(1) In 1978 John Wansborough published his Sectarian Milieu, arguing that most of Quranic material characterise a text that crystallised over 2 centuries, and largely outside confines of Arabia. To date Fred Donner has offered perhaps the best response to Wansboroug. Thread

(2)Donner is not convinced of Wansborough's claim that both the Quran and the ḥadīth (which latter calls "sub-canonical" versions of the Quranic material) belong to the same historical circumstance, that is, both coalesced around the same time and in same locality.

(3)Donner argues that the differences between the Quran and ḥadīth are so vast and fundamental that one cannot but rule out the plausibility of both of them coming into their own at the same time and place. Let's consider a few examples.

(4)Political & Religious Authority. In earliest ḥadīth corpus there's plenty of discussion on notions of leadership, details on what constitutes good & bad community leadership. Muḥammad is quoting as saying true religion is being faithful to God, and the leaders of the Muslims

(5)Terms such as khalīfa (successor), amīr (commander, governor), imām (religious leader), abound the earliest ḥadīth corpus. We find disdain towards those who take adversarial stances towards governors (wulāt). Muḥammad is quoted to demand obedience to imāms, even tyrants

(6)In one ḥadīth we read, "there will be after me imāms who do not follow the true guidance & do not imitate my example; among them will be men with hearts of devils in human bodies ... hear & obey the commander, even if your back is whipped and your property taken; hear & obey"

(7) Other ḥadīths attributed to Muḥammad temper the uncritical obedience by introducing new conditions, such as obedience is due only as long as the amīr/imām performs prayer. "Leaders of error" will received the harshest punishment on the day of reckoning, says another ḥadīth

(8) In other instances in the early ḥadīth corpus Muḥammad provides considerable speech about the caliphate, even though the office did not arise until after his death. The Prophet is quoting saying: I command you to fear God, and to hear and obey, even an Abyssinian slave...

(9) Verily those of you who live after me shall see many disagreements, so take my example and the example of the rightly guided caliphs; cling to it, and sink your teeth into it..."

(10) In another ḥadīth Muḥammad offers specific guidelines on how the caliph should behave and lead, and in other reports we learn Muḥammad apparently gave his followers indications of how long the succession of caliphs will last.

(11)The ḥadīth corpus offers quite a lot more than our brief summary here. For example, Muḥammad is quoted as giving instructions on how to deal with a situation when two caliphs receive the oath of allegiance at the same time.

(12)The abundance of this ḥadīth material shows a deep concern for religious and political leadership. It shows that the ḥadīth milieu was avidly interested in who should exercise leadership, community strife, and the prerogatives of a leader in law, morals, administration, etc

(13)It is not impossible that some of the early ḥadīth developed close to the period of the Quran, and one cannot deny that the earliest reports seem to echo seventh century disputes. One could also add that the ḥadīth may have played a different purpose and function to Quran.

(14)That said, there is still a fundamental thematic and philological difference between the Quran and ḥadīth to suggest the two did not emerge from the same, narrow window of time. The Quran has almost nothing to say about political and religious leadership, except for a few

(15)scattered remarks that relate directly to Muḥammad himself. It is largely silent on the issue of political power and religious leadership after Muḥammad. Moreover, the Quran does not provide any indication of how power should be exercised; the only exceptions

(16)are moral injunctions that are somewhat general and vague. Perhaps the only wording in the Quran that might be seen as hinting at a discussion about political authority after Muḥammad is the famous passage: "obey God, and obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you"

(17)And even that last verse might well be take to be merely a reference to those in authority at the time of Muḥammad (i.e., commanders of raids, etc.). The Quran shows the same lack of concern for political leadership in relation to the caliphate or even sunnah.

(18)The word khalīfa appears only twice in the Quran, in reference to Adam and David. And there is little evidence to suggest the early Muslims understood khalīfa in political terms, for the nascent exegesis did not settle on khalīfa as political office until later.

(19)The chasm between the Quran and the ḥadīth on the question of political and religious leadership (one of many case studies, by the way) suggest strongly that the two bodies of materials are not the product of a common "sectarian milieu" as Wansborough believed, but come from

(20)different historical contexts. The Quran's virtual silence on the issue of leadership, for example, is strong evidence that the text antedates the political concerns enshrined so prominently in the ḥadīth literature, which seem to reflect a post-quranic and tumultuous epoch

(21)possibly something that took place after the First Civil War, since the Quran is completely impervious by the fitna and the charged religious and political discourses that resulted from these events. END.