(If you’re into research and take reference integrity seriously, this post is for you.)
I’m starting to realize this unfortunate fact:
that writing an Islamic book relying entirely on primary sources may not always be possible due to the secondary source dominance.
Secondary Source Dominance refers to the phenomenon where secondary references gain more prominence and cause people to overlook or neglect the primary references, consequently leading to their loss.
The recognition of this issue emerged during my readings in the context of fiqh and hadith. Instances abound where a well-received book on fiqh garnered widespread acceptance, leading individuals to rely solely on it without consulting the primary references that formed its foundation.
It makes sense. as a trade off, of authenticity for efficiency.
The allure of a meticulously organized book that comprehensively explains primary sources can be compelling. The combination of efficiency and authenticity of such secondary sources often prompt researchers to forego the arduous task of delving into raw, primary references.
However, this reliance on secondary sources comes with drawbacks. Firstly, the neglect of primary resources can lead to their gradual loss, as they fall out of favor for publication and teaching. Secondly, doubts may arise regarding the authenticity of secondary references when the primary sources are no longer accessible for verification.
Here is one example of how I discovered this secondary source dominance in tracking down a hadith. Step by step.
Step 1. I read the following hadith in Hayat al-Sahaba (by Kandhalwi, 14th/20th century book):
عن زياد بن علاقة قال: رأى عمر رجلا يقول: إن هذا لخير الأمة بعد نبيها، فجعل عمر يضرب الرجل بالدرة ويقول: كذب الآخر، لأبو بكر خير مني ومن أبي ومنك ومن أبيك.
Translation: Once Omar (ra) saw a man saying: “This man (Omar) is the best of Muslims after our Prophet (pbuh).” Omar (ra )started hitting the man with his whip saying: “This wretch lied! Abu Bakr is definitely better than me, my father, yourself and your father!”
Kandhalwi had taken it from Hindi’s Kanz al-ummal, the 10th/16th century hadith book by a notable Indian hadith scholar Al-Hindī. He undertook the task of organizing and compiling the hadith books authored by the Egyptian scholar Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, who had passed away six decades — not centuries — earlier. Consequently, both Al-Hindī’s and Suyūṭī’s works are considered late additions to the collection of hadith literature.
Step 2: I opened Kanz, easily available on shamela. I learned that Hindi had taken it from “خيشمة في فضائل الصحابة”i.e., Khayshama. However, after a couple of hours of researching i concluded that: a) it was KhayTHama not -SHama (typo in kanz online version). b) that Khaythama b. Sulaymān was the 4th/10th -century hadith scholar who wrote a book on ‘virtues of companions’ or فضائل الصحابة.
Step 3. I tried to track Khaythama’s book. I could find it on shamela here . Apparently, however, some sections of the book were missing and I couldn’t locate this particular hadith there. I asked my research assistant to track the hadith in Khaythama’s other books or any primary books, but neither of us could locate it in any notable primary source. I was stuck.
Step 4. I backtracked and hypothesized that we have here one of two possible scenarios: 1. that Hindi had actually copied it from Khaythama’s book which was still available in its entirety at that time. 2. That Hindi had copied it from Suyuti with the reference, yet instead of referring it to Suyuti, he was referring it to Khaythama, i.e., that Hindi hadnt actually verified Khaythama’s reference hismelf. This practice, of bypassing the intermediary (secondary) source and citing the primary source directly, is known as “citation by original/direct source” or “secondary/indirect referencing”. While this practice is acceptable, it’s not recommended and a more transparency is often advised in sciences of hadith.
Step 5. I concluded that this hadith is better referred to the secondary source as primary source is not easily available. Since the import of hadith is not of critical or fundamental nature, I decided my time is better spent elsewhere.
Bottomline:
- For all historical and practical reasons, it’s unreasonable to expect/demand a primary source for every single narration we encounter.
- Just because a particular narration couldn’t be tracked down in primary sources— now in 21st century— doesn’t mean that it is fabricated or cannot be relied upon, because it is very possible that the original reference source became extinct after and because of the the secondary source dominance.
