Hadith literature (often called in Western scholarship "Muslim tradition") is understood to be the repository of the sonna (normative conduct; pl. sonan) of the Prophet, which is regarded as second in authority only to the Koran as a source of Divine truth. The Hadith, in other words, is an authoritative and prescriptive body of material relating to the Prophet Moháammad: it records what the Prophet did and said in order that Moslems may – whether through direct mimesis of the actions of the Prophet, acceptance of specific Prophetic pronouncements on points of law and doctrine, or the extrapolation of law from both Prophetic actions and utterances – live in accordance with Divine truth. The vast and detailed corpus of Hadith literature establishes a significant proportion of the specific content of Islamic law, praxis and doctrine. Unlike the Koran, which is considered Divine speech, the Hadith is the Prophet's own discourse; however, a subcategory of Hadith, known as al-aháa@dit¯ al-qodsiya, is understood as representing the Prophet's own verbal expression of Divine inspiration (elha@m; see below).

Given the authority of Hadith as a source for the specific content of Islam, it became important for Muslims to ascertain the authenticity of each háadit¯ as a true and accurate (sáaháihá) record of Prophetic action or speech. Each háadit¯ consists of two parts: a text (matn, literally "body") appended to a chain of transmitters (esna@d, literally "support"), typically in the following format and using terms such as these: so-and-so said (qa@la): I heard (same¿to) from so-and-so who said: so-and-so told me (háaddat¯a-ni), saying : so-and-so informed us (akòbara-na@), saying: so-and-so announced to us (anba÷a-na@) on the authority of (¿an) so-and so, who said: the Prophet said, or did, such-and-such. The authenticity of a háadit¯ is assayed on the basis of the reputation for veracity and reliability of the individuals in the chain, which should go back to an eyewitness (see below).

While there are reports of the existence of small Hadith compilations in the first century A.H., the collection of Hadith and their systematic organization by scholars into compendia seems to have begun in earnest from the mid-2nd/8th century. For a period of about 200 years, the scholars of the Hadith movement (ahl al-háadit¯, or al-moháaddet¯un) traveled throughout the Islamic world collecting local knowledge about the Prophet (al-rehála fi tÂalab al-¿elm). The early scholars of the Hadith movement were also preoccupied with pressing the claim that Hadith should be the primary source of Divine truth after the Koran, especially against the respective proponents of rational theology, and of customary law. That the claim of Hadith to primacy was not unchallenged is reflected in those works written expressly to defend the Hadith movement against its opponents, such as Ebn Qotayba's (d. 276/889) Ta÷wil mokòtalef al-háadit¯ fi'l-radd ¿ala@ a¿da@÷ ahl al-háadit¯ and H®amd b. Moháammad K¨atÂtÂa@bi's (d. 383/998) A¿la@m al-háadit¯ (see bibliography).

The Hadith compendia which were eventually compiled took two forms: the mosnad, in which aháa@dit¯ are organized according to the transmitter; and the more prescription-friendly mosáannaf, in which aháa@dit¯ are organized according to their subject matter. The most famous mosnad is the largest extant early Hadith work, that of Ahámad Ebn H®anbal (d. 241/855) of Baghdad, which contains over 30,000 aháa@dit¯. The earliest extant work that includes aháa@dit¯ arranged by subject is not, strictly speaking, a Hadith collection, but rather a work of jurisprudence, namely, the MowatÂtÂa÷ of the Medinan scholar Ma@lek b. Anas (d. 179/795; see FEQH); however, the aháa@dit¯ cited therein do not always have complete esna@ds, and the work includes many reports about the words and legal decisions of Companions and Successors, as do the respective important published mosáannaf collections of ¿Abd-al-Razza@q S®an¿a@ni (d. 211/826), and of ¿Abd-Alla@h Ebn Abi ˆayba (d. 235/849).

