Hadith scholars have long pointed to this tradition, “the fitna tradition,” as a key piece of evidence that can help us understand the historical development of isnāds (chains of transmission) and their criticism. This tradition can be understood as documenting the moment when Hadith transmitters first began prefixing isnāds to their traditions, or at least began doing so regularly. According to this tradition, this occurred after a certain “fitna,” a word that refers to “civil war” or “inner turmoil” within the Muslim community. However, since early Islamic history was plagued with such events, scholars have offered competing identifications for this fitna. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf and, following him, Pavel Pavlovitch have surveyed the main scholarly opinions concerning the meaning of fitna in the fitna tradition. Here are some of the main historical events that scholars have suggested (followed by the names of scholars who made these suggestions): 

• The “first” civil war involving ʿAlī, Muʿāwiya, and the Khawārij that took place between 35/656 and 40/661 (Ṣafī al-Raḥmān al-Mubārakfūrī, Mohammad Azmi)

• The “second” civil war involvingʿAbd al-Malik and ʿAbdallāh b. al-Zubayr that took place between 60/680 and 73/693 (James Robson’s early suggestion, G.H.A. Juynboll)

• Al-Mukhtār’s revolt in 66/685 (Pavel Pavlovitch)

• The ‘Abbasid Revolution that took place between 126/744 and 132/750 [!] (Joseph Schacht)

• General disagreement between Muslims that led some of them to forge traditions (Maʿrūf)

The most recent suggestion belongs to Pavel Pavlovitch, who suggested in an article from 2018 that the fitna in question was the revolt of al-Mukhtār in 66/685. He concluded that Ibn Sīrīn’s statement in the tradition “correctly” represents the early history of the isnād. Pavlovitch's article is thorough and thought-provoking. Pavlovitch brought into the discussion an important tradition that has been largely overlooked by scholars, even though it is pertinent for understanding the history of the fitna tradition. However, some additions may be made to certain aspects of his article. In what follows, I will discuss the fitna tradition in light of two traditions that have not yet received proper attention. I will build on Pavlovitch's findings and offer a slightly more complete picture of the development of the fitna tradition. I will discuss each of the two traditions separately and then discuss their relation to the fitna tradition. 

1. The Faith Tradition

Ibn Sīrīn (Basra, d. 110/728) taught this tradition to several of his students and he seems to be its originator.  According to this tradition, one should make sure to learn traditions only from trustworthy authorities. The tradition does not explicitly mention isnāds, but presumably one should examine the transmitters in chains of transmission to make sure that they are reliable. Ibn Sīrīn was concerned that those whom he did not consider to be orthodox were circulating “unorthodox” traditions.

2. The Mukhtār Tradition

According to this tradition, transmitters began asking about isnāds during al-Mukhtār's revolt. In his article, Pavlovitch discussed this tradition, which as he notes (pp. 38-41), has been largely overlooked by modern scholars. The article claims that this tradition is an “isolated report, whose isnād cannot be verified for authenticity.” Nevertheless, by analyzing its contents, the article (pp. 39-41) concludes that this Kufan tradition preserves a genuine memory of the ideological rift created by al-Mukhtār's revolt that could have brought about the introduction of isnāds.

While Pavlovitch's article claims that the Mukhtār tradition lacks verification, there is a tradition that seems to corroborate its transmission by al-Aʿmash. It is recorded by al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463/1071)​, who says:

The following diagram shows the two traditions from al-Aʿmash side-by-side: 

In  al-Khaṭīb's tradition, al-Aʿmash cites Khaythama as his informant, whereas in Ibn Ḥanbal's tradition he cites Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī. This difference is most likely the result of corrupt transmission. Khaythama’s name was swapped for Ibrāhīm’s or vice versa. Both traditions are likely meant to represent the same narrative. If so, then al-Aʿmash should be seen as the common link of the Mukhtār tradition. This partly confirms Pavlovitch's early dating of al-Aʿmash's tradition. However, there is reason to doubt if al-Aʿmash heard this tradition from an earlier authority, be he al-Nakhaʿī or Khaythama. Al-Aʿmash may have invented it.

What is the Mukhtār tradition trying to say? Essentially the tradition divides Islamic history into two periods before and after al-Mukhtār's revolt: (1) The first period is from the dawn of Islam up until the revolt. During this period, Muslims generally did not lie and students who learned traditions had no real need to ask their teacher for an isnād and to evaluate the reliability of its transmitters. (2) The second period is from al-Mukhtār's revolt and onwards. During this period, people started to lie or to lie more frequently (especially concerning the Prophet's cousin ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib). This necessitated a more rigorous transmission process that involved requiring an isnād and examining the trustworthiness of its transmitters. The tradition does not claim that isnāds were invented during this time period, only that following this period students began requiring that their teachers supply their isnāds so that they may inspect them more carefully.

