Joseph Schacht was perhaps one of the most controversial Western scholars of Islamic law. Although his work, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, was originally met with some critical acclaim, over time scholars have attempted to correct the controversial basis of his theory on the nature of prophetic authority in the centuries following the death of Muhammad. At the heart of Schacht's argument is the idea that the legal traditions apparently deriving from Muhammad were actually created by traditionalists in the second century AH to change the doctrine of the ancient schools of law (Schacht 1953 178). These invented traditions, in turn, can be deemed false due to the existence of a common narrator in their isnad. This narrator, Schacht postulates, was the individual who both put the tradition into circulation and gave it a historical isnad that led back to the Companions, and therefore to the Prophet himself. Schacht's theory, on the surface, seems plausible; his argument about the changes that occurred in the literary period, particularly his emphasis on the influence of Shafi'i in determining the supreme authority of the Muhammadan traditions and the explosion of the traditions after this authority was established, undoubtedly has some foundation of Done. Yet it is the application of the evolution of the prophetic traditions and their isnad, back to the pre-literary period, that Schacht ventures to surmise, even taking into account his unique and impressive theory of the common bond. The following is a summary of Schacht's theory, as set forth in Origins, from a chronological perspective and a critical analysis of this theory. The evolution of the legal doctrine of the ancient schools of law, from the time after Muhammad...... middle of paper ......a dedicated scholar and, most likely, if he had access to the resources available to scholars who would have succeeded him, some of his work may have been changed as a result of this new information. What remains evident is that Schacht's work tapped into a very real skepticism that existed in the Western academic community. It is not known whether this skepticism was based on polemical motives, such as an attempt to debunk the entire legal basis of a religion, or was based on a very real scientific desire to ascertain the true historical origins of an integral part of Islamic law. It is, more likely, a combination of both. But Schacht's work, controversial as it may be, has a purpose, or perhaps the primary purpose, in the field of academia: the free exchange of ideas that can be employed (or rejected) by others to explain the world we live in..