Joel Blecher, Said the Prophet of God: Hadith Commentary across a Millennium (New Texts Out Now)

Joel Blecher, Said the Prophet of God: Hadith Commentary across a Millennium (New Texts Out Now)

Joel Blecher, Said the Prophet of God: Hadith Commentary across a Millennium (New Texts Out Now)

By : Joel Blecher

Joel Blecher, Said the Prophet of God: Hadith Commentary across a Millennium (University of California Press, 2018).

Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?

Joel Blecher (JB): I first discovered my interest in hadith commentary when I was invited to attend a live commentary session on Sahih al-Bukhari in Damascus, Syria in 2009. The commentator spent seven years explaining a single hadith collection, and was only a third of the way through explaining the entire work. Attended by hundreds of students from across the globe, the commentator drew on a rich tradition of commentaries from the places and times it flourished the most—classical Andalusia, medieval Egypt, and modern India—to illuminate the meaning of the hadith for his present audiences. When I returned to Princeton later that year to begin my doctoral research, I found that virtually nothing had been published on this complex and multi-layered tradition. I could not even find an entry dedicated to the subject in the Encyclopedia of Islam. Although scholars had long studied how Muslims authenticated and transmitted hadith, the story of how they interpreted and reinterpreted the meanings of hadith over the past millennium had yet to be told.

Said the Prophet of God gives readers an illustrative sampling of the intellectual, legal, and theological debates over hadith, and the way in which those debates stretched across long periods of time and geographical expanses.

J:  What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address?

JB: Said the Prophet of God gives readers an illustrative sampling of the intellectual, legal, and theological debates over hadith, and the way in which those debates stretched across long periods of time and geographical expanses. It also brings dimension to the public nature of the practice of hadith commentaries in their local places and times and the material culture of manuscripts, print, and audio-visual media in which commentaries were circulated. A hadith commentary over a controversial hadith could spark public furors in eleventh century Andalusia. In Egypt in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, live hadith commentary sessions were the stage for spectacular and sometimes destructive rivalries among Muslim chief justices, while the sultans and emirs in attendance doled out gifts, jobs, and even tax breaks. The tradition found new life in British India in the age of print and mass literacy, when Urdu and English commentators emerged to address both the political challenges of colonialism and also the intellectual problems that, they claimed, their pre-modern predecessors had missed. At the end of the book, I look at how hadith commentary continues to operate in the contemporary world, weaving together my own ethnographic field notes with analyses of the way militant groups have drawn on hadith commentary for their propaganda.

J: How does this book connect and/or depart from your previous work?

JB: My earliest writings on the history of religion at Swarthmore College concerned the marginalia in William Blake's Illuminated Books. Blake filled up the margins and interlinear spaces of his plates with spiraling ornamentation, which sometimes depicted micro-dramas of human figurines hidden within them. Lamenting the fact that modern editions excluded all of this from printed editions, I argued that this layer of pictorial marginalia offered a provocative auto-commentary on his prophecies and proverbs. 

Although they emerged from a very different context and period, Blake's Illuminated Books taught me how texts can function as multi-sensory aural and visual recordings, and the way that reading was an embodied practice rather than an abstract one. Blake's work also taught me how texts engage the politics of their time, while speaking across time in conversation with past and future audiences. Lastly, studying Blake taught me that authors who challenge traditional modes of thought can also be subtly (and paradoxically) reifying them. In retrospect, these are also some of the key insights that Said the Prophet of God advances as well. When I came upon the seemingly quiet and austere genre of hadith commentary, I found a bubbling mixture of politics, sound, visions, live readings, an engagement with multiple temporalities, provocative arguments, interpretive dilemmas, and contradictions.

J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

JB: I want to help bring humanity and life into hadith studies—a field that, for an outsider, can appear daunting and overly technical. For that reason, I crafted the book in a way that it would be valuable for students and specialists alike. I hope it will find as happy a home in an undergraduate seminar as it would on a graduate student's library carrel or a professor's bookshelf. The book is concise enough that it can be comfortably read on a couch with one's feet up, but includes enough detailed notes that it can be a resource for readers to consult for reference. Scholars of Islamic studies across a range of periods and places will be sure to find it of interest, but the book has also been written to open new avenues for comparative audiences of historians, scholars of religion, anthropology, and law. In the end, as no single book or single scholar could do justice to this tradition, my hope is that this book spurs future students and scholars to begin to mine this vast literature. In that spirit, Said the Prophet of God does not pretend to offer the last word on the subject, but rather an introduction to further debate, questions, and commentary.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

JB: I am helping to edit a collected volume of scholarly essays on hadith commentary, which will be certain to help advance this nascent field. I am also compiling a primary source reader for hadith literature that undergraduates and broader readerships would find accessible and engaging.  

Meanwhile, I will be hard at work on my next book project, Profit and Prophecy: Islam and the Spice Trade, which was recently awarded fellowships from both the NEH and the ACLS. This book will retell the story of the spice trade through the eyes of medieval Muslim scholars, merchants, and scholar-merchants, who mixed religion and business along pilgrimage routes and port cities that stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean.

J: If you were to try to sum up your book in a haiku, or perhaps two, what would it be?

JB:

so said the prophet—
commence volumes of comments
a world tied by texts

across distances
asking: what was intended?
old words, new meanings

 

Excerpt from the Book:

It was 2009, before the civil war. As the scorching heat of a Damascus summer day gave way to a balmy evening, a friend invited me along to al-Īmān Mosque to hear Shaykh Naʿīm al-ʿIrqsūsī add to his line-by-line commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.  Grabbing my pen and pad, I accepted. Sunnis popularly hold Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī to be the most reliable collection of hadith—the sayings and practices attributed to Muhammad—and their interpretation of the meanings of the hadith it contains is an event to behold. It was the seventh year of ʿIrqsūsī’s commentary, and he was less than a third of the way through explaining the entire work.

At the mosque’s threshold, I removed my shoes, and I found a seat on the carpet some sixty feet away from the shaykh. Scanning the room, I made a careful observation of ʿIrqsūsī’s students. By my count, nearly eight hundred male students had gathered there. Many local Syrians were in attendance, but a good fraction of his students were from other parts of the Islamic world, particularly Central Asia and Indonesia. Roughly half brought a personal copy of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī with them. Older students pored over faded editions, filled with marginal notes from prior studies. Younger students brandished sparkling new editions that conveniently included a popular medieval commentary in a smaller font below the main text, and they began adding their own margin notes for the first time. Near the back, some in attendance closed their eyes, counting their prayer beads methodically as they listened to the shaykh explain each hadith. Near the front, students clamored for the shaykh’s attention, hoping to prove they could competently answer any question the shaykh might spontaneously pose to them.

While ʿIrqsūsī’s periodic slips into Syrian dialect appeared to create an air of improvisation, his commentary was anything but. In one sitting, by capitalizing on the flexibility of the line-by-line commentary to digress into a wide spectrum of detailed discussions, ʿIrqsūsī carefully stitched together citations from hadith commentaries from classical Andalusia, the Mamluk era, and modern India. He also weaved in material from Qur’an commentaries, Islamic legal texts, historical chronicles, and biographies of the Prophet and his companions. With each explanation he exhorted his audience to pious action or elucidated a sectarian, legal, grammatical, historical, or political issue. It took ʿIrqsūsī from the time of the sunset prayer to the evening prayer—about an hour and a half—to recite and explain just three hadith.

The practice of live line-by-line hadith commentary like ʿIrqsūsī’s is a fixture of modern Islamic societies. On any given week, one can attend live commentaries on hadith collections in far-flung places, from Baghdad to Britain, Morocco to Malaysia, Pennsylvania to Pakistan, India to Indonesia, and Syria to South Africa to Saudi Arabia. The medium of the hadith commentary is particularly appealing for global audiences in part because the hadith collection’s topics range so widely that it allows scholars to expound on almost every subject imaginable: law, theology, governance, manners, mysticism, worship, the Qur’an, history, and the end of time.

