Abstract

“C. Snouck Hurgrunje, Goldziher and many other orientalists challenged the authority of the Sunnah of the Prophet as second source of Islamic law. But Daniel W. Brown, Juynboll and Schacht raised doubts concerning the very existence of the term ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ in early Islam. The representatives of this group, who challenged the early existence of this term, differed on a large scale and asserted the findings from history contrast to one another’s.Daniel W. Brown fixed the emergence of this term ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ in or after the time of Shafi‘ī, Juynboll in the year 80 after hijrah or somewhat later. Schacht differed from them and mentioned the year 76 after hijrah as the time when the first certain evidence for the use of the term ‘sunnah of the Prophet’ emerged. He referred to the notes of Margoliouth and the statement of Goldziher that went against the deductions of Schacht and Margoliouth. Margoliouth’s notes actually proved the presence of Prophet’s Sunnah in 35 A. H. Goldziher’s view pointed it out in the earliest time of Islam i. e., in the life of the holy Prophet. M. M. Bravmann disproved the notions of this first group and placed a good number of unrefutable evidences from the holy Qur’ān, ahādīth of the Prophet and āthār of the companions. He also rebuts Schacht’s claim of the difference between the words sīrah and Sunnah. Such disputes among orientalists on the existence of the term Sunnah of the Prophet in early Islam unveil the hollowness of their investigations about Islamic literature, culture and languages rather than the invalidity of the concept Sunnah of the Prophet in early Islam.”