Oral transmission held authenticity that texts could not guarantee

Evidence

In a complex oral culture, as Islam was, orality constituted the measure of ethical formation in the transmission of knowledge, legal or otherwise, which is to say that the spoken or transmitted word held a force of authenticity that a text could not ensure. A text can always be forged, and the culprit is not always guaranteed to be caught, but oral knowledge transmitted directly from one person to another made the source and every link in the transmission identifiable and knowable, with all the attendant moral and ethical accountability this made possible. Orality, in other words, meant a particular technology of knowledge that shaped its human operators—by virtue of its own content, teleology, and modes of operation—into ethical subjects. Orality qua orality was then performative, not just a “way” of transmitting information. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 267 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Oral transmission offered superior authenticity and moral accountability over texts — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 267; Oral transmission yields more internally consistent traditions than written transmission — Harold Innis, The Bias of Communication, 664; Ritual variations across independent reports indicate genuine oral transmission, not fabrication. — Diego Gambetta, The Sicilian Mafia The Business of…, 391 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Oral transmission offered superior authenticity and moral accountability over texts #corroborates (0.97) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 267