The 3rd/9th century witnessed the compilation of the mosáannaf Hadith collections that would eventually acquire canonical status in Sunni Islam; these are composed exclusively of aháa@dit¯ from the Prophet carried by sound (sáaháihá) esna@ds. It is noteworthy that most of this compilation activity was carried out by scholars in Iran. In the case of the two works that are universally recognized as the most authoritative, the Ja@me¿ al-sáaháihá of Moháammad b. Esma@¿il Bokòa@ri (d. 256/870), and the Ja@me¿ al-sáaháihá of Moslem b. H®ajja@j Naysa@buri (d. 261/874), the process of their being invested with authority by the Muslim community seems to have taken place within a century or so of the respective compilers' deaths – ever since then, these have been considered the two most important texts in Sunni Islam after the Koran. (The Shi¿ites have their own Hadith collections, on which see Section ii. below.) Of only slightly less elevated status are the respective Sonan of Abu Da@÷ud Sejesta@ni (d. 275/888), Moháammad b. ¿Isa@ Termedòi (d. 279/892), Ebn Ma@ja Qazvini (d. 273/886) and Ahámad b. ˆo¿ayb Nasa@÷i (d. 303/915) – the authority of these four works was almost universally accepted by the 6th/12th century. Supplementary to "the Sound Six (al-sáeháa@há al-setta)" collections are the respective Sonan of ¿Abd-Alla@h b. ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Da@remi (d. 255/868), ¿Ali b. ¿Omar Da@raqotÂni (d. 385/995) and Ahámad b. al-H®osayn Bayhaqi (d. 458/1065). Other widely respected Hadith collections include al-Mo¿jam al-kabir of Solayma@n b. Ahámad T®abara@ni (d. 360/970), the Mostadrak of H®a@kem Moháammad b. ¿Abd-Alla@h Naysa@buri (d. 403/1012), the Masáa@bihá al-sonna of H®osayn b. Mas¿ud Bag@awi (d. 516/1122), which was expanded by Wali-al-Din K¨atÂib Tebrizi (fl. 737/1337) under the title Meæka@t al-masáa@bihá, the popular Ria@zµ al-sáa@leháin of Yaháya@ b. ˆaraf Nawawi (d. 676/1277) and the vast Kanz al-¿omma@l fi sonan al-aqwa@l wa'l-af¿a@l of ¿Ali Mottaqi Hendi (d. 975/1567).

Over the centuries, several commentaries on "the Sound Six" were produced, some of which have acquired great fame in their own right. They include, in particular: on the S®aháihá of Bokòa@ri, the Fathá al-ba@ri of Ahámad Ebn H®ajar ¿Asqala@ni (d. 852/1449), the ¿Omdat al-qa@ri of Badr-al-Din ¿Ayni (d. 855/1451) and the Eræa@d al-sa@ri of Ahámad b. Moháammad Qastalla@ni (d. 923/1518); on the S®aháihá of Moslem, the Menha@j of Yaháya@ b. ˆaraf Nawawi; on the Sonan of Abu Da@÷ud, the ¿Awn al-ma¿bud of ˆams-al-H®aqq ¿Azáima@ba@di (d. 1329/1911); on the Sonan of Termedòi, the Toháfat al-aháwadòi of Moháammad ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Moba@rakpuri (d. 1354/1935); on the Sonan of Ebn Ma@ja, the ˆarhá of Mog@altÂa@y b. Qelej (d. 762/1361); and on the Sonan of Nasa@÷i, the Zahr al-raba@ of Jala@l-al-Din SoyutÂi (d. 911/1505), and the ˆarhá of Moháammad b. ¿Abd-al-Ha@di Sendi (d. 1038/1629).

