With over a millennium of hadith scholarship across various regions marked by prolific activity, hadith scholars can be categorized in multiple ways—by region, disposition, affiliation, and more. However, I find a chronological or timeline-based approach to be the most effective. I prepared the following graph to help students appreciate the different eras and distinctive traits of hadith scholarship within each. Although the graph is a simplification and many more names could be included, I address these details in greater depth during class discussions. Multiple studies have demonstrated that a simple binary division of “early” and “later” scholars, while somewhat helpful, lacks the nuance necessary to understand the intricate evolution of hadith scholarship. The more nuanced approach is to broadly divide hadith scholars into five periods, each characterized by key developments, methodological features, and notable regions of activity. The colored box attached to a name indicates the lifespan of a given scholar and his corresponding era.
Figure 1: Five-part periodization of hadith scholarship with brief remarks on the methodological distinctions of each phase.
Mutaqaddimūn I (100–350 AH): This represents the first generation of early hadith scholars, during which hadiths were primarily transmitted orally (ʿaṣr al-riwāya). The narrator-critics of this era lived in close proximity to the narrators, both geographically and temporally. By 350 AH, the golden age of hadith transmission came to a close with the compilation of the Six Books, ʿilal literature, primary biographical dictionaries, and more. This era is represented in the works of scholars like Mālik, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, Bukhārī, and the Rāzī family.
Mutaqaddimūn II (350–500 AH): This phase marks a hybrid transition period where most hadiths were already documented, but rare hadiths were still being collected and novel forms of writing began to emerge, like Mustakhraj, Mustadrak, and Sharḥ literature. By the close of the 5th century, hadith reached canonization, with the provinces of Khorasan and al-Andalus being particularly prominent. Key scholars in this period include Ṭabarānī, Ḥākim, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, and Bayhaqī.
Mutaʿakhkhirūn I (500–900 AH): With the completion of canonization, the function of isnād as an epistemological tool was made obsolete. During this post-canonical period, ʿulūm al-ḥadīth was systematized as a science in manuals and textbooks, hadith reading gained popularity, and the culture of commentary rose to prominence. There was an uptick in secondary literature on existing primary hadith works, like digests (jamʿ), indices (aṭrāf), and topically arranged compendia. This era saw Syria and Egypt as leading centers of scholarship, with the likes of Nawawī, Ibn Rajab, and Ibn Ḥajar.
Mutaʿakhkhirūn II (900–1250 AH): This phase built on the achievements of the post-canonical era, but with key developments: literature on hadith nomenclature became largely stagnant (building primarily on works like Nukhbat al-fikar), the culture of ijāzāt flourished, and manuscript collation and verification became critical activities. The Hijaz and India were prominent regions during this period, with scholars such as Bābilī, Baṣrī, and Dihlawī making significant contributions.
Muʿāṣirūn (1850 CE): This is the modern era, which I label “Muʿāṣirūn” to maintain the Arabic theme. Beginning around 1850, the rediscovery of primary texts, the rise of revivalist movements, and a range of other factors spurred a renewed interest in hadith. This period is marked by the emergence of multiple sub-traditions, as exemplified by the contrasting approaches of Aḥmad Ghumārī and Aḥmad Shākir, or those of Kawtharī and Muʿallimī.
As mentioned, this five-part periodization is far from exact. To get a sense of how these periods can be divided further for added nuance, consider the period of Mutaqaddimūn I. As Ibn al-Madīnī points out, the second century AH stands out as a distinct phase, marked by the proliferation of madārs (common links) and the emergence of the earliest compilations like the Muṣannafāt genre. This period is notably different from the developments and scholarly activities that characterized the third century AH, marked by the emergence of contributions to the Sunan and Ṣiḥāḥ genres. Nonetheless, this graph serves as a helpful starting point. I hope to flesh this out in more detail in a sustained essay.
Further Reading
Ḥamza al-Malībārī. al-Muwāzana bayna al-mutaqaddimīn wa-l-muʿkhkhirīn. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm: 2001.
Sharīf Ḥātim al-ʿAwnī. al-Manhaj al-muqtaraḥ li-fahm al-muṣṭalaḥ. Riyadh: Dār al-Hijra, 1996.
ʿIṣām ʿĪdū, Nashʾat ʿilm al-muṣṭalaḥ wa-l-ḥadd al-fāṣil bayna al-mutaqaddimīn wa-l-mutaʾakhkhirīn. Amman: Arwiqa, 2016.
Nūr al-Dīn ʿItr. Manhaj al-naqd fī ʿulūm al-ḥadīth. Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 2003, 37–72.
Scott Lucas. Constructive Critics, Ḥadīth Literature, and the Articulation of Sunnī Islam: The Legacy of the Generation of Ibn Saʻd, Ibn Maʻīn, and Ibn Ḥanbal. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Garret Davidson. Carrying on a Tradition: An Intellectual and Social History of Post-Canonical Hadith Transmission. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
Sohaib Baig. “Indian Hanafis in an Ocean of Hadith: Islamic Legal Authority between South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula, 16th–20th Centuries.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2020.
Aldabbagh, Maan Talal. “Unity in Diversity: The Scholarly Community of the Ḥaramayn in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” PhD diss., Magdalene College, University of Cambridge, 2022.
Jonathan A.C. Brown. Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2009, 240–268.
