A Critical Study of G. H. A Juynboll's Methodology in the Study of Hadīth

: This article analyzes methodology of an Orientalist, G. H. A Juynboll in Hadīth. He is one of those western scholars who has focused on the second primary source of Islamic Law and has developed skeptical theories related to its authenticity and provenance. He relied on early scholars' theories in this discipline and supported their thesis with a bulk of arguments from the early Classical Islamic Sources. A follow-up of his methodology reveals some scientific methodological errors in his studies on Hadīth that led him to a false conclusion. This study discusses the loopholes in his methodology and supports every point with illustrative examples from his works, revealing that Juynboll followed a selective method in his studies and reached his desired/concocted conclusion.

Abraham Willem Theodorus Juynboll (d. 1304/1887) specialized in Oriental studies like his father. He was teaching Islamic studies at Colonial Institute at Delft. However, his elder son Theodorus Willem Juynboll (d. 1367Juynboll (d. /1948 specialised in Islamic studies and the Hebrew language and appointed as a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Utrecht. His era's pious scholars and intellectuals were sensitised towards him when he edited the Holy Torah of Abū'l-Hussain al-Sāmirī. 3 Likewise, his younger son Hendrik Herman Juynboll (d. 1364Juynboll (d. /1945) studied Indonesian cultures and was considered among its experts at Leiden University. Later he served as a director of the Institute of Ethnology. His daughter, Wilhelmina Maria Cornelia Juynboll (d. 1402Juynboll (d. /1982, was also one of the eminent orientalists who did her PhD in the history of the Arabic language in Holland. She transferred the family's scientific library to her nephew Gautier Hindrik Albert Juynboll, the last orientalist of Juynboll's family. 4 There is inadequate information about G. H. A Juynboll's early life. However, in some of his biographical works, he learned Arabic and Hebrew languages in his childhood as he was ageing in a scientific and intellectual family. He was enrolled in the department of Hebrew and Arabic language at the University of Leiden in 1956. 5 It was the golden period in Leiden history because prominent orientalists like Joseph Schacht (d. 1389Schacht (d. /1969, Drewes (d. 1412/1992) and Brugman (d. 1425/2004) were delivering lectures in the Arabic language and Islamic studies at the University of Leiden at that time. Juyboll was mentored by these eminent scholars and learnt Arabic at an advanced level. Later he taught Arabic in Leiden until the mid-sixties. 6 G. H. A Juynboll had to choose for career the Oriental Languages or the Indonesian Cultures, as all the Orientalists of his family specialised in one of them. However, after attending Joseph Schacht and Brugman lectures, he chose another discipline that no one of the Theodorus Willem Johannes Juynboll family had ever specialised in. He was keen to research the second source of Islamic law -Prophetic Sunnah-. Consequently, he registered his doctorate under the supervision of Brugman entitled "The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature: Discussion in Modern Egypt". He travelled to Cairo and stayed there a year to collect the primary sources for his research. What indicates his eagerness to collect the original sources for his study is what he stated in one of his articles that he saw a book in the library of the American University in Cairo that publication was officially restricted; So he could not get it, he went to the Secretary-General of the Dutch Embassy Dr. Nicolaas Biegman and asked him to get a copy of that book and send it in the diplomatic bag to Leiden University. He used his diplomatic links and transferred that book from the library of American University in Cairo to Leiden University's library. 7 He completed his doctorate -PhDunder Jan Brugman's supervision in 1969 and left for America with his family. Moreover, he was appointed on a contract basis as a lecturer of Islamic studies at the University of California Los Angeles. However, after political and administrative turmoil in America, he returned to his country. A year later, he left for UK Britain and became a professor at the University of Exeter. He served there for eleven years from 1974 to 1985. During his stay in Britain, Juynboll got acquainted with researchers and orientalists from different countries and published his famous work "Muslim tradition" in 1983 and presented detailed studies on "Common-link, al-Qussās, al-Hadīth al-Mutawātir and 'Ilmu'r-Rijāl." 8 He was unhappy with his work at the University of Exeter and resigned in 1985. Moreover, he moved to the native land and lived in Hague and limited himself to studying the primary sources of Islam. He visited the University of Leiden library daily while sitting in a reserve study room about Oriental studies and examined Arabic and other sources. However, he could not carry books, so the library administration provided him with a book cart to carry books and transport them to the Oriental reading hall. With the passage of time, that book cart became a sign of his presence in the library. 9 It is revealed from Juynboll's biographical pieces of information that he was part of the well-known Tuhfatu'l-Ahwazī project and studied the Muslim studies of Ignaz Goldziher, which arose some questions in his mind that compelled him to find their answers. Hence, he focused on the study of hadīth literature and left all official and personal activities. Throughout his research, he took part in seminars and conferences related to Orientalism. He studied 'Ahādīth and criticized the theories of Muhaddithūn about the authenticity and provenance of hadīth on new methods that reveal his expertise in the science of hadīth. G. H. A Juynboll indicated the purpose of the mentioned study in its introduction that it is the translation of 'Ahādīth of al-Kutub as-Sitta. Moreover, he discussed the theory of Common-link. His phrases reveal that he changed his opinion regarding Common-link because, in the beginning, he was supporting Joseph Schacht's thesis that the Common-link fabricated the transmitted hadīth. However, when discussing the Common-link theory in the mentioned study, he makes him responsible for those specific words and does not call him the fabricator as Schacht. 13 He translated and commented on the selected 'Ahādīth as well as investigated their chains. He mentioned the biographical information of Prophet's companions, the well-known narrator from al- Tabiūn  He was meticulous about the study of the hadīth. He took care of wording differences between Mutūn of hadīth and explained them as much as possible. Moreover, he listed the terms and words he wanted to explain or criticise in their original form in Latin letters and avoided their translation unless he felt the need for them.