A sense of the content and arrangement of the mosáannaf collections may be obtained from surveying the chapter headings of a representative example, such as the Sonan of Nasa@÷i: ritual purity (al-tÂaha@ra), water (al-mia@h), menstruation (al-háayzµ wa'l-esteháa@zµa), bathing, and cleansing without water (al-g@osl wa'l-tayammom), prayer (al-sáala@t), appointed times (al-mawa@qit), the call to prayer (al-adòa@n), mosques (al-masa@jed), the direction of prayer (al-qebla), the office of Imam (al-ema@ma), the beginning of the prayer (al-efteta@há), the execution of the prayer (al-tatÂbiq), forgetfulness in prayer (al-sahw), Friday prayer (al-jom¿a), shortening the prayer in travel (taqsáir al-sáala@t fi'l-safar), the eclipse prayer (al-kosuf), prayer for rain (al-estesqa@÷), prayer of fear (sáala@t al-kòawf), the prayer of the two Eids (sáala@t al-¿idayn), staying up at night and giving up the day to pray (qia@m al-layl wa-tatÂawwo¿ al-naha@r), funerals (al-jana@÷ez), fasting (al-sáia@m), alms-giving (al-zaka@t), the rituals of the Pilgrimage (mana@sek al-háajj), struggle in the cause of God (al-jeha@d), marriage (al-neka@há), divorce (al-tÂala@q), horses (al-kòayl), mortmain (al-ahába@s), bequests (al-wasáa@ya@), gifts (al-nohál wa'l-heba), conditional gifts (al-roqba@), lifetime gifts (al-¿omra@), oaths and vows (al-ayma@n wa'l-nodòur), sharecropping (al-moza@ra¿a), prohibition of bloodshed (tahárim al-dam), the division of land that passes into the possession of the Muslim community (qesm al-fay÷), pledging allegiance (al-bay¿a), sacrifice for new born children (al--¿aqiqa), sacrifice of the first born camel foal, and of a sheep in Rajab (al-fara¿ wa'l-¿atira), hunting and slaughtering (al-sáayd wa'l-dòaba÷ehá), sacrifical animals (al-zµaháa@ya@), sales (al-boyu¿), compurgation (al-qasa@ma), cutting the hand of the thief (qat¿ al-sa@req), faith (al-ima@n), adornment (al-zina), the conduct of judges (a@da@b al-qozµa@t), seeking refuge in God (al-este¿a@dòa), and drinks (al-aæreba). The foregoing list is illustrative of the important role of Hadith in establishing religious praxis and law.

The growth of the Hadith movement was accompanied by an elaboration of the Hadith sciences (¿olum al-háadit¯). The historical development of the Hadith sciences may be traced through a study of the content of the important works in this field, such as al-Moháaddet¯ al-fa@sáel bayna 'l-ra@wi wa'l-wa@¿i by H®asan b. ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Ra@mahormozi (d. 360/971), al-Kefa@ya fi ¿elm al-rewa@ya by K¨atÂib Bag@da@di (d. 463/1071), Ma¿refat ¿olum al-háadit¯ by H®a@kem Naysa@buri, the Moqaddema by Abu ¿Amr ¿Ot¯ma@n Ebn S®ala@há (d. 643/1245), and Fathá al-Mog@it¯ by Moháammad b. ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Sakòa@wi (d. 902/1497), which is a commentary on a 1,000-line pedagogical poem (alfiya) on the Hadith sciences by Zayn-al-Din ¿Era@qi (d. 806/1404). The purpose of the Hadith sciences was to address the issue of how to establish the authenticity of reports; this, as noted above, was done on the basis of assaying the esna@d. To this end, a "science of men" (¿elm al-reja@l, encompassing also the women who transmitted Hadith) was formalized between the 2nd/8th and 4th/10th centuries, in which biographical notices were compiled for transmitters of Hadith, noting such details as their dates, locations, teachers and students. Of particular importance was the inclusion in biographical notices of the judgements of later Hadith scholars as to the veracity and reliability of the individual subjects, which could range from t¯eqa (trustworthy) and t¯abt (strong) to matruk (avoided) and kadòdòa@b (liar). From this crucial latter function derives the technical name for this science, al-jarhá wa'l-ta¿dil, or "the science of discrediting and accrediting." The Companions (sáaháa@ba) of the Prophet are, as a category, regarded as being necessarily trustworthy under the principle called ta¿dil al-sáaháa@ba (a doctrine which, for obvious reasons, is not accepted by the Shi¿ites, who judge trustworthy only the aháa@dit¯ transmitted by their own authorities). Among the most important of the early works of al-jarhá wa'l-ta¿dil are the Kita@b al-tÂabaqa@t al-kabir of Moháammad Ebn Sa¿d (d. 230/845), Kita@b al-ta@rikò al-kabir of Bokòa@ri, and Kita@b al-jarhá wa'l-ta¿dil of ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Ebn Abi H®a@tem Ra@zi (d. 327/938). Later reja@l works collated data from earlier ones and thus grew increasingly lengthy: especially well-regarded are the Miza@n al-e¿teda@l of ˆams-al-Din Mo-háammad al-D¨ahabi (d. 748/1348), the massive Tahdòib al-kema@l fi asma@÷ al-reja@l of Yusof b. ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Mezzi (d. 742/1341), and the Tahdòib al-tahdòib of Ebn H®ajar ¿Asqala@ni.

A complete esna@d is called mottasáel, marfu¿ or mosnad, and a háadit¯ supported by a complete esna@d made up of unimpeachably t¯eqa transmitters is classified as sáaháihá (sound, authentic). One level down is the háasan (good) háadit¯, which is also supported by a complete esna@d made up of t¯eqa transmitters, but with a chain that is less strong than that of the sáaháihá. A háadit¯ that is not supported by a complete esna@d is by definition zµa¿if (weak), and can be categorized as progressively weaker according to whether the esna@d is, for example, morsal (complete until the generation of the Successors (ta@be¿un), but not originating from as far back as a Companion), monqatÂe¿ (missing a transmitter in the chain), mo¿zµal (missing two transmitters), or modallas (containing a false claim by one of the transmitters about having heard it from the next individual in the chain), to mention only four of several categories. A forged Hadith is called mawzµu¿. Hadith are also classified according to the number of esna@ds by which the report is supported. The most authoritative category is the motawa@ter, which is supported by a sufficient number of esna@ds and t¯eqa transmitters, making collusion on its contents seem virtually impossible. K¨abar al-a@háa@d is the term used for a háadit¯ that is supported by esna@ds and transmitters which, although t¯eqa, are insufficient to render it motawa@ter. K¨abar al-wa@háed is a háadit¯ transmitted from a single t¯eqa person; the status of this category has been the subject of extensive debate among the moháaddet¯un. (It should be noted that the terms kòabar and at¯ar (pl. a@t¯a@r) are sometimes used synonymously with háadit¯, but more usually denote reports about the Companions of the Prophet; the term háadit¯ is also used more loosely to refer to any and all reports about the Prophet, including those that appear in genres other than Hadith literature, such as in the epic biographical genres, sira and mag@a@zi – these are, however, more accurately denoted by the neutral term rewa@ya, or "report"). The sciences of Hadith also addressed the issue of how to account for contradictory aháa@dit¯ on the same subject transmitted by sound esna@ds: this was done through applying the doctrine of naskò (abrogation) to identify only one of the aháa@dit¯ as the chronologically final ruling on the issue in question: see, for example, Moháammad b. Musa@ H®azemi Hama-dòa@ni (d. 584/1188), al-E¿teba@r fi'l-na@sekò wa'l-mansukò men al-a@t¯a@r.

According to the ¿olum al-háadit¯ manuals, the ideal mode of Hadith transmission is oral. This does not mean that written transmission played no role – apparently from quite early in the history of the Hadith movement, note-taking was standard practice – however, while a great moháaddet¯ would keep books, he was ideally expected to teach from memory. Hearing Hadith from a Shaikh is called sama@¿, while reciting or reading Hadith back to the Shaikh for his approval is called ¿arzµ. The Shaikh's certifying the right of a student to transmit on his authority is called eja@za (q.v.). Transmission solely on the basis of written materials was a categorically inferior, although permissible, method, whether by mona@wala (the handing over of written materials), moka@taba (correspondence) or weja@da (discovery of written materials). The ¿olum al-háadit¯ manuals also emphasize the necessity of word-for-word transmission of háadit¯ (al-rewa@ya be'l-lafzá), while acknowledging that this ideal was not always observed in the earliest period of transmission when what was conveyed might have been the meaning (al-rewaya be'l-ma¿na@), rather than the exact wording.

The first scholar to systematically address the place of Hadith in Islamic jurisprudence seems to have been Moháammad b. Edris ˆa@fe¿i (d. 204/820), the eponymous founder of the Shafi¿ite legal rite, about one-quarter of whose foundational work, the Resa@la, is dedicated to formulating a method for utilizing Hadith as a source of law. The recognition of the importance of Hadith as a source of religious praxis and law resulted in the establishment of the study of Hadith as a primary element in the education of the Moslem jurist, as well as a fundamental subject in the curriculum of the madrasas (see EDUCATION iv.), following their proliferation throughout the Islamic world from the 5th/11th century onwards. Institutions dedicated to the study of Hadith, known as da@r al-háadit¯, were also established.

The history of the compilation and authenticity of Hadith literature is one of the most contested subjects in the study of Islam. Muslim orthodoxy holds that the recording of Hadith began in the lifetime of the Prophet himself, and culminated in the third century of the Hejra in the successful distinguishing of authentic from unreliable and fabricated aháa@dit¯; the authentic aháa@dit¯, which were gathered from all parts of the Islamic world, were compiled in the major collections whose canonical authority was swiftly recognized. This narrative, however, has been subject to criticism from the end of the 13th/19th century until the present day, primarily in the Western academy, but also by certain Muslim scholars. In 1898, Ignaz Goldziher pointed out the existence of many contradictory aháa@dit¯ supported by sound esna@ds, to argue that these could not represent authentic Prophetic discourse; he suggested that they were fabricated later, either by various political and religious factions in their efforts to legitimate themselves and discredit their rivals, or in discrete attempts to provide answers for specific religious issues that were in need of clarification. Half a century later Joseph Schacht argued that many legal aháa@dit¯ were put into circulation only from the late 2nd century A.H. onwards, when they were furnished with wholly, or at least partially, false esna@ds. Schacht's ideas have effectively been taken as a datum-line by a prominent school of Western historians skeptical not only of the authenticity of Hadith literature, but also, on the same methodological basis, of early Muslim historiography in general. However, the validity of Schacht's methods and conclusions has also been called into doubt, and other scholars have furnished narratives for the historical development of Hadith that tend, in different degrees, towards accepting their authenticity (see bibliography for a classified list of such studies). The questions of whether it is possible to distinguish between authentic and fabricated aháa@dit¯ at all, and whether it is possible to date when a particular háadit¯ was put into circulation continue to be investigated, and new and more nuanced arguments about the historical development and authenticity of Hadith have begun to emerge.

The debate among Muslims in recent centuries over the authenticity of Hadith, which has included occasional reference to Western scholarship, has been concerned with the implications of the issue for the content of Islamic law. Two broad trends may be identified: the first trend has been to re-authenticate the received authoritative corpus of Hadith, sometimes on the basis of a particularly stringent application of established Hadith methodology, and sometimes using entirely new criteria for assaying the soundness of reports. The goal of this approach is to sift out definitively any remaining weak reports. Scholars such as Moháammad ¿Abdoh (d. 1323/1905), Raæid Rezµa@ (d. 1354/1935), Abu'l-A¿la@÷ Mawdudi (d. 1399/1979) and Na@sáer-al-Din Alba@ni (d.1420/1999) strove, in different ways, towards such a goal. The second approach has been the categorical questioning of the actual methods of traditional Hadith criticism, and of the authenticity of the received Hadith corpus. This was first seen in the Muslim modernist project in the Indian subcontinent in the late 19th century where the historicizing arguments of Ùera@g@ ¿Ali (d. 1313/1895) preceded even those of Goldziher; and where those of Sir Sayyed Ahámad K¨a@n (d. 1316/1898), who viewed the excessive reliance on Hadith as an obstacle to reform, developed into a hostile debate between proponents of authenticity, the ahl-e háaditò, and those who argued for the exclusive authority of the Koran.

In a series of articles published between 1962 and 1963, the Pakistani scholar, Fazlur Rahman (d. 1988), argued that the sonna of the Prophet was not originally understood by the early Moslem community to be contained in the specific words and practices recorded in the Hadith (the authenticity of which cannot, in any case, be definitively ascertained), but that this putative relationship between the two was actually a concept successfully promulgated by the Hadith movement itself. Instead, Rahman asserted that the original and true meaning of sonna is the general spirit of the Prophet's discourse and action as understood by the early community, and that sonna may therefore be identified without reference to Hadith being necessary. Rahman's ideas provoked the hostility of the Pakistani ulema and resulted in his exile. Less radical views on the authenticity of Hadith were put forward in Egypt by Mahámud Abu Rayya in 1958, but they also precipitated considerable controversy. In 1986, the Malaysian author, Kassim Ahmad, raised the question in South East Asia, with the result that his book was banned by the Malaysian authorities. Arguments against the authenticity of Hadith have, in general, had only limited purchase in the modern Islamic world, and the debate on the issue among Muslims seems, for the moment at least, largely to have died down.

Bibliography: Primary Sources. There are several reliable editions of the major Hadith collections, which are often published alongside a commentary: see Ebn H®ajar ¿Asqala@ni, Fathá al-ba@ri be-æarhá S®aháihá al-Bokòa@ri, ed. T®a@ha@ ¿Abd-al-Ra÷uf Sa¿d et al., 28 vols., Cairo, 1978. ¿Ayni, ¿Omdat al-qa@ri, 25 vols., Cairo, 1970. Abu 'l-T®ayyeb ¿Azáima@ba@di, ¿Awn al-ma¿bud æarhá Sonan Abi Da@÷ud, ed. ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Moháammad ¿Ot¯ma@n, 14 vols., Medina, 1968. Idem, Ta¿liq al-mog@ni ¿ala@ Sonan al-Da@raqotÂni, 4 vols., Molta@n, 1980. Ahámad b. al-H®osayn Bayhaqi, al-Sonan al-kobra@, ed. Moháammad ¿Abd-al-Qa@der ¿AtÂa@, 11 vols., Beirut, 1993-94. Da@remi, al-Sonan, ed. Fawwa@z Ahámad Zamarli et al., 2 vols., Damascus, 1987. Ahámad Ebn H®anbal, al-Mosnad, ed. ˆo¿ayb Arna÷utÂ, 50 vols., Beirut, 1993-2001. Moba@rakpuri, Toháfat al-aháwadòi æarhá Ja@me¿ al-Termedòi, ed. ¿Abd-al-Wahha@b ¿Abd-al-LatÂif, 10 vols, Medina, 1967. Mog@altÂa@y b. Qelej, ˆarhá Sonan Ebn Ma@ja, ed. Ka@mel ¿Owayda, 5 vols., Mecca, 1999. Nasa@÷i, Sonan be-æarhá al-háa@fezá al-SoyutÂi wa-æarhá al-Ema@m al-Sendi, ed. ¿Abd-al-Wa@ret¯ Moháammad ¿Ali, 8 vols., Beirut, 1995. Nawawi, al-Menha@j fi æarhá S®aháihá Moslem, ed. ¿Ali ¿Abd-al-H®amid BaltÂaji et al., 19 vols., Damascus, 1994. Qastalla@ni, Eræa@d al-sa@ri, 10 vols., Baghdad, 1971. Moháammad b. ¿Abd-al-Ba@qi Zorqa@ni (d. 1122/1710), ˆarhá MowatÂtÂa÷ al-Ema@m Ma@lek, 4 vols., Cairo, 1936. The standard printed concordance of Hadith is that of A. J. Wensinck, which takes into account not only the "the Sound Six," but also the Mosnad of Ebn H®anbal, the Sonan of Da@remi and Ma@lek's MowatÂtÂa÷. Many Hadith collections are now available on CD-ROM.

Other primary sources. Ebn H®ajar ¿Asqala@ni, Tahdòib al-tahdòib, ed. MosátÂafa@ ¿Abd-al-Qa@der ¿AtÂa@, 12 vols., Beirut, 1994. Bag@awi, Masáa@bihá al-sonna, 4 vols., ed. Yusof ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Mar¿aæli et al., Beirut, 1987. Bokòa@ri, Keta@b al-ta@rikò al-kabir, 4 vols., Hyderabad, 1941-1964. D¨ahabi, Miza@n al-e¿teda@l, ed. ¿Ali Moháammad Bajawi, 4 vols., Cairo, 1964. Ebn Abi H®a@tem Ra@zi, Keta@b al-jarhá wa'l-ta¿dil, 9 vols., Beirut, 1952. Ebn al-S®ala@há, Moqaddemat Ebn al-S®ala@há, ed. ¿AÚ÷eæa ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Bent al-ˆa@tÂe÷, Cairo, 1974. Ebn Abi ˆayba, al-Mosáannaf, ed. ¿AÚmer ¿Omari A¿záami, 15 vols., Bombay, 1983. Ebn Qotayba, Ta÷wil mokòtalef al-háadit¯, ed. ¿Abd-al-Qa@der Ahámad ¿AtÂa@, Cairo, 1982. Ebn Sa¿d, Keta@b al-tÂabaqa@t al-kabir, ed. Moháammad ¿Abd-al-Qa@der ¿AtÂa@, 9 vols., Beirut, 1990. H®a@kem Naysa@buri, al-Mostadrak ¿ala@ al-sáaháiháayn, 4 vols., Hyderabad, 1915-1923. Idem, Keta@b ma¿refat ¿olum al-háadit¯, ed. Sayyed Mo¿azázáam H®osayn, Cairo, 1937. H®azemi Hamadòa@ni, al-E¿teba@r fi'l-na@sekò wa'l-mansukò men al-a@t¯a@r, ed. ¿Abd-al-Mo¿tÂi Amin Qal¿aji, Karachi,1982. K¨atÂib Bag@da@di, al-Kefa@ya fi ¿elm al-rewa@ya, Hyderabad, 1938. K¨atÂib Tebrizi, Meæka@t al-masáa@bihá, ed. Moháammad Neza@r Tamim et al., 2 vols., Beirut, 1996. K¨atÂtÂa@bi, A¿la@m al-háadit¯, ed. Moháammad b. Sa¿d b. ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n AÚl Sa¿ud, 4 vols., Mecca, 1988. Mezzi, Tahdòib al-kema@l, ed. Baææa@r ¿Awwa@zµ Ma¿ruf, 35 vols., Beirut, 1980-92. Mottaqi, Kanz al-¿omma@l, ed. Bakri H®osayni et al., 18 vols., Beirut, 1993. Nawawi, Ria@zµ al-sáa@leháin, ed. Rezµwa@n Moháammad Rezµwa@n, Beirut, 1969. Ra@mahormozi, Moháaddet¯ al-fa@sáel, ed. Moháammad ¿Ajja@j K¨atÂib, Damascus, 1984. Sakòa@wi, al-Fathá al-mog@it¯, ed. ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Moháammad ¿Ot¯ma@n, Medina, 1969. S®an¿a@ni, al-Mosáannaf, ed. H®abib-al-Raháma@n A¿záami, 12 vols., Johannesburg, 1970-72. ˆa@fe¿i, al-Resa@la, ed. Ahámad Moháammad ˆa@ker, Cairo, 1940. T®abara@ni, al-Mo¿jam al-kabir, ed. H®amdi ¿Abd-al-Majid Salafi, 28 vols. [to date], Baghdad, 1984-.

Secondary Sources. On Hadith in general, see M. Mustafa Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, Indianapolis, 1977. John Burton, An Introduction to the Hadith, Edinburgh, 1994. Alfred Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam: An Introduction to the Study of the Hadith Literature, Oxford, 1924. J. A. Robson, "H®adith," EI2. Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi, Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development, Special Features and Criticism, Calcutta, 1961. On the Hadith sciences, see Leonard Librande, "The Supposed Homogeneity of Technical Terms in H®ad^th Study," Muslim World 72, 1982, pp. 34-50. J. A. Robson, "Traditions from Individuals," Journal of Semitic Studies 9, 1964, pp. 327-40. Sobhái S®a@lehá, ¿Olum al-háadit¯ wa-mosátÂala@háuh, Beirut, 1959. Moháammad Abu ˆohba, al-Wasit fi ¿olum wa-mosátÂala@há al-háadit, Damascus, 1982. On Hadith as "tradition," see William A. Graham, "Traditionalism in Islam: An Essay in Interpretation," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23, 1993, pp. 495-522. On al-aháa@dit¯ al-qudsiya, see Idem, Divine Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam, The Hague, 1977. On early opposition to the Hadith movement, see Josef van Ess, "Ein unbekanntes Fragment des Nazázáa@m," in Der Orient in der Forschung: Festschrift fur Otto Spies, ed. Wilhelm Hoenerbach, Wiesbaden, 1967, pp. 170-201. M. Isabel Fierro, "The Introduction of háad^th in al-Andalu@s," Der Islam 66, 1989, pp. 68-93. On the sonna, see Meir Moshe Bravmann, "Sunnah and Related Concepts," in his The Spiritual Background of Early Islam: Studies in Ancient Arab Concepts, Leiden, 1972, pp. 123-98. On biographical dictionaries, see Ibrahim Hafsi, "Recherches sur le genre "tÂabaqa@t" dans la litte‚rature arabe, I," Arabica 23, 1976, pp. 227-65, and G. H. A. Juynboll, "Ridja@l," EI2. For Western criticism of the authenticity of Hadith, see Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, tr. C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern, London, 1971, II, pp. 17-254 [originally published as Muhammedanische Studien, Halle, 1890]. Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1950. Idem, "A Revaluation of Islamic Traditions," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 49, 1949, pp. 143-53. On the Schacht-based skeptical school of historians, see Fred M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Princeton, 1998, pp. 13-31. See also the studies on Hadith by G. H. A. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition: Studies in chronology, authorship and provenance of early hadith, Cambridge, 1983, and his subsequent articles collected in Idem, Studies on the origin and uses of Islamic Hadith, Aldershot, 1996. For criticisms of Schacht's methods see Zafar Ishaq Ansari, "The Authenticity of Traditions: A Critique of Joseph Schacht's argument e silentio," Hamdard Islamicus 7/2, 1984, pp. 51-61. M. Mustafa al-Azami, On Schacht's Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, New York, 1985. J. W. Fück, Review of J. Schacht, Origins, in Bibliotheca Orientalis 10/5, 1953, pp. 196-99. For a test of some of Schacht's conclusions, see Michael Cook, "Eschatology and the Dating of Traditions," Princeton Papers in Near Eastern Studies 1, 1993, pp. 23-47. For narratives of the development of Hadith literature in support of their authenticity, see Nabia Abbot, "The Early Development of Islamic Tradition," in her Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri II: Qur'a@nic Commentary and Tradition, Chicago, 1967, pp. 5-85. M. Mustafa al-Azami, Studies in Early Hadith Literature, Indianapolis, 1978. Sezgin, GAS I, Leiden, 1967, pp. 53-84. For recent alternative approaches to Hadith literature, see Yasin Dutton, "Sunna, H®ad^th, and Madinan ¿Amal," Journal of Islamic Studies 4, 1993, pp. 1-31. Idem, "¿Amal v. H®ad^th in Islamic Law: The Case of sáadl al-yadayn (holding one's hands by one's side) when doing the prayer," Islamic Law and Society 3, 1996, pp. 13-39. Harald Motzki, "The Musáannaf of ¿Abd-al-Razza@q al-S®an¿a@n^ as a Source of Authentic aháa@d^th of the First Century A.H.," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50, 1991, pp. 1-21. Idem, "The Prophet and the Cat: On Dating Malik's MuwatÂtÂa' and Legal Traditions," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 22, 1998, pp. 18-83. Idem, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence, Leiden, 2002. Iftikhar Zaman, "The Science of rija@l as a Method in the Study of Hadiths," Journal of Islamic Studies 5, 1994, pp. 1-34. For the reconsideration of Hadith in modern Muslim discourses, see Mahámud Abu Rayya, Azµwa@÷ ¿ala@ al-sonna al-Moháammadiya, Cairo, 1958. Charles J. Adams, "The Authority of Prophetic H®ad^th in the Eyes of some Modern Muslims," in Essays on Islamic Civilization Presented to Niyazi Berkes, ed. Donald P. Little, Leiden, 1976, pp. 25-47. Kassim Ahmad, Hadis: Satu Penilaian Semula, Penang, 1986. Idem, Hadis: Jawapan Kepada Pengkritik, Penang, 1995. J. M. S. Baljon Jr., "Pakistani views of Had^th," Die Welt des Islams 5, 1957-58, pp. 219-27. Daniel W. Brown, Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought, Cambridge, 1996. G. H. A. Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature: Discussions in Modern Egypt, Leiden, 1969. Fazlur Rahman, Islamic Methodology in History, Karachi, 1965.