Why would someone introduce the Mukhtār Tradition? One possibility is that it is meant to preserve a genuine memory of a change in transmission practice that occurred following al-Mukhtār's revolt. However, given that the tradition depicts an ideal time period when people did not lie or did not lie often, there is reason to doubt the historicity of this tradition. An alternative possibility needs to be sought. Therefore, we may wonder what problem this tradition could be trying to solve. Here, we may presume that during al-Aʿmash's lifetime, there were many marāsīl and mawqūfāt, traditions that were transmitted with seemingly incomplete isnāds, i.e., isnāds that were not attributed to the Prophet or his Companions or both. Increasingly, transmitters tended to mistrust these traditions, preferring traditions with complete isnāds over them. However, some of the traditions with deficient isnāds were potentially useful for understanding matters of law and faith. And so, if transmitters could rehabilitate the reputation of these traditions, that would be religiously advantageous. Here, I suggest that al-Aʿmash's tradition was meant to assist in this rehabilitation.  Al-Aʿmash could point to his tradition as providing a reasonable explanation for why so many traditions lacked full isnāds. After all, according to this tradition, early transmitters were not always careful to cite their isnāds, but this changed after al-Mukhtār's revolt. Thanks to this tradition, scholars could now rely on these traditions despite their seemingly defective isnāds and some of them were even able “to rediscover” the names of the missing transmitters.

The question arises: Why was al-Mukhtār's revolt chosen as the event which caused transmitters to use isnāds more regularly? The answer to this question may lie in at least two factors. First, al-Mukhtār and his followers were known for lying and inventing traditions. As Pavlovitch notes (p. 39), they were seen as “the model spoilers of ḥadīth in pursuit of theological and political interests.” Therefore, it would make sense to portray the enforcement of more stringent transmission practices as a reaction to al-Mukhtār's revolt. Second, al-Mukhtār's revolt, almost half a century after the Prophet's death roughly coincided with the demise of many Companions and early Successors. Transmitters from these generations were exactly the ones missing in the abovementioned marāsīl and mawqūfāt that required rehabilitation. In other words, since many traditions can be roughly dated to al-Mukhtār's revolt and the end of the 1st/7th century, it would make sense that transmitters would seek an event from around that time period that would explain why so many traditions are missing attribution to Companions and the Prophet. Prior to this event, transmitters were allegedly not used to citing their isnāds even though they knew them.

3. The Fitna Tradition

Pavlovitch (pp. 33-36) convincingly singles out the Kufan born Ismāʿīl b. Zakariyyā as the common link and likely originator of the fitna tradition. He (pp. 36-37) also argues that the distinction between “the people of orthodoxy” (ahl al-sunna) and “the people of [heretical innovations]” (ahl al-bidaʿ) is somewhat anachronistic and should probably not be attributed to Ibn Sīrīn. Additionally, he (pp. 38-41) recognizes the similarity between the fitna tradition and the Mukhtār Tradition. He suggests that both traditions share a similar meaning and he identifies the fitna in the fitna tradition with al-Mukhtār's revolt.

How exactly do the fitna tradition and the Mukhtār tradition relate to each other? Did one tradition influence the other or are they both derived from a common source? Given that al-Aʿmash, the likely originator of the Mukhtār tradition, was a teacher of Ibn Zakariyyā, the likely originator of the fitna tradition, the latter tradition is derived from the former. Furthermore, the fitna tradition apparently borrows from another even older tradition, the abovementioned faith tradition of Ibn Sīrīn. The relation between the three traditions may be seen in the following diagram:

On the one hand, the influence of the Mukhtār tradition over the fitna tradition is obvious. On the other hand, the influence of the faith tradition over the fitna tradition is slightly less so. But upon closer inspection, it is revealed that both traditions are on the authority of Ibn Sīrīn and contain the notion that transmitters should carefully consider (root: n-ẓ-r) from whom they learn (root: ʾ-kh-dh) traditions. Ibn Zakariyyā learned the faith tradition from a student of Ibn Sīrīn. It may have been ʿĀṣim whom he cites though it may have been someone else.

Why did Ibn Zakariyyā replace the mention of al-Mukhtār’s revolt with “the fitna”? It seems unlikely that Ibn Zakariyyā, living in the latter half of the 2nd/8th century, would refer to that revolt as “the fitna.” As others have noted, people would have likely understood that term as referring to the “first” or “second” civil war. Therefore, Ibn Zakariyyā may have considered the reference to al-Mukhtār’s revolt inappropriate or controversial and replaced it. Perhaps, he held that people began asking about isnāds prior to al-Mukhtār’s revolt, maybe in the aftermath of the “first” civil war. Alternatively, he may have had a different historical event in mind. Whatever the reason, Ibn Zakariyyā's choice to replace al-Mukhtār’s revolt with “fitna” proved successful. While al-Aʿmash's tradition about al-Mukhtār barely survived and is found in only two extant works, Ibn Zakariyyā's Mukhtār-less tradition was much more widely circulated. Its crowning achievment was when Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj included it in the introduction to his canonical collection, the Ṣaḥīḥ.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the traditions discussed here should not be considered as documenting the moment when transmitters first began using isnāds and scrutinizing them. These traditions are more likely to represent later attempts to explain why earlier transmitters failed to explicitly divulge where their knowledge came from.