FIXING AN ISNAD:

a brief tutorial

by Elon Harvey

One of the challenges to historical analysis of hadiths is that often the isnads (chains of transmission) have come down to us corrupted due to copying or transmission errors. This corruption makes it difficult for us to reconstruct the history of their transmission. However, in some cases careful scrutiny of the extant versions of a hadith may allow us to emend these isnads and to reconstruct them. Here, I would like to present one such instance of how we may identify corrupted isnads and how we may go about fixing them.

Let us look at the extant versions of a tradition attributed to the Meccan expert in exegesis, Mujahid b. Jabr (d. ca. 102 A.H.). This exegetical tradition serves as a commentary on Qur'an 4:78. However, its contents do not concern us (though they are interesting in their own right). Here, we will focus only on the isnads of its extant versions.

I have found three versions of this tradition in three separate works:

"A" is found in the Qur’anic commentary of al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) ad Q 4:78 [link].
"B" is found in the collection of mystical and ascetical traditions known as Hilyat al-awliya (the Decoration of Righteous Folk) compiled by Abu Nu‘aym al-Isfahani (d. 430 A.H.) [link].
"C," the third one, is found in the Qur’anic commentary of Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (d. 327 A.H.) [link].

Their isnads are as follows:

A. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) ← ‘Ali b. Sahl (Ramla, Nisa, d. 261 A.H.) ← Mu’ammal b. Isma‘il (Basra, Mecca, d. 206 A.H.) ← Abu Hammam (?) ← Kathir Abu l-Fadl (Basra) ← Mujahid b. Jabr (Mecca, d. ca. 102 A.H.)

B. Abu Nu‘aym (d. 430 A.H.) ← Muhammad b. Ja‘far (probably al-Mu’addib) ← Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) ← ‘Ali b. Sahl (Nisa, Ramla, d. 261 A.H.) ← Mu’ammal b. Isma‘il (Basra, Mecca, d. 206 A.H.) ← Abu Hazim (?) ← Kathir Abu l-Fadl (Basra) ← Mujahid b. Jabr (Mecca, d. ca. 102 A.H.)

C. Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327 A.H.) ← Abu Sa‘id b. Yahya b. Sa‘id al-Qattan (Basra, d. 258) ← ‘Isa b. Humayd al-Rasibi (Basra) ← Kathir al-Kufi (Kufa?) ← Mujahid b. Jabr (Mecca, d. ca. 102 A.H.)

When looking at these isnads two things stand out:

First, “A” and “B” both preserve Tabari’s isnad from his teacher ‘Ali b. Sahl. There is one major difference: In “A”, Kathir’s student is “Abu Hammam,” but in “B,” it’s “Abu Hazim.” The resolution of this contradiction is simple: “Abu Hammam” is a corruption of “Abu Hazim” or vice versa. But is there a way of determining which name is correct? This will be addressed further below.

Second, we may notice that in “A” + “B” and in “C,” Mujahid’s student is called “Kathir.” In “A” + “B,” he is “Kathir Abu l-Fadl,” probably the Basran Kathir b. Yasar who was a student of al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110 A.H.). In “C,” the student is called “Kathir al-Kufi,” an unknown figure. We may assume that “Kathir Abu l-Fadl” and “Kathir al-Kufi” are one and the same. Though we may wonder why the Basran Kathir b. Yasar is called “al-Kufi” (the Kufan).

At first glance, we may conclude that the three isnads represent two different paths of transmission from Kathir by two of his students, one by Abu Hammam/Abu Hazim; and the other by ‘Isa b. Humayd al-Rasibi. In other words, Kathir appears to be the common link of this tradition.

However, upon closer inspection, aspects of these isnads appear better defined. If we search for other mentions of ‘Isa b. Humayd, we find that some sources state that his teknonym was “Abu Hammam.” And so, if this information is correct, we find that both “A” and “C” have the isnad “Abu Hammam ← Kathir.” Thus, we may confidently emend “Abu Hazim” in “B” to “Abu Hammam.” Additionally, this means that Abu Hammam ‘Isa b. Humayd al-Rasibi” is the common link, not his teacher Kathir. [Note: there is a small chance that people identified 'Isa b. Humayd as "Abu Hammam" by comparing "A" & "C" and concluding that both were transmitted by the same student of Kathir. In such a case, Kathir may be still be the common link]

We may also look more closely at Kathir b. Yasar. If we do so, we will find that he is sometimes called “Kathir Abu l-Fadl al-Tufawi” or, more shortly, “Kathir al-Tufawi.” Therefore, it seems quite reasonable, though not certain, to emend “Kathir al-Kufi” and to change it to “Kathir al-Tufawi.”

Thus, we may conclude that “A,” “B,” and “C” are all on the authority of Abu Hammam ‘Isa b. Humayd al-Rasibi (Basra) ← Kathir b. Yasar Abu l-Fadl al-Tufawi (Basra) ← Mujahid b. Jabr. ‘Isa b. Humayd appears to be the common link having taught the tradition to two of his students: Mu’ammal b. Isma‘il (Basra, Mecca, d. 206 A.H.) and Abu Sa‘id b. Yahya b. Sa‘id al-Qattan (Basra, d. 258). It may also be noted that there appears to be quite the generational gap between Abu Sa‘id and Abu Hammam and it stands to reason that there was a mediator between them omitted from the isnad.

This is just one example of the types of reasoning and considerations that can go into reconstructing an isnad. When encountering transmitters in isnads whose identities are unclear, it is often helpful to find other instances of these transmitters' names in other traditions or in traditional reference works. Often one source may hay help clarify another.

FIN

First published July 2026

Google Sites

Report abuse