Você está na página 1de 10

A Review of Juynbolls Muslim Tradition

Muslim Tradition expands upon the arguments of Joseph Schacht. As Schacht had proposed
in the 1960s, Juynboll in the 1980s elaborated: that many Islamic traditions (Hadiths) were
forged so many, that the burden-of-proof for any given Hadith must rest upon the scholar
making the assertion. Juynboll however fell into some of the same traps as Schacht had fallen
into.
Juynbolls book starts with an essay on the origins of the Hadith, as distinct from the origins of
Islamic religious practice (Sunna). Much of this is based on Muslims own accounts of who did
what first, the Awwal hadiths. From these, Juynboll sees Islamic law as not reliant upon
hadith; where precedent was needed, the example of the Companions sufficed (and such an
anecdote was not equipped with an isnad chain of authority). Under Umar II, there came to be
hadiths; and afterward, there arose hadith-centres, in Egypt, Syria, the Hijaz and especially Iraq.
The next chapter sifts through these centres of hadith (and Sunna), and notes fundamental
differences between the local judges attitude toward hadith. Egypt and Syria did not use hadith
much. Madina did accept hadiths, but it did not *follow* those hadiths. Iraqian law at the other
extreme relied heavily upon hadiths especially Baghdad, which, as we know, was founded
later than were Kufa and Basra and so *could not* rely upon precedent.
Then Juynboll goes for the jugular of the Hadith-based Sunna the most famed well-attested
(mutawaatir) traditions. Juynboll proves that these traditions are frauds; ergo, mutawaatir is
invalid as a means to prove a hadith. The chapter after that looks at Muslims own critiques of
the Hadith mainly from Ibn Hajars Tahdhib and concludes that some transmitters have been
pulled apart to become duplicates with the same name (Ikrima), and that others were originally
multiple people with the same name but have been amalgamated (Zuhri).
The last chapter, almost but not quite a conclusion, is a rambling essay that really should have
been organised better. As best I can tell, it first sifts through how Ibn Hajars attitude differs from
that of another Rijal author, Abu l-Qasim. It digresses into a list of hadith collections, then
critiques the musnad of Abu Hurayra and ends by restating Schachts common-link theories.
So, this book almost could have been written by Schacht himself. It revives Schachts
skepticism particularly of the Nafi < Ibn Umar chain, which chain is critiqued pp. 142-3. This
book also follows Schacht in style: in that, where the book must make a digression on some
minute point that cannot wait for its own journal article or appendix, the book inlines the point
into the main text but offset.
Since the 1980s, we have had three decades to digest this books claims and Western Islamic
scholarship has controverted it strongly. One notably trenchant critique underlies SC Lucas
book Constructive Critics.

Lucas in his own work has offered some valuable correctives to Juynboll that are worth
reprinting here. Lucas rebutted Juynbolls identification of Muslim b al-Hajjajs opponents
(Juynboll, 168). Juynboll thought that Muslim intended Karabisi and the Jahmites, but Lucas (p.
12 n. 52) pointed out that Dhahabi said that Muslim intended no less than Bukhari and the
latters teacher Ali Ibn al-Madini. Muslim Tradition asserted that the Islamic doctrine of the
sahaba being honest was Ibn Abi Hatims (194-5). Lucas credited Waqidi (267-8); with reference
to Waqidis impassioned essay toward the end of Ibn Sa`ds Tabaqat v. 2 (English speakers may
read this in full in tr. Moinul-Haq, 482-4).
Lucas reports that Juynboll has offered negative opinions about Shu`ba b. al-Hajjaj, mostly
elsewhere; but in Muslim Tradition, Juynboll says mainly that Shu`ba was gullible (177, 182).
Lucas defends Shu`bas reputation generally in his fourth chapter. Indeed Lucas proposes to
overthrow most of Juynbolls first chapter (Juynboll pp. 39-76), in Lucass own eighth chapter.
Around here should be mentioned, also, that Juynboll follows Schacht that the qadi Shurayh did
not exist (87-88); this is rebutted in Motzki tr. The origins of Islamic jurisprudence, 167-9.
Lucas faults Muslim Tradition overall for relying upon too few sources (scil., Ibn Hajar: Lucas,
111-2). I can take Lucass and Motzkis word for most of these critiques.
Lucas (368) and Motzki also undermine Juynbolls extreme rejection of legalistic hadiths.
Juynboll is not Schacht; Muslim Tradition nowhere pins the blame for the hadith explosion
upon Shafi`i. Juynboll says only that the explosion itself was real. We could revert Lucass own
arguments, on why Malik and his students canonised as few Prophetic traditions as they did,
fewer than those hadiths which were contemporary with their work, and indeed fewer than those
which they themselves re-transmitted outside the Muwatta. We could assert that the Malikis
*already* were living in the Hadith Explosion and resisted it. What went into the Muwatta was
binding upon Madinans. As for what did not: hadith in the remainder might be worthy of
transmission (elsewhere) as a *possible* authentic musnad / marfu` hadith, or as an
archaeological artifact of a post-Muhammadan age; but it was not, for Malikis, *law*. Such a
hadith was suspect. Juynboll notes that very Madinan tendency to transmit hadiths that
Madinans refused to follow, in p. 89.
This book to be chaotic and dense, like much of Juynbolls work, and is for specialists only; and
even specialists should treat it with caution.
Although I have posted this earlier, I am attaching Jonathan Browns review of Juyboll for
relevance:
Review of Juynbolls Encyclopaedia of Canonical Hadith:
Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith
By G. H. A. Juynboll (Leiden: Brill, 2007), xxxiii, 804 pp. Price HB $289.00. EAN 978
9004156746.

