Ṭūmār(11) The Broken Ladder (4): A Critical Analysis of the Myth of Preservation and Its Sources with Reference to Kitāb Shamāʾil al-Bukhārī by Abū Ja‛far Warrāq (1)

In his book Ṭu‛ūn wa Shubahāt al-Shīʿa al-Imāmīyya Ḥawla Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī wa al-Radd ‛alayhā, ‛Ādil ‛Azāzī maintains a firm belief in al-Bukhārī’s unparalleled memory in preserving ḥadīth, presenting this trait as a unique point of pride for al-Bukhārī among the great ḥuffāẓ of ḥadīth. Reports attributed to an author named Abū Ja‛far Warrāq in Kitāb Shamāʾil al-Bukhārī serve as the principal evidence for ‛Azāzī and his like-minded predecessors such as ‛Abd al-Salām Mubārakfūrī, ‛Abd al-Sattār Sheikh, and ‛Abd al-Ghanī ‛Abd al-Khāliq in asserting the unmatched quality of al-Bukhārī’s memory. The main question of this article is to assess the authenticity and reliability of Kitāb Shamāʾil al-Bukhārī through the lens of modern historical criticism. To this end, the theoretical framework of the study is outlined along axes such as “historical criticism of sources: concept and necessity,” “typology of sources underpinning the myth of preservation,” “criteria for evaluating the credibility of Kitāb Shamāʾil al-Bukhārī,” and “the principle of authorial reputation.” Due to the breadth of the topic, this paper focuses on analyzing the criteria for assessing the “reputation of the author” of Kitāb Shamāʾil al-Bukhārī, examining the possibility, necessity, and method of such an evaluation. The findings indicate that ‛Azāzī, in citing Kitāb Shamāʾil al-Bukhārī, failed to adhere to the approach of historical source criticism, treating the verification of Abū Ja‛far Warrāq’s reputation as the author of the book as inconsequential, thereby merely imitating Mubārakfūrī and others without independent investigation. This constitutes the construction of the myth of preservation contrary to the standards of modern historical criticism, since authorial reputation is the primary principle in assessing the credibility of classical historical sources. Consequently, ‛Azāzī’s approach seriously undermines the validity of his claim regarding al-Bukhārī’s ḥadīth memory, relegating his work from the status of academic research to that of promotional and propagandistic writing.