Ṭūmār (12) The Broken Ladder (5): A Critical Analysis of the “Myth of Ḥifẓ” The Biography of Abū Ja‛far al-Warrāq: From Theme to Structure (2)

The book Shamāʾil al-Bukhārī, authored by Abū Ja‛far Warrāq, holds a highly significant place among the mythic sources of ḥifẓ (memorial transmission of ḥadīth). By transmitting various reports, this work offers a mythologized image of al-Bukhārī’s hadith memory. In a major study produced at al-Azhar University under the title Ṭa‛n wa-shubahāt al-Shī‛a al-Imāmīya ḥawl Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī wa-l-radd ‛alayhā, Warrāq’s reports have been cited as a very ancient and authoritative historical source. The author of the present article, in order to introduce Abū Ja‛far Warrāq, has composed a biographical study to counter the challenge of his reputation as the compiler of one of the oldest historical sources. This biographical study consists of two parts: the life of Abū Ja‛far Warrāq and a bibliographical survey of Shamāʾil al-Bukhārī. The main concern of this article is the retrieval, classification, and analysis of the central and subsidiary themes, as well as a typological examination of the style and structure of Warrāq’s biography, carried out through the method of thematic analysis. According to the findings of this research, the ten major themes of Warrāq’s life are divided into two groups: central and peripheral. His scholarly engagements and personal relations with al-Bukhārī constitute the core theme at the very center of his biography, while the subsidiary themes such as “from lineage to epithet” and “from narration to transmission” occupy the outer layer, carrying less weight compared to the core. The concentric model of “core and periphery” reflects the perspective and intention of ‛Azāzī in highlighting the role of al-Bukhārī in Warrāq’s scholarly life. Based on stylistic analysis, Warrāq’s biography belongs to the interpretative–ijtihādī type, in which the author’s own reasoning and inference play the central role in composing the biography; unlike the documentary–historical type, where historical reports and documents are of primary importance. ‛Azāzī’s interpretation and conclusions from historical reports concerning Warrāq are presented briefly yet coherently. Alongside this structured coherence, clear tendencies of bias and partisanship—through emphasis, preference, precedence, and exclusivity—further demonstrate the ijtihādī nature of ‛Azāzī’s work. This approach ultimately produces a particularized image of Abū Ja‛far Warrāq, overshadowed by the authority and fame of al-Bukhārī, thereby undermining the principle of impartiality in biographical writing.