G. H. A. Juynbolls contribution to the Western study of the hadith tradition has been substantial
and groundbreaking. From his earliest book on twentieth-century Egyptian debates over the
authenticity and proper function of hadith (The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature:
Discussions in Modern Egypt, Brill, 1969) to a myriad of articles dealing with subjects from mass
transmission (tawatur) to unnaturally old transmitters (muammarun) and controversial, woman
demeaning hadiths, Juynboll has investigated and elucidated a wide range of topics in the
hadith universe. Basing his work on Schachts premise of using the isnad of a hadith to
determine when it entered circulation, Juynboll developed an elaborate and idiosyncratic
method of uncovering the originator of a hadiththe person responsible for attributing a
statement to the Prophet. In his case-by-case analysis of many hadiths, Juynboll developed a
vocabulary for describing the different phenomena of isnad and matn fabrication. Juynbolls
method is revisited and explained in the introduction to this, his latest work (see pp. xviixxxiii).
In Juynbolls own words, the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith is an effort to translate and
analyse most of the major traditions from the canonical collections (the publishers description
on the back of the book says all canonical hadiths) of Sunni Islam. He attempts this by
presenting chapters structured not according to hadiths, but rather around the hadith
transmitters that Juynboll identifies as Common Links, those individuals responsible for forging
and circulating hadiths. In the chapters on these transmitters, Juynboll discusses only select
hadiths, basing his discussions, as he says, on a sometimes merely tentative identification of
their [the hadiths] respective originators. In these biographically organized chapters Juynboll
then presents isnad analysis of selected hadiths in an attempt to justify, or the case so being,
speculatively postulate, the identification of that originator (p. xvii).
The biographical information and analysis of the careers and contributions of the individuals to
whom Juynboll devotes chapters in this Encyclopedia are valuable. Entries range from
Companions such as IbnAbbas (d. 68/68688) to major hadith transmitters such as al-Zuhri (d.
124/742) and collectors like Malik b. Anas (d. 179/796) and even to the authors of the canonical
Six Books. Scholars interested in these individuals, their place in the network of hadith
transmission and evaluations of their scholarly activity would be well rewarded by consulting this
work. Another useful feature of the book is the translations and explanations of the hadiths that
Juynboll incorporates into his discussion.
It is in the promise suggested by its title, however, that the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith is
unsatisfactory: it is specifically not an encyclopedia of canonical hadiths. Even in a book
organized as a biographical dictionary, we would expect to find at least the bulk of the hadiths
from the Six Books listed accessibly and with reference to Juynbolls discussion of their
circulation and originator. But this is not the case; indeed the book has no index of hadiths,
either in Arabic or transliterated. One finds only an extensive index of technical terms, subjects,
and proper names. Thus, in order to find the famous hadith narrated by Abu Hurayra on how
one should rinse a bowl that a dog has licked, one must either look under all the entries for Abu
Hurayra (138 pages listed) or dog (36 pages listed). Out of a sample of twenty well-known
hadiths from the Six Books (such as the hadith Woe to you Ibn Sumayya, you will be killed by