Notes on G. H. A Juynboll's Methodology:
Juynboll has followed the evolving methodology in his studies and benefited from ancient and modern sources. He was one of those orientalists who were famous for their patience, devotion and hardworking. His well-known work, Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadīth, is an example of that, which is considered the summary of his scientific research life after returning from Britain to Leiden in 1985 and published in 2007. However, there are some methodological notes on his studies which are as follow.

Generalisation in the Conclusion:
He researched the sources available to him but generalised his conclusions, which is not apropos in scientific research, as long as he did not examine them all. There are more than evidence of his Indulgence in generalising his conclusion.  20

Vagueness in the Method of Selecting and Criticising of the Narrations:
Undoubtedly, Juynboll provided scientific and detailed studies in supporting his claims. However, he selected some narrations and left others in one subject and did not make explicit his method in the weighting of narration that supports his theory over others. This ambiguity could be seen in his research about al-'Awāil. He believes that the chain of transmission has been begun from al-Zuhrī. He supported his thesis on Mālik's narration from al-'Awāil that recorded by Ibn' Abī Hātim (d. 327/939) "the first who used Isnād is Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī". 21 He ignored the same narration with another formulation: "the first who codified the knowledge -al-Hadīth-is Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī.". Both narrations belong to Mālik. However, he favoured the first over the second and did not explain its reason. 22

The Indulgence and the Violation of his Principles in Hukum on Isnād:
He did not mention his method of Hukum on Isnād, but after extrapolation and following of his Hukum on different chains of hadīth revealed his method that how he graded an Isnād as being Hijāzī, Irāqī, or Misrī. He looks at the Tabqa of al-Tabiūn and their followers. If both narrators are from Irāq, he called the chain an Irāqī Sanad, and so on. However, he violated this approach in more than one place. Some of the chains were graded Irāqī or Shāmī, despite there is one narrator from the mentioned region. 23

Manipulation in the Translation from Arabic into English:
He quenched most of his studies from classical Arabic sources, indicating how fluent and expert he was in the Arabic language. Therefore, it might be an assumption that he erred in translating texts from Arabic into English because he was an expert of it. However, he translated it according to what pleases him and supports his theory. This manipulation has been noticed in his translation of narration from al-'Awāil regarding Egypt ‫مصر(‬ ‫في‬ ‫العلم‬ ‫أظهر‬ ‫من‬ ‫.)أول‬ He translated the word al-'Ilam with tradition (al-Hadīth) because he wants to support his theory of late transmission of hadīth. 24  Sa'ad, 'Abdullāh b. al-Hārith and others. Juynboll ignored these historical facts and translated the word al-'Ilam with tradition to prove his claim. 25

Neglection of Important Sources:
It is revealed from a thorough follow-up of Juynboll sources that he benefited from some sources continuingly in every subject. However, he ignored them when he realised that the information in those sources goes against his theory. It is deduced from his dealings with al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā, which is one of the most reliable sources in his studies. He referred to it in the criticism of the narrators and narrations on various subjects. However, he did not refer to him in the study of the first Muhaddīth who entered Egypt because he claimed that Yazid b. Abī Habib was the first Muhaddīth, who introduced the transmission of hadīth to Egypt. while Ibn Sa'd listed him in the third Tabaqa of those Muhaddithūn who visited Egypt after the companions, and the Egyptians narrated 'Ahādīth from them. Thus, he did not refer to al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā in this subject. 26

Selective Methodology for Selective Conclusion:
Juynboll developed the Common-link theory of Joseph Schacht. He explained it with a new approach and added other details. Both scholars tried to find out the dating of hadīth through the Common-link in their studies. However, it is noticed that Juynboll ignored this method in the research about the dating of hadīth al-Mutawātir and tried to study the mentioned hadīth through "argumentum-esilentio" because he wants to conclude what support his theory. He dated the fabrication of al-Mutwātir al-Lafzī in Iraq between the death of al-Rabi b. Abī Habib (d. 175/792) and 'Abū Dāwūd al-Tiyālsī (d. 204/820). 27 However, if he studied it through Common-link, 'Abū Dāwūd recorded it with different Isnads from Shu'ba Ibn al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/777) who is the real Common-link of it that indicated that it was not fabricated in Iraq between (175-204) as Juynboll claimed. In fact, it was known to Muhaddithūn before the mentioned date in Iraq. However, he did not study it through Common-link even though his inference from argumentum-e-silentio is incorrect, but it supports his thesis. Therefore, he preferred it instead of Common-link. 28

Conclusion:
The study reveals that Juynboll was the first orientalist of his family who specialised in Islam's primary sources. He focused on hadīth studies and followed the methodology of Ignaz Goldziher and Joseph Schacht. He supported their thesis with significant evidence from the Classical Islamic Source and tried to introduce new methods for studying Prophetic hadīth. Moreover, he studied Isnāds and Mutūn of Prophetic hadīths and concluded that 'Ahadīth are not a reliable source of Islamic law as Muslim scholarships believe. For example, he studied the al-Mutawātir al-Lafzī and al-Manawī and concluded that being a hadīth Mutawātir does not guarantee that it would not be fabricated. However, it proved that he did not refer to all sources of the mentioned hadīths. It is concluded that Juynboll did not make his method explicit in the selection of narration. He preferred some narrations and ignored others while all related to the same subject as noticed in the study about the beginning of Isnād. Moreover, his methodology's follow-up reveals that he did not follow one method in the hadīth study and violated his principles in different subjects. It is noticed that he manipulated in the translation of some terms to support his thesis as he translated the word al-'Ilam in with tradition and concluded that Yazid b. 'Abī Habib was the first one who introduced the transmission of hadīth in Egypt. However, it does not match with the historical facts because there were lots of Muhaddithūn before him, like the conquer of Egypt 'Amar b. al-'Aās and his son 'Abdullāh, who was famous for the writing of 'Ahādīth in the Prophet's life. It is also concluded that he usually refers to al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā but neglected in this subject because Ibn Sa'ad mentioned Yazid b. 'Abī Habib in the third Tabaqa of those Muhaddithūn who entered Egypt. Besides, he used a selective method for the desired conclusion as he developed the Common-link theory and used it for the dating of 'Ahādīth in various subjects. Nevertheless, he did not investigate hadīth al-Mutawātir al-Lafzī through it and concluded that for the first time it appeared in Iraq between (175) and (204) A.H. However, it is revealed that Shu'ba b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/777) was the Commonlink, which indicates that the mentioned hadīth was famous among Muhaddithūn before his claimed date.