And yet, as much as this practice speaks to the broad concerns of contemporary Muslim audiences, it is rooted in a deep history that spans more than a millennium. Scholars of the manuscript tradition have catalogued 232 extant works of commentary just on collections that were first compiled in the classical period. The total number of hadith commentaries is exponentially higher when one takes into account commentaries on popular collections compiled after the classical period. While academic studies of hadith have illuminated how hadith were transmitted, authenticated, and awarded authority, one vital set of questions has yet to be fully investigated: How did Muslims interpret and reinterpret the meanings of hadith and hadith collections? What aspects of hadith and hadith collections came to require explanation in certain periods, and why? What explains why one hadith commentarial opinion endured while another withered away? When the needs of interpreters’ social interests came into conflict with their fidelity to the apparent meaning of the hadith, how did commentators attempt to thread the needle, balancing both sets of concerns? And what were the complex social forces, technologies, times, spaces, and audiences that shaped and were shaped by the practice of commentary on hadith?

This book takes up this set of questions by examining the three key historical periods and locales in which commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī flourished: classical Andalusia, late medieval Egypt, and modern India. The book closes with an epilogue on contemporary appropriations of hadith commentary by Islamist groups. Throughout, the book tracks continuities and changes that emerged as the commentary tradition moved from the era of manuscripts to the eras of print and video, from eras in which commentators were connected to the ruling elite to eras in which they were distanced from political power, and from eras in which particular textual and institutional authorities were virtually unquestioned to eras in which those same authorities could be challenged. The book argues that the meanings of hadith were shaped as much by commentators’ political, cultural, and regional contexts as by the fine-grained interpretive debates that developed over long periods of time.

Why does this book track the cumulative tradition of hadith commentary across a millennium? Like geological processes, certain changes and continuities can be observed only across long periods of time. Some layers of commentary suffered from erosion or were buried under sediment amid historical change. Others, under extreme pressure, morphed into something entirely new. Long-buried layers of commentarial opinions, after sudden moments of rupture, could return to the surface for a new audience to contemplate. Unlike geological formations, social and intellectual forces, rather than natural ones, shaped and reshaped the commentary traditions across time. And unlike sedimentary rock, hadith commentators and their communities could play some role in determining whether their opinions endured or languished.

To this end, broader audiences will find in this book a model for approaching traditions of textual interpretation at the intersection of both social and intellectual history. By documenting how commentaries delivered in a live setting and in writing were conditioned by the interests of their diverse audiences of students, patrons, and rivals, as well as by the affairs of the state, this book challenges the assumption that commentary was merely a derivative and rarefied practice, insulated from the politics of the public sphere. And yet, by giving equal weight to the intellectual stakes of the tradition—such as the cross-generational search for novel solutions to long-standing interpretive problems—this book avoids a common pitfall of recent sociocultural analysis: the reduction of intellectual activity to mere competition over material and social capital. By approaching hadith commentary as a living practice with social and intellectual stakes, this book aims to synthesize new avenues for scholars of history, anthropology, religion, and law who study cultures of reading and textual interpretation.

New Texts Out Now: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein, guest eds. "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis." Special Issue of Conflict, Security & Development

Conflict, Security and Development, Volume 15, No. 5 (December 2015) Special issue: "Israel-Palestine after Oslo: Mapping Transformations in a Time of Deepening Crisis," Guest Editors: Mandy Turner and Cherine Hussein.

Jadaliyya (J): What made you compile this volume?

Mandy Turner (MT): Both the peace process and the two-state solution are dead. Despite more than twenty years of negotiations, Israel’s occupation, colonization and repression continue–and the political and geographical fragmentation of the Palestinian people is proceeding apace.

This is not news, nor is it surprising to any keen observer of the situation. But what is surprising–and thus requires explanation – is the resilience of the Oslo framework and paradigm: both objectively and subjectively. It operates objectively as a straitjacket by trapping Palestinians in economic and security arrangements that are designed to ensure stabilization and will not to lead to sovereignty or a just and sustainable solution. And it operates subjectively as a straitjacket by shutting out discussion of alternative ways of understanding the situation and ways out of the impasse. The persistence of this framework that is focused on conflict management and stabilization, is good for Israel but bad for Palestinians.

The Oslo peace paradigm–of a track-one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution–is therefore in crisis. And yet it is entirely possible that the current situation could continue for a while longer–particularly given the endorsement and support it enjoys from the major Western donors and the “international community,” as well as the fact that there has been no attempt to develop an alternative. The immediate short-term future is therefore bleak.

Guided by these observations, this special issue sought to undertake two tasks. The first task was to analyze the perceptions underpinning the Oslo framework and paradigm as well as some of the transformations instituted by its implementation: why is it so resilient, what has it created? The second task, which follows on from the first, was then to ask: how can we reframe our understanding of what is happening, what are some potential alternatives, and who is arguing and mobilizing for them?

These questions and themes grew out of a number of conversations with early-career scholars – some based at the Kenyon Institute in East Jerusalem, and some based in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere. These conversations led to two interlinked panels at the International Studies Association annual convention in Toronto, Canada, in March 2014. To have two panels accepted on “conflict transformation and resistance in Palestine” at such a conventional international relations conference with (at the time unknown) early-career scholars is no mean feat. The large and engaged audience we received at these panels – with some very established names coming along (one of whom contributed to this special issue) – convinced us that this new stream of scholars and scholarship should have an outlet.  

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures do the articles address?

MT: The first half of the special issue analyzes how certain problematic assumptions shaped the Oslo framework, and how the Oslo framework in turn shaped the political, economic and territorial landscape.

Virginia Tilley’s article focuses on the paradigm of conflict resolution upon which the Oslo Accords were based, and calls for a re-evaluation of what she argues are the two interlinked central principles underpinning its worldview: internationally accepted notions of Israeli sovereignty; and the internationally accepted idea that the “conflict” is essentially one between two peoples–the “Palestinian people” and the “Jewish people”. Through her critical interrogation of these two “common sense” principles, Tilley proposes that the “conflict” be reinterpreted as an example of settler colonialism, and, as a result of this, recommends an alternative conflict resolution model based on a paradigm shift away from an ethno-nationalist division of the polity towards a civic model of the nation.

Tariq Dana unpacks another central plank of the Oslo paradigm–that of promoting economic relations between Israel and the OPT. He analyses this through the prism of “economic peace” (particularly the recent revival of theories of “capitalist peace”), whose underlying assumptions are predicated on the perceived superiority of economic approaches over political approaches to resolving conflict. Dana argues that there is a symbiosis between Israeli strategies of “economic peace” and recent Palestinian “statebuilding strategies” (referred to as Fayyadism), and that both operate as a form of pacification and control because economic cooperation leaves the colonial relationship unchallenged.

The political landscape in the OPT has been transformed by the Oslo paradigm, particularly by the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Alaa Tartir therefore analyses the basis, agenda and trajectory of the PA, particularly its post-2007 state building strategy. By focusing on the issue of local legitimacy and accountability, and based on fieldwork in two sites in the occupied West Bank (Balata and Jenin refugee camps), Tartir concludes that the main impact of the creation of the PA on ordinary people’s lives has been the strengthening of authoritarian control and the hijacking of any meaningful visions of Palestinian liberation.

The origin of the administrative division between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the focus of Tareq Baconi’s article. He charts how Hamas’s initial opposition to the Oslo Accords and the PA was transformed over time, leading to its participation (and success) in the 2006 legislative elections. Baconi argues that it was the perceived demise of the peace process following the collapse of the Camp David discussions that facilitated this change. But this set Hamas on a collision course with Israel and the international community, which ultimately led to the conflict between Hamas and Fateh, and the administrative division, which continues to exist.

The special issue thereafter focuses, in the second section, on alternatives and resistance to Oslo’s transformations.

Cherine Hussein’s article charts the re-emergence of the single-state idea in opposition to the processes of separation unleashed ideologically and practically that were codified in the Oslo Accords. Analysing it as both a movement of resistance and as a political alternative to Oslo, while recognizing that it is currently largely a movement of intellectuals (particularly of diaspora Palestinians and Israelis), Hussein takes seriously its claim to be a more just and liberating alternative to the two-state solution.

My article highlights the work of a small but dedicated group of anti-Zionist Jewish-Israeli activists involved in two groups: Zochrot and Boycott from Within. Both groups emerged in the post-Second Intifada period, which was marked by deep disillusionment with the Oslo paradigm. This article unpacks the alternative – albeit marginalized – analysis, solution and route to peace proposed by these groups through the application of three concepts: hegemony, counter-hegemony and praxis. The solution, argue the activists, lies in Israel-Palestine going through a process of de-Zionization and decolonization, and the process of achieving this lies in actions in solidarity with Palestinians.

This type of solidarity action is the focus of the final article by Suzanne Morrison, who analyses the “We Divest” campaign, which is the largest divestment campaign in the US and forms part of the wider Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Through attention to their activities and language, Morrison shows how “We Divest”, with its networked, decentralized, grassroots and horizontal structure, represents a new way of challenging Israel’s occupation and the suppression of Palestinian rights.

The two parts of the special issue are symbiotic: the critique and alternative perspectives analyzed in part two are responses to the issues and problems identified in part one.

J: How does this volume connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

MT: My work focuses on the political economy of donor intervention (which falls under the rubric of “peacebuilding”) in the OPT, particularly a critique of the Oslo peace paradigm and framework. This is a product of my broader conceptual and historical interest in the sociology of intervention as a method of capitalist expansion and imperial control (as explored in “The Politics of International Intervention: the Tyranny of Peace”, co-edited with Florian Kuhn, Routledge, 2016), and how post-conflict peacebuilding and development agendas are part of this (as explored in “Whose Peace: Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding”, co-edited with Michael Pugh and Neil Cooper (PalgraveMacmillan, 2008).  

My first book on Palestine (co-edited with Omar Shweiki), Decolonizing Palestinian Political Economy: De-development and Beyond (PalgraveMacmillan, 2014), was a collection of essays by experts in their field, of the political-economic experience of different sections of the Palestinian community. The book, however, aimed to reunite these individual experiences into one historical political-economy narrative of a people experiencing a common theme of dispossession, disenfranchisement and disarticulation. It was guided by the desire to critically assess the utility of the concept of de-development to different sectors and issues–and had a foreword by Sara Roy, the scholar who coined the term, and who was involved in the workshop from which the book emerged.

This co-edited special issue (with Cherine Hussein, who, at the time of the issue construction, was the deputy director of the Kenyon Institute) was therefore the next logical step in my research on Palestine, although my article on Jewish-Israeli anti-Zionists did constitute a slight departure from my usual focus.

J: Who do you hope will read this volume, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?

MT: I would imagine the main audience will be those whose research and political interests lie in Palestine Studies. It is difficult, given the structure of academic publishing – which has become ever more corporate and money grabbing – for research outputs such as this to be accessed by the general public. Only those with access to academic libraries are sure to be able to read it – and this is a travesty, in my opinion. To counteract this commodification of knowledge, we should all provide free access to our outputs through online open source websites such as academia.edu, etc. If academic research is going to have an impact beyond merely providing more material for teaching and background reading for yet more research (which is inaccessible to the general public) then this is essential. Websites such as Jadaliyya are therefore incredibly important.

Having said all that, I am under no illusions about the potential for ANY research on Israel-Palestine to contribute to changing the dynamics of the situation. However, as a collection of excellent analyses conducted by mostly early-career scholars in the field of Palestine studies, I am hopeful that their interesting and new perspectives will be read and digested. 

J: What other projects are you working on now?

MT: I am currently working on an edited volume provisionally entitled From the River to the Sea: Disintegration, Reintegration and Domination in Israel and Palestine. This book is the culmination of a two-year research project funded by the British Academy, which analyzed the impacts of the past twenty years of the Oslo peace framework and paradigm as processes of disintegration, reintegration and domination – and how they have created a new socio-economic and political landscape, which requires new agendas and frameworks. I am also working on a new research project with Tariq Dana at Birzeit University on capital and class in the occupied West Bank.

Excerpt from the Editor’s Note 

[Note: This issue was published in Dec. 2015]

Initially perceived to have inaugurated a new era of hope in the search for peace and justice in Palestine-Israel, the Oslo peace paradigm of a track one, elite-level, negotiated two-state solution is in crisis today, if not completely at an end.

While the major Western donors and the ‘international community’ continue to publicly endorse the Oslo peace paradigm, Israeli and Palestinian political elites have both stepped away from it. The Israeli government has adopted what appears to be an outright rejection of the internationally-accepted end-goal of negotiations, i.e. the emergence of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. In March 2015, in the final days of his re-election campaign, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the Jewish settlement of Har Homa in Palestinian East Jerusalem, which is regarded as illegal under international law. Reminding its inhabitants that it was him and his Likud government that had established the settlement in 1997 as part of the Israeli state’s vision of a unified indivisible Jerusalem, he promised to expand the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem if re-elected. And in an interview with Israeli news site, NRG, Netanyahu vowed that the prospects of a Palestinian state were non-existent as long as he remained in office. Holding on to the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), he argued, was necessary to ensure Israel’s security in the context of regional instability and Islamic extremism. It is widely acknowledged that Netanyahu’s emphasis on Israel’s security—against both external and internal enemies—gave him a surprise win in an election he was widely expected to lose.

Despite attempts to backtrack under recognition that the US and European states are critical of this turn in official Israeli state policy, Netanyahu’s promise to bury the two-state solution in favour of a policy of further annexation has become the Israeli government’s official intent, and has been enthusiastically endorsed by leading ministers and key advisers.

[…]

The Palestinian Authority (PA) based in the West Bank also appears to have rejected a key principle of the Oslo peace paradigm—that of bilateral negotiations under the supervision of the US. Despite a herculean effort by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to bring the two parties to the negotiating table, in response to the lack of movement towards final status issues and continued settlement expansion (amongst other issues), the Palestinian political elite have withdrawn from negotiations and resumed attempts to ‘internationalise the struggle’ by seeking membership of international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), and signing international treaties such as the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court. This change of direction is part of a rethink in the PA and PLO’s strategy rooted in wider discussions and debates. The publication of a document by the Palestine Strategy Study Group (PSSG) in August 2008, the production of which involved many members of the Palestinian political elite (and whose recommendations were studiously discussed at the highest levels of the PA and PLO), showed widespread discontent with the bilateral negotiations framework and suggested ways in which Palestinians could ‘regain the initiative’.

[…]

And yet despite these changes in official Palestinian and Israeli political strategies that signal a deepening of the crisis, donors and the ‘international community’ are reluctant to accept the failure of the Oslo peace paradigm. This political myopia has meant the persistence of a framework that is increasingly divorced from the possibility of a just and sustainable peace. It is also acting as an ideological straitjacket by shutting out alternative interpretations. This special issue seeks a way out of this political and intellectual dead end. In pursuit of this, our various contributions undertake what we regard to be two key tasks: first, to critically analyse the perceptions underpinning the Oslo paradigm and the transformations instituted by its implementation; and second, to assess some alternative ways of understanding the situation rooted in new strategies of resistance that have emerged in the context of these transformations in the post-Oslo landscape.

[…]

Taken as a whole, the articles in this special issue aim to ignite conversations on the conflict that are not based within abstracted debates that centre upon the peace process itself—but that begin from within the realities and geographies of both the continually transforming land of Palestine-Israel and the voices, struggles, worldviews and imaginings of the future of the people who presently inhabit it. For it is by highlighting these transformations, and from within these points of beginning, that we believe more hopeful pathways for alternative ways forward can be collectively imagined, articulated, debated and built.