the rebellious party) I was able to find only six in this book. Because, despite its title, the book
makes no claim at comprehensiveness, it is impossible to know if one should even expect to
find a specific hadith in the work. I fear that the book has only limited utility if it were to be used
for the function that its title suggests, namely a source for analysis of the contents of the
canonical Six Books.
The Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith is also the sizable product of one mans scholarship, not
a collaborative effort. As such, readers consulting it should be aware of Juynbolls position
towards the hadith tradition and his methods of evaluating how and when a hadith came into
circulation. Begging the readers indulgence, I will summarize this position and will then
summarize existing criticisms of Juynbolls methods, since one would expect that a work
published in 2007 would reflect critical responses and the general state of the field of hadith
studies.
Juynbolls operating assumption is that one should assume that all reports attributed to the
Prophet are forged. As is well known, Schacht had declared that he would consider that an
isnad had grown backward from a legal maxim into a Prophetic hadith if he found a Prophetic
hadith in a collection like Sahih al-Bukhari that had appeared in an earlier collection as a
statement of a Companion or Successor. Juynboll generalizes this conclusion. In his view, even
if you cannot find a Companion/Successor opinion that corresponds to a Prophetic hadith, the
fact that so many Prophetic hadiths seem to have originated from these kinds of non-Prophetic
statements leads Juynboll to consider any prophetic saying suspect as also belonging to that
genre .1
Building on Schachts Common Link Theory, Juynboll asserts that the more people transmit a
hadith from a scholar, the more historicity that moment hasthe more people narrated a hadith
from a transmitter, the more attestation there is that the hadith actually existed at the time.2 This
hadith must therefore have been forged at some earlier date. Any links in an isnad that lack
such multiple attestations are of dubious historical reliability, especially in light of the supposed
adoration that early Muslims had for hadiths and their preservation.3 Juynboll feels that
concluding that a hadith must have been forged because more transmissions of it do not exist
(an argument e silentio) is well justified in his opinion. Since Muslim hadith scholars habitually
collected all the available transmissions of a hadith they could find, their omission of any
transmission must entail that it did not exist.4 For Juynboll, then, the only historically verifiable
moment in the transmission of a hadith occurs with a Common Link. Because it is
inconceivable that a real hadith could be transmitted by only one isnad from the Prophet,
anything before this Common Link must have been fabricated by him.5 A hadith that has no
Common Link, only a set of unrelated single strand chains (which Juynboll terms a Spider), is
not historically datable in any sense.6
According to Juynboll, isnads that are found in hadith collections post-dating the ones in which
the Common Links chains of transmission are found are called diving isnads, which Juynboll
assumes were forged by these later collectors in order to appear to have unique or shorter links

to the Prophet for this hadith. Consequently, Juynbolls judgment on diving chains of
transmission leads him to dismiss the whole notion of corroborating transmissions (mutabaa)
among Muslim hadith scholars. Because these chains of transmission appear independently
and lack any Common Link, they cannot be verified in his view and should be assumed to be
forgeries. They are simply plagiarisms of the Common Links isnads claiming to make the hadith
seem more reliable. Juynboll notes that it never ceases to astonish him that master Muslim
hadith scholars like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852/1449) did not realize that corroborating isnads
were in fact groundless fabrications.7
In recent years, Juynbolls operating assumptions and methods have come under severe
criticism, however. In light of his continued adherence to his methods in the volume under
review here, it seems fair to discuss the salient objections to Juynbolls approach and the extent
to which the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith has taken them into account. I will try to
summarize criticisms of Juynbolls work.
Objections to Juynbolls methods8 have centred on three main points: the questionable
accuracy of the assumptions that he takes to be indisputable, the limited number of sources
from which he draws hadith evidence, and the fact that his arguments ask the reader to make
leaps of faith far greater than those asked by the Muslim scholars Juynboll criticizes.
(1) The leading critic of Juynbolls methods has been Harald Motzki, who proffers two main
criticisms of Juynbolls scholarship. First, he argues that the argument e silentio is invalid.
Second, Motzki argues that, rather than being consummate forgers of hadiths, major Common
Link hadith transmitters such as al-Zuhri and Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767) were in general reliably
passing on reports from the previous generation.
As for the assumption that if a hadith was transmitted via only one isnad in the early period then
it must have been forged, Motzki argues that we should not expect to find numerous isnads
from figures like the Successors back to the Prophet. Isnads, after all, only came into use during
the Successors generation in the late 600s/early 700s. Even for those early hadith transmitters
and legal scholars who provided isnads to the Prophet at that time, it was only necessary to
provide one isnad for a hadith, not a bundle, as became common in the second half of the 700s
and the 800s.
As for Juynbolls argument that Muslims obsessively transmitted hadiths, with hundreds of
students attending their teachers dictation sessions, there are many reasons why history could
have preserved only one persons transmission from that teacher instead of those of many
students. Just as only a small percentage of any teachers students go on to become teachers
themselves, so it is not inconceivable that only one of a hadith transmitters students would go
on to become a transmitter as well. Juynboll had argued that only the transmission of one-tomany can be considered a historically documented moment in the life of a hadith. But, Motzki
counters, if we only consider transmission from one person to a number of people historically
reliable, then why do we have only a few transmissions of actual written hadith collections from

