understanding that much of the maghazi work has been changed in some tangible manner. Still, he argues that these works, while potentially being capable of study together, might better be understood on their own.
Zaman does not necessarily take this view, and would not seem to agree with Görke’s original point that it is foolish to try and study these things together. In fact, Zaman is doing precisely what Görke argues that individuals should not do. Zaman is choosing to analyze maghazi and hadith together, when Görke’s call is for these things to be first understood on their own before one attempts to bring them together for any kind of meaningful analysis. It is true that the two authors present two very different ways both of understanding these important texts and of analyzing those texts, and they approach the practice from different modes of analysis.
Ultimately, the two authors in these works are making key arguments about how one should choose to view many of the most important accounts of the prophet’s life. While Zaman gets much more specific into his analysis of specific different accounts, and Görke takes a more bird’s eye view of the entire situation, it is still possible for one to compare these two articles for greater understanding. The two authors are not necessarily standing in contrast to one another in terms of their overall argumentation. Görke believes that maghazi works and hadith works should be separated and studied as separate, while Zaman quite obviously takes a different view. While Görke might accuse Zaman of entangling those two things in a way that is not productive for future study, both authors agree that the two different traditions have largely influenced one another. The two authors experience multiple points of agreement in style and substance, and their disagreements are much more subtle.
