This paper argues that not all chapters of ḥadīth collections (comprising pious traditions in Islam) offer clear and stable ethical guidelines. I focus on Kitāb al-Jihād i.e. Chapter on Jihād extracted from an eighth century ḥadīth collection called Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Sanʿānī (d.827). Previously, scholars such as Kelsay (2007), Sonn (1990), and Mayer (1991) reconstructed a textbook understanding of the Islamic theory of jīhād, neatly dividing the theory of jīhād into jus ad bellum (justifications to go to war) and jus in bello (justified conduct during warfare). But, if one returns to the earliest compiled chapters on jīhād in ḥadīth collections such as the one examined in this paper (i.e. Kitāb al-Jihād), the corpus does not reveal a neat theory. The Kitāb al-Jihād, a chapter in the fifth volume of Musannaf ʿAbd al-Razzāq provides different ḥadīths with varying isnāds (chains of transmission), but not all of them go back to Muhammad. The chapter exhibits a fragmentary and rudimentary understanding of war with many sections offering ad hoc solutions dealing with emerging problems on the battlefield. However, if one overarching concern recurs throughout the chapter, it pertains to the rules regarding the spoils of war obtained in such battles. Most ḥadīths obsess over maintaining discipline regarding the spoils of war. The rules relating to the spoils of war evolved over time; some injunctions following a Prophetic precedent, but most followed standard logic: i.e. the maintenance of a central depository for the spoils of war. Presumably, this was an important concern for the commanders and caliphs of the 7th-8th century. The obvious pragmatism demonstrated by transmitters concerned with the spoils of war complicates the ethical assumptions associated with the ḥadīth corpus. This essay proceeds in three parts: First, I focus on five sections of the chapter titled Kitāb al-Jihād. Second, I reconstruct the way early Muslims perceived war. Third, I underscore the textual problems faced by scholars in recovering ethical arguments of war from classical Islamic sources like the ḥadīths of Kitab al-Jihād. I argue that the Chapter on Jihād compels one to reevaluate the question of ḥadīth as a resource for Muslim ethics and law. Is it really a religious resource or was it, as I argue, a forum for past authorities to validate the necessary conditions and power structures of their time? Finally, I call for reimagining the contemporary relationship between Muslim ethics and Islamic law suggesting that the so-called ethical frameworks derived from classical Islamic sources such as the ḥadīth may not always exhibit a consistent resource for ethical guidance.
The ethical frameworks derived from classical Islamic sources such as the ḥadīth may not always exhibit a consistent resource for ethical guidance. One example of such inconsistency can be observed by the examination of early texts like the Kitāb al-Jihād (Chapter on Jihād) extracted from an eighth century ḥadīth collection called Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Sanʿānī (d.827). Notably, the pragmatism demonstrated by ḥadīth transmitters concerned with the spoils of war complicates the ethical assumptions associated with the ḥadīth corpus. This essay proceeds in three parts: First, I focus on five sections of the chapter titled Kitāb al-Jihād. Second, I reconstruct the way early Muslims perceived war. Third, I underscore the textual problems faced by scholars in recovering ethical arguments of war from classical Islamic sources like the ḥadīths of Kitab al-Jihād.