their authors or people transmitting from a Common Link? If we assume, like Juynboll, that the
hadith came into existence with the Common Link, and that any hadith that actually existed
must have been transmitted by all those who heard it from a teacher, then after the Common
Links we should find thousands of chains of transmission in the fourth and fifth generations. But
this did not occur. Thus, the fact that we find very few transmissions from the Common Links
strongly suggests that Common Links were the exception rather than the rule in the
transmission of hadiths. Their absence thus cannot be construed as proof for a hadith not
existing at that time.
(2) Another of Motzkis central criticisms of Juynbolls work is the small number of sources from
which he draws hadiths in determining the Common Link. In collecting transmissions of a
hadiths to locate a Common Link, Juynboll relies principally on the Tuhfat al-ashraf of Jamal alDin al-Mizzi (d. 742/1341), a work that collects all the chains of transmission for a hadith but is
limited to the traditions and transmissions found in the Six Books (and a few other small books).
Indeed, in the preface to the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith Juynboll recalls how he
discovered the Tuhfa and dedicates the book to its editor. Motzki notes how, if one draws on a
much larger and more diverse body of sources, including early ones such as the Musannaf of
lhringAbd al-Razzaq al-Sanlhringani (d. 211/826), and later ones, such as al-Bayhaqis (d.
458/1066) Dalarhringil al-nubuwwa, one finds that the real Common Links for many hadiths he
analyzes are found in the time of the Companions in the second half of the seventh century.
This is much earlier than the figures that Juynboll typically identifies as the originators of
hadiths.
(3) But perhaps the most problematic aspect of Juynbolls method, in my opinion, is that it
collapses under Occams razor. Juynboll carries scepticism towards the Muslim hadith tradition
to such an extreme that the reader is asked to believe in the existence of a web of lies, forgeries
and conspiracy so elaborate that it is easier to believe thatfrom time to timethe Prophet
might actually have said some of the hadiths attributed to him. For Juynboll, anything other than
the well-attested isnads emanating from a Common Link is assumed to be a forged chain of
transmission. This includes all corroborating transmissions (mutabilhringat) and, using his
terminology, Single Strand hadiths, Spiders and diving chains. Thus the vast bulk of the
material sorted through by Muslim hadith scholars over centuries and recorded in their
voluminous works was not only forged, but all the thousands of scholars from Spain to Iran
involved in transmitting and analysing this material from the eighth to the fifteenth centuries
were able to orchestrate, contain and conceal this titanic, common forgery endeavour. Here we
must remember that the fiercest critics of Muslim hadith transmitters and the jurists who
employed their material were other Muslim hadith critics and opponent jurists. It is thanks to
their collective obsession with documenting the failings of their colleagues hadith transmission
that Western scholars even have the raw material needed to perform isnad analysis.
It is most unreasonable to assume that many hadiths attributed to the Prophet are forgeries.
While one can certainly question some of the credulity and naivet of Muslim hadith critics, it is
unreasonable to entertain that the preponderance of pages filling the thousands of volumes

lining any hadith library, not to mention the pervasive critical ethos that motivated their
production, could have been stuffed there speciously by the continentally-separated, internallydiverse and virulently divided community of pre-modern Muslim hadith scholars. Although less
glamorous, this suggestion is as far-fetched as that made by Pre Hardouin, the eighteenthcentury French Jesuit who, relying on numismatic evidence, concluded that all works of
classical Greek and Roman literature (with the exception of Ciceros letters and a smattering of
other works) had been forged by a cadre of fourteenth-century Italian tricksters.9
Going back to the Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith, the reader finds no echo of the objections
raised against Juynbolls methods. The works introduction dwells on the subjects to which
Juynboll has already devoted articles: the failure of Muslim hadith critics to associate the notion
of madar (the pivot of a hadith) with the Common Link (p. xxv), the absurdity of corroborating
narrations in al-Zurqanis (d. 1710) commentary on Maliks Muwattarhring (p. xxviii), and the
topic of preternaturally long-lived hadith transmitters (p. xxviiiix). Only tangentially does
Juynboll refer to criticisms of scholars like Motzki and Ozken. In a footnote to the entry on
Nafilhring the mawla of Ibn lhringUmar, Juynboll suggests that the reader compare (cf.) with
Motzkis overall unconvincing excursions in Der Islam LXXIII (p. 435). Despite Motzkis
extensive rebuttal of Juynbolls article on Nafilhring, Juynboll maintains steadfastly in the
Encyclopedia that the figure of Nafi the great hadith transmitter is the spectacular creation of
Malik b. Anas and other Iraqi, Makkan and Egyptian Common Links who were seeking earlier
sources for their forgeries (p. 435; cf. 283).
Most surprising is Juynbolls statement in the introduction of the Encyclopedia that [i]n the main,
medieval Muslim hadith scholars view an isnad strand, which they find attached to a particular
hadith, individually without looking at how and where it overlaps and interacts with other
isnads (p. xxiii). It seems, Juynboll continues, as if they [Muslim hadith critics] never studied
with the constant help of a work such as [al-Mizzis] Tuhfa, at least not in any meaningful way
(ibid).
This is a difficult statement to scan. If Juynboll means that Muslim hadith critics did not look at
how isnads of a hadith interacted, interwove and contrasted holistically, then this is simply
incorrect. Virtually all that Muslim hadith critics concerned themselves with was analysing all the
available transmission of a hadith to determine if it was corroborated or collecting all the
available transmissions narrated by a certain person to see if he or she was corroborated as a
transmitter. A brief look at the Ilal al-hadith of Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (d. 327/938) and the Kamil fi
duafa al-rijal of Ibn Adi (d. 365/9756) would illustrate this sufficiently, if not ad nauseam. If, on
the other hand, Juynboll means to fault Muslim hadith critics for not basing their evaluation of
hadiths on the Tuhfa and similar digest works, then this was because they were too busy writing
them and the hundreds of other hadith-critical and hadith-analytical works that preceded them
and built up the edifice on which the fourteenth-century Tuhfa is but a minor decoration. Indeed,
relying on the Tuhfa to dismiss classical Muslim hadith scholarship as atomistic is like calling a
whole society disorganized based on a reading of its voluminous, intricately ordered phonebook.

Juynbolls ahistorical perspective and his limited concentration on the Tuhfa explain much of the
methodological failings of his Encyclopedia. The Tuhfa is a digest of the isnads found in the
canonical Six Books of Sunni Islam. These Six Books are the finished and refined products of
six ninth-century Muslim scholars who produced them as references for Muslim legal and
doctrinal life. The Six Books were a distillation, indeed samplings, of a massive universe of
hadith criticism and transmission, the horizons and methods of which Juynbolls above
statement means he is still evidently unaware. Anyone interested in a glimpse into that world
could do so easily by consulting that genre in which classical Muslim hadith critics did lay out
their critical methods, and the vast sea of material to which they applied it, for full viewing: books
of ilal (hadith flaws) such as that of al-Tirmidhi (d. 279/892) or al-Daraqutni (d. 385/995). It is no
surprise that in the select bibliography of Juynbolls Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith no such
references appear.
The study of the hadith tradition in the West owes much to G. H. A. Juynbolls many
contributions. Unfortunately, for an encyclopedia like this most recent work to claim in its very
title to be concerned with canonical hadith and then limit itself to an indeterminate sampling is
misleading. Furthermore, the excessive scepticism based on a stubbornly parochial
understanding of classical Muslim hadith scholarship that informs this work prevents it from
genuinely advancing this still underdeveloped field.
Jonathan A. C. Brown
Notes
1 G. H. A. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition: Studies in Chronology, Provenance and Authorship of
Early Hadith (London: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 724.
2 Juynboll, Some Isnad-Analytical Methods Illustrated on the Basis of Several Womendemeaning Sayings from Hadith Literature, in Studies on Origins and Uses of Islamic Hadith
(Aldershot: Variorum, 1996), 352.
3 Juynboll, Some Isnad-Analytical Methods, 353.
4 Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, 98.
5 Juynboll, Some Isnad-Analytical Methods, 353.
6 Juynboll, Nafilhring, the mawla of Ibn lhringUmar, and his position in Muslim hadith literature
in Studies on the Origins and Uses of Islamic Hadith, 215.
7 Juynboll, (Re) Appraisal of some Hadith Technical Terms, Islamic Law and Society 8/3
(2001), 318.
8 For more details on objections to Juynbolls methods, see Halit Ozken, The Common Link
and its Relation to the Madar, Islamic Law and Society 11/1 (2004): 4277; Harald Motzki, Der

Fiqh des Zuhri: die Quellenproblematik, Der Islam 68 (1991): 144; id., The Murder of Ibn Abi
Huqayq in Harald Motzki (ed.), The Biography of Muhammad, (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 170239;
id., The Musannaf of lhringAbd al-Razzaq al-Sanlhringani as a Source of Authentic Ahadith of
the First Century AH, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50 (1991): 121; and especially, id., Quo
vadis, Hadit-Forschung? Eine kritische Untersuchung von G. H. A. Juynboll: Nafilhring the
mawla of Ibn lhringUmar, and his position in Muslim Hadit Literature , Der Islam 73/1 (1996):
4080.
9 Arnaldo Momigliano, Studies in Historiography (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966), 16.

Juynboll collection comes to Leiden University Library


The Juynboll Stichting has donated a remarkable collection to Leiden University Library consisting of Islamic
manuscripts and books formerly owned by Dr G.H.A. Juynboll.

Islamic Tradition

Leiden University Library

More information

Dr G.H.A. Juynboll (1935-2010) was the last of a prominent family of Leiden Orientalists. An early ancestor served
under admiral Piet Hein and took part in the capture of a Spanish return fleet which carried bullion from the
Americas in 1628. In the nineteenth century T.W.J. Juynboll (1802-1861) was professor of Oriental languages at
Leiden University. Another sibling, Th.W. Juynboll (1866-1948), was a student of Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje and
later became professor of Hebrew at Utrecht.
On 18 August 2011 Juynboll's heir, the Leiden-based Juynboll Stichting, donated a considerable part of his
collection to Leiden University Library. The donation encompasses his Islamic manuscripts, archival materials
and printed books. An important part of his collection is related with his nineteenth-century forebears who were
active in the field of Oriental studies. Many printed books bear their annotations and are therefore unique.

A beginning has already been made with an inventory of the archive. Eventually, a collection guide will be published
on the Digital Special Collections website.

Islamic Tradition
Juynboll studied Arabic and Islam at Leiden and obtained his doctoral degree under Jan Brugman in 1969. He
worked at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and the University of Exeter (UK). From 1985 onward
he was financially independent, which enabled him to devote himself exclusively to his studies.
Dr Juynboll was a specialist of Hadith, the collection of sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad which rank
second as a source of Islamic doctrine after the Holy Quran. In 1983 Cambridge University Press published his
work Muslim Tradition. Studies in Chronology, Provenance and Authorship of Early Hadith.
His magnum opus Encyclopedia of Canonical Hadith was published by Brill (Leiden) in 2007. This work contains a
critical assessment of all persons who were involved in the formation of Islamic orthodoxy.
Juynboll passed away in December 2010 as the last bearer of his family name. Friends and colleagues will
remember him as a slightly eccentric, sensitive and unusually talented scholar.

Leiden University Library


From his return to the Netherlands in 1985, Juynboll was a daily visitor of the Oriental reading room of Leiden
University Library. Because of the enormous number of Islamic reference works he had to consult, he obtained the
privilege of using a book trolley, which served as an unmistakable sign of his presence in the reading room. Many
generations of students of Arabic and Islam have fond memories of him and his unremitting readiness to help.
Juynboll was devoted to the library, a sentiment he expressed in an autobiographical essay, 'My Days in the
Oriental Reading Room' (2007, repr. 2011).

More information
Juynboll's collection of family portraits was gifted to the Instituut Collectie Nederland(ICN).
The printed books not selected by Leiden University Library will be sold by the Juynboll Stichting before the end of
the year. The auction will be held at the premises of Burgersdijk & Niermans, Leiden.
Professor Lon Buskens, chair of the Juynboll Stichting, has contributed a biographical sketch of G.H.A. Juynboll
to ZemZem, the only Dutch-language periodical on Middle Eastern studies (2011/1, pp. 115-126). It does ample
justice to the work and personality of this remarkable scholar. An English-language version is to appear
inBibliotheca Orientalis together with a bibliography of his works.
For more obituaries and activities in commemoration of Dr Juynboll see the website ofLUCIS, The Leiden University
Centre for the Study of Islam and Society.

Você também pode gostar