THE HISTORICAL APPROACH of traditional orientalism has long provided the critical foundations for the study of the contents of Muslim traditions, as well as of their isnāds. Islamicists have always concerned themselves with the problem of the “authenticity” of the isnāds, i.e. whether or not the Prophet or the Com- panions “really” transmitted what is attributed to them. But an isnād, like its matn (the text itself), seems only to form part of the literary structure of the tradition. The isnād is always designed to make the tradition look authentic, and going into the question of whether or not the isnād is really authentic seems futile.

Those Islamicists who were convinced that isnāds contained fabrications formulated a neat theory about their supposed development. The theory gained wide popularity among scholars believing to be able to decide by it what in the isnāds is authentic and what is not. This chapter sets out to refute this theory, not in order to prove the authenticity of isnāds, but rather to show that they could have come into existence much earlier than is usually presumed.

Let us begin with the theory. Its first manifestation is found in Goldziher's Muslim Studies. Here he states:

Goldziher's observation implies that as a rule aḥādīth mawqūfa are earlier than aḥādīth marfū‘a. Schacht developed this approach into a whole system based on the conviction that isnāds grow backwards, from the original creator of the tradition (the “common link”) back to higher authorities, i.e. Successors, Companions, and finally, the Prophet himself. In the chapter “The Evidence of Isnāds” in his Origins, Schacht says: