Reconstruction of a Source of Ibn Isḥāq's Life of the Prophet and Early Qurʾān Exegesis: A Study of Early Ibn ʿabbās Traditions 9781463206598, 1463206593

Citation preview

Reconstruction of a Source of Ibn Isḥāq’s Life of the Prophet and Early Qurʾān Exegesis

Islamic History and Thought

3 Series Editorial Board Series Editor

Peter Adamson Isabel Toral-Niehoff Isabel Toral-Niehoff Ahmad Khan Manolis Ulbricht Jack Tannous Jan Just Witkam

Peter Adamson

Ahmad KhanBoard Advisory Editorial

Binyamin Abrahamov Konrad Hirschler Jack Tannous Asad Q. Ahmed James Howard-Johnston Mehmetcan Akpinar Maher Jarrar Manolis Ulbricht Abdulhadi Alajmi Marcus Milwright Mohammad-Ali Amir-Moezzi Harry Munt Jan Just Witkam Massimo Campanini Gabriel Said Reynolds Agostino Cilardo Walid A. Saleh Godefroid de Callataÿ Jens Scheiner Farhad Daftary Delfina Serrano Beatrice Gruendler Georges Tamer Wael Hallaq

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

Reconstruction of a Source of Ibn Isḥāq’s Life of the Prophet and Early Qurʾān Exegesis

A Study of Early Ibn ʿAbbās Traditions

Harald Motzki

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 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

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0659-8

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 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 I. The problem of sources on the life of the Prophet Muḥammad....................................................................................... 9 II. Source analysis ................................................................................... 21 1. A reaction of the Quraysh to Muḥammad’s rise .................. 21 2. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad ............................................. 35 3. The profile of the source “Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad” ......................................................................... 47 4. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad outside of the Sīra sources .................................................................................... 75 Narrations without parallels in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra ............. 97 5. Al-Kalbī’s variants ...................................................................100 6. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s sources ..........................115 III. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad: a source for the historical vita of the Prophet? .....................................................................121 IV. Excursus: Ibn Isḥāq’s exegetical traditions from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad ................................................129 Appendix: Isnāds of the most important traditions .........................133 Bibliography ..........................................................................................135

v

INTRODUCTION The majority of Muslim scholars past and present assumed and assume that the reports on the words and deeds of the Prophet Muḥammad, called aḥādīth, sg. ḥadīth, transmitted in numerous collections since the 2nd half of the 2nd century H., i.e. ca. 150 years after his death, are reliable. This view is based on the notion that the reports stem from Muḥammad’s companions from whom the following generation of Muslims passed them on to the next generation, etc., until this knowledge was finally systematically collected and committed to writing. Serving as proof thereof for Muslim scholars was the fact that the traditions of the Prophet and of his companions are furnished with chains of transmitters, asānīd, sg. isnād, which indicate who transmitted the content to whom. Muslim scholars were quite aware that not all of the texts and informant data were reliable, since religious and political disputes divided the Muslim community after Muḥammad’s death and also tinged the quality of the reporting and transmission of the traditions. The collectors of the transmissions consequently strove to separate the wheat from the chaff. For this reason, most Muslims up to now consider the collections of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries to be trustworthy. This holds likewise for the considerable number of traditions of the Prophet’s companion ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās which are the object of this study. What is the situation in the area of ḥadīth traditions and juridically relevant raʾy traditions 1 ascribed to Ibn ʿAbbās? According to the information of Islamic scholars, Ibn ʿAbbās transmitted 1660

son.

1

Raʾy traditions convey the personal opinion of the respective per-

1

2

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

aḥādīth concerning the Prophet. 2 That is an enormous quantity given the biographical reports on the date of Ibn ʿAbbās’ birth and his age at the Prophet’s demise: Ibn ʿAbbās is supposed to have been born three years before the hijra. He would have thus been 13 years old at Muḥammad’s death. This age is also transmitted from Saʿīd b. Jubayr ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās. At the same time, however, there are also other traditions from the same Saʿīd b. Jubayr in which Ibn ʿAbbās gave his age at the Prophet’s death as 10 or 15. 3 The age of 10 was in early Islam considered to be the beginning of puberty for boys, and this age concurs with another tradition from Saʿīd b. Jubayr where Ibn ʿAbbās said that at the time of the Prophet’s death he had just been circumcised, something which conventionally took place at the start of puberty at the latest. With 15 years-of-age, on the other hand, a boy was considered an adult. 4 The last version fosters the suspicion that this higher age was brought into play to reinforce the authority and trustworthiness of the traditions of the young companion of the Prophet. The Muslim ḥadīth scholars of the first Islamic centuries seem to have been little disturbed by the discrepancy between the quantity of Ibn ʿAbbās traditions about the Prophet and Ibn ʿAbbās’ infancy during Muḥammad’s lifetime. For the Western Islamicists of the 20th and incipient 21st centuries, however, this was an issue which nurtured the doubt that the large quantity of Prophetic aḥādīth ascribed in the six ḥadīth collections (al-kutub al-sitta) most appreciated by Sunni Muslims really comes from Ibn ʿAbbās. One obvious conclusion was that these traditions, in full or at least a large part thereof, were not attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās until later. Muḥammad Zubayr Ṣiddīqī, Ḥadīth Literature. Its Origin, Development & Special Features, Cambridge 1993, p. 18. 3 Yūsuf b. al-Zakī al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmāʾ al-rijāl, ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, Beirut 1998, 4: p. 178. See also Claude Gilliot, “ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās” in: EI THREE, edited by: Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. Brill Online, 2014, pp. 1–2. 4 See Harald Motzki, “Geschlechtsreife und Legitimation zur Zeugung im frühen Islam”, in Ernst Wilhelm Müller, ed., Geschlechtsreife und Legitimation zur Zeugung, Freiburg/München 1985, pp. 490–7. 2

INTRODUCTION

3

This assumption is also bolstered by the traditions which say that scholars of the 2nd half of the 2nd century H., like Ghundar b. Jaʿfar (d. 194 H.) and Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198 H.), estimated the number of aḥādīth which Ibn ʿAbbās heard directly from the Prophet to be merely nine or ten. 5 A solution to the problem of the discrepancy between the quantity of Ibn ʿAbbās traditions of the Prophet and the infancy of Ibn ʿAbbās during Muḥammad’s lifetime was recently suggested by Jonathan Brown with the following argumentation: “Since the Companions like Ibn ʿAbbās and Abū Hurayra only knew the Prophet for a short time, they apparently amassed their vast number of hadiths by seeking them out from more senior Companions. […] The obsession with specifying direct oral transmission with no intermediary, which characterized later hadith scholarship, did not exist during the first generations of Islam.” 6 Brown thus assumes that the Ibn ʿAbbās traditions of the Prophet in the kutub al-sitta and Ibn Ḥanbal’s Musnad indeed trace back to Ibn ʿAbbās, who, however, did not name his respective informants from the generation of the elder Companions (ṣaḥāba). Although this is a possible explanation for the quantity of Ibn ʿAbbās traditions circulating in the 3rd century, this assumption cannot be proven, and therefore does not remove the doubt in respect of the authenticity of the Ibn ʿAbbās traditions of the Prophet. Justification for this doubt became evident in my studies of Mekkan jurisprudence in the first half of the 2nd Islamic century. Serving as source was the Muṣannaf of ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211 H.), a comprehensive collection of traditions a good half century older than the kutub al-sitta and, like them, arranged according to subject. First of all, I determined the reliability of ʿAbd alRazzāq’s traditions, which he is to have received from his principle teachers or informants Maʿmar b. Rāshid (d. 153 H.), Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 H.), Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161 H.) and, to a lesser extent, Sufyān Claude Gilliot, “ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās,” p. 5; source: Ibn Ḥajar alʿAsqalānī, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, V, p. 279. 6 Jonathan A.C. Brown, Hadith. Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World, Oxford 2009, p. 19. 5

4

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

b. ʿUyayna (d. 198 H.). 7 The arguments on which this assessment is based are found in my book “Die Anfänge der islamischen Jurisprudenz.” 8 In a second step I took a closer look at the traditions of the student of Ibn ʿAbbās who taught in Mekka, ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ (d. 117 H.), traditions also passed on by ʿAbd al-Razzāq from Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 H.) who was also a Mekkan scholar. The result with respect to Ibn ʿAbbās was that ʿAṭāʾ invokes this one of his teachers more frequently than he does any of the Prophet’s other companions; ʿUmar and ʿAlī then follow at some distance. In his Ibn ʿAbbās traditions, ʿAṭāʾ often notes, though not always, that he heard them directly (samiʿtu) from Ibn ʿAbbās. This is not the case when mentioning the opinions or actions of ʿUmar, ʿAlī, ʿĀʾisha and Ibn ʿUmar. At times ʿAṭāʾ also employs with Ibn ʿAbbās the word balaghanī, which indicates an indirect type of information. What is striking about ʿAṭāʾs texts from Ibn ʿAbbās, which I examined at the time, is that ʿAṭāʾ reports only Ibn ʿAbbās’ juridically relevant opinions, i.e. the raʾy of Ibn ʿAbbās, but no traditions from Ibn ʿAbbās from an older Companion of the Prophet or from the Prophet himself. 9 A similar result was yielded by the analysis of the traditions of ʿAmr b. Dīnār (d. 126 H.), a somewhat younger contemporary of ʿAṭāʾ also living in Mekka. Found from him in the Muṣannaf of ʿAbd al-Razzāq are two parallel transmission strings, one from Ibn Jurayj, who near the end of the life of his teacher ʿAṭāʾ, attached himself as a student to ʿAmr b. Dīnār. A second transmission string is formed by the texts of Sufyān b. ʿUyayna who – according to the traditions about his life – began his studies with ʿAmr at very young age only a few years before ʿAmr’s death and died in 198 H. A comparison of the traditions of Ibn Jurayj and Ibn ʿUyayna from Found additionally in this collection are still traditions from numerous other of ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s informants, from whom he imparts, however, much fewer traditions per person. 8 Stuttgart 1991, pp. 56–59; English version: The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence. Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools, Leiden/Boston/Köln 2002, pp. 58–62. 9 Harald Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence, pp. 140–148. 7

INTRODUCTION

5

ʿAmr showed that for the most part they concur content-wise. This indicates that they really do echo the teachings of ʿAmr b. Dīnār. The largest group of persons on whose authority ʿAmr relies is, as with ʿAṭāʾ, the Companions of the Prophet. Among them also in ʿAmr’s traditions is Ibn ʿAbbās in first place qua number of texts, and followed at some distance by ʿUmar and ʿAlī. Unlike ʿAṭāʾ, however, ʿAmr invokes in two-thirds of all the cases for his Ibn ʿAbbās traditions informants from the group of Ibn ʿAbbās’ students: ʿIkrima, Ṭāwūs, ʿAṭāʾ, Abū Maʿbad, Mujāhid and Abū lShaʿthāʾ [i.e. Jābir b. Zayd]. In the traditions in which ʿAmr regives an opinion of Ibn ʿAbbās, without naming a source, there are no indications of a direct transmission from Ibn ʿAbbās, f.i. by means of a formula like “samiʿtu Ibn ʿAbbās yaqūl” (I heard Ibn ʿAbbās say) or “akhbaranī Ibn ʿAbbās” (Ibn ʿAbbās informed me), formulas that ʿAmr otherwise frequently employs. It can be deduced from this that ʿAmr had only a brief personal contact with Ibn ʿAbbās or none at all, and that he owes all his knowledge of Ibn ʿAbbās’ views largely to Ibn ʿAbbās’ students. Traditions of the Prophet were found in ʿAmr b. Dīnār’s transmissions from Ibn ʿAbbās just as little as in those of ʿAṭāʾ, 10 which is conspicuous in light of the many Ibn ʿAbbās traditions of the Prophet in circulation a century later. All of these circumstances and the conclusions gleaned therefrom are based on examinations of two comprehensive books from ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf, i.e. the Kitāb al-nikāḥ and the Kitāb alṭalāq (the Book on Marriage and the Book on Divorce) which contain ca. 21 % of the traditions of the entire work. I knew that in the remaining part of the work Prophetic traditions from Ibn ʿAbbās transmitted by ʿAṭāʾ or ʿAmr could still be found. Nevertheless, the possibility of discovering a large number of them seemed remote. But Ibn ʿAbbās is seen by Muslims not only as an important transmitter of aḥadīth, but also as the first coryphaeus of Qurʾān exegesis. In the tafsīr literature, e.g. in al-Ṭabarīs Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾān, numerous Ibn Abbās traditions are found. In Western academic discourse since the early 20th century up until very recently, they have been considered inauthentic. Scholars like 10

Ibid. pp. 188–192.

6

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Friedrich Schwally (1909) and Ignaz Goldziher (1920,) concluded from the many contradictions in the Ibn ʿAbbās traditions that later Muslim scholars ascribed their own views to this person. Scholars of more recent times, e.g., Harris Birkeland (1955), Tilman Nagel (1967), Claude Gilliot (1985) and Herbert Berg (2000) 11 were of the opinion that the problems of 2nd and 3rd century Muslim society were reflected in the Ibn ʿAbbās traditions. The texts were linked to his name because he was considered to be one of the first Muslim scholars ever, and obtained in the course of time a quasi mythical status. With the takeover of the caliphate by the ʿAbbāsids, the significance of Ibn ʿAbbās was strengthened even more. Arguments like these, combined with a skeptical stance toward the chain of transmitters (asānīd), which were seen in general to be unreliable or even fictive, led to the conclusion that it is impossible to identify genuine Ibn ʿAbbās traditions. 12 This blanket judgement, however, is questionable. I have demonstrated as much in several studies. In the following I provide a brief look into the results of my studies and those of others that point in the same direction. Among the many texts attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās is a separate Qurʾān commentary entitled Tanwīr alMiqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās which appeared in print for the first

Friedrich Schwally, “Die muhammedanischen Quellen und die neuere christliche Forschung über den Ursprung der Offenbarungen und die Entstehung des Qorānbuches” in: Theodor Nöldeke/F. Schwally/G. Bergsträsser, Geschichte des Qorāns, 2nd edition, II, Leipzig 1909–1938, pp. 122–124; Ignaz Goldziher, Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung, Leiden 1920; Harris Birkeland, Old Muslim Opposition against Interpretation of the Koran. Dybwad, Odlo 1955; Tilman Nagel, Die Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ; ein Beitrag zur arabischen Literaturgeschichte, Bonn 1967; Claude Gilliot, “Portrait ‘mythique’ d’Ibn ʿAbbās,” in: Arabica 32 (1985), pp. 127–184; Herbert Berg, The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam. The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period, Richmond, Surrey, 2000. 12 Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis. A Debate” in: H. Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions. Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth, Leiden/Boston 2010, pp. 231–234. 11

INTRODUCTION

7

time in 1864 and has been republished several times since then. 13 Andrew Rippin convincingly showed in an essay in 1994 that the work was not a tafsīr from Ibn ʿAbbās transmitted by Muḥammad al-Kalbī (d. 146 H.), as is implied by segments of the asānīd, but is rather a work that first appeared around 300 H. 14 Moreover, the author of this tafsīr was not the Sunnī scholar ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Dīnawarī, as Rippin assumed, but a certain ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Mubārak al-Dīnawarī who belonged to the Karrāmiyya sect. This was a group of scholars whose tenets were adjudged heretical by the Sunnī scholars. 15 This tafsīr contains, i.a., numerous traditions from Muḥammad al-Kalbī, i.e., from the first half of the 2nd century, who traces it back to Ibn ʿAbbās. Ascription of the whole tafsīr of al-Dīnawarī to Ibn ʿAbbās was done at the earliest in the course of the 4th century, probably even later. I have shown all of this in a short essay. 16 This demonstrably late attribution of a tafsīr text to Ibn ʿAbbās, which seems to confirm the previously stated views of Western Islamicists regarding the origins of the Ibn ʿAbbās traditions, should not, however, be generalized. In my contestation of Herbert Berg’s essay entitled “Competing Paradigms in the Study of Islamic Origins,” I have shown that Qurʾān scholars invoked Ibn ʿAbbās as the source of their opinions very much earlier than is Tanwīr al-miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās. Beirut, 1987; English transl. https://archive.org/details/TanwirAl-MiqbasMinTafsirIbnAbbasEng, first published 2007. 14 Andrew Rippin, “Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās and Criteria for Dating Early Tafsīr Texts.” In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 18 (1994), pp. 38–83. 15 Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Karrām (d. 896) was an ascetic and popular preacher in Khurāsān in the 3rd/9th century. The eponymous sect, Karrāmiyya, flourished from the 3rd/9th to the 7th/13th century in the center and in the eastern areas of the Islamic world. See C.E. Bosworth, “Karrāmiyya” in Encylopaedia of Islam, New edition, vol. 4, pp. 667–669. 16 “Dating the so-called Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās. Some additional remarks” in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 31 (2006) [published 2007], pp. 147– 163. 13

8

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

generally assumed in Western academia. 17 One of them was a certain Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad who lived and taught at the turn of the 1st century. A great many of his texts are found in Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra and in al-Ṭabarī’s Taʾrīkh and Tafsīr. A detailed study of these sīra traditions ascribed to Ibn ʿAbbās, the origin of which is uncharted up to now, is found this book. For the translation of the German text into English the author expresses his sincere gratitude to G. Bertram Thompson, M.A. Harald Motzki

H. Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis. A Debate,” pp. 236–273. 17

I. THE PROBLEM OF SOURCES ON THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET MUḤAMMAD The biographies on the life of Muḥammad, the prophet of Islam, which are based on primary sources and have been written since the beginning of the 20th century derive for the most part from Muslim sources. The oldest authors of these sources died in the 3rd/9th and early in the 4th/10th century: al-Wāqidī (207/822), ʿAbd al-Razzāq (211/827), Ibn Hishām (218/833), Ibn Shabba (226/840–1), Ibn Saʿd (230/844), Ibn Abī Shayba (235/849), alBukhārī (256/870), al-Balādhurī (279/892) and al-Ṭabarī (310/922). 1 This holds for portrayals by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike. 2 The oldest sources available to us on Muḥammad’s Al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-Maghāzī, ed. Marsden Jones, 3 vols, London 1966; ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, Kitāb al-Maghāzī, in: al-Muṣannaf, ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, vol. 5, Beirut 1403/19832, pp. 313–492; Ibn Hishām, Sīrat sayyidinā Muḥammad rasūli llāh (ṣ), ed. Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, 3 vols, Göttingen 1858–1860; Ibn Shabba, Taʾrīkh al-Madīna al-munawwara, ed. Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt, 4 vols, Jidda n.d.; Ibn Saʿd, Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, ed. Eduard Sachau et al., vol. 1, Leiden 1905–1917; Ibn Abī Shayba, Kitāb al-Maghāzī, in al-Muṣannaf, ed. Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah, vol. 20, Jidda/Damascus/Beirut 1427/2006, pp. 221–617 and passim; alBukhārī, Kitāb al-Maghāzī, in: Ṣaḥīḥ, kitāb 64, Beirut 1412/1992, vol. 5, pp. 3–172 and passim; al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. 1, ed. Maḥmūd Firdaws al-ʿAẓm and Ṣubḥī Nadīm al-Mārdīnī, Damascus 1997; al-Ṭabarī, Annales = Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. Michael J. de Goeje et al., prima series, vol. 3–4, Leiden 1882–1890. 2 As examples may be mentioned: Ṣafī al-Raḥmān al-Mubārakfūrī, Al-Raḥīq al-Makhtūm. Baḥth fī l-sīra al-nabawiyya, Beirut n.d. [1400/1980], passim; the two-volume study by W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at 1

9

10

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

life thus arose ca. 180 years after Muḥammad’s death, the year of which is given in some of these sources as 11/632. This long period of time between Muḥammad’s life and the first biographies on his life gave rise in Western research already in the declining 19th century to doubt as to the historical credibility of these works. The doubts were also reinforced by the suspicion that Muslim scholars recording Muḥammad’s life for his adherents two hundred years after his death were not objective but rather theologically idealized the person of the Prophet in line with the religious doctrines of their time. The terrain for these critical discussions had been prepared by the “Life of Jesus research” which in the 19th century fiercely disputed the question of whether Jesus was a historical person and, if yes, whether a factual life and work could be elicited from Gospels arising a half century or more after his death. 3 Among those who can be counted as sceptics of the viability of said Muslim sources for a historical biography are scholars like Leone Caetani, Henri Lammens, Ignaz Goldziher, Joseph Schacht, Régis Blachère, John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Uri Rubin, Jacqueline Chabbi, Wim Raven, Ibn Warraq, Marco Schöller and – though somewhat more moderate – Stephen J. Shoemaker. 4 The view common to these scholars is that it is not Mecca, Oxford 1953, viii–ix (sources) and Muhammad at Medina, Oxford 1956, xiii–xiv (sources) or the recent monumental work of Tilman Nagel, Mohammed. Leben und Legende, München 2008, passim. Some authors use only a few of the sources mentioned above. 3 Manfred Baumotte (ed.), Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus. Texte aus drei Jahrhunderten, Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Gütersloh 1984; Albert Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Tübingen 1906. Concerning the relation between the research on the life of Jesus and the research on the life of Muḥammad see also F. E. Peters, “The Quest of the Historical Muhammad”, in: International Journal of Middle East Studies 23 (1991), pp. 291–315. 4 Leone Caetani, Annali dell’islam, vol. 1–2, Milano 1905, pp. 28–58, 121–143, 192–215 and passim; id. La biografia di Maometto, profeta ed uomo di stato. Il principio del Califfato. La conquista d’Arabia [Studi di storia orientale 3], Milano 1914; Henri Lammens, “Qoran et tradition. Comment fut composée la vie de Mahomet”, in: Recherche de Science Religieuse 1 (1910), pp.

THE PROBLEM OF SOURCES ON THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET 11 possible, or hardly so, on the basis of the Muslim sources to reconstruct the history of the beginnings of Islam, i.e., “how it really was.” 5 Their theoretical and methodical concepts, however, differ, sometimes considerably. 6 Other scholars like Frants Buhl, W. 27–51; id., Fāṭima et les filles de Mahomet. Notes critiques pour l’étude de la Sīra, Roma 1912; Ignaz Goldziher, Vorlesungen über den Islam, Heidelberg 1910, pp. 1–34; Joseph Schacht, “A Revaluation of Islamic Tradition”, in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 49 (1949), pp. 143–154; id., “On Mūsā b. ʿUqba’s Kitāb al-Maghāzī”, in: Acta Orientalia 21 (1953), pp. 288–300; Régis Blachère, Le Problème de Mahomet, Paris 1952; John Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu. Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford 1978; Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism. The Making of the Islamic World, Cambridge 1977; Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton 1987, esp. pp. 3–11 and 203–250; Michael Cook, Muhammad, Oxford 1983, esp. pp. 61–76; Uri Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder. The Life of Muḥammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims. A Textual Analysis, Princeton, N.J. 1995, esp. pp. 1–4 ; Jaqueline Chabbi, “Histoire et tradition sacrée – la biographie impossible de Mahomet”, in: Arabica 43 (1996), pp. 189– 205; Wim Raven, “Sīra”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 9, fascicules 159–160, Leiden 1997, pp. 660–663; id., “Sīra and the Qurʾān”, in: Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, vol. 5, Leiden 2006, pp. 29–49; Ibn Warraq (ed.), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, New York 2000, esp. pp. 15–88; Marco Schöller, Exegetisches Denken und Prophetenbiographie. Eine quellenkritische Analyse der Sīra-Überlieferung zu Muḥammads Konflikt mit den Juden, Wiesbaden 1998, esp. pp. 1–9, 468; Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Death of a Prophet. The End of Muhammad’s Life and the Beginnings of Islam, Philadelphia 2012. 5 A famous expression of the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). 6 A more complex division is given by Fred M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins. The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Princeton, N.J. 1998, pp. 5–25. As for the problem of division in “sceptical” and “sanguine scholars” see also Harald Motzki, “The Question of the Authenticity of Muslim Traditions Reconsidered: A Review Article”, in: Herbert Berg (ed.), Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins, Leiden 2003, pp. 212–225 and “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis. A Debate”, in H. Motzki with Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort and Sean W. Anthony, Analysing

12

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Montgomery Watt, Maxime Rodinson, M. J. Kister, Michael Lecker or Tilman Nagel, on the other hand, have presented detailed biographies or in-depth studies of Muḥammad’s life. 7 They were very well aware of the source problems, yet they believed themselves able to lift the kerygmatic veil of the sources. 8 The methodological views of these scholars, too, differ in detail. In their works, however, the problem of the relatively long interval between the events and the sources remains either underexposed – one proceeds on the assumption that the authors of the source works rely on good oral or written transmissions – or one is convinced of being in possession of methods able to bridge this interval or methods at least capable of reconstructing a broad outline of the historical relationships. As a representative of the first position, its most recent exponent, Tilman Nagel, can be mentioned. Nagel puts great store, e.g., by al-Wāqidī and describes him as a Muslim historian of the first order to whom we “owe invaluable knowledge.” 9 It has been reported about al-Wāqidī that he prided himself in having queried each descendent of the Companions of the Prophet he met as to his knowledge about the campaigns of the Prophet, and in having Muslim Traditions. Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth, Leiden 2010, pp. 231–303. 7 Frants Buhl, Das Leben Muhammeds, transl. from the Danish (published 1903) by H.H. Schaeder, Leipzig 1930; Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca; id., Muhammad at Medina; Maxime Rodinson, Mahomet, Paris 1961; M. J. Kister, Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, London 1980; id., Concepts and Ideas at the Dawn of Islam, Aldershot 1997; Michael Lecker, Muslims, Jews and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina, Leiden 1995; id., Jews and Arabs in Pre- and Early Islamic Arabia, Aldershot 1998; id. The “Constitution of Medina”. Muḥammad’s First Legal Document, Princeton, N.J., 2004; Nagel, Mohammed. 8 See Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, pp. xiii–xvi; id., “The Reliability of Ibn Isḥāq’s Sources”, in: La vie du prophète Mahomet. Colloque de Strasbourg (octobre 1980), Paris 1983, pp. 31–43; Nagel, Mohammed, pp. 842–843. 9 Nagel, Mohammed, p. 97.

THE PROBLEM OF SOURCES ON THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET 13 examined the pertinent sites in order to get a picture for himself of what happened at that time. 10 Whether al-Wāqidī’s self-portrayal should be taken at face value remains to be seen. Assuming it to be correct, the question remains as to whether in the second half of the 2th/8th century alWāqidī could still receive reliable historical reports by interrogating individuals. Most of the Companions of the Prophet who had taken part in the campaigns were already dead for more than 100 years, the Prophet himself a good 150 years. Al-Wāqidī could at most have met only their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who were surely happy to give a glowing account of the important role played by their ancestors at the beginning of Islam. How much of it was legend and how much was historical fact al-Wāqidī would hardly have been able to distinguish. Appraisal of the alleged sites of the battles may have stimulated his fantasy to imagine what could have happened, but nothing more. My study of such traditions from descendents of some Companions of the Prophet who participated in a minor punitive expedition by order of Muḥammad showed that their versions differ substantially from each other and are even contradictory in decisive details. 11 The only conclusion allowed by the texts is that the expedition in question did indeed take place, and they allow at best only a rough reconstruction of the course of its events. 12 Al-Wāqidī’s detailed portrayal of the expedition, which is oriented to one of several family traditions, cannot be considered historically credible.

Op. cit., pp. 902–904. Harald Motzki, “The Murder of Ibn Abī l-Ḥuqayq: On the Origin and Reliability of some Maghāzī-Reports”, in: H. Motzki (ed.), The Biography of Muḥammad: the Issue of the Sources, Leiden 2000, pp. 170–239. 12 Op. cit., p. 232. A similar opinion concerning the issue of the reconstruction of Muḥammad’s life is vindicated by Michael Lecker. See, for instance, his article “Glimpses of Muḥammad’s Medinan Decade”, in: Jonathan E. Brockopp (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Muḥammad, Cambridge 2010, pp. 61–79, esp. 74–75. 10 11

14

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

In addition, it cannot be excluded that al-Wāqidī even sugarcoated the story himself. 13 One source which also plays an important role in modern biographies and studies on Muḥammad’s life has yet to be mentioned: the Qurʾān. Up to the sixties of the 20th century the Qurʾān was uncontested as a source for Muḥammad’s doctrine, although most scholars assumed that the Qurʾān, in the state in which it has been known for upwards of a millennium, hadn’t been committed to writing until two decades after Muḥammad’s death. 14 The assumption that the Qurʾān is a secure source for Muḥammad’s preaching, however, was precarious. It was based solely on the Islamic Tradition concerning the genesis of the Qurʾān, since the existence of the Qurʾān in the 1st/7th and 2th/8th century was not

See Andreas Görke/Gregor Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte über das Leben Muḥammads. Das Korpus ʿUrwa b. az-Zubair, Princeton, N.J. 2008, p. 276 f. for a critical assessment of al-Wāqidī’s way of working. Jens Scheiner, Die Eroberung von Damaskus. Quellenkritische Untersuchung zur Historiographie in klassisch-islamischer Zeit, Leiden /Boston 2009 shows how the historical portrayals developed and changed with regard to the contents in the course of the 2nd/8th and 3rd/9th century. Al-Wāqidī does not play a role (a relevant work ascribed to him is most probably not from him), yet even so the results of Scheiners study are relevant for the historiography of Muḥammad’s life. The earliest versions of the Traditions of the conquest of Damascus which date from the 2nd quarter of the 2nd/8th century are still rudimentary but differ already in important details. The versions that developed later add more and more details and partly change – probably out of opportunism – the issues of the earlier sources. One can learn of it that we must approach with scepticism what Nagel calls the “expertise of a historian” of al-Wāqidī’s kidney and his “stupendous knowledge about the history of Muḥammad and the earliest Islam” (Nagel, Mohammed, p. 906 and 903). 14 Leone Caetani, “Uthman and the Recension of the Koran”, in: The Muslim World 5 (1915): 380–90. Friedrich Schwally, “Die Sammlung des Qorāns”, in: Th. Nöldeke: Geschichte des Qorāns, part 2, Leipzig 19192, pp. 1–121; William Montgomery Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qurʾān: completely revised and enlarged, Edinburgh 1970, p. 44; Alford T. Welch, “Al-Ḳurʾān”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 5, fascs. 85–86, Leiden 1981, p. 405, 408. 13

THE PROBLEM OF SOURCES ON THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET 15 provable with certainty through manuscripts. It was then just a matter of time until scientific skepticism grasped this source as well. John Wansbrough, in a study published in 1977, supported the hypothesis that the text of the Qurʾān came into being in the course of the 2nd/8th century in Iraq and didn’t arrive at its present form until the end of the 2nd/8th century. According to Wansbrough, the Qurʾān does not contain the proclamations of a prophet Muḥammad who, if he existed at all, lived 200 years earlier. As a source for his doctrine and life, the Qurʾān must thus be rejected. 15 Wansbrough’s hypotheses unleashed heated controversies 16 and inspired researchers to search for new ways to assure the origin and history of the Qurʾān. 17 John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies. Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford 1977, pp. 49–51. 16 See G.H.A. Juynboll, “J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, Oxford 1977”, in: Journal of Semitic Studies 24 (1979), pp. 293–296; William A. Graham, “J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, Oxford 1977”, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 100 (1980), pp. 137–141; Angelika Neuwirth, Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren, Berlin 1981; id., “Zum neueren Stand der Koranforschung”, in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Suppl. V (21. Deutscher Orientalistentag in Berlin 1979), Wiesbaden 1983, pp. 183–189; id., “J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, Oxford 1977”, in: Die Welt des Islams 23–24 (1984), pp. 539–542; id., “Der Koran”, in: Hellmut Gätje (ed.), Grundriss der arabischen Philologie II. Wiesbaden 1987, pp. 96–135 and many other studies on the Qurʾān; Harald Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis. A Debate”, pp. 285–296. 17 One way is to examine and date the early manuscripts of the Qurʾān, a line of research that got new impulses in the last decade of the 20th century. See François Déroche, “Manuscripts of the Qurʾān”, in: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, vol. 3, Leiden/Boston 2003, pp. 254–259; Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qurʾān of the Prophet”, in: Arabica 57 (2010): 343–436. This approach is also part of the Corpus Coranicum, a research project of the “Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften” that started in 2007 (http://www.bbaw.de/bbaw/ Forschung/Forschungsprojekte/Coran/de). 15

16

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Therefore, a grave problem is connected with all of the sources of the life of Muḥammad. There is a gap of a considerable period of time between the sources and the events they report about or, as in the case of the Qurʾān, between the dateable extant manuscripts and the lifetime of the alleged “publicists” of the texts. There is a lack of certainty that these sources, despite the distance in time from Muḥammad, contain reliable information about him, the person to whom their content is attributed. 18 This problem can be partially solved with the historical-critical source-reconstruction method and, for the individual traditions of the life of the Prophet, by studying variants thereof (isnād-cum-matn analysis). 19 Many Islamic sources are conceived of as transmission works and thereby purport to impart older material. The sourcereconstruction method attempts to reconstruct the material that an author has taken over from an earlier author or informant (teacher), submit its peculiarities to a critical examination, and compare such peculiarities with those of the material of other informants. This can offer clues to the question of whether or not the texts have been erroneously attributed to any persons. In the event that older sources can be identified in the extant sources, the span of time between the sources and the events is shortened; moreover, possible changes in the texts that took place in the course of the transmission process can be determined. Source reconstruction can comprise the examination of one or several sources. This method has already been successfully implemented on diverse types of

See also Harald Motzki, The Biography of Muḥammad: The Issue of the Sources, Leiden 2000, pp. xi–xiv. 19 The methods could also be relevant for the dating of the Qurʾān since the traditions sometimes contain quotations of the Qurʾān. See for an example Harald Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence. Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools, Leiden 2002, pp. 108–112. 18

THE PROBLEM OF SOURCES ON THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET 17 sources for early Islam, i.a. on religious-judicial works 20 and on sources pertaining to the life of Muḥammad. 21 Individual traditions, too, can be more precisely dated when variations thereof are present in different sources. This method is of especially good utility for the Muslim sources on Muḥammad and early Islam, since in many cases the authors 22 explicitly note the provenance of the texts. They furnish the texts with a “chain of transmitters” (isnād) which indicates from whom the source’s author received the text, and in turn, from whom the informant has the text, etc., down to the alleged first narrator of the text. The details on the provenance of texts can, of course, also be fictitious. However, this is not generally to be assumed a priori. 23 Based on the

See Motzki, The Origins; id., “The Jurisprudence of Ibn Shihāb alZuhrī. A Source-Critical Study”, in: id., Analysing Muslim Traditions. Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth, Leiden 2010, pp. 1–46. 21 Görke/Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte. The method has also been successfully applied in other branches of the Arabic literature, see for instance Albrecht Noth, “Der Charakter der ersten großen Sammlungen von Nachrichten zur frühen Kalifenzeit”, in: Der Islam 47 (1971), pp. 168– 199; Gernot Rotter, “Zur Überlieferung einiger historischer Werke Madāʾinīs in Ṭabarīs Annalen”, in: Oriens 23–24 (1974), pp. 103–133; Walter Werkmeister, Quellenuntersuchungen zum Kitāb al-ʿIqd al-farīd des Andalusiers Ibn ʿAbdrabbih, Berlin 1983; Khalil Athamina, “The sources of alBalādhurī’s Ansāb al-ashrāf”, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 5 (1984), pp. 237–262; Stefan Leder, Das Korpus al-Haiṯam ibn ʿAdī (st. 207/822). Herkunft, Überlieferung, Gestalt früher Texte der aḫbār Literatur, Frankfurt am Main 1991. Concerning the methodical problems of the method see Ella Landau-Tasseron, “On the Reconstruction of Lost Sources”, in: AlQanṭara 25 (2004), pp. 45–91; Lawrence I. Conrad, “Recovering Lost Texts: some Methodological Issues”, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 113 (1993), pp. 258–263; Harald Motzki, “Dating Muslim Traditions. A Survey”, in Arabica 52 (2005), pp. 242–250. 22 As for the term “author” of these sources see Harald Motzki, “The Author and his Work in Islamic Literature of the First Centuries. The Case of ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf ”, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 28 (2003), pp. 171–201. 23 See also Motzki, “Dating Muslim Traditions”, pp. 220–221, 230– 238; id., “Whither Ḥadīth Studies?”, in: id., Analysing Muslim Traditions, pp. 20

18

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

transmissions of the extant sources, the comparative examination of isnād and text (matn) of variants of a tradition makes it possible in many cases to trace authentic transmission processes back to a specific point. When successful, this allows the determination of one and the same person in the diverse transmission chains as the earliest historically secure narrator of the tradition, and sometimes also his original version of the story. 24 This yields an earlier temporal dating of the relevant transmission. What counts is no longer the date of the oldest collection in which the tradition is found, but rather the date of the death of the earliest assured transmitter. The question of whether this person invented the tradition or passed on information from the previous generation is often difficult to decide. Both are possible. Sometimes, however, the evidence allows a judgment to be made. 25 50–61; id., “Al-radd ʿalā l-radd: Concerning the Method of Ḥadīth Analysis”, in: op. cit., pp. 210–214. 24 Examples of detailed isnād-cum-matn analyses are e.g. Gregor Schoeler, Charakter und Authentie der muslimischen Überlieferung über das Leben Mohammeds, Berlin 1996 (engl. transl.: The Biography of Muhammad: Nature and Authenticity, New York 2010); Motzki, “Whither Ḥadīth Studies?”, pp. 90–121; id., “The Prophet and the Cat: on dating Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ and legal traditions”, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 22 (1998), pp. 18– 83; id., “The Murder of Ibn Abī l-Ḥuqayq: on the Origin and Reliability of some Maghāzī-Reports”, pp. 171–239; id., “The Prophet and the Debtors. A Ḥadīth Analysis under Scrutiny”, in: id., Analysing Muslim Traditions, pp. 129–165; Andreas Görke, “The Historical Tradition about al-Ḥudaybiya. A Study of ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr’s Account”, in: Motzki, The Biography of Muḥammad, pp. 240–271; Görke/Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte; Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, “The Raid of the Hudhayl: Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī’s Version of the Event”, in: Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions, pp. 305– 383; Sean W. Anthony, “Crime and Punishment in Early Medina: The Origins of a Maghāzī-Tradition”, in: op. cit., pp. 385–465 and recently Pavel Pavlovitch, The Formation of the Islamic Understanding of Kalāla in the Second Century AH (718–816 CE). Between Scripture and Canon, Leiden/Boston 2016. 25 See the literature of note 23 and 24.

THE PROBLEM OF SOURCES ON THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET 19 In the following, a further example is intended to show that surprising discoveries are possible when both of the methods are implemented. The starting point of the present study was the occupation with the early exegesis of Q 15: 90–91. 26 I noticed in this regard that certain texts contained in the oldest comprehensive vita of Muḥammad existing, Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, are transmitted with no isnād or only a fragmentary one, while a somewhat later collection of traditions of Muḥammad’s life, Aḥmad al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī, is furnished with source information which is more precise. 27 That provided the impetus to delve more deeply into the question of the source of this and similar traditions. The results are contained in the following study.

26 27

The letter Q indicates quotations of the Qurʾān. See Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis”, pp. 261–266.

II. SOURCE ANALYSIS 1. A REACTION OF THE QURAYSH TO MUḤAMMAD’S RISE Narration 1

When the fair [of Mekka] was due, a number of the Quraysh came to al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra, who was a man of some standing, and he addressed them in these words: ‘The time of the fair has come round again and representatives of the Arabs will come to you and they will have heard about this fellow of yours, so agree upon one opinion without dispute so that none will give the lie to the other.’ They replied, ‘You give us your opinion about him.’ He said, ‘No, you speak and I will listen.’ They said, ‘He is a kāhin (diviner).’ He said, ‘By God, he is not that, for he has not the confused murmuring and rhymed speech of the kāhin.’ ‘Then he is possessed (majnūn),’ they said. ‘No, he is not that,’ he said, ‘we have seen possessed ones, and here is no choking, spasmodic movements and whispering.’ ‘Then he is a poet (shāʿir),’ they said. ‘No, he is no poet, for we know poetry in all its forms and metres, the rajaz, hazaj, qarīḍ, maqbūḍ and mabsūṭ; it [Muḥammad’s utterings] is not poetry.’ ‘Then he is a sorcerer (sāḥir).’ ‘No, we have seen sorcerers and their sorcery, and here is no spitting and no knots.’ ‘Then what are we to say, O Abū ʿAbd Shams?’ they asked. He replied, ‘By God, his speech is sweet, his root is a palm-tree whose branches are fruitful, and everything you have said would be known to be false. The nearest thing to the truth is your saying that he is a sorcerer, who has brought a message by which he separates a man from his father, or from his brother, or from his wife, or from his family.’ At this point they left him, and began to sit on the paths which men take when they come to the fair. They warned everyone

21

22

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS who passed them about Muḥammad’s doings. God revealed concerning al-Walīd: ‘Leave to Me him I made, Giving him wealth and trade, While sons before him played, The road for him I laid, Then he coveted more of My aid, Ay, Our signs hath he gainsaid. I shall impose on him a grievous burden; He thought and planned; May he perish how he planned, May he perish how he planned. Then he looked, Then he frowned and showed anger. Then he turned his back in pride And said: “This is nothing but ancient sorcery, This is nothing but the speech of a mortal”.’ 1

Then God revealed concerning the men who were with him, composing a term to describe the apostle and the revelation he brought from God, ‘As we sent down upon the dividers Who had split the Qur’ān into parts, By thy Lord we will ask them all about What they used to do.’ 2

Ibn Isḥāq said: ‘So these men began to spread this report about the apostle with everyone they met so that the Arabs went away from that fair knowing about the apostle, and he was talked about in the whole of Arabia. 3 Q 74: 11–25. Q 15: 90–93. 3 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 171–172; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 270–272; Tadmurī: vol. 1, pp. 302–304; Guillaume: pp. 121–122. Wüstenfeld indicates the edition by Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Kitāb sīrat rasūl allāh – Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed Ibn Ishâk bearbeitet von Abd alMalik Ibn Hischâm, vol. 1/part 1 and 2, Göttingen 1859–1860; al-Saqqā 1 2

SOURCE ANALYSIS

23

This narration is found in the “Life of the Prophet” by ʿAbd alMalik b. Hishām, a scholar residing in Egypt who died in 218/833. His book, however, is only partially his own. Ibn Hishām notes at the beginning of his book that his main source is a work by Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (d. 151/768) which was transmitted to him by the latter’s pupil Ziyād b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Bakkāʾī (d. 183/799) and out of which he had made a selection. Ibn Hishām provided this selection, which he regularly introduces with “Ibn Ishāq said” (qāla Ibn Isḥāq), abundantly with his own remarks and to some extent critical commentaries which are identified throughout as his own additions to Ibn Isḥāq’s texts (qāla Ibn Hishām). Can Ibn Hishām’s ascription of texts to Ibn Isḥāq be considered credible? Research has been able to confirm Ibn Hishām’s data on his sources for parts of the work at best, because Ibn Isḥāq’s work was transmitted not only by al-Bakkāʾī but also by several other of Ibn Isḥāq’s pupils. Parts of these other versions, which diverge to some extent in wording, are contained in later works. 4 Based on these data, it can be carefully generalized that means the edition Muṣṭafā al-Saqqā, Ibrāhīm al-Abyārī, ʿAbd al-Ḥafīẓ Shalabī, Al-Sīra al-nabawiyya li-Ibn Hishām, 2nd ed., Kairo 1375/1955; Tadmurī points to the edition of ʿUmar ʿAbd al-Salām Tadmurī, al-Sīra alnabawiyya li-Ibn Hishām, Beirut 1408/1987; Guillaume indicates the English translation by Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad. A Translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, Oxford 1955/Karachi 1967. I quote Guillaume’s translation when it renders the Arabic text completely and correctly. The comments by Ibn Hishām that are sprinkled in the text are not reproduced in the translation. 4 See Johann Fück, Muḥammad b. Isḥāq. Literarhistorische Untersuchungen, PhD thesis Frankfurt a.M. 1925, pp. 34–38, 44; Guillaume, “Introduction” of The Life of Muhammad, pp. xvii, xxi–xxiii, xxx–xxxiii, xli–xliii; S. M. al-Samuk, Die historischen Überlieferungen nach Ibn Isḥāq. Eine synoptische Untersuchung, Phd thesis, Frankfurt a. M. 1978, pp. 1–18 and passim; Maher Jarrar, Die Prophetenbiographie im islamischen Spanien. Ein Beitrag zur Überlieferungs- und Redaktionsgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main 1989, pp. 32–37, 82–85, and Miklos Muranyi, “Ibn Isḥāq’s Kitāb al-Maġāzī in der riwāya von Yūnus b. Bukair. Bemerkungen zur frühen Überlieferungsgeschichte”, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 14 (1991), pp. 214–275.

24

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

texts which are contained only in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, and contain no parallel transmissions from other pupils, probably also stem from Ibn Isḥāq. It cannot be ruled out, however, that Ibn Hishām had redacted them and that they are not always a literal reproduction of Ibn Isḥāq’s text. What is the case with the above narration on the advice sought from al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra? Does it go back to Ibn Isḥāq? It is conspicuous that Ibn Hishām gives no information on his sources at the start of the narration, nor does he mention Ibn Isḥāq. Is it thus to be concluded that he does not have it from Ibn Isḥāq but from someone else who he doesn’t know, or that he or someone anonymous invented the text and ascribed it to Ibn Hishām? Wansbrough assumes the latter case and holds the association with Ibn Isḥāq to be a stylistic literary device. 5 This is contradicted, however, by the fact that the text contains Ibn Hishām’s explanatory commentaries on individual words. If Wansbrough were right, this would also have to be a stylistic literary device. The author of the text would have commentated his own product to give the impression that that the work is from someone else. That, however, is rather improbable. A look at the end of the narration brings us further. Before the three closing sentences Ibn Hishām names a source: “Ibn Isḥāq said…” For this reason it is to be assumed that either Ibn Hishām himself had left this source out at the beginning of the narration, or that although this indication was originally on hand, it was lost in the course of the written transmission or through editing. There can be no doubt at all that Ibn Hishām ascribed the narration to Ibn Ishāq. Is this ascription credible? It can be substantiated through a parallel transmission. This is found in a fragment of the maghāzī work of Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Jabbār b. Muḥammad al-ʿUṭāridī (d. 272/886) which was first published in 1976 based on a manuscript found in the Qarawiyyīn library in Fez. 6 This book contains the Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, p. 58; see also Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis”, pp. 292–294. 6 Muḥammad Ḥamīd Allāh, Sīrat Ibn Isḥāq : al-musammāt bi-Kitāb alMubtadaʾ wa-al-mabʿath wa-l-maghāzī, n. p. [Rabat] 1396/1976. I quote from the reprint of Konya 1401/1981, no. 196 on p. 131 and 132. Another 5

SOURCE ANALYSIS

25

transmissions on the life of Muḥammad which were collected by the Kufan scholar Yūnus b. Bukayr (d. 199/815) and passed on in classes. A large portion thereof (ca. 62%) stems from Ibn Isḥāq. 7 According to biographical transmission, Yūnus b. Bukayr was a pupil of Ibn Isḥāq during the latter’s sojourn in Rayy. 8 Al-ʿUṭāridī is considered, in spite of the great difference in age, to be a pupil of Yūnus b. Bukayr. The biographical transmission on al-ʿUṭāridī provides an explanation for this. His father, ʿAbd al-Jabbār, was himself already a teacher who had studied under Yūnus b. Bukayr and had brought his little son Aḥmad to the lectures. 9 Aḥmad inherited his father’s notes, but kept quiet about this in the riwāya, the information on the origin of the book. Unlike Ibn Hishām’s text, al-ʿUṭāridī’s version of the narration cited above begins with an isnād. The first part of it reads: ḥaddathanā Aḥmad, ḥaddathanā Yūnus ʿan Ibn Isḥāq (Aḥmad [al-ʿUṭāridī] transmitted to us; Yūnus [b. Bukayr] transmitted to us from Ibn Isḥāq). With this, our assumption that Ibn Isḥāq is the source of the narration finds its confirmation. The isnād alone, however, is not a strong argument for sceptics. An isnād can easily be added to a text invented by oneself or received from someone else. Sceptics see the following scenario as a possibility: Al-ʿUṭāridī took his text over from Ibn Hishām. To cover this up and to simulate a shorter transmission path, al-ʿUṭāridī not only suppressed his actual informant, Ibn Hishām, in his isnād, but also the name of the latter’s informant, al-Bakkāʾī, whose name he replaced with Yūnus b. Bukayr, a fictive informant from the generation of al-Bakkāʾī. The reverse could theoretically also have been the case, namely, that Ibn edition by Suhayr Zakkār has been published with the title Kitāb al-Siyar wa-l-maghāzī, Beirut 1978. As for the manuscript on which the editions are based see Muranyi, “Ibn Isḥāq’s Kitāb al-Maġāzī”, pp. 216–232. For the parts of the manucripts that hark back to Ibn Isḥāq see Alfred Guillaume, New Light on the Life of Muhammad, Manchester 1960 [Journal of Semitic Studies. Monograph No. 1]. 7 See Muranyi, “Ibn Isḥāq’s Kitāb al-Maġāzī”, p. 218. 8 Al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmāʾ al-rijāl, Beirut 1418/1998, vol. 8, pp. 207–8. 9 See al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb, vol. 1, pp. 54–55.

26

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Hishām took the text over from al-ʿUṭāridī or his father and falsified his isnād. Joseph Schacht called such a maneuvre “spread of isnāds.” 10 To arrive at more certainty as to whether we are concerned in this concrete case with such a deceptive maneuvre, we need to examine the texts of the relevant transmissions. If a “spread of isnāds” were the case, then Ibn Hisham’s and al-ʿUṭāridī’s versions of the narration must to a large extent be identical. However, before we compare both versions with each other, it is advisable to check whether the texts attributed to Ibn Hishām and al-ʿUṭāridī exhibit in themselves stable transmissions. Is that the case for the present narration about the reaction of the Quraysh to Muḥammad’s emergence? The work by Ibn Hishām is on hand in Ferdinand Wüstenfeld’s massive edition which is based on several manuscripts. 11 The text can thus be considered somewhat safe, although further manuscripts exist which were not available to Wüstenfeld. Al-ʿUṭāridī’s version of the story about the advice sought by leading figures of the Quraysh from al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra is not only available in the Fes edition of the manuscript but is also found in later sources, e.g., in al-Bayhaqī’s (d. 458/1066) collection of traditions of the Prophet entitled Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa. 12 The text transmitted from alʿUṭāridī in the edition of al-Bayhaqī’s work agrees on the whole with the text of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī. Yet both texts are not completely identical. In al-Bayhaqī’s version, e.g., nearly a half line in the first part of the narration is missing: yā maʿshar Quraysh, innahu qad ḥaḍara al-mawsim; this could be an oversight of al-Bayhaqī or Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford [19501], pp. 164–169. See also Michael Cook, Early Muslim Dogma: A Source-Critical Study, Cambridge 1981, pp. 232–234. It is little likely that Ibn Hishām copied the text from al-ʿUṭāridī because of the great age difference between them. 11 Concerning the transmission of Ibn Hishām’s work and the most important manuscripts of it, see Wüstenfeld, Kitāb sīrat rasūl allāh - Das Leben Muhammed’s, vol. 2, pp. xxxix–lv. 12 Al-Bayhaqī, Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa wa-maʿrifat akhwāl ṣāḥib al-sharīʿa, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Qalʿajī, Beirut 1405/1985, vol. 2, pp. 199–201. 10

19674

SOURCE ANALYSIS

27

one of the transmitters before him. An error of this sort is understandable, since in both al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī and in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra the statement qad ḥaḍara al-mawsim appears twice in quick succession. It is certain that this loss of text did not first come about after al-Bayhaqī, i.e., in the course of the further transmission of his Dalāʾil, because Ibn Kathīr’s and al-Maqrīzī’s texts, both of which use al-Bayhaqī’s work as a source, exhibit the same gap. 13 Missing in the edition of al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil in the enumeration of characteristics typical for a soothsayer, but which do not apply to Muḥammad, is the word wa-sajʿihi (and his rhymed prose). Here, too, one might suspect at first that al-Bayhaqī or a transmitter between him and al-ʿUṭāridī consciously left the word out, perhaps finding it inappropriate, since rhymed prose is indeed found in Muḥammad’s proclamations. A comparison with the quotes of Ibn Kathīr and al-Maqrīzī from al-Bayhaqī’s work shows, however, that in their exemplars the word was not missing, even though in Maqrīzī’s edition Imtāʿ it is deformed into siḥrihi. This suggests that only transmitters after al-Bayhaqī were responsible for the gap. The variation wa-inna aṣlahu la-mighdaq in the edition of alBayhaqī’s Dalāʾil instead of inna aṣlahu la-ʿadh(a)q as in the edition of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī and Ibn Hishām’s Sīra certainly goes back to al-Bayhaqī or a transmitter between him and al-ʿUṭāridī. This variation, as well, is found in Ibn Kathīr and al-Maqrīzī. 14 Finally, there are only little stylistic differences to be discerned between the texts of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī and al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil, e.g., regarding the prefixing of fa-. This can have various causes: A poor handwritten transmission of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī or the introduction of stylistic improvements by one or more transmitters of al-ʿUṭāridī’s text, including al-Bayhaqī himself. After achieving an overview of the wording of both versions of the account of the Quraysh’s consultation with al-Walīd transmitted by Ibn Hishām and al-ʿUṭāridī, we can compare both of the Ibn Kathīr (d. 775/1387), al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya, Beirut 1966, vol. 3, p. 61 and al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1441–2), Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ bi-mā li-l-nabī min alaḥwāl wa-l-amwāl wa-l-ḥafda wa-l-matāʿ, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd alNamīsī, Beirut 1420/1999, vol. 4, pp. 348–349. 14 Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, vol. 3, p. 61; al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ, vol. 4, p. 348. 13

28

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

versions with each other. This yields the following results: Both texts agree for the most part, yet numerous smaller and some greater aberrations are noticeable: 1) Ibn Hishām’s text is somewhat wordier than al-ʿUṭāridī’s.

2) Minor variations are: yā maʿshar Quraysh (IH) vs yā maʿshar (ʿUṭ); wa-yaruddu qawlakum baʿḍuhu baʿḍan (IH) vs wa-yaruddu qawla baʿḍikum baʿḍan (ʿUṭ); fa-mā huwa bi-nafthihim wa-lā ʿaqdihim (IH), which fits grammatically better with the previous than fa-mā huwa bi-nafthihi wa-lā ʿaqdihi (ʿUṭ); janāt (IH) vs janī or janan (ʿUṭ); li-anna taqūlū jāʾa bi-qawlin huwa siḥr yufarriq (IH) vs lianna taqūlū sāḥir fa-qūlū: sāḥir yufarriq (ʿUṭ); 15 bayna l-marʾ wa-abīhi wabayna l-marʾ wa-akhīhi (IH) vs bayna l-marʾ wa-bayna abīhi wa-bayna lmarʾ wa-bayna akhīhi (ʿUṭ), in the last version the second bayna is actually superfluous yet is also present in al-Bayhaqī’s transmission; fa-jaʿalū yajlisūna bi-subul al-nās (IH) vs fa-jaʿalū yajlisūna yusʾilūna al-nās (Uṭ). The (senseless) word yusʾilūna found only in al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī is obviously a copying error. Al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil and texts dependent on it have yajlisūna li-l-nās.

3) Greater variations are evident in the last part of the narration which concerns the Qurʾān verses “revealed” concerning al-Walīd and the group of the Quraysh who sought counsel with him regarding Muḥammad. In al-ʿUṭāridī’s version only the beginning and end of the respective Qurʾān passages (Q 74: 11–25 and Q 15: 91– 93) are cited, and only one word (ʿiḍīn) is explained with a synonym (aṣnāf). In Ibn Hishām’s version, on the other hand, the verses of both Qurʾān passages are cited in full, interrupted three times by Ibn Hishām’s elucidations of words with verses from an Arab poet as evidence (ʿanīd, basara and ʿiḍīn, whereby Ibn Hishām’s explanation of ʿiḍīn is not identical with the one in al-ʿUṭāridī’s text). Two other conspicuous divergences are: 1. wa-anzala llāhu taʿālā fī rasūlihi wa-fī-mā jāʾa bihi min allāh taʿālā wa-fī l-nafar (IH) vs wa-anzala llāhu ʿazzā wa-jalla fī l-nafar (ʿUṭ). In Ibn Hishām’s ver-

Al-Bayhaqī, Dalāʾil, vol. 2, p. 200: fa-taqūlū huwa sāḥir yufarriq; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, vol. 3, p. 61: has the same text; al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ, vol. 4, p. 346: an yaqūlū huwa sāḥir yufarriq. 15

SOURCE ANALYSIS

29

sion the statement is expanded to the effect that the verses are revealed not only concerning the group of (disbelieving) Quraysh, but also concerning the Prophet and the Qurʾān. 2. fa-jaʿala ulāʾika l-nafar yaqūlūna dhālika (IH) vs ulāʾika l-nafar alladhīna yaqūlūna dhālika (ʿUṭ). In al-ʿUṭāridī’s version this is still an explanation of the aforegoing Qurʾān verse; with Ibn Hishām, on the other hand, the end of the narration is already begun therewith. These examples clearly show that Ibn Hishām had probably interfered with Ibn Isḥāq’s text. We can thus assume that some of the variations contained in the first part of the story in Ibn Hishām’s text also stem from his editing.

4) The greatest difference between the two versions consists in the isnād. As already mentioned, Ibn Hishām only names his source, Ibn Isḥāq, at the end of the narration, and nothing more. In alʿUṭāridī’s version, on the other hand, the narration begins with a rather long isnād. The first part thereof reads, as already mentioned: ḥaddathanā Aḥmad, ḥaddathanā Yūnus ʿan Ibn Isḥāq (Aḥmad [alʿUṭāridī] transmitted to us; Yūnus [b. Bukayr] transmitted to us from Ibn Isḥāq). The second part of al-ʿUṭāridī’s isnād continues with: qāla [Ibn Isḥāq]: ḥaddathanī Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr aw ʿIkrima ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās anna… (He [Ibn Isḥāq] said: Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad transmitted to me from Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima from Ibn ʿAbbās, that…). According to this isnād, Ibn Isḥāq had received the story from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, who in turn alleged that he had heard it from Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima and that it would originate with the Companion of the Prophet, Ibn ʿAbbās. 16 The comparison of the versions transmitted by Ibn Hishām and al-ʿUṭāridī on the consultation of leading members of the Quraysh with al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra enables arrival at the following insights: 1) The texts are primarily in the first part of the narra-

This isnād is not only found in al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī, but also in alBayhaqī’s Dalāʾil and Ibn Kathīr’s Bidāya. In al-Maqrīzī’s Imtāʿ the isnād stops with Ibn Isḥāq for incomprehensible reasons. The fact that the other three works mentioned display the complete isnād shows that alMaqrīzī’s version contains a transmission error. 16

30

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

tion up to mention of the associated Qurʾān verses very similar. The characteristic aberrations from each other, their individual features, show, however, that they are not directly dependent on one another, i.e., that al-ʿUṭāridī copied the text of Ibn Hishām, or perhaps vice versa. Their commonalities therefore evidence a common source. This source, according to the isnāds of both authors, is Ibn Isḥāq, who is a common link, an interface, of both isnāds. 17 Ibn Hishām’s assertion that Ibn Isḥāq is the source of the narration thereby finds a confirmation. One problem nonetheless remains open. The difference between Ibn Hishām’s and al-ʿUṭāridī’s isnād. Which isnād version reflects Ibn Isḥāq’s original transmission? If it is Ibn Hishām’s version, which gives Ibn Isḥāq as the source without naming his sources, then Yūnus b. Bukayr or al-ʿUṭāridī have invented the isnād extending from Ibn Isḥāq back to Ibn ʿAbbās and placed it before the narration. If, on the other hand, al-ʿUṭāridī’s version went with its isnād back to Ibn Isḥāq, then Ibn Hishām or his teacher al-Bakkāʾī would have omitted the second part of the isnād which extends back beyond Ibn Isḥāq to Ibn ʿAbbās. This question could be settled if further versions of the narration from other pupils of Ibn Isḥāq would exist. Happily, there is just such a variant. It is found in Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī’s (d. 429/1038) Dalāʾil alnubuwwa. 18 Abū Nuʿaym’s text is very similar to the versions of Ibn Hishām and al-ʿUṭāridī. There are minor variations, sometimes from one version, sometimes from the other, sometimes from both texts, variations which are typical for a handwritten transmission. 19 Even if Ibn Hishām’s text does not display a correct isnād, it was possible to reconstruct its isnād due to his reference to Ibn Isḥāq at the end of the narration and based upon Ibn Hishām’s isnād for his whole opus. 18 Abū Nuʿaym al-Isfahānī, Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa, Ḥaydarābād 1369/19502, pp. 185–186. Al-Maqrīzī took the text over from Abū Nuʿaym’s Dalāʾil into his Imtāʿ. 19 Divergences from Ibn Hishām’s and al-ʿUṭāridī’s versions are e.g.: naqul instead of naqūlu or naqūmu; naqūl annahu kāhin instead of naqūl kāhin (the same is found in the cases of majnūn and shāʿir); al-kuhhān instead of al17

SOURCE ANALYSIS

31

Abū Nuʿaym’s text confirms the conclusions we arrived at above regarding al-ʿUṭāridī’s original wording through comparing the versions of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī and al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil: Found on hand are the elements yā maʿshar Quraysh, innahu qad ḥaḍara almawsim and wa-sajʿihi, but also wa-inna aṣlahu la-mighdaq , a word which appears only in al-Bayhaqī’s version of al-ʿUṭāridī. The text ends, however, already with the words fa-tafarraqū ʿanhu bi-dhālika (at this point they left him). 20 Which actions the Quraysh undertook to warn the visitors to the pilgrimage feast against Muḥammad are no longer reported, and the indications of the Qurʾān verses which were revealed in this regard are missing. Abū Nuʿaym introduces the text with the following isnād: Ḥabīb b. al-Ḥasan → Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā al-Marwazī → Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ayyūb → Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr. Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd (d. 183/799 or 184/800), according to the bibliographical literature, is a Medinan pupil of Ibn Isḥāq. 21 This isnād diverges from the second part of al-ʿUṭāridī’s isnād in three points: 1. The informant of Ibn Isḥāq is described in addition to his name as a mawlā (client) of Zayd b. Thābit. 22 2. The names of the two informants of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad appear in reverse order, yet are nonetheless connected as in alʿUṭāridī’s isnād with aw (or). 3. Abū Nuʿaym’s isnād stops at these two persons, while al-ʿUṭāridī’s isnād continues on to the Compankāhin; mā huwa bi-shāʿir instead of mā huwa bi-shiʿr. These are errors that easily happen when manuscripts are copied or conscious stilistic improvements. 20 Abū Nuʿaym notes at the end that he also knows the version of Yūnus b. Bukayr of which the isnād goes back to Ibn ʿAbbās. 21 Fück, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, p. 44; Guillaume, The Life, p. xxx; AlSamuk, Die historischen Überlieferungen, p. 143; al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb, vol. 1, pp. 110– 112. 22 Zayd b. Thābit is a well-known companion of the Prophet, see Michael Lecker, “Zayd b. Thābit”, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 11, fascs. 187–188, Leiden 2002, p. 476. We will see later on that the name Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad together with his further characterisation as “mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit” was also known to Yūnus b. Bukayr. See above II, p. 29.

32

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

ion of the Prophet, Ibn ʿAbbās. These differences between the two isnāds suggest that they are independent of each other. The commonalities, i.e. the name of Ibn Isḥāq’s informant Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad and the name of his informant with the peculiar conjunction “or,” strongly suggest that they go back to a common source, namely, Ibn Isḥāq, the teacher of Yūnus b. Bukayr and Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd. Both isnāds confirm that Ibn Isḥāq did not disseminate the story of the consultation of leading members of the Quraysh with al-Walīd anonymously, as suggested by Ibn Hishām’s version, but had indeed named a source for it: Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. Let us recapitulate the course of the study up to now. The starting point was the problem that the oldest sources available to us for Muḥammad’s vita were not written until 180 to 200 years after his death. This raises the issue of whether these sources can at all be utilized for a historical reconstruction of the time of the Prophet. Inspired from the ascertainment that the source documents reporting on the beginning of Islam are presented as collections of traditions, an attempt should be made to verify older sources in these works. The span of time between the events and the reports thereof would thereby shorten. Selected as a starting point was a narration about Muḥammad from Ibn Hishām’s vita of the Prophet, the oldest extant, most highly estimated, and most cited biography of Muḥammad. It was able to be demonstrated with the aid of text variations that Ibn Hishām (d. 218/833) did not contrive the narration himself, but rather had drawn from the work of a scholar who had lived two generations before him, Ibn Isḥāq (d. 151/768). This had long already been assumed by Muslim scholars and most nonMuslim Islamicists, not only regarding the narration under consideration here, but for the entirety of Ibn Hishām’s compilation. They based themselves in this regard on Ibn Hishām’s statements about his sources and on the fact that in later works numerous variations of Ibn Hishām’s texts are found that are traced via other persons back to Ibn Isḥāq. In this respect, the results achieved thus far in this study are neither new nor surprising. It has merely been shown that, and by which means, the previous hypothesis on the provenance of Ibn Hishām’s material can be confirmed also for a text whose provenance in Ibn Hishām’s work is less clear. What is new, however, is the realization that Ibn Isḥāq furnished the pre-

SOURCE ANALYSIS

33

sent narrative with an isnād. This is probable because two different versions of the narrative convey this isnād. The fact that the isnād in Ibn Hishām’s version is missing is presumably not attributable to al-Bakkāʾī, the direct transmitter of Ibn Isḥāq, but to Ibn Hishām who, according to his own testimony, transmitted al-Bakkāʾī’s material in a purged form. 23 By ascertaining that Ibn Isḥāq put the story of the consultation of leading Quraysh with al-Walīd into circulation, and that he is an authentic common link of the narrative, 24 its post quem dating shifts a good half century backwards, i.e., from the date of Ibn Hishām’s death (218/833) to that of Ibn Isḥāq (151/768). There still remains, however, a time span of one and a half centuries between Muḥammad’s life and the relevant report. The question arises once more: Can such a report contain credible facts about an event laying so far back in time? This is hard to imagine, unless standardized forms of transmitting information on events were on hand. Most Muslim scholars assumed, and still do, that such was the case. In the case of the narrative on al-Walīd and the Quraysh, they were able to point to the isnād Ibn Isḥāq had evidently linked to this narrative. It extends in al-ʿUṭāridī’s version back to Ibn ʿAbbās, one of the younger of the Companions of the Prophet. He cannot have personally experienced the event which would have happened, if at all, some years prior to the Hijra. He was born, according to Tradition, three years before the Hijra. He could nonetheless See Ibn Hishām’s introduction in: Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 4; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 3; Tadmurī: vol. 1, pp. 18–19; Guillaume: p. 691. The fact that Ibn Hishām omitted and abbreviated isnāds has already been noted by Johann Fück, “Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 10 (1953), p. 197 (repr.: in J. Fück, Arabische Kultur und Islam im Mittelalter. Ausgewählte Schriften, hg. by M. Fleischhammer, Weimar 1981, p. 254). This will become apparent on a number of occasions in the following. See also Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis. A Debate”, note 125. 24 Even if the transmission lines that lead to Ibn Isḥāq are only “single strands” which are considered by G.H.A. Juynboll as unhistorical. See for this problem Motzki, “Whither Ḥadīth Studies?”, pp. 54–61. 23

34

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

very well have heard the story from older contemporaries. As one of Muḥammad’s nephews, he belonged to his close family circle. The fact that only one of the three extant transmissions traces the story back to Ibn ʿAbbās wouldn’t much disturb today’s Muslim scholars, and could be explained by them through faulty transmission. The critical Muslim ḥadīth scholars of the 3rd/9th and 4th/10th century would certainly have been more cautious in this regard, since Ibn Isḥāq’s isnād is indeed problematical: Who is Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad? For the scholars he was an unknown person (majhūl), invoked by no one apart from Ibn Isḥāq, and concerning whose qualities as a transmitter nothing was known. 25 Skeptical non-Muslim scholars would raise two types of objections to the scenario posed by Muslim scholars: 1. Ibn Isḥāq’s isnād is pure fiction, a literary expedient gauged to bridge the long period of time back to Muḥammad, 26 or by means of acceptable isnāds to make Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra traditions also acceptable to ḥadīth scholars. 27 2. A somewhat more moderate objection would be: Even if Ibn Isḥāq’s isnād is not contrived, it cannot be checked. It is fundamentally impossible to make methodically secure statements about the single strand isnād that runs from the common link to Ibn ʿAbbās. 28 See al-Bukharī, Kitāb al-Taʾrīkh al-kabīr, Ḥaydarābād 1941–1942, vol. I/1, p. 225; Ibn Ḥibbān, Kitāb al-Thiqāt, Ḥaydarābād 1403/1983, vol. 7, p. 292; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Kitāb al-Jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl, Ḥaydarābād 1371– 1372/1952–1973, vol. 8, p. 88, no. 376; al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb, 6:498; alDhahabī, Mīzān al-iʿtidāl fī naqd al-rijāl, Cairo 1963, repr. Beirut n.d., vol. 4, p. 26; Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, Ḥaydarābād 1325/1907, repr. Beirut 1968, vol. 9, p. 433. In the biographical literature he is repeatedly characterised as Anṣārī and Madanī (from Medina). In some traditions he also has the nisba al-Qurashī (from the Quraysh), see also below II, p. 53, note 81 and II, p. 98, note 218. 26 Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, p. 58; see also Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis”, pp. 292–294. 27 Schöller, Exegetisches Denken, pp. 164–168. 28 Schacht, The Origins, p. 171, 175; G.H.A. Juynboll, “Some IsnādAnalytical Methods Illustrated on the Basis of Several Women25

SOURCE ANALYSIS

35

Moreover, it is doubtful that Ibn Hishām keeps the isnād secret, and that of the two traditions with isnāds only one, namely, that of a relatively late source, extends the isnād back to Ibn ʿAbbās. That could feed the suspicion that the isnāds have “grown backwards” in the course of time. 29 At first glance, it seems impossible to make verifiable statements about the history of the pertinent narrative prior to Ibn Isḥāq. Although the situation seems futile, an attempt will be made in the following to discover more about Ibn Isḥāq’s alleged informant.

2. MUḤAMMAD B. ABĪ MUḤAMMAD

Let us first of all get an overview of what is found on this name in non-Muslim studies. In his previously mentioned dissertation from 1978 on the historical transmissions ascribed to Ibn Isḥāq, alSamuk refers to the very strange fact that Ibn Isḥāq in his historical transmissions – including also traditions of Muḥammad’s life – invokes numerous informants, yet in his exegetical traditions, by contrast, mainly invokes only one informant: Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, who is also named as the mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit. AlSamuk notes furthermore that the isnād linked with this name or person has hitherto remained unnoticed. 30 Al-Samuk overlooked, however, the fact that already 25 years before him Heribert Horst in a study on the traditions in alṬabarī’s Qurʾān commentary also investigated Ibn Isḥāq’s exegetical traditions and determined three main informants of Ibn Isḥāq. The one most named is Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. According to Horst, Ibn Isḥāq invokes him 79 times, 31 almost twice as often as the two other informants – Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar b. al-Zubayr (d. between 110/728 and 120/738) and Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 114/732) – together. Horst’s overview of the isnāds also divulges that Ibn Isḥāq associated a sort of standard isnād with the name Demeaning Sayings from Ḥadīth Literature”, in: Al-Qanṭara 10 (1989), p. 353. 29 See for the concept Schacht, The Origins, p. 161, 171. 30 Al-Samuk, Die historischen Überlieferungen, p. 151. 31 According to my counting even 119 times.

36

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad: Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. 32 Miklos Muranyi noted in his study on al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī published in 1991 some differences between the Fes manuscript and Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, i.a., that the story about the consultation of leading members of the Quraysh with al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra, which is cited by Ibn Hishām without isnād, is furnished by alʿUṭāridī with the aforesaid isnād of Ibn Isḥāq from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. He adds that Ibn Hishām does not mention this name at all, but that the name does appear another time in the fragment of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī. 33 In his book on exegesis and the biography of the Prophet, Marco Schöller considers that many texts from Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra exhibiting a weak isnād or none at all have been equipped in the centuries after Shāfiʿī with isnāds which were “correct according to later criteria,” i.a., with the isnād Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → Saʿīd/ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. In Schöller’s opinion, the sense and purpose of these fabrications was to integrate the traditions of Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra “into the transmission material which is to be considered ṣaḥīḥ.” 34 Schöller sees in Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad not a real transmitter, but merely a name in an isnād contrived in the course of the 3rd/9th century and linked in a secondary manner with older texts. As far as I can see, this is all there is to be found up to now on Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad in the literature. 35 They are for the Heribert Horst, „Zur Überlieferung im Korankommentar aṭṬabarīs“, in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 103 (1953), p. 303. 33 Muranyi, “Ibn Isḥāq’s Kitāb al-maġāzī”, p. 234. 34 Schöller, Exegetisches Denken, pp. 167–168. It is however doubtful whether this isnād with a majhūl (anonymus) and the vague indication of his informants with “Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima” could really be considered as correct according to later criteria of the ḥadīth scholars. 35 For this issue see also the footnotes 125 and 126 of Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions, pp. 265–266 and note 14 of M. Lecker in “The Assassination of the Jewish Merchant Ibn Sunayna according to an Authentic Family Account”, in: The Transmission and Dynamics of the Textual 32

SOURCE ANALYSIS

37

most part marginal remarks which though valuable impressions are nonetheless not secure. The brief source investigation in the preceding paragraph was also intended, i.a., to check, through the example of the consultation of leading Quraysh with al-Walīd, some of these impressions and to verify them, if possible, through transmission variations. The following realizations were yielded: Ibn Isḥāq provided the narration with an isnād. This is documented through two mutually independent versions of the tradition, that of Yūnus b. Bukayr and that of Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd. These versions also allow the conclusion that Ibn Isḥāq named a certain Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as source or informant for the story. One of the transmission versions, that of Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd, has it additionally that the informant was a mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit. Both versions also contain the alleged sources or informants of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad: Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima. Only one of the two transmissions, that of Yūnus b. Bukayr, directs the isnād further to Ibn ʿAbbās as the actual alleged source of the story. With this, four conditions have been verified to the extent that they can serve as the basis for further investigations: 1. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad is the name of an actual informant of Ibn Isḥāq. 2. This informant invoked Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima. 3. Ibn Isḥāq also described Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit. 4. The isnād of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad possibly extended sometimes back to Ibn ʿAbbās. The first two informations, documented through two transmission versions each, are better documented than the last two, each of which is based on only one version. Narration 2 Another narration from Ibn Isḥāq’s vita of the Prophet brings more light into the darkness surrounding Ibn Isḥāq’s informant. Ibn Hishām’s Sīra again serves as the point of departure. Found there some pages after the story about the consultation of leading Sources of Islam. Essays in Honour of Harald Motzki, ed. by Nicolet Boekhoffvan der Voort, Kees Versteegh and Joas Wagemakers, Leiden 2011, p. 185.

38

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

members of the Quraysh with al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra is a long chapter which reports about discussions which took place between Muḥammad and leading Quraysh personalities concerning his behavior as proclaimer of allegedly divine messages. The first impression of the chapter is that it contains a coherent narration. It can be subdivided into several pericopes which treat different themes. 36 They are briefly summarized in the following. Pericope 1: Leading men from diverse Quraysh clans – 13 persons are given by name – invite Muḥammad to a discussion in order to talk about his machinations in their tribe. Muḥammad accepts the invitation. Pericope 2: A heated debate arises as to Muḥammad’s intentions. The Quraysh demand miracles as proof for his claim to be a messenger of God to whom a book has been revealed and who has been sent as a warner. Muḥammad, however, does not agree and explains that he has not been sent to work wonders and would not wish to ask God for such. 37

Pericope 3: When Muḥammad ends this, for him, unsavory discussion, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Umayya b. al-Mughīra, a nephew of Muḥammad, takes the floor and swears that he would not believe him even if he came with four angels testifying to the truth of his words. 38

Pericope 4: After Muḥammad’s departure, Abū Jahl b. Hishām offers to murder Muḥammad, which the gathered Quraysh notables had nothing against. Abū Jahl’s attempt to batter Muḥammad to death with a stone during the prayer ritual, however, is thwarted in a wondrous way by a camel bull.

Pericope 5: After that, al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith appears in the gathering of Muḥammad’s opponents and holds a speech in which he points

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 187–202; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 294–314; Tadmurī: vol. 1, pp. 324–341; Guillaume: pp. 133– 141. 37 The text contains allusions to Q 17: 90–93. 38 The narration contains allusions to Q 17: 92–93. 36

SOURCE ANALYSIS

39

out to his tribesmen the precariousness of the situation, since they do not know what to do with Muḥammad’s proclamation and because all their interpretations of his behavior would be inaccurate.

Pericope 6: Then comes a subsequent entry on al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith and his attitude to Muḥammad. It is reported that al-Naḍr called the Prophet a story-teller, that he tried to compete with Muḥammad with his own tales, and that eight Qurʾān verses were revealed concerning al-Naḍr, i.a. Q 68:15. 39

Pericope 7: The Quraysh send al-Naḍr and ʿUqba b. Abī Muʿayṭ to Medina to the Jewish rabbis in order to seek their advice about Muḥammad. They receive three questions from the rabbis to ask Muḥammad. The Quraysh should be able to discern from his answers whether he is an authentic prophet or a swindler.

Pericope 8: The Quraysh pose the questions to Muḥammad who stipulates one day’s time for himself, but is not heard from for 15 days. The angel Gabriel thereupon reveals to him Sūrat al-Kahf (The Cave) and thereby the answers to the three questions of the rabbis.

Pericope 9: Then follows a lengthy exegesis of Sūrat al-Kahf (Q 18), which illustrates how this sūra responds to the doubt concerning Muḥammad’s prophethood and the questions of the rabbis the Quraysh had posed to Muḥammad. This pericope is introduced with its own isnād and diverges in structure and style from the rest of the pericopes.

Pericope 10: In conclusion, a series of Qurʾān verses is cited which concern some of the previously mentioned persons and respond to

The last passage of this pericope which concerns the eight verses of the Qurʾān is introduced by: Qāla Ibn Isḥāq: wa-kāna Ibn ʿAbbās (r.) yaqūl, fī-mā balaghanī (Ibn Isḥāq said: Ibn ʿAbbās, according to my information, used to say). On the first sight, this looks like an addendum of Ibn Isḥāq from another tradition. However, we will see later that there exist contradictory traditions concerning this issue; see below II, p. 85, 101–104. 39

40

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

their questions or demands (Q 17: 85; 31: 27; 13: 31; 25: 7–10, 20; 17: 19–93; 13: 30; 96: 9–19; 34: 47; 74: 31). 40 The content of the ten pericopes leads to the hypothesis that together they form a consistent narration. This, however, is dissected by Ibn Isḥāq’s and Ibn Hishām’s brief insertions. 41 Parallel versions of individual pericopes transmitted by other pupils of Ibn Isḥāq affirm this supposition. The story is preserved in al-ʿUṭāridī’s fragment which contains the transmission according to Yūnus b. Bukayr; 42 individual pericopes are also on hand in Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq. 43 In Ibn Hishām’s text, Ibn Isḥāq, after his own brief leadparagraph, introduces the narration with the following isnād: haddathanī baʿḍ ahl al-ʿilm ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr wa-ʿan ʿIkrima mawlā Ibn The pericope starts with “Ibn Isḥāq said: I was told on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās that he said.” 41 They are marked by “Ibn Isḥāq said:” (qāla Ibn Isḥāq) and “Ibn Hishām said: (qāla Ibn Hishām)”. After a break with “Ibn Hishām said” and the text that belongs to him, the narration usually continues with “Ibn Isḥāq said:”. The following passages can be identified as insertions of Ibn Isḥāq: − I was told that the apostle said to Gabriel, when he came… Gabriel answered him, ‘We descend only by God’s command… and thy Lord does not forget (Q 19: 64). − I was told that the apostle said, ‘That was Gabriel. If he had come near, he would have seized him. − A man who used to purvey stories of the foreigners…told me… − Thawr b. Yazīd told me… − Ibn Isḥāq said: ‘God knows the truth of the matter…If he said it, then what he said was true. − Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn transmitted to me…perhaps he will give heed to some of it and profit thereby. 42 The pericopes 1–8 are completely conserved in al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī, of the pericopes 9 and 10 only the beginnings. Al-Bayhaqī who quotes only parts of it in his Dalāʾil expressly mentions that pericope 4 is actually part of a longer story (vol. 2, pp. 190–191). 43 The pericopes 1 and 4 are preserved in Abū Nuʿaym, Dalāʾil, pp. 161–162, transmitted by Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd from Ibn Isḥāq. 40

SOURCE ANALYSIS

41

ʿAbbās ʿan ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās qāla (a Tradition scholar 44 transmitted to me from Saʿīd b. Jubayr and from ʿIkrima, the mawlā of Ibn ʿAbbās, from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, who said:). 45 Ibn Isḥāq’s source or informant for the story remains anonymous, i.e. “a Tradition scholar”. The rest of the isnād proceeds over a doubled intermediate link (Saʿīd b. Jubayr/ʿIkrima) back to Ibn ʿAbbās. 46 This strange isnād-end is also found in al-ʿUṭāridī’s and Abū Nuʿaym’s chain of transmitters 47 of the initially treated Narration 1 (consultation of leading members of the Quraysh with al-Walīd b. alMughīra). These chains of transmitters run over Ibn Isḥāq’s pupils Yūnus b. Bukayr and Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd. There is also reason to suspect that the anonymous scholar named by Ibn Hishām as Ibn Isḥāq’s source for Narration 2 is the same person as Ibn Isḥāq’s informant of Narration 1. This suspicion finds support in two arguments: on the one hand, through the isnāds of the transmission variants of the story, and on the other, through substantive agreement between the first and second narration. Argument 1 As already mentioned, besides Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, fragments of other versions of Ibn Isḥāq’s vita of the Prophet are still available. The most comprehensive text is contained in the fragment of alʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī. In this text, which according to Yūnus b. Bukayr is transmitted from Ibn Isḥāq, there are four segments of Narration 2, each of which is introduced by an isnād. 48 Concerning this translation of ahl al-ʿilm see Motzki, The Origins, o. 114 f., 171, 252. 45 The version of the story which Abū Nuʿaym, Dalāʾil, pp. 161–162 transmitted via Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd from Ibn Isḥāq has a very similar isnād. Ibn Isḥāq’s informant is also characterised as baʿḍ ahl al-ʿilm. 46 A small difference is that the two transmitters from Ibn ʿAbbās in the first narration are connected by aw (or), in the latter tradition by wa(and). For the probable cause of such divergences see above II, 19. 47 See above II, 30–31. 48 Two fragments of al-ʿUṭāridī’s version are also quoted by alBayhaqī, Dalāʾil, vol. 2: Pericope 4 (pp. 190–191), the pericopes 7–8 and 44

42

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

The first isnād reads: ḥaddathanā Yūnus [b. Bukayr] ʿan Ibn Isḥāq, qāla: ḥaddathanī shaykh min ahl makka qadīm [sic!] mundhu biḍʿ wa-arbaʿīna sana ʿan ʿIkrima ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās (Yūnus transmitted to us from Ibn Isḥāq; he said: A scholar of the Mekkans transmitted to me a long time ago, somewhat more than 40 years ago, from ʿIkrima from Ibn ʿAbbās). This isnād applies for the first part of the narration, which with al-ʿUṭāridī extends almost to the end of the 6th pericope (with an insertion by Ibn Isḥāq after Pericope 4). 49 The second segment according to al-ʿUṭāridī’s narration begins with the following isnād: ḥaddathanā Yūnus ʿan Ibn Isḥāq, qāla: ḥaddathanī rajul min ahl al-makka ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās, qāla (Yūnus transmitted to us from Ibn Isḥāq; he said: A man from the Mekkans transmitted to me from Saʿīd b. Jubayr from Ibn ʿAbbās; he said). This isnād opens the end of Pericope 6 and the Pericopes 7 and 8. 50 The 9th pericope begins in al-ʿUṭāridī with the isnād: ḥaddathanā Yūnus ʿan Ibn Isḥāq, qāla: fa-balaghanī anna rasūl allāh… (Yūnus transmitted to us from Ibn Isḥāq; he said: It was reported to me that the Messenger of God…). 51 Only the beginning of the the beginning of 9 (pp. 269–271). Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, vol. 3 quotes the same texts, apparently according to al-Bayhaqī: Pericope 4 (pp. 42–43) and the pericopes 7–8 (pp. 52–53). Besides, Ibn Kathīr’s Bidāya also contains a version of the pericopes 1–3 (pp. 50–51) that is according to Ibn Kathīr also transmitted by Yūnus but not found in al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil. For the isnād of this text see below II, 44–45 and note 55. 49 Ḥamīd Allāh, Sīra, no. 254–256, pp. 178–182. 50 Ḥamīd Allāh, Sīra no. 257, pp. 182–183. See also al-Bayhaqī, Dalāʾil, vol. 2, pp. 269–271. I shall return to this point later on (II, pp. 84– 86; 101–102). Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, vol. 3, p. 52, however, starts his transmission of the pericopes 7 and 8 not with this isnād but with the isnād that introduces the first part of the narration by al-ʿUṭāridī. A completely other isnād for the pericope 7 and the first part of pericope 8 gives Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad b. Faḍl al-Taymī al-Iṣbahānī (d. 535/1140–1), Dalāʾil alnubuwwa, ed. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Ḥaddād, al-Riyāḍ 1409/1988– 9, p. 216. See below II, pp. 103–104. 51 Ḥamīd Allāh, Sīrat, no. 258, p. 184. See also al-Bayhaqī, Dalāʾil, vol. 2, p. 271.

SOURCE ANALYSIS

43

pericope then follows. Found in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra between Pericope 8 and 9 is a short passage on the words Jibrīl is to have spoken to Muḥammad when presenting Sūrat al-Kaḥf. They are introduced with their own isnād: qāla Ibn Isḥāq: fa-dhukira lī anna rasūla llāh… (Ibn Isḥāq said: It was reported to me that the Messenger of God…). Following this passage and without isnād or qāla Ibn Isḥāq is Pericope 9. This no doubt also means that the antecedent isnād remains valid. This confirms al-ʿUṭāridī’s transmission in which Pericope 9 begins with a similar isnād. The last, the 10th pericope is introduced by al-ʿUṭāridī with the following isnād: ḥaddathanā Yūnus ʿan Ibn Isḥāq, qāla: ḥaddathanī rajul bi-makka ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās (Yūnus transmitted to us from Ibn Isḥāq; he said: A man in Mekka transmitted to me from Saʿīd b. Jubayr from Ibn ʿAbbās). 52 Here too follows only the first part of the pericope. Pericope 10 has its own isnād with Ibn Hishām as well, albeit considerably shortened: ḥuddithtu ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās annahu qāla (one transmitted to me from Ibn ʿAbbās, that he said). Three of al-ʿUṭāridī’s four chains of transmitters designate Ibn Isḥāq’s source for the present narration as a man who Ibn Isḥāq heard in Mekka. Two of the isnāds describe him as a Meccan, i.e., a man living in Mekka; one isnād even calls him a scholar (shaykh) of the Meccans. The first isnād designates ʿIkrima as the informant of the Meccan scholar, whereby the informant is Saʿīd b. Jubayr in the last two. All four isnāds end at Ibn ʿAbbās. Three of al-ʿUṭāridī’s isnāds resemble the isnād Ibn Hishām and Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd 53 place before Narration 2. Although the latter also speak of “a scholar” (baʿḍ ahl al-ʿilm), Mekka is not mentioned as his place of activity. Moreover, in their statement they combine the isnād segments from al-ʿUṭāridī’s transmissions, which once mention ʿIkrima as this informant’s source and twice Saʿīd b. Jubayr: from Saʿīd b. Jubayr and from ʿIkrima, the mawlā of Ibn ʿAbbās. 54 Ḥamīd Allāh, Sīrat, no. 260, pp. 184–185. See above II, pp. 41–42 and note 43. 54 This explains the variance from the isnād that is usually connected with this informant of Ibn Isḥāq: ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr aw (or) ʿIkrima. See also above II, p. 16. 52 53

44

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

When the chains of transmitters of the first and second narration are compared with each other, keeping in mind the similar isnād ends with Saʿīd b. Jubayr and/or ʿIkrima as links between Ibn Isḥāq’s informant and Ibn ʿAbbās, the assumption suggests itself that Ibn Isḥāq’s informant for both stories is one and the same. In other words: the name of the scholar is Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. According to Yūnus b. Bukayr’s version of Narration 2, he is a Meccan, while in Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd’s version of Narration 1 he is mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit. This deduction finds a confirmation through the transmission chain of a variant of Narration 2, which is contained in Ibn Kathīr’s vita of the Prophet. Ibn Kathīr renders the beginning of Narration 2, i.e., Pericopes 1–3, with the following isnād: wa-qad rawā Yūnus wa-Ziyād ʿan Ibn Isḥāq ʿan baʿḍ ahl al-ʿilm wa-huwa shaykh min ahl Miṣr yuqāl lahu Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr wa-ʿIkrima ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās (Yūnus [b. Bukayr] and Ziyād [al-Bakkāʾī] transmitted from Ibn Isḥāq from a Tradition scholar – namely an Egyptian scholar 55 named Muḥammad b. Abī The manuscript of Fes that contains a part of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī notes at three places that he was a resident of Mecca. However, alBayhaqī, Ibn Kathīr and other later authors who quote from al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī often read ahl Miṣr or ahl Muḍar. Al-Bayhaqī’s edition of the Dalāʾil has once ahl Makka (vol. 2, p. 270), once ahl Miṣr (vol. 2, p. 190) and once ahl al-Muḍar (vol. 2, p. 201). Yet Ibn Kathīr has in all three places ahl Miṣr (Bidāya, vol. 3, p. 42, 50, 52). This is also found in a fragment that al-Maqrīzī cites from al-Bayhaqī’s Dalāʾil (al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ, vol. 4, p. 349). However, al-Bayhaqī’s edition of the Dalāʾil has ahl Muḍar at the place in question (vol. 2, p. 201). Miṣr is possible as an alternative to Mecca, Muḍar by contrast does not makes sense (as for Muḍar see H. Kindermann, “Rabīʿa and Muḍar”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 8, Leiden 1993, pp. 352–354). Miṣr and Muḍar are probably transmission errors. In an Arabic manuscript Makka can look like Miṣr or Muḍar. It is also more probable that the mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit resided at Mecca at the turn of the 1st/7th to the 2nd/8th century and that it was there that Ibn Isḥāq adopted from him his narratives than the assumption that he adopted them from a scholar of Egypt. Zayd b. Thābit was a native of Medina, remained there after the death of Muḥammad and served there 55

SOURCE ANALYSIS

45

Muḥammad – from Saʿīd b. Jubayr and ʿIkrima from Ibn ʿAbbās). 56 In his chain of transmitters Ibn Kathīr evidently mixes Ibn Hishām’s isnād “baʿḍ ahl al-ʿilm (a Tradition scholar) ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr wa-ʿan ʿIkrima ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās” 57 with al-ʿUṭāridī’s first isnād “shaykh min ahl makka (a Meccan scholar) ʿan ʿIkrima ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās.” However, he leaves out al-ʿUṭāridī’s addition “a long time ago, somewhat more than 40 years ago.” 58 Instead of this information, Ibn Kathīr inserts the name of the scholar, Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, which is present in neither of the transmitter chains in our present sources for Narration 2. There can be two reasons for this: Either Ibn Kathīr does not base himself on Ibn Hishām (according to al-Bakkāʾī) in his rendering of the fragment containing the beginning of the story, but on the transmission of another of al-Bakkāʾī’s pupils which also contains the name Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, or Ibn Kathīr deduced the name of the anonymous scholar from Ibn Hishām’s Sīra and al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī from diverse other traditions contained in al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī or elsewhere. 59 Argument 2 Be that as it may, Ibn Kathīr’s identification of the anonymous transmitter is correct. Apart from the similarities of the isnāds of both narrations – both isnāds contain the element Saʿīd b. Jubayr/ʿIkrima – there are also substantive conformities in Narrathe first caliphs as secretary and qāḍī (see Michael Lecker, “Zayd b. Thābit”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 11, Leiden 2002, p. 476). 56 Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, vol. 3, p. 50. 57 Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd transmitted from Ibn Isḥāq the beginning of the story with the same isnād as Ibn Hishām: → baʿḍ ahl al-ʿilm → Saʿīd b. Jubayr wa-ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās (Abū Nuʿaym, Dalāʾil, p. 161). 58 This does not mean that Ibn Kathīr did not know this information. He inserts it in the isnād in the case of two other fragments of the narration which he quotes from Yūnus b. Bukayr: the texts that reproduce pericope 4, (Bidāya, vol. 3, pp. 42–43) and the pericopes 7 and 8 (Bidāya, vol. 3, pp. 52–53). 59 E.g. from the traditions of al-Ṭabarī. See below chapter 4.

46

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

tions 1 and 2 that suggest that both originate from one and the same author. This is clearly evident in Pericope 5 of Narration 2. In Ibn Hishām’s Sīra it has the following text: When Abū Jahl said that to them, al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith b. Kalada b. ʿAlqama b. ʿAbd Manāf b. ʿAbd al-Dār b. Quṣayy got up and said: ‘ O Quraysh, a situation has arisen which you cannot deal with. Muḥammad was a young man most liked among you, most trustful in speech, and most trustworthy, until, when you saw grey hairs on his temple, and he brought you his message, you said he was a sorcerer (sāḥir), but he is not, for we have seen such people and their spitting and their knots; you said, a diviner (kāhin), but [he is not, for] we have seen such people and their behaviour, and we have heard their rhymes; and you said a poet, but he is not a poet, for we have heard all kinds of poetry; you said he was possessed, and he shows no signs of their gasping and whispering and delirium. Ye men of Quraysh, look to your affairs, for by God, a serious thing has befallen you.’ 60

This text is a paraphrase of all the statements about Muḥammad made by al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra in Narration 1. 61 The mutual resemblance of both text passages is conspicuous. It is not only present in Hishām’s versions of the two stories, but in those of alʿUṭāridī as well. 62 The four main motifs of the first narration – Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 191; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 299–300; Tadmurī: vol. 1, pp. 327–328; Guillaume: pp. 135–136. 61 Compare the text above, p. 21. 62 In the 5th pericope of the second narration there are small variances in the wording between the texts of Ibn Hishām and al-ʿUṭāridī: kuhhān (Ibn Hishām) vs kahāna (al-ʿUṭāridī); takhālujahum (their inner strife)(Ibn Hishām) vs ḥālahum (their inner state)(al-ʿUṭāridī); hazjahu warajzahu (Ibn Hishām) vs hazjahu wa-rajzahu wa-qarīḍahu (al-ʿUṭāridī). In the last case, the version of al-ʿUṭāridī is closer to the respective text of the first narration than Ibn Hishām’s version. – Al-ʿUṭāridī’s version of the 5th pericope is also found in al-Bayhaqī, Dalāʾil, vol. 2, pp. 201–202 with the isnād: …Aḥmad [al-ʿUṭāridī] → Yūnus [b. Bukayr] → Ibn Isḥāq → shaykh min ahl muḍar → ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. Al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ, vol. 4, p. 60

SOURCE ANALYSIS

47

soothsayer, possessed, poet and sorcerer – are, apart from some contractions, rendered in the second narration practically everywhere with the same wording. Only the order of motifs is different in the second narration: sorcerer, soothsayer and possessed. The conformity of wording between the two texts is an indication that both narrations originate from one and the same author. It can thus be deemed certain that Ibn Isḥāq’s source for both stories 63 was one and the same person, a person who can now be identified more precisely: Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, the mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit (isnāds of the first narration), a scholar who lived in Mekka when Ibn Isḥāq was still a young man (isnāds of the second narration). 64

3. THE PROFILE OF THE SOURCE “MUḤAMMAD B. ABĪ MUḤAMMAD”

The fact that Ibn Isḥāq invokes someone as a source is certainly still no guaranty that the person named was really his informant. Ibn Isḥāq could have contrived the stories himself and furnished them with fictitious isnāds to give them greater authority. Whether this supposition applies or not can be decided through an investigation of the texts and isnāds Ibn Isḥāq attributes to diverse informants, e.g., besides Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, the transmissions from his own father Yasār, from Muḥammad b. Shihāb alZuhrī, ʿĀṣim b. ʿUmar b. Qatāda, ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm, Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar b. al-Zubayr or Ṣāliḥ b. Kaysān, to name just a few of Ibn Isḥāq’s frequently named informants. From the transmissions ascribed to these persons, a profile can be drawn up for each informant, and their profiles

349 has token over the passage from al-Bayhaqī’s work but in his text the issue of the diviner is lacking. It fills in roughly one line that has probably been overlooked at the copying of the text. 63 In the case of narration 2 it applies only for the pericopes 1–6 and for a part of pericope 10. Pericope 9 and parts of pericope 10 are probably derived from another source. 64 The details on the author which are transmitted two times are more reliable than the elements that are found only once. See above II, pp. 44–45 and note 16.

48

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

compared with each other. 65 Such a systematic investigation of Ibn Isḥāq’s informants has not been done up to now. For this reason, an attempt will be made in the following to create such a profile for Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad and the traditions ascribed to him. Let us assume hypothetically that he was really a historical person and begin with his biographical data. As already noted, the Islamic scholars who later collected information about the transmitters of reports on the Prophet were not able to learn more about Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. He shares this fate with many other transmitters from the cadre of mawālī. 66 His patronym Ibn Abī Muḥammad suggests that his father did not originally belong to any Arab tribe, but had possibly rather come into the possession of the Companion of the Prophet Zayd b. Thābit as a slave, adopted the name Abū Muḥammad upon conversion to Islam, and upon his manumission became a mawlā (client) of his manumitter Zayd b. Thābit. 67 Since Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad does not invoke Zayd b. Thābit in the isnāds familiar to us from him until now, we can assume that the latter died while Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad was still too young to learn anything from him. Zayd’s date of death oscillates between 42/662–3 and 56/675–6. 68 Ibn Isḥāq imparted to Yūnus b. Bukayr, according to the latter’s isnād, that he received Narration 2 from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad somewhat more than 40 years previously, i.e., prior to the year in which Yūnus studied with Ibn Isḥāq and took over his Maghāzī material. Based on the birth-and-death dates of Ibn Isḥāq (b. ca. This method is also applied in Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence and in id. “The Jurisprudence of Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī”. 66 See Motzki, “Whither Ḥadīth Studies”, pp. 61–62 (Nāfiʿ). 67 See for parallels among the Islamic scholars of the first two centuries H. Motzki, “The Role of non-Arab Converts in the Development of early Islamic Law”, in: Islamic Law and Society 6/3 (1999), pp. 1–25. For the phenomenon of the mawālī in general see Monique Bernards / John Nawas, Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam, Leiden 2005. It was also possible that someone allied to the muslims of his own accord putting himself as client under the patronate of e.g. Zayd b. Thābit and his family (contractual patronate), see op. cit. passim. 68 Lecker, “Zayd b. Thābit”, p. 476. 65

SOURCE ANALYSIS

49

85/704, d. 151/768) and Yūnus b. Bukayr (199/814–5), i.e., a span of 48 years between both death dates, and a hypothetical age for Ibn Bukayr of 18 years at the start of his studies, Ibn Bukayr will likely have studied with Ibn Isḥāq in the last five years of Ibn Isḥāq’s life. The encounter between Ibn Isḥāq and Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad is thus to be dated to approximately the first decade of the 2nd cent. H. (ca. between 103/720–1 and 108/726–7). If we take the year 49/669 for Zayd’s death date and assume that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad was born in Zayd’s lifetime, he will not have lived much beyond 110/728–9. 69 According to Ibn Isḥāq’s statement, he was a scholar of Mecca. 70 He will thus have lived and taught in Mecca in the first decade of the 2nd century at least. To be able to create a profile of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as author or transmitter of reports on the life of the Prophet, it needs first of all to be clarified which other traditions are still extant which are ascribed to him by Ibn Isḥāq in his vita of the Prophet. With the newly gained realizations concerning Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s identity and his isnāds, more texts in the Sīra- and Maghāzī literature are able to be ascribed to him. In Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, there are still five more passages to be found which by means of their isnāds are identifiable as texts for which Ibn Isḥāq named Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as his source. Ibn Hishām, however, never mentions his name, but describes him mainly only as a “mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit.” Whereas both of the previously treated narrations concern the Prophets sojourn in Mekka, the following texts concern events which, according to Ibn Hishām’s vita of the Prophet, took place in Medina. Narration 3 The first of these texts has the following structure: Even if Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad was born only after Zayd’s death, he barely would have lived longer since the Meccan scholars of the following generation like Ibn Jurayj and Sufyān b. ʿUyayna do not transmit from him. 70 See above II, pp. 43–44. 69

50

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Isnād: A mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit told me as from ʿIkrima or from Saʿīd b. Jubayr from Ibn ʿAbbās: Pericope 1:

The apostle came to Medina when the Jews were saying that the world would last for seven thousand years and that God would only punish men in hell one day in the next world for every thousand [years] in this world. There would be only seven days and the punishment would cease. So God sent down concerning this saying: 71

This is followed by three Qurʾān verses, Q 2:80–82, interrupted by exegetical commentaries, each introduced by ay (i.e.): 72 And they say, ‘The Fire shall not touch us except for a limited time.’ Say, ‘Have ye received a covenant from God? God will not break His covenant – or do you say what you do not know about God? Nay whoso does evil and his sin encompasses him – they are the people of the hell; they will be there eternally.

And those who do good, they are the people of paradise; they will be there eternally.

Pericope 2:

Ibn Hishām adds with “qāla Ibn Isḥāq” (Ibn Isḥāq said) three further Qurʾān verses, Q 2: 83–86, again with an exegetical commentary. 73 Did Ibn Isḥāq himself insert the three verses into the tradition, as Ibn Hishām implies, or are they still an element of the antecedent transmission? According to all that we could learn from Narrations 1 and 2 about the structure of the texts from Zayd b. Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 371; al-Saqqā; vol. 1, p. 538 f; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 180; Guillaume: p. 252. 72 The English translation of the Qurʾānic verses largely follows that of Guillaume. I left the exegetical comments aside. 73 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 371–372; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 539–540; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 180–182; Guillaume: pp. 252– 253. 71

SOURCE ANALYSIS

51

Thābit’s mawlā, they still absolutely fit with his transmission. The content of the text following these Qurