Islamic Origins, Arabian Custom, and the Documents of the Prophet 9781463239664

Citation preview

Islamic Origins, Arabian Custom, and the Documents of the Prophet

Islamic History and Thought

17 Series Editor Series Editorial Board

Peter Adamson Beatrice Gründler Beatrice Gruendler Ahmad Ahmad Khan Khan

Jack Tannous Isabel Toral-Niehoff Manolis Manolis Ulbricht Ulbricht

Jack Tannous

Advisory Editorial Board Islamic History and Thought provides a platform for scholarly research on any geographic areaUlbricht within the expansive Islamic Manolis Binyamin Abrahamov Konrad world, stretching from the Mediterranean to Hirschler China, and dated to Asadthe Q.eve Ahmed Howard-Johnston any period from of Islam untilJames the early modern era. This Jan Just Witkam Mehmetcan Akpinar Maher Jarrar(Arabic, Persian, series contains original monographs, translations Syriac, Greek, and Latin) and edited volumes. Abdulhadi Alajmi Marcus Milwright Mohammad-Ali Amir-Moezzi Harry Munt Arezou Azad Gabriel Said Reynolds Massimo Campanini Walid A. Saleh Godefroid de Callataÿ Maria Conterno Jens Scheiner Farhad Daftary Delfina Serrano trice Gruendler Wael Hallaq Georges Tamer Bea Ahmad Khan

Jack Tannous Islamic History and Thought provides a platform for scholarly research Isabel Toral-Niehoff on any geographic area within the expansive Islamic world, stretching from the Mediterranean to China, and dated to any Manolis Ulbricht period from the eve of Islam until the early modern era. This series contains original monographs, translations (Arabic, Persian, Syriac, Jan Justand Witkam Greek, Latin) and edited volumes.

Islamic Origins, Arabian Custom, and the Documents of the Prophet

Sarah Z. Mirza

gp 2022

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2022 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܕ‬

1

2022

ISBN 978-1-4632-0644-4

ISSN 2643-6906

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .......................................................................... v Acknowledgments........................................................................ix Abbreviations............................................................................... xi Introduction: Four ways of looking at the Prophet’s documents .............................................................................1 Documents can be invisible ..................................................1 How do we define (customary) law? ....................................5 The corpus ......................................................................... 12 Four ways of looking ......................................................... 15 Formulae....................................................................... 15 Variance ........................................................................ 19 Infrastructure ................................................................ 20 Persons.......................................................................... 21 Conclusion: Formula as technology ................................... 22 Chapter 1. Formulae .................................................................. 27 The formula exists ............................................................. 27 Comparing the Prophet’s corpus to Conquest-era documents and Arabic papyri: a profile .................... 30 Longevity of legal formulae, or, the pre-Islamic chancery register exists ............................................................. 36 Commonly found formulae ................................................ 39 Opening/Introductory .................................................. 40 Exposition ..................................................................... 57 Closings......................................................................... 59 Selected legal formulae: documents of conveyance .......... 69 Formulae conveying land and moveable property ................................................................ 72 Formulae of sale ........................................................... 79 Formulae of manumission ............................................ 80 Free-formed, pre-formed, and anomalous material ........... 82 v

vi

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Conclusion: Documents as products of trans-local design ......................................................................... 86 Chapter 2. Variance ................................................................... 95 Selection of redactions ..................................................... 101 Typology of variants found.............................................. 104 Types of document .......................................................... 107 Treaties/contracts ....................................................... 107 Diplomatic letters ....................................................... 119 Security agreements ................................................... 125 Conveyance documents, referring to land .................. 132 Administrative letters ................................................. 144 Conveyance document, sale of slave .......................... 150 Conclusion: The parameters of tradition are the limits to variance ............................................................... 151 Chapter 3. Infrastructure: Dhimma agreements, sanctuary systems, and a case for Arabian customary law .............. 163 Formulae as historical evidence ...................................... 166 The longevity of the dhimma formula.............................. 167 Security agreements......................................................... 182 Inviolability under Arabian customary law ..................... 193 Sanctuary system as polity .............................................. 197 Conclusion: Orality and the materiality of law ............... 205 Chapter 4. Persons: A popular material culture of ḥadīth ...... 211 Legal, narrative, and personal value of documents ......... 213 Buckets, scraps, and trash ................................................ 221 Textual shaping of reports and the scholar as authenticator ............................................................ 229 Hierarchies of persons and of texts ................................. 246 What is literacy? .............................................................. 249 Conclusion: Ḥadīth as social object ................................. 255 Conclusion. There are no originals .......................................... 259 Appendix to Chapter 1: Comparative Arabic epistolary and legal formularies, from literary and documentary sources ............................................................................. 269 Letters from literary and documentary sources, with shared formulae highlighted .................................... 269

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Legal Documents, from literary and documentary sources, concerning sale, with shared formulae highlighted ............................................................... 276 Appendix to Chapter 4: Correspondence between kitāba and istiʿmāl in biographical reports on Companions .............. 279 Bibliography ............................................................................ 283 Index ........................................................................................ 303

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book began as a seminar paper in “Archives and Institutions of Collective Memory” at the University of Michigan under Margaret Hedstrom, who taught me to always pose questions on how archives shape and determine truth. It received a foundation in Arabic papyrology and methods for the study of preIslamic Arabia and Islamic Origins under Geoffrey Khan and Michael Bonner. It has had a second life with my transition to Wooster, and would not have arrived at its final state without the many opportunities to think about networks, trade, and the category of religion with Lisa Crothers and Mark Graham. It would not exist without the support and suggestions of the Editor of the Gorgias Press series on Islamic History and Thought, Adam Walker, the suggestions made by the two anonymous reviewers, and the resources provided by Ludwig Ruault concerning early Islamic epigraphy and graffiti. Tahira and Zubair Mirza are owed an unrepayable debt for making and protecting an unquestioning space for books, study, and concentration all my life. Earlier versions of Chapters 3 and 4 were published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies and Arabica, respectively. They are published here with permission from the University of Chicago Press and Brill, and with thanks to the editors of these journals and to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on both articles. Thanks to the Syndics of Cambridge University Library for the cover image and for permission to publish T-S 16.353. Thank you to Mathias Böhm and the Austrian National Library for the image and permission to publish P.Vind.A.P. 15016 recto (Figure 1). And to the open access Antiquity À-la-Carte, Ancient World Mapping Centre, University of North Carolina, Chapel ix

x

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Hill www.awmc.unc.edu for the program used to create the map (Figure 2).

ABBREVIATIONS Chrest.Khoury I

Chrest.Khoury II

CPR XVI

Mon.script.sab

P.BeckerNPAF

P.BeckerPAF

Khoury, Raif G., Grohmann, Adolf. Chrestomathie de Papyrologie Arabe. Documents relatifs à la vie privée, sociale et administrative dans les premiers siècles islamiques. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Ergänzungsband 2. Zweiter Halbband. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Khoury, Raif G., Grohmann, Adolf. Papyrologische Studien. Zum privaten und gesellschaftlichen Leben in den ersten islamischen Jahrhunderten. Codices Arabici Antiqui 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. Diem, Werner. Arabische Briefe aus dem 7.–10. Jahrhundert. 2 vols. Corpus Papyrorum Raineri 16. Vienna: Hollinek, 1993. Monumenta scripturae sabaicae, inscribed sticks in collection of Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munchen. Becker, Carl Heinrich. “Neue arabische Papyri des Aphroditofundes.” Der Islam 2 (1911): 245– 268.

Becker, Carl Heinrich. “Arabische Papyri des Aphroditofundes.” xi

xii

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

P.Becker.Papyrusstudien P.Cair.Arab PERF

P.GrohmannProbleme

P.GrohmannQorra-Brief

P.GrohmannUrkunden

P.GrohmannWirstch

P.Heid.Arab.I

Zeitschrift für Assyriologi 20 (1906): 68–104.

Becker, Carl Heinrich. “Papyrusstudien.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologi 22 (1909): 137–154.

Grohmann, Adolf. Arabic Papyri in the Egyptian Library. 6 vols. Cairo: Egyptian Library Press, 1934–1962.

(von) Karabacek, Josef. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer. Führer durch die Ausstellung. Vienna: Selbstverlag der Sammlung, 1894.

Grohmann, Adolf. “Probleme der arabischen Papyrusforschung.” Archiv Orientální 3 (1931): 381–394; 5 (1933): 273–283; 6 (1934): 125– 149, 377–398. Grohmann, Adolf. “Ein Qorra-Brief vom Jahre 90 H.” In ed., Ernst F. Weidner. Aus fünf Jahrtausenden morgenländischer Kultur: Festschrift Max Freiherr von Oppenheimer. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiband 1. Berlin: n.p., 37–40

Grohmann, Adolf. “Einige bemerkenswerte Urkunden aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer an der Nationalbibliothek zu Wien.” Archiv Orientální 18 (1950): 80–119. Grohmann, Adolf. “Texte zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Ägyptens in arabischer Zeit.” Archív Orientální 7 (1935): 437–472. Becker, Carl Heinrich. Papyri SchottReinhardt I, Heidelberg. Veröffen-

ABBREVIATIONS

P.Jahn

P.KarabacekPapyrusfund

P.Khalili I

P.Khalili II

P.Khurasan

P.Marchands

xiii

tlichungen aus der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung 3. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1906.

Jahn, Karl. “Vom frühislamischen Briefwesen. Studien zur islamischen Epistolographie der ersten drei Jahrhunderte der Hiğra auf Grund der arabischen Papyri.” Archiv Orientální 9 (1937): 153–200. (von) Karabacek, Josef. Der Papyrusfund von el-Faijûm. Denkschrift der Philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaftren 33. Vienna: 1882.

Khan, Geoffrey. Arabic Papyri: Selected Material from the Khalili Collection. Studies in the Khalili Collection 1. London: Azimuth Editions, Oxford University Press, 1992. Khan, Geoffrey. Bills, Letters and Deeds: Arabic Papyri of the 7th to 11th centuries. The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art 6. London: Azimuth Editions, Oxford University Press, 1993.

Khan, Geoffrey. Arabic Documents from Early Islamic Khurasan. Studies in the Khalili Collection 5. London: Azimuth Editions, The Nour Foundation, 2007.

Rāġib, Yūsuf. “Marchands d’étoffes du Fayyoum au IIIe/IXe siècle d’après leurs archives (actes et lettres).”

xiv

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET I “Les actes des Banu ʿAbd alMuʾmin.” Annales Islamologiques. Supplément 2. Cairo, 1982.

II “La Correspondence administrative et privée des Banu ʿAbd alMuʾmin.” Annales Islamologiques. Supplément 5. Cairo, 1985. III. “Lettres des Banu Thwr aux Banu ʿabd al-Muʾmin.” Annales Islamologiques. Supplément 14. Cairo, 1992.

P.Ness

P.Qurra

P.Ragib.Qurra P.World RES

TYA

V/1. “Archives de trois commissionnaires.” Annales Islamologiques. Supplément 16. Cairo, 1996.

Colt, H. Dunscombe. Excavations at Nessana (Auja Hafir, Palestine). Vol 1. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1962.

Abbott, Nabia. The Ḳurrah Papyri from Aphrodito in the Oriental Institute. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 15. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938. Rāġib, Yūsuf. Lettres nouvelles de Qurra b. Šarīk. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 40 (1981): 173–187.

Grohmann, Adolf. From the World of Arabic Papyri. Cairo: Al-Mareef Press, 1952.

Chabot, Jean Baptiste, ClermontGanneau, Charles, eds. Répertoire d’Épigraphie Sémitique. 8 vols. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1900–1968. Ryckmans, Jacques, Muller, Walter W., and Abdallah, Yusuf M. Textes du Yémen antique inscrits sur bois

ABBREVIATIONS

xv

(with an English summary). Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 43. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1994.

INTRODUCTION:

FOUR WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE PROPHET’S DOCUMENTS hādhā kitāb min Muḥammad This is a document from Muḥammad

DOCUMENTS CAN BE INVISIBLE ʿAbd al-Majīd b. Wahb reported: Al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid b. Hawdha said to me, Has anyone read to you the document that the Prophet ṣlʿm wrote for me? He [ʿAbd al-Majīd] said: I said, No indeed. So he brought it out for me and therein was: This is what Al-ʿAddā b. Khālid b. Hawdha bought from Muḥammad the Messenger of God ṣlʿm. He bought from him a male or a female slave, not being defective, a runaway, or ill-behaved. A sale by a Muslim to a Muslim. 1

It may not be immediately recognizable that we have a legal document in this set of nested quotations. But when they are compared with hundreds of texts that begin in the same way, use a similar layout and set of propositions and phrases, the last few lines of this ḥadīth appear less like an event in the life of the

Muḥammad b. Yazīd ibn Māja, Sunan ibn Māja, ed. Muḥammad Fuʿād ʿAbd al-Bāqī (Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 1998) II: 300–301, kitāb al-tijārāt, bāb shirāʾi l-raqīq, no. 2251. 1

1

2

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Prophet and more like a pattern, or, as Eva Mira Grob calls the template followed by Arabic papyri letters, an algorithm. 2 If we visualize the text differently so that it does not appear as discursive prose, underlining the non-generic and personal information, the document in the ḥadīth reads: This is what Al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid b. Hawdha bought from Muḥammad the Messenger of God ṣlʿm. He bought from him a male or a female slave, not being defective, a runaway, or ill-behaved. A sale by a Muslim to a Muslim.

‫هذا ما اش��ى العداء �ن �ا�� �ن هوذة من ���د رسول ا��� صلعم‬

‫اش��ى منه عبدا او امة �� داء و �� �ائ�� و �� خبثة‬ ��‫بيع ا��س�� ل��س‬

When compared to the narrative introduction leading up to them, these few lines are striking in their generality and conventionality, their lack of reference, asides from personal names, to any specific or distinctive context. What may be the most significant element of the recorded transaction, the cost, is not even mentioned. And it may take us a number of passes through the text before we notice that this self-assured, seemingly verbatim quotation includes an imprecision which is, furthermore, unremarkable to anyone involved in its transmission. 3 Is the quotaEva Mira Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters on Papyrus: Form and Function, Content and Context Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 29 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010). 3 Several redactions agree on the inclusion of the ambiguous wording “a male or a female slave”: Ibn Māja, Ibn al-Athīr, and al-Qasṭallānī. Ibn Māja, Sunan, II: 300–301, kitāb al-tijārāt, bāb shirāʾi al-raqīq, no. 2251; Izz al-Dīn b. al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba fī maʿrifat al-ṣahāba, 5 vols., ed. Khalīl Maʿmūn Shīḥā (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, 1997) III: 230, no. 3602; Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib al-ladunīya bi-lminaḥ al-Muḥammadīya, ed. Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad Shāmī (Beirut: al-Maktab alIslāmī, 1991) II: 154–55. While they agree on the inclusion of this wording, the redactions do not otherwise match exactly, differing in 2

INTRODUCTION

3

tion uncertain of its own wording? Or is this ambiguity meant to be, and accepted to be, included in the legal provisions? The language is so unmarked that “male or female” may not strike us as an uncertainty or a question. This blandness in itself is interesting. In spite of how little it seems to actually tell us, this short text does a lot. It identifies the type of transaction and the individuals involved. This is followed by a description of the object of transfer and the terms, significant to the legal and social context, that the transaction meets. It closes with a definition of the legal act which also finalizes the document. As a whole, it shows clearly where the document begins and where it ends. The sequence of the clauses is not commonsensical but a learned design. The document is entirely formulaic. When compared to corpora of legal documents in other languages, the commonness, generic nature, and predictability of the sale document of Al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid become obvious. Rather than an unscripted, intuitive, individual text responding to a unique situation, this text is so standardized that it is almost invisible. Like the best examples of everyday technology, documentary language is both ubiquitous and functional in a way that exhibits a slow evolution of refinements over the course of generations. The format of this sale document can be compared with the structure common to all known Aramaic documents of conveyance. These are documents transferring or recognizing rights (sale, gift, etc.), including sale of slaves, real estate, and moveable property. Andrew Gross has written extensively on the formulae of these texts, drawing a profile that reflects all known corpora and includes several hundred documents ranging from the fifth century B.C.E. Elephantine papyri to early to mid-third century C.E. Dura Europos papyri. In this profile, the parenthe-

use of prepositions and additions/omissions of repeated words and entire formulae. They are compared in Chapter 2.

4

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ses indicate clauses given in some corpora but not in all. 4 Inputting the clauses from the document of Al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid shows us both that the sequence of clauses is not accidental and that entire sections may well be missing from this text. This comparison should not be over-extended though, especially given that our text is missing what would be the most detailed sections in such a document. The resemblance revealed is structural and does not extend to the actual formulation of the clauses. Profile of Aramaic documents of conveyance 5 I. Date (and Place): not given II. Operative Section 1. Declaration of sale: “This is what Al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid b. Hawdha bought from Muḥammad the Messenger of God ṣlʿm.” 2. Property description: “He bought from him a male or a female slave, not being defective, a runaway, or ill-behaved.” 3. Sale price: not given 4. Acknowledgement of receipt: not given III. Investiture clause: “A sale by a Muslim to a Muslim”? IV. Contingency clauses 1. (No-Contest and penalty clauses): not given 2. Warranty Clause: not given 3. (Document exchange): not given V. Signatures and Witnesses: not given The place of the clause “A sale by a Muslim to a Muslim” is difficult to ascertain, since it is a lone example in the corpus of the Prophet’s documents. It may best be categorized as an investiAndrew D. Gross, “The Judaean Documents as a Regional SubTradition in Aramaic Common Law,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 89, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani Tzoref (Leiden: Brill, 2010): 99–113. 5 Ibid., 101. 4

INTRODUCTION

5

ture clause, since it serves to mark the actual transfer of ownership. 6

HOW DO WE DEFINE (CUSTOMARY) LAW?

There are hundreds of documents, short, pragmatic, mundane texts dealing with legal and administrative matters, attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad in early Islamic sources. However, the documents themselves provide scant information that can be allowed to sketch out any law, much less the precedents of classical Islamic law. Texts such as the conveyance documents in the Prophet’s corpus may well be missing some of their critical, detailed legal provisions. While scant in specific legal provisions, the material the texts do provide is entirely formulaic, including opening and greeting formulae, operative legal terms, investiture and guarantee clauses, curse clauses, and closing scribal and witness clauses. This in itself is significant, because these clauses can be compared to surviving Umayyad and ʿAbbāsid era papyri as well as legal formulae in other languages in circulation in late antique Arabia. One example is the phrase that opens the sale document of Al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid. An opening nominal phrase and/or a demonstrative pronoun referring to the text, occurring in our document as the introductory hādhā mā… (“This is what…”), is a feature of cuneiform Akkadian and Ugaritic official correspondence and is also found in Early to Middle Sabaic documents. 7 It is also a feature of legal, as opposed to private or episSee Gross, “The Judaean Documents,” 102, on the functions of the investiture clause in Aramaic documents. 7 John Wansbrough, Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1996) 100 for Akkadian and Ugaritic; Geoffrey Khan, “The Historical Development of Early Arabic Documentary Formulae,” In Scribes as Agents of Language Change, Studies in Language Change 10, eds. Esther-Miriam Wagner, Ben Outhwaite, and Bettina Beinhoff (Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2013): 199–215, at 202 for Sabaic. 6

6

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

tolary documents, in early Arabic papyri. Umayyad-era official letters and legal documents from Egypt and Khurāsān also open with a self-reference to the document with a nominal phrase. 8 Due to traceable changes in Arabic formulary (the standard layout of formulae that compose documents), the use of this opening formula in Arabic documents can be approximately dated. By the late second Islamic century, the nominal phrase remains but the demonstrative pronoun has been lost. 9 Thus the seemingly insignificant phrase that opens the sale document in our ḥadīth actually indexes several long-lived traditions. This comparison is not meant to be an argument for origins, influence, borrowing, or the comparability of legal traditions. It is an argument for the efficacy of the formulae found in the Prophet’s corpus. The Prophet’s documents may reflect evidence for formulaic conventions dating to the period in question. The documents appear to have an archaic profile, in that their formulae closely resemble those found in early Arabic papyri and have no resemblances with the “watershed” 10 developments that occur in legal and epistolary Arabic papyri in the third/ninth century. The distinctive formulae in the Prophet’s documents can make a case for pre-Islamic customary law. By this I mean something akin to what is found in modern Bedouin societies, “statements of law, not law as process,” 11 and what legal historians define as customary law: “[c]onsistent behavior in accordance with particu-

Geoffrey Khan, Arabic Documents from Early Islamic Khurasan. Studies in the Khalili Collection V (London: The Nour Foundation, 2006 [2007]) 28. 9 Geoffrey Khan, Arabic Papyri: Selected Material from the Khalili Collection (London: The Nour Foundation, 1992) 58. 10 Khan, “Historical Development,” 202. 11 Paul Dresch, “Aspects of Non-State Law: Early Yemen and Perpetual Peace,” in Legalism: Anthropology and History, eds. Paul Dresch and Hannah Skoda (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012) 145–172, at 145. 8

INTRODUCTION

7

lar implicit rules,” 12 or “practice that emerges outside of legal constraints, and which individuals and organizations spontaneously follow in the course of their interactions out of a sense of legal obligation.” 13 These can be practices that “reflect an internalized belief that the practice is necessary or socially desirable. These practices are considered necessary for social well-being and are treated as proper legal custom, often entering the legal system as primary sources of law.” 14 By treating formulae as evidence for custom and its mobility, my approach resembles those taken by Walter Young and Uri Rubin in treating maxims found in early Islamic tradition as evidence for the formation of law, including its oral dissemination. 15 Custom facilitates daily transactions that have legal and social value, and formulae are both the technology for and traces of these customs. In antiquity, such traces are found in the smallest elements of formulaic texts such as diplomatic letters, 16

Alan Watson, “An Approach to Customary Law,” University of Illinois Law Review (1984): 561–576 at 561. 13 Ibid. 14 Francesco Parisi, “Spontaneous Emergence of Law: Customary Law” in Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Volume V. The Economics of Crime and Litigation, eds. Boudewijn Bouckaert and Gerrit De Geest Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2000) 603–630 at 604. 15 Walter Young, Stoning and Hand-Amputation: The pre-Islamic origins for hadd penalties for zinā and sariqa (PhD Dissertation, McGill University 2005) 82; Uri Rubin, “‘Al-Walad li-l-Firāsh’: On the Islamic Campaign against ‘Zinā,’” Studia Islamica 78 (1993): 5–26. 16 See Amanda H. Podany, Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010) on the socio-political reality reflected by the expression of relations between rulers using the idiom of family ties in diplomatic letters from the Ancient Near East. Podany makes a compelling argument that, in cases such as between Ebla and Hamazi in the third millennium B.C.E., the primary reason for maintaining contact via letters was the exchange of luxury goods (Brotherhood of Kings, 26–28). 12

8

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

business letters, 17 and tomb 18 or building inscriptions, 19 which are also statements of legal status. These texts are not just localized expressions, but act as nodes in a network of mutual recognitions. Diplomatic mores, gift exchange, legal property descriptions, and sanctuaries and refuges are long-lived structures that appear as formulae. The Prophet’s documents do not provide a snapshot of legal theory, a comprehensive code of law, a history of specific legal cases, or the processes and structures of legal institutions. Instead, the formulaic elements serve as vehicles for the preservation and continuity of mundane practices. These practices include how to show respect and recognition for other political entities either superior or inferior, negotiating between Bedouin and settled tribes concerning rights to land, water, or security, and how to legally validate documents themselves. Focusing on Eva Grob writes on the encoding of social information, particularly hierarchical relationships between parties, that we can study through a measure for politeness keyed through formulae in medieval Arabic letters. The choice of formulae that reference a shared background between sender and receiver, such as religious formulae and greetings, is “guided by strategies of politeness,” with polite being understood as “socio-pragmatically well-formed” (Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 121) 18 See John F. Healey, “Fines and Curses: Law and Religion Among the Nabataeans and their Neighbours” in Law and Religion in the Eastern Mediterranean: from antiquity to early Islam, eds. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Reinhard G. Kratz (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013) 165–186, for formulae for fines and curses that alert us to the legal nature of Nabataean tomb inscriptions. 19 Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) where inscriptions on temples and on coins declaring temples and cities as “sacred and inviolable” are a reflection of the Hellenistic custom of mutual recognition of inviolability, an element of “foreign relations” and of the institution of asylum. Rigsby argues that, by the third century B.C.E.–first century C.E., these formulae come to reflect the urban competition for civic recognition and international honor. 17

INTRODUCTION

9

these documents as evidence of inter-communal practices and negotiations can allow us an entry into pre-Islamic customary law, something that has not been precisely defined, although it is often referred to in works focusing on classical Islamic law or the origins of and influences on legal formulations under the Prophet. 20 Geoffrey Khan and Michael Lecker have both argued for the existence of a pre-Islamic Arabian legal tradition that can be tracked via documentary formulae. Khan argues for the existence of a local Semitic chancery tradition through a comparison of the legal formularies of first/seventh and second/eighth century Arabic legal documents from Egypt and Afghanistan with legal documents in Hebrew and Aramaic. 21 Michael Lecker argues that the conventional forms and phraseology of legal documents were already established by the time of the Prophet and were generally followed by him. 22 Lecker’s work on the technical terminology for land transfers 23 and custom dues 24 shows that earlier terminology can still be recovered even when some redactors replace these terms with more contemporary wording in the Islamic literary sources. Khan’s and Lecker’s works stress the continuity of documentary tradition and legal terminology between pre-Islamic Arabia and the Prophet’s era. See Lena Salaymeh, The Beginnings of Islamic Law: Late Antique Islamicate Legal Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2016), 84–100, on the problematics of the influence and borrowing paradigms used in discussions of Islamic law. 21 Geoffrey Khan, “The Pre-Islamic Background of Muslim Legal Formularies,” Aram 6 (1994): 193–224, and Khan, “Historical Development,” 202. 22 Michael Lecker, “A Pre-Islamic Endowment Deed in Arabic regarding al-Waḥīda in the Hijāz,” in Michael Lecker, People, Tribes and Society in Arabia around the Time of Muhammad (Farnham: Ashgate/Variorum, 2005) no. IV, 1. 23 Ibid. 24 Michael Lecker, “Were Custom Dues Levied at the Time of the Prophet Muḥammad?” Al-Qanṭara 22/1 (2001): 19–43. 20

10

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Law relies on continuity and on cross-cultural familiarity and acceptability. In his monumental study of documentary formularies across the Ancient Near East, from 1500 B.C.E. to 1500 C.E., John Wansbrough argues that boundary-crossing and translatability are endemic to administrative and legal documents. 25 Similarly, in their study of the Cairo Geniza, Eve Krakowski and Marina Rustow stress that legal and administrative terminology and formulae can be better understood in comparison, and that cultural contact encourages us to reconsider the contours we sketch around legal systems through applying categories such as “Islamic law.” The Cairo Geniza documents are particularly illustrative of legal and administrative formulae crossing the boundaries of alphabets, languages, legal systems, and religious communities. 26 Krakowski and Rustow also stress that formulae are meant to be stereotypical and efficacious. Indeed, it is their stereotypicality that makes them efficacious, and that stereotypicality alerts us to the presence of information on socio-historical context. Krakowski and Rustow write: Documents were essential tools of daily life because they worked—effected real change through the power of the written word. And they did so precisely because they drew on established repertoires of conventions—a coherent range of replicable and recognizable formats, formularies, technical terms, and script types—that helped guarantee their efficacy, in part by signaling the expertise and authority of the scribes writing them. 27

Eva Grob’s work on Arabic papyrus letters reveals that these documents are formed by sections that exhibit very standardized slots, and that these slots are filled with formulae that are not fixed but variable in order to suit the context of the document’s Wansbrough, Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean. Eve Krakowski and Marina Rustow, “Formula as Content: Medieval Jewish Institutions, the Cairo Geniza, and the New Diplomatics,” Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture, Society 20/2 (2014): 111–146. 27 Ibid., 116. 25 26

INTRODUCTION

11

creation. 28 These are anything but the sterile forms that we might imagine. Krakowski and Rustow in particular stress the agency of both the scribes and the individual litigants in legal cases in contributing to innovation in documentary formulae. They characterize formulaic texts as, both more flexible and more muscular than they are usually understood to be. They are more flexible because scribes did not adhere mechanically to formulas; they are more muscular because precisely the “boilerplate” that one might dismiss as devoid of unique and historically contingent case material turns out to yield some of the richest material in the document, if one knows how to read it. 29

We do not really see, or read, formulae unless we start to look for them across traditions. Krakowski and Rustow’s approach to the Geniza archive demonstrates “the utility of studying legal systems and the documents those systems produced (or, the documents that constituted those systems) not in isolation but in conversation.” 30 These “borrowings” between communities and systems compel us to “rethink what we mean when we talk about ‘Jewish law’ or ‘Islamic law.’” 31 This sharing, exchange, and translatability of formulae may well be evidence for the existence of a kind of common law: because the realms of shared, ordinary (rather than ritual) legal usage suggests that there was something like a common law tradition in the medieval Middle East, taking these documents seriously should make it possible to reformulate the

Eva Mira Grob, “Information Packaging in Arabic Private and Business Letters (8th to 13th c. C.E.): Templates, Slots and a Cascade of Reduction and Rearrangement,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007, ed. Traianos Gagos (Ann Arbor: American Studies in Papyrology, 2010): 277–290 at 283. 29 Krakowski and Rustow, “Formula as Content,” 116. 30 Ibid., 118. 31 Ibid., 135. 28

12

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET question of the durability and stability of institutions and institutional practices in the region… 32

Law relies on continuity, and the formulaic texts attributed to the Prophet, even if they are only found as quotations within the medieval literary tradition, may well provide some of the history of customary law, both regional and local, in Arabia.

THE CORPUS

Muḥammad Hamidullah is responsible for the most sustained work on the Prophet’s documents as a corpus, as he recognized these texts as documents rather than as epistolary treatises. In his Corpus des traités diplomatiques de l’Islam à l’époque du prophète et des khalifes orthodoxes he collects in French translation 217 texts or summaries of documents from the Prophet, with a brief introduction on the problem of authenticity, providing eight aspects for an analysis of the texts: language, vocabulary, style, subject matter, completion by editors, length, arbitrary corrections, and editorial interpolations. 33 In Majmūʿat alwathāʾiq al-siyāsīya li-l-ʿahd al-nabawī wa-l-khilāfa al-rāshida, Hamidullah collects 246 documents attributed to the Prophet from several medieval sources; the variants between redactions are given in footnotes. 34 He argues, as does Michael Lecker, 35 that medieval collectors obtained their riwāyāt (narrations) of the documents mostly from the families of the documents’ recip-

Ibid., 135. Muhammad Hamidullah, Corpus des traités diplomatiques de l’Islam à l’époque du prophète et des khalifes orthodoxes (Paris: G.-P. Maisonneuve, 1935). 34 The 1988 edition of this work includes the same number of documents attributed to the Prophet, with some additional documents from the post-Prophetic period. 35 Michael Lecker, “The Preservation of Muhammad’s Letters,” in People, Tribes and Society in Arabia around the Time of Muhammad (Ashgate: Variorum, 2005), no. X, 22. 32 33

INTRODUCTION

13

ients. 36 Hamidullah is interested in administrative information provided by the documents, positing that the reason for a turn to writing in the Medinan period of the Prophet’s career (1– 10/622–632), from which most of the documents originate, was the increasing centralization of power and relations with foreign rulers. 37 He adds some points on the issue of authenticity, expanding on his observations in the French edition. Hamidullah also published a paleographical analysis of six of the “original” (now museum artifacts) letters of the Prophet, arguing for some archaic elements in their scripts. 38 Chapter 1 of this book relies on Hamidullah’s collection in his Majmūʿat as a resource to assess the corpus as a whole for formulae. While Hamidullah does not deal extensively with the transmission of the Prophet’s documents, Michael Lecker takes up this issue in his article covering Ibn Saʿd’s chapters on the letters and tribal delegations, 39 and in his monograph on the Banū Sulaym. Lecker’s book on the Banū Sulaym includes several reports and additional redactions of documents that are not found in Hamidullah’s collections. 40 Several studies have focused on futūḥ period documents, as documents with formulaic elements. These include D. R. Hill’s The Termination of Hostilities in the Early Arab Conquests, A.D. 634–656, 41 Albrecht Noth’s The Early Arabic Historical Tradition:

Muhammad Hamidullah, Majmūʿat al-wathāʾiq al-siyāsīya li-l-ʿahd alnabawī wa-l-khilāfa al-rāshida (Cairo: Matbaʿat lajnat al-taʾlīf wa-ltarjuma wa-l-nashr, 1956), 11. 37 Hamidullah, Wathāʾiq, 10. 38 Muhammad Hamidullah, Six originaux des lettres du Prophete de l’islam: étude paléographique et historique des lettres du Prophete (Paris: Tougui, 1985) 128–133. 39 Lecker, “The Preservation of Muhammad’s Letters,” 22. 40 Michael Lecker, The Banu Sulaym: A Contribution to the Study of Early Islam (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989). 41 D. R. Hill, The Termination of Hostilities in the Early Arab Conquests, A.D. 634–656 (London: Luzac, 1971). 36

14

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

A Source-Critical Study, 42 Wadād al-Qāḍī’s article, “Madkhal ilā dirāsat ʿuhūd al-ṣulḥ al-islāmiyya zaman al-futūḥ,” 43 and Milka Levy-Rubin’s Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: from surrender to coexistence. 44 Hill’s is an excellent resource for citations of documents keyed by their own terminology, as well as for data on possible standardization of legal terminology over time (for the terms dhimma, kharāj, and jizya). Noth and al-Qāḍī both investigate the formularies of Conquest-era treaties, with comparison to Arabic papyri, while al-Qāḍī’s article also includes an appendix that compares the various redactions of these treaties. Levy-Rubin’s comparative study makes a strong case for Conquest-era surrender agreements, including the “Pact of ʿUmar,” as drawing on well-known diplomatic terminology from Byzantine and Sassanian contexts. Her work not only historicizes a document like the “Pact of ʿUmar,” but investigates its posthistory and does not treat the document itself as an origin or culmination of law. These studies allow us to understand legal culture and exchange through collecting formulaic language found in early Islamic literary sources, making cases for the consistency of that language and tracing its relevant precedents and historical contexts. This book builds on their insights and is intended to be put in dialogue with them.

Noth, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-Critical Study, 2nd ed. trans. Michael Bonner (Princeton, 1994). 43 Wadād al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal ilā dirāsat ʿuhūd al-ṣulḥ al-islāmiyya zaman al-futūḥ,” in The Acts of the Fourth International Conference on the History of Bilād al-Shām, vol. 2, eds. Muḥammad ʿAdnān al-Bakhīt and Ḥasan ʿAbbās (Amman: Jāmiʿat al-Urdunīya, 1987): 193–269. 44 Milka Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: from surrender to coexistence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 42

INTRODUCTION

15

FOUR WAYS OF LOOKING Formulae

Ancient and medieval formulaic text is some of the most sophisticated and refined language that we have as evidence for everyday transactions and communications on a global scale. Early Arabic documents are characterized by these stereotypical formats and expressions. As Eva Mira Grob writes regarding Arabic papyri letters dating from the first/seventh to fourth/tenth centuries: the recipient of a letter knew what to expect. The letters are formulaic, and their information packaging follows an algorithm typical for their time and content. Here formulaic letter writing means not only the reuse of the same formulae or topoi but expressing thoughts in a predictable linguistic way and order, both as a matter of readability and as one of adequacy and politeness. 45

These are the functions, the necessary work of a formula, the unit of central concern to this book. I define a formula as a conventional expression found in a document which has legal or epistolary functions and works in relation to the other formulae in the document. Taken together and in their sequential relationship to each other, these formulae form a layout or formulary. In a legal document, several of these formulae compose clauses that lay out the legal provisions made by the document. The formulae are stable but not fixed expressions, and can occur with slight differences in wording. A singular document found in various redactions across several literary sources can be examined for differences of wording, called variants. The formula is a design, a technology which is refined over time and bears a functional load. Formulae do not resemble narrative sketches or rhetorical exercises, but diagrams, patterns, recognizable forms, something as utterly familiar and predicta45

Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, xii.

16

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ble as the shape of a spoon. In early Arabic papyri, formulae are textual elements that are marked both verbally and graphically. They occur as a sequence of discourse markers, keywords, and repetitions, within a template, which follows, as Eva Grob shows for Arabic papyri letters, a topic-comment structure. 46 And they perform organizational functions. Some examples of sets of formulae, or sections, that serve to structure and organize the document, which can also form graphically marked sections in Arabic papyri, are the basmala, introductory formulae, and closing formulae. 47 These textual markers and stereotypes are actually not that distant from spoken discourse or conversation. When we start to look for it in collections of ḥadīth, legal manuals, and historical reports, the formula becomes strikingly visible against the narrative content of reports or the sequences of isnāds. It is completely predictable, having almost no content, being pure form. A documentary formula appears this way, as predictable, immediately recognizable, communicative, and reproducible, in order for the document to serve the function of facilitating transactions and exchanges between people. The formula and formulary have communicative functions and are self-replicating technologies. John Wansbrough writes of formulae as being both the method and the object of transfer across individuals. 48 The formula, every time it is read, written, and reproduced, both advertises and replicates itself. As a communication technology, it is made to move between people, places, and cultures. As a technology, the formula is older than the intellectual structures that embrace it and preserve it. It is an element of mass culture, and it leaves a historical trail that helps us identify and locate its changing functions and social contexts. The formula is a structure and works at an infrastructural level, interacting with social processes, including law, and facilitating Ibid., 137–38. Ibid., 190–199. 48 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 147. 46 47

INTRODUCTION

17

them, and it has in common with law its efficacy and longevity, allowing it to survive administrative and cultural developments. As an expected and efficient pattern, it functions similarly to conversational codes, facilitating exchange and revealing sociocultural constructions of value, authority, authenticity, and truth. With their scarcity of narrative and ideological content, formulaic texts lay bare the mechanisms of a transaction. Repetitions of technical terminology, phrases, and syntactical structures, the consistency of layout and the positioning of clauses in relation to one another, the inclusion of phrases such as greetings and blessings that resemble speech in their orientation toward an addressee, are all features of the documents of the Prophet. The Prophet’s documents are littered throughout early Islamic historiographical sources such as Ibn Saʿd’s (d. 230/845) al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr or the Musnad of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855). Arabists have long noted that these texts are linguistically distinctive, and should be approached differently from the narrative reports that they are embedded in. Chaim Rabin categorizes the “official correspondence” of the Prophet and of the early caliphs along with early Arabic papyri as sources for classical Arabic, distinguishing all of these from pre-Islamic poetry, ḥadīth, and ayyām. 49 The grammatical and stylistic archaism of the Prophet’s documents is also noted by R. B. Serjeant, although he takes issue with the claims made in a subset of those documents, the famous letters to kings. 50 Some of the legal C. Rabin, “ʿArabiyya,” Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 1, eds. B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat, and J. Schacht, (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 565. Simon Hopkins, in his Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabia: Based upon papyri datable to before 300 A.H./912 A. D. London Oriental Series vol 31 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1984) xxxvii n. 1, states that Rabin’s distinction of ḥadīth from the Prophet’s correspondence is a matter of preference. 50 R. B. Serjeant, “Early Arabic Prose,” Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). The letters to kings are a sub-set of 49

18

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

and epistolary formulae of these texts have been compared to early Arabic papyri, by Adolf Grohmann 51 and by Werner Diem, 52 and the formulaic nature of the texts is referenced by Jothe corpus of the Prophet’s documents, and arguably the most wellknown of these texts, both in Islamic Studies and in contemporary popular culture. Early sīra-maghāzī and tārīkh sources such as Ibn Isḥāq’s (d. 150/767 or 151) Sīrat Rasūl Allāh as redacted by ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Hisham (d. 218/834 or 213) (Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed ibn Ishāk bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik ibn Hischām, 2 vols. (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1858–1860), Muhammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī’s (d. 207/823) Kitāb al-maghāzī (ed. Marsden Jones (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996)), Muḥammad b. Saʿd’s (d. 230/845) alṬabaqāt al-kabīr (ed. E. Sachau (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1904–40) I/ii:15– 16), Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb al-Yaʿqūbī’s (d. 284/897) Tārīkh (ed. M. Th. Houtsma (Leiden: Brill, 1883) II: 73–74), and Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī’s (d. 310/923) Tārīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk (Annales quos scripsit) (ed. M. J. de Goeje (Lugundi-Batavorum: Brill, 1879–1965) III: 1560–1600)) group these texts together, both temporally and thematically. The letters were sent to the Negus (of Abyssinia), Heraclius, Chosroes (II), al-Muqawqis (patriarch of Egypt), al-Mundhir b. Sāwā (in Baḥrayn), Hawdha b. ʿAlī al-Ḥanafī, al-Hārith b. Abī Shamr al-Ghassānī, and to Jayfar and ʿAbd the sons of Julandā. The sources vary in dating these missions. Ibn Saʿd reports that the group of six set out in the month of Muharram in 7 A.H. (Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:15). The letter to Jayfar and ʿAbd was sent in the month of Dhul Qaʿda in the year 8 A.H. (Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:18) and al-Mundhir’s letter is not dated. Al-Ṭabarī dates the six letters to kings to Dhul Hijja 6 A.H., reporting that the messengers to al-Muqawqis, Heraclius, and al-Ghassānī left together. He dates al-Mundhir’s letter to 8 A.H. (al-Ṭabarī, Annales, III:1600). 51 Adolf Grohmann, “Die Papyrologie in ihrer Beziehung zur arabischen Urkundenlehre,” Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung 19 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1934), 331–350. 52 Werner Diem, “Arabic Letters in Pre-Modern Times, A Survey with Commented Selected Bibliographies,” in Documentary Letters from the Middle East: The Evidence in Greek, Coptic, South Arabian, Pehlevi, and Arabic (1st–15th c. CE), eds. Andreas Kaplony and Eva Mira Grob (Bern: Lang, 2008): 843–883.

INTRODUCTION

19

seph Schacht as evidence for pre-classical Islamic formulations of the legal concepts of amān and dhimma. 53 Albrecht Noth states that the documents of the Prophet are historical, although he does not elaborate on this argument, his focus being the formulae in the Conquest-era documents also cited in early Islamic sources. 54 Formulae form the bulk of the content of the Prophet’s documents and serve as the building-blocks for these texts. Chapter 1, “Formulae,” will show that most of the documents exhibit very stable opening formulae, starting with the basmala, followed by an address or statement of the nature of the transaction and/or a greeting, and a transitional formula that introduces the body of the document. Each word and phrase in these opening sections is historically rich. A comparison of these texts with Umayyad and ʿAbbāsid papyri reveals that the Prophet’s documents reflect the earlier Arabic tradition and can be productively compared to older epistolary and legal corpora in Akkadian, Aramaic, and Sabaic. Variance

The formulae of the Prophet’s documents are not only consistent across the corpus of texts attributed to him, but are maintained through literary transmission. Chapter 2, “Variance,” provides a total of eleven documents, comparing a selection of their medieval redactions from sources dating to the third/ninth to the Joseph Schacht, “Amān,” Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 3, eds. B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat, and J. Schacht, (Leiden, 1991), 429–430. 54 Noth sees the occasions and basic texts of the Prophetical documents to be authentic. “Very early on in the history of Islam, people could and did express themselves in letters. This emerges from the important correspondence of the Prophet Muhammad, the authenticity of part of which can be contested in a number of details, but not fundamentally” (Albrecht Noth in collaboration with Lawrence I. Conrad, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-Critical Study, 2nd ed. trans. Michael Bonner (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 76). 53

20

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ninth/fifteenth centuries, in order to categorize the variants that are exhibited. This comparison shows that while some words may be swapped out for synonyms, and while the formulae themselves may be extended or contracted in one redaction or another, the differences are not formed of free-text but of formulaic text that is common to the corpus of the Prophet’s documents. Instead of comparison with other corpora, as in Chapter 1, this chapter uses a study of redactions to meet the same aim, to establish the existence of legal and administrative formulae in the Prophet’s documents. This study of variance shows not only that the formula as a unit is maintained in literary transmission but that the reason it is maintained is because it is a formula (and not because the transmission method is either oral or written or because the report is identified as something that “the Prophet said”). The formula as a building-block remains remarkably stable through textual transmission. One of the reasons for this stability is that the reproduction of these documents in textual transmission drew on long-term cultural memory of legal forms. The stability of these texts across redactions, and the longevity of the formulae, establish that documents found in literary transmission can yield archaic formulae drawing on customary law, and should not be dismissed as fictional material. Infrastructure

Chapter 3, “Dhimma agreements, sanctuary systems, and a case for Arabian customary law,” tracks how and where one legal clause is used in these documents in order to answer a historical question: what did dhimma mean as a legal term and what was its relation to confessional identity? This chapter shows that the Prophet’s documents exhibit a particular formulation of one clause, inna lahu/hum dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi, which is distinctive when compared to Conquest-era formulations, early Arabic papyri, and medieval Islamic legal theories of dhimma. Collecting and comparing the documents that feature this clause allow us to lay out what and who they are governing, and how. All of these documents are bi-lateral agreements or contracts.

INTRODUCTION

21

In the documents in which this clause occurs, the term dhimma does not refer to confessional identity or taxation, but a more antique concept of inviolability. It references not the idea or reality of Islamic polity, but the necessity of sanctuary complexes to socio-political networks of security in Arabia. This example illustrates the density of a given formula in these documents. The presence of this formula in relation to place-names in the documents makes visible existing networks of refuge and inviolability governed by a customary law facilitated by nonstate apparatuses. These networks are more salient to negotiations than centralized polity or theological constructs. This history of the dhimmat Allāh clause is also an entry point into longterm patterns established by mass movement and popular consensus, such as pilgrimage, markets, and refuge, which may well be non-state, pre-state apparatuses around which empires are forced to maneuver. These formulae are not expressions that are ascribed to earlier periods by later transmitters. They are embedded in and make visible particular socio-legal conventions and infrastructures. Their use and meaning are consistent across the corpus, and they obey their own internal logic, making them legible within a particular historical context and not in others. Persons

The same reports that can be collected in order to comparatively study formulae, to lay out variance via textual transmission, and to describe the larger, contextual socio-legal concerns that they refer to, also have personal, familial, and tribal histories embedded in them. These personal claims and memories fall into patterns that reveal several distinct social networks. 55 Scribes, mesThis attention toward the emotional and embodied contexts of the documents is inspired by a “sociology of texts” approach. This term for historicizing the inter-relationships between the physical histories and social uses of texts was made famous by D.F. Mckenzie’s 1985 Panizzi lectures, published as Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (Cam55

22

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

sengers, recipients, and readers of the documents are different groups of people. This more personal context is expressed via the language of materiality and intimacy with the Prophet, as individuals in these various networks, with their distinct roles in producing and consuming these texts, speak about what these texts were made out of, how they were handled, where they were kept, how they were displayed and discarded. Writing is an everyday technology formed by mundane media, and not only the means of a literary and intellectual culture. The products of an intellectual culture are, at their most necessary and basic level, purely technical and artisanal. Whatever traces we have of documents, even if they are just a set of formulaic phrases or references to tanned leather, these are the traces left by otherwise unnoticed and often unnamed historical actors, leather-workers, stone-masons, ink-makers, and scribes. This final chapter, “A popular material culture of ḥadīth,” re-organizes the reports on these documents so that the material and emotional subtexts are more visible. This is in keeping with the approach of the previous three chapters in its emphasis on how these documents are technological artifacts. They are produced via skillful application of learned norms and manual labor, which make them instantly physically and socially recognizable and legible to their audiences. These were socially valuable and popular objects, but, somewhat alien to our current documentary and academic cultures and to an epistemology which privileges abstract text, not primarily as texts but in their tactile and visual features, as physical objects.

CONCLUSION: FORMULA AS TECHNOLOGY

While the chapters “Formulae” and “Variance” assess the primacy and stability of the formulae in the corpus of the Prophet’s documents as a whole, the latter chapters on “Infrastructure” bridge: Cambridge UP, 1999). See also Jerome McGann, A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago: Chicago UP, 1983) for a sociological rather than intentionalist approach to textual criticism.

INTRODUCTION

23

and “Persons” describe why and how the formulae circulated. Altogether, these chapters do not try to give an exhaustive argument for what all of these documents do or even an exhaustive treatment of any single document, nor do they give a coherent picture of all the administrative, legal, and diplomatic acts of the Prophet’s era. The documents themselves exhibit little in the way of ideology or theology, although their use in historical narratives and in ḥadīth can be oriented toward those interests. Even reference to and citation of Qurʾanic text occur in but a small fraction of the documents attributed to the Prophet. This material, found at the “origins” of Islam and fraught due to its intimacy with the Prophet and current claims of their preservation and utility for interfaith relations, 56 should be put in conversation with documentary and archaeological evidence from the Ancient Near East and Arabia. The result is a decoupling of these texts from studies and narratives of the person of the Prophet, casting preIslamic Arabia and its participation in circulating legal and diplomatic conventions not as context and background to the drama of early Islam, but as the central subject in light of which early material on the Prophet is sensible. Rather than the character of early Islam, this book establishes the mass circulation and appeal of the language, media, and forms that the Prophet’s documents use, how the documents The Prophet’s documents are more than texts and their uses and circulation more than just textual. Memory, nostalgia, and claims to real legal and social benefits contribute to their truth-value and motivate their copying and physical survival. In this way, they are representative of something more and other than a collective movement to verbally represent actions of the Prophet. They are also physical objects that are still preserved and displayed in modernity. The relationship of these artifacts with the medieval literary redactions, and their self-conscious inclusion of additional textual elements, make these relics a particularly interesting study of copies and how the functionality of copies can rely on effects other than accurate representations of “originals.” See Sarah Mirza, “Copies More Authentic than Originals.”

56

24

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

are conventional, pragmatic, and mundane, and how they maintain a register of everyday transactions which survives compilation and redaction. As such, these documents are an entry point into mass culture and into a phenomenology of law and of ḥadīth, in which neither law nor ḥadīth are textual products or limited in circulation and effect to Muslims or to scholars. This approach allows us to look into what law facilitates rather than what law says, to trace a history of legal custom that is distinct from an investigation into the intellectual history and legal theory of Islamic law. This does not allow a reconstruction of law as applied comprehensively in a society, but does allow us to examine the legal value and context of transactions as evident in their formulaic structures. The simplicity of the formulae in the Prophet’s documents, and their comparability to extant and datable legal and administrative corpora, attest to their functionality in facilitating everyday socio-legal transactions between individuals and groups. A comparison of these formulae with those in other languages that influenced or circulated in late antique Arabia is not meant to substantiate the Islamic literary sources as historically accurate but to open up the kinds of historical questions that we can pose of this material. Neither is this a historical linguistics approach or an argument for language contact, both of which are beyond my scope. Instead, it is an exhibition of the longevity of formulaic text, retained through transmission in literary sources over hundreds of years, and as an artifact of legal customs, documentary traditions, and material culture that can be tracked within and sometimes across languages, societies, and time. The formula is a technology that moves via and suggests cultural contact, and is much older than the historical agents across whom it works and is transmitted. 57 As a communication This approach is informed by the emphasis given in the Annales school to long-term developments and networks that leave traces in habitual behaviors, rather than on events or figures as primary historical agents. It is also informed by an interest in the history of materials

57

INTRODUCTION

25

technology, formulae are the products and traces of everyday customs developed through repeated use, not bounded by identities or states.

and forms that make behaviors possible, allowing historians to plot not events but technologies, as emblematized in the work of Friedrich Kittler and a branch of German media theory called “cultural techniques.” For brief English-language introductions to “cultural techniques,” see Geoffrey Winthrop-Young, “Cultural Techniques: Preliminary Remarks,” Theory, Culture, and Society 30/6 (2013): 3–19 and Bernhard Siegert, “Cultural Techniques: Or the End of the Intellectual Postwar Era in German Media Theory,” Theory, Culture and Society 30/6 (2013): 48– 65.

CHAPTER 1. FORMULAE Salām ‘alā man ittabaʿa al-hudā Peace be on the one who follows the right guidance

THE FORMULA EXISTS

Although the documents of the Prophet occur as inserted material in historical compilations, they are not merely ancillary to narratives of the Prophet’s life and of the development of early Islam. That the formulaic content found in these texts can be compared to documentary evidence from early Arabic papyri has already been established by Adolf Grohmann. 1 Grohmann found the use in the Prophet’s documents of the invocation bismika Allāhumma, the basmala, the ḥamdala greeting (innī aḥmadu ilayka Allāh…), and the salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā greeting to be consistent with first/seventh and second/eighth century Arabic papyri. 2 In 2008 Werner Diem suggested a re-construction of preIslamic formularies based on the Prophet’s documents. 3 Comparing the introductory greeting formulae of the Prophet’s docuAdolf Grohmann, “Die Papyrologie in ihrer Beziehung zur arabischen Urkundenlehre,” Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung 19 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1934), 331–350. 2 Grohmann, “Die Papyrologie,” 335. 3 Muhammad Hamidullah, Majmūʿat al-wathāʾiq al-siyāsīya li-l-ʿahd alnabawī wa-l-khilāfa al-rāshida (Cairo: Matbaʿat lajnat al-taʾlīf wa-ltarjama wa-l-nashr, 1956). 1

27

28

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ments to those in first/seventh and second/eighth century Arabic papyri, Diem finds that the Prophet’s documents resemble but do not fully match Umayyad and ʿAbbāsid era conventions. It is these points of resemblance but not correspondence that suggest to Diem that the formulae of the Prophet’s documents reflect conventions of the Prophet’s time. Diem asserts, “Even if the historicity of the letters ascribed to the Prophet Muḥammad is questionable or uncertain, they might nevertheless reflect epistolary conventions of early Islam and the decades before.” 4 His work has stressed that the Prophet’s documents are not simply reproducing Umayyad-era formulae. In his source-critical work, Albrecht Noth characterizes documents cited in Islamic literary sources as being composed of “formal elements” that can be ascribed to the “early [Arabic historiographical] tradition as a whole,” rather than to a compiler or a school. It is underneath these formal elements that we can look for “individual traits of the reports.” 5 It is worth considering whether the formal elements of documents in literary transmission may well be the more archaic material. The abundance of formulaic text in these documents ascribed to the early period, as well as the correspondence between the formulae and those found in more ancient legal and diplomatic traditions, encourage us to conceptualize early Arabic historiography as the product of text-building using pre-existing materials, rather than as the product of compiling and composing through free manipulation of oral and written sources. If we put the Prophet’s documents under the template formed by Eva Grob for parsing early Arabic papyri letters, they Werner Diem, “Arabic Letters in Pre-Modern Times, A Survey with Commented Selected Bibliographies,” in Documentary Letters from the Middle East: the Evidence in Greek, Coptic, South Arabian, Pehlevi, and Arabic (1st–15th c. CE), eds. Andreas Kaplony and Eva Mira Grob (Bern: Lang, 2008), 858. 5 Albrecht Noth in collaboration with Lawrence I. Conrad, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-Critical Study, 2nd ed. trans. Michael Bonner (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) 62. 4

1. FORMULAE

29

fit comfortably, showcasing the density of formulaic text and how recognizable those formulae are. Grob describes the formulaic nature of Arabic papyri letters from the first to fourth centuries A.H.:: Medieval Arabic private and business letters exhibit to a greater or lesser degree, structures that are evocative of “building-blocks.” These units are self-contained and are arranged into larger entities following particular templates that follow a conventional order: The letter itself is a unity consisting of different obligatory and optional parts with clearly marked boundaries, even though the different parts are related and interact. The building-blocks themselves also consist of different parts, both obligatory and optional, independent and dependent ones. 6

Grob sees the formulary as an algorithm, consisting of fixed blocks or sections, which are filled with slots that contain expressions or formulae which are speech-acts, with clearly marked boundaries. These expressions can exhibit variant wording, even within the same letter or in letters by the same senders. Grob categorizes the slots as either obligatory and optional, but notes that this terminology does not mean that there is a format par excellence for all Arabic letters, that obligatory refers to slots found in the majority of letters, and optional does not equate with nonfunctional. 7 The entire structure of Arabic papyri letters is one of marking discourse, not just through the use of conjunctions (wa- or fa-), but through heavy coding, introductory and religious formulae, and sub-structures following the topiccomment sequence common in Arabic discourse. 8 Grob’s temEva Mira Grob, “Information Packaging in Arabic Private and Business Letters (8th to 13th c. C.E.): Templates, Slots and a Cascade of Reduction and Rearrangement,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007, ed. Traianos Gagos (Ann Arbor: American Studies in Papyrology, 2010): 277–290, at 278. 7 Ibid., 283 n. 19. 8 Grob defines heavy coding as “linguistic clusters with strong interweaving of single parts. These entities exhibit markedness in terms of the 6

30

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

plate for the formulae of early Arabic papyri letters will form the methodology for categorizing formulaic text in the Prophet’s documents.

COMPARING THE PROPHET’S CORPUS TO CONQUEST-ERA DOCUMENTS AND ARABIC PAPYRI: A PROFILE

If we compare the Prophet’s documents to Grob’s survey of all edited Arabic private and business letters on papyrus (1st/7th4th/10th c.), they follow her division into sections with slots filled with formulae, in a sequence that forms the layout or formulary. It is important to note that the contours of convention in Grob’s material are traced by the formulary itself, not the particular wording of any expression. That is, sections are fixed, not the formulae within them, which show great variation in use but draw on a pool of common formulations. When it comes to documents attributed to the Conquest period in Islamic historiography, Wadād al-Qāḍī has noted the relationships between futūḥ documents in literary transmission and first/seventh century Arabic papyri, including shared formulae such as the construction of the address and the greeting salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā. 9 Al-Qāḍī also finds that these futūḥ documents are relatively consistent in following the same

following criteria: (1) structural complexity, (2) frequency distribution, and (3) cognitive complexity.” Examples in Arabic papyri letters are the use of a more morphologically complex structure such as kitābī hādhā rather than al-kitāb, and parenthetical elements such as slide-inblessings, direct address of the addressee, and oaths. Eva Mira Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters on Papyrus: Form and Function, Content and Context Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 29 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 137–138. 9 Wadād al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal ilā dirāsat ʿuhūd al-ṣulḥ al-islāmiyya zaman al-futūḥ,” in The Acts of the Fourth International Conference on the History of Bilād al-Shām, vol. 2, eds. Muḥammad ʿAdnān al-Bakhīt and Ḥasan ʿAbbās (Amman: Jāmiʿat al-Urdunīya, 1987): 193–269, at 203–204.

1. FORMULAE

31

basic formulary. 10 Conquest-era documents share several formulae with the Prophet’s documents. There is less overlap between the Prophet’s documents and Umayyad-era letters in literary transmission, which appear to be highly expository. In those collected by Muḥammad Māhir Ḥamādah, for example, thirteen out of some eight hundred texts are letters that include some formulae. These formulae do match with the opening and closing elements of the Prophet’s corpus, such as the opening: basmala + address + greeting + doxology + transition. 11 The legal documents in literary transmission are more formulaic; for example, an amān document from Mukhātir b. Abī ʿUbayd to ʿAmr b. Saʿd b. Abī Waqqās shares some formulae with the Prophet’s corpus and has a comparable formulary. 12 For the purposes of presenting the formulae found in the bulk of the Prophet’s documents, a single collection will be used, the 1954 Cairo edition of Hamidullah’s Majmūʿat al-wathāʾiq alsiyāsiyya li-l-ʿahd al-nabawī wa-l-khilāfa al-rāshida. All references to this collection, given in parentheses, use his number system. If a distinctive version of a formula appears linked to the occasion and addressee of the document, or the document is a particularly well-known text, this will be noted in the parentheses. This survey includes only those texts in Hamidullah’s collection that are transmitted in medieval Arabic literary sources. It excludes the handful of artifacts included by Hamidullah, such as the letters to kings now found in museums, with one exception. The document to Khaybar from the Cairo Geniza 13 is included in Al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal,” 222–223. Muḥammad Māhir Ḥamādah, al-Wathāʾiq al-siyāsiyya wa-l-idariyya alʿāʾida li-l-ʿaṣr al-umawī (Beirut: Muʿassasat al-Risāla 1394/1974). Formulae appear in nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 110, 127, 115, 223, 239, 288, 390. 12 Ḥamādah, al-Wathāʾiq al-siyāsiyya, no. 377. 13 Hamidullah, al-Wathāʾiq, no. 34 is a transcription of University of Cambridge Library, T-S 16.353 (formerly T-S 8Ka.1). The Cairo Genizah document was published by Hartwig Hirschfield, “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, 15/2 (1903): 167–181. 10 11

32

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

this survey of formulae because this text and its physical copies are also mentioned in Chapters 3 and 4. The following chapter on “Variance” will show, through comparing a number of medieval redactions of a given document, that these formulae are not the wording of a single redactor or literary trend or school. Instead, the formula survives as an integral unit across redactions, and variance in the wording, when it occurs, still takes the formula as a base, shortening or extending it with other formulaic text, swapping out single words for synonyms, or omitting the formula altogether. The presentation in this Chapter, following the sequence of slots for formulae as they occur in the documents, is intended to emphasize that there is a basic layout or formulary followed by each document and that each slot in the formulary features formulae, a distinctive set of phrases whose legal and political force draws on long histories of cross-linguistic chancery practice. As Noth notes concerning futūḥ-era documents, these formulae are not fixed and feature variance in their usage. Here, the data is organized similarly to the format undertaken by Diem (who also uses Hamidullah’s collection as a source for the formulae of the Prophet’s documents). Each slot is populated with a formula that occurs as a basic set of phrases that is shortened, extended, or occurs with variant wording for one or two elements. The position of the formula, and its linguistic features and vocabulary, can be compared to other corpora. The section in this Chapter on “Commonly found formulae” presents those formulae that occur commonly throughout the corpus of the Prophet’s documents. There are also formulae particular to certain types of documents which also occur with consistency and can be productively compared to early Arabic papyri, and the latter sections in this Chapter (on select legal formulae, including formulas of conveyance, sale, and manumission), as well as the case study on the dhimmat Allāh formula in Chapter 3, address some of these more particular formulae of interest to the context of legal custom. All of the formulae found across the corpus are thus not exhaustively covered here. As noted in our discussion of the sale document given to alʿAddāʾ b. Khālid, it may well be that these documents are trun-

1. FORMULAE

33

cated, that several formulae, even sections, of these cited texts are missing, especially given that certain sections are overrepresented in the profile of the Prophet’s documents resulting from this survey: the prescript, opening and closing greetings, and scribal clause. The possibly truncated nature of these texts does not allow a full comparison to other corpora in order to explore a history of legal clauses. However, the existing material is sufficient for a study of formulae and the formulaic nature of the texts; the extremely short text of al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid b. Hawdha, after all, contains a density of information, especially if we remember that layout and structure as well as relationships with other formulae in the document all compose information. Repetitions of key terms and phrases within documents are productive and substantial, and these repetitions are often found in the Prophet’s documents. Even if clauses are missing, there is still a great deal of form to analyze. Providing a profile of the formulae and formulary of the Prophet’s documents allows a comparison to datable Arabic documents. The goal of the comparison is not to identify historical origins but approximate historicity, and only for the formulaic elements of the Prophet’s documents. This can be plotted thanks to the radical changes seen in legal and epistolary formulae in Arabic papyri from the third/ninth century. The “watershed shift” 14 saw the introduction of entirely new formularies and more elaborate formulae in Arabic legal and epistolary documents from Egypt, developments which were parallel to, although not a continuation of, Byzantine Greek and Coptic documentary traditions (Appendix 1, 1.6). These developments include the warranty clause, validity clause, and autograph witness clauses, which can be traced to the efforts of Islamic legal scholars developing literature on such formularies (shurūṭ), in Geoffrey Khan, “The Historical Development of Early Arabic Documentary Formulae,” in Scribes as Agents of Language Change, Studies in Language Change 10, eds. Esther-Miriam Wagner, Ben Outhwaite, and Bettina Beinhoff (Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2013): 199–215, at 202.

14

34

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Iraq of the first half of the second Islamic century, drawing on elements from local legal traditions. 15 Changes in epistolary formulae in the third Islamic century may also be traced to developments in ʿAbbāsid court ritual. 16 Eva Grob remarks that this shift should not be treated as strictly temporal, since documents both before and after the turn of the third/ninth century maintain pre-watershed features. Instead she offers an understanding of the shift as typological, referring to a type of increased cursiveness in script and the loss of the entire prescript (the introductory section formed by the basmala, address, and greeting) and its replacement by the initial blessings slot (Figure 1). 17 Grob notes that Arabic papyri show that pieces of the prescript are not lost gradually over time, but that the entirety of the prescript is dropped and replaced with new formulae. The nature of this shift remains particularly significant to a comparison with the Prophet’s documents, which show persistent use of the prescript. This survey of Hamidullah’s corpus shows that formularies and formulae are shared across the Prophet’s corpus and that some formulae are common to a majority of the Prophet’s documents. These common formulae are: the prescript (formed by the basmala, the monumental opening, the placement of the address directly after the basmala, and an initial greeting featuring phrases using s-l-m); the ammā baʿdu transition marker; and a stand-alone scribal formula. The inclusion of the entire prescript is distinctive of pre-watershed Arabic papyri letters. 18 The monumental opening and scribal clause distinguish the Prophet’s documents from Arabic private and business letters, but do find parallels in early Arabic official letters and legal Khan, “Historical Development,” 202. See also Geoffrey Khan, “The Pre-Islamic Background of Muslim Legal Formularies,” Aram 6 (1994): 193–224, where he traces some formulae to pre-Islamic Syriac and Jewish Aramaic. 16 Khan, “Historical Development,” 210. 17 Grob, Documentary Arabic and Private Business Letters, 41–42, 82–83. 18 Ibid., 39. 15

1. FORMULAE

35

documents. These features are also distinctive of the early Arabic documentary tradition, in contrast to documents in Coptic and Byzantine Greek. Scribal clauses, another consistent element of the Prophet’s corpus, are rare in early Arabic papyri letters from the first to fourth Islamic centuries, with the important exception of the Qurra corpus, whose scribal clauses match those in the Prophet’s corpus. In addition, stand-alone scribal clauses are a feature of Sabaic and Minaic letters. The formularies of the Prophet’s documents are also in stark contrast with ʿAbbāsid-era legal documents with their intricate nature, multiple warranty clauses, and autograph witness clauses (Appendix 1, 2.4). 19 Significantly, these elements never filter into redactions of the Prophet’s documents, which have a profile matching only the early Arabic epistolary and legal tradition. The formulae of the Prophet’s documents thus resemble both the formulae of Conquest-era agreements cited in literary sources and pre-watershed Arabic papyri, but they also retain some distinctive elements (Appendix 1, 1.1–1.5). In contrast to the elaborate expressions found in ʿAbbāsidera documents, the early Arabic papyri, as well as documents cited in the earliest Arabic historiographical sources, are free of certain types of literary influence. Grob points out, for example, that early Arabic letters on papyri lacked literary models which were developed in epistolary manuals starting in the fourth/tenth century. 20 Genre is an important distinction here. The Prophet’s land conveyances and Conquest-era treaties are not epistles. They have nothing in common with, for example, Ibn al-Athīr’s five pillars of the worthy epistle, 21 or even ʿAbd alSee for example Gladys Frantz-Murphy’s series of five articles on Arabic contracts from the third/ninth to fifth/eleventh centuries, starting with “A Comparison of the Arabic and Earlier Egyptian Contract Formularies, Part I: The Arabic Contracts from Egypt (3d/9th–5th/11th Centuries,” JNES 40/3 (July 1981): 203–225. 20 Grob, Documentary Arabic and Private Business Letters, 126. 21 These include an elegant and original opening to the letter, salutations and invocations derived from the theme of the letter, interlinking 19

36

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Ḥamīd b. Yaḥyā’s (d. 132/750) letters written while in the chancery of Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 105–25/723–42) and of Marwān b. Muḥammad b. Marwān (r. 126–132/744–750). ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd’s letters include proclamations on subjects such as civil discord and obedience, private letters concerning emotional ties and family, and business on behalf of the caliph. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd represents the transition into new stylistic norms, and Wadād alQāḍī notes the extent of his influence on the ʿAbbāsid secretaries, including the fashion of prolixity in chancery letters. 22

LONGEVITY OF LEGAL FORMULAE, OR, THE PRE-ISLAMIC CHANCERY REGISTER EXISTS

We can identify a type of evidence, formulaic content, in the medieval Islamic literary sources, which can be contextualized with documentary evidence and evidence for other influential social processes that leave linguistic traces, such as diplomacy, law, and custom. The formula is the basic unit constructing these texts, and its productivity destabilizes modern conceptions of authorship as singular and a document as an original creation. In this context, it is more appropriate to consider the author of these documents to be the documentary or chancery tradition, and the formula as an agent of the tradition. The formula mobilizes and acts on persons.

of each idea, and the inclusion of at least one rhetorical concept from the Qur’an or ḥadīth and are given in al-Mathal al-sāʾir fī adab al-kātib wa-l-shāʿir. See the discussion of these elements by Adrian Gully, The Culture of Letter-Writing in Pre-Modern Islamic Societies (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2008) 133. 22 Wadād al-Qāḍī, “Early Islamic State Letters: The Question of Authenticity,” in The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East: Problems in the Literary Source Material (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam I) eds. Averil Cameron and Lawrence I. Conrad (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1992): 215–75, at 223, 242.

1. FORMULAE

37

Legal formulae are pragmatically valuable, characteristically tenacious, and may survive, across languages, for centuries. 23 John Wansbrough, for example, tracked formulae such as the satisfaction/remuneration clause in conveyance documents across three millennia. 24 Commenting on the multilingual situation of Syria-Palestine during the time of Jesus, Holger Gzella offers the concept of considering language use according to purposes and textual genres rather than as composing uniform “native tongues.” Property contracts in both Aramaic and Hebrew reflect the same legal tradition; also “functional words” in Aramaic textual corpora, words that tend to be used in daily discourse, suggest that Aramaic may have been pragmatically prominent. Aramaic may thus have been the default language for legal transactions, but literary texts were written bilingually (e.g. the Book of Daniel). Studies in contact linguistics also support the idea of language diversity according to use. 25 Formularies are thus moving around the Mediterranean region and must be travelling with something else, such as influential families, diplomacy, and trade. 26 Personal communication, H. Gzella, 5 Aug. 2009. Though distinct from formulae, legal practice in the Ancient Near East also shows some evidence for long-term continuity. Bruce Wells comments on the conservativeness of law by noting that practices from the third millennium “regularly reappear throughout the second and even well into the first.” Bruce Wells, “Law and Practice,” in A Companion to the Ancient Near East, ed. Daniel C. Snell (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 190. 24 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 124. 25 Holger Gzella, “Hebrew: Literary Language or Vernacular?” (Lecture, Leiden University, 5 Aug 2009). 26 “Silent trade” may be seen as part of a larger inter-cultural “language” and tradition of trade. Michael Bonner discusses the tradition of wordless trade at the pre-Islamic annual market of ʿUkāẓ. The earliest example of an account of “silent trade” is found in Herodotus’ description of the Carthaginian traders on the coast of West Africa. Michael Bonner, “The Arabian Silent Trade: Profit and Nobility in the Markets of the Arabs,” in Histories of the Middle East: Studies in Middle Eastern 23

38

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

A comparison of the formulary of the Prophet’s documents with Grob’s structures for pre-watershed Arabic letters strikingly shows that the entire prescript is not only maintained in the majority of the Prophet’s documents but that the set of formulae forming the prescript are the most frequently found in the Prophet’s documents (the other most frequently found slot being the scribal clause, which is not a feature of early Arabic papyri letters). According to Grob, the prescript is “indigenous Arab.” 27 It is distinctive of medieval Arabic epistolography in comparison to surrounding cultures such Coptic, Greek in the Arabic period, Bactrian, South Arabian, and Pahlavi. 28 Other characteristic features of the Prophet’s documents, for example the consistent application of the amma baʿdu transition marker which is not found in the Greek of early bilingual Arabic/Greek papyri, 29 indicate that these texts are not simply drawing on conventions from surrounding cultures such as Byzantine Greek. Geoffrey Khan has argued that these cultures became local to Muslim administration following the Conquests, but they maintained parallel rather than merged administrative and epistolary traditions. 30 Khan’s work comparing the formularies of first/seventh and second/eighth century Arabic legal documents from Egypt and Afghanistan with those in Hebrew and Aramaic supports an argument for the existence of a local Semitic chancery tradition, probably shared through oral exchange. Khan argues that the tradition apparent in the early Arabic papyri was brought by the Arabs to the conquered regions. Rather than reflecting the adopSociety, Economy and Law in Honor of A. L. Udovitch, eds. Roxani Eleni Margariti, Adam Sabra, and Petra M. Sijpesteijn (Leiden: Brill, 2010): 23–51. 27 Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 207. 28 Ibid., 39. 29 Raffaele Luiselli, “Greek Letters on Papyrus First to Eighth Centuries: a Survey,” in eds. Kaplony and Grob, Documentary Letters from the Middle East, 697. 30 Khan, “The Historical Development,” 201.

1. FORMULAE

39

tion of local legal and epistolary traditions such as Byzantine Greek, Coptic, or Bactrian, its parallels are found in pre-Islamic legal traditions from the Near East, particularly in Aramaic and Hebrew. 31 The distinctive features of the Prophet’s documents are systematic enough to show their participation in a functional legal custom. This custom has both distinctively Arabian elements as well as its closest parallels in pre-Islamic legal traditions in the Near East. The use of stereotypical formulae in the Prophet’s documents is thus evidence for their participation in existing legal, diplomatic, and administrative traditions, including crosscultural applicability. This is not meant to be an argument for the origins of law or for the influences on what becomes Islamic law, but for the legal validity of the Prophet’s documents evinced through the familiarity and efficiency of their formulae. This argument corresponds with Wansbrough’s thesis, in his Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean, on the existence of a selfperpetuating infrastructure which is enshrined in chancery practice and mobilized for communication. Wansbrough traces this process through the replacement of Aramaic, and then of Greek and Latin, by Arabic, as lingua franca in the Mediterranean.

COMMONLY FOUND FORMULAE

The formulaic elements found in the Prophet’s documents can be productively parsed according to Grob’s terminology for Arabic papyrus letters. The stereotypical formulary and formulae employed by them is as follows (those formulae found in the majority of the documents are starred):

Khan, “The Historical Development.” Such parallels include the witness clause shahida fulān ʿalā nafsihi and the term barāʾa (clearance from a legal claim) (Khan, “Historical Development” 202). 31

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

prescript

40

*basmala, given in full

*opening or address, monumental format, Prophet as sender named first

greeting, salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā

doxology, ḥamdala formula

transition marker, ammā baʿdu body, descriptive clauses

closing greeting, wa-l-salām type

witness clause, shahida fulān (typically several names) *scribal clause, wa-kataba fulān

Opening/Introductory

(invocation section, slot filled by religious formula, optional further specification) 1 basmala 1.1 generally bismi llāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm is used to open the document 1.1.1 shortened version: bismika llāhumma (11 Ḥudaybiyya, 189) 1.1.2 variant placement, the traditional formula but following the address: (65 ʿāmil Kisrā, 93 Najrān). 1.1.2.1 longer version and variant placement, following the address: bismi llāh Ibrāhīm wa-Isḥāq wa-Yaʿqūb (93 Najrān) The initial placement of this formula, prior to both address and greeting formulae, in the Prophet’s documents, is historically significant. Conquest-era documents in literary sources also have the full basmala formula at the head of the document, followed

1. FORMULAE

41

by naming the issuers and recipients of the contract or treaty. 32 In Arabic papyri, this formula is a prominent and highly visible feature of the watershed shift in epistolary practice in the third/ninth century, when its placement is moved in order to follow the address. Exceptions occur in high level official correspondence, which continued the old epistolary tradition of featuring the basmala at the head of the document prior to the address as late as the Fatimid period. 33 The initial placement of the basmala is therefore conservative and associated with administrative documents in the Arabic tradition. Wansbrough treats this formula as prayer or blessing (invocatio). He finds that its location at the head of the text, with the prayer oriented toward the sender rather than the addressee as beneficiary, distinguishes the formula as monotheist and distinct from the pre-Christian invocation of the deity on behalf of the addressee found in Egyptian, Aramaic, and Greek documents. An “[e]mblem of (divine) authority, the formula is also a cultural symbol, its effect the product of position and design.” 34 The initial placement and graphic design of the basmala immediately visually convey authority, which is one of the functions of official documents (Figure 1). 2 address (reference to writing section, slots filled by obligatory reference to addressee using personal names, and optional legal terminology for document and repetition of reference to writing, and optional reference to God or Prophet’s status) Except for the two exceptions noted above (65; 93), the address immediately follows the basmala. 2.1 generally the address is min Muḥammadi rasūli llāh ilā fulān (15, 21, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 42, 51, 53/‫ﺍ‬, 59, 60/‫ﺍ‬, 66, Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 64. Geoffrey Khan, Arabic Papyri: Selected Material from the Khalili Collection (London: The Nour Foundation, 1992) 127. 34 John Wansbrough, Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1996) 99–100. 32 33

42

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET 66/‫ﺍ‬, 68, 72, 76, 80, 91, 93, 95, 104/‫ﺝ‬, 109, 110/‫ﺝ‬, 116, 132/‫ﺍ‬, 133, 139, 176, 179, 195, 202, 206, 233, 234)

The letters to kings (except 22 to the Najāshī) start without the demonstrative pronoun, using this epistolary official formula. 2.2 monumental opening with demonstrative pronoun, with some subtypes including a term referring to the legal status of the document hādhā kitāb min Muḥammad (1 ʿAhd al-Umma, 22 Najāshī, 70, 72/‫ﺍ‬, 78, 111, 113, 121, 124, 134, 137, 153, 159, 166, 173, 174, 175, 182, 185, 186, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 203, 217, 244) hādhā kitāb amān (96 Najrān) hādhā ‘ahd min Muḥammad. . . ilā (104/‫)ﺍ‬ hādhā amān min Muḥammad….li-fulān (31) hādhā bayān mini llāh wa-rasūlihi (105 and 106 taxation instructions to ʿAmr b. Ḥazm) 2.2.1 extended version that identifies God rather than Prophet as sender: hādhā l-kitāb mini llāhi l-ʿazīz ʿalā lisān rasūlihi bi-ḥaqq ṣādiq wa-kitāb nāṭiq maʿa… li-fulān (157) 2.2.2 extended version including the verb kataba: hādhā mā kataba Muḥammad… li-fulān (94 Najrān) hādhā kitāb katabahu Muḥammad (69, 97) hādhā kitāb min Muḥammad… li-fulān kataba (181) 2.2.3 beginning with the demonstrative but employing an operative verb rather than noun referring to legal status and type of document: hādhā mā ṣālaḥa ʿalayhi (11) hādhā mā aʿṭā Muḥammad… li-fulān (17, 89, 154, 155, 163, 164/‫ﺍ‬, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 215, 216, 223, 229, 230, 231) hādhā mā anṭā Muḥammad (45 Tamīm al-Dārī) hādhā mā fāda Muḥammad (243/‫)ﺍ‬ 2.2.4 extended version with demonstrative pronoun, noun, and operative verb:

1. FORMULAE

43

hādhā kitāb dhukira fīhi mā wahaba Muḥammad (43) 2.3 basic form without demonstrative pronoun but beginning with a noun: kitāb Muḥammadi rasūli llāh li-fulān (222) dhikr mā aʿṭā Muḥammad (18) 2.4 without mention of Muḥammad or sender: hādhā kitāb li-fulān (141) This characteristic opening formula which begins with a demonstrative pronoun and self-reference to the document, whether with a verb or noun which can be repeated, finds several parallels in ancient documentary practices. It shares some elements with the ancient messenger-formula which begins with the phrase “Thus says…”. The messenger formula is found in cuneiform Akkadian and Ugaritic official correspondence. In some Middle Assyrian documents the term referring to the message itself (awat/amat/abat meaning “word”; ṭuppi meaning “tablet”; Ugaritic tḥm and Akkadian ṭēmu rendered “message”) was inserted into the construct along with the name of the sender. More common was an adverbial use of umma/enma (“thus” or “say/said…”). 35 In Akkadian letters an address to a superior party would run for example: “To the King of the land of Ugarit, my lord, speak. Message (umma) to Taguḫli, your servant.” 36 In Akkadian and Ugaritic the messenger-formula is accompanied by an address to the messenger or receiving scribe, and while the messenger-formula eventually disappears from the cuneiform tradition, inflexions of the verb “to speak” remain for centuries and may reflect instructions to the message-carrier. 37 Both of these elements, the self-reference to the document and inflexions

Ibid., 100. William M. Schniedewind and Joel H. Hunt, A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture, and Literature (New York: Cambridge UP, 2007) 43 n. 4. 37 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 100. 35 36

44

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

of “to speak,” do not survive in the later Semitic tradition in Phoenician, Aramaic, or Hebrew correspondence. 38 Early and Middle Sabaic documents also feature an address formula with self-reference to the document. Early Sabaic letters feature an opening self-referencing verbal sentence, “PN [sender] has written to PN2 [addressee],” and at the end of the early Sabaic period (fifth to fourth centuries B.C.E.) this formula shifts from a verbal to nominal phrase, referencing the document with the word ṭbyt, “message.” 39 In Ancient South Arabian legal documents this slot can feature an initial demonstrative pronoun, 40 and here we begin to get closer to the address formula in the Prophet’s documents. The use, in legal documents, of an opening self-referencing formula that begins with a demonstrative pronoun is also typical of Nabataean tomb inscriptions. These inscriptions, which function as legal documents protecting the tomb, commonly begin with the phrase dnh kprʾ (“This Ibid., 97–98. Most forms of the address in surviving Aramaic letters (official and private, mostly from Egypt), where the names are given rather than implied, give the addressee first. Naming the sender first is not unknown however, and examples are found mostly in the Arsames correspondence written in Mesopotamia or Persia. Joseph Fitzmeyer, “Aramaic Epistolography,” Semeia 22 (1981) 31–32. 39 As in X.BSB 98 (=Mon.script.sab 38) in Peter Stein, “Correspondence by Letter and Epistolary Formulae in Ancient South Arabia,” in Eva Mira Grob and Andreas Kaplony, eds. Documentary Letters from the Middle East: the Evidence in Greek, Coptic, South Arabian, Pehlevi, and Arabic (1st–15th c. CE) (Bern: Lang, 2008) 783. The word for “message” here also seems to have an oral component. Stein suggests the root ṭ-b-b, “teach, proclaim, judge,” for ṭbyt. (Stein, “Correspondence,” 781). 40 Khan, “Historical Development,” 202; X.BSB 48 (= Mon.script.sab. 345), X.BSB 49 (= Mon.script.sab.423), X.BSB 50 (= Mon.script.sab 582) in Peter Stein, Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München, Band 1 Die Inschriften der mittel- und spätsabäischen Periode. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel Band 5 (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 2010) 192–198. 38

1. FORMULAE

45

tomb…”). 41 Robert Hoyland notes the importance of this opening formula for the Arabic tradition. It is found as early as the 640s in early Arabic/Greek bilingual papyri, where the formula occurs only in the Arabic text (such as PERF 558 dated 22/643, and P.Nessana 56), as well as in Arabic documents from Khurasan, and early Islamic milestones, buildings, and graffiti. Hoyland considers this formula indicative of a pre-Conquest legal tradition exemplified by the opening formulae of Nabataean tomb inscriptions. 42 While this monumental opening is common in the Nabataean tomb inscriptions, it is rarely found in contemporary Syriac and Jewish Aramaic tomb inscriptions. 43 This self-referencing with initial demonstrative pronoun formula is distinctive when compared to Grob’s survey of Arabic papyri letters, and suggests a legal rather than epistolary typology for the Prophet’s documents. Grob notes that the messengerformula is not found in any Arabic papyrus letters. 44 But this formula in the Prophet’s documents does find parallels in Umayyad-era official letters and legal documents. In second Islamic century official documents from both Khurāsān and Egypt, the use of the demonstrative pronoun for this “monumental” style opening differentiates official from private letters in the same period, even if the document appears to be a letter, having

See, for example, all of the inscriptions from both Hegra and Madāʾin Ṣāliḥ in John F. Healey, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Madaʾin Salih (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). 42 Robert Hoyland, “Arabic Writing, Arabic Scripture in Late Roman Arabia,” paper presented at “Scripts and Scripture: Writing and Religion in Arabia, ca. 500–700 CE,” University of Chicago, May 2017. 43 Several Syriac tomb inscriptions begin with a subjective style verbal formula, “I, X, made for myself this tomb”; see John F. Healey, “Sources for the Study of Nabataean Law,” New Arabian Studies 1 (1993): 205. 44 Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 125. 41

46

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

an opening address and subjective (second-person, letter) style. 45 This monumental opening (as well as the lack of autograph witness clauses) is one of the distinctive elements of early Arabic legal papyri, which differentiate their structure from those of documents in contemporary traditions in Byzantine Greek and Coptic. 46 By the late second Islamic century, an official document still starts by referring to itself but has lost the demonstrative pronoun and address: “kitāb jamāʿat mā…” 47 In the Arabic tradition, this formula is an expression of legal validity. Khan notes that the self-referencing formula in the opening of leases, work permits, and tax receipts of the late Umayyad period shows that these documents had the status of legal instruments of proof. 48 The monumental opening is also found in Conquest-era texts. This can occur as the formula, hādhā kitāb min fulān lifulān, 49 or as a version that employs a verb, such as hādhā mā aʿtā, hādhā mā amara bihi, or hādhā mā ʿahida ʿalayhi. Conquestera documents may also open without the demonstrative pronoun, with the formula min fulān li-fulān. 50 The use of both subjective and objective styles in the Conquest-era texts is thus consistent with the variety in this opening formula found in the Prophet’s documents, where we see both the monumental style Geoffrey Khan, Arabic Documents from Early Islamic Khurasan. Studies in the Khalili Collection V. (London: The Nour Foundation, 2006 [2007]) 28. 46 Khan, “Historical Development,” 201. 47 P.Khalili I 2, account of cultivated land based on annual survey. [Geoffrey Khan Arabic Papyri: Selected Material from the Khalili Collection (London: The Nour Foundation, 1992) 58.] 48 Khan, Arabic Documents, 28. 49 See, for example, the treaty with Edessa in Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā alBalādhurī, Liber expugnationis regionum, ed. M.J. de Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1866) 174, or with Tiflis in al-Balādhurī, Liber, 201; Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Annales quos scripsit, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Lugundi-Baavoruml: Brill, 1879–1965) I: 2675. 50 Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 66–67. 45

1. FORMULAE

47

with demonstrative pronoun and the epistolary style that begins with min Muḥammad. The sequence of names in the address is also significant. Invariably mentioning the Prophet as the sender first parallels the Umayyad-era custom of announcing the sender first in official documents. In most of the letters in our main surviving corpus of official Umayyad documents, from Qurra b. Sharīk, governor of Egypt (90–96/709–714) under al-Walīd (86–96/705– 15), the sender is identified by name only and the addressee by title as well as name. 51 In second/eighth century official Arabic documents from Khurāsān and Egypt, the sender or issuing agency is also announced at the beginning. 52 Private or unofficial Arabic letters, in contrast, open with an address formula indicating sender and addressee with the higher ranked individual mentioned first, with no phrases that refer to the document itself. 53 By the third/ninth century, Arabic letters from Egypt see the loss of the prescript, as the address is removed from the opening and placed above the basmala or on the verso of the document so that it is visible when folded. 54 The address as part of the text of the letter, placed after the basmala, is retained in a few documents from the third/ninth century, all high-level documents. 55 The opening sequence of basmala + address with demonstrative pronoun is retained only in a small number of official Wadād al-Qāḍī, “An Umayyad Papyrus in al-Kindī’s Kitāb al-Quḍāt?” Der Islam 84.2 (2008): 200–245, at 222. 52 Khan, Arabic Documents, 28. 53 Ibid., 28. 54 Khan, “Historical Development,” 204. 55 Ibid., 207. Retention of the older placement of the address is found on an official letter of appointment from heir apparent al-Muntaṣir billāh, PERF 763, dated 242 AH (Adolf Grohmann, From the World of Arabic Papyri (Cairo: al-Maʿārif, 1952), 149), and on a petition to caliph al-Muʿtazz billāh (r. 252–255/866–869), P.Cair.Arab 172 (Grohmann, From the World of Arabic Papyri, 121). 51

48

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Arabic letters from the third/ninth century. All of these are official correspondence or petitions, including decrees authorizing lease of government land, which often had the function of acting as dispositive documents. This set of formulae continued to be used into the Fatimid period, in official letters and decrees from the caliph. 56 Thus the opening formulae are relevant to denoting official or legal status and are part of a distinctively more archaic style retained by official chancery practice in Arabic. It is thus not only the monumental phrasing but the location of the address after the basmala that is crucial to the development of chancery tradition. Wansbrough notes that later Christian and Islamic chancery documents of emperors, kings, bishops, sultans, and caliphs have the intitulatio (a construct that refers to the document and includes naming the sender) preceding the name and titles of the recipient. Examples are the Qurra documents and the Prophet’s documents to Byzantine and Sassanian emperors where the sender is mentioned immediately after the invocation (the basmala). 57 In this and other features the Prophet’s documents showcase as “official” documents, displaying what Wansbrough calls a “regalian spirit,” and suggest to us the authority that these documents were meant to communicate. “The imagery, implicit in the invocatio, intitulatio and devotio (all of which refer to the properties of the divine-regalian authority), is overtly benevolent but equally a symbolic affirmation of power to effect the provisions/enactments or promises that follow.” 58 The Prophet’s documents do lack later developments of this feature, for example the arenga, a preamble making general statements of authority such as expressing concern for the commonweal. This is characteristic of decrees and contracts but often inserted in official letters in Arabic starting with Fatimid decrees of the early See for example P. Khalili II 115. See also Geoffrey Khan, “The PreIslamic Background,” 203. 57 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 103. 58 Ibid., 106. 56

1. FORMULAE

49

sixth/twelfth century. 59 The immediate visual impact of these opening formulae is communicative, as Wansbrough stresses. 3 greeting (slot filled with religious formulae) The greeting includes some form of the root s-l-m and is followed by a blessing formula addressing the praises of God to the addressee. 3.1 The most common greeting formula is one that includes hudā: (al-)salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā (26 Hirqal, 49 Muqawqis, 56 Mundhir b. Sāwā, 76 Jayfar and ʿAbd, 68, 206) 3.1.1: longer version: salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā wa-āmana bi-llāhi warasūlihi (22 Najāshī) salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā wa-āmana bi-llāhi waṣaddaqa (37 Ghassānī) salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā wa-āmana bi-llāhi warasūlihi wa-shahida an lā ilāha illā-llāh waḥdahu lā sharīka lahu wa anna Muḥammadan ʿabduhu wa-rasūluhu (53 Kisrā) 3.1.2 Shortened versions with dropping of hudā phrase: salām ʿalā man āmana (29) 3.2 without hudā or verb: salām ʿalayka (80, 112) salām Allāh ʿalayka (59 Mundhir) (al-)salām ʿalaykum (91, 202) salām Allāh (141/ ‫ب‬-‫) ا‬ 3.2.1 using silmun rather than salām: basic version: silmun anta/antum (21 Najāshī, 30, 60, 66/a, 67, 111) 3.2.2 extended version: silmun antum mā āmantum bi-llāhi wa-rasūlihi (107) 59

Ibid.

50

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

The formula, “peace be on the one who follows the right guidance,” salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā, occurs in early Arabic papyri, but at the end, before the scribal clause, rather than as an opening greeting as in the Prophet’s documents. It also occurs in the closing in four of the Prophet’s documents (21, 29, 66/a, 67). The salām… hudā formula is only atypically found in Conquest-era texts. 60 Arabic letters from the third/ninth century, which now place the address outside the document proper, open with a lengthy series of blessings using the optative verb, such as abāka Allāh or akramaka Allāh, which can also be repeated in the closing, 61 a construct which does not appear in the Prophet’s documents. It is thus significant that the Prophet’s documents maintain a unique placement for the salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa formula. As Wansbrough emphasizes, format provides evidence of change and development in the chancery tradition. While the salām… hudā formula appears in the Prophet’s documents that appear to be addressed to non-Muslims, variants of the shorter salām formula are not limited to Muslim addressees. See for example no. 21 to Najāshī, 30 to the people of Ayla, and 107 to the lords of Himyar, inviting them to Islam all using silmun as a greeting. No. 34 is not a text in literary transmission but a paper document from the Cairo Geniza addressed to the people of Khaybar and Maqnā, using salām antum as a greeting. 62 Thus it is difficult to neatly categorize these greetings by religious affiliation. Wansbrough traces the use of the root s-l-m (“peace/ prosperity/well-being”) in the salutatio over two millennia in the Ancient Near East, starting with attestations in Old Babylonian and Ugaritic. In Aramaic letters the initial greeting formula usual-Ṭabarī, Annales, I:2898, the ṣulḥ with Marw al-Rūdh. See on this formula Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 66–67, and al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal,” 203–204. 61 Khan, Bills, Letters and Deeds, 64; Wansbrough Lingua Franca, 105. 62 See n. 13 above. 60

1. FORMULAE

51

ally involves some form of s-l-m or the root b-r-k. This is often omitted in official or quasi-official letters. 63 The use in Arabic of salām at the beginning and end of the letter “exhibit thus the cuneiform tradition virtually intact.” 64 The sequence of the greeting silmun anta followed by fa-innī aḥmadu ilayka Allāh (the ḥamdala formula, “I address the praises of God to you”) in the Prophet’s documents is not attested in surviving early Arabic documents. Diem argues that its appearance in the Prophet’s corpus is neither the result of the influence of later epistolary conventions nor invented, because it occurs across various texts and sources. It is not attested (excepting one letter ascribed to ʿUthmān) in the literary sources for other early figures after the Prophet and must pre-date Islam. It was replaced by salām ʿalayka followed by the ḥamdala in the early period of Islam, as salām ʿalā is a typical Qurʾanic expression. 65 Conversely, Diem’s study also shows that there are variants to this set of introductory formulae that occur in early second/eighth century documents and do not occur in the Prophet’s letters, for example, al-salām ʿalayka ayyuha l-amīr wa-raḥmatu llāhi fa-innī aḥmadu ilayka llāhu lladhī lā ilāha illā huwa, and salāmun ʿalā awliyāʾi lladhī wa-ahli ṭāʿatihi… wa-aḥmadu ilayhimi llāha lladhī lā illāha illā huwa. 66 This supports the assertion that early Arabic papyri and the Prophet’s documents are distinctive corpora. 4 Doxology (religious formula, little specification and variation found) Grob points out that in the discourse structuring aspect of Arabic papyri letters, religious formulae tend to serve the function Fitzmeyer, “Aramaic Epistolography,” 34. Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 105. 65 Diem, “Arabic Letters,” 860. See Diem for references to the attestations of introductory formulae in Arabic papyri from the first/seventh and second/eighth centuries. 66 Ibid., 859. 63 64

52

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

of closing discourse. In pre-watershed Arabic letters, this formula marks the end of the prescript. 67 4.1 fa-innī aḥmadu ilayka/ilaykum Allāh alladhī lā ilāha illā huwa followed immediately by the transition marker ammā baʿdu (21, 30, 34, 59, 60, 80, 109, 111, 172, 202) 4.1.1 variant replacing illā huwa with ghayruhu: fa-innī aḥmadu llāh ilayka alladhī lā ilāha ghayruhu (56 Mundhir) 4.1.2 shortened version dropping fa-innī: aḥmadu ilayka llāh (141/ ‫ب‬-‫) ا‬ 4.1.3 extended version adding the phrase lā sharīka lahu at the end (67) The sequence basmala + address + doxology (ḥamdala formula) + transition marker (ammā baʿdu) is a feature of the epistolary style of both official and private Arabic letters of the first and second Islamic centuries, although the doxology can be omitted from letters from the same period which still follow the format of the address after the basmala. 68 Khan notes that the ḥamdala is a distinctive epistolary blessing formula found in documents from Egypt from the 190s A.H. to the end of the second Islamic century. 69 It belongs to the period prior to the watershed development in Arabic letters from Egypt and is also found in letters from the eastern provinces, including one ca. 100 from Mt. Mūgh and the Khurāsānī documents from the mid-second century A.H. 70 The ḥamdala blessing formula is a feature of the prescript of the Qurra administrative letters, where it is also regu-

Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 137 n. 50. P. Khalili II 26 verso. 69 Khan, “Historical Development,” 204. 70 Khan, “Historical Development,” 204. V. A. Krachkovskaya and I. Y. Krachkovsky “Le plus ancien document arabe de l’Asie Centrale” Sogdiyskiy Sbornik (Leningrad 1934): 52–90. 67 68

1. FORMULAE

53

larly followed by ammā baʿdu. 71 It also occurs in the same location in private letters from the first two centuries A.H. 72 Wansbrough places the ḥamdala in the tradition of formulae signifying divine confirmation (as devotio). 73 Noth has no reference to this formula either at the opening or closing of Conquest-era documents, and it seems to be an element of epistolary format not followed by the Conquest-era documents. The use of this blessing formula, typical of early Arabic letters, in what may be called administrative or high chancery documents in the Prophet’s corpus, along with the monumental opening, which is typical of legal documents of the Umayyad period, shows a blending of what are later more discrete formularies. Though the Prophet’s documents can follow the subjective style of a letter (use of the first person and verbal format) they often retain all the major elements of early Arabic legal and high chancery documents with their evidentiary functions.

P.Heid.Arab. I. 1, P. Heid.Arab. I 2, P. Heid.Arab. I 3, P. Heid.Arab. I 10, P. Heid.Arab. I 12, P. Heid.Arab. I 14, P. Heid.Arab. I 16, P.Qurra 1, P.Cair.Arab. III 147, P.Cair.Arab. III 148, P.Cair.Arab. III 150, P.Cair.Arab. III 151, P.Cair.Arab. III 153, P.Cair.Arab. III 154, P.Cair.Arab. III 155. 72 P. Khalili II 25, P.Khalili II 26 recto, P. Khalili II 27 recto, P. Khalili II 28, P. Khalili II 30 recto and verso, P. Khalili II 33, P. Khalili II 34, P.Khalili II 35. 73 The devotio in early Arabic documents, including the ḥamdala formula common in the Prophet’s documents and later formulae such as tawfīqī bi-llāh or tawakkaltu ʿalā Allāh, may return to cuneiform seal inscriptions indicating the owner’s service to particular deities (Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 102). 71

54

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

5 transition marker (not always found, little variation) The ḥamdala is followed immediately by a transition marker between the introduction and body. 5.1 generally ammā baʿdu (‫ﻭ‬/*, 26, 33, 34, 36, 42, 49, 51, 56, 60 where it is also used to transition between sections of text, 63, 64, 70, 112) 74 130F

5.1.1 lengthened version with demonstrative pronoun: ammā ʿalā athar dhālika (29) ammā ba‘du dhālikum (66/ ‫ﺏ‬-‫ﺍ‬, 109) ammā baʿdu dhālika (111) This small formula is actually quite distinctive in its use in the Prophet’s documents, and finds closest matches in the Qurra corpus in Arabic and in Sabaic documents. The use of this formula evinces the significance of layout and readers’ expectations to the elements of chancery practice. Wansbrough notes that the Semitic tradition retains the “syntactic formality” of the phrase used as transition marker even where semantic values are not shared across languages. 75 One of the mechanical divisions between elements of the document, which can in cuneiform tablets occur as horizontal lines, is here a “fossilized” adverbial phrase. 76 While transition formulae are entirely absent from Greek epistolary style, they are found in Semitic epistolary docu-

It is also found in letters attributed to other early figures collected by Hamidullah: Abū Sufyān (4), the Negus (23, 24), al-Muqawqis (50), alMundhir b. Sawā (57), Khālid b. al-Walīd (69), ʿUmar during his caliphate (99 where it is also used several times as a transition within the text), ʿUthmān during his caliphate (103). 75 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 108. 76 Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 54. 74

1. FORMULAE

55

ments. 77 In North-West Semitic, Ugaritic has ht/wht, and in North-East Semitic, Akkadian has anuma/enuma. 78 In Aramaic letters the initial greeting is often followed by a transition marker using some form of kʾn to introduce the body or serve as message divider within it, 79 marking the beginning of short disconnected sections using the particle. 80 Most pre-Christian Hebrew letters have a one word transition marker: wʿt. 81 In the Bar Kokhba period the wʿt slot was filled by š. 82 Sabaic letters have a transition formula between the introduction and the body of the document, as well as between sections of the body, using the particle w, “and” (Mon.script.sab 68/2), whʾ, “and now” (TYA 14/1; Mon.script.sab 68/3,4), wrʾ or krʾ, “behold, indeed, in fact” (TYA 14/1–2), or a phrase parallel to amma baʿdu: wbḏt, “and now, now then, herewith” (TYA 7/3). 83 An analog to ammā baʿdu does appear in the Greek prescript of the Arabic period, in texts from the chanceries of the Arab administration, as a novelty and only through the influence of Arabic epistolary formulae. 84 It is thus distinctively Semitic in its history. Raffaele Luiselli, “Greek Letters on Papyrus First to Eighth Centuries: a Survey,” in eds. Kaplony and Grob, Documentary Letters from the Middle East, 697. 78 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 107. 79 Fitzmeyer, “Aramaic Epistolography,” 35. 80 Paul E. Dion, “The Aramaic ‘Family Letter’ and Related Epistolary Forms in Other Oriental Languages and in Hellenistic Greek,” Semeia 22 (1981) 61. 81 Arad 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, administrative and military letters prior to 597 B.C.E., and Arad 40, of uncertain dating, and Lachish 3, 4, 9 from 5–86 B.C.E., Dennis Pardee, S. David Sperling, J. David Whitehead, and Paul E. Dion, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters (Chicago: Scholars Press, 1982). 82 Pardee et al., Handbook, 149. 83 Mohammad Maraqten, “Some Notes on Sabaic Epistolography,” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 33 (2003) 281. 84 Luiselli, “Greek Letters on Papyrus,” 691. 77

56

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Ammā baʿdu as a transition formula is a feature of the Arabic administrative documents of Qurra b. Sharīk, where it consistently occurs directly following the ḥamdala. 85 This is limited to the Arabic correspondence, as a parallel phrase is not found in the letters in Greek written from Qurra b. Sharīk’s office to Basīl. In several second/eighth century Arabic letters, ammā baʿdu is followed by a further blessing using an optative perfect verb, such as aṣlaḥaka Allāh, ʾafāka Allāh, or ḥafiẓaka Allāh. 86 By the third/ninth century the other opening formulae are dropped and letters open directly with these optative blessing formulae. 87 This construction using the optative verb is not attested for any of the Prophet’s documents. This new style of blessing formulae in Arabic letters is accompanied by a lack of systematic marking of the transition from opening into the body, in contrast to the earlier consistent use of ammā baʿdu. 88 The effect in Arabic letters of peppering the introductory portion of the letter with blessings and phrases praising God along with stereotypical polite requests following ammā baʿdu is also not found in the Prophet’s documents. See for example P.Khalili I 14, a second/eighth century letter concerning the detention of the sender in a Delta village, where the first eight lines preceding the specific requests are almost entirely composed of these blessing formulae. 89 They appear less liberally in the opening and closing formulae of P.Khalili I 19, a private letter from the third/ninth century (Appendix 1, 1.7). Noth notes one instance of ammā baʿdu as a transition formula following a variant of the salām… hudā formula in ConP.Heid.Arab. I 1; P.Heid.Arab. I 2, P.Heid.Arab. I 3, P.Heid.Arab. I 10, P.Heid.Arab. I 12, P.Heid.Arab. I 14, P.Heid.Arab. I 16, P. Qurra I. 86 Khan, Bills, Letters, and Deeds, 64. 87 Ibid. 88 Khan, “Historical Development,” 206. 89 See Grob, “Information Packaging,” for a study of “information packaging” of social relations through expressions of politeness in these documents. 85

1. FORMULAE

57

quest-era texts. 90 It is not found in the redactions of Conquestera documents collected by al-Qāḍī, either as initial transition marker following the opening formulae or as a divider within the text. 91 Thus it seems rare in Conquest-era documents, which tend to follow the address directly with the legal terms of the contract or treaty, usually introduced with a nominal sentence with or without demonstrative pronoun. 92 It may be more typical of a subjective and epistolary style for administrative documents, as opposed to the contracts and treaties of the Conquestera. Exposition

This section is rarely given in the Prophet’s documents. Grob calls this section “confirmation,” and it includes blessing formulas and polite formulas referencing the occasion of the document that are rare in the Prophet’s corpus. The function of this slot in letters in Hittite, Achaemenid Aramaic, and Hebrew as well as early Arabic is reference to the immediate circumstances of the document in narrative form, usually using a declarative syntax, including details of previous correspondence, a messenger’s arrival, reference to a claim or request, or an event provoking an action or response. 93 One example in the Prophet’s corpus meets these expectations, as it communicates reception of the messenger, reception of news, and reception of greetings. This is the Prophet’s letter in response to Farwa b. ʿAmr’s letter announcing The treaty with Marw al-Rūdh, al-Ṭabarī, Annales, I:2898; Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 66–67. 91 Wadād al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal.” 92 See for example three redactions of the treaty with Ruhā which introduce the terms with innī amantuhum ʿalā damāʾihim… (al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal,” 251), and the four redactions of the treaty with Tiflis which all open with hādhā kitāb min Ḥabīb b.Maslama li-ahl Ṭiflīs followed directly by bi-l-amān lakum or bi-l-amān ʿalā anfusihim (al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal,” 256–57). 93 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 108. 90

58

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

his conversion. Following the address and transition formula the letter has: fa-qad qadima ʿalaynā rasūluka wa-ballagha mā arsalta bihi wa-khabbara ʿammā qibalakum wa-atānā bi-salāmika. 94 This section, due to its epistolary function, does not appear in Conquest-era texts. The Prophet’s documents parallel the earliest Arabic papyri and most Umayyad-era legal documents and private letters in their more straightforward formularies, their exposition sections lacking endearment phrases and slide-in-blessings which become features of the Arabic epistolary format starting in the third/ninth century. “Slide-in-blessings” is Grob’s terminology for paranthetical conventional expressions directed at addressees and third-parties. 95 The initial blessings section that replaces the prescript after the change around the third/ninth century is also missing entirely from the Prophet’s documents. 96 The following examples represent this shift. Two letters sending greetings from the second/eighth century follow the formulary: basmala + address (lī… min for the letter on the recto, min… ilā on the verso) + salām ʿalayka + ḥamdala + ammā baʿdu. In the body of both texts are repeated petitions to God on behalf of the sender and one additional blessing on the addressee. The body of both texts simply mentions the occasion of writing (the addressee’s request for a letter) and that the sender is well and in good health thanks to God. The letter on the recto ends with the closing greeting, wa-l-salām ʿalayka wa-raḥma (Appendix 1, 1.4); the verso text is incomplete. 97 Contrast this straightforward format to a letter from the amanueusis of a Ṭūlūnid official from the third/ninth century. The opening contains a slide-in blessing, following an abbreviated form of the Muḥammad b. Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, ed. E. Sachau (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1904–40) I/ii: 31. 95 Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 33–38. 96 See Grob’s description of this section, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 43–48. 97 P.Khalili I 15 recto and verso [Khan, Arabic Papyri: Selected Material, 129–135.] 94

1. FORMULAE

59

basmala: “My first words to you, may God grant you happiness…” wa-awwal qawlī laka asʿadaka Allāh. In the body of the letter each mention of a personal name or second-person reference to the addressee is followed by a slide-in-blessing, frequently “May god show you kindness,” akramaka Allāh. The letter ends by stating that a response is awaited, with no final greeting (Appendix 1, 1.6). 98 The resemblance of the Prophet’s documents to the earlier Arabic formulary is clear. Closings

Most of the Prophet’s documents do not have clear closings, and this may be a result of the vulnerability of ending formulae to redaction processes. Unlike introductory formulae, closings do not serve the function of discourse marking. The function of the corroboratio slot is to refer to the document’s signs of authentication, including naming witnesses, signature, seal, or cipher. Closing remarks are to ensure against addition, deletion, or modification of the document and to indicate the closure of the transaction. 99 1 Greeting (slot filled by religious formulae, optional specification) 1.1 wa-l-salām (33, 51 Muqawqis, 63–64 Mundhir, 93 Najrān, 234, 244) 1.1.1 lengthened, with direct reference to addressee or additional recipient: wa-l-salām ʿalayka/ʿalaykum (60, 173) wa-l-salām ʿalayka wa-ʿalā qawmika (65 ʿāmil Kisrā) 1.1.2 lengthened, with additional blessing: wa-l-salām ʿalayka/ʿalaykum wa-raḥmatu barakātuhu (80, 109)

llāhi

wa-

P.Khalili I 18. Khan’s translation, Khan, Arabic Papyri: Selected Material, 151–59. 99 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 112–14. 98

60

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET wa-l-salām wa-raḥmatu llāhi yaghfiru llāhu laka (59 Mundhir) 1.1.3 lengthened with additional conditional statement: wa-l-salām ʿalaykum in aṭaʿtum (30) 1.1.4 lengthened with alternative placement for hudā formula: wa-l-salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa al-hudā (21, 29, 66/a, 67) 1.2 some documents do not have a greeting but reference the aid of God or endear the addressee to God in the closing formula: wa-llāhu l-mustaʿān (151) waʿtaqa llāha rabbuk (42) wa-liyuḥibbannakum rabbukum (172) 1.3 repeated mention of the sender as the closing: wa-inna hādhā min Muḥammad al-nabī (182)

Like the closing greeting in Arabic papyri letters, this section in the Prophet’s documents shares the features of using a salām ʿalayka formula as a closing and including additional blessings upon the addressee. As a whole, though, this section in the Prophet’s documents is far more condensed than the closing greeting in papyri letters, which use variants of the salām formula as a final greeting along with several formulae used to send greetings to and from third parties and to share news. For example, compare the single formulae used for the closing greeting listed above to the complexity of the following closing greeting section from a third/ninth century Arabic letter: “…and Haytham sends you greetings and tells you: ‘Send me a cloth so that I may cut it out for trousers for us. For nobody among us has trousers. So dispatch it to us with the utmost speed.’ Your Shaykh is fine and well, as you are wishing for, God be praised.

1. FORMULAE

61

I send you greetings, and greetings to all your family, and peace upon you, and the mercy of God, and it has been written.” 100 The salām… hudā formula, infrequently found as a closing in the Prophet’s documents, occurs as a closing greeting in the Qurra b. Sharīk corpus, where it is followed immediately by the scribal clause (including the date) which reads wa-kataba fulān sana… 101 Being treaties/agreements, the Conquest-era documents do not have closing greetings. 2 Witness clause (includes personal names, shows little variation, optional addition of religious formula or repeated reference to text and persons involved) 2.1: Generally the passive verb shahida is followed by a list of names at the very end of the document. If a scribal clause is present, it generally follows the witnesses (18, 43, 45, 78) 2.1.1 addition of demonstrative pronoun: shahida bi-dhālika fulan wa-shahida fulān (222) shahida ʿalā dhālika + names (243/a) 2.1.2 verb in first-person: ashhadu ʿalā (11 ʿAhd al-Umma) 2.1.3 witness clause with a summary of the document: wa-shahida hādha l-kitab alladhī katabahu Muḥammad… baynahu wa-bayna…wa-kutiba hādha l-ʿahd lahum+names of witnesses+wa-kataba fulān (97 Najrān)

P.GrohmannUrkunden 19.r (=P.World p. 166 = P. Marchands V/ 1 8). Translation of lines 6–8 by Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 72. 101 P.Heid.Arab. I 1, P.Heid.Arab. I 2, P.Heid.Arab. I 3, P.Heid.Arab. I 4, P.Heid.Arab. I 10, P.Heid.Arab. I 11, P.Heid.Arab. I 18; P.Qurra 1, P.Qurra 2, P.Qurra 3, P.Qurra 4, P.Qurra 5; P.Cair.Arab III 147, P.Cair.Arab III 148, P.Cair.Arab III 150, P.Cair.Arab III 151, P.Cair.Arab III 153, P.Cair.Arab III 154, P.Cair.Arab III 155. 100

62

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET 2.1.4 inclusion of God as witness: shahida llāhu lladhī lā ilāha illā huwa wa-jafā bihi shahīdan wa-malāʾikatihi ḥamalat ʿarshihi wa man ḥaḍara min almuslimīn, followed by traditional witness clause (34) 2.2. alternative placing: 2.2.1 preceded immediately by scribal clause: wa-kataba fulān wa-shahida… (45, 155, 165, 196, 210) 2.2.2 in combination with God and the Prophet as witness with an additional mid-text placement: mentioning the presence of witnesses by name (mid-text) bi-maḥdar shuhūd min al-muslimīn minhum+names… (end of text) yashhadu Allāh taʿalā dhālika wa-rasūluhu (192) 2.3 God and the Prophet as witnesses and no personal names: wa-llāhu wa-rasūluhu yashadu ʿalayhim (72) 2.4 a general statement of witnessing without personal names: shahida fulān wa-man ḥaḍara min al-muslimīn (190; 191); shahida fulān wa-man ḥaḍara (186)

Wansbrough notes the distinction between witness as party to transaction and as guarantor of its legality. Arabic sh-h-d applies to the latter. 102 Only infrequently do the Prophet’s documents provide a witness clause without personal names. Signature witness clauses appear in second/eighth century Arabic legal documents, which refer to the witness’ name written “with his hand” or “with his permission,” bi-khaṭṭihi/yaddihi or bi-amrihi. For example, P. Michaelides B59, a lease from 180 A.H., refers to both types of testimony, bi-amrihi and biyaddihi, and is the earliest reference to an autograph witness in Arabic documents. A sale document for a house from 239 A.H., for example, features eight signature witness clauses (Appendix 1, 2.4). This is one element of the radical changes to legal for102

Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 118.

1. FORMULAE

63

mulae that occur in the second to third Islamic centuries. 103 There are no signature witness clauses in the Prophet’s documents. In the Conquest-era documents, as well, witnesses are introduced with the phrase wa-shahida, between one to five are mentioned, usually three; God can also be invoked together with angels and human witnesses, or alone, and usually with the Qur’anic phrase “wa-kafā bi-llāhi shahīdan.” Occasionally in Conquest-era documents this section only mentions that witnessing took place without naming any witness, using shahida, “witnessed,” without a list of names. 104 Mention of God without personal names as witnesses occurs in five out of the twenty-nine Conquest-era documents collected by al-Qāḍī. Individual names as witnesses occur more frequently, in thirteen out of twentynine documents. 105 The deity as witness is an archaic element of Ancient Near Eastern chancery practice and is related to the curse formula. According to Milka Levy-Rubin, the witness of gods is an old feature of international treaties that becomes defunct by the Roman and Byzantine periods, and in the Islamic period is reduced to the use of the initial basmala. 106 In Arabic papyri, witness clauses with mention of God and angels occur occasionally, as for example in a manumission document from Egypt 1003 C.E., which has: wa-kutiba dhālika fī… shahida llāhu wamalāʾikatuhu wa-kafā bi-llāhi shahīdan. 107 3 Scribal clause (shows little variation, provides single personal name, optional additional reference to witnessing, sender, occasion of record, or additional name)

Khan, “Historical Development,” 201. Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 65, 69. 105 Al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal,” 251–69. 106 Milka Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: from surrender to coexistence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 20. 107 P.Cair.Arab. I 37. 103 104

64

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET 3.1 simple with personal name: wa-kataba fulān (11 Ḥudaybiyya, 18, 19, 20, 33, 41, 43, 44, 64, 76, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 95, 111, 116, 120, 121, 124, 137, 141, 154, 163, 164, 165, 194, 202, 213, 214, 215, 222, 223) 3.1.1 scribe as witness: wa-kataba fulān wa-shahida (155) 3.1.2 with phrase using demonstrative pronoun referring to document: wa-kataba lahum hādhā l-kitāb fulān (94) 3.2 using the participle or noun rather than verb kataba: wa-kātib al-ṣaḥīfa fulān (78); kitāb fulān (157) 3.2.1 with reference to dictation: hādhā kitāb+names+bi-idhni rasūlu llāhi (31/‫ ;) ا‬108 wa-kataba fulān bi-amr rasūli llāhi fa-lā yataʿaddāhu aḥadun fa-yaẓlimu nafsahu fi-mā amarahu Muḥammad (182) 164F

3.2.2 reference to signature, dictation, and with the addition of a dating formula: wa-kataba fulān bi-khaṭṭihi warasūlu llāhi yamlī ʿalayhi ḥarfan ḥarfan+date (34 Cairo Geniza document) 3.3 the passive kutiba, “It has been written,” 109 sometimes occurring as wa-kutiba, signaling the end of the document and immediately following the witness clause and without naming any scribe, occurs in three documents in Hamidullah’s corpus (1 ʿAhd al-Umma, 45 land grant, 185 land grant) The regularity of a scribal clause featuring personal names is distinctive in comparison to Conquest-era texts and Arabic papyri letters. References to the writing of the document occur in half of the examples of Conquest-era documents surveyed by In this document, uniquely, two scribes are named. Grob names this the “performative wa-kutiba” (Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 76–77).

108 109

1. FORMULAE

65

Noth; the scribe’s name is given in only four cases. In the remaining cases, therefore, whether the vocalization kataba, missing a scribe’s name, or kutiba, lacking the date, should be supplied at the end remains ambiguous. 110 In this the Conquest-era documents resemble early Arabic papyri which typically use the passive construction as a closing without giving scribes’ names, following the list of witnesses and followed by the date. See, for example, two quittances from 104 A.H. and a quittance for land tax dated 194 A.H., where the passive construction occurs immediately after the body of the document and followed by the date. 111 In Khurāsānī tax receipts this phrase occurs as a closure, followed by the date, sometimes with wa-kutiba repeated at the end again, 112 and can also occur without the date. This phrase can also signal closure at the end of a letter. 113 In “official orders of payment” in Arabic (the earliest from 158/775 while most of the corpus, dated and estimated, returns to the third/ninth century), of twenty-nine papyri examined by Wadād al-Qāḍī, most have a letter-like opening and start with the basmala, and a third use wa-kutiba where the end is preserved without naming a scribe. There are no salutations at the beginning or end of the texts nor the transitional ammā baʿdu due to the briefness of these documents. 114 The persistence of a scribal clause in the Prophet’s documents again finds its closest parallel in Arabic in the letters issued from the office of the Umayyad governor Qurra b. Sharīk, where the names of scribes recur and seem to identify those individuals serving in this capacity in the bureaucracy. In the Qurra documents the scribe is a secretary and not a witness, occasionally with his full name given, with the formula wa-kataba Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 65–66, 70. P.Khalili I 9, two quittances from 104 A.H., P.Khalili I 10, a quittance for land tax from 194 A.H. 112 P. Khalili I 3, quittance, 148 A.H. 113 P.Khalili I 25, a letter concerning delivery of textiles. 114 Al-Qāḍī, “Umayyad Papyrus,” 227–28. 110 111

66

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

fulān. 115 Other times a “copyist” is also named, introduced by nasakha, following mention of the scribe. 116 Naming the scribe is followed immediately by the date introduced with fī. The consistent use of the scribal clause in the Qurra documents may be a factor of their bureaucratic origins. In diplomatic history, authoritative documents remain more conservative in formulation. 117 Grob notes that references to secretaries or scribes are rare in Arabic private and business letters from the first to fourth centuries A.H. 118 Scribal clauses are also unusual in third/ninth century papyri. Outside of the Qurra corpus, a scribal clause including the name of the writer occurs in a few private letters and some business letters in Arabic from the first three Islamic centuries. In general, the papyri here surveyed, through searching the University of Zurich database of published papyri, 119 including private and business letters, legal notices such as quittances, and official administrative documents, use wa-kutiba as a closing marker, occurring either as the final element or followed immediately by the date (very rarely also the place of transcription). 120 Kutiba also occurs as part of the witness clause in many P.Heid.Arab. I 1, P.Heid.Arab. I 2, P.Heid.Arab. I 3, P.Heid.Arab. I 4, P.Heid.Arab. I 10, P.Heid.Arab. I 18; P.Qurra 1, P.Qurra 2, P.Qurra 3, P.Qurra 4, P.Qurra 5, P.Cair.Arab III 147, P.Cair.Arab III 148, P.Cair.Arab III 150, P.Cair.Arab III 151, P.Cair.Arab III 153, P.Cair.Arab III 154, P.Cair.Arab III 155. 116 P.Heid.Arab. I 10, P.Heid.Arab. I 181, P.Qurra 3, P.RagibQurra III, P.BeckerNPAF VIII, P.BEckerNPAF IX, P.BeckerPAF I. 117 Personal communication, Geoffrey Khan, 26 Feb. 2010. 118 Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 86–88. 119 “The Arabic Papyrology Database” (APD) http://orientw.uzh.ch/apd/project.jsp Accessed January 2009. 120 Found in private letters: P.World p. 183b, P.Jahn 12 recto (=Chrest.Khoury I 98), P.Jahn 13; official letters: P.World p. 130 (=P Diem Aphrodito p.142a), P.Grohmann Urkunden 16, P.Grohmann Probleme 17; business letters: P. GrohmannWirtch 3 recto (=P.Marchands VII 5), P.Grohmann Wirtsch 7, P.Grohmann Wirtsch 9, 115

1. FORMULAE

67

legal documents of the third/ninth century. Almost all citations of kataba in the documents from the first three Islamic centuries are in introducing the witness clause in legal documents. 121 On a few occasions kataba does introduce a scribal clause in private and business letters. 122 A scribal clause is a characteristic feature of documents in Ancient South Arabian languages (in Sabaic and Minaic). Sabaic letters have a distinct colophon stating the sender’s name followed by a signature. Professional scribes assumedly wrote the letters. Occasionally the person named in the colophon is not identical with the sender (e.g., X.BSB 158/7), indicating dictation by a representative of the sender, along with the phrase

P.Grohmann Urkunden 19 recto, P. David-Weill Louvre I 8 (=P.Marchands V 17 3), P.Marchands V/1 10 recto, P.Marchands V/1 20, P.Marchands V/1 16 recto, P.Grohmann Wirtsch 7; orders for payment/delivery: P.World p.141a, P.World p.142b, P.World 143a, P.World 144b, P.World p. 145,P.World p. 150, P.Grohmann Wirtsch 8; written obligations: P.Marchands V/1 19; and quittances: CPR XVI 01.5, P.Grohmann Urkunden 6, P.Grohmann Probleme 18. 121 Found in quittances: P.KarabacekPapyrusfund 2, P.Karabacek Papyrusfund 3; leases: P.Cair.Arab. 89, P.Cair.Arab. 90, P.Cair.Arab. 93, P.Cair.Arab. 122; hire of employees: P.Cair.Arab 96; written obligations: P.Cair.Arab. 98, P.Cair.Arab. 100, P.Cair.Arab. 104, P.Cair.Arab. 114, P.Cair.Arab. 115; P.Marchands I 2, P.Marchands I 3, P.Marchands I 4, P.Marchands I 5, P.Marchands I 6, P.Marchands I 8, P.Marchands I 10; sale contracts: P.Cair.Arab 121, P.Cair.Arab 124; divorce statements: P.World p. 199 (=ChrestKhoury I 20); and marriage contracts: P.Cair.Arab 39, P.Cair.Arab. 41. 122 P.Cair.Arab. 80 3rd/9th c. lease, in the beginning after the basmala: hādhā kitāb katabahu [ ] bin Ismāʿīl; P.Jahn 1 verso (=P.Heid.Arab II 1=Chrest.Khoury I 96) private letter from 2nd/8th c. Egypt has final wakataba [ ] +date; P.Jahn3 2nd/8th c. private letter from Fayyūm has final wa-l-salām ʿalayka wa-raḥmata llāhi [wa-]kataba […bin…]+date; P.Grohmann Urkunden 15 3rd/9th c. official letter has kataba followed by name and date.

68

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

“has signed as he was informed,” w-zbr k-hʾḏn. 123 The oral nature of this instruction is manifest in use of the root ʿḏn “to hear.” 124 Finally, a scribal clause introduced with (wa-)kataba/ katabtu and followed or preceded by personal names or (wa-) kutiba without names (and sometimes also a date) seems to be one of the few consistently occurring formulae found in our growing corpus of early Arabic graffiti. 125 4 Date Dates are given only in two of the Prophet’s documents in Hamidullah’s corpus: 33 (Ahl Maqnā) and 234/‫( ﺍ‬grant to Salmān al-Fārisī). Both have related reports claiming the physical survival of these documents. 126 That this slot seems generally to be missing, and only seen in those texts accompanied by traditions of the circulation of physical copies, suggests that it does not exist in the formulary of the Prophet’s documents and is perhaps contingent on the existence and use of the Hijrī calendar. This slot is more frequently filled in Conquest-era documents. 127 See, for example, al-Qāḍī’s redactions for the agreements with Rayy, Damascus, Bahrādhān, Armenia, Azerbaijān, and Ṭabaristān. 128 182 F

Stein, “Correspondence,” 790. Ibid., 783 n. 47. 125 See, for example, nos. 1 (23 A.H.), 2 (24 A.H.), 4 (29 A.H.), 6 (31 A.H.) which also shows use of a monumental style self-reference found in the middle of the text (hādhā al-kitāb), etc. in Ilkka Lindstedt, “Who is in, who is out? Early Muslim identity through epigraphy and theory,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 46 (2019): 147–246. 126 See Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī, Liber expugnationis regionum, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Lugundi Batavorum: Brill, 1863) 60, for reference to a physical copy of the document for Maqnā, and ʿAbd al-Muʿīd Khān, “Authenticity of an important document of the Prophet,” Islamic Culture 17 (1943): 96–104 for a discussion and comparison of the medieval Arabic reports of copies of the grant for Salmān al-Fārisī. 127 Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 70. 128 al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal.” 123 124

1. FORMULAE

69

See discussion of the scribal clause above for examples in Arabic papyri of the date directly following the use of kataba. Endowments, property transfers, assignments of rights, marriage and divorce documents in Akkadian and Ugaritic and in Aramaic were dated, with the position fluctuating between the head and the close of the text. In the Byzantine chancery the position of the date was final and thus part of the “signature.” 129 5 Seal: The use of a seal is mentioned in reports of the Prophet’s documents to tribal delegations (68, 76, 141, 143/‫ﺍ‬, and 146/‫)ﺍ‬. Noth finds four instances in Conquest-era reports of reference to sealing, generally introduced by wa-khatama fulān. 130 It is rare in Conquest-era reports. The majority of the Khurāsānī tax receipts collected by Khan include clay bullae stamped with seals. This is also found in Egyptian documents. 131 Thus that mention of the seal does not occur more regularly in the Prophet’s documents, despite prominent traditions on the creation and use of the Prophet’s seal, is notable.

SELECTED LEGAL FORMULAE: DOCUMENTS OF CONVEYANCE

Documents of conveyance in the Prophet’s corpus share the initial parts of the structure for Aramaic documents laid out by Reuven Yaron. While the Prophet’s conveyance documents compare to the initial sections of the Aramaic formulary, the latter sections are found only in abbreviated form in the Prophet’s documents. This suggests that the detailed legal formulae and latter parts of documents did not survive transmission. The general structure in Aramaic documents is as follows:

Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 121. Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 70. 131 Khan, Arabic Documents, 31. 129 130

70

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

1. Parties and introduction 2. Separate section on description of property concerned (for land, given by measurements and boundaries or only boundaries). 3. Legal essence of transaction including satisfaction clause or repetition “I have given…” or “I have sold…” and clauses stating that the transaction is not a priori limited in time or to the lifetime of the emptor and that the emptor has the power to transfer rights to a third person. 4. Provisions for the future, including “no-challenge” clauses, penalties, etc. These Aramaic documents are always in subjective style from the perspective of the alienor, with no indication of assent by second party or counter-declaration. 132 The Prophet’s documents generally parallel this format and style (the “land grants” are from the perspective of the alienor, while the one example I have found of a sale document is exceptionally from the perspective of emptor). This was also typical of Egyptian documents of sale which were drawn up from the perspective of the alienor. In contrast, Old Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian cuneiform documents are predominantly from the perspective of the emptor. 133 The Prophet’s documents thus show an overlap with this example of Aramaic formulae and formulary, but they are strikingly lacking in more complex formularies and legal provisions. They can also be contrasted to the shurūṭ developments in Arabic papyri (see, for example, the schema of Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321/933)). The Prophet’s documents Reuven Yaron, “Aramaic Deeds of Conveyance (I),” Biblica 41/3 (1960): 248–274, at 250–254. 133 Reuven Yaron, “Aramaic Deeds of Conveyance (II),” Biblica 41/4 (1960): 379–394, at 381. Yaron cautions that this is a generalization and simplification and that variations are found, and we should not be led to conclude that the Aramaic format was based on the Egyptian. 132

1. FORMULAE

71

are missing these essential elements of Arabic conveyance documents: the validity clause (lā sharṭ fīhi wa-lā ʿidā), the quittance clause centered around the term barāʿa, and the transfer clauses that provide a step-by-step description of the transfer including the price. 134 The formulary for the Prophet’s land conveyance documents can also be contrasted to the following formulary given by Gladys Frantz-Murphy. This represents the most frequently attested formulary in documentary Arabic sale contracts, of which the earliest dates to 205 A.H., and which can be compared to Coptic and Byzantine Greek formularies. I.

II.

III.

Opening Section A. Invocation B. Statement of the transaction C. Statement of validity (infrequently attested in Arabic, normative in Byzantine Greek and Coptic) Operative Section A. Offer and acceptance B. Removal of claims C. Investiture-delivery D. Renunciation (infrequently attested in Arabic, normative in Byzantine Greek and Coptic) E. Warranty (defension clause lacking in Coptic) Closing Section A. Agreement B. Legal Competence C. Volition D. Date E. Witnessing 135

Jeneatte A. Watkin, The Function of Documents in Islamic Law: the chapter on sales of Ṭaḥāwī’s Kitāb al-shurūṭ al-kabīr (Albany: SUNY Press, 1972) 53–57. 135 Gladys Frantz-Murphy, “A Comparison of the Arabic and Earlier Egyptian Contract Formularies, Part II: Terminology in the Arabic War134

72

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET Formulae conveying land and moveable property

Conveyance documents compose a significant portion of the documents attributed to the Prophet. Legal documents dealing with confirming or recognizing access to land, water, spoils, and property are some of most common types of texts in the corpus.

1. Opening (obligatory reference to record and legal terminology, usually through use of an operative verb or its replacement by the particle li-, optional amān or dhimma clause) 1.1 monumental opening followed by an operative term, usually aʿṭā, in objective style, with a repetition of the operative verb: hādhā mā aʿṭā (Muḥammad) rasūlu llāh li-fulān (innahu) aʿṭāhu… (17, 89, 144, 154, 155, 163, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 215, 216, 223, 229, 230, 231) 1.1.1 monumental opening but no repetition of operative verb, instead using inna lahum/lahum (44, 113, 118, 120, 122, 131, 157, 176, 194, 195, 197, 204) 1.1.2 different operative verb: antā (45), fādā (243/‫)ا‬

1.1.3 different operative verb and addition of dhikr in monumental opening: hādhā kitāb dhukira fīhi mā wahaba (43) 1.1.4 monumental opening with operative verb, using not demonstrative pronoun but dhikr mā aʿṭā (18) 1.2 monumental opening and operative verb but subjective style: hādhā kitāb katabahu Muḥammad…innī aqṭaʿtuka (69), hādhā kitāb min…innī aʿṭaytuhu (70) 1.3 monumental opening with demonstrative pronoun but no operative verb (78)

ranty and the Idiom of Clearing/Cleaning,” JNES 44/2 (April 1985): 99–114, at 103–104.

1. FORMULAE

73

1.4 operative verb without demonstrative opening: innahu aʿṭāhu (167, 208, 211, 214) 1.5 no monumental opening or verb: innā la-hu (164) 1.6 address rather than monumental opening: min Muḥammad… inna lahum (186) 1.7 opening greeting followed by operative verb in subjective style: salām ʿalaykum ammā baʿdu… aqṭaʿtuka (112) 1.8 combination of formula of conveyance with security formula using dhimma/jār/amān: kāna ṣādiqan fī arḍihi… falahu al-amān wa-dhimmatu llāhi wadhimmat Muḥammad rasūli llāh (116) inna lahu… dhimma (120) inna lahu… wa-inna llāh wa-rasūl jār ʿalā dhālika (131) hādhā kitāb li… fa-man ādhāhum fa-dhimmat Allāhi khaliyya in kānū ṣādiqīn (141) fa-inna lahu amāna llāhi wa-Muḥammad bin ʿabd Allāh wainnalahum arḍuhu (195) 2. Description (obligatory naming of property, optional qualifications and boundaries) 2.1 identification, by name, of the land concerned without description of its boundaries, for example (212) consists entirely of formulae: basmala + hādhā mā aʿṭā…aʿṭāhum…wakataba fulān, or without identification by name but described more generally, such a as “their land” or “the canyon” (69, 43, 45, 81, 118, 194, 204, 210, 212, 214, 215, 216, 230) 2.1.2 in addition to identification, the area can also be qualified and described, with phrases such as “all of it,” “its date palms,” “its fort,” “its highlands and lowlands,” “what is cultivated of it” (44, 78, 82, 89, 155, 157, 163, 164, 167, 186, 211, 229, 231) 2.1.3 in addition to identification and/or qualification, the extent of the land can also be given, using the phraseology ilā and mā bayna. This occurs in 154, 207, 209, 213, 223, 229. For example (229) has: aʿṭāhu Suwāriq kullahu

74

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET aʿlāhu wa-asfalahu mā baynā murīʿ al-qarya ilā muqit ilā ḥīn al-malhama.

3. Investiture Description of the land is followed by an investiture formula conveying full rights to the addressee (can include additional reference to rights in perpetuity) 3.1: simple version: lā yuḥāqquhu fīhā aḥadun (44, 81, 82, 88, 154, 155, 167, 204, 207, 229, 230) 3.1.1 with extension: wa-man ḥāqquhu falā ḥaqq lahu wa-ḥaqquhu ḥaqq (154, 208, 215, 231) 3.2 extension only (155, 210, 213) 3.3 similar phrasing, different verb: lā yaḥilluhā ʿalayhim aḥadun an yaghlabuhum (176) lā yaḥillu li-aḥadin an yaẓlimuhum wa-lā yaẓlimūna aḥadan (214) 3.3.1 extended version: lā yaljihā ʿalayhim aḥadun inna yaghlibhum ʿalayhā wa-lā yuḥāquhum fīhā fa-man ḥaqqahum falā ḥaqq lahu waḥaqqahum ḥaqq (186) 3.4 variant wording involving muslim: wa-liman yaʿṭihu ḥaqq muslim (163) These formulae using ḥqq, lā yuḥāqquhu fīhā aḥadun or wa-man ḥāqquhu falā ḥaqq lahu wa-ḥaqquhu, are not found anywhere in the known Arabic papyri. 4. Curse formula (when this slot is filled religious formula is obligatory) 4.1 using laʿnat Allāh: fa-man ādhāhum adhāhu llāhi wa-man ādhāhum laʿanahu llāhu (45) wa-lā yalijuhumā ʿalayhim aḥadun bi-ẓulmin fa-man ẓalama waakhadha minhum shayʾan fa-inna ʿalayhi laʿnatu llāhi (44)

1. FORMULAE

75

5. Closing with a scribal clause and occasionally also a witness clause 5.1 the standard scribal clause: wa-kataba fulān (43, 44, 45, 78, 81, 82, 89, 116, 154, 155, 163, 164, 167, 210, 212, 214, 215, 223, 229, 230, 231, 243/‫)ﺍ‬ 5.1.1 variant using noun rather than verb: wa-kātib al-ṣaḥīfa fulān (78) The curse formula in the Prophet’s documents, with its use of the optative form and conditional aspect, falls in the category of performative and threat curses, distinguished from curses against enemies and evildoers, found in Mesopotamian and Ancient South and North Arabian inscriptions. This invocation of the deity is used to protect property, sacred spaces, and memorial and funerary monuments, and to legally enforce the terms of treaties, commercial contracts, and agreements. Here the invocation of the deity can be understood as expressing the validity of the law. 136 Arabic laʿana is found in Nabataean inscriptions and legal documents (where it is understood to be an Arabism) 137 as well as in Ancient North Arabian inscriptions, in Thamudic and Safaitic. 138 In South Arabian, Sabaic inscriptions tend to use the root qmʿ to express a performative/threat curse, formed as lyqmʿn (“may he strike down”) or the nominal with conditional aspect l-qmʿn. This root also exists in Arabic but is

Mohammed Maraqten, “Curse Formulae in South Arabian Inscriptions and some of their Semitic Parallels,” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 28 (1998): 189–200, at 189–191. 137 See for example the formulation wylʿn dwšrʾ “And may Dhusara…curse…” in H 1 line 4 and in H 16 l. 3, and lʿn as a verb in H 2 l. 4, H 8 l. 5, H 11 l. 6, H 19 l. 8, in John F. Healey, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Madaʾin Salih (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 154. 138 Maraqten, “Curse Formulae,” 194–195. 136

76

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

not used for curses in early Islamic inscriptions. 139 In South Arabian boundary stone inscriptions, the curse formula parallels that found on Mesopotamian boundary markers (kudurru), “Let no one remove this monument.” 140 Thus Grohmann sees the curse formulae in the Prophet’s land documents as related to the traditions of Babylonian kudurru texts, Neo-Babylonian documents, South Arabian inscriptions, and Nabataean tomb inscriptions. 141 Redactions of the Prophet’s documents show some interchangeability of the operative term in land documents. Besides aʿṭā, aqtaʿa, fādā, antā, and wahaba also occur, but with less frequency. A different operative verb is employed in a pre-Islamic endowment text, written at the annual market of ʿUkāẓ and reported in al-Marzūqī’s (d. 421/1030) Kitāb al-azima wa-l-amkina. Michael Lecker points out that the operative verb in this text is manaha, while the Prophet’s documents regularly use aʿṭā to express conveyance. According to Lecker, the Prophet’s usage reflects the legal vocabulary of Medina and the context of a settled population addressing tribes in the vicinity of the city, whereas the ʿUkāẓ endowment illustrates a relationship between nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes. 142 The pre-Islamic formulary of the ʿUkāẓ text parallels that of the Prophet’s documents, with the exception of the final dating clause. The ʿUkāz document has the formulary: opening address (monumental, with repetition of operative verb), naming location of property and specifying what is included in rights, ending with indication of writing (performative wa-kutiba) followed by the date (year only). 143 Ibid., 194. Ibid., 195. 141 Grohmann, “Die Papyrologie,” 333. See his references for its use in Babylonian, Neo-Babylonian, Sabaic, and Nabataean. 142 Michael Lecker, “A Pre-Islamic Endowment Deed in Arabic Regarding al-Wahīda in the Ḥijāz,” in People, Tribes and Society in Arabia Around the Time of Muhammad (Burlington: Ashgate, 2005) 6–7. 143 Ibid., 16. 139 140

1. FORMULAE

77

In terms of Conquest-era terminology, although hādhā mā aʿṭā is a common opening formula for treaties, 144 land grants make use of a different terminology. In his accounts of land grants in southern Iraq under Muʿāwiya, for example, alBalādhurī uses the verb aqṭaʿa and the noun qaṭīʿa. 145 “Land grants” may not be the most appropriate terminology for the Prophet’s documents dealing with conveyance of land and rights to land. Here modern Bedouin customary law, while in contrast with these documents in terms of formulae and logic, helps us understand the relationship of clans with land and their needs in approaching the Prophet. What is being granted here is recognition, a necessary element, and not something that can be withheld without leading to war. The Prophet’s conveyance documents dealing with land should thus be understood as having the function of negotiating relations rather than granting rights. Modern Bedouin tribal law from the Sinai and the Negev turns on the understanding of the tribal confederation as providing exclusive access to land (water, pasture) to members, maintained and delimited by a cold war with other federations. 146 This law is expressed in the idiom of rights rather than limits, since there are no enforcing authorities. 147 Additionally, it conceives of the goal of the law as protection of the person and not of society, since security is the pre-eminent need of persons and clans. 148 Modern Bedouin tribal law recognizes individual ownership of land through cultivation which includes allowance of gifting. 149 The opening is found in the treaties with Jerusalem and Lydda; see Lecker, “A Pre-Islamic Endowment Deed,” 8 and Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 66–67. 145 al-Balādhurī, Liber, 356–72. 146 Clinton Bailey, Bedouin Law from Sinai and the Negev: Justice without Government (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) 13, 143, 264. 147 Ibid., 16. 148 Ibid., 17. 149 Ibid., 264–5, 268. 144

78

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

It is this framework of recognizing individual and tribal rights to land use that provides a context for the Prophet’s documents, although they use the idiom of “giving.” Michael Lecker has cautioned against referring to “grants” from the Prophet unless they are explicitly called such. He argues that, in these occasions, the Prophet usually recognized existing rights, relying on information given by the recipients of the document. Some reports may indicate that a recipient received a document for himself, but others will clarify that an individual acted as the leader and representative of a tribal group. 150 This seems to refer to rights to certain uses of the land, such as watering places, pasture, camping grounds (summer residence for nomadic pastoralists), as well as rights to cultivate land for the sedentary branches of the tribe. 151 How these types of documents are important to understanding, not the Prophet’s control or creation of a state, but the negotiation of arrangements for an inter-tribal security network, is explored in Chapter 3. The Prophet’s land conveyance documents are therefore distinct from Conquest-era law, although the Prophet’s documents are cited in later legal and administrative manuals in order to consolidate later legal practice. For example, Paul Heck notes that in his Kitāb al-Kharāj, Qudāma b. Jaʿfar (d. 337/948) uses references to the Prophet’s precedent concerning land grants in order to support his argument that the ultimate authority and ownership of lands belongs to the state. Qudāma cites Michael Lecker, The Banū Sulaym: A Contribution to the Study of Early Islam, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989) 175. 151 For an example of an account of a document that deals with rights to water, see Lecker, The Banū Sulaym, 174–5 and especially p. 175, note 179 where he notes that “ownership” here may be an inappropriate term since such rights may have been reclaimed annually. He also points out that such awards tended to represent recognition of existing rights. For an explanation of the Prophet’s principle of granting land pending on the condition of its cultivation see M. J. Kister, “The Struggle against Musaylima and the Conquest of Yamāma,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 27 (2002): 1–56, at 35. 150

1. FORMULAE

79

the Prophet’s precedent of bestowing cultivation rights but not rights to prohibit others’ access to resources of the land such as water, pasture, wood for fire. Heck notes that “[s]uch examples, though originating in pre-Islamic Bedouin custom, serve here to confirm that authority over the land, indeed its ownership, is still in the hands of the state, the source of the grants.” 152 This development is not reflected in the Prophet’s conveyance documents, which seem to operate within a framework that resembles modern Bedouin customary law that does grant exclusive access to land and resources and includes no presumption of state authority. Formulae of sale

One document of sale is found in Hamidullah’s corpus of the Prophet’s documents. The redactions of this text use the demonstrative pronoun and an operative term in the introductory formula and are written in an objective style, but none have a witness or scribal clause. 153

1. The document opens with a statement of sale: hādhā mā ishtarā fulān min Muḥammad rasūli llāh.

2. description of item/guarantee there is no flaw in the item: lā dāʾa wā-lā ghāʾila wa-lā khabītha 154

Paul L. Heck, The Construction of Knowledge in Islamic Civilization: Qudāma b. Jaʿfar and His Kitāb al-kharāj wa-ṣināʿat al-kitāba (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 178. 153 Muḥammad b. Yazīd ibn Māja, Sunan ibn Māja, ed. Muḥammad Fuʿād ʿAbd al-Bāqī (Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 1998) II: 300–301, kitāb altijārāt, bāb shirāʿi al-raqīq, no. 2251.; Izz al-Dīn b. al-Athīr, Usd alGhāba fi Maʿrifat al-Ṣahāba, 5 vols., ed. Khalīl Maʾmūn Shīḥā (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1997) III: 230, no. 3602; Aḥmad b. Muḥammad alQasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib al-ladunīya bi-l-minaḥ al-Muḥammadīya, ed. Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad Shāmī (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1991) II: 154–55. 154 The text given in Hamidullah’s corpus reads khabītha whereas the three redactions I have consulted (see Chapter 2) all have khubtha. 152

80

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

3. statement that the sale is one conducted between Muslims: bayʿu l-muslim li-l-muslim (224). This may be an investiture clause signaling the conveyance of the item. The document thus features a third person construction from the perspective of the emptor. Arabic papyri contracts of immovable/residential property are objectively written in the third-person, but contractual agreements other than for sale of immovable property are in the first person (per Egyptian practice). 155 These contracts, as for example one from Fayyūm dated 382/922 (BAU 12), are construed as the emptor’s transaction, in contrast to Greek and Coptic which are from the alienor’s perspective. 156 There is not enough material in the Prophet’s documents here to make an argument about formulae in sale documents and their use. It is evident however that the material is formulaic and understandable according to legal practice indicated by Arabic papyri. Formulae of manumission

There are two documents of unconditional manumission of male slaves from the Prophet in Hamidullah’s corpus.

1. opening

1.1 one opens with the basmala and the introductory formula: kitāb min Muḥammad rasūli llāh li-fulān 1.2 the other is written entirely in objective style, opening with: inna rasūla llāh aʿtaqahum

Gladys Frantz-Murphy, “A Comparison of Arabic and Earlier Egyptian Contract Formularies, Part V: Formulaic Evidence,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48/2 (1989): 97–107, at 105. 156 Ibid. 155

1. FORMULAE

81

2. operative section 2.1 subjective style: innī aʿtaqtuka li-llāhi ʿataqan mabtūlan (222) 2.2 objective style: inna rasūla llāh aʿtaqahum (244) 3. varying formulae for the renunciatory clause: 3.1 fa-anta ḥurrun lā sabīla li-aḥad ʿalyaka illā sabīl al-islām wa-ʿiṣmatu al-īmān (222) 3.2 fa-lā yuʿraḍu lahum illā bi-ḥaqq (244) 4. closing 4.1 one has a closing greeting, wa-l-salām (244) 5. scribal and witness clause 5.1. naming the scribe: wa-kataba… (244) 5.2 list of witnesses and naming the scribe: shahida bidhālika… wa-kataba… (222) The difference in formulary between the two documents is one of subjective/objective style. This is also seen, for example, in the variants of the document for Ukaydir and Dūmat alJandal. 157 Shifting between objective and subjective style thus may be typical of variance found in documents in literary transmission. The Prophet’s documents agree with Arabic papyri in their use of the operative term aʿtaqa for manumission, but otherwise differ in formulation. See for example a document of unconditional manumission for a slave girl from Egypt dated 393 A.H. (1003 C.E.). 158 The only other published documents of manumission are the Khurāsānī ʿiṭq documents. Two documents of unconditional emancipation, dated 138 and 160 A.H. respectively, include a statement that the act is performed for the sake of God 157 158

See Chapter 3 for redactions of this text. P.Cair.Arab I 37.

82

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

and a renunciation clause. 159 These documents use the phrase liwajh Allāh or li-wajhihi. A phrase expressing that the act is performed for the sake of God is found in the Prophet’s manumission document (222) but utilizing a different phraseology: lillāhi ʿataqan mabtūlan. The renunciation clause in both Khurāsānī documents, expressing that no one has a right upon the female slave except the right of patronage, laysa li-aḥadin ʿalayhim sabīl illā sabīl al-walāʾ, is similar in some phrasing to the renunciation clause in the Prophet’s document 222, but does not match with either of those in the Prophet’s documents. Both Khurāsānī documents have the operative term repeated in objective style and end with a list of witnesses and the phrase wa-kutiba followed by the date. A scribal clause that names the scribe is again distinctive of the Prophet’s documents. Thus, this type of document in the Prophet’s corpus follows the formulary exhibited by early Arabic documents, but with its own distinctive formulae.

FREE-FORMED, PRE-FORMED, AND ANOMALOUS MATERIAL

The lengthiest documents in the Prophet’s corpus are contracts, a type of material that is of great interest to later jurists and administrators. Their texts, however, are usually entirely formulaic, including legal clauses that are similar if not identical in formulation to those found in other documents of the same type in the corpus. The content is rarely rhetorical, with the exception of Qurʾanic citation, while extensive quotation of the Qurʾan for rhetorical or persuasive purposes is also rare. Nonformulaic material, inserted material, and literary devices occur in only a handful of the Prophet’s documents, where they are highly visible against the backdrop of formulaic text. Though by no means does every single document conform to the formulary sketched out in this chapter, that most do is significant. It is worthwhile to ask not only what is included in these documents, but what is excluded. That sajʾ, for example, is a rare occurrence and clearly anomalous is crucial. Hamidullah’s 159

P.Khurasan 29, P.Khurasan 30.

1. FORMULAE

83

corpus includes only two documents that employ sajʾ (91, 141/‫)ا–ب‬. 160 Diem finds the employment of sajʾ in the Prophet’s corpus to be inauthentic, arguing that it is historically only found in later texts as a written stylistic device. 161 The Prophet’s documents are generally abbreviated, devoid of the stereotypical polite formulae found in later Arabic papyri. This may be due entirely to the constraints of the material support (often described as qiṭʿat adīm, a leather scrap). 162 The room for packaging available is used instead for citation of the Qurʾan, although this occurs in a small fraction of the Prophet’s corpus. While shorter Qurʾanic phrases are incorporated into several formulae found in the Prophet’s corpus, extended quotation of the Qurʾan is rare, and occurs primarily in the letters to kings. Similarly, in Conquest-era treaties, Noth finds several references to Qurʾanic phrases but no lengthy citation. 163 When it occurs in the Prophet’s documents, Qurʾan citation is governed by rules for reworking quotations that are also seen in early Islamic inscriptions, including graffiti, such as allowing juxtaposition, rewording, and seamless integration of quotations into the larger text. If the quotation is introduced, it is typically only with the conjunction wa-. For example, the body of the letter to al-Muqawqis consists almost entirely of a quotation of Qurʾan 3:64 which is not distinguished from the rest of the text by any discourse markers. 164 The letter to Kisrā/Chosroes has a 216F

217F

See for example the guarantee document to the B. Nahd in Aḥmad b. ‘Alī al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā fī sinaʾat al-ansḥāʾ 14 vols (Cairo: alMuʾassasa al-miṣrīya al-ʿāmma li-l-taʾlīf wal-l-tarjuma wa-l-ṭibaʿa wa-lnashr, 1964) VI: 368–369. 161 Diem, “Arabic Letters,” 858. 162 See Chapter 4 on references to the material support of the Prophet’s documents. 163 Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 69. 164 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (d. 257/870–1), Futūḥ Miṣr wa-l-Maghrib (Cairo: Maktabat al-Ṯhaqāfa al-Dīnīya, 1995) 66–67; Aḥmad b. Muḥammad alQasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib al-ladunīya bi-l-minaḥ al-Muḥammadīya, ed. Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad Shāmī (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 199) II: 143. 160

84

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

partial quote of Qurʾan 36:70, in which some redactors replace the Qurʾanic li-yundhira with li-undhira (“so that I warn” for “so that he warns”), integrated seamlessly into the text of the document. 165 The letter to the Negus of Abyssinia contains a partial quotation of Qurʾan 59–23, placed not in the body of the letter but within the blessing formula, and introduced by the particle wa-. 166 In the letter to Hiraql/Heraclius, Qurʾan 3:64 is quoted, introduced by the particle wa-. 167 In the letter to Jayfar and ʿAbd of Julandā, Qurʾan 36:70 is integrated into the text without an introductory formula and exhibiting textual substitution, again the phrase li-undhira for li-yundhira. 168 A document addressed to the Jews of Khaybar quotes Qurʾan 48:29 as part of an argument concerning scripture, within a paraphrase of the Qurʾanic argument. The paraphrase is introduced by the phrase “Has not God said” (allā inna llāha qāla). The direct quotation is introduced by the phrase, “You will indeed find this your book” (wa-innakum la-tajidūna dhālika fī kitābikum). 169 Later in this document, a phrase from the Qurʾan is integrated into a sentence, the reference made explicit with the introduction, “If you do not find this in your book then there is no compulsion against you.” The quoted phrase is from Qurʾan 2:256, but omits the beginning portion of this verse.

al-Yaʿqūbī, al-Ṭabarī, and al-Qastallānī have li-yundhira, following the Qurʾan. Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb al-Yaʿqūbī, Tārīkh, ed. M. Th. Houtsma (Leiden: Brill, 1883) II: 73; Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr alṬabarī, Annales quos scripsit, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Lugundi Batavorum: Brill, 1879–1965) III: 1571–2; al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib I:139. Ibn Saʿd’s redaction has li-undhira: Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt I/ii:16. 166 al-Ṭabarī, Annales III: 1569; al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib II: 141. 167 Yaʿqūbī, Tārīkh II:73–74, al-Ṭabarī, Annales III, 1565, al-Qastāllanī, al-Mawāhib II, 137–8. 168 al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib II, 146. 169 Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed ibn Ishāk bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik ibn Hischām, 2 vols. (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1858–1860) 376–77. 165

1. FORMULAE

85

In these examples there is only one instance of the use of an introductory formula for a direct quotation; otherwise the use of the conjunction wa- may indicate self-conscious insertion of pre-formed material. Generally scriptural quotations are integrated into the text of the Prophet’s documents, with paraphrasing and textual substitution commonly occurring. Unmarked and altered Qurʾanic quotations are a feature of inscriptions from the Umayyad period. 170 For example, the Dome of the Rock inscriptions feature the juxtaposition of disparate Qurʾanic passages (for example 64:1 and 57:2 twice), conflation, shift of person to suit the sense, and occasional omission of a brief phrase. 171 Similar minor variants, characterized by the use of paraphrase and allusions, serving a persuasive aim and dependent on their recognition by the audience, are found on the copper plate inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock from al-Maʿmūn’s time. These elements lead Estelle Whelan to draw parallels between Qurʾanic citations in inscriptions and in sermons, indeed to argue that these inscriptions should not be seen as adhering to or deviating from an established text but as “little sermons or parts of a single sermon.” 172 Frédéric Imbert also emphasizes that early Islamic graffiti that includes Qurʾanic material do not agree with the canonical Qurʾanic text and challenge our use of the canon, including the qiraʾāt, as a measure for these inscriptions. 173 The graffiti show amalgamations of various Qurʾanic extracts, the expansion of Qurʾanic phrases, and variability in the use of the basmala to mark the beginning of the extracts. 174 Like Qurʾanic quotation, the use of reported speech in the Prophet’s documents follows a number of conventions. Reported For example the Qaṣr Kharāna inscription dated 92/710. Estelle Whelan, “Forgotten Witness: Evidence for Early Codification of the Qurʾān,” JAOS 118/1 (1998): 1–14, at 6. 172 Ibid., 7–8. 173 Frédéric Imbert, “Le Coran des pierres: statistiques epigraphiques et premieres analyses,” in eds. Mehdi Azaiez and Sabrina Mervin, Le Coran, Nouvelles approaches (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2013) 123–4. 174 Ibid. 170 171

86

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

speech can be introduced with a phrase, or inserted seamlessly into the rest of the text. For example, a reply from the Prophet to a letter from Abū Sufyān quotes the letter it is replying to, introducing this quotation as reported speech with the phrase “and as to your saying,” wa-ammā qawluka. 175 Though infrequently found in the Prophet’s documents, the use of reported speech also employs conventions for discourse markers. There is anomalous material in the Prophet’s documents, but this should be distinguished from entirely anomalous texts. In contrast to the Umayyad-era literary epistle, there are no comparable documents that are primarily expository, dogmatic, or stylistic exercises in the Prophet’s corpus (see Appendix 1, 1.5 for an example of a letter of the late Umayyad secretary ʿAbd alḤamīd b. Yaḥyā). The texts to Najrān and of the “Constitution of Medina” are the lengthiest in the corpus, and they are composed entirely of legal clauses. 176

CONCLUSION: DOCUMENTS AS PRODUCTS OF TRANS-LOCAL DESIGN

The formulae of the Prophet’s documents are stereotypical, predictable, and simplified. As John Wansbrough notes, chancery language tends “to crystallize in phrasal patterns and lexical collocation that would no doubt be unusual in most other contexts.” It is precise, often concise, “its grammar facilitates emulation and the search, where appropriate, for translational equivalents.” 177 Some of the distinctive wording in the Prophet’s documents and in early Arabic papyri, such as the “monumental opening” formula and use of the transition marker, find analogs in Nabataean legal documents and Ancient South Arabian letters. Comparison to documentary formulae found in other Ancient Near Eastern traditions also provides insight into the funcal-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, 493. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the legal terms of these two texts. 177 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 148. 175 176

1. FORMULAE

87

tion of the formulae. This comparison is based on seeking out equivalence of semantic functionality of formulae. This is Wansbrough’s definition of calque. 178 A chancery register is not only a linguistic phenomenon and formulaic in composition, but an element of the exchange of technology for purposes of administration and intercultural communication, carrying semiotic value (not only aural but ocular/visual) and consisting of “a transfer of content, form and design.” 179 It is this character, “the salience of format… visibility, the tidiness of segmentation and symmetry” that allows facility of transfer across cultures and languages. 180 Although, as Wansbrough points out, medieval secretaries like al-Qalaqashandī imagine Arabic chancery practice as an indigenous and local development with no pre-history, 181 this view cannot be substantiated by comparative studies. Wansbrough argues that chancery practice came to exist as a koine in the Mediterranean with the establishment of Rome. Similar to Holger Gzella’s argument for legal registers that cross languages in Syria-Palestine, Wansbrough’s koine is not a single language but a role played by several languages successively, and not strictly linguistic but a register including elements of international legal and juridical principles and formulation, exhibiting consensus and shared cultural constructs of responsibilities and obligations. 182 Wansbrough also argues that chancery practice is a self-perpetuating infrastructure. While diplomatic relations sought to obtain advantage and resources and establish authority, “the mode of transfer itself either was or could become an Ibid., 124. Ibid., 36. 180 Ibid., 140. 181 Ibid., 80. Throughout his manual, al-Qalqashandī provides references for formulary models from the time of the Prophet and the early Caliphs but these are self-consciously presented as simpler forms than those of the Fatimid-era tradition. 182 Ibid., 45. 178 179

88

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

object of transfer.” 183 The vehicle for this transfer was not just language contact but the contiguity of administrative space under empire (an inheritance from Rome) and the necessity of reciprocal relationships with economic and diplomatic dimensions. In fact, Wansbrough stresses that chancery developments can be tracked interculturally at the level of visual information, in the spatial layout of documents: Communication in this register is never exclusively, perhaps not even primarily, a matter of message, but rather, a statement of authority, design and intention, with a variable set of subsidiary ploys such as salutation, concern for welfare, request, complaint, and simply maintaining contact. Even when explicit, these latter are conveyed within a framework which is hierarchical, didactic and, above all, visible. From the arrangement of letterhead, cipher/paraph, and choice of formulae emerge the nature of the transaction and the respective standing of the participants. To be effective such communications must be seen, not merely heard… 184

There is no single factor or cause responsible for the development of chancery practice, which is generated by mutual expectations, “by contact, stipulation and compromise, none of which is possible without a set of shared symbols.” 185 According to Wansbrough’s thesis, this activity and infrastructure is not only the product of but also the origin or instigator of a lingua franca. 186 “I consider the chancery register to be as much agent as product in dissemination of the cultural koine which generated international law.” 187 The Prophet’s documents can also contribute evidence of this infrastructure, as their distinctive elements find parallels in pre-Ummayad-era traditions, such as the scribal colophons of Sabaic letters and the monuIbid., 147. Ibid., 89. 185 Ibid., 140. 186 Ibid., 145. 187 Ibid., 188. 183 184

1. FORMULAE

89

mental openings of Nabataean legal texts, suggesting that Arabic should be understood as participating in the legal and epistolary koine of ancient Arabia. Wansbrough points out that for a millennium and a half prior to Islam, the development of Arabic languages and their communities took place in a polyglot environment, in contact with Akkadian, various forms of Aramaic, Thamudic, Lihyanite, Safaitic, Greek, Latin, and possibly Egyptian. 188As he traces this process, Wansbrough argues that “the object of diffusion here is not a single object, but a sub-system of several.” 189 Milka Levy-Rubin’s work on Conquest-era surrender agreements corroborates Wansbrough’s “Orbits” thesis in that “there was a common international diplomatic terminology for use in the drafting of these documents.” 190 She also argues, as do Geoffrey Khan and Werner Diem, for the existence of a local Arabian tradition reflected in early texts under the Prophet. The distinctive terminology of the Prophet’s agreements with Maqnā and Najrān, for example, indicates that the legal tradition featuring the influence of Greek and Latin common outside the Arabian peninsula had not yet infiltrated Arabic culture. 191 And Eva Grob insists that in looking for a possible Documentary Standard in Arabic papyri, it will be found not at the level of orthography but at a macro-structural level, in “modular structures, patterns of sequences, possible combinations, defined discourses, and marked boundaries that give salience,” all of these features being more necessary to readability and accessibility than diacritical dots. 192 It is not literacy as a category, but the features that make documents visually and legally recognizable that may be most historically productive to pursue. Grob’s survey of Arabic private and business letters on papyrus reveals that, although most letters do not feature much Ibid., 170. Ibid., 188. 190 Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims, 165. 191 Ibid., 38. 192 Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 158. 188 189

90

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

graphic marking and structuring, there are several graphic marking strategies that correspond with the formulary and that there is a hierarchy formed by most to least marked sections. “It seems that the more redundant a text unit is (the more merely conventional and uninformative), the more likely it is that it will be marked graphically.” 193 These marking strategies include lengthening of words (mashq) used for justification of text, as well as using space to mark key-words and the beginning of sections. 194 The basmala, as the most predictable element of the Arabic letter, is almost always marked graphically, through being condensed (which also serves to highlight text), highlighted, and/or set apart. 195 Indentation and outdentation is used most often to mark the basmala, but it also used for the first and last lines of the letter and for explicit closing formulae such as the phrase wa-kutiba (“It is written”). Gaps are found at the beginning of sections, frequently between the basmala and initial blessings, and between pivotal sections of the body. 196 The most prominently and frequently marked sections in surviving Arabic papyri letters correspond with the most frequently found formulae in the Prophet’s documents. The most prominently marked elements in papyri letters are, in order, the basmala, final blessings, and prescript or initial blessings. 197 Grob’s survey shows that the early prescript was graphically treated as an integral unit, often with spacing found before the transition marker slot which follows the prescript (Figure 1). 198 These are also the most frequently found elements in the Prophet’s documents (the basmala, address or statement of document, and greeting), which are followed in frequency of occurrence in the corpus only by the closing scribal clause. That the prescript exists as a prescript in the Prophet’s documents, rather than as Ibid., 190. Ibid., 187–88. 195 Ibid., 191. 196 Ibid., 189. 197 Ibid., 190. 198 Ibid., 192–3. 193 194

1. FORMULAE

91

an arbitrary set of formulae, is clear. It may, thus, be possible to “see,” or see the traces of, graphic marking where it no longer exists in literary redactions of these documents. In addition, the propensity for the Prophet’s documents to be composed of consistent opening and closing formulae may suggest that entire sections of these texts, the more individualized and less graphically distinct elements in the body, are easier to drop and lose in transmission. The Prophet’s documents use distinctively early Arabic legal and epistolary formulae, and although they include features peculiar to their corpus, such as the inclusion of scribal clauses and the location of the salām… hudā greeting, their formulae are not idiosyncratic. That these formulae can be located within a history of Ancient Arabian and Ancient Near Eastern documentary formulae suggests not literary influence or copying by redactors but their translatability and accessibility and thus the functionality of formulary and formulae as technologies. This functionality and the embeddedness of conventional linguistic structures within larger socio-political frames and practices is what allows them to be stored in memory. Consistently occurring and historically comparable formulae are thus evidence for legal tradition, functioning at the level of customary law and diplomatics, institutionalized at the level of behaviors, phrases, and spatial format, developing as a result of travel and the interchange of professionals including merchants, diplomats, and messengers. This legal and diplomatic context as well as their formulaic structure widens the context of the Prophet’s documents beyond the narrative and doctrinal needs of historiography and ḥadīth. These texts are the artifacts of negotiations within the bounds of existing practice. Chapter 3 will explore one such existing framework, of customary law on the inalienability and ownership of land and Bedouin-sedentary alliances that ensure religious and mercantile movement in Arabia. Along with this local level is the recognition by and claims in relation to existing neighboring polities exhibited by the engagement of the Prophet’s documents’ with an international diplomatic tradition inflected by Akkadian, Aramaic, and legal and epistolary traditions intersecting with Sabaic and Nabataean. The formula

92

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

itself is a technology, facilitating itself, facilitating translatability, utility, communicativeness, and movement, as well as claims to authority, validity, and reach.

1. FORMULAE

93

Figure 1. Graphic marking of the prescript in a letter dating from the end of the 2nd/8th c. Lines 1–3 include the prescript and show that elements within are also marked (basmala + address + greeting + doxology). The body starts on line 4 with an initial blessing preceded by the transition ammā baʿdu.

Österreichische Nationalbibliothek P.Vind.A.P. 15016 recto. Published with permission from the Austrian National Library.

CHAPTER 2. VARIANCE Everything about medieval literary inscription seems to elude the modern conception of the text, of textual thought. --Bernard Cerquiglini, In Praise of the Variant 1 1 DEBORAH Like he says that 2 he says that Americans… → 3 CHAD ˪ Yeah 4 or Westerners tend to uh: … 5 think of the body and the soul 6 as two different things, → 7 CHAD ˪ Right. 8 because there’s no word 9 that expresses body and soul together. 10 CHAD ˪ body and soul together. 11 Right. – Deborah Tannen, Talking Voices 2

Bernard Cerquiglini, In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology, trans. Betsy Wing (Baltimore, London: The John Hopkins UP, 1997) 21. 2 Deborah Tannen, Talking Voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989) 60. → shows that the speaker’s turn continues without interruption; ˪ indicates voices speaking simultaneously; : represents an elongated vowel sound; key words are underlined. All sigla are from the original. 1

95

96

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

A conversation: set phrases, repetitions, overlaps, self-references and corrections, insertions, boundary markers. Truth as accuracy and verbal fixity is something that is difficult to establish in linguistic terms. In a study devoted to discourse markers in medieval English texts, Colette Moore notes that modern cultural expectations that quotation marks report the “exact words” of a source have been criticized by linguists, especially regarding the written representation of spoken language. 3 Studies in discourse analysis treat quotations as evidential claims and rhetorical strategies, and verbatim reproduction as a cultural expectation rather than the actual incidence of exact linguistic reproduction, as it occurs in both written texts and conversations in various contexts, narrative and non-narrative. 4 Linguists have argued that quotations used in conversation are creative, interpretive acts, 5 distinguished between verbatim reproduction and faithfulness in written texts, 6 and challenged the “verbatim assumption” by arguing that quotations should be understood as demonstrations. 7 These considerations, of quotations being subject to both editorial changes and contextual meanings, and a nonassumption of verbatim reproduction in speech and written texts, form some of the core assumptions of medieval scholastic Collette Moore, Quoting Speech in Early English (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011) 79). 4 Mike Baynham, “Direct Speech: What’s it doing in non-narrative discourse?” Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996): 61–81; Mary Bucholtz, “The politics of transcription,” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000): 1439–1465. 5 Tannen, Talking Voices, 101. Tannen demonstrates how reported speech tends to be presented as direct rather than indirect speech in dialogue, which produces a more vivid effect, conveying emotions and evidentiality (Talking Voices, 25–26). 6 Mick Short, Elena Semino, and Martin Wynne, “Revisiting the notion of faithfulness in discourse presentation using a corpus approach,” Language and Literature 11/4 (2002): 325–355. 7 Herbert H. Clark and Richard J. Gerrig, “Quotations as Demonstrations,” Language 66/4 (Dec., 1990): 764–805. 3

2. VARIANCE

97

discourse on both the transmission of ḥadīth and of poetry. These scholastic and literary cultures reflect an epistemology that associates variance, resonance, and performativity with truth. These are medieval, not failed modern texts. The earliest ḥadīth critics made distinctions between transmission of the “meaning” (maʿnā) and verbatim text in ḥadīth reports. 8 Under verbatim transmission, there were various ways in which the text (matn) of a ḥadīth was recognized as having been edited by an oral or written transmitter. As Jonathan Brown demonstrates, however, early scholars of ḥadīth conceived of the meaning (aṣl) of a ḥadīth to reside in an event and the Companion related to it, and not in a particular act of speech. In addition, a single narration of a ḥadīth did not need to bear the entire weight of establishing its link to the Prophet. Repairs could be made in the historical certainty attributed to a particular narration of a ḥadīth with corroborating versions. 9 Brown maps out the epistemological scale used by the formative Partisans of Ḥadīth (ahl al-ḥadīth) and Sunni scholars (ahl al-sunna wa-l-jamāʿa) who preceded the development of ḥadīth criticism and legal theory in the late fourth/tenth and early fifth/eleventh centuries, defining three concepts that illustrate how truth is various even within a certain slice of intellectual tradition, which at times prefers certain types of truth over others. These are 1) historical truth, the extent to which ḥadīth accurately represents “the Prophet’s precedent and general teachings as manifested in historical moments in the life of the early Muslim community”; 2) literal truth, “whether or not the Prophet actually said a certain statement or performed a certain act”; and 3) effective truth, the power that the Prophet’s idiom “could wield in the Sunni tradition regardless of its actual auThis corresponds to medieval Latin distinction between verba and res. See Moore, Quoting Speech, 83. 9 Jonathan A. C. Brown, “Did the Prophet Say It or Not? The Literal, Historical and Effective Truth of Hadiths in Early Sunnism,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 192/2 (2009): 259–285 at 279. 8

98

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

thenticity or the stated commitment of the Muslim scholars to assuring a hadith’s reliability.” 10 The notion of a ḥadīth having an aṣl was central to ḥadīth criticism and transmission, and this basis was usually associated with a Companion assumed to have witnessed the Prophet speak or act on a certain occasion. With this basis, Brown points out, a wide range of acceptable permutations was possible, in both the chain and text of a report, even if the ḥadīth was concluded to be ṣaḥīḥ (sound/correct/authentic). Contraction and expansion of ḥadīth texts were integral to their utility. In his letter explaining the criteria for his ḥadīth collection, the Sunan, Abū Dawūd al-Sijistānī (d. 275/889) writes that his reason for sometimes abbreviating ḥadīth was to make the juridical significance of a report apparent: “Sometimes I abbreviated a long ḥadīth because, if I had written it in its entirety, some who hear it might not have recognized its juristic import.” 11 The practice of riwāya bi-l-maʾnā, where a narrator provided the gist of a statement of the Prophet or a “recreation” of his literal words, was widely accepted by ḥadīth transmitters of the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries and eventually unanimously accepted in later manuals of ḥadīth sciences such as those of al-Khaṭīb alBaghdādī (d. 463/1071) and Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ al-Shahrazūrī (d. 643/1245). Thus even a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth “was only a permutation of an authentic urtext, with a strong possibility that it was just the gist of his words.” 12 Brown, “Did the Prophet Say It,” 264. Abū Dawūd al-Sijistānī Risāla li-Abī Dawūd ilā ahl Mecca fī waṣf sunanihi, ed. Muhammad al-Luṭfī al-Ṣabbāgh (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1317/1997) 64. 12 Brown, “Did the Prophet Say It or Not,” 275. This permutation could take many shapes, some of which are discussed in literature on ziyāda. Additional material, including words, phrases, or historical circumstances, found within the text of a ḥadīth through a particular transmission may be due, according to al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī’s Al-kifāya fī maʿrifat uṣūl fī ʿilm al-riwāya, to Companions at one time quoting the Prophet, and at another, pronouncing a religious judgment based on his 10 11

2. VARIANCE

99

In the formative phase of ḥadīth criticism, the question of which ḥadīth was “sounder” than another often had nothing to do with the wording or implications of a ḥadīth but with which narration drew on more respected transmitters or enjoyed more corroboration through the general practice of scholars or other supporting narrations. 13 According to Brown, the generation of al-Bukhārī and Muslim’s teachers seems to have held that a ḥadīth represented an item of historical truth, meaning that it documented elements of the Prophet’s teachings or events in his life. 14 Indeed, “the Muslim ḥadīth critics of the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries were eminently aware of both the literal ambiguity inherent in even a ‘historically true’ report and the creative component of transmitting the words of the Prophet.” 15 Although early ḥadīth scholars distinguished between the Followers (the generation following the Companions of the Prophet) who transmitted ḥadīth precisely and those transmitting the general meaning of a report, this discussion, Scott Lucas notes, “suggests that a percentage of the vast ḥadīth corpus never consisted of the exact locutions of the Prophet Muhammad, even though the reports were considered faithful to his practices and opinions.” 16 These developing standards for the concepts of authenticity and attribution had epistemological implications, and they are paralleled by developments in ʿAbbāsid-era literary theory. As Irene Peirano writes, “From a diachronic point of view, authenticity, I argue, is better thought of as a value rather than as a

words (Jonathan A. C. Brown, “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon: alDāraquṭnī’s Adjustment of the Ṣaḥīḥayn,” Journal of Islamic Studies 15/1 (2004): 1–37 at 29). 13 Ibid., 30–32. 14 Ibid., 24. 15 Ibid., 26. 16 Scott C. Lucas, Constructive Critics, Ḥadīth Literature, and the Articulation of Sunnī Islam: The Legacy of the Generation of Ibn Saʿd, Ibn Maʿīn, and Ibn Ḥanbal (Leiden: Brill, 2004) 324.

100

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

property.” 17 In early Arabic literary criticism and theory, authenticity encompasses significant variance in the wording of poetic material. While modern scholarship considers variance to represent the “corruption” of a poetic tradition, misattribution and tendentious or propagandistic claims of authenticity “are problems that evidently did not overly concern those who were actively involved in the living tradition of early Arabic poetry— poets, rāwīs, or audience. Neither did they seem to be of great importance to the earliest compilers and connoisseurs of poetry.” 18 Even when more rigid criteria were developed, scholars included variants as well as lines of questionable attribution or authenticity in their commentaries, literary and historical collections, and philological studies, rather than omitting them without note. 19 The variants in Michael Zwettler’s study of the redactions of Imruʾ l-Qays’ Muʿallaqa are meaningful ones. Although the muʿallaqa includes verses of dubious attribution, in their placement, they correspond with the thematic structure of the qaṣīda. And although these verses could have originated in the repertoire of another poet, Zwettler argues that this was irrelevant to the compilers’ notion of text, “for it is clear that they had come to form an integral part of the poem as it was rendered, received, and experienced within the living oral tradition.” Zwettler concludes, most significantly, that “it may be that the matter of a qaṣīda’s integrity—something that we are Irene Peirano, “Authenticity as an Aesthetic Value: Ancient and Modern,” in Aesthetic Value in Classical Antiquity, eds. Ineke Sluiter and Ralph M. Rosen (Leiden: Brill, 2012): 215–42, 217. 18 Michael Zwettler, The Oral Tradition of Classical Arabic Poetry: Its Character and Implications (Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1978), 205. 19 Zwettler, Oral Tradition, 206. This point is corroborated by Amidu Sanni, “Did Ṭarafa Actually Steal from Imra ‘l-Qays? On coincidence of thoughts and expressions (tawārud) in Arabic literary theory,” Arabic and Middle Eastern Literatures 4/ 2 (2001): 117–136 who also sees the standards on authenticity and correct attribution as a later professional development of ʿAbbāsid literary theorists and their interest in legislating practice. 17

2. VARIANCE

101

only beginning to understand—is of far greater importance than its authenticity or attribution.” 20 The variants found in redactions of the Prophet’s documents are such meaningful differences, contributing to create coherent wholes. These differences in wording are of little interest to the transmitters, who do not engage in discussions over exact wording even when they present multiple versions of the texts. 21 Variance in these texts is thus not simply a difference in wording, nor can the differences be explained as the relation of derivatives to originals, or different attempts at claiming accurate or verbatim representation of an individual’s speech. The author of these documents is not the Prophet but the larger documentary and legal tradition, which sets the parameters of what is possible, expected, and allowable in these texts. These are both the limits to the practice of producing documents and copies and redactions of documents, as well as the limits to the type of variance found across redactions. The legal tradition anchors itself with a set of well-known terms, phrases, formulae and their relative positions in a text (the formulary). 22 What is being retained and transmitted across these redactions should not be considered a verbal representation of something the Prophet did or said. Instead, it is the form of the documents itself that is being transmitted. As well as being the object that is transmitted, this form is the primary factor informing the types of variance, and the limits to the variance, that results.

SELECTION OF REDACTIONS

This chapter presents the following information for a selection of the Prophet’s documents. 1) Introductory and concluding reIbid., 234, n. 125. See the conclusion to this chapter for examples of such variants and how they illustrate a culture of copying. 22 A similar argument on the agency of formulaic language is one of John Wansbrough’s theses in his Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1996) 12, 21, 22. 20 21

102

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

marks given in the narrative reports that cite the document. 2) A collation of textual witnesses. 3) A list of the types of variants found, slot by slot. Decisions on designating breaks between slots are guided by the formulae within the slots and the structure of the documents (new slots tend to begin in the same way, for example, introduced by a series of the particle wa-inn or connector wa). Slots are identified by formula type (e.g., greeting, guarantee clause, witness clause) when these are consistent across the redactions. In this presentation, rather than listing only the variants, each redaction’s version of the formula will be presented in its entirety. This takes into account such concerns as Bernard Cerquiglini’s, that not providing the syntax leaves variants defined according to classical morphology, “blind to the movements of the text.” 23 Its place in syntax illustrates how “the variant is never punctual.” 24 The replacement of words at the level of synonyms, for example, is not an “error” or “change” at the level of the individual word, but a making sense of the entirety of the text. The formula as a whole is being transmitted, understood, and applied. Presenting the whole text in several versions also allows us to see the existence of layout as a property of the documents, which can be seen through transmission. The redactions will be presented from the earliest to latest chronologically. Redactions that agree exactly will be listed together, separated by commas. Strikethrough indicates a redaction’s omission of the entire slot. Note that terminology such as “addition,” “omission,” or “replacement” is meant to be neutral and does not suggest directionality, since neither text is considered original or most ancient. For each document type, I include two examples wherever possible (the sale document is the only one in this selection which appears to be one of a kind). These types are determined based on internal terminology and phraseology used in the doc23 24

Cerquiglini, In Praise of the Variant, 74. Ibid., 77–78.

2. VARIANCE

103

ument, and include administrative and diplomatic letters, contracts, treaties, and legal texts. However, these categories, even when relying on internal terminology, are rather arbitrary, and are only used here in order to roughly organize the material by subject matter. Some specific documents that are referenced in Chapters 3 and 4 are given in their entirety here. This is not an exhaustive study of variants even in these selected documents, much less in the entirety of the corpus of the Prophet’s documents. It cannot be a comprehensive display or even a representative sample of variants in the corpus, as even more variants may be found in multiple manuscript copies of each source. Thus this chapter is not representative of the extent of variance possible even in this group of Arabic sources. However, the range in the type of document examined here and of the literary sources reproducing them allows us to examine what happens to formulae across redactions. These particular documents have been chosen as examples in order to present a mix of better known and less known texts attributed to the Prophet. Their selection was also dependent on multiple redactions from a variety of sources being available. The sources for the redactions include the following. These sources were selected based on their inclusion of quotations of several of the Prophet’s documents and their representing a range of literary genres and time periods. Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī’s (d. 207/822) work on the Prophet’s military campaigns, the Kitāb al-maghāzī (Wa) Ibn Hishām’s (d. 213/828 or 218/833) redaction of the biography (Sīra) of the Prophet by Ibn Isḥāq (d. ca. 150/767) (IH) Legal manuals on taxation, Kitāb al-kharāj by Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb b. Ibrāhīm (d. 182/798) (AY) and Kitāb al-amwāl by Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām (d. 224/838) (AU) The chapters on the letters of the Prophet and on the delegations to the Prophet in the biographical dictionary Al-Ṭabaqāt alkabīr, of Muḥammad Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845) (IS)

104

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Two ḥadīth compilations, the Musnad of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) (IḤ) and the Sunan of Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Yazīd ibn Māja (d. ca. 273/887) (IM) Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī’s (d. 279/892) history of the Muslim conquests, Futūḥ al-buldān (Ba) Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb al-Yaʿqūbī’s (d. after 292/905) history, the Tārīkh (Ya) The annalistic history of Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), Tārīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk (Ta) The later biographical dictionaries of ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr (d. 630/1233), Usd al-ghāba fī maʿrifat al-ṣaḥāba (IA) and of Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449), Al-Isāba fī tamyīz alṣaḥāba (IHj) Yāqūt al-Rūmī’s (d. 626/1229) geographical dictionary, Muʿjam al-buldān (Yt) The chancery manual, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā fī ṣināʿat al-inshāʾ of Mamluk secretary Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Qalqashandī (d. 791/1389) (Ql) Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Maqrīzī’s (d. 845/1442) biography of the Prophet, Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ and of Tamīm al-Dārī, Ḍawʾ al-sārī (Ma) Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Qasṭallānī’s (d. 901/1495–6) history of the Prophet, al-Mawāhib al-laduniyya bi-l-minaḥ alMuḥammadiyya (Qs).

TYPOLOGY OF VARIANTS FOUND

In order to render the following charts more readable, the types of variance found within the selected texts is summarized here. The most commonly occurring variant in medieval redactions of the Prophet’s documents consists of the omission and addition of entire (stereotypical) slots or formulae within slots. The most frequently dropped slots are the basmala, the closing greeting, the scribal clause, and the witness clause. Less substantive variants include differences in the use of prepositions and pronouns within formulae.

2. VARIANCE

105

Concerning variants within formulae, the most common and most substantive are: differences in personal names (this occurs in both the historical reports and in the texts of the documents), changes to the operative verb, and the omission of individual terms or conditions in formulae that are legal clauses. Even in the highly controversial subset of the letters to kings, the substantive variants consist of the replacement of one noun with another. The most prominent examples are the replacement of arīsiyyīn with akkārīn, the latter a more updated term for “famers/peasants,” in Heraclius’ letter, and the extra line on sending Jaʿfar b. Abī Ṭālib found in the Negus’ letter. 25 The formula itself does not change in these cases, and the only evidence for diachronic change is limited to these single operative verbs and nouns and is minimal. The variance across redactions shows that older terms are preserved along with the updated terminology. This is apparent only once several of the same type of document are assessed. For Heraclius’ letter, see Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb al-Yaʿqūbī, Tārīkh, ed. M. Th. Houtsma (Leiden: Brill, 1883), II: 3–74 and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib al-ladunīya bi-l-minaḥ alMuḥammadīya, ed. Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad Shāmī (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1991) II:141. Al-Yaʿqūbī and al-Qasṭallānī both have arīsiyyīn, while alṬabarī has akkārīn. See Abū Jaʾfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Annales quos scripsit, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Lugundi-Baavoruml: Brill, 1879– 1965) III:1565. According to Suliman Bashear, the reference to Heraclius’ responsibility for the sins of his peasant subjects does not fit in with the highly religious and theological context of the letter and Dihya’s mission. He links the term to the followers of Arius. Bashear concludes that the meaning of this sentence is a warning to Heraclius of divine punishment if he should fail to lead the arūsiyya, already close to Islam in denying Jesus’ divinity, to the correct faith, and traces the confusion over the meaning of arīsiyīn and its substitution with akkārīn to Abū ʿUbayd’s Kitāb al-amwāl, which substituted fallāhīn, “farmers,” for arīsiyīn. (Suliman Bashear, “The Mission of Dihya al-Kalbī and the Situation in Syria,” Der Islam 74 (1997) 88–91). For a comparison of several redactions, including the modern relics, of the letters to kings, see Sarah Mirza, “Copies More Authentic than Originals.” 25

106

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

The remaining substantive variant is in names, both personal and place-names. The names of scribes and witnesses can be given in clauses or as information as part of the khabar and these names show a great amount of variance across redactions, particularly when reports claim to transmit eye-witnessed copies. A number of the Prophet’s documents exhibit this fluctuation, including Ḥudaybiyya and the conveyance documents for Salama al-Sulamī and for Tamīm al-Dārī. The corpus of the Prophet’s documents includes those with highly contested legal and exegetical content, such as the letters to kings, contracts with non-Muslims, and grants such as the one to Tamīm al-Dārī, as well as documents which are much simpler, yet the areas in which their redactions evince variance are shared. The variants are mostly formal: including substitution by synonyms, altered order of phrases within formulae and occasionally of entire formulae, and addition or omission of formulae. Formulae are expanded or contracted using formulaic elements that are found elsewhere in the documentary tradition. Some formulae appear less essential in transmission and can be dropped (greetings, transition markers, closing elements) in the redactions. I differ with Noth concerning his conclusion that this type of variant indicates that these reproductions do not return to physical copies. 26 Physical copies, unless indicated in the narrative reports, do not appear to have been used as a matter of course for citation of documents. The dropping of such formulae seems instead to be an indication of their vulnerability and expendability due to their conventionality. The redactions do not exhibit differences that can be ascribed to regional or dialectal differences, nor modernizing of formulae or clauses, with the exception of some operative verbs and nouns (e.g., the letter to Heraclius). Structural differences are infrequent and include alternation between objective and subjective style (the legal significance of which, if any, is difficult to systematize for the Prophet’s documents, and seems to be 26

Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 72–73.

2. VARIANCE

107

less relevant to determining the legal type or status of the document, than the opening formulae). Both the integrity of each slot and the formulae within them as well as their spatial relations to one another are maintained. The range of variance found in this selection of the Prophet’s documents corresponds with those found for Conquest-era documents in literary transmission. Noth’s analysis of variants exhibits a similar range and types of variants. He lists: expressions replaced with synonyms; additions and omissions “of little material importance,” entire passages reformulated, conditions added or omitted entirely (this does not apply to property rights), changes in conditions including amounts of payment due. 27 Wadād al-Qāḍī also sees changes over time reflected in futūḥ documents in literary transmission. For example, there is irregularity in maintaining either objective or subjective format, but only in the first nineteen years hijrī. She finds increasing consistency over time as reflective of the credibility of the reported documents, or at least of the relationship between these redactions in literary transmission and the original texts of the agreements. 28

TYPES OF DOCUMENT Treaties/contracts 1. Ḥudaybiyya

In an expedition of 6/628 intending to perform the pilgrimage the Prophet halted outside of Mecca and negotiated a truce of ten years with the Quraysh. The provisions were that the MusIbid., 74–75. Wadād al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal ilā dirāsat ʿuhūd al-ṣulḥ al-islāmiyya zaman al-futūḥ,” in The Acts of the Fourth International Conference on the History of Bilād al-Shām, vol. 2, eds. Muḥammad ʿAdnān al-Bakhīt and Ḥasan ʿAbbās (Amman: Jāmiʿat al-Urdunīya, 1987): 193–269, at 203– 204. 27 28

108

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

lims be allowed to perform the Ḥajj in the following year, that the Prophet return any of the Quraysh who had fled to him without their guardians’ permission, and that all other tribes were free to enter into alliances with either the Quraysh or Muḥammad. Most accounts of the treaty include explication of the resistance on the Qurayshī side to use of the invocation “In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful” and Muḥammad’s title “Messenger of God” in the document. Ibn Hishām has the whole text. There is no witness list or scribal clause within the document. These names are found later in the report, introduced by the formula, “When the Messenger of God ṣlʿm finished with the document men from among the Muslims and from among the polytheists witnessed to it,” followed by names, ending with “and ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and he wrote and he was the scribe of the document [wa-ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib wa-kataba wa-kāna huwa kātib al-ṣaḥīfa].” 29 Al-Wāqidī has a lengthened story on the erasure of the basmala and the title of the Prophet. According to his note following his quotation of the document, his list of witnesses’ names was included in the body of the document. 30 Abū Yūsuf has a short summary of the document, including direct quotations from individuals concerning discussion over its phrasing (the basmala and the Prophet’s title), followed by a short excerpt, followed by direct speech, rather than a clause in the document, of the Prophet and the Quraysh announcing that “anyone who has entered with me/us upon him will be the like of my/our conditions.” 31 Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed ibn Ishāk bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik ibn Hischām, 2 vols. (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1858–1860), 748–749. 30 Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, ed. Marsden Jones (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996), II: 612. 31 Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb b. Ibrāhīm, Kitāb al-kharāj, eds. Ṭāhā ʿAbd al-Raʿūf Saʿd and Saʿd Ḥasan Muḥammad (Cairo: Maktabat al-Azhariyya li-lturāth, 1420/1999), 22. 29

2. VARIANCE

109

Abū ʿUbayd has three reports on the document in his chapter on ṣulḥ and muhādana between Muslims and mushrikīn (polytheists). The first returns to ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr and gives a summary of the clauses (AU1). The second is from al-Miswar b. Makhrama and Marwān b. al-Ḥakam, a short paraphrase of the conditions given in the second person (AU2). The third is from al-Barāʾa b. ʿĀzib, a summary followed by mention of the scribe, followed by quotation of a compact form of the text without witnesses or scribal clause (AU3). 32 Ibn Ḥanbal has a partial quotation of the document, given after a description of the altercation over the opening formulae, from ʿAbd Allāh < Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal < Yazīd b. Hārūn < Muḥammad b. Isḥāq b. Yasār < al-Zuhrī Muḥammad b. Muslim b. Shahāb < ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr < al-Miswar b. Makhrama and Marwān b. al-Ḥakam. This is a condensed version of the document, with no closing formulae and including a paraphrase rather than quotation of conditions, introduced by phrase “wa kāna fī sharṭihim ḥīna katabū al-kitāb annahu…” (“And there were, among the conditions at the time when they wrote the document, that…”) 33 Al-Yaʿqūbī quotes the dialogue over writing the basmala and the address, followed by a paraphrase of the document. According to his report, ʿAlī puts the kitāb in the hand of Suhayl b. ʿAmr of the Quraysh at the end. 34 Al-Ṭabarī’s first report returns to ʿAlī. The document is quoted and later in the report a list of witnesses is given and the scribe named (Ṭ1). The second report paraphrases the document and returns to al-Barāʾa. This report includes ʿAlī’s objection to Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim b. al-Sallām, Kitāb al-amwāl, ed. Muḥammad Khalīl Harrās (Cairo: Maktabat al-kuliyyāt al-Azhariyya, 1388/1968) 230–33. 33 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad wa bi-hāmishihi kitāb muntakhab kanz al-ʿummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʿāl li-l-muttaqī alHindī (Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Maymanīya, 1895) IV: 323–26. 34 Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb al-Yaʿqūbī, Tārīkh, ed. M. Th. Houtsma (Leiden: Brill, 1883) II: 55. 32

110

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

erasing the Prophet’s title and the Prophet taking the document and rewriting the address himself (Ṭ2). 35 Al-Maqrīzī has a quotation of the document, with the final clause featuring a change in grammatical person so it is uncertain whether it is meant to be included in the quotation. A list of witnesses and the scribe immediately follows. According to his report, the document is not handed over to Suhayl but the issue of original versus copy is made explicit. The document is copied and the Prophet keeps the original. 36 Al-Qalqashandī has the text as a prototype of a muhādana document with the ahl al-kufr. A long ḥadīth returning to ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr on disagreement over the phrasing of the opening of the document is taken from al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ. A scribe, kātib, is referred to but no name given. Al-Qalqashandī ends this account with a note that such is the account in al-Bukhārī, while the experts of the sīra provide the information that the scribe was ʿAlī, and introduces the (abbreviated version) of the text of the document with the phrase, wa-an nasakhtuhu l-kitāb (“Here I have copied the document”). The quotation is followed by a statement that the treaty was witnessed by a number of men from among the Muslims and the polytheists, wa-ushhidu fī lkitāb ʿalā l-ṣulḥ rijālan min al-muslimīn wa-l-mushrikīn. 37 Collation of witnesses:

(basmala)

Wa, IḤ, Ma ‫با�مك اللهم‬

IH, AU3, Ṭ1, Ṭ2, Ql

Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, 1546–1547. Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ bi-mā li-l-rusūl min al-anbāʾ wa-al-amwāl wa-al-hafadah wa-al-matāʿ, ed. Maḥmūd Shākir (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Lajnat al-Taʾlīf wa-al-Tarjama wa-al-Nashr, 1941), I: 296–98. 37 Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshāʿ fī sinaʿat al-ansḥāʾ 14 vols (Cairo: al-Muʾassasa al-miṣrīya al-ʿāmma li-l-taʾlīf wal-l-tarjuma wa-l-ṭibaʿa wa-l-nashr, 1964), XIV: 4–6. 35 36

‫‪111‬‬

‫‪2. VARIANCE‬‬

‫)‪(opening‬‬

‫هذا ما صا�� �ليه ���د �ن عبد ا��� ��يل �ن ��رو ‪IH, Ma‬‬

‫هذا ما اصطلح �ليه ���د �ن عبد ا��� و ��يل �ن ��رو ‪Wa, IḤ‬‬ ‫هذا ما قا�� �ليه ���د �ن عبد ا��� اهل م�� ‪AU3‬‬

‫هذا ما صا�� �ليه ���د �ن عبد ا��� ��يل ا�ن ��رو ‪Ṭ1‬‬

‫هذا ما قا�� �ليه ���د ‪Ṭ2‬‬

‫هذا ما قا�� �ليه ���د �ن عبد ا��� ��يل �ن ��رو ‪Ql‬‬

‫)‪(clause 1‬‬

‫اصطل�ا ��� وضع ا��رب عن الناس ع�� يامن ف��ن الناس و يكف بع��م عن بعض‬

‫سن�ن ‪IH, Ma‬‬

‫��رو اصطل�ا ��� وضع ا��رب ع�� سن�ن يامن ف��ا الناس و يكف بع��م عن بعض ‪Wa‬‬

‫يامن ف��ا الناس و يكف بع��م عن بعض و ��� وضع ا��رب عن الناس ع�� سن�ن ‪IḤ‬‬

‫��رو اصطل�ا ��� وضع ���رب عن الناس يامن ف��ن الناس و يكف بع��م عن بعض‬

‫ع�� سن�ن ‪Ṭ1‬‬

‫و ��� وضع ا��رب عن الناس ع�� سن�ن ‪Ql‬‬

‫‪AU3, Ṭ2‬‬

‫)‪(clause 2‬‬

‫��� انه �� اس��ل و�� ا���ل و ان بيننا عيبة مكفوفة ‪Wa, Ma‬‬ ‫‪IH, AU3, IḤ, Ṭ1, Ṭ2, Ql‬‬ ‫)‪(clause 3‬‬

‫و انه من احب ان ���ل �ي عهد ���د و عقده فعل و انه من احب ان ���ل �ي عهد‬ ‫قر�� و عقدها فعل ‪Wa, Ma‬‬

‫و انه من احب ان ���ل �ي عقد ���د و عهده د�ل فيه و من احب ان ���ل �ي عقد‬ ‫قر�� و عهدهم د�ل فيه ‪Q1‬‬

‫‪IH, AU3, IḤ, Ṭ1, Ṭ2‬‬ ‫)‪(clause 4‬‬

‫��� انه من ا�ى ���دا من قر�� بغ�� اذن وليه رده �ل��م ‪IH‬‬

‫‪DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET‬‬

‫‪112‬‬

‫و انه من ا�ى ���دا م��م بغ�� اذن وليه رده اليه ‪Wa‬‬

‫��� انه من ا�ى رسوا ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� �� من ا��ابه بغ�� اذن وليه و رده �ل��م ‪IḤ‬‬

‫��� انه من ا�ى رسوا ا��� من قر�� بغ�� اذن وليه رده �ل��م ‪Ṭ1‬‬ ‫و انه من ا�ى ���دا م��م بغ�� اذن وليه رده ���د اليه ‪Ma‬‬

‫‪AU3, Ṭ2‬‬

‫)‪(clause 5‬‬

‫و من �اء قر��ا ممن مع ���د �� ��دوه �ليه ‪IH‬‬

‫و انه من ا�ى قر��ا من ا��اب ���د �� ��ده ‪Wa‬‬

‫و من ا�ى قر��ا ممن مع رسوا ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� �� ��دوه �ليه ‪IḤ‬‬ ‫و من �اء قر��ا ممن مع رسول ا��� �� ��ده �ليه ‪Ṭ1‬‬

‫و انه من ا�ى قر��ا من ا��اب ���د �� ��دوه ‪Ma‬‬

‫‪AU3, Ṭ2‬‬

‫)‪(clause 6‬‬

‫و ان بيننا عيبة مكفوفة ‪IH, IḤ, Ṭ1‬‬

‫و ان ���دا ��جع عنا �امه هذا با��ابه و ���ل �لينا قابل �ي ا��ابه فيق�� ث��ثا ‪Wa‬‬

‫و ان ���دا ��جع عنا �امه هذا با��ابه و ���ل �لينا من قابل �ي ا��ابه فيق�� ��ا ث��ثا ‪Ma‬‬ ‫‪AU3, Ṭ2‬‬

‫)‪(clause 7‬‬

‫و انه �� اس��ل و �� اف��ل ‪IH, Ma‬‬

‫�� ���ل �لينا ����ح ا�� س��ح ا��سافر السيوف �ي القرب ‪Wa‬‬

‫��� ان �� ���ل م�� ����ح ا�� السيف �ي القرب ‪AU3‬‬ ‫و انه �� اس��ل و�� ا���ل ‪IḤ, Ṭ1‬‬

‫�� ���ل م�� بالس��ح ا�� السيوف �ي القراب ‪Ṭ2‬‬

‫)‪(clause 8‬‬

‫و انه من احب ان ���ل �ي عقد ���د و عهده د�ل فيه و من احب ان ���ل �ي عقد‬ ‫قر�� و عهدهم د�ل فيه ‪IH‬‬

2. VARIANCE

113

‫و انه من احب ان ���ل �ي عقد رسول ا��� و عهده د�ل فيه و من احب ان ���ل �ي‬ Ṭ1 ‫عقد قر�� و عهدهم د�ل فيه‬

Wa, AU3, Ṭ2, Ma (clause 9)

��‫و ان �� ��رج من اهلها با�د اراد ان يتبعه و �� ��نع ا�دا من ا��ابه اراد ان يق‬ AU3 ‫��ا‬

Ṭ2 ‫و�� ��رج من اهلها با�د اراد ان يتبعه و�� ��نع ا�دا من ا��ابه اراد ان يق�� ��ا‬ Wa, IH, Ṭ1, Ma

(witness clause)

‫��د ابو ب�� �ن ا�ي ��افة و ��ر �ن ا��طاب و عبد ا����ن �ن عوف و سعد �ن ا�ي وقاص‬

‫و عثمان �ن عفان و ابو عبيدة �ن ا��راح و ���د ا�ن مس��ة و حو يطب �ن عبد العزى و‬

Wa ‫م��ز �ن حفص �ن ا��يف‬ IH, AU3, Ṭ1, Ṭ2, Ma

(scribal clause)

Wa ‫و كتب ذل� ��� صدر هذا ال��اب‬ IH, AU3, Ṭ1, Ṭ2, Ma

Variants found: basmala omission of slot opening difference in operative verb within the monumental opening (ṣāliḥa/iṣṭalaḥa/qāḍā); difference in addressee (personal name vs. people of town) clause 1 use of feminine singular vs. plural pronoun for nonhuman plural; abbreviated version of clause with same phrasing; transposition of two sentences clause 2 later positioning of entire clause clause 3 later positioning of entire clause; reversal of series of words used for reference to pact; repeated use of operative verb with preposition clause 4 reference to group by name vs. pronoun; repetition of particle and pronoun; repeated mention of subject

114

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

clause 5 use of second- versus third-person of operative verb; verb replaced with synonym (jāʾa/atā); name versus title of Prophet clause 6 additional clause concerning time period of truce; variant placement of guarantee clause clause 7 omission of specifying place; omission of qualifying weapons clause 8 reference to Prophet with title vs. given name clause 9 omission of conditional particle (in); omission of slot witness and scribal clauses omission of both in their entirety 2. Ukaydir and ahl Dūmat al-Jandal

Dūmat al-Jandal is an oasis at the head of Wādī Sirḥān, linking central Arabia and the mountains of Ḥawrān and Syria, on the trade route between Damascus and Medina. 38 It is a key node on the peninsular trade routes, hosted the first market within the pre-Islamic cycle of the “markets of the Arabs,” and was accordingly contested by the Arab allies of both the Byzantines and the Sassanians. 39 The local ruler had the right to impose custom dues on the market. 40 During the Prophet’s time, the ruler was Ukaydir b. ʿAbd al-Malik (whose political allegiance remains unclear 41) of al-Sakūn, a subdivision of the Kinda. Several of the accounts of this document return to a physical text. Ibn Saʿd’s report returns to al-Wāqidī. The text is followed by al-Wāqidī’s explication of the taxes and terminology. 38

3.

The terms and significance of this document are discussed in Chapter

Michael Bonner, “Commerce and Migration in Arabia before Islam: A Brief History of a Long Tradition,” in Iranian Language and Culture: essays in honor of Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr, eds. B. Aghaei and M. R. Ghanoonparvar (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2012): 65–89 at 64–66. 40 Bonner, “Commerce and Migration,” 65; Michael Lecker, “Were Custom Dues Levied at the Time of the Prophet Muḥammad?” al-Qanṭara 22/1 (2011): 19–43 at 27–28. 41 Lecker, “Custom Dues,” 28 n. 47. 39

2. VARIANCE

115

According to this report, al-Wāqidī read and copied the document from an old man of Dūma (wa-akhadhtu minhu nuskhatahu). 42 Al-Wāqidī’s account in his Maghāzī says only that he received the report from an old man of Dūma. 43 Abū ʿUbayd’s report gives the material support of the document as “white leather,” and that he copied it, ḥarfan bi-ḥarfin (“letter by letter”). 44 Michael Lecker points out that while Abū ʿUbayd’s report is that he saw and copied the letter from an old man in Dūmat alJandal, Ibn Saʿd’s text clarifies that the copyist was al-Wāqidī and that the isnād in Abū ʿUbayd is corrupt. 45 Al-Balādhurī’s report introduces the text as a “copy,” naskhatuhu. The text is followed by explication of its terms. 46 Al-Ṭabarī has only a report, from Ibn Isḥāq, that Khālid b. al-Walīd captured and brought Ukaydir (a Christian) to the Prophet, where he agreed to pay the poll tax. No text is given. 47 Al-Qalqashandī has the text taken from Abu ʿUbayd, followed by a note that this document is also useful for the explication of gharīb (unusual) terms and definitions of the geographical terminology. 48 Al-Maqrīzī’s report calls the document an amān, and mentions that the Prophet sealed it with a fingernail imprint because his signet was not available. The exchange is described as a gift. His report notes that the basmala formula found in the document has been omitted in the quotation, and that his report returns to a copy: wa-nasakhtuhu l-kitāb baʿda l-basmala (“I have copied the docu-

Muḥammad b. Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, ed. E. Sachau (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1904–40), I/ii: 36. 43 Al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, III: 1030. 44 Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-amwāl, 281–282. 45 Michael Lecker, “The Preservation of Muhammad’s Letters” In People, Tribes and Society in Arabia around the Time of Muhammad (Aldershot: Asghate/Variorum, 2005) X, 2 n. 4. 46 Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī, Liber expugnationis regionum, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Lugundi Batavorum: Brill, 1863) 61. 47 Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, 1703. 48 Al-Qalqashandī, Subḥ, VII:370–71. 42

‫‪DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET‬‬

‫‪116‬‬

‫‪ment after the basmala”). 49 Al-Qastallānī has the text without‬‬ ‫‪isnād, followed by a brief list of definitions for its terminology. 50‬‬ ‫‪Collation of witnesses:‬‬

‫)‪(basmala‬‬

‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح�� ‪Wa, IS, AU, Qs‬‬ ‫‪Ba, Ma, Ql‬‬

‫)‪(opening‬‬

‫هذا ��اب من ���د رسول ا��� ��كيدر ��ن ا�اب ا�ى ا��س��م و �لع ا����اد و ا��صنام‬

‫مع �ا�� �ن الوليد سيف ا��� �ي دومة ا��ندل و ا��افها ‪Wa, IS, Ma‬‬

‫من ���د رسول ا��� ��كيدر ��ن ا�اب ا�ى ا��س��م و �لع ا����اد وا��صنام مع �ا�� �ن‬ ‫الوليد سيف ا��� �ي دوماء ا��ندل و ا��افها ‪AU‬‬

‫هذا ��اب من ���د رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� ��كيدر ��ن ا�اب ا�ى ا��س��م و‬

‫�لع ا����اد و ا��صنام و ��هل دومة ‪Ba‬‬

‫من ���د رسول ا��� ��كيدر دومة ��ن ا�اب ا�ى ا��س��م و �لع ا����اد وا��صنام مع‬ ‫�ا�� �ن الوليد سيف ا��� �ي دومة ا��ندل و ا��افها ‪Q1‬‬

‫هذا ��اب من ���د رسول ا��� ��كيدر و ��هل دومة ‪Qs‬‬

‫)‪(clause 1‬‬

‫ان �� الضاحية من الض�ل والبور وا��عا�ى واغفال ا��رض وا��لقة والس��ح وا��افر و‬

‫ا��صن ‪IS, Ma‬‬

‫و ان لنا الضاحية من الض�ل و البور وا��عا�ى و اغفال ا��رض وا��لقه والس��ح وا��افر‬ ‫وا��صن ‪Wa‬‬

‫ان لنا الضاحية من الض�ل و البور وا��عا�ى و اغفال ا��رض وا��لقه والس��ح وا��افر‬

‫وا��صن ‪AU‬‬

‫‪Al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ, 466–67.‬‬ ‫‪Al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib, II: 153–54.‬‬

‫‪49‬‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫‪117‬‬

‫‪2. VARIANCE‬‬

‫ان لنا الضاحية من الض�ل و البور و ا��عا�ي و ا���ل ا��رض و ا��لقة والس��ح وا��افر‬

‫وا��صن ‪Ba‬‬

‫ان لنا الضاحية من الض�ل والبور و ا��عا�ي و اغفال ا��رض وا��لقة والس��ح وا��افر و‬

‫ا��صن ‪Q1‬‬

‫ان لنا الضاحية من الض�ل والبور و ا��عا�ي و اغفال ا��رض و ا��لقة والس��ح و ا��افر و‬

‫ا��صن ‪Qs‬‬

‫)‪(clause 2‬‬

‫ول��� الضامنة من الن�ل وا��ع�ن من ا��عمور بعد ا���س ‪Wa‬‬

‫ول��� الضامنة من الن�ل وا��ع�ن من ا��عمور و بعد ا���س ‪IS‬‬

‫و ل��� الضامنة من الن�ل و ا��ع�ن من ا��عمور ‪AU‬‬ ‫ول��� الضامنة من الن�ل و ا��ع�ن من النعمور ‪Ba‬‬

‫و ل��� الضامنة من الن�ل وا��عمور بعد ا���س ‪Ma‬‬ ‫و ل��� الضامنة من الن�ل و ا��عمور ‪Ql‬‬

‫و ل��� الضامنة من الن�ل و ا��ع�ن من ا��عمور ‪Qs‬‬ ‫)‪(clause 3‬‬

‫�� تعدل سارحت�� و��تعد فاردت�� و�� ��ظر �لي�� النبات و�� يؤ�ذ من�� ا�� ع��‬

‫الثبات ‪IS, MA‬‬

‫�� تعدل سارحت�� و��تعد فاردت�� و�� ��ظر �لي�� النبات و�� و �� ��ظر �لي�� البتات ‪Wa‬‬ ‫�� تعدل سارحت�� و��تعد فاردت�� ‪AU‬‬

‫�� تعدل سارحت�� و��تعد فاردت�� و�� ��ظر �لي�� النبات ‪Ba‬‬ ‫��تعدل سارحت�� و��تعد فاردت�� و�� ��ظر �لي�� النبات ‪Ql‬‬

‫�� تعدل سارحت�� و�� تعد فاردت�� و�� ��ص �لي�� النبات ‪Qs‬‬ ‫)‪(clause 4‬‬

‫تقيمون الص��ة لوق��ا وتؤتون ا��ك�ة ��قه ‪IS, Ba, Ma, Ql, Qs‬‬ ‫تقيمون الص��ة لوق��ا وتؤتون ا��ك�ة ��قها ‪Wa‬‬

‫‪AU‬‬

118

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET (closing)

Wa ‫و ل��� ��ل� الصدق والوفاء‬

IS ‫�لي�� ��اك العهد وا��يثاق و ل��� ��ل� الصدق والوفاء‬

AU ‫�لي�� ��ل� عهد ا��� وا��يثاق ول��� ��ل� الصدق والوفاء‬ Ba ‫�لي�� ��ل� عهد ا��� وا��يثاق ول��� به الصدق والوفاء‬

Ma ‫�لي�� ��ل� العهد وا��يثاق و ل��� ��ل� الصدق والوفاء‬ Ql ‫�لي�� ��ل� عهد ا��� و ا��يثاق‬

Qs ‫�لي�� ��ل� حق ا��� وا��يثاق و ل��� به الصدق و الوفاء‬ (witness clause)

Wa, IS, Ba, Ma, Qs ‫��د ا��� و من ح�� من ا��س���ن‬ AU ‫��د ا��� تبارك و تعا�ى ومن ح�� من ا��س���ن‬ Ql

Variants found: basmala omission of slot opening omission of demonstrative pronoun and reference to writing (formulaic phrase beginning with a demonstrative pronoun referring to a document, in monumental style); orthography of place-name (dūma/dūmāʾ); addition of phrase pronouncing prayers on the Prophet; omission of mention of commander; positioning of mention of place-name; “people of” replacing place-name; omission of mention of occasion of document clause 1 replacing third-person pronoun referring to sender (the Prophet) with first-person plural (change between objective and subjective style); substitution of noun with synonym (aghlāl/aghfāl) clause 2 omission of condition (of khums); omission of one property-type (“springs”); possible copyist error replacement of almaʿmūr with al-naʿmūr clause 3 omission of clause on taxation; omission of particle “except” (illā) turns condition into exemption; omission of term ʿushr to describe tax; verb replaced with synonym (yuḥẓara/ yakhẓara/yaḥuṣṣa); replacement of noun (thabāt/nabāt/batāt),

2. VARIANCE

119

while “date palms” (thabāt) and “plants” (nabāt) may be close in meaning, the obscure batāt is a possible copyist error clause 4 replacement of preposition (bi-/li-); omission of entire condition to establish ṣalāt and give zakāt closing omission of first half of formulae, statement of pact (ʿalaykum bi-dhālika al-ʿahd wa-l-mīthāq); addition of mention of God within statement of pact; replacement of noun (ḥaqq/ʿahd); omission of guarantee clause (wa-lakum bi-dhālika al-ṣidq wa-lwafāʾ) witness clause omission of clause; additional mention of epithets following reference to God Diplomatic letters 3. Najāshī

The Negus of Abyssinia at the time of the Prophet was said to be a tolerant Christian ruler, and in the year 614, before the Hijra, he had accepted a group of Muslim refugees from persecution in Mecca. The Arabic sources variously give the name of the Negus as Asʾhamah or Asham son of Abjar. The identity of the Negus addressed in the document remains ambiguous, since the Prophet was already in contact with a friendly Negus of Abyssinia. Hamidullah points out that no contemporary Abyssinian chronicles exist which would help identify the addressees of the letters, and that even the originals of the Arabicized Abyssinian names remain unknown. 51 Although Ibn Hishām discusses the messengers of the Prophet, as based on a document of al-Miṣrī which was confirmed by al-Zuhrī, 52 he does not mention the embassy to the Muhammad Hamidullah, The Life and Work of the Prophet of Islam vol. 1, trans. Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi (Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute, 1998), 228. 52 Yazīd b, Abī Ḥabīb al-Miṣrī (d. 128/745) told Ibn Isḥāq that he found a book about the Prophet’s messengers to surrounding nations and kings of the Arabs, sent to al-Zuhrī who confirmed it as genuine (fa51

120

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Negus or provide a text. Ibn Saʿd, also, does not provide the document. Within his lengthy report on the letters to kings which returns to a combined isnād, 53 he states that two letters were sent to al-Najāshī. The first letter “invited him to Islam and recited the Qurʾan upon him,” probably referring to the verse partially quoted in lines five and six. The Negus is said to have taken this letter, held it to his eyes, and stated his conversion to Islam. The second letter was sent at the same time by the Prophet, requesting the Negus to marry the Prophet, in absentia, to Umm Ḥabība, daughter of Abū Sufyān, who had emigrated to Abyssinia with the first group of Muslim refugees in 614, and whose husband had converted to Christianity while she refused to follow him. 54 Here Ibn Saʿd recognizes that two separate letters were sent. Al-Ṭabarī has the full text, with an isnād returning to Ibn Isḥāq. 55 Al-Qalqashandī’s text returns to Ibn Isḥāq as well. 56 Al-Qasṭallānī gives the text without isnād. 57 The additional line, as given by al-Ṭabarī and al-Qasṭallānī, on sending Jaʿfar b. Abī Ṭālib, remains problematical. Hamidullah believes that the line (found in the body line 4 and line 6), “and I am sending to you my paternal cousin Jaʿfar, and a group of people with him from among the Muslims,” belongs to the original letter sent by the Prophet in 614 when the Muslims first fled to Abyssinia. 58 Jaʿfar was present in this group and played a prominent role in approaching the Christian king for refuge, and thus could not have been sent again at a time when the Muslim emigrants were preparing to leave Abyssinia, and were finally called back by the Prophet in the year 7 A.H. The ʿarafahu) (Ibn Hishām 972; al-Ṭabarī, Annales, 1560). Al-Ṭabarī’s reports on the Prophet’s messengers have the isnād Ibn Isḥāq < Yazīd b. Abī Ḥabīb. 53 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:15. 54 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:15. 55 Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, III: 1569 from Ibn Hamīd < Salama < Ibn Isḥāq. 56 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, VII: 371. 57 Al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib, II:141 58 Hamidullah, Life and Work, 223.

2. VARIANCE

121

use of the doxological formula, fa-innī aḥmadu ilayka Allāh, “I address God’s praises to you,” differs from the call to submit given in the other letters to kings, aslim taslam, “submit [to Islam] and you will have security,” suggesting that the addressee of this letter was believed to be the original Negus with whom the Prophet already had relations. Hamidullah finds it improbable that the last additional line, which al-Qasṭallānī does not provide but al-Ṭabarī does, “When the group arrives, receive them hospitably, leaving aside all arrogance,” could belong to the initial letter sent asking for refuge, and suggests that this line may actually belong to a later letter sent to a second Negus, who was not favorable to Islam, as the Negus who answered favorably to the invitation to Islam died in 9 A.H. 59 Whether or not this is an amalgam of two texts, representing initial and later relations with a Negus, 60 the entire text, in each of the redactions below, reads as coherent unit. The range of variance compares to the other documents presented here, and the formulary compares to the Qurra letters [compare Figures 1.1 and 1.3]. Collation of witnesses:

(basmala)

Qs, Ṭ ��‫��� ا��� ا����ان اا��ح‬ Ql

(address)

Ql, Ṭ ‫من ���د رسول ا��� ا�ى الن�ا�� ا����م مل� ا��بشة‬

Qs ‫من ���د رسول ا��� ا�ى الن�ا�� مل� ا��بشة‬ (greeting)

Ṭ, Ql ‫س�� انت‬ Qs

59 60

Ibid., 227–8. Ibid., Life and Work, 233.

‫‪DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET‬‬

‫‪122‬‬

‫)‪(transition‬‬ ‫اما بعد ‪Qs‬‬ ‫‪Ṭ, Ql‬‬

‫)‪(doxology‬‬

‫فا�ى ا��د اليك ا��� ا��ل� القدوس الس��م ا��ؤمن ا��هيمن ‪Ṭ, Ql‬‬

‫فا�ى ا��د اليك ا��� ا��ي �� ا�� ا�� هو ا��ل� القدوس الس��م ا��ؤمن ا��هيمن ‪Qs‬‬

‫)‪(clause 1‬‬

‫و ا��د ان �ي�� �ن �� �� روح ا��� و ك��ة القاها ا�ى �� �� البتول الطيبة ا��صينة ��ملت‬ ‫بعي�� ��لقه ا��� من رو�ه و نف�ه ��� ��� ادم بيده و نف�ه ‪Ṭ‬‬

‫و ا��د ان �ي�� ا�ن �� �� البتول الطيبة ا��صينة ��لته من رو�ه و نف�ه ��� ��� ادم‬ ‫بيده ‪Q1‬‬

‫و ا��د ان �ي�� ا�ن �� �� روح ا��� و ك��ة القاها ا�ى �� �� البتول الطيبة ا��صينة ��ملت‬ ‫بعي�� ��لقه ا��� من رو�ه و نف�ه ��� ��� ادم بيده ‪Qs‬‬

‫)‪(clause 2‬‬

‫و ا�ى ادعوك ا�ى ا��� و�ده �� �� يك �� وا��وا��ة ��� طاعته ‪Ṭ, Qs‬‬ ‫و ا�ي ادعوك ا�ى ا��� و�ده �� �� يك �� ‪Ql‬‬

‫)‪(clause 3‬‬

‫و ان تتبع�ي و تؤمن با��ى �اء�ي فا�ى رسول ا��� ‪Ṭ, Ql, Qs‬‬ ‫)‪(clause 4‬‬

‫و قد بعثت اليك ا�ن ��ى جعفرا و نفرا معه من ا��س���ن فاذا �اءك فاقرهم ودع الت��� ‪Ṭ‬‬

‫و ا�ى ادعوك و جنودك ا�ى ا��� ع� و �ل ‪Ql‬‬ ‫و ا�ى ادعوك و جنودك ا�ى ا��� تعا�ى ‪Qs‬‬ ‫)‪(clause 5‬‬

‫فا�ى ادعوك و جنودك ا�ى ا��� ‪Ṭ‬‬

‫و قد بلغت و نصحت فاقب��ا نصحى ‪Ql‬‬

2. VARIANCE

123

Qs ‫و قد بلغت و نصحت فاقب��ا نصيح�ي‬ (clause 6)

Ṭ ‫و قد بلغت و نصحت فاقب��ا نصحى‬

Ql ‫و قد بعثت الي�� ا�ن ��ى جعفرا و نفرا من ا��س���ن‬

Qs ‫و قد بعثت الي�� ا�ن ��ى جعفرا و معه نفرا من ا��س���ن‬

(closing greeting)

Ṭ, Ql, Qs ‫و الس��م ��� من اتبع ا��دى‬

Variants found: basmala omission of slot opening omission of surname of addressee greeting omission of slot transition marker omission of formula doxology omission of statement of God’s oneness (alladhī lā ilāha illā huwa) within doxology clause 1 condensed version of doctrinal statement omitting repetitions; omission of particle fa- prior to verb; omission of object pronoun following verb clause 2 additional epithet for God (wa-l-mawlā ʿalā ṭāʿatihi) clause 4 variant placement of formula on naming messengers (in body slot 4 vs. 6); omission of clause on good treatment of messengers; variant phrase glorifying God (ʿazza wa-jalla/taʿāla) clause 5 and 6 identical wording but differing placement of clauses closing greeting maintained in entirety or dropped in entirety 4. Hawdha b. ʿAlī of Yamāma

Hawdha b. ʿAlī was one of the chiefs of al-Yamāma in eastern Arabia, which was controlled by the Banū Ḥanīfa, and a significant agricultural area and crucial to the supply of foodstuffs to

124

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Mecca via its own exports and via the caravan trade to and from the peninsula and Syria. 61 Ibn Saʿd mentions the messenger sent to Hawdha and provides the text of Hawdha’s reply, but not the document of the Prophet. His report returns to his combined isnād for the letters to kings. 62 Al-Balādhurī also mentions the messenger but does not provide the text of the document. 63 Al-Qalqashandī does provide the document, citing al-Suhaylī. 64 Al-Qasṭallānī also provides the document. 65 Collation of witnesses:

(basmala)

Qs ��‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح‬ Ql

(address)

Ql, Qs ��� ‫من ���د رسول ا��� ا�ى هودة �ن‬ (greeting)

Ql, Qs ‫س��م ��� من اتبع ا��دى‬

(clause 1)

Ql, Qs ‫ا��دى و ا��� ان دي�ي سيظهر ا�ى من��ى ا��ف و ا��افر‬

Fred McGraw Donner, “Mecca’s Food Supplies and Muhammad’s Boycott,” JESHO 20/3 (Oct. 1977): 249–66 at 254, 265–66. 62 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:18; combined isnād given on I/ii:15. 63 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 18. 64 Al-Qalqashandī, Subḥ, VII: 379. 65 Al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib, II: 148–49. Of interest to the issue of literacy is that al-Qasṭallānī’s report uses a passive construction for the reception of the letter (it was “read to” Hawdha, uqtariʾa ʿalayhi) and the active for the Prophet’s reception of the reply (“the Prophet read” waqaraʾa al-nabī). 61

2. VARIANCE

125 (clause 2)

Ql, Qs ���� ��‫فاس‬

(clause 3)

Ql ‫و اجعل ل� ما ��ت ��يك‬ Qs ‫و اجعل ل� ما ��ت ��ك‬

Variants found: basmala omission of slot clause 3 difference in number of noun in formulaic phrase (“what lies under your hand” for “what lies under your hands,” taḥta yadayka/taḥta yadika) all other formulae match in wording Security agreements 5. Ahl Maqnā

This document is associated with the developments of the years 8–9 A.H. and the agreements made by various towns including Ayla on the Red Sea, Dūmat al-Jandal, and Taymāʾ, some of which are associated with Christian and Jewish inhabitants, after a number of their neighboring nomadic tribes consolidated with the Prophet. 66 It is a multilateral agreement which grants the people of Maqnā inviolability, and rights to their date palms and running water, in return for several taxes including on slaves, armor, livestock, the date harvest, fishing, and spun thread. 67 Ibn Saʿd’s report returns to al-Shaʿbī and clarifies that the document was intended for the Jews of Maqnā, the Banū Janba. 68 Al-Balādhurī’s report returns to a physical document. See Fred McGraw Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 109. 67 These terms are discussed more fully in Chapter 3. 68 Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 28–29. 66

126

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

He states that a resident of Miṣr saw the document “with his eyes” on red hide written in a studious hand. He copied it and dictated it to al-Balādhurī. 69 Al-Maqrīzī has a paraphrase only, including the formulas of amāna and the imposition of two taxes (a fourth of spinning and of dates). 70 Collation of witnesses:

(basmala)

Ba ��‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح‬ IS

(address)

Ba ‫من ���د رسول ا��� ا�ى ��ي حبيبة و اهل مقنا‬ IS

(greeting) Ba ��‫س�� ان‬ IS

(transition) IS ‫اما بعد‬ Ba

(clause 1)

‫فقد ��ل ��� ايت�� راجع�ن ا�ى قريت�� فاذا �اء�� ��ا�ى هذا فان�� امنون ل��� ذمة ا��� و‬

IS ��‫ذمة رسو‬

‫فانه ا��ل ��� ان�� راجع�ن ا�ى قريت�� فاذا �اء�� ��ا�ى هذا فان�� امنون و ل��� ذمة ا��� و‬

Ba ��‫ذمة رسو‬

69 70

Al-Balādhurī, Liber, 60. Al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ 469–70.

‫‪127‬‬

‫‪2. VARIANCE‬‬

‫)‪(clause 2‬‬

‫و ان رسول ا��� �افر ل��� سيات�� و ك� ذنوب�� ‪IS‬‬

‫و ان رسول ا��� غفر ل��� ذنوب�� و ك� دم اتبع�� به ‪Ba‬‬ ‫)‪(security clause‬‬

‫و ان ل��� ذمة ا��� و ذمة رسو�� �� ظ�� �لي�� و �� �دى ‪IS‬‬

‫�� �� يك ل��� �ي قريت�� ا�� رسول ا��� او رسول رسول ا��� و انه �� ظ�� �لي�� و ��‬

‫�دوان ‪Ba‬‬

‫)‪(clause 4‬‬

‫و ان رسول ا��� �ار�� مما منع منه نفسه ‪IS‬‬

‫و ان رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� ������� مما ����� منه نفسه ‪Ba‬‬

‫)‪(clause 5‬‬

‫فان ��سول ا��� ���� و ك� رقيق في�� و ال���اع و ا��لقة ا�� ما عفا عنه رسول ا��� او رسول‬

‫رسول ا��� ‪IS‬‬

‫فان ��سول ا��� ��ت�� و رقيق�� و ال���اع و ا��لقة ا�� ما عفا عنه رسول ا��� او رسول رسول‬

‫ا��� ‪Ba‬‬

‫)‪(clause 6‬‬

‫و ان �لي�� بعد ذل� ربع ما ا��جت ��ل��� و ربع ما صادت ع�وك�� و ربع ما ا���ل‬

‫��اؤ�� ‪IS‬‬

‫و ان �لي�� بعد ذل� ربع ما ا��جت ��يل��� و ربع ما صادت ع�ك�� و ربع ما ا���لت‬

‫��اؤ�� ‪Ba‬‬

‫)‪(clause 7‬‬

‫و ان�� ��ئ�� بعد من ك� �� ية او ��رة ‪IS‬‬

‫و ان�� قد �� ي�� بعد ذل��� ‪Ba‬‬ ‫)‪(clause 8‬‬

‫فان �مع�� و اطع�� فان ��� رسول ا��� ان ي��م ������ و يعفو عن مسيئ�� ‪IS‬‬

128

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET Ba ��‫و رفع�� رسول ا��� ان ي��م ������ و يعفو عن مسيئ‬ (clause 9)

IS �� ��� ‫اما بعد فا�ى ا��ؤمن�ن و ا��س���ن من اطلع اهل مقنا ����� فهو‬

Ba �� ��� ‫و من ا���ر �ي ��ي حبيبة و اهل مقنا من ا��س���ن ���ا فهو‬ (clause 10)

IS, Ba �� �� ‫و من اطلعهم ��� فهو‬ (clause 11)

IS ���‫و ان ليس �لي�� ام�� ا�� من انفس�� او من اهل رسول ا‬

Ba ���‫و ليس �لي�� ام�� ا�� من انفس�� او من اهل بيت رسول ا‬ (closing greeting) IS ‫و الس��م‬ Ba

(scribal clause and date)

Ba ۹ ‫و كتب ��� �ن ابو طالب �ي سنة‬ IS

Variants found: basmala omission of slot address omission of slot greeting omission of slot transition omission of slot clause 1 replacement of verb phrase (nazala ʿalā āyatukum/ anzala ʿalā annakum) clause 2 replacing active participle with verb (ghāfira/ghafara); replacing noun with synonym (sayyiʾātikum/dhunūbikum); additional phrase (damm atbaʿatum bihi) in list of forgiven sins clause 3 variant for first part of slot, dhimma clause (“They have the security of God and of His Prophet”) replaced by “There is no partner for you regarding your town except the messenger of

2. VARIANCE

129

God”; replacement of noun with synonym in phrase guaranteeing security from harm (ʿadā/ʿadwān) clause 4 verb replacing active participle (jār/yajīru); additional prayers on the Prophet clause 5 feminine versus masculine ending for noun (bazzakum/ bazzatakum); additional particle in phrase (raqīq fīkum/ raqīqakum) clause 6 orthography of plural noun (ʿarwakakum/ʿarakakum); replacing masculine verb with feminine verb for feminine subject (ightazala/ightazalat) clause 7 differing verb for exemption formula (bariʾtum/ tharaytum) and differing noun for exemption (jizya aw sakhra/ dhilakum) clause 8 omission of portion of clause (condition of obedience fain samiʿtum wa-aṭaʿtum); replacement of phrase with verb (fainna ʿalā rasūl…/wa-rafaʿakum rasūl) clause 9 omission of transition formula; differing placement of subject and wording of subject (al-muʾminīn wa-l-muslimīn/almuslimīn) in sentence; replacement of verb (man aṭlaʾa/man iʾtamara); additional proper name for addressee (ahl al-maqnā/ banī ḥabība wa ahl-maqnā) clause 11 missing conditional particle in (wa-in laysa/wa-laysa); “people of the house of the Prophet” replacing “people of the Prophet” (min ahl rasūl/min ahl bayt rasūl); closing greeting omission of slot scribal clause and date omission of slot 6. Banī Zuhayr b. Uqaysh of ʿUkl

The reports on this security document have isnāds that return to Abū al-Aʿlāʾ who describes an unnamed Bedouin in the mirbad of Baṣra who was carrying this document and looking for someone to read it to him. 71 ʿUkl belonged to the coalition of al-Ribāb and

The presentation of the Bedouin and his ḥadīth are discussed in Chapter 4.

71

130

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

were allies of the Banū Tamīm. 72 Ibn Saʿd’s report describes the Bedouin (aʿrābī) as carrying a scrap of leather (qiṭʿat adīm) or a leather pocket (jirāb). 73 Abū ʿUbayd’s report provides a similar description via a different isnād that returns to Abū al-Aʿlāʾ. 74 Ibn Ḥanbal has two reports of this document (IḤ1 and IḤ2), via different isnāds, both similar to Ibn Saʿd’s and Abū ʿUbayd’s reports of a Bedouin carrying a qiṭʿat adīm or jirāb. 75 AlQalqashandī in his chapter on the writing of amānāt for Muslims gives Abū ʿUbayd’s report and a quotation of the document. 76 Collation of Witnesses:

(basmala)

IS, AU, IḤ1, IḤ2, Ql ��‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح‬

(opening)

IS �‫من ���د الن�ى لب�ى زه�� �ن اقيش �ي من �ك‬

AU �‫من ���د رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� لب�ى زه�� �ن اقيش من �ك‬

‫هذا ��اب من ���د الن�ي رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� لب�ي زه�� �ن اقيش و هم ��ي من‬

IḤ1�‫�ك‬

IḤ2 ‫هذا ��اب من ���د الن�ي رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� لب�ي زه�� �ن اقيش‬

Donner, Early Islamic Conquests, 206. Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 30. The isnād is Ismaʿīl b. Ibrāhīm al-Asadī b. ʿUlayya < al-Jarīrī < Abī al-ʿAlāʾ. 74 Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-amwāl, 19. The isnād is ʿAnbasa b. ʿAbd alWāḥid al-Qurash< Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba or Saʿīd b. Iyyās al-Jarīrī (“and the opinion of the majority is that it was Saʿīd b. Iyyās”) < Abī al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd Allah b. al-Shukhkhayr. 75 Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, V: 77–78 for IḤ1. The isnād is ʿAbd Allāh [b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal] < his father < Ismāʿīl < al-Jarīrī < Abī al-ʿAlāʾ b. al-Shīkhī. Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, V: 363 for IḤ2. The isnād is ʿAbd Allāh < his father < Wakīʿ < Qurra < Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Shīkhī [Abū al-ʿAlāʾ]. 76 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, XIII: 329. 72 73

2. VARIANCE

131

Ql �‫من ���د رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� لب�ى زه�� �ن اقيش من �ك‬ (conditions)

‫ا��م ان ��دوا ان �� ا�� ا�� ا��� و ان ���دا رسول ا��� و فارقوا ا����ك�ن و اقروا با���س �ي‬ IS ‫غناء��م و ��م الن�ى و صفيه‬

��‫ان�� ان ��د�� ان �� ا�� ا�� ا��� و ا���� الص��ة و اتي�� ا��ك�ة و فارق�� ا����ك�ن و اعطي‬

AU ‫من ا��غا�� ا���س و ��م الن�ى ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� و الص�� او قال و صفيه‬

��‫�� ��م الن�ي ان�� ان ا���� الص��ة و اتي�� ا��ك�ة و فارق�� ا����ك�ن و اعطي�� ا���س من ا��غ‬

IḤ1 ‫ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� و الص�� و ر��ا وسيفة‬

‫و ��م الن�ي ص�� ا��� �ليه و ان�� ان ا���� الص��ة و ادي�� ا��ك�ة و اعطي�� من ا��غا�� ا���س‬ IḤ2 ��‫س�� و الص‬

��‫ان�� ان ��د�� ان �� ا�� ا�� ا��� و ا���� الص��ة و اتي�� ا��ك�ة و فارق�� ا����ك�ن و اعطي‬

Ql ‫من ا��غا�� ا���س و ��م الن�ى ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� و الص�� او قال و صفيه‬ (security)

IS, AU, Ql ��‫فا��م امنون بامان ا��� و رسو‬

IḤ1 ��‫فان�� امنون بامان ا��� تبارك و تعا�ى و امان رسو‬ IḤ2 ��‫فان�� امنون بامان ا��� و امان رسو‬

Variants found: basmala omission of slot opening omission of monumental opening with demonstrative pronoun, additional phrase explaining tribe’s relation to ʿUkl with variant wording (ḥayy min ʿUkl/ḥammī min ʿUkl): addition of prayers on the Prophet; variant title for Prophet (muḥammad al-nabī/muḥammad rasūl Allāh) conditions third-person vs. second-person pronouns and verbs in reference to addressee (objective versus subjective format): omission of condition of shahada; omission of conditions of establishing prayer and paying zakāt; all redactions include reference to the seal within the citation of the document though differ over expressing uncertainty of the wording of this part of the report (al-ṣafā aw qāla wa-ṣafīhi, al-ṣafī wa-rubbamā wasīfa); var-

132

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

iant nouns (ghanāʾimihim/al-maghānim/al-maghnim); additional prayers on the Prophet security repetition or omission of noun amān, additional glorification of God Conveyance documents, referring to land 7. Salama b. Mālik b. Abī ʿĀmir al-Sulamī

This document grants recognition of their land to a member of the Sulaym. However, the place-name provided in some of the redactions, Madfū, is not exclusively associated with Salama b. Mālik, who seems to be otherwise unknown in the sources. The entries on him in Ibn Ḥajar’s Iṣāba and Ibn al-Athīr’s Usd alGhāba say nothing except that he received this document. Ibn Ḥajar’s report notes that the document concerns a place called Ḥādha and not Madfū. His report is followed by Ibn Manda’s statement that the ḥadīth is gharīb, not known through any other route (wajh). 77 The Usd al-ghāba version has an isnād that returns to ʿAmmār b. Yāsir. 78 Ibn Saʿd’s report identifies the place as Madfū (IS1). However, Ibn Saʿd also has a report on Madfū being granted to Salama’s cousin from the Banū Jāriya, ʿAbbās b. Mirdās b. Abī ʿĀmir. 79 The appearance of the same placename in letters to two different individuals is problematic, and Michael Lecker suggests that ʿAbbās’ letter may have been duplicated as a scribal error, since the entries follow each other. 80 Ibn Saʿd also has another letter to Salama (IS2) which includes a

Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Ibn Ḥajar al-Asqalānī, Al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-tijārīya al-kubrā, 1939) II: 26 no. 3394. 78 ʿIzz al-Dīn b. al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba fi maʿrifat al-ṣahāba, 5 vols., ed. Khalīl Maʾmūn Shīḥā (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifa, 1997) II: 360. 79 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 26 returns to his combined isnād. 80 Michael Lecker, The Banū Sulaym: A Contribution to the Study of Early Islam (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989) 159–161. 77

2. VARIANCE

133

description of the boundaries of the land (Dhāt al-Ḥanāẓī and Dhāt al-Asāwid) but not its name. 81 Collation of witnesses:

(basmala)

IHj ��‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح‬

IA ��‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح‬

IS1, IS2

(opening)

IS2 ‫هذا ما اعطى رسول ا��� صلعم س��ة �ن مل� الس��ى‬

IHj �‫هذا ما اقتع ���د رسول ا��� س��ة �ن مل‬ IA �‫هذا ما اقتع ���د رسول ا��� س��ة �ن مل‬

IS1

(description)

IS1 ‫انه اعطاه مدفوا‬

IS2 ‫اعطاه ما ب�ن ذات ا��ناظى ا�ى ذات ا��ساود‬

IA ‫مل� اقتعه ما ب�ن ا��باطي ا�ى ذات ا��ساود‬

IHj

(investiture clause)

IS1 ‫�� ��اقه فيه ا�د و من �اقه ف�� حق �� و حقه حق‬

IS2 ‫�� ��اقه ف��ا ا�د‬

IA ‫��ن �اقة فهو مبطل و حقه حق‬

IHj

(witness clause)

IS2 ‫��د ��� �ن ا�ى طالب و �اطب �ن ا�ى بلتعة‬ 81

Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 34 has a combined isnad.

134

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET IS1, IHj, IA

Variants found: basmala omission of slot opening omission of slot; addition of prayers on the Prophet; difference in operative verb (synonyms aqṭaʿa/aʿṭā); addition of nisba to name of addressee description omission of slot; boundaries of land vs. naming of land; difference in operative verb (aʿṭāhu/aqtaʿahu) investiture clause omission of entire clause; extended version with clause on exclusive rights (fa-lā ḥaqqa lahu wa-ḥaqqahu ḥaqq); different phraseology for beginning of investiture clause (lā yuḥāqqahu fī-hi aḥad/fa-man hāqqahu fa-huwa mubṭala) witness clause omission of slot 8. Tamīm al-Dārī

There are several sets of the conversion story of this Companion, and two sets of the deputation story each with its version of the Prophet’s land grant to the delegation. The redactions of the document differ over the operative verb and formula used for granting, the place-names, the name of the recipient (whether Tamīm or his brother), the phrasing of a curse against forcing the family from its land, the list of witnesses, and the name of the scribe. Abū Yūsuf reports that Tamīm al-Dārī, that is Tamīm b. Aws of the Lakhm, told the Prophet that he had family in Palestine who had a town called Jayrūn and another called ʿAynūn, and requested that should God allow the conquest of Syria that the Prophet would grant him both. The Prophet replied that they were both his and Tamīm asked for this to be written in a document, fa-ktub lī bi-dhālika kitāban. The report is followed by the text of Abū Bakr’s renewal/confirmation of the document. 82 Ibn Saʿd has a paraphrase returning to his combined isnad, 83 for 82 83

Abū Yūsuf, Kitāb al-kharāj, 132. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:15.

2. VARIANCE

135

a document addressed to “Nuʿaym b. Aws brother of Tamīm alDārī.” 84 Yāqūt in his entry on “Ḥabrūn” starts with the significance of the area to the history of Abraham and his family. He provides a report without an isnād of Tamīm approaching the Prophet, along with his people, at an unspecified time and place, and asking for Habrūn, and that the Prophet wrote a document for him, whose text is given. 85 Al-Qalqashandī has four texts of the land grant, starting with a report on the pre-Hijra episode, at the very beginning of his chapter on iqṭaʿāt, “on what has been written in land grants, ancient and modern” under the first sub-chapter on the “origins” of the practice. The grant to Tamīm al-Dārī is held as the first prototype: “The origin (aṣl) of this is what has been related concerning how the Prophet, the blessings of God upon him and peace, granted (aqṭaʿa) Tamīm al-Dārī some land of Syria and wrote for him a document (kitāb) for this.” 86 First account: This account, of the initial document (Q1), its renewal post-Hijra (Q2), and the confirmation document by Abu Bakr, is the one with a family isnād, returning to Abu Hind alDārī. Al-Qalqashandī’s sources include Ibn ʿAsākir, and his account corresponds to al-Maqrīzī’s first account below with one difference. In the description of the writing material that the Prophet takes into his home and ties up, al-Qalqashandī has a handful of extra words prior to describing the document being “covered.” The Prophet “prepared a leather scrap from a square” (fa-ʿalaja fī zāwiyatin al-ruqʿata). 87 Here the grammar attributes to the Prophet himself the activity of a scribe in preparing writing materials.

Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:21–22. Yāqūt b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Hamawī, Muʿjam al-buldān, 5 vols (Beirut: Dār Sādir, 1955–57), II: 212a–213a. 86 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, XIII: 118. 87 Ibid., XIII: 119. 84 85

136

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Second account: Al-Qalqashandī’s second account and text (Q3) is extracted from Ibn ʿAsākir with an isnād returning to Rāshid b. Saʿd. 88 Third account: This account and text (Q4) is extracted from Ibn Manda with an isnād returning to ʿAmr b. Ḥazm. AlQalqashandī concludes this set of accounts by attesting that the document itself (hādhihi l-ruqʿa, literally “this scrap”) is currently held by the family. This has been reported to him by a multitude of narrators. In addition, al-Qalqashandī attests, again with a focus on the physical material of the document as opposed to the claim to the land itself, that the leather was prepared in such a way as to last a long time (wa-l-adīmu llatī hiyya fīhi qad khuliqa li-ṭūli l-amadi). 89 Al-Maqrīzī collects a number of reports on Tamīm’s request and redactions of the document with his own commentary on their reliability. 90 In his biography of Tamīm al-Dārī, Ḍawʾ alSārī fī Maʿrifat khabr Tamīm al-Dārī, he provides a chapter on the grant of Hebron and ʿAynūn. First account: Extracted from al-Ṭabarānī’s Muʿjam al-kabīr, Abu Nuʿaym’s Maʿrifat al-Ṣaḥāba, and Ibn ʿAsākir’s Taʾrīkh Dimashq by way of a family isnad: Saʿīd b. Ziyād b. Fāʾid b. Ziyād b. Abī Hind al-Dārī < his father < his grandfather < Abū Hind al-Dārī. This report explicitly places the delegation in Mecca with six members who convert. Abū Hind and Tamīm discuss asking the Prophet for a piece of land, and they agree to request Abū Hind’s choice, a town in which there remains an elevated area bearing the traces/footprints of Abraham. However when they approach the Prophet, before they can identify the land they desire, he informs them himself and asks for writing material, which is specified: “a scrap of red leather (qiṭʿatu jildin min Ibid., XIII: 120. Ibid., XIII: 122. 90 Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī Ḍawʾ al-sārī fī maʿrifat khabr Tamīm al-Dārī, ed. Muhammad Aḥmad ʿĀshūr (Cairo: Dār al-Iʿtiṣām li-l-Ṭabʿ wa-lNashr, 1972) 60–78. 88 89

2. VARIANCE

137

ādam).” 91 The first document is quoted (Ma1). 92 The end of this report has a description of the physical document from the point of view of the delegates. 93 The Prophet then commands the group to depart and wait until they hear that he has migrated. Abū Hind narrates that they obeyed, and then approached the Prophet when he was in Medina, and asked for a renewal of the document, which was provided. The second document is quoted (Ma2). 94 The report continues with Abū Bakr’s renewal of the document as caliph, also quoted. 95 Al-Maqrīzī in general disagrees with the account of a pre-Hijra delegation, since, he says, scholars agree that Tamīm approached the Prophet in Medina, according to most in the year 9, while some say year 8. Ibn ʿAsākir’s account he calls munkar (uncorroborated) based on this matn criticism, due to its describing two separate delegations. Moreover, the isnād is weak (ḍaʿīf), according to the judgments of Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Azdī on Saʿīd b. Ziyyād. 96 Second account: Extracted from Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām in his Kitāb al-Amwāl who narrates from Hajjāj b. Muhammad, on the authority of Ibn Jurayj on the authority of ʿIkrima. The report only mentions that once Tamīm converted he asked the Prophet for two lands from “Bayt Laḥm,” for which the Prophet wrote a document for him. There is no account of the delegation, where and when it occurred, or any discussion among the delegates on the land to ask for. The document is not quoted. The account concludes with mention of ‘Umar being asked to confirm the deed during his caliphate and the conquest of Syria. ʿUmar responds that he had indeed witnessed the original deed and bestows the land on Tamīm. Abū ʿUbayd concludes that the land remains in the possession of Tamīm’s family Ibid., 62. Ibid., 62–63. 93 See Chapter 4 for a discussion of this element of the reports. 94 Al-Maqrīzī, Ḍawʾ, 64. 95 Ibid., 65. 96 Ibid., 65–66. 91 92

138

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

“to this day.” The isnād of this account is munqaṭiʿa (interrupted), since Ibn Jurayj did not hear from ʿIkrima. Moreover, alMaqrīzī finds the content problematic: “Bayt Laḥm” cannot be identified with the land where Abraham is said to be buried. 97 Third account: Extracted from Abū ʿUbayd who narrates from Saʿīd b. ʿUfayr on the authority of Ḍamra b. Rabīʿa on the authority of Samāʿa. Tamīm asked the Prophet to bestow on him “Aynūn,” “Qallāya,” and the area where Abraham, Ishmael and Jacob are buried. The Prophet was surprised at this request, presumably because the land was not under Muslim control, and responded that Tamīm should ask him again after the Prophet had prayed. He does so and the Prophet then grants him the land. This report thus has a different take on the miracle/foreknowledge story. The isnād here is muʿḍil (problematic, interrupted), missing two links, but weighing in on the side of the correctness of the story is al-Layth b. Saʿd’s attestation that the land remains in the possession of Tamīm’s family by everyone’s reckoning. 98 Fourth account: Extracted from Ibn ʿAsākir by way of Ibn Zanjawayh in his Kitāb al-Amwāl who narrates from al-Haytham b. ʿAdī from Yūnus on the authority of al-Zuhrī and Thawr b. Yazīd on the authority of Rāshid b. Saʿd. Tamīm approaches the Prophet and asks to be granted, in case of the conquest of Syria, a neighborhood he knows of containing Habrūn and Bayt ʿAynūn. The prophet responds with an oral promise: humā laka, “they’re both yours.” But Tamīm insists on a written deed, which is quoted (Ma3), and introduced with the phrase, fakataba lahu (the printed edition places the scribal clause of the document outside of the text of the document). 99 The deed is confirmed by Abu Bakr. Fifth account: This set of reports narrows in on the curse clause in the document. From Ibn Saʿd in his Ṭabaqāt, who narIbid., 66–68. Ibid., 87–70. 99 Ibid., 70–71. 97 98

2. VARIANCE

139

rates from Ismaʾīl b. ʿAbd Allah (who is Ibn Abī Aws) from Ismāʾīl b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Khālid b. Saʿīd b. Abī Maryam al-Tamīmi the client of Banī Judʾān on the authority of his father on the authority of his grandfather. The Prophet wrote for Tamīm a document, which is quoted (Ma4). 100 Another report from Ibn Saʿd through his combined isnād (from al-Haytham b. ʿAdī < Dālham b. Ṣāliḥ and Abū Bakr al-Hudhalī < ʿAbd Allāh b. Burayda al-Khaṣīb) has a grant written for Tamīm’s brother, Nuʾaym, which is paraphrased. 101 This set of reports is favored by al-Maqrīzī, who adduces judgments on the reliability (thiqāt) of its narrators. 102 Sixth account: Extracted from al-Ṭabarānī in his Muʿjam alkabīr from Aḥmad b. ʿArām al-Īdhajī from ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan alDurhi from al-Faḍl b. al-Aʿlāʾ on the authority of al-Ashʿath b. Sawwār on the authority of Ibn Sīrīn on the authority of Tamīm al-Dārī. Tamīm sought a land grant for an area in Syria from the Prophet prior to its conquest and was given such a grant, then the land was bestowed on him by ‘Umar after his conquest. The document is not quoted. The isnād is saḥīḥ but with one flaw based on the improbability of Ibn Sīrīn, then a boy with his parents in Medina, meeting Tamīm there a year before he is said to have moved to Syria. 103 Al-Qasṭallānī has two texts. The first account is from “ṣāḥib bāʿath al-nufūs” that is Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Fazārī. The isnād returns to Abū Hind al-Dārī and involves the discussion between him and Tamīm over the land to request from the Prophet and corresponds with al-Maqrīzī’s first account. The writing material is qiṭʿa min adam and the quotation of the document is followed by information identical with al-Maqrīzī’s account of the “covering” and tying up of the document. The editor places the scribal clause outside the document (Qs1). The Ibid., 73. Ibid., 74. 102 Ibid., 75. 103 Ibid., 76–77. 100 101

140

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

report includes Tamīm’s approaching the Prophet post-Hijra for a renewal document, and its confirmation by Abū Bakr as caliph. The second document is quoted (the printed edition places witness and scribal clauses outside of the text of the document) (Qs2). 104 Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī (ʿU), visiting Hebron on Dhul Hijjah 14, 745/May 3, 1344 saw the document on a strip of leather sandal, produced by a direct descendent of Tamīm along with a document confirming it by the caliph alMustaḍī Billāh. 105 Since his redaction returns to a physical copy, it is also included here for comparison. David Cook believes that redactions such as alQalqashandī’s which include both sets of deputation stories and cite two documents, are attempts to reconcile the two deputation stories (and the situation of Tamīm’s subsequent conversion) by recognizing that two letters were written, one original grant made to the deputation arriving in Mecca, and the second a confirmation of that grant to the post-Hijra deputation arriving in Medina. 106 Al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib, II: 150–52. Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, 27 vols. ed., ʿAbd Allāh Yaḥyā Sarīḥī, Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣar (Abu Dhabi: alMujmaʿa al-thiqāfa, 1424/2002) I: 225–27. Al-ʿUmarī’s report appears to give the original line-breaks in the physical copy, as follows: 104 105

��‫��� ا��� ا����ان ا��ح‬ ����� ���‫هذا ما انطى ���د رسول ا‬ ‫ا��راى و اخوته ���ون و ا��رطوم‬ ‫و بيت عينون و بيت ا��اه�� و ما ف��ن‬ ‫نطية بت ��م��م و نفذت و س��ت ذل� ��م‬ ‫و �� عقا��م ��ن اذاه ا��� ��ن اذاهم‬ ‫لعنة ا��� ��د عتيق �ن ابو ��افة و ��ر �ن‬ ‫ا��طاب و عثمان �ن عفان و كتب ��� �ن‬ ‫بو طالب و ��د‬

He notes that he has found no explanation for the unusual spelling “Abū Qaḥāfa” and “Bū Ṭālib.” 106 David Cook, “Tamīm al-Dārī,” BSOAS 61.1 (1998): 20–28.

‫‪141‬‬

‫‪2. VARIANCE‬‬

‫)‪(basmala‬‬

‫‪Collation of witnesses:‬‬

‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح�� ‪AY, Yt, Ql1, Ql2, Ql3, Ql4, Ma1, Ma3, Qs1, Qs2, ʿU‬‬

‫‪IS, Ma2, Ma4, Ma5‬‬ ‫)‪(opening‬‬

‫هذا ��اب من ���د رسول ا��� ����� �ن اوس ا��ارى ‪AY‬‬

‫هذا ما اعطى ���د رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� ����� ��ارى و ا��ابه ‪Yt‬‬ ‫هذا ذ�� ما وهب ���د رسول ا��� ل��ار ي�ن اذا اعطاه ا��� ا��رض ‪Ql1‬‬

‫هذا ما انطى ���د رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� ����� ا��ارى و ا��ابه ‪Ql2‬‬

‫هذا ��اب من ���د رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� ����� �ن اوس ا��ارى ‪Ql3‬‬

‫هذا ��اب ���د رسول ا��� ����� �ن اوس ‪Ql4‬‬

‫هذا ما وهب ���د رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� ل��ار ي�ن ‪Ma1‬‬

‫هذا ما انطى رسول اللع ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� ����� ا��ارى و ا��ابه ‪Ma2‬‬

‫هذا ��اب من ���د رسول ا��� ����� �ن اوس ا��ارى ‪Ma3‬‬

‫هذا ��اب ���د رسول ا��� ����� �ن اوس ‪Ma4‬‬

‫هذا ��اب ذ�� فيه ما وهب ���د رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س�� ل��ار ي�ن اذا اعطاه ا���‬

‫ا��رض ‪Qs1‬‬

‫هذا ما انطى ���د رسول ا��� ����� ا��ارى و ا��ابه ‪Qs2‬‬

‫هذا ما انطى ���د رسول ا��� ����� ا��اري واخوته ‪ʿU‬‬

‫‪IS, Ma5‬‬

‫)‪(description and granting of rights in perpetuity‬‬

‫ان �� ���ى و عينون بالشام قر���ا ك�ها ��لها و جبلها و ماءها و ����ا و انباطها و بقرها و‬ ‫لعق��ا من بعده ‪IS, Ma5‬‬

‫ان �� قر ية ���ون و بيت عينون قر���ما ك�هما و ��لهما و جبلهما و ماؤ��ا و ����ما و‬

‫انباطهما و بقر��ا و لعقبه من بعده ‪AY‬‬

‫ا�ي اعطيت�� بيت عينون و ���ون و ا��رطوم و بيت ا��ه�� ��م��م و ��يع ما ف��م عطية‬ ‫بت ‪Yt‬‬

‫‪DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET‬‬

‫‪142‬‬

‫وهب ��م بيت عينون و ���ون و بيت ا��اه�� ��ن ف��ن ��م ا��ا ‪Ql1‬‬

‫ا�ى انطيت�� عينون و ���ون و ا��رطوم و بيت ا��اه�� ��م��م و ��يع ما ف��م نطية بت ‪Ql2‬‬

‫ان �� قر ية ���ى و بيت عينون قر���ا ك�ها ��لها و جبلها و ماءها و ����ا و انباطها و‬ ‫لعقبه من بعده ‪Ql3‬‬

‫ان �� ��يون قر���ا ك�ها ��لها و جبلها و ماءها و ��و��ا و انباطها و ورقها و لعقبه من‬ ‫بعده ‪Ql4‬‬

‫وهب ��م بيت ��ن و ���ون و بيت ا��اه�� ��ا ف��ن ��م ا��ا ‪Ma1‬‬

‫ا�ى انطيت�� ��ن و ���ون و بيت ا��اه�� ��م��م و ��يع ما ف��م نطية بت ‪Ma2‬‬

‫ان �� قر ية ���ى و بيت عينون ك�ها ��لها و جبلها و ماءها و ����ا و انباطها و لعقبه من‬ ‫بعده ‪Ma3‬‬

‫ان عينون ك�ها ��لها و جبلها و ماءها و ����ا و ����ا و انباطها و ��رها �� و لعقبه من‬ ‫بعده ‪Ma4‬‬

‫وهب ��م بيت عينون و ���ون و ا��رطوم و بيت ا��اه�� و من ف��م ا�ى ا��ا ا���� ‪Qs1‬‬

‫ا�ى انطيت�� بيت عينون و ���ون و ا��رطوم و بيت ا��اه�� ��م��م و ��يع ما ف��م نطية‬ ‫بت ‪Qs2‬‬

‫���ون وا��رطوم وبيت عينون و بيت ا��اه�� وما ف��ن نطية بت ��م��م ‪ʿU‬‬ ‫)‪(investiture clause‬‬

‫�� ��اقه ف��ا ا�د و�� يل�ه �ل��م بظ�� و من ظ��هم و ا�ذ م��م شيا فان �ليه لعنة ا���‬

‫وا����ئ�� والناس ا��ع�ن ‪IS‬‬

‫�� ��اقه ف��ما ا�د و�� يلجهما �ل��م ا�د بظ�� ��ن ظ�� وا�دا م��م شيا فان �ليه لعنة‬

‫ا��� ‪AY‬‬

‫و نفذت و س��ت ذل� ��م و ��عقا��م بعدهم ا�� ا�����ن ��ن اذاهم فيه اذى ا��� ‪Yt‬‬

‫و نفذت و س��ت ذل� ��م و��عقا��م من بعدهم ا�� ا���� ��ن اذاهم ف��ا اذاه ا��� ‪Ql2‬‬

‫�� ��اقه ف��ا ا�د و�� يل�ه �ل��م ا�د بظ�� ��ن ظ��هم او ا�ذ م��م شيا فعليه لعنة ا���‬

‫وا����ئ�� والناس ا��ع�ن ‪Ql3‬‬

‫�� ��اقهم ف��ا ا�د و�� ���ل �ليه بظ�� ��ن اراد ظ��هم او ا�ذه م��م فان �ليه لعنة ا��� و‬

‫ا����ئ�� و الناس ا��ع�ن ‪Ql4‬‬

‫و نفذت و س��ت ذل� ��م و��عقا��م من بعدهم ا�� ا���� ‪Ma2‬‬

‫‪143‬‬

‫‪2. VARIANCE‬‬

‫�� ��اقه و�� يلجها �ل��م ا�د بظ�� ��ن ظ��هم او ا�ذ م��م شيا فعليه لعنة ا��� وا����ئ��‬

‫والناس ا��ع�ن ‪Ma3‬‬

‫�� ��اقهم ف��ا ا�د و�� ���ل �ل��م بظ�� ��ن اراد ظ��هم او ا�ذها م��م فعليه لعنة ا��� و‬

‫ا����ئ�� و الناس ا��ع�ن ‪Ma4‬‬

‫�� ��اقه ف��ا ا�د و�� يل�ه �ل��م بظ�� و من ظ��هم و ا�ذ م��م شيا لعنة ا��� وا����ئ��‬

‫والناس ا��ع�ن ‪Ma5‬‬

‫و نفذت و س��ت ذل� ��م و��عقا��م ا�� ا���� ��ن اذاهم فيه اذاه ا��� ‪Qs2‬‬

‫و نفذت و س��ت ذل� ��م و��عقا��م ��ن اذاهم اذاه ا��� ��ن اذاهم لعنه ا��� ‪ʿU‬‬ ‫‪Ql1, Ma1, Qs1‬‬

‫)‪(witness and scribal clause‬‬

‫و كتب ��� ‪IS, Ql3, Ma3, Ma5‬‬

‫��د ابو ب�� ا�ن ا�ي ��افة و ��ر و عثمان و ��� �ن ا�ي طالب ‪Yt‬‬

‫��د عباس �ن عبد ا��طلب و جهم �ن قيس و ��حبيل �ن حسنة و كتب ‪Ql1‬‬

‫��د ابو ب�� �ن ا�ى ��افة و ��ر ا�ن ا��طاب و عثمان �ن غفان و ��� �ن ا�ى طالب و‬

‫معاو ية �ن ا�ى سفيان و كتب ‪Ql2‬‬

‫��د عباس �ن عبد ا��طلب و جهم �ن قيس و ��حبيل �ن حسنة و كتب ‪Ma1‬‬

‫��د ابو ب�� �ن ا�ى ��افة و ��ر ا�ن ا��طاب و عثمان �ن غفان و ��� �ن ا�ى طالب و‬

‫معاو ية �ن ا�ى سفيان و كتب ‪Ma2‬‬

‫��د عباس ا�ن عبد ا��طلب و ����ة �ن قيس و ��حبيل �ن حسنه و كتب ‪Qs1‬‬

‫��د ابو ب�� �ن ا�ي ��افة و ��ر ا�ن ا��طاب و عثمان �ن غفان و ��� �ن ا�ي طالب و‬

‫معاو ية �ن ا�ي سفيان و كتب ‪QS2‬‬

‫��د عتيق �ن ابو ��افة و ��ر �ن ا��طاب وعثمان �ن عفان و كتب ��� �ن بو طالب و‬

‫��د ‪ʿU2‬‬

‫‪AY, Ma4, Ql4‬‬

‫‪Variants found:‬‬ ‫‪basmala omission of slot‬‬ ‫‪address additional prayers on the Prophet, additional phrase‬‬ ‫‪with operative verb, difference in operative verb (aʿṭā/anṭā/‬‬ ‫‪wahaba), replacing reference to document with synonym (kitāb/‬‬

144

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

dhikr), difference in naming addressee (Tamīm, the Dārīs, Tamīm and his companions), additional statement of occasion of document description additional terms for included property, difference in place-names, additional place-name, additional use of phrase in first-person with operative verb, third-person feminine singular pronoun vs. third-person feminine dual for non-human plural nouns, additional clause of perpetuity investiture clause guarantee for perpetuity added to investiture and curse clause, verb vs. noun in curse clause (laʿnati llāhi/adhā Allāh); witnesses list and scribal clause omission of list of witnesses, additional witness, difference in given name of witness, difference in orthography of witness names, difference in identity of scribe Administrative letters 9. duties for Hadramawt

According to Ibn Saʿd, this document was written at the request of Wāʾil b. Ḥujr as he was returning to Hadramawt. It lays out the obligations incumbent upon the chiefs of Hadramawt, including prayer (ṣalāt), taxes called zakāt as well as the ʿushr on camels, military support to the Muslims, and their rights to be assessed for taxes fairly. The report returns to Ibn Saʿd’s combined isnād. 107 The text of the document is integrated seamlessly into the report, given in the third person. 108 Al-Qalqashandī’s text has mention of an additional tax, khums. 109 Collation of witnesses:

(address)

IS ��‫ا�ى ا��قيال العباه‬ Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 35. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 35. 109 Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, VII: 292. 107 108

2. VARIANCE

145

Ql ‫من ���د رسول ا��� ا�ى ا��قيال العباه�� من اهل ح��موت‬ (clause 1)

IS ‫ليقيموا الص��ة و يؤتوا ا��ك�ة و الصدقة ��� التيعة السا��ة لصاح��ا التيمة‬

Ql ‫باقامة الص��ة و ايتاء ا��ك�ة ��� التيعة الشاة و التيمة لصاح��ا و �ي السيوب ا���س‬ (clause 2)

IS ‫�� ���ط و�� وراط و �� شغار و �� �لب و �� جنب و �� شناق‬

Ql ‫�� ���ط و�� وراط و �� شناق و �� شغار‬ (clause 3)

IS ‫و �ل��م العون ل��ايا ا��س���ن‬ Ql

(clause 4)

IS ‫و ��� ك� ع��ة ما ���ل العرب من اجبا فقد ار�ى‬

Ql ‫و من اج�ى فقد ار�ى‬ (clause 5)

Ql ‫و ك� مس�� ��ام‬ IS

Variants found: address omission of sender’s name; additional mention of origin of addressee clause 1 verb vs. verbal noun (bi-iqāma/li-yaqīmu); additional condition (payment of khums) clause 2 omission of additional nouns in condition prohibiting confusion and fraud (jalab, janab) clause 3 omission of entire clause (requiring the military aid of the Muslims) clause 4 condensed form of clause with same basic phraseology (“Out of every ten she-camels one is due and whoever takes additional takes extra” vs “Whosoever takes additional takes extra”)

146

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

clause 5 omission of entire clause (condition of prohibition of drinking alcohol) 10. summary of duties for B. al-Ḥārith b. Kaʿb

This document is sent with ʿAmr b. Ḥazm as an administrator, and lays out the obligations of the Banū al-Ḥārith b. Kaʿb in Najrān as a tribe newly entered into Islam. These obligations include performance of the Ḥajj and prayers (ṣalāt), and the payment of several taxes including the khums, ṣadaqa, and taxes on livestock and spoils. As such, it does not present multilateral terms such as those given in the documents for Ḥudaybiyya and Dūmat al-Jandal. Ibn Hishām provides the text without isnād. 110 Ibn Saʿd does not provide the text, but summarizes the terms using wording similar to that of Ibn Hishām’s report, going back to a combined isnād and naming the scribe (Ubayy [b. Kaʿb]). 111 The wording of al-Ṭabarī’s report is also very similar to Ibn Hishām’s report, and has the isnād Ibn Ḥumayd < Salama < Ibn Isḥāq < ʿAbdallah b. Abī Bakr. His redaction closely resembles Ibn Hishām’s. 112 Al-Balādhurī provides a contracted form of the text under his section on Yemen. His report also returns to Ibn Isḥāq via a different isnād, al-Ḥusayn< Yaḥyā b. Adam < Ziyād < Muḥammad b. Isḥāq. 113 Collation of witnesses:

(basmala)

IH, Ṭ, Ba ��‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح‬ (opening)

���‫هذا بيان من ا��� و رسو�� يا ا��ا ا���ن امنوا اوفوا بالعقود عهد من ���د الن�ي رسول ا‬ IH, Ṭ, Ba ‫لعمرو �ن ��م ��ن بعثه ا�ي ا���ن‬

Wüstenfeld, das Leben, 960–963. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 21. 112 Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, 1766–1779 113 Al-Balādhurī, Liber, 70. 110 111

‫‪147‬‬

‫‪2. VARIANCE‬‬

‫)‪(clause 1‬‬

‫ا��ه بتقوي ا��� �ي ا��ه ك�� فان ا��� مع ا���ن اتقوا و ا���ن هم ��سنون ‪IH, Ṭ‬‬

‫ا��ه بتقوى ا��� �ي ا��ه ك�� ‪Ba‬‬ ‫)‪(clause 2‬‬

‫و ا��ه ان يا�ذ با��ق ��� ا��ه ا��� ‪IH‬‬ ‫و ا��ه ان يا�ذ با��ق ��� ا��به ا��� ‪Ṭ‬‬ ‫‪Ba‬‬

‫)‪(clause 3‬‬

‫و ان يب�� الناس با����� و يا��هم به و يع�� الناس القران و يفقههم فيه و ���ي الناس ف��‬

‫الناس با��ي ��م و ا��ي �ل��م و يل�ن الناس �ي ��س القران ا��ان ا�� و هو طاهر و �����‬

‫ا��ق و ��تد �ل��م �ي الظ�� فان ا��� ��ه الظ�� و ��ي عنه فقال ا�� لعنة ا��� ��� الظا���ن و‬

‫يب�� الناس با��نة و بع��ها و ينذر الناس النار و ���ها و ��تالف الناس ح�ى يفقهوا �ي‬

‫ا���ن و يع�� الناس معا�� ا��ج و سنته و فر يضته و ما ا�� ا��� به و ا��ج ا��ك�� و ا��ج‬

‫ا��صغر هو العمرة و ���ي الناس ان يص�� ا�د �ي ثوب وا�د صغ�� ا�� ان يكون ثوبا يث�ي‬

‫طرفيه ��� �اتقيه و ���ي ان ��ت�ي ا�د �ي ثوب وا�د يف�� بفر�ه ا�ي السماء و ���ى ان‬ ‫يعقص ا�د شعر راسه �ي قفاه و ���ي اذا ك�ن ب�ن الناس هيج عن ا���اء ا�ي القبايل و‬ ‫العشا�� فليقطفوا بالسيف ح�ي يكون دعواهم ا�ي ا��� و�ده �� �� يك �� و يا�� الناس‬

‫باسباغ الوضوء وجوههم وا����م ا�ي ا��رافق وار�لهم ا�ي ال�كعب�ن و ��سحون ��ؤو��م ���‬

‫ا��هم ا��� وا�� بالص��ة لوق��ا و ا��ام ا��كوع وا��شوع يغلس بالصبح و ��جر با��ا��ة ��ن‬

‫��يل الشمس و ص��ة الع�� والشمس �ي ا��رض مد��ة وا��غرب ��ن يقبل الليل �� تؤ��‬

‫ح�ي تبدو النجوم �ي السماء و العشاء اول الليل و ا�� بالس�� ا�ي ا���عة اذا نودي ��ا‬ ‫والغسل عند ا��واح ال��ا ‪IH‬‬

‫و ان يب�� الناس با����� و يا��هم به و يع�� الناس القران و يفقههم �ى ا���ن و ���ي الناس‬ ‫����� الناس با��ى ��م و با��ى �ل��م و يل�ن و�� ��س القران ا��ان ا�� و هو طاهر و‬

‫الناس �ي ا��ق و ��تد �ل��م �ى الظ�� فان ا��� ع� و �ل ��ه الظ�� و ��ى عنه وقال ا��‬

‫لعنة ا��� ��� الظا���ن و يب�� الناس با��نة و بع��ها و ينذر بالنار و بع��ها و ��تالف الناس‬

‫ح�ى يتفقهوا �ى ا���ن و يع�� الناس معا�� ا��ج و سنته و فر يضته و ما ا�� ا��� به �ى ا��ج‬

‫‪DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET‬‬

‫‪148‬‬

‫ا��ك�� و ا��ج ا��صغر و هو العمرة و ���ي الناس ان يص�� ا�د �ى ثوب وا�د صغ�� ا��‬

‫ان يكون ثوبا ثوبا يث�ى طرفه ��� �اتقه و ���ى ان ��ت�ى ا�د �ى ثوب وا�د يف�� بفر�ه‬ ‫ا�ي السماء و ���ى ان �� يعقص ا�د شعر راسه اذا عفا �ى قفاه و ���ى اذا ك�ن ب�ن‬

‫الناس هيج عن ا���اء ا�ى القبائل و العشا�� وليكن د�اءهم ا�ى ا��� و�ده �� �� يك ��‬

‫��ن �� ��ع ا�ى ا��� و د�ا ا�ى القبائل و العشا�� فليقطعوا بالسيف ح�ي يكون دعواهم ا�ي‬

‫ا��� و�ده �� �� يك �� و يا�� الناس باسباغ الوضوء وجوههم وا����م ا�ي ا��رافق وار�لهم‬

‫ا�ي ال�كعب�ن و ��سحون ��ؤو��م ��� ا��هم ا��� ع� و �ل وا�� بالص��ة لوق��ا و ا��ام‬

‫ا��كوع وا��شوع يغلس بالفجر و ��جر با��ا��ة ��ن ��يل الشمس و ص��ة الع�� والشمس‬ ‫�ى ا��رض مد��ة وا��غرب ��ن يقبل الليل �� تؤ�� ح�ى تبدو النجوم �ى السماء و العشاء‬

‫اول الليل و ا�� بالس�� ا�ى ا���عة اذا نودى ��ا والغسل عند ا��واح ال��ا ‪Ṭ‬‬ ‫‪Ba‬‬

‫)‪(clause 4‬‬

‫وا�� ان يا�ذ من ا��غا�� ��س ا��� و ما كتب ��� ا��ؤمن�ن �ي الصدقة من العقار ع�� ما‬

‫س�� الغرب نصف الع�� و �ي ك� ع�� من ا��بل سقت الع�ن وسقت السماء و ��� ما‬

‫شاتان و �ي ك� ع���ن اربع شياه و �ي ك� اربع�ن من البقر بقرة ومن ك� ث��ث�ن من‬

‫البقر تبيع �ذع او �ذ�ة و �ي ك� اربع�ن من الغ�� سا��ة و�دها شاة فا��ا فر يضة ا��� ال�ي‬

‫اف��ض ��� ا��ؤمن�ن �ي الصدقة ��ن زاد ���ا فهو ��� �� ‪IH‬‬

‫وا�� ان يا�ذ من ا��غا�� ��س ا��� و ما كتب ��� ا��ؤمن�ن �ى الصدقة من العقار ع�� ما‬

‫س�� البعل و ما سقت السماء و ما س�� الغرب نصف الع�� و �ى ك� ع�� من ا��بل‬

‫شاتان و �ى ك� ع���ن اربع شياه و �ى ك� اربع�ن من البقر بقرة ومن ك� ثلث�ن من البقر‬ ‫تبيع �ذع او �ذ�ة و �ى ك� اربع�ن من الغ�� سا��ة شاة فا��ا فر يضة ا��� ال�ي اف��ض ���‬

‫ا��ؤمن�ن �ى الصدقة ��ن زاد ���ا فهو ��� �� ‪Ṭ‬‬

‫و ان يا�ذ من ا��غا�� ��س ا��� و ما كتب ��� ا��ؤمنون من الصدقة من القار ع�� ما‬

‫س�� البعل و سقت السماء و نصف الع�� مما س�� الغرب ‪Ba‬‬ ‫)‪(clause 5‬‬

‫وانه من اس�� من ��ودي او ن��ا�ي اس��ما �الصا من نفسه ودان ���ن ا��س��م فانه من‬

‫ا��ؤمن�ن �� مثل ما ��م و �ليه مثل ما �ل��م و من ك�ن ��� ن��انيته او ��وديته فانه �� ��د‬

2. VARIANCE

149

�� ‫ع��ا و ��� ك� �ا�� ذ�� او ا��ي ��او عبد دينار واف او ع�ضة ثيابا ��ن ادي ذل� فان‬

IH ‫ذمة ا��� و ذمة رسو�� و من منع ذل� فانه �دو ا��� و ��سو�� و ل��ؤمن�ن ��يعا‬

‫وانه من اس�� من ��ودى او ن��ا�ى اس��ما �الصا من نفسه ودان د�ن ا��س��م فانه من‬

‫ا��ؤمن�ن �� مثل ما ��م و �ليه مثل ما �ل��م و من ك�ن ��� ن��انيته او ��وديته فانه �� يف�ن‬ ‫ع��ا و ��� ك� �ا�� ذ�� او ا��ى �� او عبد دينار واف او ع�ضة ثيابا ��ن ادى ذل� فان‬ Ṭ ‫�� ذمة ا��� و ذمة رسو�� و من منع ذل� فانه �دو ا��� و ��سو�� و ل��ؤمن�ن ��يع‬ Ba

(closing)

IH ‫ص��ات ا��� ��� ���د والس��م �ليه و ر��ة ا��� و ��ك�ته‬

Ṭ, Ba

Variants found: basmala omission of slot opening omission of slot clause 1 shortened form of clause omitting Qurʾānic quote clause 2 omission of entire clause on rightful conduct clause 3 omission of entire clause listing religious duties; replacement of suffixed pronoun with noun; additional epithets for God clause 4 abbreviated form of clause with omitted phrases on taxed items; replacement of feminine singular with masculine singular verb for non-human plural; replacement of noun with synonym (mā saqat al-ʿayn/mā saqā al-bʿal); extended vs. condensed phrase (sāʾima wa-ḥadduhā shāh/sāʾima shāh); omission of initial verb wa-amara clause 5 omission of clause on rights on non-Muslims; replacement of verb with synonym (lā yaridu/lā yaftanna); adverb vs. adjective (jamīʿan/jamīʿ); omission of particle bi- preceding noun closing omission of slot

150

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET Conveyance document, sale of slave 11. sale to al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid

This is the only sale document I have found attributed to the Prophet. Ibn Māja’s report returns to ʿAbd al-Majīd b. Wahb, who is shown the physical text by its recipient, al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid b. Hawdha. 114 Ibn al-Athīr’s report is a citation of alTirmidhī, through Ibrahīm b. Muḥammad and others by their various chains. Al-Tirmidhī’s report also returns to ʿAbd al-Majīd b. Wahb who is shown the physical document. The focus of this report is the terminology al-ghāʾila and al-khabitha. 115 AlQasṭallanī also provides a redaction, but without an isnād. 116 As two of the redactions explicitly return to the physical document, it is even more interesting that these redactions include an ambiguity over the substantive, non-formulaic object of the exchange: ʿabdan aw amman (“a male or a female slave”). Collation of witnesses:

(basmala)

Qs ��‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح‬

IA, IM

(opening)

IA ��‫هذا ما اش��ى العداء �ن �ا�� �ن هوذة من رسول ا��� ص�� ا��� �ليه و س‬ IM ‫هذا ما اش��ى العداء �ن �ا�� �ن هوذة من ���د رسول ا��� صلعم‬

Qs ���‫هذا ما اش��ى العداء �ن هوذة من ���د رسول ا‬

Muḥammad ibn Yazīd ibn Māja, Sunan ibn Māja, ed. Muḥammad Fuʿād ʿAbd al-Bāqī (Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 1998) II: 300–301, kitāb altijārāt, bāb shirāʾi al-raqīq, no. 2251. The isnād is Muḥammad b. Bashshār < ʿAbbād b. Layth ṣāḥib al-Kurābīsī < ʿAbd al-Majīd b. Wahb < al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid b. Hawdha. 115 Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, III: 230, no. 3602. 116 Al-Qasṭallānī, al-Mawāhib, II: 154–55. 114

2. VARIANCE

151 (description)

IA, Qs ‫عبدا او امة‬

IM ‫اش��ى منه عبدا او امة‬ (clause 1)

IA, IM, Qs ‫�� داء و �� �ائ�� و �� خبثة‬

(clause 2)

IA ��‫بيع ا��س�� ا��س‬

IM, Qs ��‫بيع ا��س�� ل��س‬

Variants found: basmala omission of slot opening addition of prayers upon the Prophet description repetition of operative verb clause 2 differing phraseology of final clause due to additional particle li-

CONCLUSION: THE PARAMETERS OF TRADITION ARE THE LIMITS TO VARIANCE

Templates, order, and textual units serve as the constraints on possible subjects and means of expression in Arabic papyri letters. In these letters, the phrasing of requests is limited to certain linguistic forms, the range of emotions that can be expressed is limited, and personal reflection and intellectual discussion is absent. 117 These are the “conceptual principles of the epistolary frame” that place constrictions on expression. 118 As Grob notes, the use of pre-set expressions referencing shared background, such as religious formulae and greetings, is a choice “guided by strategies of politeness,” politeness here being 117 118

Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 208. Ibid., 91.

152

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

understood as “socio-pragmatically well-formed.” These expressions are expected, and it is their absence that goes noticed. 119 “We could ask ourselves to what degree the structures of Arabic letters simulate ‘real conversation’ beyond the basic elements of greetings and farewell. Socio-pragmatically adequate face-toface encounters contain a high proportion of prepatterned speech… Thus, the affinity between the real encounter and the artificial dialogue of a letter might have gone beyond mere analogy…” 120 The oral features found in documents are part and parcel of their formulaic nature. Documentary text is highly redundant, repetitive, pre-patterned and formulaic. In fact, these features characterize both oral dialogue and documentary conventions. Grob has addressed the inclusion of features of orality in Arabic papyri letters in their linguistic features, but stresses that this occurs at the level of structure rather than expressions: “the general information-packaging algorithm shows many traits of oral or, better, vocal style. The letters’ structures are modular, with clear boundary markers. Complex patterns of clause combinations, subordination, and nesting are lacking to a large extent--the only prominent exception being the parenthetical elements.” 121 This simple syntax and the modular structures facilitate the production of these texts, their use, and their transmission by memory. Grob notes that premodern textual cultures are shaped by vocality, in which a “grammatically simple and formulaic text is both easier to produce and easier to understand and remember.” 122 These features not only facilitate their reproduction and transmission, but serve to identify text as intended for transmission, as tradition. “Furthermore, formulaic elaboraIbid., 121, emphasis in original. Ibid., 124. 121 Ibid., 125. Parenthetical elements include endearment phrases and slide-in-blessings directed at addressees and third parties which are commonly found in Arabic papyri letters from the third/ninth century onwards (Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 33–38). 122 Ibid., 126. 119 120

2. VARIANCE

153

tion dignifies the content that is rendered appropriate to be passed on (tradierfähig) and worthy to be passed on (tradierwürdig).” 123 Narrative devices in medieval Islamic historiographical texts can be separated from legal and diplomatic formulae. Furthermore, the range and extent of variance found across redactions of the Prophet’s documents does not show evidence for continuous rewriting. We have already seen that the formulae in this corpus closely compare to examples of Umayyad era documents, rather than to literary epistles, and that they consist of legally functional units. This is an argument for the archaism of the formulae and their consistent transmission and not one for the “authenticity” or historicity of the texts as a whole, nor for the legal or theological points that the texts can be put to the service of. Historicity is best assessed on the basis of the use of an individual report by a compiler, and cannot by applied to the Prophet’s documents, or even a subset of those documents, as a whole. Stereotyped or standardized content, which may be perceived as generative, filler, primarily of narrative use, or tendentious, is actually legally functional. Chapter 1 stressed that the function of these conventions in well-documented Ancient Near Eastern traditions shows that these conventions are the result of millennia of development and contact. That the formulae and their layout are conventional is what makes them functional, what makes them legally valid, what makes them law. The range and extent of variance found in the Prophet’s documents is evidence of the use of memory, storage, and accessibility of these patterns to the compilers of historiographical texts. As Wansbrough notes, formulae are a type of information that is easily accessed and calqued, stored in formularies like alQalqashandī’s and made available through the production of prototypical documents (called sijjil manshūr/maftūḥ), and selfperpetuating so that the same formula occurs across a wide area 123

Ibid.

154

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

for centuries. 124 “While layout is obviously a visual property, it might be thought that fixed phrase is also a feature of writing, in which for orderly perception the stereotype (cliché) meets the reader’s expectation.” The formulae “must have been anticipated by a recipient, and more or less in the proposed sequence. Exceptions, omissions and variances may occur, but seldom in such degree as to distort perception.” 125 As a feature of chancery documents the inclusion of elements of “ordinary discourse,” nontechnical language which can be translated straightforwardly rather than through calque, is small. 126 These features of stereotype, expectation, and layout place constraints on variance. As we investigate premodern textual cultures, sources for texts need to also be sought outside texts or sets of texts, including a consideration of the migration of texts from ritual and architectural sources to literary and vice versa. This is a central concern of recent studies on “text-building” in antiquity. 127 Conventions for inscriptions such as tombstones, graffiti, coins, and legal customs and diplomatic rituals are in engagement with the texts found in literary transmission. Texts are not just reproducing other texts, but are archiving multiform material and are the product of text-building from various components. In the case of the redactions of the Prophet’s documents, literary transmission archives elements of legal and diplomatic tradition and their building blocks, rather than treating each document as material to be free-formed to suit the narrative aim of the compilation. John Wansbrough, Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1996) 104. 125 Ibid., 108. 126 Ibid., 183. 127 For an introduction to this concept in Ancient Near Eastern literature see Seth L. Sanders’ introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions, Special Issue: How to Build a Sacred Text in the Ancient Near East 15 (2016) and all of the studies included therein. See also Harold M. Hays, The Organization of the Pyramid Texts: Typology and Disposition. 2 vols. Problem der Ägyptologie book 31 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 124

2. VARIANCE

155

Noth has argued that the formulaic elements found in documents ascribed to early Islamic authorities, such as the Prophet and the early caliphs, cannot be dismissed as individually created fictions, because they are shared across reports and compilations, and because the formulaic elements are varied and not frozen in fixed schemes. 128 On the nature of the origins of these texts, however, he argues that these do not represent true copies of originals at the disposal of the compilers but convey “lax transmission of the original documents.” This is evinced in features such as incomplete formulae and anachronistic phrases. 129 Thus, according to Noth, documents differ from letters and speeches of the early authorities, which are fictional and exhibit the shared aim of deciding legal questions and moving the narrative forward. 130 The results of this catalog of the redactions of the Prophet’s documents, however, indicate that literary transmission of early documents is not based on copying originals, but likely on memory-based knowledge and reproduction of historical and existing legal custom. Physical copies of documents did exist and several differing copies may also have circulated, including in medieval non-Muslim communities 131 and into the present. But in these spheres the texts do not function as ḥadīth or akhbār but as evidentiary texts and as heritage mobilized in claims for real legal and social benefits. This is attested by Jewish traditions on the exemptions granted Khaybar and medieval Christian traditions concerning the rights granted to Christian communities, for example. 132 Medieval Arabic historiographers Noth, Early Arabic Historical Tradition, 71–72. Ibid., 72–73. 130 Ibid., 95. 131 See Milka Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: from surrender to coexistence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 38–40 for an argument for the likelihood of multiple copies and renewals of Conquest-era agreements kept by the parties involved. 132 The Cairo Geniza collection includes a paper copy of the Prophet’s document to Khaybar (University of Cambridge Library, T-S 16.353), 128 129

156

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

also claim to be quoting physical copies of documents which they have examined themselves, which sometimes include unusual orthography. They can also provide multiple reports of the same document with no anxiety over the variants exhibited by the physical copy. 133 Here the question of which is the original document appears alien and not an interest of the parties involved in its transmission. One explanation for the large degree of variance found in closing elements, including dating, scribal, and witness clauses, is found in a culture of simultaneously circulating copies and renewals that is suggested by reports on Conquest-era documents. Al-Balādhurī’s report on al-Khālid b. al-Walīd’s conquest and treaty with Damascus includes a report from al-Wāqidī through Ibn Saʿd which states that al-Wāqidī read this document, and that while the conquest occurred in Rajab of year 14, the text contains a different date. The explanation given is that the treaty was written without a dating clause, but the bishop asked for a renewal at the time of the Muslims gathering for Yarmūk and asked for witnessing by Abu ʿUbayda and the Muslims. This Khālid did, by renewing the treaty and entering the names of Abu ʿUbayda, Yazīd, Shuraḥbīl b. Ḥasana, and others as witnesses and adding the date of the renewal (Rabīʿ al-thānī year 15). 134 There is a larger culture of copies circulating in nonMuslim communities which this variance of scribal and witness names provides a window into. Our notion of copies and the and St. Catherine’s Monastery holds several copies of the Prophet’s covenant with Christians. The covenant with the Christians of Najrān was transmitted in the Nestorian Chronicle of Séert (circa 10th century). See Mirza, “Copies as more Authentic than Originals” for the use of documents as heritage, and Chapter 4 of this book for the use of documents for social and legal benefits. 133 See al-Balādhurī on Maqnā (al-Balādhurī, Liber, 60), and on Najrān (al-Balādhurī, Liber, 65), and al-Wāqidī, who gives two versions of the document for Adhruḥ, one returning to a physical copy and exhibiting more extensive formulae (al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, 1031). 134 al-Balādhurī, Liber, 123.

2. VARIANCE

157

functionality of copies too should be revised, and the existence of multiple copies (possibly with different witness and scribal clauses), not for the purpose of recording ḥadīth but for making claim to and obtaining real and perceived social and legal benefits, should be considered. Physical copies did exist and were in circulation but may not have functioned as we imagine them, as historical documents, but more as contemporary legal claims, tokens, and relics. As for the other common, substantive type of variant found in the Prophet’s documents, the vulnerability of personal names is an effect of both the longevity of legal formulae and the circulation of multiple physical copies in various communities. This does not mean that, whenever these reports are transmitted the changes in personal and place names reflect sectarian interests. Rather, these personalized elements are less stable than formulae and other textual conventions, which are more archaic and socially diffuse than the weight given to proper names and identifying principal actors. Formulae are anchored in long-term memory and provide textual organization in transmission, while names do not. This is one of the ways that the variance found in the Prophet’s documents highlights the presence and order of formulae as constraints on the transmission of a document. The variance of names shows that significant elements of content can be changed without the legal nature of the text changing. In the documents surveyed, errors associated strictly with copying based on written exemplars are rare. Differences among place-names and names of addressees in the redactions of the Prophet’s documents are sensible rather than purely visual, nonsensical errors. In the selection in this chapter, only two such possibilities were found (al-naʿmūr in al-Balādhurī’s redaction of the document for Dūmat al-Jandal, versus al-maʿmūr found in the remaining four redactions, while al-Balādhurī’s is claimed to return to a physical copy; and al-Wāqidī’s replacement of althabāt with the obscure al-nabāt). The more diverse and dense information contained in these texts is not stereotypical and may be easily lost. Although, with few exceptions, the content of the Prophet’s documents is entirely formulaic, the documents’ brevity, the vulnerability of distinc-

158

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

tive details exhibited by variance in names, and a comparison with legal formularies in other legal corpora, suggest the probability that many legal details in these documents, especially in deeds of conveyance, have been lost. These details are not stereotypical, and in their placement in the middle of the text, are not as memorable as introductory formulae, which form the bulk of the surviving formulae of the Prophet’s documents. The deeds of sale and manumission included in the corpus seem particularly abbreviated. A comparison with Andrew Gross’ schema for Aramaic deeds of conveyance shows that the Prophet’s documents subscribe to the introductory formulae that establish the legal parameters, but contain no details. 135 Reuven Yaron describes the considerable variance in the formulation of the detailed sections of the Aramaic deeds of conveyance, which differ on a case by case basis. These include, for example, the inclusion of references to various third parties from whom challenge may be anticipated in the no-challenge section. 136 This type of formulaic construction is particular to the case and provides a challenge to the memory that is not posed by the address, greeting, blessing and other opening formulae. The Prophet’s sale document for al-ʿAddāʾ b. Khālid is exemplary here, as the citation of the physical document, which was made available to the compilers by its recipient, includes an ambiguity in its wording which cannot easily be explained as visual confusion. This uncertainty does not apply to the formulaic elements, which the redactions agree on, but to the description of the object of sale. The three redactions surveyed in this chapter state: ʿabdan aw amman (“a male or female slave”). This suggests that Andrew D. Gross, “The Judaean Documents as a Regional SubTradition in Aramaic Common Law,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 89, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani Tzoref (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 101. 136 Reuven Yaron, “Aramaic Deeds of Conveyance (I),” Biblica 41/3 (1960): 261–271. 135

2. VARIANCE

159

a significant amount of the body of the text is not easily conveyed in this culture of transmission. The extensive role of memory (with written supports) in the production and reproduction of ancient texts is an argument that is gaining greater currency. 137 David Carr emphasizes that there are always social structures and techniques for facilitating verbatim recall. 138 Anthropological studies have confirmed that verbatim recall through purely oral means applies only to a limited amount of text, consisting of brief extracts. 139 In addition, early studies in experimental and cognitive psychology on verbatim recall through memory (as for example Frederic Bartlett’s 1932 study) actually resulted in greater variance than those found by Alfred Parry in Homeric manuscripts, even though the variants were of the same type. Both include abbreviation, replacement of less familiar with more familiar words, rationalization of supernatural and other unfamiliar elements, and proper names and numbers being the first to be dropped. 140 These types of variants create a meaningful whole text, as opposed to the nonsensical variants found as copyists/graphic errors, such as

See for example Paul Delnero, “Memorization and the Transmission of Sumerian Literary Compositions,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71/2 (2012): 189–208, at 199–200. Delnero identifies errors of memory based on recent cognitive psychology findings on memory use. He concludes that much of the corpus of extant Sumerian literature was the result not of physical copying but of transcription from memory. He argues for an approach that uses this typology rather than that the formal variants of textual criticism (orthographic omissions, grammatical substitutions, semantic additions, etc.) which does not allow a differentiation between copying from memory, from dictation, and from an exemplar (Delnero, “Memorization,” 200). 138 David McClain Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: a new reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 25. 139 Ibid., 17. 140 Ibid., 15; Delnero also discusses difficulty of pure memory with proper nouns and numbers (Delnero, “Memorization,” 192). 137

160

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

skipping of lines or misread letters. 141 Erick Kelemen reminds us that visual movement between exemplar and copy “practically invites errors of omission.” 142 It should be noted, however, that the use of memory does not mean that written texts are not part of the process of text creation. One mode of producing texts should not be conflated with a transmission process, and evidence for memory use should not be conflated with oral transmission. As David Carr has stressed, it is a mistaken assumption in studies of ancient literature to treat memorized text as equivalent to oral or orally transmitted. 143 In fact, as this study of the Prophet’s documents shows, it is oral forms and vocal style that contribute to the stereotypical nature of the texts as well as defining the limits to variance. The limited range of variance apparent in the redactions of the Prophet’s documents confirms the pre-existence of a formulary as well as evidence for reproduction partially through memory. This process is facilitated through the retention of older legal vocabulary and phraseology. As internal factors restricting variance, brevity, compactness, and a formulaic nature characterize the documents. The results indicate a stability provided by legal tradition, perhaps even an archaic one. Carr’s concept of “long duration” literature is very useful here. Exemplified by Homeric epic, lexical lists, Biblical text, and Egyptian instructional texts, 144 these texts represent heritage transmitted across generations by performance and memory. The formulaic content of the documents cited in Islamic historiographical tradition should also be considered “long duration” literature. The structures supporting transmission and preservation of these texts are not rooted in the flux of individual authorship and individual Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 14–15. Erick Kelemen, Textual Editing and Criticism: An Introduction (New York and London: W. W. Norton & Co., 2009) 62–63. 143 Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 5. 144 David McClain Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: origins of scripture and literature (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004). 141 142

2. VARIANCE

161

relations to an intellectual tradition, nor in historiographical themes and narratives, but in scribal and legal custom. The limits to variance in the Prophet’s documents indicate the persistent functionality of the formulae, which survives as a unit across redactions. Variance occurs as either the omission/addition of the slot including all formulae in their entirety, or variance found within formulae that consist of single nouns replaced by synonyms, transpositions of phrases within formulae, or the placement of the entire formulae. These constraints are precisely those of the chancery tradition; they observe the same parameters. As Wansbrough notes on chancery models “the merits of the model are precisely the elements of anonymity and reproducibility. Contact is a datum and communication its purpose. Modality is a variable, but cannot be idiosyncratic to the point of losing contact.” 145 This makes the formulaic text stable, long-lived, and rich in historical evidence. The linguistic distinctiveness of legal and epistolary formulae, discussed in Chapter 1, is also highlighted in this survey of redactions when we see that the variants are not arbitrary or linked to individual redactors or to narrative convention. These samples, however, do not provide enough data to characterize all of the variance in these texts. But they do serve to illustrate that the formula exists as a stable internal organizing principle of these texts. This study of variance makes visible both the constraints and flexibility of this aspect of textual culture. The formula is not creative or generative, but an integral unit, anchored in long-term memory of legal tradition, and its integrity is maintained across redactions. The variance found in these texts tells us less about change over time than about how text is visualized.

145

Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 30.

CHAPTER 3. INFRASTRUCTURE: DHIMMA AGREEMENTS, SANCTUARY SYSTEMS, AND A CASE FOR ARABIAN CUSTOMARY LAW inna lahum dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi They have the security of God and of his prophet

Formulae are not only older than societies that apply them but may correspond with patterns of geo-political movement that are also older than any given political structure. The Prophet’s documents are characterized by conciseness and a rarity of narrative or theological material. It is their structural elements, the formulaic phrases used to open the text, state the business, frame a legal relationship, and close the text, that can allow us to use them as historical evidence for pre-existing socio-legal practices. The formulaic approach can be applied as methodology to a historical question. This chapter selects one highly distinctive formula found in the Prophet’s documents and examines its narrative contexts in the early Islamic sources. The result is a revision of the narrative themes that the sources themselves apply to these documents, including confessional identity and the definition of Islam. It also provides one example of what Arabian customary law looked like and an illustration of the longevity of legal formulation, of types of socio-legal arrangements and their survival through legal phrasing despite intellectual and cultural shifts. In 1975, Ziauddin Ahmed and Ziauddin Ahmad noted that the documents attributed to the Prophet provide evidence for the extension of the same or similar legal relationships to both Muslims and non-Muslims. One of their examples is the distinc163

164

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

tion between the use of the term dhimma in the Prophet’s documents as contrasted to the classical Islamic legal formulation that associates this term, usually translated as “protection,” with non-Muslim groups living under Muslim rule, and couples the term with personal status, the poll tax, and humiliation. 1 The term dhimma occurs in a quite standardized formula in the Prophet’s documents whose most basic form reads: inna lahum dhimmatu llāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi, “They have the security of God and of his prophet.” This is accompanied by expressions of specific securities granted to the addressees, including inviolability of areas of land, freedom from invasion, and tax exemptions. The formula fits most comfortably in the category of a clause granting territorial and/or personal inviolability within a political confederation. In several cases, it is used in documents that establish security between groups within a mutually recognized system of sanctuaries. This is most obvious when the formula is used in defensive alliances such as the “Constitution of Medina,” and those that sanctify areas of Medina and al-Ṭāʾif. These documents state customary rules of ḥaram (sanctuary) and ḥimā (inviolable pasture) which prohibit bloodshed and other crimes within an area. The use of the dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents thus tells us very little about the development of confessional identities, which appear irrelevant in the formation of dhimma agreements. Instead, the documents allow an exploration of the culture and typology of security contracts available in late antique Arabia. Looking only at this “documentary” use of the dhimmat Allāh formula reveals that it is a formula blind to confessional identity, as it occurs within agreements made beZiauddin Ahmed and Ziauddin Ahmad, “The Concept of Jizya in Early Islam,” Islamic Studies 14/4 (1975): 293–305, at 296–297. For the classical legal formulation of dhimma as a status, including the particular arguments of al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Yūsuf, see Yohanan Friedmann, “Dhimma,” Encyclopedia of Islam, 3rd Edition, Section 3, eds. K. Fleet, G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, and E. Rowson (Leiden: Brill, 2007–): 87–91. 1

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

165

tween the Prophet and groups retaining their religion as well as those entering Islam, Bedouin tribes conceding to political domination, groups agreeing to peace, and groups petitioning for safe-conduct or rights to land. Indeed, the majority of these documents do not reference the confessional identities of the addressees at all, and the religious affiliation of many of these groups who negotiated with the Prophet remains uncertain. This includes uncertainty over the meaning of the verbal noun islām when it occurs in the documents. The formula is thus part of a culture of negotiation, illustrating how these groups affiliated themselves, how they both bound and loosened ties within a network of several identities at play, in which religion may have played but a minor role. These documents should not be seen as unambiguously tracing the boundaries of later religious affiliations. Instead, older epigraphic evidence is more instructive here. Formulaic parallels for the dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents can be seen in statements of political confederation under a deity in Ancient South Arabia and the inviolability of customary law found in Nabataean texts. The dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents needs to be put in relation to the laws of sanctuary in late antique Arabia. Sīra-maghāzī literature retains hints of this infrastructure of sanctuary systems and the Prophet’s participation in it. Security within a network of sanctuary systems is the most appropriate socio-legal context in which to explain the dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents. Assuming that the classical Islamic legal concept of dhimma as a personal status category is based on decisions made by the Prophet is thus problematical. Rather than setting the foundation of later, classical Islamic law, the dhimmat Allāh formula is comprehensible only within pre-Islamic Arabian customary law that governed the relationships between nomads and sedentary settlements through a system of sanctuaries, markets, rights to pasturage, tribute, and diplomacy. Tracing a formula in its particular iterations within these agreements, and in its relationships with other legal formulae in documentary and archaeological evidence, allows us to investigate its legal precedents and

166

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

the socio-legal infrastructures it participates in. This broadens our understanding of the consequences of these agreements attributed to the Prophet, and allows us to determine factors other than confessional identity that may be at stake. As Lena Salaymeh reminds us, most legal historiography, problematically, seeks to identify what makes Islamic law Islamic rather than what makes it law, thus focusing on the question of identity rather than on the mechanism of law, of how to characterize the phenomenon as opposed to studying how and what makes it work. 2 What follows is not an argument for the nature of the Prophet’s role or activity, but for the historical value of texts found in literary sources. The intention is to widen the horizon of what we can do with this material other than tracing the contours of the Prophet’s role. These texts provide evidence for a continuity of Islamic origins with pre-Islamic socio-legal infrastructures, rather than for the creation of new law. The real protagonist in this history of the dhimmat Allāh formula is Arabian customary law.

FORMULAE AS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

The documents of the Prophet, which occur as inserted material in historical compilations, should not be viewed simply as ancillary to narratives of the Prophet’s life and of the development of early Islam. Although the texts of these agreements are found in literary sources only, their formulaic content is rather consistent, both across the various documents ascribed to the Prophet and across various redactions of the same documents. The texts of the documents, as provided by such early sources as Ibn Isḥāq (d. 151/760), al-Wāqidī (d. 207/823), Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845), Abū ʿUbayd (d. 224/830), al-Balādhurī (d. 279/892), and al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), are linguistically distinctive from the language of the historical reports (akhbār) in which they are Lena Salaymeh, The Beginnings of Islamic Law: Late Antique Islamicate Legal Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) 2. 2

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

167

embedded, in terms of their formulaic nature as well as in the absence or ambiguity of their taxation terminology. These features will be illustrated below in a close reading of a handful of documents that use the dhimmat Allāh formula, those addressed to the inhabitants of Dūmat al-Jandal, Ayla, Adhruḥ, Maqnā, Najrān, al-Ṭāʾif, and Medina. While Adolf Grohmann finds the formulae of the Prophet’s documents reflective of a tradition that returns to Ancient Near Eastern parallels and extends into early Arabic papyri, he cautions against the use of some of the documents in order to arrive at historical conclusions, particularly the land grants with their widely varying redactions and anachronistic details. 3 My argument is not that if a formula is old that the entire document is authentic, but that the formula can be contextualized in legal tradition and social practices and roughly dated based on a comparison with the papyrological record. By contributing a study of the dhimmat Allāh formula, this chapter builds on Grohmann’s and Werner Diem’s findings regarding the consistent occurrence of formulae in the Prophet’s documents that are related to early Arabic papyri.

THE LONGEVITY OF THE DHIMMA FORMULA

In the Prophet’s documents, the dhimmat Allāh formula occurs directly in relation to terms, both obligations and rights, granted to a group. It can appear in conjunction with formulae using the terminology amāna or jiwār, including the formula innahum āminūn bi-amān Allāh, “they are at peace according to the peace of God,” or a monumental opening formula that refers to the document as an amāna: hādha kitāb amana min Muḥammad, “This is an amāna document from Muḥammad.” An example of a document that combines the dhimmat Allāh and āminūn formulae is the following. Addressed “to whomsoever submits” (li-man Adolf Grohmann, “Die Papyrologie in ihrer Beziehung zur arabischen Urkundenlehre,” Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung 19 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1934) 331–350 at 331. 3

168

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

aslama) from among the Ḥadas of Lakhm, the document states, fa-innahu āminūn bi-dhimmati llāh wa-dhimmat Muḥammad waman rajaʿa ʿan dīnihi fa-inna dhimmatu llāhi wa-dhimmat rasūlihi minhu barīʾa wa-man shahida lahu muslimūn bi-islām fa-innahu āminūn bi-dhimmat Muḥammad, “They are at peace with the security of God and the security of Muḥammad. The security of God and the security of his messenger is lifted from whosoever reneges on his religion. For one whose Islam is witnessed by the Muslims he is at peace with the security of Muḥammad.” The addressees are obliged to establish ṣalāt, pay the zakāt and the “portion” (ḥāẓẓ) due to Allāh and his messenger and to disengage from the mushrikīn. 4 The āminūn formula can also be found without the dhimmat Allāh formula in similar contexts of managing security relations between the Prophet and other groups. In Ibn Saʿd’s redactions of the documents of the Prophet, for example, the āminūn formula is found in a number of agreements made with tribes such as the ʿAbd al-Qays, the Banū al-Ḥārith, the Juhayna, and the Ṭayyiʾ. These documents grant rights of safe-conduct, pasturage and other uses of land, dependent upon payment of taxes termed zakāt or khums. In some documents this is explicitly within the context of a defense treaty in which the other party is identified as being Muslims or “having submitted.” The Prophet’s document to al-Akbar b. ʿAbd al-Qays in Baḥrayn grants rights to safe-conduct, to collection of rain water and fruits, and obliges them to aid the Prophet’s army (with a share in the spoils). The formula is: innahum āminūn bi-amān Allāh wa-amān rasūl Allāh. 5 A similar wording, innahu āminun bi-amān Allāh warasūlihi, is found in a document to the Banū Muʿāwiya b. Jarwal of Ṭayyiʾ. They are granted the rights to retain what they possessed when they submitted as well as their evening sheep en-

Muḥammad b. Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, ed. E. Sachau (Leiden: Brill, 1904–40), I/ii: 21. 5 Ibid., I/ii: 32–33. 4

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

169

closure. 6 Another branch of the Ṭayyiʾ is granted a document with a variant wording of the formula: fa-inna lahu amān Allāh wa Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh. The Banū Juwayn of Ṭayyiʾ are thus granted security and rights to retain their towns, springs, and what they possessed at the time of their islām, and they are entitled to pasture land to keep sheep by day and night. 7 A document to ʿAmr b. Maʿbad al-Juhanī of the Juhayna and the Banū Ḥurmuz grants security through the formula: fa-innahu āminun bi-amān Allāh wa-amān Muḥammad. They owe ṣadaqa that amounts to one tenth of their fruits, their debts to the Muslims will be repaid without interest, and whoever joins them will have similar rights. 8 The Banū Zurʿa and the Banū al-Rabʿa of Juhayna are granted security through the formula: innahum āminūn ʿalā anfusihim wa-amwālihim, “They are at peace concerning their persons and their property,” the same treatment guaranteed for the pious and God-fearing among their Bedouin (ahl bādiyatihim) and the settled among them (mā li-ḥāḍiratihim), and they are charged with coming to the aid of the Muslims. 9 The context here seems to accord with what Clinton Bailey, in his studies of contemporary Bedouin tribes in the Sinai and the Negev, describes as a “cold war” scenario between tribal confederations. This allows the maintenance of land boundaries, in a system in which access to land, including pasture, water, and It is addressed to whomsoever among them submitted (li-man aslama), establishes ṣalāt, gives zakāt and khums out of the spoils to God and his messenger, disengages from the mushrikīn and witnesses to his islām. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:23. 7 Addressed to whomsoever among them believes in Allāh (āminun minhum bi-Allāh), establishes ṣalāt, gives zakāt, disengages from the mushrikīn, gives Allāh and his messenger khums out of the spoils, and witnesses to his islām. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:23. 8 Addressed to whomsoever among them who submitted, establishes ṣalāt, give zakāt and khums out of their spoils to Allāh and his Prophet, remains witness to his islām and disengages from the mushrikīn. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 24–25. 9 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 24. 6

170

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

cultivation/ownership rights, is based on tribal membership. 10 In this situation, to speak of land “belonging” to a certain tribe is not inaccurate. Joseph Schacht has noted that amān/amāna, ʿahd, dhimma, and jiwār are synonyms in the Prophet’s documents. This is in contrast to later legal usage, where amān is differentiated from dhimma, as the amān is a temporary safe-conduct for someone from Dār al-Ḥarb exterior to the rule of Islam, usually traders and pilgrims. 11 In a small number of the Prophet’s documents, the synonymous use of amāna and dhimma is clearly seen in the combination of both terms within the same clause, and both terms occur within agreements that grant rights to land use. However, the Prophet’s documents also show some differentiation between use of the āminūn and dhimmat Allāh formulae. Dhimma tends to govern the relationship between the Prophet and market and sanctuary towns, and the āminūn formula seems preferred for documents to Bedouin who have submitted and those tribes with Bedouin branches that require access to land resources. In surviving Arabic papyri, the term dhimma occurs most frequently with the sense of “responsibility for debt” or “obligation to pay.” This corresponds with classical Islamic legal theory which conceives of debt as possessed by the creditor while yet residing with the debtor under the debtor’s legal personality (called dhimma). 12 This sense is found in a range of papyri, from

Clinton Bailey, Bedouin Law from Sinai and the Negev: Justice without Government (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) 138. 11 Joseph Schacht, “Amān,” Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 3, eds. B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat, and J. Schacht, (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 429–430. 12 For this explanation of dhimma see Valentino Cattelan, “Property (Māl) and Credit Relations in Islamic Law: An Explanation of Dayn and the Function of Legal Personality (Dhimma),” Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013): 189–202, at 195–197. For dhimma as legal personality see also Mahdi Zahraa, “Legal Personality in Islamic Law,” Arab Law Quarterly 10/3 (1995): 193–206, and Chafik Chéhata, “Dhimma,” Encyclopedia of 10

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

171

marriage contracts, records of sale, and records of tax collection. For example, a tax collecting record from Egypt dated 288/901 states: la-hu ḍamānan ṣaḥīḥan / lāziman la-nā wa-wājiban ʿalaynā fī dhimmatinā wa-mālinā, “a judgment in favour of it as a valid guarantee binding on us and obligatory to us in our debt and on our property…” (lines 4–5). 13 A marriage contract from Egypt dated 264/878 uses a similar formula, wa-ḍamānan lāziman lahu fī dhimmati-hi wa-mālihi, “as a guarantee binding upon him in respect of his obligation (to pay) and (upon) his property” (line 6). 14 And a contract of sale for house property from Fayyūm dated 423/1032 reads, wa-tukhalliṣa la-hu dhālika fī mālihā wadhimmatihā, “who shall indemnify him for it out of her property and at her expense” (line 15). 15 This usage and denotation represent the most common and frequent use of the word dhimma in Arabic papyri. The phrase that is most closely associated with personal status and religious minorities, ahl al-dhimma, is rare in the early papyri. In its earliest attestations, ahl al-dhimma in the papyri neither refers definitively to confessional identity nor is it associated with distinctive taxes. Robert Hoyland notes that use of the phrase ahl al-dhimma to refer to generally monotheist reliIslam, New Edition, vol. 2, eds. B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat, and J. Schacht, (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 231. 13 PSijpesteijnProfit recto a (=P.Met.1978.384.1a recto). This is Sijpesteijn’s translation. Petra M. Sijpesteijn, “Profit following responsibility. A leaf from the records of a third/ninth century tax-collecting agent with an appended checklist of editions of Arabic Papyri,” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 31 (2001): 91–132 at 115, 118. 14 P.Cair.Arab39. Adolf Grohmann’s translation, The Arabic Papyrology Database (APD) http://www.apd.gwi.uni-muenchen.de:8080/apd/show2.jsp?papname =Grohmann_APEL_39_3&line=6 [accessed 27 November 2016]. 15 P.Cair.Arab.61. Adolf Grohmann’s translation, The Arabic Papyrology Database (APD) http://www.apd.gwi.uni-muenchen.de:8080/apd/show2.jsp?papname =Grohmann_APEL_61&line=15 [accessed 27 November 2016]).

172

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

gious communities under Islamic rule is actually a late-comer in the papyrological record. 16 This puts the papyrological record at odds with legal theory concerning the ahl al-dhimma as elaborated by such sources as Abū Yūsuf’s (d. 182/798) Kitāb alKharāj, and later the Aḥkām ahl al-Dhimma of Ibn al-Qayyim alJawziyya (d. 750/1350). The development away from an earlier conception and terminology of dhimma has been discussed by Milka Levy-Rubin, who traces the formulae of Conquest-era surrender agreements to pre-existing Levantine and Greek idioms, 17 and by Robert Hoyland, who has published the earliest papyrological attestation of the dhimmat Allāh formula. 18 Concerning surrender treaties from the Conquest period, Levy-Rubin argues that practice after the first/seventh century was influenced by the prevalent Levantine usage and the substantive term used in the treaties switched from dhimma and jiwār to amān. She notes that jiwār had connotations of equals/ insiders and was therefore an uncomfortable fit for the terminology of the early surrender agreements. Significantly, LevyRubin’s argument reverses the perspective of historiography which seeks to present Muslim conquerors as primary agents and dominant, making the case for the conquered cities and peoples themselves requesting treaties under terms and terminology that they were accustomed to. This terminology was then adopted and developed further by the Muslim conquerors. Thus Levy-Rubin finds that in the Conquest-era treaties Arabic amān is a parallel of Greek pistis and Latin fides. 19

Robert Hoyland, with an appendix by Hannah Cotton, “The Earliest Attestation of the Dhimma of God and His Messenger and the Rediscovery of P. Nessana 77 (60s AH/680 CE),” in Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts: Essays in Honor of Professor Patricia Crone, eds. B. Sadeghi, A. Ahmed, R. Hoyland, and A. Silverstein, (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 51–71, at 57. 17 Milka Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: from surrender to coexistence (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011). 18 Hoyland, “The Earliest Attestation.” 19 Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims, 33–36. 16

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

173

According to Hoyland, the earliest papyrological attestation of the formula dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi is in PNess 77 letter 1. Lines 11–12 read: wa li-ahl niṣān dhimmat Allāh wadhimmat rasūlihi (For the people of Nessana is the security of God and the security of his messenger). This letter is dated through internal references to A.H. 60s/680, and extends dhimma to the people of Nessana, which included a Christian majority, in the context of clarifying that Nessana does not owe the functionary Yazīd b. Fāʾid a certain payment. 20 The formula as it is found in the Prophet’s documents thus does appear in an early Arabic papyrus, though it appears to later become obsolete. 21 The use of the formula in both the Prophet’s documents and in the Nessana letter corroborates references in the narrative sources which indicate that the “dhimma of God and his messenger” could be enjoyed by both Muslims and non-Muslims. Later jurists, however, limited the addressee of this formula to Muslims, and it is clear that the issue at stake is the gravity of and conditions placed on receiving the dhimma of God. Al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/828) in his Kitāb al-Umm requires jizya treaties for nonMuslims making use of this formula to include a clause specifying that dhimma is forfeited if any of the addressees speak ill against Islam. 22 Later jurists recommended the use of the dhimmat Allāh formula only for Muslims and construct a different formula for non-Muslims which offers them the dhimma of the Muslim military commander in charge of the agreement, the commander’s fathers, and the commander’s companions. 23 This jurisprudential interest in shifting the use of the dhimmat Allāh formula is reflected in the early narrative sources on the Conquests. The recommended change in wording does appear in the documents quoted by sources such as al-Wāqidī, alHoyland, “The Earliest Attestation,” 58, 61. P.Ness.77 is the only Arabic papyrus I know of which attests this formula. 22 Ibid., 56. 23 Ibid., 57. 20 21

174

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Balādhurī, and al-Ṭabarī. For example, a redaction of the treaty made with Mujjāʿa b. Murāra b. Sulamī, a branch of the Sulaym involved in the ridda, retains the āminūn formula but offers not the dhimma of the Prophet but rather that of the military commander responsible for the treaty and other authorities. It reads: thumma antum āminūn bi-amān Allāh wa la-kum dhimmatu Khālid b. al-Walīd wa-dhimmatu Abī Bakr khalīfat rasūl Allāh ṣlʿm wa dhimam al-muslimīn ʿalā al-wafāʾ (You are at peace according to the peace of God. You have the security of Khālid b. al-Walīd and the security of Abū Bakr the caliph of the prophet of God and the security of the Muslims in good faith). 24 This lengthier formula which includes the additional phrases dhimmat alkhulafāʾ and dhimam al-muslimīn, or the replacement of dhimmat rasūl Allāh with the dhimma of the commander, appears in several other redactions of Conquest-era treaties. 25 The literary sources that claim to represent the documentary tradition from this early period after the Prophet’s death assume that the dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi formula was in circulation, and so some akhbār and ḥadīth encourage the discontinued use of the dhimmat Allāh formula for non-Muslims. Some of these reports suggest that the dhimmat Allāh formula will be requested by the recipients. The context of a speech given in year 23 by ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb to Salama b. Qays alAshjaʿī indicates that bilateral treaties were initiated by the conquered peoples. 26 ʿUmar proclaims, “When they ask you for Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Annales quos scripsit, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Lugundi-Baavoruml: Brill, 1879–1965), I:1954. 25 Surveyed in Albrecht Noth in collaboration with Lawrence I. Conrad, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-Critical Study, 2nd ed., trans. Michael Bonner (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 64–70. 26 Levy-Rubin also argues that the anticipation and request of certain terms and formulae by the conquered parties suggest that negotiations were bilateral and drew on existing legal grants (Levy-Rubin, NonMuslims). And Arietta Papaconstantinou writes, “…fiscal systems should be analysed as forms of transaction rather than of one-way state impo24

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

175

dhimmat Allāh wa dhimmat rasūlihi give them dhimam anfusikum (your own security).” 27 Yet several references remain for the continued use of some version of the requested formula during the Conquest period. The formula ʿahd Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi, “the covenant of God and the security of his messenger” occurs in Khālid b. al-Walīd’s written treaty with Damascus. 28 And ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb grants the people of Jerusalem in year 15: wa ʿalā mā fī hādhā l-kitābī ʿahdu Allāhi wa-dhimmatu rasūlihi wa-dhimmatu l-khulafāʾi wa-dhimmatu l-muslimīn, “And what is in this document is under the covenant of God and the security of his messenger and the security of the caliphs and the security of the Muslims.” 29 Ḥadīth literature also leaves unclear the reasons for the recommended shift. Al-Wāqidī includes a report in which the Prophet instructs his followers to grant the dhimma of “you, your father, and your companions” when the people of a fortress or city request to be given dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi. 30 But a version of this ḥadīth in the Sunan of Ibn Māja contains additional text which suggests that it is not that non-Muslims are undeserving but that Muslims should beware the difficulty of meeting the greater responsibility of dhimmat Allāh. 31 That a sition” (Arietta Papaconstantinou, “Administering the early Islamic Empire: insights from the papyri,” in Money, Power and Politics in early Islamic Syria: a review of the current debates, ed. John Haldon (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010): 57–74, at 71). 27 Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, ed. Marsden Jones (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), II: 757–758; al-Ṭabarī, Annales, I:2714. 28 Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ al-buldān, ed., M.J. de Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1866), 121. 29 Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, I: 2406. 30 al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, II:257–258, with the isnād Ibn Abī Sabra < Isḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Ṭalḥa < Rāfiʿ b. Isḥāq < Zayd b. Aqram < Rasūl Allāh. 31 Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Yazīd b. Mājah al-Qazwīnī, Sunan Ibn Māja, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī (Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 1998), III: 532–533, Kitāb al-Jihād no. 2858 through the isnād Muḥammad b.

176

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

shift was occurring in the use of dhimmat Allāh remains clear. In contrast to this development of separate formulae for Muslim and non-Muslim recipients, the documents attributed to the Prophet retain the dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi formula and apply it regardless of confessional identity. In line with this evidence for an interest in shifting the formula to deny non-Muslims dhimmat Allāh, we may well expect backdating or attribution of the replacement formula to the Prophet’s documents. Yet dhimma as a term in documents attributed to the Prophet or to the ridda and Conquest periods does not appear to be a target for standardization by the redactors. In Donald Hill’s survey of the terms found in reports of Conquest-era agreements, 182 out of 375 reports contain the terms dhimma, jizya, or kharāj. Jizya is the most frequently occurring of these terms (at 53.2%), and dhimma has the least incidence (at 18.7%), with no correlation of dhimma and jizya occurring together. Sayf b. ʿUmar’s reports show a preference for dhimma, providing 42% of its incidences, and may be evidence for standardizing. Otherwise, Hill asserts that the evidence points to a general lack in Conquest-era agreements of the term dhimma to refer to personal status law with its connotations of humiliation or second-class status. 32 While we may expect conformity of these documents in literary transmission with contemporary religio-legal or juristic discourse, in actuality they are the main contrast with that discourse and indicate that their formulae may be historical evidence. The use of the phrase ahl al-dhimma in early Arabic papyri is also at odds with the classical formulation of ahl al-dhimma as a personal status category based on confessional identity. In their studies of Christian communities in Conquest-era Egypt and Syria, Hussein Omar and Arietta Papaconstantinou have Yaḥyā < Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Firyābī < Sufyān < ʿAlqama b. Marthad < Ibn Burayda < his father. 32 D. R. Hill, The Termination of Hostilities in the Early Arab Conquests, A.D. 634–656 (London: Luzac, 1971) 169.

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

177

argued that the legal discourse on dhimma as a social category can be dated to third/ninth century developments. In his history of the designation qibṭī, Omar writes The term ahl al-dhimma can be traced to the legal disputations that occurred in Iraq in the late second/end of the eighth century about the fiscal status of the subjected peoples (e.g., Abū Yūsuf’s Kitāb al-Kharāj). This discussion involved the citing of ḥadīths; the Egyptian ḥadīth material cited in the Futūḥ [of Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam] was probably a reflection of this discussion being brought into or conducted within Egypt. The new designation ahl al-dhimma, which is used indiscriminately by modern scholars to refer to the Christian population of Egypt, is thus inaccurate and, as has been shown, refers to a specific episode in conquest history, when the tax-paying Egyptians could not be simply classified as “people of the Earth.” 33

According to Papaconstantinou, the rising self-awareness of groups under the caliphate in the early second/eighth century corresponds with the earliest surviving evidence for the effort to establish Christian legislation. 34 Papaconstantinou argues that, prior to the Islamic legislation first developed in the third/ninth century, “it is quite misleading to speak of ‘dhimmī status’ or ‘dhimmī communities’ as a given, clear and definable reality, because as very often in the history of Islamic society, this is only a retrojection of a later situation.” 35 The earliest papyrological attestations of ahl al-dhimma indicate that the phrase refers to a category of subject peoples distinct from Muslims. However, the nature of that distinction is Hussein Omar, “‘The Crinkly-Haired People of the Black Earth’: Examining Egyptian Identities in Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s Futūḥ,” in History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East, ed. Phillip Wood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013): 149–167, at 164. 34 Arietta Papaconstantinou, “Between umma and dhimma: the Christians of the Middle East under the Umayyads,” Annales islamologiques 42 (2008): 127–156, at 148. 35 Ibid., 129. 33

178

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

unclear. The earliest papyrological usage of the phrase seems to be P.Cair.IslArt inv. 2548, an Arabic scroll at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo dated 141/758. This is an administrative letter by the governor of ʿAbbāsid Egypt to the king of Nubia and Muqurra, first published by J. Martin Plumey in 1975, 36 with a revised translation and commentary published by Martin Hinds and Hamdi Sakkout in 1981. Lines 52–53 charge that the Nubians detained slaves “from the people of Islam and the people under our dhimma” (fa-ḥabastumūhum maʿa mā ʿindakum min ariqqāʾi ahli al-islāmi / wa-ahli dhimmatinā). 37 Here the ahl al-dhimma is some category of people with rights under the caliphate alongside Muslims. Lena Salaymeh has noted that while second/eighth century papyri distinguish between Muslims and others, they do not reveal who “counted” as belonging to one versus the other of these categories. 38 Other early attestations of the phrase place the ahl al-dhimma in the same tax category as Muslims by making both groups liable for the jizya. An administrative letter ca. 789 CE is addressed to “all those in the region (kūra) of Ahnās, the Muslims and the ahl al-dhimma, upon whom is determined the jizya of Miṣr for the Commander of the Faithful, may God extend his life” (jamīʿ man bi-kūrat Ahnās min almuslimīn wa ahl-al-dhimma / alladhī taqarrara ʿinda amīr almuʾminīn aṭāla Allāh baqāʾahu min jizyat Miṣr).” 39 A receipt dated 168/785 from the governor Mūsā b. Muṣʿab refers to two cate-

J. Martin Plumey, “An Eighth-Century Arabic Letter to the King of Nubia,” JEA 61 (1975): 241–45. 37 Martin Hinds and Hamdi Sakkout, “A Letter From the Governor of Egypt To the King of Nubia and Muqurra Concerning Egyptian-Nubian Relations in 141/758,” in ed. Wadād al-Qāḍī, Studia Arabica et Islamica: Festschrift for Iḥsān ʿAbbās on his Sixtieth Birthday (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1981): 209–229 at 222. 38 Lena Salaymeh, “Taxing Citizens: Socio-Legal Constructions of Late Antique Muslim Identity,” Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016): 333–367, at 364. 39 P.World pp 132–33. 36

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

179

gories (as indicated by the dual verb) of tax-payers. 40 This includes the ahl al-dhimma alongside the people of the regions and provinces of Miṣr, who appear to be jointly assessed for the jizyat al-raʾs (jawālīhā / wa-anbāṭihā wa jamīʿ man yas[k]unuhā min [a]hl al-dhimma). 41 Hussein Omar argues that early Arabic papyri indicate that the ahl al-dhimma are land-owning, tax-paying conquered peoples, and that this is a previously unused phrase that appears when Muslims start settling the countryside in Egypt and need to be distinguished from the resident population. 42 According to Omar, in the first two centuries of Islamic rule in Egypt, ethnic identity was less stable and concrete than later portrayed, and Arab and Copt emerged as distinctive identities in the fourth/tenth century. 43 The earliest descriptions of the population of Egypt in the papyri make no reference to religion, language, or ethnicity. 44 And while the late appearance of qibṭ in the papyri does not mean that there was no earlier conception of a unique ethnic, linguistic and religious identity, it does indicate that there was no need to articulate such an identity in the early post-Conquest period. 45 That the early papyrological use of ahl al-dhimma did not unambiguously denote a distinctive tax status aligns with what has long been noted as the non-standardized nature of early, post-Conquest taxation terms. While legal manuals present a neat conceptualization of jizya as a tax paid by non-Muslims and as a sign of submission in return for protected status, 46 in the papyri jizya appears to be a general term for tax until the ‘AbP.DiemFrüheUrkunden 07 (= P.Vind.inv.A.P.2704). Diem comments that here anbāṭ may refer to Muslims. Werner Diem, “Einige frühe amtliche Urkunden aus der Sammlung papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (Wien),” Le Muséon 97 (1984): 109–158, at 139–140. 42 Omar, “‘The Crinkly-Haired People,’” 163. 43 Ibid., 150. 44 Ibid., 163. 45 Ibid., 164. 46 Papaconstantinou, “Administering.” 40 41

180

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

basid period. 47 The application of some form of poll tax on a distinct class of non-Muslims also appears non-standardized in the early papyri. One Arabic papyrus, P. Vindob. AP 5.379, illustrates this nicely. This is a second/eighth century letter from an administrator who is confused about tax liabilities after finding that a Christian and a Muslim had been taxed jointly. Taxes paid by Muslims in this early period are unclear and conditions fluctuate throughout the districts of Egypt. 48 Second/eighth century Arabic papyri record ṣadaqāt payments, but this tax is also called ʿushr or zakāt, and often appears in the same lists that mention the poll tax, meadow tax, and other levies. 49 The growing need for distinctions seems reflected in the appearance of the term jizyat al-raʾs for poll tax (as P.DiemFrüheUrkunden 07 quoted above). Kōsei Morimoto sees the use of jizyat al-raʾs as part of the second stage toward the classical formulation of the poll tax on non-Muslims. In this intermediary stage, the poll tax begins to be differentiated from a tribute on conquered land-dwelling peoples. This earlier sense of tribute is seen, for example, in papyri from 90–91 A.H., such as the bilingual Aphrodito papyri. 50 As Petra Sejpesteijn writes, “The picture is very murky. In general, by the end of the second/eighth century, it is hard to discern any consistent pattern distinguishing the taxes paid by Muslims and those paid by non-Muslims.” 51 P.Vindob AP 5.379, with its confusion over whether a Muslim and non-Muslim can be jointly taxed, shows the “flexibility still inherent in what was Ibid., 63 n. 20. P. SijpesteijnArchivalMind 9 (=P. Vindob.AP 5.379). Petra Sijpesteijn, “The Archival Mind in Early Islamic Egypt: Two Arabic Papyri,” in From al-Andalus to Khurasan: Documents from the Medieval Muslim World, eds. Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Lennart Sundelin, Sofía Torralas Tovar, and Amalia Zomeño (Leiden: Brill, 2007): 163–185, at 167–168. 49 Ibid. 50 Kōsei Morimoto, The Fiscal Administration of Egypt in the Early Islamic Period (Kyoto: Dohosa, 1981) 60. 51 Sijpesteijn, “The Archival Mind,” 169. 47 48

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

181

an evolving system,” and dates prior to identical tax rates on Muslim and non-Muslim landholders. 52 Eastern Christian literary sources also corroborate that jizya was initially seen as a tribute paid by the defeated, and assessed on an ad hoc basis dependent on negotiations. The Maronite Chronicle, written before the 680s, describes Muʿāwiya’s dealings with delegations of Jacobites and Maronites to Damascus in 659. In this visit, the Maronites win a debate and their rivals the Jacobites agree to a tax. The rationale here thus does not appear to be a religiously motivated tax on all groups deemed protected, but the “negotiation of state protection against a rival group.” 53 Both Conquest-era documents in literary sources and the papyrological record thus illustrate that confessional distinctions in both diplomatic agreements and in taxation was a gradual development. The papryological evidence for the use of dhimma, ahl al-dhimma, and dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi, and the shift away from use of this last formula in the Conquest-era documents, all indicate that dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi was an earlier formulation. As an expression of inviolability and security it seems to give way in both Conquest-era documents and Ibid., 170. Papaconstantinou, “Administering,” 60. Even later, papyrological evidence in the context of political upheavals in Norman Sicily shows that taxes associated with dhimma were neither limited to non-Muslims nor universally applied to all non-Muslims. Further dissociating the concept of dhimma from the status of minorities under Muslim rule, Jeremy Johns has noted the entrance of dhimma agreements into nonMuslim local law. This is exemplified by a twelfth century document from Norman Sicily that records three Muslim brothers paying a polltax termed jizya to their Christian overlords. In his Riḥla, a record of his visit to Sicily in 1184–1185, Ibn Jubayr al-Kinānī expresses the relation of the Muslims to their overlords in terms of dhimma. Jeremy Johns, “The boys from Mezzouiso: Muslim jizya-payers in Christian Sicily,” in Islamic Reflections, Arabic Musings: Studies in Honor of Professor Alan Jones, eds. Robert G. Hoyland and Philip F. Kennedy, (London: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004) 243–55, at 245. 52 53

182

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

early papyri to amān. 54 For example, P.Cair.IslArt inv. 2548 refers to the agreement granted to the Nubians concerning their safe-conduct in Egyptian lands as amanakum (line 12). 55 Treating the use of dhimmat Allāh in the Prophet’s documents as a formula with a particular wording, rather than as reflective of the broader, and later, concept of dhimma, allows us to avoid anachronistic backdating of later intellectual structures. My approach here is similar to what Salaymeh calls “radical historicism,” which allows us to avoid a developmental view of Islamic law in an approach to legal history. 56 This formulaic evidence can change how we use this material. Rather than assuming that sīra-maghāzī material establishes a distinctively Islamic worldview, this material can be shown to communicate with and be corroborated by archaeological evidence for ancient Arabia. The formulaic content of the Prophet’s documents lets us look at socio-legal developments for a period that is earlier than the reach of the Arabic papyrological record.

SECURITY AGREEMENTS

In the Prophet’s documents, the presence of the dhimmat Allāh formula itself does not mark the addressee as Muslim or nonMuslim. Its use highlights the fuzzy nature of the verbal noun islām as a term. In these texts, islām is sometimes related to ritual observances such as ṣalāt but seems to have little to do with confessional identity or with friendship with the muslimūn. The actual measure for the agreement terms made by the Prophet with various groups is not religious identity or even a history of resistance to the Prophet. Instead, the terms in the documents employing the dhimmat Allāh formula are based on assessments of potential military threat to control of the Ḥijāz, and the necessity of maintaining a system of taxation on market towns and

See Schacht, “Amān,” and Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims. P.HindsSakkoutNubia (=P.Cair.IslArt inv. 2548). 56 Salaymeh, Beginnings of Islamic Law, 3–4. 54 55

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

183

the routes between them. 57 This is evident when we compare the conciliatory terms offered to al-Ṭāʾif, which includes dhimmat Allāh, versus the burdensome terms offered to Dūmat al-Jandal in an agreement which seems to pointedly exclude the dhimmat Allāh formula. Even the commentators on these texts do not always interpret these terms as reflecting a relation of subjugation to the Prophet. Abū ʿUbayd, for example, explains the terms granted al-Ṭāʾif as reflective of the sunna of granting concessions to a people in return for peace, allegiance, and/or Islam. 58 The dhimmat Allāh formula usually occurs in the Prophet’s documents as part of a conditional sentence which marks out the terms of the agreement between Muḥammad and the other parties. It is therefore clear that these documents present bilateral agreements and are not simply declarations. For example, a document to ʿUmayr Dhī Marrān and whomsoever “entered Islam/submitted” (wa-man aslama min Hamdān) in Yemen includes the formula, fa-inna lakum dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi, as part of a conditional statement directly following the list of stipulations which consist of bearing witness to the shahāda, establishing ṣalāt, and giving zakāt. This would secure their lives, possessions, and uncultivated lands, plains, mountains, wells, and border regions. 59 As it specifies areas of land Michael Lecker has noted, following Abū ʿUbayd’s discussion of this in his Kitāb al-amwāl, that it was pre-Islamic custom to levy custom dues at all annual fairs except ʿUkāẓ (Michael Lecker, “Were Custom Dues Levied at the Time of the Prophet Muḥammad?” Al-Qanṭara 22/1 (2001): 19–43, at 24), as well as on main roads and markets located between desert and town (Lecker, “Custom Dues,” 31). 58 Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, Kitāb al-amwāl, ed. Muḥammad Khalīl Harrās (Cairo: Maktabat al-Kullīyāt al-Azharīyya, 1968), 280–81. 59 Aḥmad b. Abū Yaʿqūb al-Yaʿqūbī, Tārīkh, eds. M. J. de Goeje and W. Wright (Lugduni Batavorum: Brill, 1883), 89. The combination of the introductory greeting silmun anta followed by the ḥamdala formula (fainnī aḥmadu ilayka Allāh, “I address the praises of God to you”), found in this text and others of the Prophet’s documents is also distinctive because it is not attested in surviving early Arabic documents. Werner 57

184

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

considered inviolable and establishes taxes and ritual requirements, this format and placing of the dhimmat Allāh formula is typical of the Prophet’s documents. The dhimmat Allāh formula is also found in texts that are sometimes called “land grants” in the secondary literature and which confirm a group’s access to designated resources. An example is a confirmation of land to the ʿAkk dhū Khaywān, which uses the formula fa-lahu amān Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi to secure their land, possessions, and slaves. 60 Consistency in the use of the dhimmat Allāh formula is visible if we treat the documents of the Prophet as a whole corpus, and consider the stability of formulae found across variants. Variants found in redactions of these documents consist primarily of the replacement of operative terms with what may arguably be synonyms (such as jiwār for dhimma), the omission or addition of entire formulae, and errors of sight/copying/ orthography. These variants show that formulae are the building blocks of these texts and that what constitutes a formula and what a certain formula consists of are all agreed upon. This stability is in contrast to the differing details of historical reports often noted in source-critical studies of the transmission of early Islamic material. The negotiations between the Prophet and the towns of Ayla, Adhruḥ/Udhruḥ (and Jarbā), Maqnā, Najrān, and Dūmat al-Jandal are in chronological proximity to each other in the sīra narrative of the developments of the years 8–9 A.H. Reports from al-Wāqidī also relate the arrangements with these towns to each other causally. 61 Redactions of the Prophet’s agreements Diem, “Arabic Letters in Pre-Modern Times, A Survey with Commented Selected Bibliographies,” in Documentary Letters from the Middle East: the Evidence in Greek, Coptic, South Arabian, Pehlevi, and Arabic (1st–15th c. CE), eds. Andreas Kaplony and Eva Mira Grob (Bern: Lang, 2008): 843– 883, at 860. 60 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, VI:18. 61 Dūma, Ayla, and Taymāʾ became afraid of the Prophet when they noted the nomads entering Islam. Yuḥanna b. Ruba, the Byzantine func-

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

185

with these towns employ the dhimmat Allāh and/or aminūn formula, with the exception of the agreement with Dūmat alJandal. In the akhbār, Ayla and Najrān are associated with Christian communities, and Maqnā, Adhruḥ, and Jarbā with Jewish inhabitants. 62 Dūma and Najrān are both key “nodes” in the cycle of pre-Islamic markets and in the long-distance peninsular trade, 63 while Ayla on the Red Sea is a major sea port. Adhruḥ, Taymāʾ, and Jarbā are towns in the vicinity of Ayla. Adhruḥ was important in Nabataean trade with its proximity to Petra, a Roman fort in the fourth century C.E., and remained a major settlement in the Byzantine period. 64 Access to peninsular trade to and from Syria and to agricultural regions in northern Arabia were crucial to securing the supply of foodstuffs to Mec-

tionary of Ayla, requested from the Prophet similar terms as those granted to Dūma. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 37. 62 al-Wāqidī’s reports in Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 37–8. 63 Michael Bonner, “Commerce and Migration in Arabia before Islam: A Brief History of a Long Tradition,” in Iranian Language and Culture: essays in honor of Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr, ed. B. Aghaei and M. R. Ghanoonparvar (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2012): 65–89. For the placement of Najrān, Dūmat al-Jandal, and Taymāʾ on the routes taken by the ancient Arabian incense trade, see Jean François Breton, Arabia Felix from the Time of the Queen of Sheba: Eight Century B.C. to First Century AD, trans. Albert LaFarge (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000) chapter 3; M.C.A. Macdonald, “Trade Routes and Trade Goods at the Northern End of the ‘Incense Road’ in the First Millennium B.C.,” in M.C.A. Macdonald, Literacy and Identity in Pre-Islamic Arabia (Farnham: Ashgate/Variorum, 2009) IX; and Daniel T. Potts, “TransArabian Routes of the Pre-Islamic Period,” Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 16, no. 1 (1988): 127–162. 64 Zeyad al-Salemeen, Hani Falahat, Salameh Naimat, and Fawzi Abudanh, “New Arabic-Christian Inscriptions from Udhruḥ, Southern Jordan,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 22 (2011) 232–242.

186

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ca. 65 These considerations determine their value and desirability to the Prophet based in the Ḥijāz. 66 The outlier here, and setting a contrast with the other agreements in this group, is the case of Dūmat al-Jandal. Various early redactions of this document agree on the absence of the dhimmat Allāh and āminūn formulae. They agree on the document’s wording that Dūmat al-Jandal is granted a “covenant” (ʿahd wa-l-mīthāq). In their commentaries, however, the redactors refer to the document as an amāna. The terms of the document, particularly the absence of both freedom from military occupation and tax exemptions, present a stark contrast to the terms granted to the other towns in agreements that do include the dhimmat Allāh formula. This contrast indicates a disconnect between the typology followed by the redactors and the document’s own terminology. The documents thus do not belong to the episteme of their redactors and compilers. The redactions of the document for Dūmat al-Jandal agree on the opening formulae including an address to the governor Ukaydir on the occasion of his responding positively (ajāba) to islām and renouncing idols under the authority of Khālid b. alWalīd. Dūma and its environs’ shallow pools, cultivated and uncultivated lands, unmarked lands, armor, cavalry, riding animals, and forts belong to the Prophet. Dūma retains rights to its palm groves, running springs, and to use of the land as pasture, as well as to its produce and vegetation. The requirements placed on the inhabitants are timely prayers and the zakāt. The terms alone suggest the granting of some security to Dūma but not inviolability. Fred McGraw Donner, “Mecca’s Food Supplies and Muhammad’s Boycott,” JESHO 20/3 (Oct. 1977): 249–66 at 265–66. 66 Fred Donner has pointed out that these towns made arrangements with Muḥammad after witnessing his success with the nomadic populations surrounding them and that this is what ultimately convinced alṬāʾif, which faced isolation otherwise, to submit. Fred McGraw Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981) 109. 65

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

187

The redactions of this text given by al-Wāqidī, Ibn Saʿd, Abū ʿUbayd, al-Balādhurī, and al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1442) agree on the introductory formulae and terms mentioned above. The variants are as follows. Abū ʿUbayd and al-Balādhurī differ from Ibn Saʿd and al-Maqrīzī in omitting the clause that states that Dūma owes nothing more than the khums (one-fifth) and the ʿushr (one-tenth) on old date palms (thabāt). Al-Wāqidī, who has his text from an elder of Dūma, has a variant that turns this into an exemption rather than the imposition of the ʿushr (by omitting the particle illā) on batāt. 67 Al-Wāqidī’s omission of illā preceding ʿushr and the replacement of thabāt with batāt may be copyist’s errors. The reference to ʿushr here may be to custom dues. Michael Lecker has argued that the clause lā yuʿsharūna wa-lā yuḥsharūna found in the Prophet’s documents (which does not occur in any of the known Arabic papyri) expresses an exemption from taxes including custom dues, and that in these texts the terms ṣadaqa, zakāt, kharāj, and ʿushr obscure and have replaced the earlier and more straightforward term for customs, maks. 68 Lecker points out that while Abū ʿUbayd states that the lā yuʿsharūna wa-lā yuḥsharūna clause is found in the Prophet’s documents to Muslims and that the Prophet’s practice replaced the burdensome pre-Islamic customs with the zakāt, the clause is also found in the Prophet’s documents to non-Muslims, includ-

Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-amwāl, 281–83, no. 508; al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ, 61; Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʾ al-asmāʾ bi-mā li-l-rusūl min al-anbāʾ wa-l-amwāl wa-l-hafadah wa-l-matāʾ, ed. Maḥmūd Shākir (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat lajnat al-taʿlīf wa-l-tarjama wa-l-nashr, 1941) 466–67; Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 36; al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, 1030; ʿAlī b. alḤasan b. ʿAsākir, Tārīkh madīnat Dimashq, wa-dhikr faḍlihā wa-tasmiyat man ḥallahā min al-amāthil aw ijtāza bi-nawāḥīhā min wāridīhā wa-ahlihā, ed. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Munajjid (Damascus: Maṭbūʿāt al-majmaʾ al-ʿilmī alʿarabī, 1951) I: 385–86. Abū ʿUbayd has the text as copied from a document on white leather (qaḍīm) held by one of their elders. 68 Michael Lecker, “Were Custom Dues Levied at the Time of the Prophet Muḥammad?” al-Qanṭara 22/1 (2011): 19–43, at 38. 67

188

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ing to the inhabitants of Najrān. 69 Indeed it is found in Abū ʿUbayd’s own redaction of the document for Najrān, an agreement that utilizes the dhimmat Allāh formula in addition to granting exemption from certain taxes. 70 The second part of this clause, an exemption from ḥashr is also interpreted differently by the medieval collectors, as referring either to bringing flocks to a specified location for tax collection or to military on conscription. 71 According to the text’s reference to ritual observances, Ukaydir and the people of Dūmat al-Jandal are confessionally Muslim, but they are not offered dhimmat Allāh, their rights to their land are considerably restricted in comparison to the other towns conducting security agreements at the same time, and the agreement is focused on collecting tribute or customs and neutralizing them as a military threat. There is a correlation here between the absence of the dhimmat Allāh and āminūn formulae and these terms which outline military occupation by the muslimūn. This occupation guarantees control of peninsular trade. 72 As for Maqnā, al-Wāqidī, Ibn Saʿd (through al-Wāqidī), and al-Maqrīzī give a summary version of the document that includes the āminūn formula and the requirements of Maqnā pay-

Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-amwāl, 707 nos. 1638–1640; Lecker, “Custom Dues,” 36–37. 70 The formula reads lā yuḥsharū wa lā yuʿsharū (Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb alamwāl, 273 no. 502). In his redaction of the Najrān document alBalādhurī has lā yuḥsharūna wa lā yuʿsharūna (Futūḥ, 60). 71 M. J. Kister, “Some Reports Concerning al-Ṭāʾif,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 1 (1979): 1–18 at 11. 72 Dūma held immense strategic value as a market for long-distance trade and the starting point for the annual cycle of Arabian markets, and its control would allow redirecting of the peninsular trade through Medina (Karim Samji, “Aswāq-cum-Maghāzī: Commerce and Conflict in Late Antique Arabia,” Der Islam 93/1 (2016): 1–34). Samji also argues that Dūma fell not during the lifetime of the Prophet but in 12/633 under Abū Bakr. 69

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

189

ing a fourth of their spinning and fruits to the Prophet. 73 In their more extended reports, Ibn Saʿd (a second report not through alWāqidī but al-Shaʿbī) and al-Balādhurī agree on the presence of several dhimma and aminūn formulae and that the document prohibits the imposition of the jizya on Maqnā. Ibn Saʿd’s text uses several dhimma formulae interspersed between the terms of the agreement: fa-innakum āminūn lakum dhimmat Allāh wadhimmat rasūlihi… wa-inna lakum dhimmat Allāh wa dhimmat rasūlihi… wa-inna rasūl Allāh jārukum. 74 Al-Balādhurī also has a repetition of the dhimmat Allāh formula, with a variant making use of the term jār: wa-inna rasūl Allāh ṣlʿm yujīrukum mimmā yujīru nafsahu. Al-Balādhūrī’s variants include the addition of an opening greeting formula (silmun anta), while Ibn Saʿd adds a closing formula (wa-l-salām). Ibn Saʿd’s text lists several tributes and taxes owed, including spoils in terms of clothing, slaves, animals, and armor, after which Maqnā owes a fourth each of the date palm harvest, fishing, and spun thread. Al-Balādhurī agrees with these terms, while providing a copy of the document which is based on a physical copy of the text. This copy includes a scribal and dating clause (wa-kataba ʿAlī bin Abū Ṭālib fī sana ٩) missing from Ibn Saʿd’s redaction. 75 Al-Balādhūrī also has an additional clause on the prohibition of the muslimūn from harming the people of Maqnā. According to Ibn Saʿd’s commentary, the document was intended for the Banū Janbā who were Jews of Maqnā. Al-Balādhurī has his redaction addressed to the Banū Ḥabība and people of Maqnā. Thus, the redactions of the full text agree on the inclusion of the dhimmat Allāh formula and the amounts of taxes and tributes owed. The variants consist of the opening and closing greetings, scribal and dating clauses, and al-

Al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, 1032; Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 38; alMaqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ, 469. 74 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 28. 75 Ibn Saʿd al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 28; al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ, 60. The peculiar orthography is reproduced in both redactions. 73

190

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Balādhurī’s additional clause emphasizing the inviolability of Maqnā’s people. Ibn Isḥāq, al-Wāqidī, and Ibn Saʿd group the Prophet’s agreement with Ayla with the negotiations with Jarbā, Dūma, and Taymāʾ. All three redactions agree on the use of the dhimmat Allāh formula to state the terms which grant Ayla retention of its access to its trade routes, covering its ships, caravans, sea and land routes, and all those traveling there from Syria, Yemen, or by sea. 76 Ibn Isḥāq’s and al-Wāqidī’s commentaries put this document in the context of jizya, although their redactions of the document do not supply this term. These redactions do not include mention of any requirements or payments and the terms granted Ayla consist entirely of concessions. Al-Wāqidī’s, 77 Ibn Saʿd’s (from al-Wāqidī), and al-Maqrīzī’s redactions of the document for Adhruḥ open with the āminūn formula and state that Adhruḥ owes one thousand dinārs to the Prophet annually. Ibn Saʿd in his commentary compares this agreement to the three thousand dīnārs per head jizya owed by Ayla (which is not actually mentioned in his text of that document). These terms are repeated in another report of Ibn Saʿd’s which has the document addressed to Jarbā and Adhruḥ both. Al-Maqrīzī agrees with al-Wāqidī and Ibn Saʿd but has the addition of a guarantee formula: wa-Allāhu kafīlu ʿalayhim bi-l-nuṣḥ wa-l-iḥsān li-l-muslimīn (And God is guarantor against them reAl-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, 1031; Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 37; Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed ibn Ishāk bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik ibn Hischām (Gottingen: Dieterichsche Universitáts-Buchhandlung, 1858–1860) 902; Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-amwāl, 287–88, no. 513; al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ, 468. The major variant is the addition or omission of the scribal clause (naming Juhaym b. al-Ṣalt and Shuraḥbīl b. Ḥasana), which is found in al-Wāqidī, Ibn Saʿd, and alMaqrīzī. 77 Al-Wāqidī has two reports, the second being a copy of a document he has seen himself. Both texts agree in the terms of the agreement, while the copied text uses more extensive formulae. Al-Wāqidī, Kitāb almaghāzī, 1031. 76

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

191

garding benevolence and good treatment to the Muslims). 78 Thus the redactions of this document also agree on the wording of the security formula and the terms of the agreement, while the variants are found in the address and additional guarantee formula. In redactions of the Prophet’s agreement with Najrān, the dhimmat Allāh formula follows a list of stipulations, and is followed by a list of rights granted to Najrān. The formula reads: wa li-najrān wa ḥāshiyatihā [Balādhurī and Ibn Saʿd: jiwār Allāh wa] dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi (And for Najrān and its environs is [the jiwār of God and] the security of God and the security of his messenger). This covers their lives, land, possessions, religion, worship places, monks, religious leaders, both for those present and those absent (here Ibn Saʿd adds “their prayers,” ṣalawātihim). Ibn Saʿd’s redaction also repeats a version of the dhimma formula at the closing: wa lahum ʿalā mā fī hādhihi al-ṣaḥīfa jiwār Allāh wa-dhimmat Muḥammad al-nabī abadan (And theirs with respect to what is stipulated in this document is the jiwār of God and the security of Muḥammad the prophet forever). 79 Abū ʿUbayd and al-Balādhurī have the text through different isnāds, and al-Balādhurī’s is claimed to be from a physical copy of the document. They match in terms, with slight variants (e.g. transposition of order of formulae), but contain a major variant in the names given in the witness and scribal clauses. 80 al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, 1032; Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 37; alMaqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ, 469. 79 al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ, 65; Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 35–36; Abu ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-amwāl, 273, no. 502. 80 al-Balādhurī’s text is through the isnād al-Ḥusayn b. al-Aswad < Wakīʿ < Mubārak b. Faḍūla-al-Ḥasan. Al-Ḥasan-Yaḥyā b. Adam says he copied the document from another document or copy from al-Ḥasan b. Ṣāliḥ. His version is witnessed by Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, Ghaylān b. ʿAmr, Mālik b. ʿAwf of B. Naṣr, al-Aqraʿ b. Ḥābis al-Ḥanẓalī, and al-Mughīra who wrote it. Yaḥyā b. Adam also says that he saw the text in the hands of the Najrānites and it resembled the text of this report except at the end of it was: “wa kataba ʿAlī Abū Ṭālib” a grammatical error which he cannot explain. Al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ, 63–65. Abu ʿUbayd’s 78

192

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

The terms granted to Najrān include their annual payment of two thousand garments (ḥulla), and a tax (kharāj) on camels, horses, and armor. They are liable for hosting the Prophet’s messengers/tax collectors for twenty days, and lending thirty horses, camels, and coats of mail in case of rebellion in Yemen. The major variant here is that Ibn Saʿd is missing, while alBalādhurī and Abū ʿUbayd include, Najrān’s exemption from the ʿushr and ḥashr (using the formula wa-lā yuḥsharūna wa-lā yuʿsharūna). These terms and the dhimmat Allāh formula are followed by the condition of their avoiding engaging in interest (ribā) and a formula declaring quittance of the Prophet’s dhimma if this condition is not met. While the redactions of this text thus agree on the use of the dhimmat Allāh formula and on the terms, there are major discrepancies in the names given in the witness and scribal clauses and in Ibn Saʿd’s omission of a critical tax exemption clause. This selection of documents shows that both the terms of these agreements and the formulae employed remain stable across several redactions of these texts in the earliest sources. The irregularity lies in the opening and closing formulae and, in two cases, in omissions of clauses. Occasionally, as in the case of Ibn Saʿd’s redaction of the agreement with Najrān, a more serious discrepancy occurs in the omission of a taxation clause. If we follow Abu ʿUbayd’s lead, what governs these agreements, the key to understanding the different terms granted each settlement, is not confessional identity but strategic value. This may explain the harsher terms granted Dūma, given its strength as a military outpost and as the point of convergence of three trade routes that allow access to the rest of the Arabian peninsula. Dūma is also the only addressee in this set whose in-

report is via Ayyūb b. Dimashqī-Saʿdān b. Abī Yaḥyā < ʿUbayd Allāh b. Abī Ḥumayd < Abū al-Malīḥ al-Hudhalī and is witnessed by ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān and Muʿayqab who wrote it. Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-amwāl, 272– 73, no. 502.

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

193

habitants’ “islām” is referenced in the document. 81 That the onerous terms granted Dūma were not in response to the history of its resistance to the Prophet is evident when compared to the terms granted al-Ṭāʾif, which resolutely resisted the Prophet and capitulated only after a long unsuccessful siege. Al-Ṭāʾif is not only granted an agreement including the dhimmat Allāh formula but one that includes recognition of its local sanctuary which was dedicated to the ancient Arabian goddess Allāt.

INVIOLABILITY UNDER ARABIAN CUSTOMARY LAW

The use of the dhimmat Allāh formula in widely varying types of documents attributed to the Prophet is not due to randomness or inconsistency. The apparent wide-ranging use of the formula, in documents granted to towns surrendering militarily, in land grants, safe-conducts, and declarations of sanctuary, actually alerts us to its precise function in formulating inviolability within an inter-tribal confederation under the aegis of a deity. While there seems to be no direct precedent for this formula, the dhimmat Allāh formula shares both grammatical form and vocabulary with legal formulae related to political unification and inviolability from Ancient South Arabia and Nabataea. Dedications and other epigraphic evidence from the ancient South Arabian kingdoms (Saba, Hadramawt, Qataban, Maʾin) illustrate the legal function of deities when they are invoked as guarantors and against offenders. The promotion of a tribal or communal deity on a supra-tribal level, as for example of ʾAlmaqah for the kingdom of Saba, “federalized” that deity. This is evinced by inscriptions which reference the deity and direct travel toward state centers where major temples are located, such as Maʿrib for Saba and Shabwa for Hadramawt. 82 These locations are also nodes in the peninsular trade routes. Joy Whether Dūma’s inhabitants converted to Islam at this time is up for question. See Samji, “Aswāq-cum-Maghāzī,” 24–25. 82 Andrey Korotayev, “Religion and Society in Southern Arabia and Among the Arabs,” Arabia: revue de sabéologie 1 (2003): 65–76. 81

194

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

McCorriston has argued that, as a function of the emerging state, these kingdoms obligated both settled and nomadic populations to undergo annual pilgrimages to central temples at times that coincided with and facilitated trade, particularly the frankincense trade. 83 See for example, Glaser 1210 = RES 4176, in which Taʿlab enjoins his worshippers, the tribe Sami, both to make pilgrimage to his shrine in Riyam and not to neglect pilgrimage in the month of dhu-Abhay to the temple of ʿAlmaqah at Maʿrib. 84 Treating the dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents as a clause granting personal and/or territorial inviolability within political confederation, and taking into consideration that its distinctive mark in this early usage is the provision of the “security of God” to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, allow

Two of McCorriston’s major arguments are that emerging states manipulated extant tribal practices like pilgrimage in order to access the incense trade (which served as both labor and capital), and that pilgrimage was directed at pastoralists in order to confederate them and to allow the passage of incense and caravans through their regions of control at set times during the year. Joy McCorriston, Pilgrimage and Household in the Ancient Near East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 59, 68. In the tradition of the pre-Islamic markets of the Arabs, the awsāq al-ʿarab, the cycle of markets is also syncretized with the three of the four sacred months (Dhū l-Qaʿda, Dhū l-Ḥijja, Muḥarram) and the pilgrimage season. See Bonner, “Commerce and Migration,” for a study of this tradition including locations of the markets, their rulership and goods traded. The cycle is as follows. It starts in Rabīʿ al-Awwal in Dūmat al-Jandal→al-Mushaqqar→Ṣuḥār and Dabā→al-Shiḥr→ʿAdan and Ṣanʿāʾ→Rābiya and ʿUkāẓ in Dhū l Qaʿd→Majanna and Dhū l-Majāz in Dhū l-Ḥijja (the ḥajj starting at Minā, a day’s travel from Dhū l-Majāz→Khaybar and Ḥajr al-Yamāma in Muḥarram (Bonner, “Commerce and Migration,” 64–70). 84 Jacques Ryckmans, “Ritual Meals in the Ancient South Arabian Religion,” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Vol. 3 (1973) 37. 83

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

195

us to identify its function with precision. 85 As it binds various semi-autonomous territories under the Prophet and Allāh, it resembles the ancient Arabian confederation formula used to mark the boundaries of a political complex patronized by a deity. Expressions of this earlier type of confederation are found in the Ancient South Arabian epigraphic record from the first millennium B.C.E. 86 An example is one of the Sabaic inscriptions, circa eighth century B.C.E., from the temple of ʿAwwām near Maʾrib (the Maḥram Bilqīs) which reads: “Yadaʿʾil Ḏariḥ, son of Sumhaʿalayʾ mukarrib of Sabaʾ, walled ʿAwwām, the temple of ʾIlumquh, when he sacrificed to ʿAṯtar and [when] he established the whole community [united] by a god and a patron and by a pact and a [secret] trea[ty. By ʿAṯtar and by Hawbas and by] ʾIlumquh.” 87 Another parallel for the function of the dhimmat Allāh formula is the Nabataean “inviolability principle” invoked in legal documents, such as of sale. This formula refers to a custom of recognizing the sanctity of something, and is sometimes explicitly under the aegis of the Nabataean deity Dushara. The formula often reads: ḥlyqt ḥrm nbṭw wšlmw, “the traditional law/custom of sanctity of the Nabataeans and Shalamians,” where the word for sanctity uses the root ḥ-r-m. 88 In contrast, amān does not seem to be rooted like dhimmat Allāh wa dhimmat rasūlihi in an ancient Arabian tradition of political confederation and sanctuary systems. 86 Andrew Marsham, Rituals of Islamic Monarchy: Accession and Succession in the First Muslim Empire (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009) 26. 87 Translation by A. Jamme, in ed. J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, 3rd rev ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) 663. 88 Found in Nabataean tomb inscriptions H1, H8, and H19 in John F. Healey, “Fines and Curses: Law and Religion among the Nabataeans and their Neighbours,” in Law and Religion in the Eastern Mediterranean: From Antiquity to Early Islam, eds. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Reinhard G. Kratz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) 174, Healey’s translation. 85

196

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

In its conditional construct, the dhimmat Allāh formula can also be seen as a corollary of curse formulae in Nabataean and Ancient South Arabian languages. These curse formulae are also conditional statements and are found in the conclusions of agreements and contracts. 89 They accompany legal conditions and convey the threat of expulsion from the group. In Nabataean inscriptions (as well as in Thamudic and Safaitic), the form is an Arabism using the root l-ʿ-n, which Mohammad Maraqten notes has the meaning of being expelled from the family. 90 The relationship of dhimma with the pre-Islamic Arabian concept of jār has been noted by Joseph Schacht and Patricia Crone. This is the practice of asking for protection and temporary acceptance into another familial group. Crone argues that jiwār was not an element of the law of alliances but of the preIslamic custom of hospitality, where the jār is a kind of insideralien, and the relationship cannot be extended to non-tribesmen and non-Arabs. 91 The use of the term jiwār in pre-Islamic poetry occurs in the context of describing a network of human relations, semantically related to concepts of nobility (ʿizza, karāma). Only oral jiwār agreements and announcements, sometimes accompanied by gestures, rather than documents, are mentioned in poetry that refers to the pre-Islamic custom. 92 The Mohammed Maraqten, “Curse formulae in South Arabian inscriptions and some of their Semitic parallels,” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 28 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 1998) 196. Healey argues that this feature in Nabataean inscriptions in its grammatical form (precative perfect) and vocabulary (lʿn as both verb and noun) is an Arabism. Healey, “Fines and Curses,” 173. 90 Maraqten, “Curse formulae,” 195. 91 Patricia Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate. Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization (Cambridge, 1987). 92 Poetic references to these jiwār agreements are compiled and discussed by Arafat Madri Shoukri, Refugee Status in Islam: Concepts of protection in Islamic tradition and international law, International Library of Migration Studies, book 7 (London: Tauris, 2011) 3–16. 89

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

197

formulaic use of jiwār in relation to dhimmat Allāh in the Prophet’s documents reflects an element of formalization as part of legal and diplomatic tradition. Jār and ḥrm are both related in ancient Arabia to sanctuary laws.

SANCTUARY SYSTEM AS POLITY

The operating distinction governing the use of the dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents, along with the related terms jiwār and amān, is not religious identity. Instead, the terms of the Prophet’s dhimma agreements reflect the rules that establish political confederations according to the ancient Arabian model. This includes the rules governing mutual recognition of sanctuaries and the establishment of a network of sanctuaries within a polity. Muḥammad’s diplomatic relations with various tribes in the Ḥijāz who maintained their sanctuaries while submitting to his military dominance, expressed in terms of the dhimmat Allāh formula, exemplify the continuance of this socio-legal infrastructure. Sanctuaries were public safe zones, offering inviolability of refugees and of game, and linked to nodes on trade networks, thus allowing social and mercantile movement facilitated by political arrangements. 93 In the sīra, the “Constitution of Medina” contains the first appearance of the dhimmat Allāh formula. In this text, dhimma is Similar arguments for Muḥammad’s maintenance of these sanctuaries, as well as their relation to both pilgrimage and long-distance trade routes, are made by Harry Munt, The Holy City of Medina: Sacred Space in Early Islamic Arabia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) 62; Aziz al-Azmeh, The Emergence of Islam in Late Antiquity: Allāh and his people (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) 221, 250–51; and Christian Décobert, Le mendiant et le combattant: l’institution de l’islam (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1991) 172. Décobert stresses the importance of Muḥammad’s recognition, especially after al-Ṭāʾif in the “Year of Delegations,” of pre-existing groups and tribal integrity through the recognitions he granted to ḥarams (Le mendiant et le combattant, 176–77). 93

198

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

coupled with jiwār and does not contain a reference to the Prophet. Clause 16 of Michael Lecker’s edition of Ibn Isḥāq’s version reads: wa inna dhimmat Allah wāḥida yajīru ʿalayhim adnāhum, “The security of Allah is unvarying, the least of them is entitled to grant refuge that is binding for all of them.” 94 This falls under the section that belongs to the document addressed to the muʾminūn (conventionally translated as “believers” but here perhaps “parties to the covenant”) according to the schema of those scholars who treat the document as a composite (including R. B. Serjeant and Saïd Arjomand). Formulae referring to the security of God using the term jār occur several times and in all sections of the text. This document (or set of documents) also contains a clause declaring the sanctity (taḥrīm) of a region of Medina. In Lecker’s edition of Ibn Isḥāq’s version, clause 49 states: wa-inna yathrib ḥarām jawfuhā li-ahl hādhihi l-ṣaḥīfa (The center (jawf) of Yathrib is a sanctuary for the people of this agreement). 95 The “Constitution” not only establishes the ḥaram but the Prophet’s administrative authority over it and the confederation identified by recognition of it. Harry Munt points out that this document is pre-occupied with the prevention of violent conflict between the resident groups, and that this clause may be seen in relation to this larger aim. 96 To Serjeant, the reference to umma (commonly translated as “community”) in this document is to the customary Michael Lecker, The “Constitution of Medina”: Muhammad’s First Legal Document, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, vol. 23 (Princeton: Darwin Press, 2004) 33; Wüstenfeld, Das Leben, 342. I have replaced “protection” in Lecker’s translation with “security” for dhimma, and replaced his “protection” with “refuge” to translate yajīruhum. 95 In Serjeant’s scheme of eight separate documents the entirety of “document F” is a taḥrīm of Medina dated by Serjeant approximately to year 7 A.H. R. B. Serjeant, “The ‘Sunnah Jāmiʿah,’ Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the ‘Taḥrīm’ of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called ‘Constitution of Medina,” BSOAS 41/1 (1978): 1–42. 96 Munt, The Holy City of Medina, 59. 94

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

199

law of confederation along a secular pattern in ancient Arabia. By this custom, tribes considered themselves attached to a ḥaram rather than to a dynasty. 97 Reports on the taḥrīm of Medina and of other cities by the Prophet are reflective of this pattern, the creation of a ḥaram surrounded by tribes who retain their sovereignty but are confederated under it. Serjeant points to the Prophet’s documents as indicative of the fact that the tribes were asked to yield very little in terms of rights in order to enter into these agreements. 98 Related to the establishment of a ḥaram is the declaration of a pasture as ḥimā, in Arabian customary law that manages tribal access to resources. 99 A ḥimā was sometimes put under the protection of a tribal deity and then became assimilated into a ḥaram, protecting plant and animal life and offering right of asylum. 100 Reports related to the appointment of ʿAmr b. ʿAwf alMuzanī in charge of the of ḥaram of Medina also use the term ḥimā. 101 The taḥrīm of an area of Medina has several attendant traditions. Yāqūt (d. 626/1229) gives an alternate name for the ḥaram, al-Aswāf, which he specifies as an area of the Baqīʿ market. 102 Hunting game in this area was forbidden. Some individuR. B. Serjeant, “Haram and Hawta, the Sacred Enclave in Arabia,” in Mélanges Taha Hussein: Offerts par ses Amies and ses disciples, à l’occasion de son 70ième. anniversaire, ed. Abdurrahman Badawi (Cairo: Dār alMaʿārif, 1962) 49. 98 Serjeant, “Haram and Hawtah,” 50–51. 99 Serjeant points out that traditions on Hāshim’s alliances may indicate that those tribes insisting on khafāra were attached to ḥarams other than Mecca. Serjeant, “Haram and Hawtah,” 55. 100 Lutfallah Gari, “A History of the Himā Conservation System,” Environment and History 12/2 (May 2006) 215. 101 Lecker, The “Constitution of Medina,” 201. 102 Some reports state the ḥaram of Medina was between two lābas or ḥarras (lava fields) of Medina. Lecker sees this delimitation as reflecting a later extension of the ḥaram. Lecker, Constitution, 167. Change in the extent of a sanctuary is archaeologically attested for the ancient South 97

200

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

als poaching birds here were caught by Zayd b. Thābit and reprimanded for violating the area that the Prophet had sanctified (ḥarrama). 103 Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī also reprimanded two boys who were harassing a fox in the ḥaram area, and Abū Hurayra stressed that he would not touch the gazelles in Medina. 104 In fact, the Prophet needed to recognize ḥarams in areas under other tribal authorities in order to incorporate them under his own, and his most resolute opponents are correlated with those who retained their ḥarams. 105 The Banū Ḥanīfa had their own ḥaram under Musaylima in al-Yamāma. 106 And the Banū Thaqīf of al-Ṭāʾif, with their sanctuary of Allāt, only capitulated in year 8 after being besieged. The Prophet granted an amān to the wādī of Ṭāʾif, called Wajj. This agreement includes a declaration of Wajj as a ḥaram, including a prohibition on felling trees, hunting game, and committing crimes within it, as well as providing freedom for all markets and trade and freedom from invasion. The document includes use of the dhimmat Allāh formula which reads: inna lahum dhimmat Allāh alladhī lā ilāha illā huwa wa-dhimmat Muḥammad bin ʿAbd Allāh al-nabī (For them is the security of God other than whom there is no God and the security of Muḥammad son of ʿAbd Allāḥ, the prophet). This is followed by a statement that the wādī is confirmed as a ḥaram by Allah (anna wādihim ḥarām muḥarram li-llāhi kullahu). 107 While the sīra narrative holds that al-Ṭāʾif’s idol was de-

Arabian Maḥram Bilqīs at Awwām. Here the designation of sacred space altered with time and the construction and use of space. William D. Glanzman, “Some notions of sacred space at the Maḥram Bilqīs in Mārib” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 32 (2002): 187– 201. 103 Yāqūt ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥamawī, Muʿjam al-buldān, ed. Ferdinand Wüstenfeld vol 1 (1965), 267, s.v. al-Aswāf. 104 Gari, “History of the Himā,” 217. 105 Serjeant, “Haram and Hawta,” 52. 106 Ibid., 48. 107 Abū ʿUbayd, Kitāb al-amwāl, 276, no. 506.

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

201

stroyed, 108 this inviolability status is granted to an already marked sacred space, and the social utility of sanctuaries as widely known places of refuge for both humans and animals encourages their maintenance rather than their dissolution. 109 This system of sanctuaries is critical to the movement of peoples, livestock, and goods in the peninsula. In year 10 A.H., a deputation of Jurash also requested recognition of their ḥimā, which the Prophet granted to them. 110 Mecca too after its conquest was declared a ḥaram with similar conditions, as reported in ḥadīth. The rules of sanctuary pertaining to Mecca (whose relation to the well of Zamzam is not insignificant) and Medina both were reportedly recorded in writing. 111 It is clear that these al-Ṭabarī, Annales, I: 1691–92. See Kister on the disagreement among medieval scholars on both the validity and the permanence of the taḥrīm of Wajj. Kister notes that the virtual autonomy granted to al-Ṭāʾif via the concessions granted by the Prophet became insignificant once it was entered into the new Islamic commonwealth. Kister, “Some Reports,” 2 n 4, 11. 110 Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, I: 1731. 111 Abū Hurayra narrates that in the year of the conquest (of Mecca) the tribe of Khuzāʾa killed a man from the Banū Layth in revenge for someone killed in the pre-Islamic period. In response, the Prophet declared that Mecca is a sanctuary, that fighting, with the exception of the period allowed for the conquest, is not permitted there, that neither its thorny shrubs, nor trees should be cut down, nor fallen things picked up except by someone looking for their owner. Then a man from the Quraysh stood up and asked for an exception for the uprooting alidhkhir, a grass used in the houses and for graves, which the Prophet accepted. Thereupon another man, from Yemen, called Abū Shāh, stood up and asked for this to be written down for him, and the Prophet commanded for this to be done. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Ismaʾīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Riyad: Bayt al-Afkar al-Dawliyah li-lNashr, 1998) 457, Kitāb fi l-Luqata no. 2434. Similarly, Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj reports that the Prophet’s statement sanctifying Medina was written on a type of Yemeni tanned leather and that he can bring forth this text as proof of this declaration. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad wa bi-hāmishihi kitāb muntakhab kanz al-ʿummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l108 109

202

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

recognitions do not manage ritual practice or confessional identity but recognize tribal access to resources such as land, water, and economic zones. All of these regulations for the ḥarams of Medina, Mecca, and al-Ṭaʾif are in line with ancient Arabian sanctuaries with their laws of ritual purity, peace, and asylum. These explicitly prohibit bloodshed, both human and animal, as well as criminal acts, within designated sanctuaries. 112 An inscription on an orthostat depicting a lion protecting a gazelle, possibly from the first century C.E., at the sanctuary of Allāt at Palmyra reads: “A[llāt] will bless / whoever will not shed / blood in the sanctuary.” The sanctuary of Allāt may have been the only designated asylum among Palmyra’s sanctuaries. 113 In comparison, clause 50 in Lecker’s edition of Ibn Isḥāq’s text of the “Constitution of Medina,” which directly follows the clause identifying the ḥaram of Medina, reads: wa-inna l-jār ka-l-nafs ghayr muḍārr wa-lā āthim (The protected neighbour is like one’s self, as long as he does afʿāl li-l-Muttaqī al-Hindī (Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa al-maymaniyya, 1895) IV: 141. 112 These are sometimes accompanied by instructions on ritual purity. See for example an inscription on the entrance to the temple of the “Syrian goddess” (Atargatis) on the island of Delos, prohibiting entrance to those who have not ritually cleansed themselves from activities such as eating pork or having intercourse, or an invocation of deities against those entering shrine IV in Hatra wearing shoes. Ted Kaizer, The Religious Life of Palmyra, Orients Et Occidens. Studien Zu Antiken Kulturkontaken Und I, book 4 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2002) 186–187. 113 H. J. W. Drijvers clarifies that this space was not meant as sanctuary for criminals or those committing offenses but from tribal feuds. This was one of the many ways that the laws of sanctuary served social integrative functions. Drijvers also argues that the location of the sanctuary of Allāt in Palmyra at the edge of the desert as well as evidence for processions to and from the temple of Bel in the urban center indicate appeasement, recognition and incorporation by urban authorities of desert dwellers. H. J. W. Drijvers, “Sanctuaries and Social Safety: The Iconography of Divine Peace in Hellenistic Syria,” Visible Religion: Annual for Religious Iconography, vol 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1982) 65–75.

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

203

not cause damage or act sinfully). 114 Ancient Arabian sanctuaries offered asylum not to the criminal but to refugees, presumably those fleeing war or tribal feuds. 115 The formula “sacred and inviolable” (ἱερὰν καὶ ἄσυλον) for temples, cities, and/or territories is also found in texts of dedications and recognitions of Hellenistic asyla. 116 Characteristics shared between the texts recognizing these asyla and the security agreements employing the dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents are the vocabulary of piety and of honoring the deity. Ancient South Arabian epigraphic and archaeological studies can be correlated with the literary-legal evidence provided by the early Islamic narrative sources for a network of sanctuaries which facilitated and maintained social relations. Andrey Korotayev, Vladimir Klimenko, and Dmitry Proussakov argue for a new religio-political development in sixth century Arabia. This period saw the rise of the free tribe maintained by “soft structures,” networks produced by the sanctuary and pilgrimage system. 117 As we have seen, the sīra preserves evidence for the maintenance of pre-Islamic sanctuaries in the Ḥijāz, linking this maintenance to diplomatic strategies under the Prophet. Al Makin argues that sīra-maghāzī literature also retains evidence Lecker, Constitution, 37. Drijvers, “Sanctuaries and Social Safety,” 71. 116 Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) 387. According to Rigsby, these documents were not effective in declaring military inviolability or sanctuary for refugees, which were customary for temples, but reflected a movement to obtain civic recognitions and honors (Rigsby, Asylia, 24–27). 117 Andrey Korotayev, Vladimir Klimenko, and Dmitry Proussakov, “Origins of Islam: Political-Anthropological and Environmental Context,” Acta Orientalia Academia Scientiarum Hungaricae 52 (3–4) (1999): 243– 276 at 248–50. See also M. J. Kister, “Mecca and Tamim,” Journal of the Social and Economic History of the Orient 8 (1965), 113–63, for an argument on the development of the Meccan commonwealth under the Prophet as a response to the lack of inter-tribal security. 114 115

204

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

for simultaneous multiple religious allegiances held by tribes and a competition of ḥarams. The Banū Ḥanīfa following Musaylima were affiliated with a ḥaram competing with Mecca while also considering Muḥammad to be a partner of Musaylima in prophethood. 118 Although we lack the amount of evidence that we have for ancient South Arabia or Hellenistic Syria, 119 that sanctuaries existed in the Ḥijāz and in north Arabia and that their recognition served to organize social relations is evident. The dhimmat Allāh formula from the Prophet’s documents is an artifact of this earlier Arabian polity. Saïd Arjomand calls the development in these years, in which the Prophet extended control to tribes in surrounding deserts, the “pax islamica of an intertribal security system,” which functioned without profession of Islam and included autonomous Christian and Jewish settlements declared “protectorates.” 120 Thus he sees the term muʾminūn in the “Constitution of Medina” as referring to those faithful to the covenant, a term initially distinct from muslimūn. 121 Regarding the status of the addressees of the Prophet’s documents discussed in this chapter, the distinction between submission to Muḥammad and conversion to Islam remains unclear. Understanding this may help explain the ridda wars. Ella Landau-Tasseron, for example, argues that among those participating in the ridda, there were those who did not renounce Islam but refused to share in Muslim identity due to the change in leadership with the Prophet’s death, while others submitted but did not convert; there were also parties who were indifferent to Islam but involved in the wars due to their own inter- and intratribal conflicts. The outcome of the ridda was to extend the Al Makin, Representing the Enemy: Musaylima in Muslim Literature (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010) 249. 119 See Rigsby, Asylia. 120 Saïd Arjomand, “The Constitution of Medina: A Sociolegal Interpretation of Muhammad’s Acts of Foundation of the ‘Umma’,” IJMES 41/4 (Nov., 2009), 571. 121 Ibid., 571. 118

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

205

grounds of the community and make indifference to Islam an unacceptable option. Thus Landau-Tasseron finds the choice between translating islām as “political submission” or “belief” to be irrelevant to the pre-ridda context in which Islamic hegemony was incomplete. 122 For these reasons also, the dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents is best understood as functioning within the pattern of ancient Arabian confederations. This includes the mutual recognition of sanctuaries, which also facilitated economic transactions. Though the dhimmat Allāh formula defers to the deity, this should not be understood as a matter of belief or confessional identity but of political confederation. These arrangements under the Prophet also imply that dhimma functioned as a temporary condition rather than as a permanent status.

CONCLUSION: ORALITY AND THE MATERIALITY OF LAW

The use of the dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents in order to stipulate inviolability for persons and land, and its distinctive wording which contrasts both with classical legal theory concerning the ahl al-dhimma and the dhimma formula in Conquest-era treaties, make these texts relevant, as a corpus, to the question of the existence of a pre-Islamic Arabic legal formulary. Milka Levy-Rubin has established that the issue of the authenticity of documents in literary transmission requires a comparative legal history, and her work firmly locates Conquest-era surrender treaties in international diplomatic culture practiced in Byzantine and Sassanian realms. 123 Geoffrey Khan and Michael Lecker have both argued for the existence and

Ella Landau-Tasseron, “From Tribal Society to Centralized Polity: An Interpretation of Events and Anecdotes of the Formative Period of Islam,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 24 (2000): 180–216, at 205– 206. 123 Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims. 122

206

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

influence on Arabic documentary tradition of pre-Islamic Arabic legal formularies. 124 The distinctive use of the dhimmat Allāh formula in the Prophet’s documents suggests that this formula is archaic. While these documents, such as the famous letters to kings, are certainly part of the image of the Prophet and play a narrative role in sīra-maghāzī literature, their formulaic elements should not be collapsed into the interpretative use made of them by redactors who see the documents as setting the foundation of later law. This is seen, for example, in the redactors’ use of the term jizya or amān in their commentaries but not in their quotation of the documents. We cannot unquestioningly attribute these documents to the Prophet, or even date with certainty the Prophet’s military campaigns and diplomatic agreements. However, the usage of the dhimmat Allāh formula in these documents does not agree with and pre-dates the legal conceptualization of nonMuslims that develops in the third/ninth century. These documents also agree with the earliest Arabic papyri in their use of general and non-standardized taxation terminology. And the ambiguity they attest concerning whether the term islām refers to political/military submission, agreement to pay tribute, ritual practice, or religious confession places these documents earlier than the definitive association of islām with a confessional identity that is universally available. 125 The terminology of these Geoffrey Khan, “The Pre-Islamic Background of Muslim Legal Formularies,” Aram 6 (1994): 193–224; Michael Lecker, “A Pre-Islamic Endowment Deed in Arabic regarding al-Waḥīda in the Hijāz,” in Michael Lecker, People, Tribes and Society in Arabia around the Time of Muhammad (Farnham: Ashgate/Variorum, 2005) no. IV. 125 Both Harry Munt and Lena Salaymeh have argued for the early conceptualization of “muslim” as a geographically and politically bounded identity. Munt explores early juristic discussions on the expulsion of non-Muslims from the Hijāz as part of a process of boundary creation contributing to an emerging Muslim identity. In this process, “the limits of the Ḥijāz/Arabian Peninsula were often defined by the limits of contemporary non-Muslim residence, and not vice versa” (Harry Munt, “‘No 124

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

207

documents indicates that there were several alternatives for conducting relationships within a political confederation. Of these, islām was only one of them and not necessarily one that resulted in the most pragmatic benefits. In all these ways, the documents attributed to the Prophet reflect the late antique economic and political context of the period prior to the establishment of the Islamic state. In his study of customary law, called ḥukm al-manʿ, dealing with jiwār (rights and obligations of protection and refuge) among modern tribes in Yemen, Paul Dresch notes the inapplicability of modern jurisprudential concepts, which are based on state structures, to non-state-based law. Decoupling our concept of law from that of morality and our expectations of law enforcement through centralized authority can allow a focus on “statements of law, not law as process,” 126 which apply to tribes that function “not as cohesive groups… but as geographically based sets.” 127 Both of these distinctions, concerning the nature of law and the nature of tribes, apply to the types of evidence that have been explored in this chapter. Ḥukm al-manʿ is a transactional law that turns on the concept of protection provided by individuals. These transactions devolve neither upon the community nor any higher authority but apply personally to the individuals involved. 128 Dresch’s material illustrates the longevity of legal formulae and suggests Two Religions’: Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Hijāz,” BSOAS 78/2 (2015) 249–269, at 263). Salaymeh posits Muslim identity up to the second/eighth century as a hybrid identity containing elements of belief but determined on the basis of citizenship status such that “most Muslims did not understand Muslim identity as a matter of belief, but rather as a public expression of socio-political membership” (Salaymeh, “Taxing Citizens” 342). 126 Paul Dresch, “Aspects of Non-State Law: Early Yemen and Perpetual Peace,” in Legalism: Anthropology and History, eds. Paul Dresch and Hannah Skoda (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012) 145–172, at 145. 127 Ibid., 146. 128 Ibid., 155.

208

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

that social structures serve to maintain these formulae over centuries. Clinton Bailey too, in his study of modern Bedouin law in Sinai and the Negev, discusses how law is mass communicated over generations, and how law is known through idiomatic usage, giving examples throughout his book of legal maxims and idiomatic expressions given as law. This is a situation in which knowledge of law does not depend on written text but on social practice: “Though every Bedouin knows something of the law, it being the set of rules that regulate his relations with others, his knowledge is only what he has either inadvertently heard, observed in his immediate environment, or personally experienced.” 129 Crucially, Dresch recognizes that both the formulaic longevity of ḥukm al-manʿ and its dependence on social structures are difficult to explain by our current historical and anthropological methods. He describes the longevity and “seeming continuity” of the terms and principles governing jiwār and the long-lived verbatim memory of this law which remains independent of the survival or copying of texts: “What we do know is that every time we gain a glimpse of tribal affairs, through a document-find or through anecdotes in a chronicle or learned biography, we find much the same logic of mutually-recognized protection, of moral reciprocity, and of a distinction between compensation and amends, expressed in a language of binding rules.” 130 In this process in modern Yemen, “one finds not only copying back and forth of documents, but people who quote word for word early texts they could not possibly have read and have not heard of…” 131 Evidence at the linguistic, formulaic level is also geographically diffuse. Dresch writes, “resemblances become deeply unsettling when, in the absence of any institutional or documentary connection, one finds sometimes the same turns of phrase in Sinai, the Egyptian desert, or North Af-

Bailey, Bedouin Law from Sinai and the Negev, 5. Ibid., 171. 131 Ibid., 171 n. 35. 129 130

3. INFRASTRUCTURE

209

rica. Contemporary anthropology and history seem ill-equipped to describe this.” 132 I suggest that a similar process is at work explaining the continuity of dhimmat Allāh in Arabian practice under the Prophet, where a formula related to political confederation and inviolability draws on pre-existing infrastructures that are not based on a single enforceable authority but on a network of agreements regulating access to pastures, market towns, and sanctuaries. The agreements in which the dhimmat Allāh formula is found do not follow some universal law, and their conditions are tailored to specific social and geographical relations. Mapping a formula “on the ground” reveals its functional relationships to other formulae also used in the documents attributed to the Prophet, the barrenness of the category of confessional identity in understanding these agreements, and the utility of treating law in this period not as positive law but as a tradition based on negotiation. Documents found in literary sources that are attributed to this early period can yield possibly archaic formulae drawing on customary law.

132

Ibid.

210

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Figure 2: Towns granted security agreements, towns with sanctuaries, and major nodes on ancient trade routes.

CHAPTER 4.

PERSONS: A POPULAR MATERIAL CULTURE OF ḤADĪTH

fa-akhraja ilayya ḥuqqatan fīhā kurāʿu min adam aḥmar 1 Nāʾil brought out a container in which was kept a scrap of red leather

The Prophet left a wake of things behind him. The lists of his possessions provided by al-Bukhārī (d. 256/861) and Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845) 2 showcase early scholarly interest in the objects that survived him. Some of these personal effects are featured in ḥadīth that deal with the objects’ healing and transformative properties. 3 These are the relics of the Prophet, but traditions on relics are not the only kind of traditions about physical objects that we have. This chapter focuses on the traditions about Bedouin tribes receiving documents from the Prophet. The sources do not typically organize or recognize these documents as belonging to the category of sacred objects or relics. Looking at Muḥammad b. Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, ed. E. Sachau (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1904–40) VII/ii: 54. 2 Ibid., I/ii: 147–77 provides several chapters which include descriptions of the Prophet’s clothing, seal, toothbrush, swords, and domestic animals. 3 D. S. Margoliouth, “The Relics of the Prophet Muhammad,” The Moslem World, 27 (1937): 20–21. It is notable that, as Margoliouth states, al-Bukhārī’s list divides the relics into those exclusively held by the Caliphs and those that circulated amongst the Companions and other ordinary believers. 1

211

212

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

several of these traditions on documents reveals their shared features, particularly when it comes to their structure and narrative content. The notion of baraka is cited by ḥadīth scholars such as alNawawī (d. 676/1277) to describe the benefit acquired by the believer through contact with parts of the Prophet’s body or objects that have touched his body. 4 In contrast, the practices illustrated by traditions about the documents are distinctive in that they do not mention or deal with baraka. Instead of symbolizing the merit of their recipients, the documents are often described as unreadable or destroyed by them. These traditions are also distinctive in that they provide detailed physical descriptions of the documents, often to the exclusion of citing their textual content. In these traditions, the documents are primarily physical objects, not texts. But neither do these objects, privately held or remembered by often obscure and unnamed individuals and families, function or circulate as relics of the Prophet. They are on the other end of the cultural spectrum from the Prophet’s relics as studied by Joseph Meri, for example. Meri has shown how common access to relics such as the Prophet’s sandal was controlled by and under the purview of scholarly authorities. 5 In Oliver Leaman, “Baraka,” The Qurʾan: An Encyclopedia, ed. Oliver Leaman (London: Routledge, 2005) 113. 5 Joseph Meri has shown that the sanctity and power attributed to both the act of copying and the copies of the Prophet’s sandal are reflected in traditions that possibly originated in the sixth/twelfth century. The Prophet’s sandal “symbolized the authority of the ʿulamāʾ and that of the ḥadīth scholars in particular as keepers of the traditions of the Prophet” (Joseph W. Meri, “Relics of Piety and Power in Medieval Islam,” Past & Present 206/5 (2010): 109). It was ḥadīth scholars and theologians who mediated the transmission of the baraka of the sandal to paper copies of it. Copies of the sandal were known to be held by traditionists: Abū Ṭāḥir Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Silafī (d. 576/1180) in Alexandria, al-Amīn Hibat Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Akfānī (d. 524/1129) in Damascus, and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Yūsuf b. Masʿada al-Fazārī (d. c. 6th/12th c.) in Isfahan (Meri, “Relics,” 108). 4

4. PERSONS

213

contrast, traditions on the documents of the Prophet feature claims made by those marginalized in Muslim society and learned tradition, Bedouin and non-Muslims who seek to situate themselves in the context of the Prophet’s life. Traditions on the Prophet’s documents may therefore indicate that concurrent with, perhaps even prior to, compilation and canonization, there was a localized, tribal popular arena for ḥadīth where ḥadīth was thought of and treated not as legal text but as physical object, as “ḥadīth-object.” This conflicts with a verbal ḥadīth culture transmitted by Companions and negotiated by the scholarly elite. This chapter traces a social map of claims of document possession and preservation, which hint at a subaltern voice in ḥadīth. This chapter uses Ibn Saʿd’s chapters on the messengers of the Prophet and tribal delegations in his Al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr as a starting point. In addition, corroborating and alternate accounts were sought in early sīra texts, major ḥadīth compilations, early legal manuals on taxation, tārīkh works, and major rijāl works. Tārīkh, chancery, and legal treatises from the Mamluk period were consulted in order to investigate the later circulation and use of these traditions. This method does not by any means exhaust all citations in the early literature of documents granted to Bedouin by the Prophet, but this collection of traditions does reveal several important shared features. In these traditions, the materiality, more often than the textual content, of the documents acts as a narrative motif. Furthermore, detailed visual and material descriptions of the documents are almost always provided in traditions transmitted through family isnāds, and in reports through first-person narrators. These traditions narrate unmediated contact with the Prophet as evoked by the objects brought away from his presence.

LEGAL, NARRATIVE, AND PERSONAL VALUE OF DOCUMENTS

What functions do citations of documents serve, in these early historiographical sources? Works devoted to the “letters” of the

214

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Prophet and the tribal delegations to him return to the earliest surviving layer of Arabic historiography, and several works have been lost. 6 Documents may have been an early interest and organizing principle for reports. In the context of the Prophet’s biography as it now survives, documents granted to the Arab tribes are part of a more aggressive phase of strategy of creating agreements and affiliations with the Bedouin, undertaken in Medina and leading up to the tribal delegations in year 9/630– 631. Delegates and groups of new Muslims arriving in Medina are represented as requesting written regulations involving security and safe-conduct, taxes, rights to land, and religious obligations. For example, in a report returning to Muḥammad b. Kaʿb, the members of the deputation of Khathʿam asked the Prophet “to write a document so that we may follow what is in it,” faktub lanā kitāban natbaʿu mā fīhi. As befits a legal text, this was witnessed by Jarīr b. Abd Allāh “and whoever was present.” 7 The texts of these documents corroborate Stefan Leder’s argument that the tension between the Muslims of Medina and the Michael Lecker notes that Ibn Saʿd’s sources return to the second half of the second/eighth and beginning of the third/ninth centuries and indicate that several, now lost, works were compiled, most prominently by al-Madāʾinī and Ibn al-Kalbī, on the letters of the Prophet and tribal delegations. See Michael Lecker, “The Preservation of Muhammad’s Letters,” in People, Tribes and Society in Arabia around the Time of Muhammad (Burlington: Ashgate, 2005), no. X, 4. Ibn Saʿd is one of the major sources for the Prophet’s documents, and his immediate sources for reports on the documents include al-Wāqidī (d. 207/823), alMadāʾinī (d. 228/843), Ibn al-Kalbī (d. 204/819 or 206/821), and alHaytham b. ʿAdī (d. 207/822). Lecker shows that in Ibn Saʿd’s chapter on the tribal delegations, his reports from these earlier sources often quote tribal informants. Lecker, “Preservation,” 15–16. Cf. Ilkka Lindstedt who argues that these earlier works may not have been definitive written works and that a reference to “al-Madāʾinī’s books” was to recensions by his students. Ilkka Lindstedt, “The Role of al-Madāʾinī’s Students in the Transmission of His Material,” Der Islam 91/2 (2014): 295–340. 7 Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:78. 6

4. PERSONS

215

Bedouin was not one between conflicting socio-economic lifestyles, but a reflection of distinct political-military affiliations and the Bedouin’s relative autonomy. 8 These documents often provide rights to specific pieces of land, and usually require the shahāda, ṣalāt, zakāt, and sometimes the khums and other taxes, rather than participation in military campaigns, in order to be granted the security of the Muslim community. The citation of a document of the Prophet can serve multiple purposes in the literature. It can be adduced as evidence for legal practice or to support the historical narrative of an event. On their uses in legal arguments, Ignác Goldziher notes that the Prophet’s documents that refer to taxation and ransom money are cited by such authorities as Abū Yūsuf in his Kitāb al-Kharāj (d. 182/798) and Mālik (d. 179/795) in his al-Muwaṭṭaʾ. 9 Michael Lecker also notes the probative value of the Prophet’s documents concerning taxation to early authorities who claim that legislation was changed upon the discovery of a document of the Prophet. 10 On their uses in narrative texts, John Wansbrough posits the form and function of documents, with their distinctive formal and formulaic wording, in episodic sīramaghāzī narrative as emphatic and testimonial, “witness to acStefan Leder, “Towards a Historical Semantic of the Bedouin: Seventh to Fifteenth Centuries, A Survey,” Der Islam 92/1 (2015): 105–9. Leder points out the significance of the option to recognize the Prophet’s authority without meeting the obligation of the hijra see Leder (“Towards a Historical Semantic,” 108). This is seen in the following report given by Ibn Saʿd: ʿUqba b. ʿĀmir b. ʿAbs al-Juhanī was in the middle of organizing his battle wealth when he heard of the approach of the Prophet and rushed to meet with him and declare his bayʿa. The Prophet asked him which pledge he intended, the pledge of the Bedouin or the pledge of hijra: bayʿat ʿarabiyya turīdu aw bayʿat hijra (Ibn Saʿd, alṬabaqāt, IV/ii, p. 65–66). 9 Ignác Goldziher, Muslim Studies, trans. C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1971) II: 57–58. 10 Michael Lecker, The “Constitution of Medina”: Muḥammad’s First Legal Document (Princeton, Darwin Press, 2004) 199. 8

216

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

tion as cause and effect.” 11 To Albrecht Noth, the use of the epistolary form evinces that, to the traditionist who cites the text, the written document has a special status as “evidence.” 12 However, both the legal and narrative values of documents are not absolute and can be dismissed in the literature. Wadād al-Qāḍī has shown that while the judge Abū ʿUmar Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Kindī (d. 350/961) is citing an actual Umayyad-era papyrus document in one of the reports in his Kitāb al-quḍāt, and while he probably does use more documentary sources than he explicitly mentions, his two surviving works show an ambivalent usage of documents. In his account of the agreement reached between the Muslims and the Nubians under the governor ʿAbdāllah b. Sa‘d b. Abī Sarḥ, for example, al-Kindī follows his teacher Ibn Qudayd in preferring a report that denies the existence of a document recording the agreement, and rejecting a report from Ibn Qudayd’s teacher Ibn Ṣāliḥ which both asserts the existence of a document and provides the entire text of it. 13 Concerning a much later set of sources from the Mamluk period, John Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: content and composition of Islamic salvation history (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1978) 36. Wansbrough assigns this function even to the formula, consistently used for example by al-Wāqidī and Ibn Isḥāq, to introduce the text of a document, arguing that kataba gives “to the report a dimension (scil. attested, reliable, “official”) not contained in such introductions as ‘he said’ (qāla) and ‘he related’ (ḥaddaṯa). Documents, in brief, provided emphasis of a sort not otherwise available” (Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, 37). 12 He points out that legal content is provided more often through letters than through quoted speeches in the literary sources. Albrecht Noth in collaboration with Lawrence I. Conrad, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: a source-critical study, trans. Michael Bonner (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1994) 96. 13 Ibn Qudayd chose not to transmit this account in favor of the skeptical report from the Egyptian scholar and son of a Nubian prisoner of war, Yazīd b. Abī Ḥabīb (d. 128/745), thus basing his choice on transmitter-criticism, see Wadad al-Qadi, “An Umayyad Papyrus in al-Kindī’s Kitāb al-Quḍāt?” Der Islam 84/2 (2008): 235. 11

4. PERSONS

217

Yehoshua Frenkel’s study of the political context of legal treatises that discuss the validity of Tamīm al-Dārī’s land grant from the Prophet shows that even when a physical document exists and has a history of scholarly authentication, it can be rejected according to a jurist’s legal position. 14 While citation of the Prophet’s documents can focus on the legalistic and ritualistic content of the texts, especially in ḥadīth literature, these reports can still convey that merely the existence of a physical document communicates the status of an individual or a location. For example, Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj reports that the Prophet’s statement sanctifying Medina was written on a type of Yemeni tanned leather and that he can bring forth this text as proof: huwa maktūb ʿindanā fī adīm khawlānī 15 in shiʾta an nuqriʾakahu. 16 A parallel report found in the Saḥīḥ of Muslim represents this reference to the physical text as the definitive proof in a debate on the merits of Mecca versus Medina which finds expression in a complex of traditions given in his chapter on the ḥajj. 17 See reports of its rejection by the judge Ḥāmid al-Harawī. According to an account given by Abū Bakr Muḥammad Ibn al-ʿArabī during his travels in Syria 492/1099, the judge counters the legality of the act of the Prophet. Yehoshua Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī li-maʿrifat ḫabar Tamīm alDārī: On Tamīm al-Dārī and His Waqf in Hebron (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 224–25, 284–85, and see Frenkel’s Introduction on the split between Shāfiʿī and Ḥanafī scholars over the validity of this document. 15 Khawlān is one of the various sectors of Yemen. Cf. Yāqūt b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Hamawī, Kitāb muʿjam al-buldān, (Beirut: Dār Sādir: 1955) II:407. It also refers to a tribe that includes Banū Bishr and Banū Yaʿnuq who lived at Maʾrib, Jurush, and Ṣaʿda. See A. Khan, “The Tanning Cottage Industry in Pre-Islamic Arabia,” Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society 19 (1971): 89. 16 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad wa bi-hāmishihi kitāb muntakhab kanz al-ʿummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʿāl li-l-Muttaqī alHindī (Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Maymanīya, 1895) IV: 141. 17 Muslim ibn Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bi-sharḥ al-Nawawī (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ li-l-turāṯ al-ʿarabī, 1984) Kitāb al-Ḥajj, bāb al-Madīna wa duʿā al-nabī [ṣlʿm] fīhā bi l-baraka, IX:135. These traditions can be seen 14

218

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

The legal content of some of the documents obviously makes them choice material for ḥadīth collections. For example, al-Dārimī’s (d. 280/894) chapter on blood-money, “Kitāb alDiyāt,” in his Sunan consists almost entirely of the texts of the letters by the Prophet to ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, sent to govern Yemen, as related by his son. 18 Yet many reports of documents from the Prophet originate with less well-known individuals transmitted through family isnāds. A family isnād is one in which the earlier layer of the isnād remains within a family or tribe, while the later part of the isnād is composed of recognized ḥadīth transmitters or compilers of historical reports. 19 Traditions on the Prophet’s documents that originate with and are narrated by these eye-witnesses often make explicit mention of personal memories. These suggest that to them these documents are meaningful as localities of intersection between their own individual lives and occasions in the Prophetic narrative. For example, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUkaym al-Juhanī recalls the arrival of a document from the Prophet to the Juhayna when he was a boy. 20 in the context of Mecca-Medina rivalry and pro- and anti-Umayyad sentiment. Cf. Goldziher, Muslim Studies, II: 46 on Umayyad insults for Medina. The same mechanism may be at work in a report found in alBukhārī on a man from Yemen called Abū Shāh standing up and asking for a written record from the Prophet of his announcements, made in the year of the conquest of Mecca, on the sanctity of the city and regulations on fighting and uprooting of various plants. The Prophet commands the congregation to produce this document for Abū Shāh. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Ismāʾīl al-Bukhārī, Sahīh al-Bukhārī (Riyadh: Bayt al-afkār al-dawlīya li-l-nashr, 1998) 457, Kitāb fi l-luqṭa, no. 2434. 18 ʿUthmān b. Saʿīd al-Dārimī, Sunan al-Dārimī (Damascus: Maṭbaʿat aliʿtidāl, 1349/1930) II:188–195. 19 Joseph Schacht finds family isnāds “spurious” and used to “claim an additional guarantee of soundness,” see J. Schacht, The Origins of Muhammad Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970) 170–71; however, his examples are all from isnāds originating with attested ḥadīth transmitters or Companions such as Zayd b. Thābit ʿĀʾishah, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, Mālik, or ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb. 20 Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, III: 310–11.

4. PERSONS

219

With reports from tribal informants, ḥadīth collections can tend to paraphrase or quote the legal content only, rather than the entire text of the document. The report from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUkaym al-Juhanī does not quote in full the text of the document that he remembers, but provides only an excerpt concerning a prohibition on the use of dead flesh. Here the interest of the transmitters of this ḥadīth in the legal content does not coincide with the claim being made by the tribal informants from the Juhayna on their contact with the Prophet and their location within the narrative of his life. Michael Lecker provides ample evidence for the dominance of family isnāds in reports of the Prophet's documents, both in his article covering Ibn Saʿd’s chapters on the letters and tribal delegations and in his monograph on the Banū Sulaym. Lecker’s article argues that the principle tradents in Ibn Saʿd’s isnāds were his, probably written, sources for the collections of the letters, which they themselves obtained from “fieldwork” among tribal informants, because those who kept the letters for posterity in the first place were not historians. We usually owe the preservation of the extant letters of the Prophet not to the Prophet’s “chancery” but to the fact that they became an important component of the historical tradition of the relevant families and tribes. 21

Lecker notes that these individuals are usually not found in rijāl literature, which focuses on transmitters of interest to the major ḥadīth collections and usually excludes tribal traditions whose isnāds fall short of the standard for ḥadīth transmission. 22 Furthermore, these isnāds show that some documents became known outside of the recipient’s family only in the second Islamic century. 23 Some of these reports mention that the tribal informant himself traces his report to something that he read in Lecker, “Preservation,” 22. Ibid. 23 Ibid., 5. 21 22

220

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

“the books of my fathers.” 24 In his book on the Banū Sulaym, Lecker undertakes identification of the individual recipients of the Prophet’s letters and grants to this tribe through use of Arabic geographical and genealogical texts. Muhammad Hamidullah also argues that the medieval collectors obtained their reports of the Prophet’s documents mostly from the families of the documents’ recipients. 25 In all of these reports of the Prophet’s documents, the presence of visual and other sensory details is in direct relation to the source of the report being identified as a possessor of the document. This also usually results in the report being provided in first-person narration. Both the existence of physical details provided by eye-witnesses and first-person narration are examples of what Daniel Beaumont has elucidated concerning the mutual shaping influences of isnād and khabar. Beaumont has shown that, according to the conventions of this form, what the protagonist of a khabar knows is directly dependent on what the narrator knows, resulting in thought and emotion, for example, to be expressed only in direct speech. 26 Beaumont’s study of Companions’ conversion narratives suggests that traditions not only grew but were reduced in content through a standardization of terms and style used in reports. This resulted in the mimetic aspects given in direct speech being replaced with more diegetic narrative in indirect speech. In the case of conversion narratives, the shift is due to developments in the larger intellectual tradition which sought to impose “a singular meaning on an event with important theological considerations.” Thus, more dramatic accounts given in direct speech may represent an ear-

Ibid., 13. Muhammad Hamidullah, Majmūʿat al-wathāʾiq al-siyāsīya li-l-ʾahd alnabawī wa-l-khilāfa al-rāshida (Cairo: Matbaʾat lajnat al-taʾlīf wa-ltarjama wa-l-nashr, 1956) 11. 26 Daniel Beaumont, “Hard-Boiled: Narrative Discourse in Early Muslim Traditions,” Studia Islamica 83 (1996): 15. 24 25

4. PERSONS

221

lier oral tradition. 27 Similar concerns on stylistic aspects and shifts in the control of traditions can be applied to the traditions on the Prophet’s documents to tribes. Why is it almost exclusively the reports through family isnāds that provide material detail on the Prophet’s documents, and are we seeing the collision of two different types of traditions (and of different audiences) when reports elide the personal account and the claim of possessing a document, given in direct speech, in order to focus on the event of the transmission of a ḥadīth? In the case of a large complex of traditions such as of Tamīm al-Dārī’s grant of land in Palestine, the drama and all attendant detail of the first-person account through family isnād makes that tradition, above the others in this complex, the most overwhelmingly popular one even up till the Mamluk period. 28

BUCKETS, SCRAPS, AND TRASH

Several reports on the Prophet’s documents given to tribal members feature attention to the materiality of the documents, and some obsess with the destruction of the documents over revealing their contents. It is not the strictly linguistic contents but the material nature and association with particular individuals and families that form the field in which these documents are sensible. Reports often mention the use of “red leather,” adīm aḥmar, for the Prophet’s documents. 29 Leather (adīm, pl.

Beaumont, “Hard-Boiled,” 22. Beaumont’s study of the different types of narration found in these reports also shows that the tradition existed in the hands of various practitioners, including the public, and that increasing regulations concerning isnāds were not only used to gain control of the tradition but also to regulate modes of narration (Beaumont, “Hard-Boiled,” 29–30). 28 Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī, 6. 29 Al-Qalqashandī notes adam as sometimes employed by the Prophet for his correspondence and mentions no other materials identified with the Prophet’s documents. Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-a‘shāʾ fī 27

222

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

adam) is distinguished from parchment (raqq or waraq) through the process of tanning. 30 “Red leather” is a reference to leather tanned with vegetable sources. 31 Historical sources also mention Arabian trade of a plant used for tanning leather, qarẓ, to Ethiopia and Syria; 32 this is mimora nilotica, found plentifully in Yemen. 33 Several other plants used for tanning are noted in the sources, 34 while ḥadīth include references to the Prophet or the Companions practicing tanning. 35 Use of al-adīm as a writing material is also mentioned in pre-Islamic poetry. 36 Reports on the Prophet’s documents will also occasionally use the term jild which refers to more simply prepared leather. 37 Patricia Crone has shown that leather was a predominant article of local Arabian trade and prevalent in domestic material culture. It was produced in the Ḥijāz and possibly in Mecca, and also exported to Syria, though it is only the Yemeni product that can be said to have been a high-quality good. 38 These documents on adīm aḥmar were thus on a common material not much different from the material of shoes. A document from the Prophet on adīm aḥmar may well be a trope in early Islamic historiography, but it is also reflective of technical terminology shared across several reports. A report through a family isnād, from Hishām b. Muḥammad b. al-Sāʾib ṣināʿat al-inshāʾ (Cairo: al-Muʾassasa al-miṣriyya al-ʿāmma li-l-taʾlīf wa-ltarjama wa ṭ-ṭibāʿa wa-l-nashr, 1964) II: 486. 30 Mohammed Maraqten, “Writing Materials in Pre-Islamic Arabia,” Journal of Semitic Studies 43 (1998): 288. 31 Ibid., 290. 32 Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1987) 98–100, 149. 33 Khan, “Tanning Cottage Industry,” 89. 34 Ibid., 87–88. 35 Ibid., 91–92. 36 Maraqten, “Writing Materials,” 291. 37 Ibid. 38 Crone, Meccan Trade, 149; Patricia Crone, “Quraysh and the Roman Army: Making Sense of the Leather Trade,” BSOAS 70/1 (2007): 63–88.

4. PERSONS

223

< a man from the Banū ʿUkayl < the elders of his tribe, recounts a land grant given to members of the delegation of ʿUqayl b. Kaʿb, a kitāb fī adīm aḥmar. 39 A document for Qayla bt. Makhrama al-ʿAnbariyya of the Tamīm, protecting her and her daughters from forced marriage and oppression, was written on a small piece of red leather, qiṭʿa min adīm aḥmar. This has been transmitted from Qayla to her great grand-daughters. 40 Another report through a family isnād informs us that al-ʿAbbās alSulamī sought from the Prophet a document granting his tribe the land of al-Dathīna and al-Rakiyya. In Ibn Saʿd’s account, Abū al-Azhar reports that he visited al-ʿAbbās’s descendent Nāʾil, who was now chief of the tribe and resided in al-Dathīna, and that Nāʾil brought out a container in which was kept a scrap of red leather, kurāʿ min adam aḥmar, on which the grant from the Prophet was written. 41 As a trope, the repeated citations of adīm aḥmar illustrate the expectations of an audience to whom this writing material was characteristic of a document from the Prophet. This audience was familiar with narratives in which the fate of a recipient hinges on the fate of a document. And if we accept that this trope serves as a motif and reflects conventions familiar to an audience for traditions on tribal possession of documents from the Prophet, we can also surmise that minimalist reports mentioning only the existence of a document and its physical characteristics are not universally the work of editors but the vestiges of a tradition type that did nothing more than claim the possession of a document and circulate this story in the context of narratives of the Prophet’s life. A number of traditions provide only information on the location of a document and the identification of its recipient. DeIbn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 45. ʿAffān b. Muslim < ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥassān brother to the Banū Kaʿb a branch of al-ʿAnbar < Ṣafiyya bt. ʿUlayba and Duḥayba bt. ʿUlayba < Qayla bt. Makhrama (Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:58). 41 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, VII/i: 54, from Abī al-Azhar Muḥammad b. Jamīl < Nāʾil b. Muṭṭarif b. al-ʿAbbās al-Sulamī of the B. Sulaym of the B. Riʿl < his father < his grandfather al-ʿAbbās. 39 40

224

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

struction and re-use of materials is frequently mentioned, often in the context of a tribe’s story of submission to the Prophet. The texts of these documents are often not provided. The Prophet wrote a letter to the Banū ʿUdhra on a palm branch or wooden stick, ʿasīb, 42 which was seized and broken by one of the Banū Saʿd of Ḥudhaym, Ward b. Mirdās. Ward later converted and was martyred with Zayd b. Ḥāritha, 43 and he became emblematic of this response to a document from the Prophet. The Prophet wrote a document for Simʿān b. ʿAmr b. Qurayṭ b. ʿUbayd b. Abī Bakr b. Kilāb and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAwsaja al-ʿUranī. Simʿān used it to patch his bucket, earning his family a nickname, “the children of the patcher,” banū l-rāqiʿ. Simʿān then converted, and attended the Prophet in order to ask his forgiveness; he did this by reciting some verses on being granted the same clemency as was extended to Ward. 44 The Prophet awarded two lands to Zayd b. al-Khayl of the Banū Nabhān, a heroic tribal figure and poet who lead the delegation of the Ṭayyiʾ. Perhaps as a reflection of heroic narratives on Zayd, the Prophet is reported to have said that Zayd is “the only man of the Bedouin (al-ʿarab)” who does not fall short of his reputation. The report is given through a

ʿAsīb could possibly also mean bone. Maraqten defines it as palm branch/stick (Maraqten, “Writing Materials,” 292). Al-Qalqashandī defines it as bone of shoulder-blade of camel, sheep or goat, see alQalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā, II: 486. 43 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 33. This report returns to Ibn Saʿd’s “collective isnād” given at the beginning of his section on the messengers and letters of the Prophet, I/ii:15. 44 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:30–31. The isnād is not a family isnād but returns to al-Zuhrī “and others.” In al-Maqrīzīʾs account it is the Banū Ḥāritha b. ʿAmr b. Quraṭ to whom the document is addressed and sent back with ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAwsaja b. ʿUrayna, and it is they who take it, wash it, patch their bucket with it, and refuse to reply to it. Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ bi-mā li-l-rasūl min al-anbāʾ wa-l-amwāl wa-l-ḥafada wa-l-matāʾ, ed. Maḥmūd Muḥammad Shākir (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat lajnat al-taʾlīf wa-l-tarjama wa-l-nashr, 1941) I: 441. 42

4. PERSONS

225

family isnād. 45 Zayd dies on his return to his tribe, and his widow intentionally destroys any artifacts of his contact with the Prophet, suggesting that the land grant document was only one of a collection of documents from the Prophet kept by Zayd. Ibn Saʿd’s account has Zayd’s widow seizing “everything that the Prophet [ṣlm] had written for him” and shredding it. 46 Ibn Hishām refers more clearly to a collection of writings and has Zayd’s widow “burn in the fire” what she seized. 47 Riʿya alSuḥmī received a document from the Prophet written on adīm aḥmar which he used to patch his bucket; then the Prophet sent an army against him and he lost all his family and wealth. When he finally approached the Prophet to convert, the Prophet presented him to his followers as “the one to whom I wrote and who took my document and patched his bucket with it.” The text of the document is not provided. 48 Riʿya’s daughter, who had converted earlier along with her husband’s clan, the Banū Hilāl, had protested that Riʿya’s treatment of a document from “the chief of the Arabs” would call catastrophe upon them. 49 These conventions on destruction and recycling of the Prophet’s documents to the Arab tribes indicate that an audience was familiar with how such an account, always including physical details about the documents, signals a story of catastrophe and/or Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Aslamī < Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Sabra < Abī ʿUmayr al-Ṭayyiʾ the yatīm of al-Zuhrī < Hishām b. Muḥammad alSāʾib al-Kalbī < ʿUbāda al-Ṭayyiʾ < their elders, see Ibn Saʿd, alṬabaqāt, I/ii: 59–60. 46 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 60. 47 Ferdinan Wüstenfeld, Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed ibn Ishāk bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik ibn Hischām (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1858–1860) 947. 48 Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, V: 285–86. The report is also in Aḥmad b. ‘Alī Ibn Hajar al-Asqalānī, al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba ([Cairo]: al-Maktaba al-tijārīya al-kubrā, 1939) I: 502–503, no. 2659, and in al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-asmāʾ, I: 441–43. 49 Al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-asmāʾ, I:443; Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 31 who identifies the recipient only as al-ʿUranī. 45

226

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

reconciliation with the Prophet. Here it is the form itself of the physical artifact, predictable and recognizable, and empty of specific content, which is significant and which supports the claims made by its possessors. The textual contents of these documents are not the narrative focus of these reports, even while the moralizing impulse of the narratives is clear. Yet these reports also feature thematic elements, such as the simple claim of possessing a document from the Prophet, and the prestige of this claim persists even while the recipient is illiterate. These themes are often in tension with formal and stylistic elements which structure an account around the narration of a ḥadīth and shape a report to culminate in a moralizing statement or information about the intentions of the Prophet. 50 Reports of the Prophet’s documents feature recipients specifically characterized as unable to read. A document to the Bakr b. Wāʾil granted to Ẓabyān b. Marthad alSadūsī, of which only a fragment is cited, could not be read until a literate man from the Banū Ḍubayʿa b. Rabīʿa arrived. The latter tribe became nicknamed “the sons of the literate man,” banū l-kātib. 51 The report’s isnād is through a tribal informant. 52 The text of a document for ʿUbāda b. al-Ashyab al-ʿAnziyy of the Bakr b. Wāʾil assumes that the larger audience for the text will hear it rather than read it themselves; it states that those “to whom this document of mine is read and do not obey, they will have no succor from God,” fa-man quriʾa ʿalayhi kitābī hādhā fa-

Cf. Sebastian Günther, “Fictional narration and imagination within an authoritative framework: Towards a new understanding of Ḥadīṯ,” in Story-telling in the framework of non-fictional Arabic literature, ed. Stefan Leder (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 1998) 470, on how the impulse of narrativity becomes part of the structure of ḥadīth itself as it reflects the recipient/listener’s imaginative response to the narration of ḥadīth rather than to the event described in the ḥadīth. 51 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 31. 52 ʿAlī b. Muḥammad < Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba < Qatāda < a man from Banū Sadūs (Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 31). 50

4. PERSONS

227

lam yuʿṭiʾ fa-laysa lahu mina llāhi maʿūnun. 53 These documents can be preserved by families despite their inability to read them. A document requested for himself and his tribe by Mālik b. Aḥmar al-Judhāmī al-ʿAwfī, who approached the Prophet on the occasion of Tabūk, is preserved by his descendants and shown to the traditionists who note its material and physical condition. Al-Walīd b. Muslim reports that he asked Saʿīd b. Manṣūr to read it to him, as he was old and had weak eyesight. This document was on a small piece of leather, ruqʿa min adīm, four finger-lengths in width and about a (hands-)span in length, with the writing having faded. The tribal informant who presents this text also appears unable to read it since it is read out to him. 54 Illiteracy is a theme of the tradition on ʿUyayna b. Ḥisn b. Hudhayfa b. Badr al-Fazārī and al-Aqraʿ b. Hābis al-Ḥanẓalī requesting documents from the Prophet confirming their alms. ʿUyayna and al-Aqraʿ had already converted and served the Prophet prior to the arrival of the Tamīmite delegation, the setting of this tradition. 55 They were each granted a document, written by Muʿāwiya who then cast the documents at the petitioners after drawing them up. In one report, ʿUyayna binds his ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba fī maʿrifat al-ṣahāba, ed. Khalīl Maʾmūn Shīḥā (Beirut: Dār al-maʿrifa, 1997) II: 539, no. 2786. 54 Ibn Hajar, al-Iṣāba, III: 318, no. 7593, through a family isnād: Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Rabbih < al-Walīd b. Muslim < Saʿīd b. Masʿūd b. Maḥriz b. Mālik b. Aḥmar al-Judhāmī < his father Mālik b. Aḥmar al-ʿAwfī. 55 ʿUyayna is part of this delegation in Ibn Hishām but not in al-Wāqidī. Cf. Ella Landau-Tasseron, “Processes of Redaction: The case of the Tamīmite delegation to the Prophet Muḥammad,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 49/2 (1986): 255 on how attempts to explain how ʿUyayna ended up in the Tamīmite delegation and the detail of his presence shows the confusion of the tradition and of the compilers faced with this material. Concerning ʿUyayna prior to his conversion and as one of those the Prophet attempted to win over through negotiations after the Battle of the Ditch, see Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-maghāzī, ed. Marsden Jones (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996) II: 477–80. 53

228

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

document into his turban and leaves, whereas al-Aqraʿ approaches Muʿāwiya and asks what the document contains, to which Muʿāwiya replies that it contains what he was commanded to write: fīhā mā umirtu bihi. 56 Al-Aqraʿ then comments that he is carrying back to his tribe, like the ṣaḥīfa of alMutalammis, 57 a letter whose contents he is ignorant of and which may be dangerous to him. To this the Prophet, annoyed, replies that whoever asks for more than what suffices him is demanding more of Hell. 58 Ibn Shabba’s (d. 262/876) account situates the circulation of this tradition in the time of al-Walīd (r. 705–715), 59 and puts it in the context of Abū Kabsha approaching the Caliph (presumably petitioning for alms, or refraining from doing so) on account of this ḥadīth which he then narrates. ʿUyayna may be the original querulous petitioner, in line with his depiction in the sources. In another report given by Ibn Shabba, it is ʿUyayna who makes the comment about ṣaḥīfat al-Mutalammis. Upon this, the Prophet takes the document himAbū Zayd ʿUmar b. Shabba, Taʾrīkh al-Madīna al-munawwara, ed. Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt (Mecca: Ḥabīb Maḥmūd Aḥmad, [1979]) II: 534. 57 The Christian poet al-Mutalammis and his companion poet Ṭarafa lived during the reign of ʿAmr b. Hind of Hira (554–70 C.E.) in southern Iraq. The king, displeased with the poets, gave each a letter of introduction to his officer Rabīʿ b. Hawthara in Baḥrayn, ordering their deaths. Al-Mutalammis, suspicious, had his letter read by a youth of Hira and discarded it. Ṭarafa refused to have his letter read and was consequently killed. See Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī, Al-Juzʾ al-ḥādī wa-lʿishrūn min kitāb al-aghānī, ed. Rudolf-Ernst Brünnow (Leiden: Brill, 1305 [1887–8]) XXI: 201. The unread death warrant is a widespread trope in Near Eastern literature. Compare 2 Sam 11:15, 16 where Uriah delivers his own death warrant to Joab, unaware of the contents of his document. See Nabia Abbott, The Rise of the North Arabic Script and its Kur’anic Development, with a full description of the Kur’anic manuscripts in the Oriental Institute (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939) 6. 58 Ibn Shabba, Taʾrīkh, II: 535. 59 As given in the second report, and not his son (Ibrāhīm) Ibn al-Walīd (r. 744) as given in the first report. 56

4. PERSONS

229

self, scans it, and says, “I have written in it for you what was commanded” fa-akhadha l-nabī [Ṣ] ṣaḥīfatahu fa-naẓara fa-qāla: qad katabtu ilayka bimā umira fīhā. 60 This version, using the verb for seeing (naẓara) rather than reading, suggests that the Prophet’s literacy may have extended beyond a basic ability to recognize and inscribe his name, to the ability to recognize familiar words and phrases; in any case, the Prophet’s ability to read is higher than that of the petitioner. 61 These accounts thus center on and culminate in the moral given in the ḥadīth, that one should not ask for alms beyond one’s need. The document in this tradition remains tangential to the ḥadīth that it generates, so much so that even the identity of the individual who makes a mockery of his document is confused. Yet the traces remain of a vivid tale of interaction and banter with the Prophet that entertains and instructs, all while tapping into Arabian folklore and poetic tradition on the figure of al-Mutalammis.

TEXTUAL SHAPING OF REPORTS AND THE SCHOLAR AS AUTHENTICATOR

Accounts of the Prophet’s documents do more than just claiming status for tribal recipients. A number of traditions on illiterate tribes and on documents cited without their textual content make no claim for land or rights but only for contact and physical possession of a token from the Prophet. These details conflict Ibn Shabba, Tārīkh, II: 535. A similar version with ʿUyayna annoying the Prophet in his home is reported in Abū Dāwūd b. Sulaymān b. alAshʿaṯ al-Sijistānī, Sunan Abī Dawūd (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1998), 255– 56, Kitāb al-Zakāt, bāb mā yuʿṭā min al-ṣadaqa wa-ḥadd al-ghinā, no. 1629, from ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Nufaylī < Miskīn < Muḥammad al-Muhājir < Rabīʿa b. Yazīd < Abī Kabsha al-Salūlī < Sahl b. al-Ḥanẓaliyya. 61 Ibn Shabba, Tārīkh, II: 536; also given in Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-bārī bisharḥ ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī , ed. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Bāz ([Damascus]: Dār al-fikr li-l-ṭabāʿa wa-l-nashr wa-l-tawzīʿ, 1959) VII: 504, where the verb is kataba and not katabtu. 60

230

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

with traditionalist shaping of accounts which are pre-eminently concerned with assessment of authenticity, legal content, or presentation of the document serving as occasion to narrate ḥadīth. Chancery works and legal treatises will note the survival of claims and documents (originals and copies), which are sometimes at the center of juridical controversies, centuries after the Prophetic period to which they are attributed. Archival material also preserves evidence of such documents, even if they are later forgeries or copies of earlier texts, kept by communities for generations even while their claims have been historically rejected. This does not deny that documents are also cited in the context of tribal rivalry and factionalism to attest status. However, these claims of possessing documents are also not always the typical claim of the glory of an ancestor, as seen for example in the story of ʿUyayna and al-Aqraʿ, though they can be, as in the story of Tamīm al-Dārī. For some communities, these documents were what they had and what they could attest as artifacts of the Prophet having done or said something in direct relation to themselves. The tradition complex on the land in Palestine granted to Tamīm al-Dārī 62 features one of the most extensive descriptions of the physical preparation of a document from the Prophet, beginning with the Prophet calling for a “scrap of red leather (qiṭʿatu jildin min adam),” and then withdrawing into his house in order to envelope, tie, and put his seal upon it. Al-Qalqshandī (d. 821/1418) notes that the document survives in his time and that the family brings it forth whenever a claim is made against them; it has been reported to him through various transmitters that the leather had been prepared in such a way that it would endure for a long time, “wa-l-adīmu allatī hiya fīhi qad khaluqa liṭūli l-amadi.” 63

62 63

See Chapter 2 for the comparison of several redactions of this text. Al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ, XIII: 122.

4. PERSONS

231

Though several accounts provide the text of this document, it is only those with a family isnād, 64 returning to a descendant of Tamīm’s brother, Saʿīd b. Zayyād, who served as a tax collector in Jerusalem in the early ʿAbbāsid period, 65 that make any mention of the material characteristics of the text. Al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1442), for example, provides three reports containing the full text of the document, including one narrated by Tamīm but not through a family isnād, along with several others that mention the document; a single account through the family isnād of Tamīm’s brother contains the physical material information. AlMaqrīzī’s account by way of al-Ṭabarānī (d. 360/971), Abū Nuʿaym (d. 430/1038), and Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571/1176), 66 but most closely following Ibn ʿAsākir’s wording which seems to have been widely known during Mamluk era, 67 describes the preparation as such: “fa-daʿā rasūlu llahi [ṣlm] bi-qiṭʿati jildin min adam wa-kataba fīhā kitāban… thumma dakhala ilā manzilihi waghashāhu bi-shayʾin lā naʿrifu wa-ʿaqadahu min khāriji l-ruqʿati bisayri ʿaqdayn wa-kharaja ilaynā bi-hi maṭwīlan.” 68 However, Ibn Tamīm was survived only by a daughter; his brother, in some reports an eye-witness to the drawing up of the document, is the origin of these reports. 65 Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī, 7. 66 Ibid., 156–67. Al-Maqrīzī gives only the early part of the isnād: Saʿīd b. Zayyād b. Fāʾid b. Zayyād b. Abī Hind al-Dārī < his father < his grandfather < Abū l-Hind al-Dārī. The same account through the family isnād and by way of the same redactors is provided by Ibn Ḥajar’s earlier text, al-Jawāb al-jalīl ʿan ḥukm balad al-Khalīl, but in a summarized form that does not include any of the details of physical material or preparation. See Frenkel’s edition of Ibn Ḥajar’s text in Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī, 266–69. This account through family isnād remains relevant by al-Suyūṭī’s time as seen in his quotation of it in his treatise Kitāb al-faḍl al-ʿamīm fī iqṭāʿ Tamīm; al-Suyūṭī provides an even more complete wording than al-Maqrīzī. See Frenkel’s edition of al-Suyūṭī’s text in his Ḍawʾ al-sārī, 332–33. 67 Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī, 157 n. 155. 68 Ibid., 158–60. 64

232

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ʿAsākir himself gives an even more extensive wording than alMaqrīzī’s citation of his account, including an extra phrase: “thumma dakhala bi l-kitāb ilā manzilihi fa-ʿālaja fī zāwiyati lruqʿata…” 69 Only the even more detailed text by Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim al-Shaybānī (d. 287/900) makes sense of this wording: “fa-ʿālaja fī zāwiyat al-ruqʿa min asfali khātaman wa-ghashshāhu…” 70 Ruqʿa can refer to both the text as well as the material support. 71 Combining the wording of these accounts to obtain the most detailed description of this act renders the following: The Prophet called for a scrap of leather and wrote this document on it. Then he took the document and entered his house, and applied his seal on the bottom to a corner of the piece [of leather] and covered the document with a material we did not recognize, and knotted two knots around the exterior of the piece [of leather] and came out to us with it folded up.

The tradition through family isnād, and only this tradition, thus gives us this rather complex and detailed description of the physical preparation of the document by the Prophet. The tradition complex on the granting of this document is indeed part of the heroic narrative on Tamīm al-Dārī, and these reports retained their popularity long after they were first put into circulation. As Frenkel’s study shows, the tradition on the land grant circulated locally (in southern Bilād al-Shām) in the ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan Ibn ʿAsākir, Tārīkh madīnat Dimashq, ed. ʿUmar Gharāma al-ʿAmrawī (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1995–2001) XI: 65. 70 The text has ziwāya, corrected here, and the full family isnād returning to Abī Hind al-Dārī. Aḥmad b. Abī ʿĀṣim al-Daḥḥāk b. Makhlad alShaybānī, al-Āḥād wa-l-maṯānī, ed. Bāsim Fayṣal Aḥmad al-Jawābira (Riyadh: Dār al-rāya li-l-ṭibāʿa wa-l-nashr wa-l-tawzīʿ, 1991) V: 12. 71 It is both a brief message and a patch (of clothing or of leather). See Muḥammad b. Mukarram Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿarab (Beirut: Dār ṣādir li-l-ṭibāʿa wa-l-nashr, 1955) VIII: 131. By the Fāṭimid period ruqʿa, along with qiṣṣa, refers to a petition and means literally “a piece of paper” or “short letter” (S. M. Stern, Fatimid Decrees: Original Documents from the Fāṭimid Chancery (London: Faber and Faber, 1964) 92). 69

4. PERSONS

233

Umayyad period, and later scholars note that the document was presented to and accepted by the ʿAbbāsid authorities. 72 Much later, the text is employed in legal arguments in favor of the Shāfiʿī position on the granting of farming lands outside of the realm of Islam in the context of a juridical debate on the reconquest of Crusader-held lands. 73 Though its use by these sources reflects a Mamluk-era image of the state and juridical debate, there were multiple audiences to these texts, including a popular one in Egypt and Syria, who can be said to have had a collective ownership of the tradition which they had maintained. 74 Copies of the grant also survived into the Mamluk period where scholarly accounts show that it held some sacral value to the authorities for whom it was associated with baraka. 75 The document may even have been presented during Ottoman times; it is said to have been shown to sultan Salīm I (r. 918– 926/1512–1520) when a fatwā was issued in favor of its legality. 76 In the case of the account of Caliph al-Maʾmūn’s reception of the document, Frenkel notes that its transmission by later historians suggests its familiarity to the Mamluk-period audience. 77 This account was still circulated at the time of al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) through an account extracted from Ibn ʿAsākir. It originates with Saʿīd b. Zayyād and is given in first-person nar-

Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī, 6, 27. Frenkel notes that the story plays different roles at different times, and that there was already controversy over the family's claim to property in Hebron and over the historicity of the tradition during the early ʿAbbāsid period. 73 Ibid., 8, 23; Cf. David Cook, “Tamīm al-Dārī,” BSOAS, 61/1 (1998): 26–27 on how Mamluk-era sources also provide an afterlife for the land grant documents, which are repeatedly cited as part of a dispute between Ḥanafī rulers and Shāfiʾī jurists over the legality of the Prophet’s granting land distant from his control at the time. 74 Frenkel, Dawʾ al-sārī, 16. 75 Ibid., 28. 76 Ibid., 31. 77 Ibid., 7 and n. 33. 72

234

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ration, featuring the familiar trope of healing and blessing through placement of the relic over the eyes. [Saʿīd b. Zayyād] recounted: I showed it to him and he [alMaʾmūn] said: “I should very much like to know what this covering over this seal is.” [His brother, the prince] Abū Isḥāq said: “Untie this knot so that you may know what it is.” But then he [al-Maʾmūn] replied: “I have no doubt that the Prophet tied this knot and I am not the person who is going to unloose a knot tied by the Messenger of Allah.” Then [al-Maʾmūn] said to [his nephew] al-Wāthiq: “Take it and lay it on your eyes; perhaps Allah will heal you.” [Saʿīd related:] He began to lay it on his eyes and to weep. 78

The knot on the exterior of the document, described in the popularly known tradition through the family isnād, evidently remained familiar to al-Suyūṭī’s audience. In this account featuring al-Maʾmūn, the knot is emblematic of the Prophet’s agency, and it is notable that the document behaves as a conventional relic only in relation to the state authorities. That the claim made by the survival of such a document serves as a locus for the formation of self-identity and represents a claim of involvement in the Prophetical narrative can be subverted and overlooked by textual shaping driven by the traditionalist conception that standardizes the notion of ḥadīth as an authorized verbal unit. The following report is given through a family isnād and in first-person narration. 79 A report from Muslim b. al-Ḥārith b. Muslim al-Tamīmī from his father narrates how some Companions were sent by the Prophet on an expedition, and when the people there proclaimed their submission to Islam they spared them. They were then blamed by their companions for depriving them of booty, and when they informed the Prophet of this complaint, he told them that God had recIbid., 338–341, Frenkel’s translation. Hishām b. Āmir < al-Walīd b. Muslim < ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasṣān al-Kinānī < Muslim b. al-Ḥārith b. Muslim al-Tamīmī < his father (Ibn al-Aṯīr, Usd al-ghāba, I: 394).

78 79

4. PERSONS

235

orded a certain reward for them for each person they had spared. Then the Prophet said to al-Ḥārith b. Muslim al-Tamīmī, “I will write a document for you, and whoever comes after me among the leaders of the Muslims will decree this for you (waūṣī bika),” so he did so, and put his seal upon it, and handed it to him. 80 After the Prophet’s death the caliphs confirmed this document for al-Ḥārith, and renewed his token reward. However, according to the following report in Ibn al-Athīr, by the time of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Azīz, the kitāb is not primarily a legal document to be executed, but a vehicle for the direct oral transmission of any ḥadīth related to the document. Muslim narrates that he was asked to bring his father’s kitāb to the caliph: When God the Exalted caused the Prophet of God, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, to die, I took the document to Abū Bakr. He opened it, read it, commanded (something to be given to) me, and sealed it. Then I took it to ʿUmar, who did the same. Then I took it to Uthmān, and he did the same. Muslim said: then my father died during the caliphate of ʿUthmān and this document remained with us. When ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz came to rule, he wrote to a governor with power over us: “Send to me Muslim b. al-Ḥārith alTamīmī with the document that the Prophet of God, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, wrote for his father.” [Muslim] said: so I departed with it to him, and he read it, commanded someone to reward me, and sealed it. Then he said to me: “I only sent for you so that you could narrate to me what your father narrated to you.” [Muslim] said: so I narrated the ḥadīth directly to him. 81

“ammā innī sa-aktubu laka kitāban, wa-ūṣī bika man yakūnu baʿdī min aʾimmat al-Muslimīn,” fa-faʿala, wa-khaṭama ʿalayhi, wa-dafaʿahu ilayya, see Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, I: 394. The report in Abū Dāwūd, narrated by ʿAlī b. Saḥl, reports the Prophet as saying, “amma innī sa-aktubu laka bi-l-waṣā baʿdī” (Abū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 767, Kitāb al-Adab, no. 5080). 81 Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, I: 394. 80

236

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

As with other reports narrated by the recipients of a document of the Prophet, the precise wording of this document is not given. It is not the contents but the provenance of the document that is the focus of the reports. By the time of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd alʿAzīz, the kitāb acts as a confirmation of the authority of its owner as a transmitter of ḥadīth. A second report through a different source but the same family isnād notes only that the Prophet wrote the document for al-Ḥārith, 82 and a third through yet another source returning to the same family isnād provides the text of the ḥadīth that is appended to the report of this occasion (concerning a prayer to recite for protection from Hell-fire) followed by an account of the renewal of the document by the caliphs. 83 The interest of al-Ḥārith’s family in claiming and exhibiting this document is clearly in tension with its treatment by the authorities as significant only because it signals the presence of a ḥadīth. The following examples show that formal and stylistic elements of these traditions reflect the increasing pressure of a traditionalist conception that elevated legal and ritualistic ḥadīth and left only the vestiges of a tribal tradition on documents as token of personal contact. Formalistically, each of these accounts frames the report as an encounter of scholars and verifiable ḥadīth transmitters with a Bedouin figure who is carrying a document that he claims was personally presented to him by the Prophet. Each account sets the stage for the narration of this event through identifying the transmitters of the account (the isnād), followed by identifying the scholars present and describing the social and geographical setting of the transmission of the ḥadīth. The arrival of the Bedouin and the contrast between his al-Ḥawṭī < al-Walīd b. Muslim < ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥaṣsān < alḤārith b. Muslim b. al-Ḥārith < his father. Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, I: 394. 83 Abū Yāsir Hibat Allāh < ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad < his father < Yazīd b. ʿAbd Rabbih < al-Walīd b. Muslim < ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥaṣsān alKinānī < Muslim b. al-Ḥārith al-Tamīmī < his father. Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, I: 394. 82

4. PERSONS

237

demeanor, interests, and physical appearance and the motives of the ḥadīth transmitters express a social tension, made explicit through dialogue in the case of Ibn Saʿd’s account, between the Bedouin and those individuals gathered in a circle of learning in the urban environment of Baṣra’s mirbad. 84 Stylistically, these accounts share the characteristic of featuring an anonymous Bedouin, who is identified only in terms of his carrying a scrap of leather and/or his physical appearance and tribal affiliation, who acts as the protagonist but is neither the transmitter nor the authority of the account. They each include a portion of firstperson narration in the Bedouin’s voice although this does not form the entirety of the account which is framed by the scholars’ concerns. Thus the Bedouin’s view of himself as an authority on some narrative about the Prophet, built around his claim to physical possession of a personally granted token from the Prophet, his narrative of his family’s possession of this token, and his interest in this document being shown and recognized reflect the conventions of an object-based ḥadīth tradition that ultimately escapes the intellectual and social needs of traditionalist texts. Historically, this tradition was at least concurrent with and left its traces on traditionalist texts. However, the increasingly stringent rules of transmission (seen here, for example, in the differences between Ibn Saʿd’s and Abū Dāwūd’s accounts of the same event from the same source), along with evidence for the popularity and local or tribal circulation of some This framework and setting appears to construct one of the “socially mediated normative contexts” identified by Stefan Leder as providing ground for a dichotomous relationship between Bedouin and sedentary which is otherwise resisted by medieval Arabic terminology that reflects spatial and socio-economical contact and interaction between both populations. See Leder, “Towards a Historical Semantic,” 88. Cf. Zoltan Szombathy, “Fieldwork and Preconceptions: The role of the Bedouin as informants in medieval Muslim scholarly culture (secondthird/eight-ninth centuries),” Der Islam 92/1 (2015): 131–32 on references to the mirbad in Baṣra as a meeting-place between scholars and Bedouin informants particularly for linguistic research.

84

238

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

of the accounts discussed above, support the argument that this tradition on physical ḥadīth-objects preceded the scholarly verbal ḥadīth tradition in time. This could potentially allow a geographical mapping of popular tribal object-based ḥadīth culture, and the oral tradition built around these objects, before compilation and canonization, which is ḥadīth before ḥadīth becomes the exclusive province of the intellectual elite. In an example of how a document is explicitly subsumed by ḥadīth, a report returning to Abū al-ʿAlāʾ describes his meeting with a Bedouin, who carried a piece of leather or leather bag, qiṭ‘at adīm aw jirāb, in the market of Baṣra. 85 On this was written a safe-conduct and security document (amān) from the Prophet for the Banū Zuhayr b. Uqaysh of ʿUkl. 86 The Bedouin was inquiring whether there was anyone around him who could read, a-fīkum man yaqraʾu. Abu al-ʿAlāʾ responded that he would read it, and the Bedouin informed him that the Prophet had written it for him, katabahu lī. The document, beginning with the basmala formula, states that if the clan of ʿUkl, the Banū Zuhayr b. Uqaysh, proclaims the shahāda, disengages from the mushrikīn, and pays khums, it will be guaranteed security. 87 Abū al-ʿAlāʾ then reports that the people in the market asked the Bedouin if he had heard anything from the Prophet and if so, for him to relate it to them, a-samiʿta min rasūli llāhi shayʾan tuḥaddithūnahu? He replied that he had heard the Prophet say that whoever wishes to keep his chest free from rancor should fast in the month of patience, that is Ramadan, and for three days of every Ismāʿīl b. Ibrāhīm al-Asadī b. ʿUlayya < al-Jarīrī < Abī al-ʿAlāʾ. See Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 30. 86 See Chapter 2 for the comparison of redactions of this text. 87 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 30. A variant report is also given by Abū ʿUbayd (d. 224/830), through a different isnād returning to Abū alʿAlāʾ. The location is given as the mirbad of Baṣra, and the Bedouin is carrying “a scrap of leather.” It is the narrator and his brother who later ask the Bedouin for a ḥadīth. Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim Ibn Sallām, Kitāb al-amwāl, ed. Muḥammad Khalīl Harrās (Cairo: Maktabat al-kulliyat alAzhariyya, 1969) 19. 85

4. PERSONS

239

month. 88 The people then asked him to confirm that he had heard this statement from the Prophet. To this the Bedouin replied that if they were afraid that he told falsehoods about the Prophet he would never again relate a ḥadīth to them. This report provides in narrative form the transmission criteria of ḥadīth criticism (‘ulūm al-ḥadīth): direct aural link to the Prophet’s presence, and prioritizing of the truth-value of the isnād-matn compound or validification of the unit of speech identified as “ḥadīth.” Ibn Saʿd’s account illustrates how the physical document that represents this claim of contact with the Prophet is itself marginalized. Here the sight of a document obtained from the Prophet encourages observers to demand verifiable ḥadīth, and a written document identifies an (illiterate) individual as a site for oral access to Prophetical citations. The public has less interest in the contents of the document than in the spoken exchange the document testifies to. The contents of the document, including formulae such as the basmala, are transmitted by the redactors as part of a greater interest in a maxim from the Prophet and a description of one of his legal acts. This account thus makes visible and authorizes the subaltern but only within the traditionalist conception which prioritizes verifiable oral transmission of verbal ḥadīth. However, the Bedouin voice itself asserts the document as token, and recalls Two reports in Ibn Ḥanbal’s Musnad also give the text of the document and the accompanying ḥadīth with slightly variant wording for both the document and the ḥadīth. Most closely matching the account in Ibn Saʿd is the report from ʿAbd Allāh [b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal] < his father < Ismāʿīl < al-Jarīrī < Abī al-ʿAlāʾ b. al-Shīkhī which gives the location as camel market of Baṣra and the Bedouin as carrying qiṭʿat adīm or jirāb; the Bedouin is asked to verify his ḥadīth and retorts in the same way as in Ibn Saʿd’s account. Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, V: 77–78. Another report through ʿAbd Allāh < his father < Wakīʿ < Qurra < Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Shīḫī [Abū al-ʿAlāʾ] has the account without the interaction between the crowd and the Bedouin over his ḥadīth transmission, and the Bedouin is carrying qiṭʿat adīm aw qiṭʿat jirāb. Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, V: 363. 88

240

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

the interpersonal activity of the writing of a document as having created a field for and codifying the event of an exchange of mutual respect between his tribe and the Prophet. The Bedouin is a subaltern of early Islamic historiography and of ḥadīth literature. Several reports in ḥadīth and ʿulūm alḥadīth literature construct scholars as authorized figures who authenticate the documents carried by these individuals, who are sometimes illiterate and seek authentication through bringing the texts to an urban center. Their self-authenticating use by ḥadīth scholars, however, does not explain what the carriers themselves are participating in as they keep these and maintain claims based on documents from the Prophet. That activity is outside of and on the fringes of the learned tradition, while traces of it sometimes rise to the surface of traditionalist literature. The following report from the Musnad of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) provides a sustained narrative by a Bedouin whose possession of a document from the Prophet protects him from being taxed unjustly. Although the protagonist of the story is represented as expressing an almost naïve kind of insistence, it manages to preserve in his voice a memory of a conversation with the Prophet in which his most earnest desire is to take something away from his encounter with the Prophet. The document was shown in Baṣra at the time of the governor al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf (d. 96/714) by the son of the recipient. The full text of the document is not provided but it is paraphrased. The report returns to Sālim b. Abī Umayya Abū al-Naḍr, who says that he was 89 sitting with an old man from the Banū Tamīm in the masjid in Baṣra and he had a ṣaḥīfa with him in his hand. He [Abū al-Naḍr] said, This was in the time of al-Ḥajjāj. Then he [the old man] said to me, “O servant of God, have you seen this The full isnād is ʿAbd Allāh [b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal] < his father < Yaʿqūb < his father < Ibn Abī Isḥāq < Sālim b. Abī Umayya Abū alNaḍr.

89

4. PERSONS

241

document that suffices me in the eyes of the sultan?” He [Abū al-Naḍr] said, I said then, “What is this document?” He replied, “This is a document that the Prophet of God, God’s peace and blessings be on him, wrote for us, that none transgress against us concerning our taxes (ṣadaqāt).” He [Abū alNaḍr] said, I said, “No, by God, I do not think that anything else would suffice you. And what are the circumstances surrounding this kitāb?” He said, “I arrived at Medina along with my father while I was a young boy, and we had with us some camels to sell. My father was a friend of Ṭalḥa b.ʿUbayd Allāh al-Taymī and so we stayed with him… My father said to Ṭalḥa, ‘Obtain for us from the Prophet of God, God’s peace and blessings be on him, a document (kitāb) that we will not be transgressed against concerning our ṣadaqa.’ He said, ‘This you have as does every Muslim.’ He [my father] said, ‘Concerning this I would like that I have from the Prophet of God, God’s peace and blessings be on him, a document.’ Then he [Ṭalḥa] went out and came with us to the Prophet of God, God’s peace and blessings be on him, and he [Ṭalḥa] said: ‘O Prophet of God, verily this man from among the Bedouin is a friend of ours, and he would like that you write for him a document that no one may transgress against him concerning his ṣadaqa.’ Then the Prophet of God, God’s peace and blessings be on him, said: ‘This you have as does every Muslim.’ He [my father] said: ‘O Prophet of God, perhaps I would like to have from you a document on this.’ Then the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be on him, wrote for us this document.” 90 Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, I:163–64. See Fred Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981) 109, 251–53, 265, on a special category of tax on camels called ṣadaqa applied to nomadic tribesmen, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, established by the Prophet towards the end of his life and continued under the early conquests period, and indicative of the distinct social status of the Bedouin. The reference to ṣadaqa in this account can conceivably also be to the Bedouin as recipient of alms. See Fritz Steppat on non-emigrating Bedouin as recipients of ṣadaqa which excludes them from pensions (ʿaṭāʾ) derived from the revenue of conquered lands; Fritz Steppat, “‘Those Who Be90

242

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

This report of an oral exchange retains some of the stylistic devices of orally performed literature, including a structure created by near exact repetition of formulas. 91 Of interest regarding this tradition is that we can imagine an isnād for the physical document, only it is unverifiable. The principal tradent is an unnamed “old man” of Tamīm, comparable to the unnamed Bedouin of the tradition from Abū l-ʿAlāʾ. But the isnād for the report concerning the document is of attested transmitters, coming down to Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal. It is clear that documents and ḥadīth have distinct sets of transmitters and requirements for transmission. Yet the carrying of documents by such individuals as this unnamed man of the Tamīm forces the scholarly elite to engage with them, allowing their participation in the life of the Prophet some recognition. Abū Dāwūd’s account of the security document granted to the Banū Zuhayr b. Uqaysh also exhibits these separate criteria for document and ḥadīth. In Abū Dāwūd’s (d. 275/888) account, a man with “unkempt hair” appears at the mirbad, carrying a qiṭʿat adīm aḥmar. Abū al-ʿAlāʾ narrates that the Companions ask him whether he is a Bedouin, literally “from the people of the steppe (min ahli l-bādiya),” and when he replies in the affirmative they request that he hand over the document that he carries. The text of the document is then recorded in the ḥadīth. lieve and Have Not Emigrated’: The Bedouin as the marginal group of Islamic society,” in Fritz Steppat, Islam als Partner: Islamkundliche Aufsätze 1944–1996 (Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2001) 336–37. The Prophet’s documents to tribes tend to use the term zakāt or describe taxation amounts without terminology. 91 R. Marston Speight argues for a concern to “preserve the conventions of oral recitation” in ḥadīth compilations, marked by the following indications of oral composition, with reference to Albert Lord’s The Singer of Tales: “unvarying style, frequent repetition of expressions, emphasis on action rather than description, conversational tone, atomistic structure, use of formulas as ‘the means of expressing themes.’” R. Marston Speight, “Oral Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad: A Formulaic Approach,” Oral Tradition, 4/1–2 (1989): 27.

4. PERSONS

243

Finally, the Companions ask the Bedouin who wrote the document for him, to which he replies that the Prophet has done so. 92 The ḥadīth on fasting narrated by the Bedouin, provided in Ibn Saʿd’s account, is not given as it does not meet the transmitter criteria of Abū Dāwūd. Conversely, there is no attempt at authenticating the document whose text is quoted, nor does the document carrier have a personal identity beyond his affiliation with the tribe addressed in the document. Though the Bedouin himself expresses very little, the structure of this short account makes clear that the document does not mean to the Bedouin what it means to the Companions who are invested only in learning and recording an act of the Prophet. This man, the details of whose appearance fall in line with the image of the Bedouin as uncouth, 93 is only one in a series of images that such reports preserve of an individual who places importance on physical possession of a document composed by the Prophet and obtained while in the presence of the Prophet, of taking something away from the Prophet, and of carrying it and showing it to others, even if he cannot read it. Lack of an isnād does not prevent authentication of copies of documents when they remain of legal and socio-political significance. Returning to the traditions on the grant of Tamīm alDārī, at a time when the debate on this document again became current, al-Maqrīzī adduces Abū Bakr Muḥammad Ibn al-ʿArabī’s (d. 543/1148) commentary on the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik in which he states concerning Ibn ʿAsākir’s account of the document of Tamīm al-Dārī: “We do not follow those who rejected it on the ground that it is not an oral transmission (masmūʿa) because this fact should not prevent [its use as evidence] in case of contest (iḥtijāj).” 94 The authentication of these documents is not the obAbū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 467, Kitāb al-kharāj wa-l-imāra wa-lfayʾ, bāb mā jāʾa fī sahm al-ṣafī, no. 2999 from Muslim b. Ibrāhīm < Qurra < Yazīd b. ʿAbd Allāh. The text of the document matches that of Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, V:363. 93 Cf. Leder, “Towards a Historical Semantic,” 113–14. 94 Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī, 222–23, Frenkel’s translation. 92

244

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

jective of these reports that are instead concerned with the presentation of ḥadīth and of evidence for juristic questions. Finally, non-Muslims are also represented as preserving, and submitting, their own inherited documents for authentication by the ʿulamāʾ. An example is the security and inviolability contract (amāna) granted to the Jews of Maqnā, found in sources such as Ibn Saʿd’s al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr, al-Balādhūrī’s (d. 279/892) Futūḥ al-Buldān, and Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim b. alSallām’s (d. 224/836) Kitāb al-Amwāl. 95 According to alBalādhurī, a resident of Cairo saw the document “with his eyes,” written on red leather in a studious hand. This was copied and then dictated to al-Balādhurī who cites it in his historical work. 96 In contrast, a comparable document exempting the Jews of Khaybar from paying the jizya is rejected by ḥadīth experts. According to Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Khalīl b. Aybak al-Ṣafadī (d. 764/1363), the Jews brought a document witnessed by ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib to the vizier ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad, who did not assess it himself but consulted al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463/1071), indicating that authentication of these documents from the Prophet was under the purview of ḥadīth scholars. AlBaghdādī declared the document a forgery. 97 This document remains of great interest to the ʿulamāʾ of the period. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 750/1350) collects judgments that discredit it on a total of ten points. His argument definitively refers back to the eye-witness evaluation of the document during the time of al-Baghdādī. 98 The sheer extent of this effort of discreditation This document is also discussed in Chapter 3 as part of the history of the dhimmat Allāh clause. 96 Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhūrī, Futūḥ al-buldān, ed. ʿAbd Allāh Anīs Ṭabbāʿ and ʿUmar Anīs al-Ṭabbāʿ (Beirut: Dār al-nashr li-l-jāmiʿīn, 1377/1957) 78–81. 97 Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Khalīl b. Aybak al-Ṣafadī, Kitāb al-wāfī bi-l-wafayāt, ed. Hellmut Ritter (Istanbul: Maṭbaʿat al-dawla, 1931) 44–45. 98 Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr Ibn Qayyim alJawziyya, Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyya 1995) I: 22–23. 95

4. PERSONS

245

illustrates the subversive threat such documents could constitute when in the hands of subalterns, particularly when these subalterns are non-Muslims. The existence of these documents constitutes an autonomous claim to truth, offering testimony of a direct connection to the Prophet, not granted or mediated by the scholarly elite but preserved and passed down by the subalterns themselves. Ultimately, this testimony can have an empowering and selfdefining function as claim to social legitimacy for the subaltern. While the document is outside the physical and cultural control of elites, it yet simultaneously lays a powerful claim to authority within the constructed parameters of meaning and validity set out by them. Despite the famous rejection of the document for the Jews of Khaybar, it was ostensibly of such significance to them that Jewish communities nonetheless maintained their traditions on it, and for this we have documentary evidence. A paper copy of a version of this document survives from the Cairo Geniza, on a sheet including other traditions on the status of the Jews of Khaybar and Maqnā and their intimacy with the Prophet. 99 That marginalized populations maintained collections of documents for use as defense and for claims of legitimacy is corroborated by documentary finds. Marina Rustow notes the link between chancery documents as models, the maintenance of archives, and the defense of dhimmī communities. Christian and Jewish institutions are among the best of our sources for documents from medieval Islam. 100 The Faṭimid period archival documents published by S. M. Stern are mostly to non-Muslim communities. Stern notes, “It is hardly a coincidence that these documents were preserved by non-Muslim communities: they

Hartwig Hirschfeld, “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Geniza at Cambridge,” Jewish Quarterly Review 15/2 (1903): 167–180. 100 Marina Rustow, “A Petition to a Woman at the Fatimid Court (413– 414 A.H./1022–23 C.E.),” BSOAS, 17/1 (2010): 24. 99

246

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

had a sort of corporative existence which assured to them a greater continuity than that common to Muslim institutions.” 101 These traditions thus retain traces of cultural activities centered not on textual content but on physical objects and attendant claims of status and security. The participants in these activities are those who are excluded from the classical definitions of a Companion or reputable transmitters. The accounts simply identify them as anonymous Bedouin or groups of religious minorities. Accounts of the evaluation of these documents by the ʿulamāʾ and their presentation in ḥadīth literature itself serve to pointedly transfer any authority accruing to the documents to the Companions and to the ʿulamāʾ as transmitters and authenticators of ḥadīth. Yet at the same time these accounts allow us to trace the documents’ function as carriers of personal (familial, tribal, and communal) memories of contact with the Prophet. They allow us to see ḥadīth outside of its institutionalized setting, found at the edges of traditionalist conception.

HIERARCHIES OF PERSONS AND OF TEXTS

The status of documents within ʿulūm al-ḥadīth literature occurs as a category of material received from the Prophet within the context of lived experience, and intimacy. In his Madkhal ilā maʿrifat al-iklīl al-Naysābūrī (d. 403/1012) outlines the first category of what scholars agree on as sound concerning material attributed to the Prophet. He arrives at a total number of traditions (about ten thousand), based on stipulations that a reputable Companion transmits from the Prophet, having two trustworthy transmitters, then a Follower with a reputation for transmission from that Companion transmits from him, also having two trustworthy transmitters. Then a well-known master (ḥāfiẓ) from among the Followers of the Followers transmits the report, having trustworthy transmitters from the fourth class. Then al-Bukhārī or Muslim collects the report, as masters with reputations of transmission from the fourth class of transmitters. 101

Stern, Fatimid Decrees, 4.

4. PERSONS

247

The total number of traditions from the Prophet must initially have been much greater, as four thousand Companions transmitted from him, individuals who associated with him for more than twenty years in Mecca, then in Medina. Al-Naysābūrī provides a revealing list of the types of material all of these Companions have obtained from the Prophet: They committed to heart from him his words and deeds, his sleeping and his waking, his movements and his quiescence, his rising up and his sitting down, his striving and his worship, his manner of life and his expeditions, his lessons and his jesting, his rebuke and his preaching, his eating and his drinking, his walking and his remaining still, his sporting with his family and his training of his horse, his letters to Muslims and polytheists, his treaties and covenants (wakutubihi ilā l-muslimīn wa-l-mushrikīn wa-ʿuhūdihi wamawāthiqihi), his glances, his breaths, and his characteristics… This is apart from what they committed to heart from him of the statutes of the sharīʿa, what they asked concerning religious duties and things permitted and forbidden, and the disputes which they brought to him. 102

Here the documents are something one receives from simply knowing the Prophet and are not part of the strictly controlled material that becomes ḥadīth. They are clearly divided from legal issues and questions concerning ritual, the forbidden, and the permitted. Al-Naysābūrī’s subsequent definition of a Companion includes those who were consistently in the presence of the Prophet and participated in major events, stating that no transmission was received from those who resided in the desert: “These Companions were the transmitters except so far as they were kept away from him and died before him and were killed in his presence in the ranks, or lived in the desert and no transAl-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, An Introduction to the Science of Tradition: alMadḫal ilā maʿrifat al-iklīl, trans. James Robson (London: The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1953) 15 (English translation), 12 (Arabic text). 102

248

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

mission or tradition has appeared from such.” 103 It is precisely these excluded persons who are responsible for reports of many of the Prophet’s documents. Occasionally, the sources will place a document from the Prophet in association with other objects that are famous relics with transformative and curative properties. Al-Muqaddasī (d. 381/991) records that the mantle of the Prophet (received in Tabūk in 9 A.H.) and a treaty of his on parchment are kept in Adhruḥ. 104 The Prophet’s letter granting concessions to the Jews of Ayla was kept along with the Prophet’s cloak. 105 Al-Sakhāwī’s (d. 902/1497) account of Ibn al-Zamān (d. 897/1492) reflects the later “Middle Period” (12th–16th centuries C.E.) culture of the Prophet’s documents being placed within the same class as other relics and used to coalesce popular pilgrimage and institutionalized learning. 106 Ibn al-Zamān was given by a holy man an imprint of the footprint, hair, and a letter of the Prophet scribed al-Nīsābūrī, Madkhal, 16. Daniella Talmon-Heller, Islamic Piety in Medieval Syria: Mosques, Cemeteries, and Sermons under the Zangids and Ayyūbids (1146–1260) (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 203. 105 Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 643–1099, trans. Ethel Broido (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 29, n. 25 citing alDiyārbakrī’s Tārīkh al-khamīs fī aḥwāl anfas nafīs al-balad al-amīn, Ibn ʿAsākir’s Tārīkh madīnat Dimashq, and Ibn al-Athīr’s al-Kāmil fī l-tārīkh. 106 Jonathan Berkey, Joseph Meri, and Daniella Talmon-Heller have shown us that the “Middle Period” sees the development of a social and cultural relationship between relics and hadīth transmission and patronage. Berkey and Meri both write on the spatial overlap between popular use of special objects and the institutionalized transmission of learning. See Jonathan P. Berkey, “Tradition, Innovation and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Medieval Islamic Near East,” Past & Present, 146 (Feb. 1995): 38–65. Meri, however, argues that such activities are not properly “popular culture” due to the constraints placed on popular access to relics, which were owned by the elite who regulated their public viewings and because public access also depended on entry to madrasas and shrines, see Joseph W. Meri, The Cult of Saints Among Muslims and Jews in Medieval Syria (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002) 111. 103 104

4. PERSONS

249

by Shuraḥbīl b. Ḥasana, which he placed in his madrasa in Cairo. 107 In contrast, family isnāds and traditions of the preservation of these documents illustrate the existence of vibrant localized traditions on these documents at the pre-compilation stage, rather than the more general use of the documents as relics of the Prophet.

WHAT IS LITERACY?

The earliest sources assume that the society surrounding the Prophet exhibited a certain level of literacy, with particular individuals being known for having the ability to write. Corroboration of reports across sīra and rījāl literature in order to compile lists of literate Companions reveals that these sources relate writing abilities to administrative and diplomatic roles rather than equating literacy as morally or scripturally threatening. Nor is there any necessary relation conceived between Companionship, literacy, and ḥadīth transmission. Biographical material on those Companions who are cited as scribes of the Prophet or as literate in Ibn Saʿd’s Ṭabaqāt by the formula, “he used to write in Arabic before Islam while writing was rare among the Arabs” (kānā… yaktubu bi-l-ʿarabiyya qabla l-islām, wa-kānat alkitāba fī-l-ʿarab qalīlan), shows that most of them are linked with other administrative and record-keeping duties, including calculation and collection of taxes, treasury, or spoils, under the Prophet and sometimes also under the first three Caliphs. 108 These are the individuals who facilitated the transfer of docuMeri, “Relics,” 112, citing al-Sakhāwī’s Al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ. See the Appendix to this chapter. See also the lists of scribes and those who could write compiled by Claude Gilliot, “Oralité et écriture dans la genèse, la transmission et la fixation du Coran,” in Oralité et Écriture dans la Bible et la Coran, ed. Phillipe Cassuto and Pierre Larcher (Marseille: Aix-Marseille Université, Presses Universitaires de Provence, 2014) 101–15; and Michael Lecker, “Zayd b. Ṯābit, ‘A Jew with Two Sidelocks’: Judaism and Literacy in Pre-Islamic Medina (Yathrib),” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 56/4 (1997): 67–71.

107 108

250

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ments between the Prophet and the tribal recipients, their names recurring in the scribal clauses of quotations of the documents. The larger context assumed by the early sources on reports of these documents is thus of a scribal society in which access to texts was available to the illiterate through skilled individuals who produced and recited the contents of legal documents. On the Prophet’s actual involvement in the production of these documents, the reports depict the activities of authorship and drawing up of documents as interpersonal and collective. According to these traditions, the Prophet generally “authored” these texts through dictating them to a scribe. More necessary than elegant writing, these scribes must have had a familiarity with documentary formulae, which provided a template requiring only the raw material such as personal and place-names in order to generate a legally recognized grant of land or of safeconduct. We should thus consider literacy as the power to activate an expert and professional knowledge in the service of social requirements. The formulae of these documents had to be familiar and applicable to the social and legal contexts of various communities. 109 Some formulaic elements in documentary texts overlap with those found in early Arabic graffiti even while graffiti are far less systematic, further nuancing the question of the extent of literacy and the audience for written (and orally recited) texts. Frédéric Imbert has called attention to how much the act of writing itself is a subject of early Arabic graffiti. Katabt may occur as the first word in graffiti (see Imbert’s discussion of a graffito from 23/643 and one from 24/644), or even as a signature scribal clause such as katabt bi-yadī or katabt bi-khaṭṭī. A graffito at the Temple of Bel in Palmyra, dated 110/728, for example, states “I wrote this text with my hand,” hādhā kitab katabtu-hu bi-yadī (unedited graffiti surveyed by F. Imbert, Palmyra, Temple of Bel, January 2009). Frédéric Imbert, “Réflexions sur les forms de l’écrit à l’aube de l’Islam,” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42 (2012): 119– 120. My thanks to Ludwig Ruault for drawing my attention to these overlaps. 109

4. PERSONS

251

Those who read these documents are generally distinct from their recipients and also from their carriers/messengers. Explicit identification of readers occurs less frequently in accounts of the Prophet’s documents than references to readers being sought or documents being read (use of the passive construction, quriʾa). Reports which include some description of the presentation of the message assume that the message was orally delivered and that its delivery was not identified with verbatim recitation of the text of the document. That they are identified by name alludes to the status of the messengers, independent of any writing and reading skills. For example, after receiving a document (on a leather piece, fī qiṭʿati adīmin) from the Prophet, the people of Dūma could not find a reader for it (fa-lam najid aḥadan yaqraʾuhu ʿalaynā). 110 A document to the Bakr b. Wāʾil could not be read until a man from the Banū Dabīʿa b. Rabīʿa arrived. 111 A document communicating a judgment from the Prophet to Muṭarraf al-Māzini, “was read to him,” fa-quriʾa ʿalayhi. 112 The text of a document for ʿUbāda b. al-Ashyab also uses the passive construction for reading, stating that those to whom it is read are required to obedience: “Those to whom this document of mine is read and do not obey, they will have no succor from God,” fa-man quriʾa ‘alayhi kitabī hādhā fa-lam yutīʿu fa-laysa lahu mina llāh maʿūna. 113 ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀs was sent in 8 A.H. to Jayfar and ʿAbd of the Julanda, with a written and sealed invitation to Islam by the Prophet. ʿAmr reports that when the brothers accepted Islam, they allowed him to collect the tax and to govern among them. 114 The rulers themselves read the letter, according to ʿAmr’s report, which states that he handThe text of the document is quoted but becomes paraphrased towards the end as the diction changes: “demarcate the mosques thus and thus…” wa khaṭṭū l-masājid kadhā wa kadhā. 111 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 31. 112 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, V/i: 36–37. 113 Izz al-Din b. al-Athir, ʿUsd al-ghāba fi maʾrifat al-sahāba, 5 vols., ed. Khalīl Maʾmūn Shīḥā (Beirut: Dar al-Maʿrifa, 1997) II: 539 no. 2786. 114 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 18. 110

252

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ed the letter to one, who broke the seal and read it to the end: fa-fadda khātimahu fa-qaraʾahu hattā intahā ilā ākhirihi, after which he handed it to his brother who read it in the same way: dafaʿahu ilā akhīhi fa-qaraʾahu mithla qirāʾatihi. 115 The report emphasizes the recipients’ ability to read perhaps because it was unusual. Likewise, there is no indication that the messenger alAʿlā b. al-Ḥaḍramī, identified as serving the Prophet as a scribe elsewhere, 116 read out the document he carried from the Prophet. Instead, here and elsewhere he seems to have been entrusted with a messenger-text. Appointed as a messenger to al-Mundhir b. Sāwā, al-Aʿlā is given instructions to remain in Baḥrayn if the response to his invitation to al-Mundhir to convert to Islam is positive, then to wait until he receives orders from the Prophet, and to collect the ṣadaqa and distribute it among the poor. AlAʿlā requests a document to aid him: “Then write for a me a document that I could keep with me,” fa-aktub lī kitaban yakūna maʿī. The Prophet wrote for him concerning the taxes on camels, cattle, sheep, cultivated land, gold, and silver. The document is not quoted. 117 In some reports of correspondence with the Prophet, messengers are named or mentioned formulaically within the text of the documents, but the reports make no explicit mention of the messengers engaging in any reading or recitation, although some of these individuals are cited elsewhere as being able to write. For example, the text of the Prophet’s letter to the Negus of Abyssinia names his messengers, requesting their good treatment. 118 A document to the people of Ayla names the messenIbn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 18. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 23; 24. 117 Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ṭūlūn al-Dimashqī (880– 953/1473–1546) Iʿlām al-sāʾilīn ʿan kutub sayyid al-mursalīn (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1983) 57–59, who has the report from al-Zaylaʿī’s Takhrīj aḥadīth al-hādiya in which he cites al-Wāqidī’s Kitāb al-ridda. 118 Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed ibn Djarir at-Tabari, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964–65) III: 1569. 115 116

4. PERSONS

253

gers, before the closing. 119 A reply of the Prophet to Farwa b. ʿAmr mentions in greeting, “Your messenger reached us, and conveyed what you sent him with (wa-ballagha mā arsalta bihi), and informed as to your situation, and offered us your greeting.” 120 The Prophet wrote to the people of Yemen informing them about the regulations of Islam and the taxes, with orders to deal well with his messengers, Muʿādh b. Jabal, identified as a scribe of the Prophet elsewhere, 121 and Mālik b. Murara. 122 The role of the messenger is not as decoder of text but as carrier of the sender’s authority and oral message. This comparison of the occurrence of names of scribes, of readers of documents, and of messengers, shows that these are distinctive social functions even though some individuals did cross categories and played multiple roles. 123 The scribes and messengers are professionals versed in diplomatic etiquette. Literacy is an act of mobilizing and activating a set of codes, heavily based on memorization and diplomatic technical knowledge, while illiteracy does not prevent access to texts. Documents do not record or represent spoken agreements but can only exist Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 28–29. Ibid., I/ii: 31. 121 Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb al-Yaʿqūbī. Tārīkh (Beirut: Dār Sādir li-l-Ṭibāʾa wa-l-Nashr, 1960) II: 80. 122 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 20. 123 Comparably, in the Greco-Roman world it was not the secretary’s task to carry a message that he had aided in the composition of, nor did the servile roles of secretary and reader (lector) usually overlap. The carrier of a message did represent a personal link with the sender, as manifested in the genre of the recommendation, which could be a distinct document or occur at the end of a letter as a note on the trustworthiness of an unfamiliar carrier. The messenger was also responsible for providing oral information from the sender. A written message and oral report thus could conflict, sometimes because the messenger carried confidential information superseding the written message (E. Randolph Richards The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1991, 7–10). 119 120

254

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

within assigned formats and consist of formulae, and are not free-form. There is textual evidence for the Prophet’s basic ability to read, as for example in the tradition from Sahl b. al-Ḥanẓaliyya concerning the documents for ʿUyayna and al-Aqraʿ which were written in the Prophet's presence by Muʿāwiya. Medieval Islamic tradition does not accord the Prophet more than poorly executed writing. Al-Ṭabarī (d. ca. 310/923) repeats al-Bukhārī’s judgment that the Prophet wrote “Muḥammad” in the opening to the Treaty of Ḥudaybiya when his scribe ʿAlī refused to erase the title rasūl Allāh (“prophet of God”) at the request of the Meccans, while “he did not write well,” wa-huwa lā yuḥsinu lkitāba. 124 Thus Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) defines ummī, taken by most modern and later medieval Islamic scholars to denote illiteracy, 125 as a lack or minimum of skill in writing. Ibn Qutayba argues that apart from ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, the Companions of the Prophet were ummīyūn, since only a few could write, and that only imprecisely and with spelling errors. 126 This assessment is no different from describing a scribal society in which literacy is a skill set combining manual and legal knowledge exhibited only by a few publicly known individuals. al-Ṭabarī, Annales, III: 1548–549. Isaiah Goldfeld shows that the concept of the Prophet’s illiteracy developed not before the first half of the second Islamic century and as part of the exegetical discussion which also included illiteracy as “a national trait of the pre-Islamic Arabs (Ummah Ummiyyah),” in order to support the claim of the complete inspiration and originality of the Prophet. See Isaiah Goldfeld, “The Illiterate Prophet (Nabī Ummī): An Inquiry into the development of a dogma in Islamic tradition,” Der Islam 57 (1980): 58. Cf. Norman Calder, “The Ummī in Early Islamic Juristic Literature,” Der Islam 67 (1990): 115–119, who argues that ummī may be a naturalization of the Rabbinical ʿam ha-ares in denoting ignorant insider, either one ignorant of or not practicing purity laws or ignorant of scripture. 126 Khalil ʿAthamina, “‘Al-Nabiyy al-Ummiyy’: An Inquiry into the Meaning of a Qurʾanic verse,” Der Islam 69 (1992): 78. 124 125

4. PERSONS

255

In this context, the Prophet’s documents are conceived as ordinary, pragmatic texts and objects.

CONCLUSION: ḤADĪTH AS SOCIAL OBJECT

Interactions between written texts and audience within an oral field exhibit what Alessandro Duranti calls, in several of his works, a “local theory of meaning.” In his studies of the intersection of intention and speech acts in Samoa, Duranti sees that Interpretation is not conceived as the speaker’s privilege. On the contrary, it is based on the ability (and power) that others may have to invoke certain conventions, to establish links between different acts and different social personae. Meaning is collectively defined on the basis of recognized (and sometimes restated) social relationships. 127

Linguistic anthropology provides the insight that conversations are not free-form but negotiations of convention. Conversation analysis “has shown that even the apparently most ritualized acts of speaking, e. g. the beginning of telephone conversations, involve negotiations and must be cooperatively worked out,” 128 while child language studies reveal that propositions can be produced across turns and speakers. Cross-cultural studies of language, intention, and meaning thus emphasize that once a proposition has been uttered, authorship, that is, who said what, “is defined on the basis of the local conventions for assigning responsibility and agency.” 129 Textual coherence, meaning, and authenticity in an oral field are functions of multiplicity and are polyphonic, but they are also controlled by convention. Texts are social products, and not individual utterances, and their truth and authenticity are Alessandro Duranti, “The Audience as Co-Author: an Introduction,” Text 6/3 (1986): 241. 128 Ibid., 242. 129 Ibid. See also Alessandro Duranti, “Sociocultural Dimensions of Discourse,” in Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. I. T. A. van Dijk (New York: Academic Press, 1985) 192–230. 127

256

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

assessed on multiple varying social scales. The meaning of the Prophet’s documents is established through the conventions of the medieval Islamic scholarly community through its work of identifying agents, authors, and transmitters. The subaltern persons in these reports, though found in the canons of traditionalist literature, are not Companions and well-known transmitters but include unnamed Bedouin and non-Muslims. In their use of the documents as “ḥadīth-objects,” their interest in claims of contact with the Prophet thus remains visible even while the constraints of the genre and scholastic discourse do not allow these figures to be entered into the category of Companion and ḥadīth transmitter. While these reports are self-consciously geared toward recording the intentions of the Prophet, in effect they record a web of social relationships formed between tradition compilers and tribal informants, and they retain traces of the value that a certain audience placed on physical descriptions of documents from the Prophet. That audience was probably distinct from the audience and readership that developed around authorized narratives of the Prophet’s life and ḥadīth compilations. The traces of this other tradition and other audience reflect the concerns of individuals, families, and tribes who were lower on the social scale and sought to locate themselves somewhere within the narrative of the Prophet’s life due to the real and perceived social benefits of such connection. The Prophet’s documents thus function within two distinct ritualized and conventional settings in which they were passed down, seen, heard, and attached to persons and to narratives. As we have seen, reports on the documents privilege information on their physical materials as well as tribal identification of their possessors and carriers. It is within this field of memories transmitted by families that the documents were primarily sensible. Over time, however, the meaning of the Prophet’s documents became embodied in the isnād rather than in communally shared accounts of possession and preservation of the physical artifacts. Some reports, such as the award to al-Ḥārith b. Muslim al-Tamīmī and the alms petitions and grants of safe-conduct and security to unnamed Bedouin cited in the works of Ibn Saʿd, Ibn

4. PERSONS

257

Ḥanbal, and Abū Dāwūd exhibit the transition between a culture that centered on possession of a document as a legal and social claim to a culture in which visual confirmation of a document served only as an occasion for transmitting ḥadīth. Here, Eerik Dickinson’s point on “elevated isnāds,” coming into play when ḥadīth transmission is no longer emblematic of a vibrant physical link, is relevant. To later transmitters of ḥadīth, following the compilation of the canonical collections in the third and fourth Islamic centuries, authenticity of ḥadīth became linked with inclusion in earlier written compilations. “If one was no longer required to obtain a text by the approved methods and the aim of collecting ḥadīth was no longer to authenticate them, what drove the continued oral transmission of texts?” 130 The answer is the charismatic value of ḥadīth; but unlike relics, Dickinson states, in ḥadīth transmission pious association was necessarily mediated. This led to an equation made by such scholars as Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (d. 643/1245) of “elevated” isnāds, that is, shorter chains of transmission featuring fewer mediators between oneself and the Prophet, with fewer opportunities for error in transmission. “Elevation made time elastic and gave those unlucky enough to have been born late the opportunity to enjoy the spiritual superiority of earlier generations.” Thus the isnād, “which had once served to guarantee the authenticity of the ḥadīth as it was passed down from generation to generation, both documented and quantified the believer’s remoteness from the object of his desire.” 131 The reports investigated here preserve an element of what ḥadīth meant to the non-scholars, the non-elite, the non-literate. The traditionalist production itself can serve to elucidate the non-canonical or even pre-canonical social arena in which ḥadīth was a complex cultural object asserting status and protection within a community. These communal traditions on the Eerik Dickinson, “Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ al-Shahrazūrī and the Isnād,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 122/3 (Jul. – Sep., 2002): 489. 131 Ibid., 504–505. 130

258

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Prophet’s documents as objects thus destabilizes the notion of ḥadīth as text.

CONCLUSION.

THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS There are no originals for the documents of the Prophet, since their author is neither the Prophet nor a scribe but custom, which constrains both what can be expressed and how it is transmitted. Each document is not a particular text but an iteration of a template. Variance, as it remains unmarked by the medieval transmitters of these texts, does not threaten their notions of authenticity or historicity. Where and how variance does tend to occur, in individual details while maintaining the structural integrity of the formula, attests to the longevity and social familiarity and functionality of the formulae. Even claims of the survival of original documents are not claims to the unique authentic status of the document. Truth is not a function of the integrity of a single unit transferred in a linear fashion over time, but the product of copying and repetition, activities which also serve to disseminate formulaic text (and diplomatic and legal language). Documents are made to do work. Gaps, repetitions, and spaces are productive. Documents are a technology that is not just verbal but structural. In the context in which they are used, practitioners can tell at a glance what they are meant to do. Even documents cited in literary sources can be surveyed for these formulaic, highly structural elements. This technology consists of linguistic and spatial patterns that are not reflective of any singular culture, society, or language, but the multilateral interactions of several in a network mapped by language use, legal tradition, diplomacy, and trade. 259

260

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

The Arabic formulae of the Prophet’s documents may most accurately be understood as a locally embedded item of trade, an example of “glocalization,” a term that has found traction in recent understanding of pre-modern long-distance trade. 1 Ancient long-distance trade may be mapped, not as the linear and unidirectional transfer of commodities along a route, but, as Rachel Mairs describes it, a number of convergences of items and meanings that are produced at the same time as they are consumed. Mairs traces the exchange of lapis lazuli, Buddhism, and the story of the Trojan horse in Hellenistic and Roman West Asia on a network in which “there is no centre, and no periphery. There are also no transit points that are not themselves intimately involved as producers, consumers, and reinventors of things and ideas.” 2 Her description converges with the image given in the opening lines of Wansbrough’s Lingua Franca: “Extrapolated from mariners’ charts and envoys’ reports, a 16th century map of the Mediterranean would be heavily inked with the traces of movement. That network of routes and terminals exhibits the accumulated expertise of at least three millennia, possibly more were the record accessible.” 3 This communications network map is not a snapshot of a moment in time but a product of continuity, displacement, adjustment, renewal. Mairs and Wansbrough treat items of trade as both the causes and products of networks. The most consistent formulae found across the corpus of the Prophet’s documents include elements that are distinctive of The term is from Robert J. Holton’s Globalization and the Nation-State (London: Macmillan, 1998). See Mairs’ discussion of “the tension between global integration and regional cultural diversity in the ancient world” and her review of these developments in material culture studies and archaeology, in Rachel Mairs, “Lapis Lazuli, Homer, and the Buddha: Material and ideological exchange in West Asia (c. 250 BCE200 CE),” in ed. Tamar Hodos, The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization (London: Routledge) 887–888. 2 Mairs, “Lapis Lazuli,” 888. 3 John Wansbrough, Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1996) 1. 1

CONCLUSION

261

the Arabic documentary tradition in contrast to contemporary legal cultures such as Coptic and Greek. Eva Grob calls the prescript, a feature of both the Prophet’s documents and early Arabic papyri letters, “indigenous Arab,” as it is absent in the epistolography of Coptic, Greek of the Arabic period, Bactrian, South Arabian, and Pahlavi. 4 The amma baʿdu transition marker is also not found in the Greek of early bilingual Arabic/Greek papyri, but a transition marker is found in earlier corpora in Semitic languages including Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Sabaic. The monumental opening with a demonstrative pronoun in the Prophet’s documents similarly matches cuneiform Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Early and Middle Sabaic, but not Phoenician, Aramaic, or Hebrew letters. Formulae that are highly consistent and occur frequently in the corpus of the Prophet’s documents include the stand-alone scribal clause in legal documents, the anterior placement of the salām… hudā greeting, and the legal clauses dhimmat Allāh wa-dhimmat rasūlihi, lā yuʿsharūna wa-lā yuḥsharūna, and lā yuḥāqquhu fīhā aḥadun. These closely resemble, but do not exactly match, formulae in early Arabic legal and administrative documents, and find no resemblances with the post-third/ninth century “watershed” developments in Arabic documents. In a larger comparative socio-legal context, the dhimmat Allāh clause can only be understood in relation to formulations of inviolability, curse clauses and other invocations of a federal deity found in inscriptions in Nabataean, Ancient North Arabian languages, and South Arabian languages. In the Prophet’s documents, this clause unequivocally references personal and territorial inviolability and not the boundaries of confessional communities or taxation, concepts that later jurisprudential discussions of dhimma circle around. These formulae, and the larger structures formed by sets of formulae (formularies), are maintained through literary transEva Mira Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters on Papyrus: Form and Function, Content and Context. Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 29 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010) 39. 4

262

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

mission. Redactions of the documents exhibit the integrity of the formula as a unit, as variants either omit a formula or extend or collapse it by using other formulaic elements. The structures supporting transmission and preservation of these texts are rooted not in the flux of individual authorship, nor in historiographical themes and narratives, but in scribal and legal custom. The variants found are not arbitrary or linked to individual redactors or to narrative convention and needs. Variance displayed by these texts tells us less about change over time than about how text is visualized. Documentary text is highly redundant, repetitive, prepatterned and formulaic, features that it shares with conversations. Simple syntax and modular structures facilitate the production of these texts, their use, and their transmission by memory. These features also serve to tag text as intended for transmission, indexed to long-term memory and legal tradition. These pre-existing patterns for documents were accessible to the compilers of historiographical texts. The variants found in redactions of the Prophet’s documents, since they trace the contours of the documentary tradition by maintaining formulae and do not feature copyists’ errors resulting from visual confusion, indicate that literary transmission of early documents is not based on copying originals, but on memory-based knowledge and reproduction of historical and existing legal custom. What we are seeing here is not currency, not formulae that simply match or correspond with the legal context of a redactor or a transmitter, but the salience of long-held forms that see refinements and shifts over a great deal of time and which reference not only a single linguistic and cultural context but several interacting and multi-linguistic contexts. A significant amount of the body of a document, including detailed legal provisions specific to cases, is not easily conveyed in this culture of transmission. The stability of formulaic text in literary transmission also does not apply to individualized details including personal- and place-names. Personalized elements are less stable than formulae and other textual conventions, which are more archaic and socially diffuse. Significant elements of content can be changed without the legal nature of the

CONCLUSION

263

document being altered. Here archaism should be understood not as linear historical age but social depth and diffusion which causes the formulae to surface in different languages and locations over time. We may not yet have the tools to understand this longevity, and we are hampered by our own epistemologies, including the influence of modern jurisprudential concepts which are based on state structures and are inapplicable to non-state-based law. Studies of modern Bedouin law illustrate the longevity of legal formulae and suggest that social structures maintain these formulae over centuries. As Paul Dresch notes, this longevity and its dependence on social structures are difficult to explain by our current historical and anthropological methods. 5 Even with archaeological evidence, Zofia Archibald notes, long-distance contacts and social networks are difficult to establish in any detail. 6 However, there may be evidence for these contacts where we least expect it, deep within the identityforming narratives of the Prophet’s life, even if we do not understand yet how to reconstruct the dynamics of these relationships. Tracking the dhimmat Allāh clause has shown that security agreements under the Prophet were necessarily mapped onto an existing system of mutually recognized sanctuaries, which correPaul Dresch, “Aspects of Non-State Law: Early Yemen and Perpetual Peace,” in Legalism: Anthropology and History, eds. Paul Dresch and Hannah Skoda (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012) 145–172. 6 Zofia Archibald makes this point regarding reconstructing Hellenistic economies with an interest in not only local but international aspects. She notes that the “short perspective” offered by political histories or histories of conquests provides limited evidence for meetings between individuals across state lines, and that investigating an institution such as the Greek xenia can offer more. Via xenia, which were sometimes granted by sanctuaries, individuals could form “quasi-familial” relationships across state boundaries. Zofia Archibald, “Making the most of one’s friends: Western Asia Minor in the early Hellenistic Age,” in Zofia H. Archibald, John Davies, Vincent Gabrielsen, and Graham Oliver, eds. Hellenistic Economies (London: Routledge, 2001): 245–70 at 260–62. 5

264

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

sponded with existing trade routes and markets. The dhimmat Allāh clause occurs in documents negotiating rights to land and other resources, tithes, military aid, and self-governance, including those documents granted to the major nodes in the commercial network, including Ayla, Dūmat al-Jandal, and Najrān, in the document that declares an area of Medina as sanctuary and refuge, and in the document granting major concessions to aṬāʾif, though here it does not make direct reference to the recognition of al-Ṭāʾif’s sanctuary. Aziz al-Azmeh has written about this network as one of trade, secure passage, coded patterns of interaction, levies, socio-political transactions, services, poetry, and the circulation of imperial cultures: markets can be seen to have acted not only as nodes for the distribution of goods and services, but, like the courts of the Naṣrids and the Jafnids, as nodes of accumulating familiarity, skills, negotiations, knowledge of imperial domains, and Arab dynasties further north, and broadening knowledge horizons. 7

Did this network include movement to the North Arabian and Mesopotamian sanctuaries, such as Palmyra and Hatra which also hosted Arabian deities? What were sanctuaries’ relationships with each other and did they recognize each other? 8 What was the extent of inter-communal and inter-religious aspects of pilgrimages to these sanctuaries, given patterns of mobility and the draw of the market? As al-Azmeh writes, “These places acted… as centres for long-term ritual accumulation, and hence of trans-regional sanctity, hallowed territory generally recognized, according to socio-geographical and political mechanisms.” 9 Joy Aziz al-Azmeh, The Emergence of Islam in Late Antiquity: Allāh and his people (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) 138. 8 See al-Azmeh’s detailed map of “Arab cultic locations c. 600 according to Ibn al-Kalbī” which includes Jewish and Christian sites and sanctuaries mapped onto tribal territories. Al-Azmeh, The Emergence of Islam, 174–175. 9 Ibid., 251. 7

CONCLUSION

265

McCorriston, whose history of Hadrami pilgrimage returns to the Neolithic period, and Andrey Korotayev, Vladimir Klimenko, and Dmitry Proussakov in their work on sixth century Arabia, have argued convincingly for pilgrimage, long-distance trade, and the managing of pastoral populations as syncretized and central to the organization of resources under the ancient Arabian kingdoms, 10 while Harry Munt, Aziz al-Azmeh, and Christian Décobert, among others, have argued that maintaining existing sanctuary complexes was central to politics under the Prophet. 11 Sanctuaries are institutions which require a type of governance that is integrated with but at the same time external to and sometimes even outlives empire. 12 The physical structures of Andrey Korotayev, Vladimir Klimenko, and Dmitry Proussakov, “Origins of Islam: Political-Anthropological and Environmental Context,” Acta Orientalia Academia Scientiarum Hungaricae 52 (3–4) (1999): 243– 276 at 248–50; Joy McCorriston, Pilgrimage and Household in the Ancient Near East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 59, 68. For the confluence of trade and pilgrimage in regions further north and under Roman control, see John Berkeley Grout, The Role of Palmyrene Temples in Long-Distance Trade in the Roman Near East (PhD Diss., Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London, 2016) 167– 75 ff. Grout provides evidence for Palmyrene temples contributing to networks of trust, and providing commercial space and physical and legal infrastructure supporting long-distance trade during the Roman period. See also T. J. Wilkinson, “Linear Hollows in the Jazira, Upper Mesopotamia,” Antiquity 67/256 (Sept. 1993): 548–62 for how, for the Jazira, aerial photography allows us to see the remains of “hollow ways,” the remains of ancient routes traveled by humans and livestock between settlements that have become geological features. 11 Harry Munt, The Holy City of Medina: Sacred Space in Early Islamic Arabia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) 62; Aziz alAzmeh, The Emergency of Islam in Late Antiquity: Allāh and his people (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) 221, 250–51; and Christian Décobert, Le mendiant et le combattant: l’institution de l’islam (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1991) 172. 12 See Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) for the epigraph10

266

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

sanctuaries compose the law and are immediately recognizable and legible regardless of whether or not their regulations are displayed in inscriptions. This is a law external to state apparatus and compelled by popular involvement and mobility. The conceit behind the literary accounts of the Prophet’s letters to kings, in fact all of the documents attributed to him, is just this. These are not simply statements of dominance and claims to theological superiority. They have been transmitted because of an operating assumption of the necessity of interregional contacts and recognitions, a long Ancient Near Eastern tradition, and they are recognizable as belonging to a highly formalized and to some extent to an inter-regional tradition of law and negotiation. They do not in themselves provide evidence, especially barring archaeological evidence, of exactly what these connections and exchanges consisted of. But they do immediately widen the field of nascent Islam, and of early Islamic narrative sources. Formulaic conventions are the result of millennia of development through inter-cultural exchange and exhibit shared cultural constructs of responsibilities and obligations. 13 There is no single factor or cause responsible for the development of chancery practice, which is generated by mutual expectations, “by contact, stipulation and compromise, none of which is possible without a set of shared symbols.” 14 Wansbrough stresses that chancery developments can be tracked interculturally at the level of visual information, in the spatial layout of documents, and ic evidence for arrangements made by Hellenistic sanctuaries under Roman law, and McCorriston, Pilgrimage and Household, especially chapter 2, for documentation of pilgrimage forming a habitus which continues to function in the modern period in Yemen. Aziz al-Azmeh notes concerning Manbij (Hierapolis) that it served as a trans-regional pilgrimage destination in late antiquity “in a location not identified with any particular center of political control” (al-Azmeh, The Emergence of Islam, 250). 13 Wansbrough, Lingua Franca, 45. 14 Ibid., 140.

CONCLUSION

267

Grob similarly emphasizes that a documentary standard for Arabic papyri will be found at a macro-structural level, in “modular structures, patterns of sequences, possible combinations, defined discourses, and marked boundaries that give salience.” 15 These features allow us an entry into the mechanics and social practices that construct readability, legibility, and accessibility, which are necessary to the functioning of documentary culture and are wider than and not synonymous with literacy. For those producing and consuming the documents, more necessary than elegant handwriting was familiarity and facility with documentary formulae, the templates required in order to insert personal information into well-known structures and generate documents that were legally recognized across various communities. Literacy was the power to activate expert and professional knowledge in service of social requirements, mobilizing a set of codes based on memorization and diplomatic technique, combining bodily and legal knowledge. Literacy was also not the primary mode of access to these documents, especially for those who had the most intimate, vested interests in them. Claims of possessing physical originals or copies of the Prophet’s documents continue to circulate today just as they did in the medieval world. In the claims recorded by medieval ḥadīth collectors, it is not the strictly linguistic contents but the material nature and association with particular individuals and families that make the documents sensible and desirable. Minimalist reports that mention only the existence and physical characteristics of a document, as if the text were irrelevant, are not universally the result of oversight in transmission or the work of editors, but the remains of a tradition type that did nothing more than claim possession of a document and circulate personal stories of contact with the Prophet. The prestige of this claim persists regardless of whether or not the recipient is literate. These objects escape the traditionalist conception that standardizes the concept of ḥadīth as a verbal unit. 15

Grob, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters, 158.

268

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

They are artifacts from ḥadīth as it circulates outside of its institutionalized and authorized settings, and can be used to reconstruct claims by those marginalized in the Islamic polity and in learned tradition, and encourage us, if we were to write a narrative of the events these reports refer to, to write not one narrative but several, simultaneous and contradictory. Neither the transmission of physical documents from the Prophet nor of ḥadīth are limited to Muslims, and both can be sought in non-Muslim communities and in tribal traditions. Along with arguments that have already been made on a lack of centralized polity in nascent Islam and questions raised on whether “Islam” served strictly as a confessional identity, 16 these traditions on a documentary culture encourage us to revisit our definitions of law and of ḥadīth both. This book has been a users’ history of the Prophet’s documents, describing the tools of those who produced, circulated, reproduced, destroyed, and saved the documents. My claim that the formulae are archaic cannot be, or is not easily, synthesized into a singular narrative along with arguments for the nonhistoricity of the documents’ contents and contexts. But rather than evidence to support an explanation of events, the formulae are remains of long-lived infrastructures. We may not be able to envision these infrastructures comprehensively, but we may be able to plot the points of contact between overlapping fields of language use, legal customs, diplomatic norms, economic transactions, and everyday governance. Plotting use-value rather than events results in a historiographical map featuring not discourse and text but texture, density, traffic.

Saïd Arjomand, “The Constitution of Medina: A Sociolegal Interpretation of Muhammad’s Acts of Foundation of the ‘Umma’,” IJMES 41/4 (Nov., 2009): 555–75; Ella Landau-Tasseron, “From Tribal Society to Centralized Polity: An Interpretation of Events and Anecdotes of the Formative Period of Islam.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 24 (2000): 180–216.

16

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1: COMPARATIVE ARABIC EPISTOLARY AND LEGAL FORMULARIES, FROM LITERARY AND DOCUMENTARY SOURCES

LETTERS FROM LITERARY AND DOCUMENTARY SOURCES, WITH SHARED FORMULAE HIGHLIGHTED 1

1.1 The Prophet’s letter to the Negus of Abyssinia, as redacted by al-Ṭabarī 2 ‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح�� من ���د رسول ا��� ا�ى الن�ا�� ا����م مل� ا��بشة س�� انت فا�ى‬

‫ا��د اليك ا��� ا��ل� القدوس الس��م ا��ؤمن ا��هيمن و ا��د ان �ي�� �ن �� �� روح ا��� و‬ ��� ‫ك��ة القاها ا�ى �� �� لبتول الطيبة ا��صينة ��ملت بعي�� ��لقه ا��� من رو�ه و نف�ه‬

‫��� ادم بيده و نف�ه و ا�ى ادعوك ا�ى ا��� و�ده �� �� يك �� وا��وا��ة ��� طاعته و ان‬ Sigla used in editions of papyri texts: … illegible letters [ ] lacuna, number of missing letters indicated by periods within brackets [[ ]] erasures made by writer ( ) solutions to abbreviations made by editor < > words or letters supplied as correction by editor { } dittography ‘ ’ superscription 2 Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Annales quos scripsit, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Lugundi-Baavoruml: Brill, 1879–1965) III: 1569. 1

269

‫‪DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET‬‬

‫‪270‬‬

‫تتبع�ي و تؤمن با��ى �اء�ي فا�ى رسول اال�� و قد بعثت اليك ا�ن ��ى جعفرا و نفرا معه‬

‫من ا��س���ن فاذا �اءك فاقرهم ودع الت��� فا�ى ادعوك و جنودك ا�ى ا��� و قد بلغت و‬ ‫نصحت فاقب��ا نصحى و الس��م ا�ى من اتبع ا��دى‬

‫‪1.2 Letter from Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib in‬‬ ‫‪the year 38, as redacted by al-Ṭabarī 3‬‬ ‫��� ا��� ا����ن ا��ح�� لعبد ��� ��� ام�� ا��ؤمن�ن من ���د �ن ا�ي ب�� س��م �ليك فا�ي ا��د‬ ‫ا��� اليك ال��ي �� ا�� ���ه اما بعد فا�ي قد ا���ى ا�ي ��اب ام�� ا��ؤمن�ن ففهمته و ع�فت‬

‫ما فيه و ليس ا�د من الناس بأر�� م�ي ��أي ام�� ا��ؤمن�ن و �� اجهد ��� �دوة و ��‬

‫أرأف بوليه م�ي و قد ��جت فعس��ت وآمنت الناس ا�� من نصب لنا ��با و اظهر لنا‬

‫���فا و انا متبع ا�� ام�� ا��ؤمن�ن و �افظه و ملتجي اليه و قا�� به و ا��� ا��ستعان ��� ك�‬ ‫�ال و الس��م �ليك‬

‫‪1.3 Letter from Qurra b. Sharīk to the governor of‬‬ ‫‪Ishqawh/Aphrodito dated Rabīʿ al-Awwal year 90 (709 C.E.) 4‬‬ ‫‪ ��� 1‬ا��� ا����ن اﻟ]رح��[‬

‫‪] 2‬من قرة �ن �� يك[‬

‫‪] 3‬إ�ى صاﺣ[ب إشقوه فا�ي‬ ‫‪ 4‬أ��د ا��ّ� ا��ي �� إ��‬ ‫‪] 5‬ا�� هو[‬

‫‪ 6‬اما بعد ﻓ]ا[نظر ا��ي ك�‬

‫‪ 7‬ن ب�� ]ﻋ[�ى أسقف كور‬ ‫‪ 8‬تك مما فرض �ليه‬

‫‪ 9‬عبد ا]��ّ�[ �ن عبد ا��ل�‬ ‫‪] 10‬و[�� ا��ول فع�ل به‬

‫‪Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, I: 3395–6.‬‬ ‫‪P.Qurra 1.‬‬

‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫‪APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1‬‬

‫‪271‬‬ ‫‪ 11‬مع رسو�ي و]ر[سول ا��‬ ‫‪ 12‬سقف و�� تؤ��ن‬

‫‪ 13‬من تل� البقية قلي�� و��‬

‫‪ 14‬كث��ا والس�� ���‬

‫‪ 15‬ﻣ]ن[ اﺗﺒ]ﻊ[ ا��دى و‬

‫‪ 16‬وكتب �ي ��ر ر]بيع[‬

‫‪ 17‬ا��و]ل[ من سنة ��ع�ن‬

‫)‪(seal‬‬ ‫‪verso‬‬

‫‪ […] 1‬أهل ا��سقف إشقوه ��سابه ?‬

‫]?‪[official mark‬‬ ‫‪lll 2‬‬

‫‪1.4 Private letter sending greetings, 2nd/8th c. 5‬‬ ‫‪ ��� 1‬ا��� ا����ن]ا��ح[��‬

‫‪ 2‬لقسن �ن ���د من ]نع��[ �ن ��رة ]س��[ �ليك فا�ي‬

‫‪ 3‬ا��د اليك ]ا���[ ال��ي �� ا�� ]ا�� هو[‬

‫‪ 4‬اما بعد فانا ساﻠ]ﻣﻴ[ن صا����ن ��� ]ما[ ���ك‬ ‫‪ 5‬و ر��ا ���ود ��ال ا��� ��ام نعمته �لينا و‬

‫‪� 6‬ليك و ا�� يادة من فض�� و ا��زق ﺒ]ﻪ و[ �� و التوفيق‬

‫‪ 7‬فينا ����� و ��ضا‬

‫‪�� 8‬ال ا��� بك ا��تاع و �� بالض��]ع[ فانا �� ��ال �����‬ ‫‪ 9‬ما ابقاك ا��� لنا‬

‫‪ 10‬اكب اليك ]��� ما ﻴ[��ك وس��مة و س�� )?( و ما‬

‫‪ 11‬ك�ن ل� من �ا�ة قبلنا ] [ ا���‬

‫‪P.Khalili I 15 recto.‬‬

‫‪5‬‬

272

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET ‫[ ��ى ممن ﺣ] [ك ] [��م بامن‬. ]‫ و‬12 ‫ والس��م �ليك و ر��ت‬13

1.5 Letter of ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. Yaḥyā (d. 132/750), written on behalf of Marwān b. Muḥammad (d. 132/750), addressed to the Umayyad caliph Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 105–25/723–42) 6 ‫ن ام�� ا��ؤمن�ن ك�ن و�ّه م�� بنفر من القدر ية �ي ا��ند ا��ي ك�ن امدّ�ي ��م‬ ّ ‫اما بعد فا‬

‫وان ّه قد ظهر م��م من النية و القول مناز�ة ا��� �ي رزقه و ���� ا��� �ي ا���� ����ون من‬ ‫ليس ��� رأ��م تو� ّي ما هم �ليه ح�ى ظهر ذل� و انت�� و ��هت القدوم �ل��م با��طالبة‬

‫دون إ���م ام�� ا��ؤمن�ن �ا��م و إ��ا رأ��م ا��ي ارتأوه طائفة من رأي النصارى فيتشعب‬ ‫ا��ب و تضعيف قدرته و نق��م من د�ن ا��س��م‬ ّ ‫��م فيه فنون الك��م ا�ى توه�ن سلطان‬

‫وثائق ع�اه و قد ��� ذل� ��نع��م بال��دّد ��م وانا معا�لهم بالعقوبة ان �ادوا لتصغ�� ��ء‬

‫مماعظّم ا��� ان الشيطان ا��ا استد�اهم بصغار ا��مور ل��فعهم ا�ى ��ارها و ا��ا رغّ��م ليوقع‬ ‫��م �� يقع ��م و ����ّ� ع��م و انت ام�� ا��ؤمن�ن من ا��� ��ك�ن من حقّ �ليه النك�� �ل��م‬

‫والعقوب ��م وارجو ان ��ي ا��� ام�� ا��ؤمن�ن �ي ا��س��م واه�� احسن ما �ليه ني ّته و�� ّته‬

ّ ‫و ا�ّ� يبت�� ام�� ا��ؤمن�ن ����وه �ي‬ ‫�اص ا�� و�� �امّه فانه و لي ّه وو �يّ ما �اب عنه‬ ‫والس��م‬

Iḥsān ʿAbbās, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. Yaḥyā al-kātib: wa man ṭabbaqā min rasāʾilihi wa-rasāʾil Sālim Abī al-ʿAlāʾ (Amman: Dār al-Shuruq, 1988) no. 13 p 207. The redaction is that of Aḥmad al-Balawī, Al-ʿaṭāʾ al-jazīl waghiṭāʾ al-tarsīl, from the manuscript edition (Rabat, Maktabat alMalakiyya no 6148 p 124). See also al-Qāḍī’s discussion in of his services and epistolary style in Wadād al-Qāḍī, “Early Islamic State Letters: The Question of Authenticity,” in The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East: Problems in the Literary Source Material (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam I) eds., Averil Cameron and Lawrence I. Conrad (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1992): 215–75. 6

‫‪273‬‬

‫‪APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1‬‬ ‫‪1.6 Official letter, 3rd/9th c. 7‬‬

‫‪ ��� [ ] 1‬ا��� ا��ﺣ>من< ا��ح�� واول قو�ي ل� اسعدك ا��� انه }�ي{ �ا�ى ا��ديث عن‬ ‫الن�ي ص�� ا��� �ليه وس��‬

‫‪ [ ] . 2‬فر�ان مستب��ان فاذا ا���يا به حيث ��ا ا��� ��ج ا�� ا��� ع� و�ل ال��ما ان‬ ‫قات�� ��ا رفعتما �ي‬

‫‪[ ] 3‬فيس�دا قد سبق ��� ا��� تبارك وتعا�ى �ي ال��ح ا���فوظ ��ا نطق ا���ل ذل� اليوم‬

‫وما جهل ��� مما ع�ف‬

‫‪ [ ] 4‬ذل� ��ا واياه اسل ا��رز �ي ا���ال و التع�ل بقدومه ‘�ي �افية’واو�� >اﻳا< كتب ا�ى جوابك و ما ��مت بال��ابة �ليه و ان �� ��ى ��ل�‬

‫وجها فلك� ا�ل ��ا ]ب[‬

‫‪ 8‬و ك� �� عنده ��قدار فعرف�ي رايك ��قف �ليه ان شا ا��� انك )?( ا��مك ا��� ���‬ ‫ا��عروف تك��ت]‪ �� [...‬احب ا�دا من وجوه‬ ‫الب�� ����ائه‬

‫‪ 9‬وبغض القرار ا�� وهو �ارف �ي ومذه�ي كنت ك�تب طخ�� اربع ع��ة سنة او اك��‬ ‫ا�ى ان تو�ي ر��ه ‘ا���’ ��موس و ��كت‬ ‫ال��ابة طلبا للس��مة ‘�ي’ د�ن و ا��نيا‬

‫‪ > 10‬و< ا����ة و ��مت الت�ارة قاب�� �افية وا���د ��� كث��ا و ا���د }ا{��� و نعمته ��تع‬ ‫و��� صا��ة بع��ا بالقرب منك و بعض‬ ‫��وق ���� و بعض ��قيفة‬

‫‪P.Khalili I 18.‬‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫‪DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET‬‬

‫‪274‬‬

‫‪ 11‬جواد ‘من ادر’ و ��وانيت و ���ها و انا ساكن ��ا بالقرب من دار معمر و من عبد‬ ‫ا���� و مع ذل� ايضا ف�� ��ى ضياع‬ ‫ورثة طخ�� ر��ه ا��� فانا ال�� ��م‬

‫‪ 12‬وباو��دهم �افظا م�ي ]]��م[[ لطخ�� ر��ه ا��� ‘و لورثته’ ]]�� رغبة م�ي ����ال‬ ‫السلطان[[ و ما ��وجت قط و �� و�� �ي‬ ‫و��ا و�� اسقط م�ي‬

‫‪ 13‬ا�د و �� �ي �لقة ]]من وا�� و �� وا��ة و �� اخت[[ و ا��د ��� كث��ا سبق و كنت‬ ‫ابتاع ا��ار ية ��ن ا��ار ية �� ]]يعرض[[ ‘��طه’‬ ‫تو�ى ا��رع ‘و’ يعرض‬

‫‪ ��� ��� 14‬ا��� بيان وجوه ��ار��ن ف�� احب ]]ا�دا م��م[[ ‘ذل� ]]و �� ��طه[[ و ��‬ ‫اذ��ه’ ف��ا تو�ى الوا�� و الوا��ة وا��خت‬

‫وا��خ ر��هم ا��� و بقيت و حيدا استلفت ���‬

‫‪ 15‬ذل� و رغبت �ي ا��رع ‘�ي ��رة ا��مة )?(’ ووا��� وا��� وا��� فا��ا اعظم ا��ان القي��ا و‬ ‫لو قبلت ان اصاهر �ار ية ��وا بالب��‬ ‫����ائه ��� ان اعطا‬

‫‪ 16‬ا��هر و قيام �ي ��ا ار�� لو �دت �دة ‘رغبوا �ي ذل�’ ا�ى يعرفوا من ]]��يل[[ ‘س��مة’‬ ‫طرائقنا و حسن مذهبنا ��� ان ا��ي‬ ‫��ل�ي ��� طلب هذه الناحية‬

‫‪ 17‬طلب ا��روة و البطا�� و ما وصف �ي من ��يل ا��ذهب ولو�� ا�ي ا��ه ان اذ�� بعض‬ ‫من لع�� يامل ان اصاهره من موا�ي‬ ‫من‬

‫‪ 18‬سن�ن كث��ة ��افة ان يتصل به ذل� ع�ي ]]ذل�[[ ممن يعرفوه و يعرفوا ا��س�� ����ه‬ ‫]]ل�ك�ي[[ ل�ك�ي رايت الصواب ا����ال‬ ‫عنه‬

‫‪ 19‬و ا��� اس�� لنا و ل��� ا�����ة و ارغب اليه �ي ا��ام الس�� و الس��مة و اس�� ان ك�ن قد‬ ‫سبق لنا �ي ذل� �� ان ��ز يه لنا و ل���‬

‫‪ ��� 20‬احسن ما �� و ما من قد�� ‘اتاوته )?(’ ا���ي�� ‘عندنا’ و نعمه السابغة الينا و ان‬ ‫��سن لنا ول��� ا��عونة و ال�كفاية انه و �ى‬

‫‪275‬‬

‫‪APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1‬‬

‫ذل� و القادر �ليه‬

‫‪ 21‬و انا منتظر ���واب فعرف�ي ا��مك ا��� رايك ��قف �ليه ان شا ا���‬ ‫‪1.7 Private letter, 3rd/9th c. 8‬‬

‫‪��� 1‬ي ���د] [‬

‫‪ 2‬ر��ه‬

‫‪ ��� 3‬ا��� ا����ن ا]رح��[‬ ‫‪ 4‬حفظك ا��� واﺑﻘ]ك[‬ ‫‪ 5‬واﻣﺘﻌ]ﻨ[ي بك‬

‫‪ 6‬فارقتنا اذن ���ن ��� ان ﺗﺼﻟ]ﻨ[ي‬ ‫‪ 7‬ا���عة و��رج ا�ى م��ل‬ ‫‪ 8‬نافع لنفرغ مما بيننا‬

‫‪ 9‬وبينه وقد اتا�ي ابو هرون‬

‫‪�� 10‬ا احب ان ����ى من�� و يطعه‬

‫‪ 11‬و يضعه ع�ي ح�ى ���� لكك‬ ‫‪ 12‬الغ�� فان �� ���� ل� الغ��‬

‫‪ 13‬رددت ا��ال ا�ى ا�ي هرون وارجوا‬ ‫‪ 14‬ان ���� لنا الغ�� وز يادة‬

‫‪ 15‬وانا ��ل فقد ��ل �لينا‬

‫‪ 16‬و�� ��ي ادرك�ي ���ا‬

‫‪ 17‬وقد احببت امتع�ي ا��� ان تصل�ي ا���عة‬

‫‪ 18‬عند رفاق ‘الت�� صل�ي با��نن��’ و نلت�� �� ��رج ا�ى‬ ‫‪ 19‬م��ل نافع و ارجوا يكفيك ا���‬ ‫‪ 20‬بقيامك لنا ا��بة نعمل ��باك‬

‫‪� 21‬لينا الي��م و��وح ]و[ ا��ال‬ ‫‪P.Khalili I 19.‬‬

‫‪8‬‬

‫‪DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET‬‬

‫‪276‬‬

‫‪ 22‬معك‬

‫‪margin‬‬

‫‪ 1‬حفظك ا��� وابقاك ودافع عنك وا��� رايك �ي ذل�‬

‫‪ 2‬ح�ى نعتمد �ليه ان شا ا��� و اص�� بعينك حفظك ا��� ��� �اجتنا‬

‫‪LEGAL DOCUMENTS, FROM LITERARY AND DOCUMENTARY‬‬ ‫‪SOURCES, CONCERNING SALE, WITH SHARED FORMULAE‬‬ ‫‪HIGHLIGHTED‬‬

‫‪2.1 Sale document from the Prophet 9‬‬ ‫هذا ما اش��ى العداء �ن �ا�� �ن هوذة من ���د رسول ا��� صلعم‬

‫اش��ى منه عبدا او امة �� داء و�� �ائ�� و�� خبثة‬ ‫بيع ا��س�� ل��س��‬

‫‪2.2 Sale contract 2nd/8th c. 10‬‬ ‫‪ ��� 1‬ا��� ا����ن ا��ح��‬

‫‪ 2‬هذا ما اش��ى ��امة مو��ت �ا��ة ابنت عوف �ن سليمن ا�����يّ‬ ‫‪�� 3‬بيعة و�ا��ة و��ي ���د �ن ربيعة �ن ا***ـ �ن سليمن ا�����يّ‬

‫‪�� 4‬ا��ما من ��� ّد �ن ربيعة �ن الوليد ا�����يّ ا����ل ا�ّ�ي ��ـ***ت‬

‫‪� 5‬ي ��رى ا��وز ي ّة �ي ا�� ّار ال ّ�ي تعرف ��ار ا��وا�ي � ّد هذا ا����ل‬ ‫‪ 6‬القب��ّ منازل ���د �ن ربيعة ا�� ّا��� �ي دار ا�� ّ***ـ �ن سليمن‬

‫‪� 7‬ن ز ياد و�دّه البحريّ دار ا��سن �ن ��� ّد ا��عروفة بالغفرة و�دّه ال� ّ��يّ‬ ‫‪ 8‬م��ل سل�� مو�ى ا��صي�يّ و�دّه الغر�يّ ا��س�د ا�ّ�ي يعرف بالقطائف‬

‫‪ 9‬اش��ت ��امة مو��ت �ا��ة من ��� ّد �ن ربيعة هذا ا����ل ا���دود‬

‫‪Muḥammad b. Yazīd ibn Māja, Sunan ibn Māja, ed. Muḥammad Fuʿād‬‬ ‫‪ʿAbd al-Bāqī (Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 1998) II: 300–301, kitāb al-tijārāt,‬‬ ‫‪bāb shirāʾi l-raqīq, no. 2251.‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪Chrest.Khoury II 22.‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬

‫‪277‬‬

‫‪APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1‬‬

‫� قليل وكث��‬ ‫‪� 10‬ي هذا ال��اب بأرضه وبنائه وسف�� وا����� ّ و��افقه وك ّ‬ ‫‪ 11‬هو �� دا�ل فيه و�ارج منه من حقوقه ك� ّها بثلثة ا�� ّنان�� عينا ذهبا‬

‫‪*** 12‬‬

‫‪2.3 Sale contract for house, dated Dhū l-Qaʿda year 239 A.H.‬‬ ‫‪(854) 11‬‬ ‫‪ ��� 1‬ا��� ا����ن ا��ح��‬

‫‪ 2‬هذا ما اش��ت يونه ابنت �ليصا اش��ت من زوجها ���� ا��رار م��ل �� �ي ���‬

‫مدينة إدفوا ��ا ��� �ليه بابه وأ�اطت به �درانه دا�ل فيه و�ارج منه ���يع حقوقه‬ ‫‪ 3‬و�دوده‬

‫‪ 4‬وأرضه و�مائه وأرك�نه ا��ربع ��ا�ة هذا ا����ل �دّه القب��ّ م��ل سواد �ن بقو�� ا��ّ� ّاغ‬ ‫ومع��ة الن ّ�� ا�� ّ� ّات‬

‫‪ 5‬وأ��ا�� �دّه الغر�يّ م��ل بلتوس الطّبيب وا��مر ّ بي��ما و�دّه البحريّ ي�� م��ل قيس‬ ‫‪� 6‬ن هرون النّ� ّار وا��مر ّ بي��ما و�دّه ال� ّ��يّ ي�� م��ل سواد ا��ر ّاث وباب هذا‬

‫‪ 7‬ا����ل مفتوح إ�ى البحريّ اش��ت يونه ابنت �ليصا من زوجها ���� ا��ّ� ّاغ هذا‬

‫‪ 8‬ا����ل ا���دود ا��وصوف �ي هذا ال��اب ���يع حقوقه و�دوده ��ي�� وزن‬ ‫‪ 9‬ا��ثاقيل ا��د�� قد نقدت يونه ابنت �ليصا زوجها ���� ا��ّ� ّاغ‬

‫‪ 10‬ا�� ّي�� ��ن ا����ل وس� ّ� ���� ا��ّ� ّاغ إ�ى زوجته يونه ابنت �ليصا ا����ل ك� ّ�‬

‫‪��� 11‬يع حقوقه و�دوده و��افقه وأ��ته يونه ابنت �ليصا من ا�� ّي�� وقبضت‬ ‫‪ 12‬يونه ا����ل وصار مال من ما��ا و�ي مل��ها با��ّ�ن ا��سمّا �ي هذا ال��اب‬

‫‪ 13‬وهو دي�� مثقال بعد تعر ّف من يونه ابنت �ليصا ��ا اش��ت قبل ا��ش��اء‬

‫‪ 14‬ومعرفة من ���� ا��ّ� ّاغ ��ا باع قبل البيع وتعر ّفهما ��يعا ��ا �ي هذا ال��اب‬

‫‪ 15‬بعد البيع عن ��اض فإن ��ق يونه ابنت �ليصا درك من أ�د من الن ّاس فع�� ����‬ ‫‪ 16‬ا��ّ� ّاغ إنقاذ بيعه و���صه ��� بيع ا��س�� وعهدة ا��س�� ��د ��� ذل�‬

‫‪ 17‬اليسع �ن �ي�� وهو ك�تب ال��اب و��ادته �ي ذي القعدة سنة ��ع وثلث�ن ومائت�ن‬

‫‪P.Cair.Arab. I 56‬‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫‪DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET‬‬

‫‪278‬‬

‫‪ 18‬و���ّ �ن عبد ا����� �ن معو ية وكتب ��ادته ��طّه‬ ‫‪ 19‬وعبد ا��ّ� �ن ز��ي وكتب ��ادته ��طّه‬

‫� ���يع ما �ي هذا ال��اب وكتب‬ ‫‪�� 20‬د أ��د �ن ��� ّد القي� ّ‬

‫‪ 21‬وعبد ا����� �ن معو ية �ن عبد ا����� وكتب ��ادته ��� ���� ا��ّ� ّاغ و��� إقرار يونه‬ ‫بالقبض وا�� ّفع‬

‫‪ 22‬و��دته �ي ذي القعدة سنة ��ع وثلث�ن ومائت�ن‬

‫‪ 23‬وغياث �ن ��� ّد �ن ��اد وكتب ��ادته بيده ��� إقرار‬ ‫‪��� ���� 24‬يع ما �ي هذا ال��اب *‬

‫‪�� 25‬د ��� ذل� عبد ا��ّ� �ن ا��� ّاج ���يع ما �ي هذا ال��اب و��ادته �ي ذي القعدة‬ ‫‪ 26‬سنة ��ع وثلث�ن ومائت�ن وعبد ا��وّل �ن عبد العز�� وكتب ��ادته ��طّه‬

‫‪ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲙⲟⲩⲥⲉ ⲁⲣⲱⲛ ⲧⲓⲟⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲣⲉ ⲉϫ︦ⲛ 12…………………………27‬‬ ‫‪……………………………………………………………….28‬‬

‫‪…….29‬‬

‫‪ 30‬وهرون �ن إ��ق وكتب ��ادته ���يع ما �ي هذا ال��اب )‪(handmark‬‬

‫‪ 31‬وعبد الصّ مد �ن هرون وكتب ��ادته ��طّه‬

‫‪ 32‬و��يد }�ن{ عبيد وكتب ��ادته ��طّه‬

‫‪ 33‬وأ��د �ن مو�� وكتب ��ادته ��طّه‬

‫‪ 34‬و�ي�� �ن مو�� وكتب ��ادته ��طّه‬

‫‪ 35‬وحس�ن �ن ���ّ ا��راسا�يّ وكتب ��ادته ��� إقرار ���� �ن قا��‬ ‫‪ 36‬ا��ّ� ّاغ ���يع ما �ي هذا ال��اب وكتب ��ادته ��طّه‬ ‫‪� ّ��� 37‬ن مؤمّل وكتب ��ادته ��� إقرار ����‬ ‫‪� 38‬ن قا�� ا��ّ� ّاغ ���يع ما �ي‬ ‫‪ 39‬هذا ال��اب‬

‫‪�� 40‬طّه‬

‫‪verso‬‬

‫‪ 1‬فيه ��اب م��ل يونه ابنت �ليصا‬ ‫‪Name of witness, in Coptic.‬‬

‫‪12‬‬

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 4:

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN KITĀBA AND ISTIʿMĀL IN BIOGRAPHICAL REPORTS ON COMPANIONS

Khālid b. Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀs, who wrote for the Prophet (Ibn Saʿd, alṬabaqāt, I/ii, p. 20; 23; 25; 26; 29; 30; 33; 34) and an important commander, was employed as a tax collector in Yemen, ʿāmil ṣadaqāt, by the Prophet, and also employed in the army sent to Syria by Abū Bakr (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, II:88b; Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii:64). Al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba, who wrote for the Prophet (Ibn Saʿd, alṬabaqāt, I/ii:21; 22; 23; 24; 26), was sent as a governor, walī, to Baṣra by ʿUmar (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, IV: 181b), was the first to establish the military register, dīwān, of Baṣra (Ibn alAthīr, Usd al-ghāba, IV:182a), and was appointed as governor (istaʿmalahu ʿalā) by ʿUmar to al-Baḥrayn (Ibn Hajar, Al-Isāba, III: 432, no. 8181). Muḥammad b. Maslama, who wrote for the Prophet (Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 82; 83), collected taxes from the Juhayna and was appointed as chief of the governors, ṣāḥib al-ʿummāl, under ‘Umar. In this role, he was sent by ‘Umar to the governors who complained to him, and collected the tax portions due from them (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, IV: 84a). Shuraḥbīl b. Ḥasana, who wrote for the Prophet (Ibn Saʿd, alṬabaqāt, I/ii: 37), was sent by Abū Bakr to Syria, where he died (Ibn Hajar, al-Isāba, II: 141, no. 3869). Juhaym b. al-Ṣalt, who wrote for the Prophet (Ibn Saʿd, alṬabaqāt, I/ii: 22; 37) learned writing, al-khaṭṭ, in the period be279

280

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

fore Islam. Along with al-Zubayr b. al-ʿAwwām, who also wrote for the Prophet, he used to record tax amounts, yaktubān amwāl al-ṣadaqāt (Ibn Hajar, al-Isāba, I: 257, no. 1256). Al-ʿAlāʾ b. al-Ḥaḍramī, who wrote for the Prophet (Ibn Saʿd, alṬabaqāt, I/ii: 23; 24), was appointed governor (istaʿmalahu ʿalā) of al-Bahrayn by the Prophet, and was confirmed (wa-aqarrahu) in this position by both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿUqbah, one of the Prophet’s scribes (Ibn Saʿd, alṬabaqāt, I/ii: 24; 26) used to write contracts of debt, treaties, and transactions for the people together with al-Arqam (kānā yaktubān bayna l-nās al-mudāyanāt wa-l-ʿuhūd wa-l-muʿāmalāt). Ḥātib b. Abī Baltaʿa acted as a scribe for the Prophet for a document sent to the Meccans conveying his desire to take the city without battle. He was sent with ʿAlī and al-Zubayr b. alAwwām, both scribes, on this occasion. He was also one of the first six messengers sent with invitations to Islam in 7 A.H., to al-Muqawqis (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, I: 411a). Muʿayqib b. Abī Fātima al-Dawsī acted as a scribe for Abū Bakr and ʿUmar in partnership with Zayd b. Thābit (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, II: 235b) and was employed (istaʿmalahu) as treasurer (khāzin) under ʿUmar (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al- ghāba, IV: 176b). Abū ʿAbs b. Jabr is cited as literate in Ibn Saʿd with the usual formula (kānā… yaktubu bi-l-ʿarabiyya qabla l-Islām, wa-kānati lkitāba fi l-ʿarab qalīlan), and was employed as tax collector by both ‘Umar and ‘Uthman (Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, III/i: 24). ʿAbd Allāh b. Rawāḥa is cited in Ibn Saʿd as literate before Islam with the usual formula, was left in charge of Medina during the Prophet’s absence during the second Badr, and was sent by the Prophet to evaluate (kharasa) the date produce of Khaybar, a position he remained in until the Prophet’s death (Ibn Saʿd, alṬabaqāt, III/ii: 79). Ḥudhayfa b. al-Yamān al-ʿAbsī used to record for the Prophet the quantity by conjecture of fruit on the palm-trees of the Ḥijāz (al-Masʿūdī, al-Tanbīh wa-l-ishrāf, 259). He was employed (istaʿamala) by ‘Umar to take down his dictation when he dis-

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 4

281

patched someone with a command or answered a request from some chief (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, I: 444a). He was also employed by ‘Umar in the division of spoils along with other Companions who knew how to write, Abu ʿUbayda and Muʿādh b. Jabal (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba, I: 444a). ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib served as a scribe (Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I/ii: 22; 26) and was sent to judge and administrate in Yemen.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ʿAbbās, Iḥsān, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. Yaḥyā al-kātib: wa-man tabaqqā min rasāʾilihi wa-rasāʾil Sālim Abī al-ʿAlāʾ. Amman: Dār alShuruq, 1988. Abbott, Nabia. The Kurrah Papyri from Aphrodito in the Oriental Institute, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 15. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938. ——. The Rise of the North Arabic Script and its Kurʾanic Development, with a full description of the Kurʾanic manuscripts in the Oriental Institute. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939. Abū Dawūd al-Sijistānī. Risāla li-Abī Dawūd ilā ahl Mecca fī waṣf sunanihi. Ed. Muhammad al-Luṭfī al Ṣabbāgh. Beirut: alMaktab al-Islāmī, 1317/1997. Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī. Al-Juzʾ al-ḥādī wa-l-ʿishrūn min kitāb alaghānī. Ed. Rudolf-Ernst Brünnow. Leiden: Brill, 1305 [1887–8]. Abū

ʿUbayd al-Qāsim Ibn Sallām. Kitāb al-amwāl. Ed. Muḥammad Khalīl Harrās. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kullīyāt alAzharīyya, 1968.

Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb b. Ibrahīm. Kitāb al-kharāj. Ed. Ṭāhā ʿAbd alRaʿūf Saʿd and Saʿd Ḥasan Muḥammad. Cairo: Maktabat alAzhariyya li-l-turāth, 1420/1999. Ahmed, Ziauddin and Ziauddin Ahmad. “The Concept of Jizya in Early Islam.” Islamic Studies 14/4 (1975): 293–305. Archibald, Zofia. “Making the most of one’s friends: Western Asia Minor in the early Hellenistic Age.” In eds., Zofia H. 283

284

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET Archibald, John Davies, Vincent Gabrielsen, and Graham Oliver. Hellenistic Economies. London: Routledge, 2001, pp. 245–70.

Arjomand, Saïd. “The Constitution of Medina: A Sociolegal Interpretation of Muhammad’s Acts of Foundation of the ‘Umma’.” IJMES 41/4 (Nov., 2009): 555–75. ʿAthamina, Khalil. “‘Al-Nabiyy al-Ummiyy’: An Inquiry into the Meaning of a Qurʾanic verse.” Der Islam 69/1(1992): 61–80. Al-Azmeh, Aziz. The Emergency of Islam in Late Antiquity: Allāh and his people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Bailey, Clinton. Bedouin Law from Sinai and the Negev: Justice without Government. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. Liber expugnationis regionum. Ed., M.J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1866. Bashear, Suliman. “The Mission of Dihya al-Kalbī and the Situation in Syria.” Der Islam 74 (1997): 64–91. Baynham, Mike. “Direct Speech: What’s it doing in nonnarrative discourse?” Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996): 61– 81. Becker, C. H. Papyri Schott-Reinhardt I. Heidelberg: 1906. Beaumont, Daniel. “Hard-Boiled: Narrative Discourse in Early Muslim Traditions.” Studia Islamica 83 (1996): 5–31. Bonner, Michael. “The Arabian Silent Trade: Profit and Nobility in the Markets of the Arabs.” In eds. Roxani Eleni Margariti, Adam Sabra, and Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Histories of the Middle East: Studies in Middle Eastern Society, Economy and Law in Honor of A. L. Udovitch. Leiden: Brill, 2010, pp. 23–51. ——. “Commerce and Migration in Arabia before Islam: A Brief History of a Long Tradition.” In ed. B. Aghaei and M. R. Ghanoonparvar, Iranian Language and Culture: essays in hon-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

285

or of Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2012, pp. 1–27. Berkey, Jonathan P. “Tradition, Innovation and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Medieval Islamic Near East.” Past & Present, 146 (Feb. 1995): 38–65. Breton, Jean François. Arabia Felix from the Time of the Queen of Sheba: Eight Century B.C. to First Century AD. Trans. Albert LaFarge. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000. Brown, Jonathan A.C. “Criticism of the Proto-Hadith Canon: alDāraquṭnī’s Adjustment of the Ṣaḥīḥayn.” Journal of Islamic Studies 15/1 (2004): 1–37. ——. “Did the Prophet Say It or Not? The Literal, Historical and Effective Truth of Hadiths in Early Sunnism.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 192/2 (2009): 259–85. Bucholtz, Mary. “The politics of transcription,” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000): 1439–1465. Al-Bukhārī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Ismāʾīl. Ṣaḥīḥ alBukhārī. Riyad: Bayt al-Afkar al-Dawliyah lil Nashr, 1998. Calder, Norman. “The Ummī in Early Islamic Juristic Literature.” Der Islam 67 (1990): 111–23. Carr, David McClain. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: a new reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. ——. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: origins of scripture and literature. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Cattelan, Valentino. “Property (Māl) and Credit Relations in Islamic Law: An Explanation of Dayn and the Function of Legal Personality (Dhimma),” Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013): 189–202. Cook, David. “Tamīm al-Dārī,” BSOAS 61.1 (1998): 20–28 Cerquiglini, Bernard. In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology. Trans. Betsy Wing. Baltimore, London: The John Hopkins UP, 1997.

286

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Chéhata, Chafik. “Dhimma,” Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 2. Eds. B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat, and J. Schacht. Leiden: Brill, 1991, pp. 227–31. Clark, Herbert H. and Gerrig, Richard J. “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language 66/4 (Dec., 1990): 764–805. Cowley, A. E. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1923. Crone, Patricia. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1987. ——. Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate. Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization. Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 1987. Al-Dārimī, ʿUthmān b. Saʿīd. Sunan al-Dārimī. Damascus: Maṭbaʾat al-iʾtidāl, 1349/1930. Décobert, Christian. Le mendiant et le combattant: l’institution de l’islam. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1991. Delnero, Paul, “Memorization and the Transmission of Sumerian Literary Compositions.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71/2 (2012): 189–208. Diem, Werner. “Arabic Letters in Pre-Modern Times, A Survey with Commented Selected Bibliographies.” In eds. Andreas Kaplony and Eva Mira Grob, Documentary Letters from the Middle East: the Evidence in Greek, Coptic, South Arabian, Pehlevi, and Arabic (1st–15th c. CE). Bern: Lang, 2008, pp. 843–883. ——. “Einige frühe amtliche Urkunden aus der Sammlung papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (Wien).” Le Muséon 97 (1984): 109– 58. Dickinson, Eerik. “Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ al-Shahrazūrī and the Isnād.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 122/3 (Jul. – Sep., 2002): 481–505.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

287

Al-Dimashqī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ṭūlūn. Iʿlām al-sāʾilīn ʿan kutub sayyid al-mursalīn. Beirut: Muʾassasat alRisāla, 1983. Dion, Paul E. “The Aramaic ‘Family Letter’ and Related Epistolary Forms in Other Oriental Languages and in Hellenistic Greek.” Semeia 22 (1981): 59–76. Donner, Fred McGraw. The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. ——. “Mecca’s Food Supplies and Muhammad’s Boycott,” JESHO 20/3 (Oct. 1977): 249–66. Dresch, Paul. “Aspects of Non-State Law: Early Yemen and Perpetual Peace.” In eds. Paul Dresch and Hannah Skoda, Legalism: Anthropology and History. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012, pp. 145–72. Drijvers, H. J. W. “Sanctuaries and Social Safety: The Iconography of Divine Peace in Hellenistic Syria.” Visible Religion: Annual for Religious Iconography I. Leiden: Brill, 1982, pp. 65–75. Duranti, Alessandro. “The Audience as Co-Author: an Introduction.” Text 6/3 (1986): 239–47. ——. “Sociocultural Dimensions of Discourse.” In ed. I. T. A. van Dijk, Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1985. Fitzmeyer, Joseph. “Aramaic Epistolography.” Semeia 22 (1981): 25–57. Frantz-Murphy, Gladys. “A Comparison of Arabic and Earlier Egyptian Contract Formularies, Part V: Formulaic Evidence.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48/2 (1989): 97– 107. Frenkel, Yehoshua. Ḍawʾ al-sārī li-maʿrifat ḫabar Tamīm al-Dārī: On Tamīm al-Dārī and His Waqf in Hebron. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

288

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Friedmann, Yohanan. “Dhimma,” Encyclopedia of Islam, 3rd Edition, Section 3, eds. K. Fleet, G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, and E. Rowson. Leiden: Brill, 2007–, pp. 87–91. Gari, Lutfallah. “A History of the Himā Conservation System.” Environment and History 12/2 (May 2006): 213–28. Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine, 643–1099. Trans. Ethel Broido. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Gilliot, Claude. “Oralité et écriture dans la genèse, la transmission et la fixation du Coran.” In eds. Phillipe Cassuto and Pierre Larcher, Oralité et Écriture dans la Bible et la Coran. Marseille: Aix-Marseille Université, Presses Universitaires de Provence, 2014, pp. 101–15. Glanzman, William D. “Some notions of sacred space at the Maḥram Bilqīs in Mārib.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 32 (2002): 187–201. Goldfeld, Isaiah. “The Illiterate Prophet (Nabī Ummī): An Inquiry into the development of a dogma in Islamic tradition.” Der Islam 57 (1980): 58–67. Goldziher, Ignác. Muslim Studies. 2 vols. Trans. C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1971. Grob, Eva Mira. Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters on Papyrus: Form and Function, Content and Context Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 29. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. ——. “Information Packaging in Arabic Private and Business Letters (8th to 13th c. C.E.): Templates, Slots and a Cascade of Reduction and Rearrangement.” In ed. Traianos Gagos, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007. Ann Arbor: American Studies in Papyrology, 2010, pp. 277–290. Grohmann, Adolf. “Die Papyrologie in ihrer Beziehung zur arabischen Urkundenlehre,” Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung 19. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1934): 327–50. ——. From the World of Arabic Papyri. Cairo: al-Maʿārif, 1952.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

Gross, Andrew D. “The Judaean Documents as a Regional SubTradition in Aramaic Common Law.” In eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani Tzoref, The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 89. Leiden: Brill, 2010, pp. 99–113. Grout, John Berkeley. The Role of Palmyrene Temples in LongDistance Trade in the Roman Near East. PhD Dissertation, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London, 2016. Gully, Adrian. Culture of Letter-Writing in Pre-Modern Islamic Societies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2008. Günther, Sebastian. “Fictional narration and imagination within an authoritative framework: Towards a new understanding of Ḥadīṯ.” In ed. Stefan Leder, Story-telling in the framework of non-fictional Arabic literature. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 1998, pp. 433–71. Gzella, Holger. “Hebrew: Literary Language or Vernacular?” Lecture, Leiden University, 5 Aug 2009. Ḥamādah, Muḥammad Māhir. Al-Wathāʾiq al-siyāsiyya wa-lidariyya al-ʿāʾida li-l-ʿaṣr al-umawī. Beirut: Muʿassasat alRisāla 1394/1974. Hamidullah, Muhammad. Corpus des traités diplomatiques de l’Islam à l’époque du prophète et des khalifes orthodoxes. Paris: G.-P. Maisonneuve, 1935. ——. The Life and Work of the Prophet of Islam vol. 1. Tans. Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi. Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute, 1998. ——. Majmūʾat al-wathāʾiq al-siyāsīya li-l-ʾahd al-nabawī wa-lkhilāfa al-rāshida. Cairo: Matbaʾat lajnat al-taʾlīf wa-altarjama wa-al-nashr, 1956. ——. Six originaux des lettres du Prophete de l’islam: étude paléographique et historique des lettres du Prophete. Paris: Tougui, 1985.

290

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Hays, Harold M. The Organization of the Pyramid Texts: Typology and Disposition. 2 vols. Problem der Ägyptologie book 31. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Hirschfeld, Hartwig. “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Geniza at Cambridge.” Jewish Quarterly Review 15/2 (1903): 167–180. Healey, John F. “Fines and Curses: Law and Religion Among the Nabataeans and their Neighbours.” In eds., Anselm C. Hagedorn and Reinhard G. Kratz, Law and Religion in the Eastern Mediterranean: from antiquity to early Islam. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013, pp.165–186. ——. The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Madaʾin Salih. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993. ——. “Sources for the Study of Nabataean Law.” New Arabian Studies 1 (1993): 203–14. Heck, Paul L. The Construction of Knowledge in Islamic Civilization: Qudāma b. Jaʿfar and His Kitāb al-kharāj wa-ṣināʿat al-kitāba. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Hill, D. R. The Termination of Hostilities in the Early Arab Conquests, A.D. 634–656. London: Luzac, 1971. Hopkins, Simon. Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabia: Based upon papyri datable to before 300 A.H./912 A.D. London Oriental Series 31. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1984. Hinds, Martin and Hamdi Sakkout. “A Letter From the Governor of Egypt To the King of Nubia and Muqurra Concerning Egyptian-Nubian Relations in 141/758.” In ed. Wadād alQāḍī, Studia Arabica et Islamica: Festschrift for Iḥsān ʿAbbās on his Sixtieth Birthday. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1981): 209–29. Hoyland, Robert. “Arabic Writing, Arabic Scripture in Late Roman Arabia,” paper presented at “Scripts and Scripture: Writing and Religion in Arabia, ca. 500–700 CE,” University of Chicago May 2017. Hoyland, Robert with an appendix by Hannah Cotton. “The Earliest Attestation of the Dhimma of God and His Messenger

BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

and the Rediscovery of P. Nessana 77 (60s AH/680 CE).” In eds. B. Sadeghi, A. Ahmed, R. Hoyland, and A. Silverstein, Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts: Essays in Honor of Professor Patricia Crone. Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 51–71. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Misr wa-l-Maghrib. Cairo: Maktabat althaqāfa al-dīnīya, 1995. Ibn ʿAsākir, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan. Tārīkh madīnat Dimashq. Ed. ʿUmar Gharāma al-ʿAmrawī. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1995–2001. Ibn al-Athīr, Izz al-Dīn. ʿUsd al-ghāba fi maʾrifat al-ṣahāba. 5 vols. Ed. Khalīl Maʾmūn Shīḥā. Beirut: Dār al-Maʾrifa, 1997. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalānī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. Al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba. [Cairo]: al-Maktaba al-tijārīya al-kubrā, 1939. Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣar. 27 vols. Ed., ʿAbd Allāh Yaḥyā Sarīḥī. Abu Dhabi: al-Mujmaʿa al-thiqāfa, 1424/2002. Ibn Ḥanbal, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. Al-Musnad wa bi-hāmishihi kitāb muntakhab kanz al-ʿummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʿāl lil-muttaqī al-Hindī. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿa al-maymanīyya, 1895. Ibn Māja, Muḥammad ibn Yazīd. Sunan ibn Māja. Ed. Muḥammad Fuʿād ʿAbd al-Bāqī. Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 1998. Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad b. Mukarram. Lisān al-ʿarab. Beirut: Dār ṣādir li-l-ṭibāʿa wa-l-nashr, 1955. Ibn

Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr. Aḥkām ahl al-dhimma. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-’ilmiyya 1995.

Ibn Saʿd, Muḥammad. al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr. Ed. E. Sachau. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1904–40. Ibn Shabba, Abū Zayd ʿUmar. Tārīkh al-Madīna al-munawwara. Ed., Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt. Mecca: Ḥabīb Maḥmūd Aḥmad, [1979]. Imbert, Frédéric. “Le Coran des pierres: statistiques epigraphiques et premieres analyses.” In eds. Mehdi Azaiez and

292

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET Sabrina Mervin, Le Coran, Nouvelles approaches. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2013, pp. 99–124.

——. “Réflexions sur les forms de l’écrit à l’aube de l’Islam.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42 (2012): 119–128. Johns, Jeremy. “The boys from Mezzouiso: Muslim jizya-payers in Christian Sicily.” In eds. Robert G. Hoyland and Philip F. Kennedy, Islamic Reflections, Arabic Musings: Studies in Honor of Professor Alan Jones. London: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004, pp. 243–55. Kaizer, Ted. The Religious Life of Palmyra Orients Et Occidens 4. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2002. Kelemen, Erick. Textual Editing and Criticism: An Introduction. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Co., 2009. Khan, A. “The Tanning Cottage Industry in Pre-Islamic Arabia.” Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society 19 (1971): 85–100. Khan, Geoffrey. Arabic Documents from Early Islamic Khurasan. Studies in the Khalili Collection V. London: The Nour Foundation, 2006 [2007]. ——. Arabic Papyri: Selected Material from the Khalili Collection. London: The Nour Foundation, 1992. ——. Bills, Letters, and Deeds: Arabic Papyri from the 7th to 11th centuries. London: The Nour Foundation, 1993. ——. “The Historical Development of Early Arabic Documentary Formulae.” In eds. Esther-Miriam Wagner, Ben Outhwaite, and Bettina Beinhoff, Scribes as Agents of Language Change. Studies in Language Change 10. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 2013, pp. 199–215. ——. “The Pre-Islamic Background of Muslim Legal Formularies.” Aram 6 (1994): 193–224. Kister, M. J. “Mecca and Tamim.” Journal of the Social and Economic History of the Orient 8 (1965): 113–63.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

——. “The Struggle against Musaylima and the Conquest of Yamāma.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 27 (2002): 1–56. Korotayev, Andrey. “Religion and Society in Southern Arabia and Among the Arabs.” Arabia: revue de sabéologie 1 (2003): 65–76. Korotayev, Andrey, Vladimir Klimenko, and Dmitry Proussakov. “Origins of Islam: Political-Anthropological and Environmental Context.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52/3–4 (1999): 243–76. Krachkovskaya, V. A. and I. Y. Krachkovsky. “Le plus ancien document arabe de l’Asie Centrale.” Sogdiyskiy Sbornik (1934): 52–90. Krakowski, Eve and Marina Rustow. “Formula as Content: Medieval Jewish Institutions, the Cairo Geniza, and the New Diplomatics.” Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture, Society 20/2 (2014): 111–46. Landau-Tasseron, Ella. “From Tribal Society to Centralized Polity: An Interpretation of Events and Anecdotes of the Formative Period of Islam.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 24 (2000): 180–216. ——. “Processes of Redaction: The case of the Tamīmite delegation to the Prophet Muḥammad.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 49/2 (1986): 253–70. Leaman, Oliver. “Baraka.” The Qur’an: An Encyclopedia. Ed. Oliver Leaman. London: Routledge, 2005. Lecker, Michael. The Banu Sulaym: A Contribution to the Study of Early Islam. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989. ——. The “Constitution of Medina”: Muhammad’s First Legal Document Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 23. Princeton: Darwin Press, 2004. ——. “A Pre-Islamic Endowment Deed in Arabic regarding alWaḥīda in the Hijāz.” In Michael Lecker, People, Tribes and

294

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET Society in Arabia around the Time of Muhammad. Farnham: Ashgate/Variorum, 2005.

——. “The Preservation of Muhammad’s Letters.” In Michael Lecker, People, Tribes and Society in Arabia around the Time of Muhammad. Ashgate: Variorum, 2005. ——. “Were Custom Dues Levied at the Time of the Prophet Muḥammad?” Al-Qanṭara 22/1 (2001): 19–43. ——. “Zayd b. Ṯābit, ‘A Jew with Two Sidelocks’: Judaism and Literacy in Pre-Islamic Medina (Yathrib).” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 56/4 (1997): 67–71. Leder, Stefan. “Towards a Historical Semantic of the Bedouin: Seventh to Fifteenth Centuries, A Survey.” Der Islam 92/1 (2015): 85–123. Levy-Rubin, Milka. Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: from surrender to coexistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Lindstedt, Ilkka. “The Role of al-Madāʾinī’s Students in the Transmission of His Material.” Der Islam 91/2 (2014): 295– 340. ——. “Who is in, who is out? Early Muslim identity through epigraphy and theory,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 46 (2019): 147–246. Lucas, Scott C. Constructive Critics, Ḥadīth Literature, and the Articulation of Sunnī Islam: The Legacy of the Generation of Ibn Saʿd, Ibn Ma’īn, and Ibn Ḥanbal. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Luiselli, Raffaele “Greek Letters on Papyrus First to Eighth Centuries: a Survey.” In eds. Andreas Kaplony and Eva Mira Grob, Documentary Letters from the Middle East: the Evidence in Greek, Coptic, South Arabian, Pehlevi, and Arabic (1st–15th c. CE). Bern: Lang, 2008, pp. 677–737. McCorriston, Joy. Pilgrimage and Household in the Ancient Near East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

McGann, Jerome. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1983. Macdonald, M. C. A. “Trade Routes and Trade Goods at the Northern End of the ‘Incense Road’ in the First Millennium B.C..” In M.C.A. Macdonald, Literacy and Identity in PreIslamic Arabia. Farnham: Ashgate/Variorum, 2009. Mairs, Rachel. “Lapis Lazuli, Homer, and the Buddha: Material and ideological exchange in West Asia (c. 250 BCE–200 CE).” In ed. Tamar Hodos, The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. London: Routledge, pp. 885– 898. Al-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. Ḍawʾ al-sārī fī maʾrifat khabr Tamīm al-Dārī. Ed. Muhammad Aḥmad ʿĀshūr. Cairo: Dār alIʾtiṣām li-l-Ṭabʾ wa-l-Nashr, 1972. ——. Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ bi-mā li-l-rusūl min al-anbāʾ wa-l-amwāl wa-lḥafada wa-l-matāʿ. Ed. Maḥmūd Shākir. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat lajnat al-taʿlīf wa-l-tarjama wa-l-nashr, 1941. Maraqten Mohammed. “Curse Formulae in South Arabian Inscriptions and some of their Semitic Parallels.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 28 (1998): 189–200. ——. “Some Notes on Sabaic Epistolography.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 33 (2003): 275–286. ——. “Writing Materials in Pre-Islamic Arabia,” Journal of Semitic Studies 43 (1998): 287–310. Margoliouth, D. S. “The Relics of the Prophet Muhammad.” The Moslem World, 27 (1937): 20–27. Marsham, Andrew. Rituals of Islamic Monarchy: Accession and Succession in the First Muslim Empire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009. Al-Masʿūdī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī. al-Tanbīh wa-l-ishrāf. Tehran: Shirkat-i intishārāt-i ʿilmī va farhangī, 1986. Meri, Joseph W. The Cult of Saints Among Muslims and Jews in Medieval Syria. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002.

296

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

——. “Relics of Piety and Power in Medieval Islam.” Past & Present 206/5 (2010): 97–120. Mirza, Sarah. “Copies More Authentic than Originals: The Prophet’s Letters and Covenants as Heritage Objects,” forthcoming in ed. Anne Regourd, The Fake, the Replica, and the Copy (Islamic Manuscripts and Books Series) Leiden: Brill. Moore, Colette. Quoting Speech in Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Morimoto, Kōsei. The Fiscal Administration of Egypt in the Early Islamic Period. Kyoto: Dohosa, 1981. Munt, Harry. The Holy City of Medina: Sacred Space in Early Islamic Arabia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Muslim ibn Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bi-sharḥ al-Nawawī. Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ lil-turāth al-ʿarabī, 1984. Al-Nīsābūrī, Al-Ḥākim. An Introduction to the Science of Tradition: al-Madkhal ilā maʾrifat al-iklīl. Ed. and trans. James Robson. London: The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1953. Noth, Albrecht in collaboration with Lawrence I. Conrad. The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source Critical Study, 2nd ed. Trans. Michael Bonner. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Omar, Hussein. “‘The Crinkly-Haired People of the Black Earth’: Examining Egyptian Identities in Ibn ʿAbd al Ḥakam’s Futūḥ.” In ed. Phillip Wood, History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 149–67. Papaconstantinou, Arietta. “Administering the early Islamic Empire: insights from the papyri.” In ed. John Haldon, Money, Power and Politics in early Islamic Syria: a review of the current debates. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010, pp. 57–74.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

——. “Between umma and dhimma: the Christians of the Middle East under the Umayyads,” Annales islamologiques 42 (2008): 127–56. Parisi, Francesco. “Spontaneous Emergence of Law: Customary Law.” In eds. Boudewijn Bouckaert and Gerrit De Geest, Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Volume V. The Economics of Crime and Litigation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2000, pp. 603–30. Pardee, Dennis, S. David Sperling, J. David Whitehead, and Paul E. Dion. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters. Chicago: Scholars Press, 1982. Peirano, Irene. “Authenticity as an Aesthetic Value: Ancient and Modern.” In eds. Ineke Sluiter and Ralph M. Rosen, Aesthetic Value in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2012, pp. 215– 42. Plumey, J. Martin. “An Eighth-Century Arabic Letter to the King of Nubia.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 61 (1975): 241– 45. Podany, Amanda H. Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Potts, Daniel T. “Trans-Arabian Routes of the Pre-Islamic Period.” Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 16/1 (1988): 127–62. Pritchard, J. B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, 3rd rev ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969). Al-Qāḍī, Wadād. “Early Islamic State Letters: The Question of Authenticity.” In eds. Averil Cameron and Lawrence I. Conrad, The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East: Problems in the Literary Source Material (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam I). Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1992 pp 215– 75. ——. “Madkhal ilā dirāsat ʿuhūd al-ṣulḥ al-islāmiyya zaman alfutūḥ.” In ed. Muḥammad ʿAdnān al Bakhīt and Ḥasan ʿAbbās, The Acts of the Fourth International Conference on the

298

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET History of Bilād al Shām, vol. 2. Amman: Jāmiʿat alUrdunīya, 1987, pp. 193–269.

——. “An Umayyad Papyrus in al-Kindi’s Kitāb al-Quḍāt?” Der Islam 84.2 (2008): 200–45. Al-Qalqashandī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. Ṣubḥ al-aʿshāʿ fī sinaʾat al-ansḥāʾ. 14 vols. Cairo: al-Muʾassasa al-miṣrīya al-ʿāmma li-l-taʾlīf wal-l-tarjuma wa-l-ṭibaʿa wa-l-nashr, 1964. Al-Qasṭallānī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. Al-Mawāhib al-ladunīya bil-minaḥ al-Muḥammadīya. Ed. Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad Shāmī. Beirut: al-Maktab al-islāmī, 1991. Rabin, Chaim. “ʿArabiyya.” Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 1, eds. B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat, and J. Schacht. Leiden: Brill, 1991, pp. 564–67. Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck, 1991. Rigsby, Kent J. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Rubin, Uri. “‘Al-Walad li-l-Firāsh’: On the Islamic Campaign against ‘Zinā.’” Studia Islamica 78 (1993): 5–26. Ryckmans, Jacques. “Ritual Meals in the Ancient South Arabian Religion.” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Vol. 3 (1973): 36–39. Rustow, Marina. “A Petition to a Woman at the Fatimid Court (413–414 A.H./1022–23 C.E.).” BSOAS, 17/1 (2010): 1–27. Al-Ṣafadī, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Khalīl b. Aybak. Kitāb al-wāfī bi-l-wafayāt. Ed. Hellmut Ritter. Istanbul: Maṭbaʿat al-dawla, 1931. Salaymeh, Lena. The Beginnings of Islamic Law: Late Antique Islamicate Legal Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2016. ——. “Taxing Citizens: Socio-Legal Constructions of Late Antique Muslim Identity.” Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016): 333–67.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

Al-Salemeen, Zeyad, Hani Falahat, Salameh Naimat, and Fawzi Abudanh. “New Arabic-Christian Inscriptions from Udhruḥ, Southern Jordan.” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 22 (2011): 232–242. Samji, Karim. “Aswāq-cum-Maghāzī: Commerce and Conflict in Late Antique Arabia.” Der Islam 93/1 (2016): 1–34. Sanders, Seth L. “Introduction.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions, Special Issue: How to Build a Sacred Text in the Ancient Near East 15/2 (2016): 113–20. Sanni, Amidu. “Did Ṭarafa Actually Steal from Imra ʿl-Qays? On coincidence of thoughts and expressions (tawārud) in Arabic literary theory.” Arabic and Middle Eastern Literatures 4/ 2 (2001): 117–136. Schacht, Joseph. “Amān,” Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 3, eds. B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat, and J. Schacht. Leiden, 1991, pp.429–30 ——. The Origins of Muhammad Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Schniedewind, William M. and Joel H. Hunt. A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture, and Literature. New York: Cambridge UP, 2007. Serjeant, R. B. “Early Arabic Prose.” In eds. A. F. L. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant, G. R. Smith, Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 114–53. ——. “Haram and Hawta, the Sacred Enclave in Arabia.” In ed. Abdurrahman Badawi Mélanges Taha Hussein: Offerts par ses Amies and ses disciples, à l’occasion de son 70ième. Anniversaire. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1962, pp. 41–58. ——. “The ‘Sunnah Jāmiʿah,’ Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the ‘Taḥrīm’ of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called ‘Constitution of Medina.” BSOAS 41/1 (1978): 1–42.

300

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Al-Shaybānī, Aḥmad b. Abī ʿĀṣim al-Daḥḥāk b. Makhlad. alĀḥād wa-l-mathānī. Ed. Bāsim Fayṣal Aḥmad al-Jawābira. Riyadh: Dār al-rāya li-l-ṭibāʿa wa-l-nashr wa-l-tawzīʿ, 1991. Short, Mick, Semino, Elena, and Wynne, Martin. “Revisiting the notion of faithfulness in discourse presentation using a corpus approach.” Language and Literature 11/4 (2002): 325– 355 Shoukri, Arafat Madri Refugee Status in Islam: Concepts of protection in Islamic tradition and international law. International Library of Migration Studies 7. London: Tauris, 2011. Siegert, Bernhard. “Cultural Techniques: Or the End of the Intellectual Postwar Era in German Media Theory,” Theory, Culture and Society 30/6 (2013): 48–65. Sijpesteijn, Petra. “The Archival Mind in Early Islamic Egypt: Two Arabic Papyri.” In eds. Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Lennart Sundelin, Sofía Torralas Tovar, and Amalia Zomeño, From al-Andalus to Khurasan: Documents from the Medieval Muslim World. Leiden: Brill, 2007, pp. 163–85. ——. “Profit following responsibility. A leaf from the records of a third/ninth century tax-collecting agent with an appended checklist of editions of Arabic Papyri.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 31 (2001): 91–132. Speight, R. Marston. “Oral Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad: A Formulaic Approach.” Oral Tradition, 4/1–2 (1989): 27–37. Stein, Peter. Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München, Band 1 Die Inschriften der mittel- und spätsabäischen Periode. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel Band 5. Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 2010. ——. “Correspondence by Letter and Epistolary Formulae in Ancient South Arabia.” In eds. Eva Mira Grob and Andreas Kaplony, Documentary Letters from the Middle East: the Evi-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

dence in Greek, Coptic, South Arabian, Pehlevi, and Arabic (1st–15th c. CE). Bern: Lang, 2008, pp. 771–802. Steppat, Fritz. “‘Those Who Believe and Have Not Emigrated’: The Bedouin as the marginal group of Islamic society.” In Fritz Steppat, Islam als Partner: Islamkundliche Aufsätze 1944–1996. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2001, pp. 331–37. Stern, S. M. Fatimid Decrees: Original Documents from the Fāṭimid Chancery. London: Faber and Faber, 1964. Szombathy, Zoltan. “Fieldwork and Preconceptions: The role of the Bedouin as informants in medieval Muslim scholarly culture (second-third/eight-ninth centuries).” Der Islam 92/1 (2015): 124–47. Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Jarīr. Annales quos scripsit. Ed. M. J. de Goeje. Lugundi-Batavorum: Brill, 1879–1965. ——. The History of al-Ṭabarī, Vol IX: The Last Years of the Prophet Trans. and ed. Ismail K. Poonawala Albany: SUNY Press, 1990. Talmon-Heller, Daniella. Islamic Piety in Medieval Syria: Mosques, Cemeteries, and Sermons under the Zangids and Ayyūbids (1146–1260). Leiden: Brill, 2007. Tannen, Deborah. Talking Voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts found in the Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Al-Wāqidī, Muḥammad b. ʿUmar. Kitāb al-maghāzī. Ed. Marsden Jones. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Wansbrough, John. Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean. Richmond: Curzon Press, 1996. ——. The Sectarian Milieu: content and composition of Islamic salvation history. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1978.

302

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Watkin, Jeneatte A. The Function of Documents in Islamic Law: the chapter on sales of Ṭaḥāwī’s Kitāb al-shurūṭ al-kabīr. Albany: SUNY Press, 1972. Watson, Alan. “An Approach to Customary Law.” University of Illinois Law Review (1984): 561–576. Wells, Bruce. “Law and Practice,” In ed. Daniel C. Snell, A Companion to the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005, pp. 183–95. Whelan, Estelle. “Forgotten Witness: Evidence for Early Codification of the Qurʾān.” JAOS 118/1 (1998): 1–14. Wilkinson, T. J. “Linear Hollows in the Jazira, Upper Mesopotamia.” Antiquity 67/256 (Sept. 1993): 548 62. Winthrop-Young, Geoffrey. “Cultural Techniques: Preliminary Remarks.” Theory, Culture, and Society 30/6 (2013): 3–19. Wüstenfeld, Ferdinand. Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed ibn Ishāk bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik ibn Hischām, 2 vols. Gottingen: Dieterich, 1858–1860. Yaron, Reuven. “Aramaic Deeds of Conveyance (I).” Biblica 41/3 (1960): 248–74. ——. “Aramaic Deeds of Conveyance (II).” Biblica 41/4 (1960): 379–94. Al-Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb. Tārīkh. Ed. M. Th. Houtsma. Leiden: Brill, 1883. Yāqūt ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥamawī. Muʿjam al-buldān. Ed. Ferdinand Wüstenfeld. 6 vols. Tehran: [n.p], 1965. Young, Walter. Stoning and Hand-Amputation: the pre-Islamic origins for hadd penalties for zinā and sariqa. PhD Dissertation, McGill University, 2005. Zwettler, Michael. The oral tradition of classical Arabic poetry: its character and implications. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1978.

INDEX ahl al-dhimma 171–172, 176–179, 181, 205 ahl al-ḥadīth 97 ahl al-sunna wa-l-jamāʿa 97 Ahmad, Ziauddin 163 Ahmed, Ziauddin 163 Akkadian 5, 19, 43, 55, 69, 89, 91, 261 Al-ʿAlāʾ b. al-Ḥaḍramī 280 Al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿUqbah 280 ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 108, 244, 270, 281 ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad 244 alienor 70, 80 ʾAlmaqah 193 amān 19, 31, 42, 57n92, 72–73, 115, 132, 167–170, 172, 174, 182, 184, 195n85, 197, 200, 206, 238, 244 āminūn bi-amān Allāh 167– 168, 174 ammā baʿdu 34, 40, 52–56, 58, 65, 73, 93 ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀs 251 ʿAmr b. Ḥazm 42, 136, 146, 218

ʿAbbāsid 5, 19, 28, 34–36, 99, 100n19, 178–180, 231, 233 ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. Yaḥyā 35– 36, 86, 272 ʿAbd Allāh b. Rawāḥa 280 ʿAbd al-Qays 168 Abū ʿAbs b. Jabr 280 Abū al-Aʿlāʾ 129–130 Abū Bakr 134, 137, 139– 140, 174, 188n72, 217n14, 225n45, 235, 243, 279–280 Abū Dawūd al-Sijistānī 98 Abū Hind al-Dārī 136, 139 Abū Hurayra 200, 201n111 Abū Nuʿaym 231 Abū Sufyān 54n74, 86, 120, 191n80 Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām 103, 137 Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb b. Ibrahīm 283 Abyssinia 18n50, 84, 119– 120, 252, 269 Adhruḥ 167, 184–185, 190, 248 Afghanistan 9, 38 ʿAhd al-Umma 42, 61, 64 303

304

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

ʿAmr b. Saʿd b. Abī Waqqās 31 anachronistic 155, 167, 182 Ancient Near East 7n16, 10, 23, 37n23, 50, 63, 86, 91, 153, 154n127, 167, 266 Ancient North Arabian 75, 261 Al-Aqraʿ b. Ḥābis al-Ḥanẓalī 191n80 aqṭaʿa 77, 134–135 Arabia 5, 9, 12, 20–21, 23– 24, 89, 91, 114, 123, 164–165, 182, 185, 188n72, 192–193, 195, 197, 199, 202–205, 206n125, 222, 265 Arabism 75, 196 Aramaic, Achaemenid Aramaic 3–4, 5n6, 9, 19, 34n15, 37–39, 41, 44– 45, 50, 55, 57, 69–70, 89, 91, 158, 261 Archibald, Zofia 263 Arjomand, Saïd 198, 204 Armenia 68 armor 125, 186, 189, 192 ʿasīb 224 aṣl 97–98, 135 asylum 8n19, 199, 202–203 asyla 203 Al-Aswāf 199 aʿṭā 42–43, 72–73, 76–77, 134, 143 authenticity 12–13, 17, 19n54, 59, 83, 98–101, 153, 167, 205, 217, 230,

240, 243–244, 246, 255, 257, 259 author 36, 101, 256, 259 authorship 36, 160, 250, 255, 262 autograph witness clause 33, 35, 46, 62 Ayla 50, 125, 167, 184, 185, 190, 248, 252, 264 ʿAynūn 134, 136, 138 Ayyām 17 Azerbaijān 68 Al-Azmeh, Aziz 264–265, 266n12 Bactrian 38–39, 261 Bahrādhān 68 Baḥrayn 18n50, 168, 228n57, 252, 279 Bailey, Clinton 169, 208 Bakr b. Wāʾil 226, 251 Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā 77, 104, 115, 124–126, 146, 156–157, 166, 174, 187–192, 244 Banū al-Ḥārith b. Kaʿb 146 Banū al-Rabʿa 169 Banū Dabīʿa b. Rabīʿa 251 Banū Ḥanīfa 123, 200, 204 Banū Ḥurmuz 169 Banū Janba 125 Banū Jāriya 132 Banū Judʿān 139 Banū Juwayn 169 Banū Muʿāwiya b. Jarwal 168 Banū Saʿd 224 Banū Sulaym 13, 219–220

INDEX Banū Tamīm 130, 240 Banū Thaqīf 200 Banū ʿUdhra 224 Banū ʿUkayl 223 Banū Zuhayr b. Uqaysh 238, 242 Banū Zurʿa 169 Baqīʿ market 199 Bar Kokhba 55 barāʿa 71 baraka 212, 233 Bartlett, Frederic 159 basmala 16, 19, 27, 31, 34, 40–41, 47–48, 52, 58– 59, 63, 65, 67n122, 73, 80, 85, 90, 93, 104, 108–110, 113, 115–116, 118, 121, 123–126, 128, 130–131, 133–134, 141, 143, 146, 149, 150–151, 238–239 Basra, mirbad 129, 237– 238, 242, 279 Bayt Laḥm 137–138 Beaumont, Daniel 220, 221n27 Bedouin 6, 8, 77, 79, 91, 129–130, 165, 169–170, 208, 211, 213–215, 224, 236–243, 246, 256, 263 Biblical text 160 Bilād al-Shām 232 bilingual 37–38, 45, 180, 261 biography 103–104, 136, 208, 214 bloodshed 164, 202 Brown, Jonathan 97–99

305 Al-Bukhārī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl 99, 110, 211, 218n17, 246, 254 Byzantine 14, 48, 63, 69, 114, 184n61, 185, 205 Byzantine Greek 33, 35, 38– 39, 46, 71 Cairo 178, 244, 249 Cairo Geniza 10, 31, 50, 64, 155n132, 245 calque 87, 153–154 camels 144–145, 192, 224n42, 239n88, 241, 252 Carr, David 159–160 Cerquiglini, Bernard 95, 102 chancery practice 32, 39, 48, 54, 63, 87–88, 266 chancery tradition 9, 36, 38, 48, 50, 161 Chosroes (see Kisrā) 83 Christian 48, 115, 119–120, 125, 155, 156n132, 173, 176–177, 180–181, 185, 204, 228n57, 245, 264n8 coins 8n19, 154 communication technology 16, 25 Companion 97–99, 134, 211n3, 213, 218n19, 220, 222, 234, 242–243, 246–247, 249, 254, 256, 279, 281

306

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

confessional identity 20–21, 163–166, 171, 176, 182, 192, 202, 205–206, 209, 268 Conquest-era 14, 19–20, 30–31, 35, 38, 40, 46, 50, 53, 57–58, 61, 63– 65, 68–69, 77–78, 83, 89, 107, 155n131, 156, 172–176, 179, 181, 205 Constitution of Medina (see ʿAhd al-Umma) 86, 164, 197, 202, 204 contracts 20, 35n19, 37, 48, 57, 67n121, 71, 75, 80, 82, 103, 106–107, 164, 171, 196, 280 conveyance 3–5, 32, 35, 37, 69, 71–73, 76–80, 106, 132, 150, 158 Cook, David 140 Coptic 33, 35, 38–39, 46, 71, 80, 261, 278n12 copy 68n126, 110, 115, 140, 155–157, 159n137, 160, 189, 190n77, 191, 208, 212n5, 245, 262 copyist 66, 115, 118–119, 159, 187, 262 copyist error 118–119 Crone, Patricia 196, 222 cultivation 77–79, 170 curse clauses 5, 138, 144, 261 custom dues 9, 114, 183n57, 187

Damascus 68, 114, 156, 175, 181, 212n5 Dār al-Ḥarb 170 Al-Dārimī, ʿUthmān b. Saʿīd 218 date palms 73, 119, 125, 187, 189 dating clause 76, 156, 189 debt 169–171, 280 Décobert, Christian 197n93, 265 delegation 13, 69, 103, 134, 136–137, 181, 197n93, 213–214, 219, 223–224, 227 design 3, 15, 41, 86–88, 102 dhimma 20–21, 72–73, 128, 163–164, 167, 170–179, 181n53, 189, 191–192, 196–197, 205, 261 dhimmat Allāh 20–21, 32, 73, 163–168, 170, 172– 176, 181–186, 188–197, 200, 203–206, 209, 244n95, 261, 263–264 diacritical dots 89 Dickinson, Eerick 257 Diem, Werner 18, 27–28, 32, 51, 83, 89, 167, 179n41 diplomatic 7–8, 14, 23, 28, 39, 66, 87–89, 91, 103, 119, 153–154, 181, 197, 203, 205–206, 249, 253, 259, 267–268 direct speech 96n5, 108, 220–221

INDEX discourse analysis 96 discourse markers 16, 59, 83, 86, 96 divorce 67n121, 69 Dome of the Rock 85 doxology 31, 40, 51–52, 93, 122–123 Dresch, Paul 207–208, 263 Dūmat al-Jandal 81, 114– 115, 125, 146, 157, 167, 183–186, 188, 194n83, 264 Duranti, Alessandro 255 Dushara 195 Egypt 6, 9, 18n50, 33, 38, 44n38, 45, 47, 52, 63, 67n122, 81, 171, 176– 180, 182, 208, 233 emotion 21n55, 22, 36, 96n5, 151, 220 emptor 70, 80 endowment 69, 76 epigraphic 165, 193, 195, 203, 265n12 Ethiopia 222 Farwa b. ʿAmr 57, 253 Fatimid 41, 48, 87n181 fatwā 233 Fayyūm 67n122, 80, 171 fides 172 fishing 125, 189 Followers 99, 175, 225, 246 formulae: address ~ 19, 30–31, 34, 40–41, 43– 44, 46–47, 48, 50–52, 57–58, 73, 76, 90, 93,

307 109–110, 121, 124, 126, 128, 143–145, 158, 178, 183n59, 186, 191, administrative ~ 10, 20, 53, 56, 66, 178, 261, blessing 30n8, 49, 52, 53, 56–57, 84, 90, 93, 152n121, 158, closing ~ 5, 16, 31, 33, 40, 50, 52–53, 56, 58–61, 65– 66, 71, 75, 81, 90–91, 104, 106, 109, 118–119, 123, 128–129, 149, 156, 189, 191–192, 253, epistolary ~ 15, 18, 33–34, 41–42, 45, 47, 51–55, 57–58, 91, 161, greeting ~ 5, 27, 30–31, 34, 40, 49–51, 55, 59–61, 73, 93, 123, 128–129, 183n59, 189, introductory ~ 16, 51, 59, 79– 80, 84–85, 158, 187, legal ~ 5, 9, 32, 36–37, 62, 69, 157, 158, 163– 165, 193, 205–207, 263, 269, transitional ~ 19, 65 formulary 6, 15–16, 29–33, 38–39, 58–59, 68–71, 76, 81–82, 87n181, 90– 91, 101, 121, 160, 205 frankincense 194 Frantz-Murphy, Gladys 35n19, 71 free-text 20, 154, 255 Frenkel, Yehoshua 217, 232–233

308

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

fruits 168–169, 189, 280 futūḥ 13, 30, 32, 107, 177, 244 gharīb 115, 132 gift 3, 8, 77, 115 glocalization 260 Goldziher, Ignác 215 graffiti 45, 68, 83, 85, 154, 250n109 graphic design 41 graphic marking 90–91, 93 Greek 33, 35, 38–39, 41, 45–46, 54–56, 71, 80, 89, 172, 261, 263n6 Grob, Eva Mira 2, 8n17, 10, 15–16, 28–30, 34–35, 38–39, 45, 51, 57–58, 64n109, 66, 89–90, 151– 152, 261, 267 Grohmann, Adolf 18, 27, 76, 167 Gross, Andrew 3, 158 guarantee clause 5, 102, 114, 119, 144, 171, 190–191, 257 Gzella, Holger 37, 87 Ḥabrūn 135 Ḥadas of Lakhm 168 hādhā mā 5, 42, 46, 72–73, 77, 79 ḥadīth 1–2, 6, 16, 17, 22– 24, 36n21, 91, 97–99, 104, 110, 129n71, 132, 155, 157, 174–175, 177, 201, 211, 212–213, 217– 219, 221–222, 226, 228–

230, 234–240, 242–244, 246–247, 249, 255–258, 267–268 Hadramawt 144, 193 ḥajj 108, 146, 194n83, 217 Al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf 240 Ḥamādah, Muḥammad Māhir 31 ḥamdala 27, 40, 51–54, 56, 58, 183n59 Hamidullah, Muhammad 12–13, 31–32, 34, 54n74, 64, 68, 79–80, 82, 119–121, 220 ḥaram 164, 197n93, 198– 202, 204 ḥashr 188, 192 Hatīb b. Abī Balthaʿa 280 Hatra 202n112, 264 Hawdha b ʿAlī 18n50, 123– 124 Ḥawrān 114 Al-Haytham b. ʿAdī 138– 139, 214n6 Hebrew 9, 37–39, 44, 55, 57, 261 Hebron 136, 140, 233n72 Heck, Paul 78–79 Heraclius 18n50, 84, 105, 106 Ḥijāz 182, 186, 197, 203– 204, 206n125, 222, 280 Hijrī calendar 68, 107 Hill, D. R. 13–14, 176 ḥimā 164, 199, 201 Himyar 50 Hinds, Martin 178

INDEX Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik 36, 272 Hittite 57 Hoyland, Robert 45, 171– 173 ḥ-r-m 195, 197 Ḥudaybiyya 40, 64, 106– 107, 146 Hudhayfa b. al-Yamān alʿAbsī 280 Ḥudhaym 224 ḥukm al-manʿ 207–208 humiliation 164, 176 Ibn ʿAsākir, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan 135–138, 231–233, 243 Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn 35, 104, 132, 150, 235, 279–281 Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā 140 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī 104 Ibn Ḥanbal, Aḥmad 104, 109, 130, 257 Ibn Hisham, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd alMalik 18n50 Ibn Isḥāq, Muḥammad 103, 115, 119n52, 120, 146, 166, 190, 198, 202, 216n11 Ibn Jurayj 137–138 Ibn Māja, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Yazīd 104, 150, 175 Ibn Manda 132, 136

309 Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya 172 Ibn Qutayba 254 Ibn Saʿd, Muḥammad 13, 17, 18n50, 103, 114– 115, 120, 124–125, 130, 132, 134, 138–139, 144, 146, 156, 166, 168, 187–192, 211, 213, 214n6, 215n8, 219, 223, 225, 237, 239, 243–244, 249, 256, 279–281 Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ al-Shahrazūrī 98, 257 Ibn Shabba, ʿUmar 228 Ibn Sīrīn, Muḥammad 139 Ibn al-Zamān 248 Ibn Zanjawayh 138 idol 186, 200 ʿIkrima 137–138 Imbert, Frédéric 85, 250n109 Imruʾ al-Qays 100 inalienability 91 indirect speech 96n5, 220 information-packaging 15, 56n89, 152 inscription 8, 44–45, 53n73, 75–76, 83, 85, 154, 193, 195–196, 202, 261, 266 interfaith 23 investiture clause 4–5, 71, 74, 80, 133–134, 142, 144 inviolability 8n19, 21, 125, 164–165, 181, 184, 186, 190, 193–195, 197, 201, 203, 205, 209, 244, 261

310

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

iqṭāʿ 231n66 iqṭaʿāt 135 Iraq 34, 77, 177, 228n57 Ishqawh/Aphrodito 180, 270 islām 81, 165, 168–169, 178, 182, 186, 193, 205–207, 249, 280 Islamic historiography 17, 28, 30, 35, 91, 153, 155, 160, 161, 166, 172, 213–214, 222, 240, 262, 268 Islamic polity 21, 197, 204, 268 isnād: family ~ 135–136, 213, 218–219, 221–225, 227n54, 231–232, 234, 236, 249, elevated ~ 257 ʿiṭq 81 Jaʿfar b. Abī Ṭālib 105, 120 Jafnids 264 jār 73, 129, 189, 196–198, 202 Jarbā 184–185, 190 jawf 198 Jayfar and ʿAbd of Julanda 18n50, 84, 251 Jews 84, 125, 185, 189, 198n95, 204, 244–245, 248 Jewish 11, 155 Jewish Aramaic 34n15, 45 jiwār 167, 170, 172, 184, 191, 196–198, 207–208

jizya 14, 173, 176, 178– 179, 181, 189–190, 206, 244 jizyat al-raʾs 179–180 Juhaym b. al-Ṣalt 190n76, 279 Juhayna 168–169, 218– 219, 279 Jurash 201 jurists 82, 173, 206n125, 217, 233n73 kataba 40, 42, 61–62, 64– 65, 67–69, 72–73, 75, 81, 108, 138, 189, 191n80, 216n11, 229n61, 231, 238 kātib 64, 75, 108, 110, 226 Kelemen, Erick 160 khabar 106, 220 Al-Khālid b. al-Walīd 156 Khālid b. Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀs 279 Khan, Geoffrey 9, 38, 46, 52, 66n117, 69, 89, 205 kharāj 14, 176, 187, 192 Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī 98, 244 Khaybar 31, 50, 84, 155, 244–245, 280 khums 118, 144–146, 168, 169nn6-8, 187, 215, 238 Khurāsān 6, 45, 47, 52, 65, 69, 81–82 Al-Kindī, Abū ʿUmar Muḥammad b. Yūsuf 216 Kisrā 40, 49, 59, 83

INDEX Klimenko, Vladimir 203, 265 koine 87–89 Korotayev, Andrey 203, 265 Krakowski, Eve 10–11 kutiba 61, 63–66, 68, 76, 82, 90 lā yuḥāqquhu fīhā aḥadun 74, 261 lā yuʿsharūna wa-lā yuḥsharūna 187, 188n70, 192, 261 land: ~ grants 64, 70, 77– 78, 134–135, 139, 167, 184, 193, 217, 223, 225, 232, 233n73, ~ rights 8, 74, 77–79, 107, 125, 165, 170, 186, 188, 214–215, 229, 264, ~ transfers 9, 69, 71 Landau-Tasseron, Ella 204– 205 language contact 24, 88 late antique Arabia 5, 24, 164–165, 207 Latin 39, 89, 97n8, 172 law: common ~ 11, customary ~ 5–6, 9, 12, 20–21, 77, 79, 91, 163– 166, 193, 198–199, 207, 209, transactional ~ 207 Al-Layth b. Saʿd 138 leather 22, 83, 115, 130, 135–136, 140, 187n67, 201n111, 211, 217, 221–223, 227, 230, 232, 237–238, 244, 251

311 Lecker, Michael 9, 12–13, 76, 78, 115, 132, 183n57, 187, 198, 199n102, 202, 205, 214n6, 215, 219–220 letters to kings 17, 18n50, 31, 42, 83, 105–106, 120–121, 124, 206, 266 Levantine 172 Levy-Rubin, Milka 14, 63, 89, 172, 174n26, 205 Lihyanite 89 lingua franca 39, 88 linguistic anthropology 255 literacy 89, 124n65, 227, 229, 249–250, 253–254, 267 literary transmission 19–20, 28, 30–31, 50, 81, 107, 154–155, 176, 205, 261– 262 livestock 125, 146, 201, 265n10 l-ʿ-n 196 longevity 17, 20, 24, 36, 157, 163, 167, 207–208, 259, 263 Lucas, Scott 99 Madfū 132 Maḥram Bilqīs 195, 200n102 Maʾin 193 Mairs, Rachel 260 Makin, Al 203 maks 187 Mālik b. Murara 253

312

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Mamluk 104, 213, 216, 221, 231, 233 Al-Maʿmūn 85 mantle 248 manumission 32, 63, 80–82, 158 Maqnā 50, 68, 89, 125, 129, 156n133, 167, 184–185, 188–190, 244– 245 Al-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Qādir 104, 110, 115, 126, 135–139, 187– 188, 190, 224n44, 231– 232, 243 Maraqten, Mohammad 196, 224n42 Maʾrib 195, 217n15 market 21, 114, 165, 183n57, 185, 188n72, 194n83, 200, 264 market towns 37n26, 76, 170, 182, 188n72, 199, 209, 238, 239n88 Maronite Chronicle 181 marriage 67n121, 69, 171, 223 Marwān b. Muḥammad 36, 272 Al-Marzūqī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad 76 mass culture 16, 24 material culture 22, 24, 222, 260n1 materiality 22, 205, 213, 221 matn 97, 137, 239

McCorriston, Joy 194, 265, 266n12 Mecca 107, 119, 124, 136, 140, 185, 199n99, 201– 204, 217, 218n17, 222, 247, 254, 280 Medina 13, 76, 86, 114, 137, 139–140, 164, 167, 188n72, 197–202, 204, 214, 217, 218n17, 241, 247, 264, 280 Mediterranean 37, 39, 87, 260 memory 20, 23n56, 91, 152–153, 155, 157–161, 208, 240, 262 Meri, Joseph 212 Mesopotamia 44n38, 75– 76, 264 messenger 18n50, 21–22, 43, 57, 91, 119, 120n52, 123–124, 168, 169nn6– 7, 173, 175, 191–192, 213, 224n43, 251–253, 280 messenger-formula 43, 45 messenger-text 252 Minaic 35, 67 Miṣr 126, 178–179 monumental opening 34, 42, 45–46, 53, 72–73, 86, 88, 113, 131, 167, 261 Morimoto, Kōsei 180 Mt. Mūgh 52 Muʿādh b. Jabal 253, 281 Muʿallaqa 100

INDEX Muʿāwiya 77, 168, 181, 227–228, 254 Muʿayqib b. Abī Fātima alDawsī 280 Al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba 191n80, 279 muhādana 109–110 Muḥammad b. Maslama 279 Mujjāʿa b. Murāra b. Sulamī 174 Mukhātir b. Abī ʿUbayd 31 muʾminīn 129, 178 Mundhir b. Sawā 18n50, 49, 52, 54n74, 59–60, 252 Munt, Harry 198, 206n125, 265 Al-Muqaddasī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad 248 Muqawqis 18n50, 49, 54n74, 59, 83, 280 Musaylima 200, 204 mushrikīn 109–110, 168, 169nn6-8, 238, 247 muslim 74, 80 Muslim b. al-Ḥārith b. Muslim al-Tamīmī 234–235, 236n83, 256 Al-Mustaḍī Billāh 140 Al-Mutalammis 228–229 Nabataean 8n18, 44–45, 75–76, 86, 89, 92, 165, 185, 193, 195–196, 261 Najrān 40, 42, 59, 61, 86, 89, 146, 156nn132–133,

313 167, 184–185, 188, 191– 192, 264 narrative 2, 15–17, 23, 27, 57, 91, 96, 102, 106, 153–155, 161, 163, 166, 173, 184, 200, 203, 206, 212–213, 215–216, 218– 220, 223–224, 226, 232, 234, 237, 239, 240, 256, 262–263, 266, 268 Naṣrids 264 Al-Nawawī, Abī Zakarīyā Yaḥyā 212 Al-Naysābūrī, al-Ḥākim 246–247 Negev 77, 169, 208 Negus 18n50, 54n74, 84, 105, 119–121, 252, 269 Neo-Babylonian 70, 76 Nessana 173 networks: commercial ~ 197, 203, 209, 260, 264, social ~ 21, 196, 263 nisba 134 no-challenge 70, 158 nomads 165, 184n61 non-Muslims 50, 106, 149, 155–156, 163–164, 173– 176, 179–182, 187, 194, 206, 213, 241n90, 244– 245, 256, 268 non-state 21 North Africa 208 Noth, Albrecht 13–14, 19, 28, 32, 64, 83, 106–107, 155, 216 Nubians 178, 182, 216

314

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

objective style 46, 72, 79– 82 official letters 6, 34, 45, 47n55, 48, 51, 66n120, 67n122, 273 Old Babylonian 50, 70 Omar, Hussein 176–177, 179 operative term 72, 76, 79, 81–82, 184 optative verb 50, 56, 75 oral 7, 20, 28, 38, 44n39, 68, 97, 100, 138, 152, 159–160, 196, 205, 221, 235, 238–239, 242–243, 250n109, 251, 253, 255, 257 origins 6, 9, 23, 33, 39, 66, 135, 155, 166 orthography 89, 118, 129, 144, 156, 159n137, 184, 189n75 Ottoman 233 Pact of ʿUmar 14 Pahlavi 38, 261 paleography 13 Palestine 37, 87, 134, 221, 230 palm 73, 119, 125, 186– 187, 189, 224, 280 Palmyra 202, 250n109, 264, 265n10 Papaconstantinou, Arietta 174n26, 176–177 papryri, Aphrodito ~ 180, Arabic ~ 2, 5–6, 14–20, 27–30, 32–35, 38, 41,

45–46, 50–51, 58, 60, 63–66, 69–70, 74, 80– 81, 83, 86, 89–90, 151– 152, 167, 170–171, 176, 178–180, 182, 187, 206, 261, 267, 269n1, Greek ~ 38, 45, 261, Dura Europos ~ 3, Elephantine ~3 Parry, Alfred 159 pasture 77–79, 164, 169, 186, 199, 209 peace 50, 61, 135, 165, 167–169, 174, 183, 202, 235, 241 Peirano, Irene 99 performativity 75–76, 97 perpetuity 74, 141, 144 personal name 2, 41, 59, 61–64, 68, 105, 113, 157 personal status 164–165, 171, 176 Phoenician 44, 261 pilgrimage 21, 107, 194, 197n93, 203, 248, 264– 265, 266n12 pilgrims 170 pistis 172 place-names 21, 106, 118, 132, 134, 144, 157, 250, 262 Plumey, J. Martin 178 poetry 17, 97, 100, 196, 222, 264 politeness 8n17, 15, 56n89, 151

INDEX political confederation 164– 165, 194, 195n85, 197, 205, 207, 209 prescript 33–34, 38, 40, 47, 52, 55, 58, 90, 93, 261 property 3–4, 8, 37, 69–70, 72–73, 75–76, 80, 100, 107, 118, 144, 169, 171 Proussakov, Dmitry 203, 265 Al-Qāḍī, Wadād 14, 30, 36, 57, 63, 65, 68, 107, 216 Qallāya 138 Al-Qalqashandī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī 87n181, 104, 110, 115, 120, 124, 130, 135–136, 140, 144, 153, 221n29, 224n42, 230 qaṣīda 100 Al-Qasṭallānī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad 104, 120– 121, 124, 139 Qataban 193 Qibṭī 177 qiṭʿa 83, 130, 136, 139, 223, 230–231, 239n88, 242, 251 Qudāma b. Jaʿfar 78 quotation: ~ marks 96, verbatim ~ 2, 96–97, 101, 159, 251 Qur’anic 63 Quraysh 107–109, 201n111 Qurra b. Sharīk 47–48, 52, 54, 56, 61, 65–66, 121, 270

315 Rabin, Chaim 17 rāwī 100 Rayy 68 reader 22, 54, 154, 251, 253, 256 Red Sea 125, 185 redactions 2n3, 12–15, 19– 20, 23n56, 32, 35, 57, 68, 76, 79, 81n157, 91, 100–107, 121, 131–132, 134, 136, 140, 150, 153–155, 157–158, 160– 161, 166–168, 174, 184, 186–187, 189–192, 230n62, 238n86, 262 refuge 8, 21, 119–121, 197– 198, 201, 203, 207, 264 relics 23n56, 105n25, 157, 211–212, 234, 248–249, 257 religious minorities 171, 246 reported speech 85–86, 96n5 ribā 192 ridda 174, 176, 204–205 rijāl 110, 213, 219 ritual 11, 34, 154, 182, 184, 188, 202, 206, 217, 236, 247, 255–256, 264 riwāya bi-l-maʿnā 98 riwāyāt 12 Rome 87–88 Rubin, Uri 7 ruqʿa 135–136, 227, 231– 232 Rustow, Marina 10–11, 245

316

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

Saba 193, 195 Sabaic 5, 19, 35, 44, 54–55, 67, 75, 76n141, 88, 91, 195, 261 Al-Ṣafadī, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Khalīl b. Aybak 244 Safaitic 75, 89, 196 safe-conduct 165, 168, 170, 182, 193, 214, 238, 250, 256 saḥīḥ 139, 217 Saʿīd b. Zayyād 231, 233– 234 Al-Sakhāwī, Shams al-Dīn 248, 249n107 Sakkout, Hamdi 178 salām ʿalā man ittabaʿa alhudā 27, 30, 40, 49–50, 56, 60–61, 91, 261 Salama al-Sulamī 106 Salama b. Mālik 132, 146 ṣalāt 119, 144, 146, 168, 169nn6–8, 182–183, 215 Salaymeh, Lena 166, 178, 182, 206n125 sale 1–6, 32, 62, 67n121, 70–71, 79–80, 102, 150, 158, 171, 195, 276–277 Salmān al-Farisī 68 sanctuary 8, 20–21, 164– 165, 170, 193, 195n85, 197–205, 209–210, 263– 266 sandal 140, 212 Sassanian 14, 48, 114, 205 satisfaction clause 37, 70 scribal clauses 33–35, 38, 40, 50, 61–69, 75, 79,

82, 90–91, 104, 108– 109, 113–114, 128–129, 138–140, 143–144, 157, 190n76, 191–192, 250, 261 scribe 10–11, 21–22, 43, 64–67, 81–82, 106, 108– 110, 134–135, 144, 146, 249–250, 252–254, 259, 280–281 seal 53n73, 59, 69, 115, 131, 211n2, 230, 232, 234–235, 251–252, 271 security 8, 21, 73, 77–78, 121, 125, 127–129, 131– 132, 164–165, 168–169, 173–175, 181–182, 186, 188, 191, 194, 198, 200, 203–204, 210, 214–215, 238, 242, 244, 246, 256, 263 Sejpesteijn, Petra 180 Semitic: North-East ~ 55, North-West ~ 55 Serjeant, R. B. 17, 198–199 Shabwa 193 shahāda 183, 215, 238 sheep 168–169, 224n42, 252 Shuraḥbīl b. Ḥasana 156, 190n76, 249 shurūṭ 33, 70 signature witness clause 62–63 sijjil manshūr 153 Sinai 77, 169, 208 sīra 103, 110, 184, 197, 200, 203, 213, 249

INDEX sīra-maghāzī 18n50, 165, 182, 203, 206, 215 slaves 1–4, 80–82, 125, 150, 158, 178, 184, 189 slide-in-blessings 30n8, 58– 59, 152n121 sociology of texts 21n55 source-criticism 28, 184 South Arabian 38, 44, 67, 75–76, 86, 165, 193, 195–196, 199n102, 203– 204, 261 spatial layout 88, 91, 107, 259, 266 spoils 72, 146, 168, 169nn6-8, 189, 249, 281 stereotype 10, 15–16, 39, 56, 83, 86, 104, 153– 154, 157–158, 160 Stern, S. M. 245 subaltern 213, 239–240, 245, 256 subjective style 45n43, 46, 53, 57, 70, 72–73, 81, 106–107, 118, 131 ṣulḥ 50n60, 109 sunna 97, 183 surrender 14, 89, 172, 193, 205 Al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Din 231n66, 233–234 synonyms 20, 32, 102, 106– 107, 114, 118, 128–129, 134, 143, 149, 161, 170, 184 syntax 57, 102, 152, 262 Syria 37, 87, 114, 124, 134–135, 137–139, 176,

317 185, 190, 204, 217n14, 222, 233, 269 Syriac 34n15, 45 Al-Ṭabarānī, Sulaymān b. Aḥmad 136, 139, 231 Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr 104, 109, 115, 120–121, 146, 166, 174, 254, 269–270 Ṭabaristān 68 Tabūk 227, 248 Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. Muḥammad 70 taḥrīm 198–199, 201n109 Al-Ṭāʾif 164, 167, 183, 186n66, 193, 197n93, 200, 201n109, 264 Taʿlab 194 Tamīm al-Dārī 42, 104, 106, 134–140, 144, 217, 221, 230–232, 243 tārīkh 213 tax: ~ exemption 118, 129, 164, 186–188, 192, 244, poll ~ 115, 164, 180, 181n53 Taymāʾ 125, 184n61, 185, 190 Ṭayyiʾ 168–169, 224 tendentious 100, 153 text-building 28, 154 Thamudic 75, 89, 196 Al-Tirmidhī, Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā 150 tombs 8, 44–45, 76, 154, 195n88

318

DOCUMENTS OF THE PROPHET

trade: caravan ~ 124, 190, 194n83, long-distance ~ 185, 188n72, 197n93, 260, 265, peninsular ~ 114, 124, 185, 188, 192–193, 201 transfer clause 71 treaties 14, 35, 41, 46n49, 57, 61, 63, 75, 77, 83, 103, 107–108, 110, 156, 168, 172–175, 205, 247– 248, 254, 280 tribal confederations 77, 169, 193, 195, 198–199, 205 tribute 165, 180–181, 188– 189, 206 truth: effective ~ 97, historical ~ 97, 99, 239, 245, 255, 259, literal ~ 96– 97 Ṭūlūnid 58 Ugaritic 5, 43, 50, 55, 69, 261 Ukaydir b. ʿAbd al-Malik 81, 114–115, 186, 188 ʿUkāẓ 37n26, 76, 183n57, 194n83 ʿUkl 129, 131, 238 ʿulamāʾ 212n5, 244, 246 ʿulūm al-ḥadīth 240, 246 ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Azīz 235– 236 ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb 174– 175 Umayyad 5–6, 19, 28, 31, 45–47, 53, 58, 65, 85–

86, 153, 216, 218n17, 233, 272 Umm Ḥabība 120 ummīyūn 254 ʿUqayl b. Kaʿb 223 ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr 109–110 ʿushr 118, 144, 180, 187, 192 ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān 192n80 ʿUyayna b. Ḥisn al-Fazārī 227–230, 254 validity 39, 46, 71, 75, 92, 201n109, 217, 245 validity clause 33, 71 variants 12, 15, 20, 29, 32, 40, 50–52, 56, 60, 74– 75, 81, 85, 100–107, 113–114, 118, 123, 125, 128, 131, 134, 143, 145, 149, 151, 156–157, 159, 161, 169, 184, 187, 189–192, 238n87, 239n88, 262 verbal fixity 96 verbatim assumption 96, 160 verbatim recall 159 Wādī Sirḥān 114 Wāʾil b. Ḥujr 144 Wajj 200, 201n109 Wansbrough, John 10, 16, 37, 39, 41, 48–50, 53– 54, 62, 86–89, 153, 161, 215, 216n11, 260, 266 Al-Wāqidī, Muḥammad b. ʿUmar 103, 108, 114– 115, 156–157, 166, 173,

INDEX 175, 184, 187–190, 216n11, 227n55 warranty clause 4, 33, 35, 71 water 8, 72, 77–79, 125, 168–169, 202 Whelan, Estelle 85 witness clause 5, 33, 35, 39n31, 40, 46, 61–64, 66–67, 75, 81, 102, 104, 113, 118–119, 133–134, 156 Al-Yamāma 123, 194n83, 200 Yāqūt al-Rūmī 104, 135, 199 Yarmūk 156 Yaron, Reuven 69, 70n133, 158

319 Yathrib 198 Yemen 146, 183, 190, 192, 201n111, 207–208, 217– 218, 222, 253, 266n12, 279, 281 Young, Walter 7 zakāt 119, 131, 144, 168, 169nn6-8, 180, 183, 186–187, 215, 242n90 Zamzam 201 Zayd b. Thābit 200, 218n19, 280 Al-Zuhrī, Muḥammad b. Muslim b. Shahāb 109, 119, 138, 224n44, 225n45 Zwettler, Michael 100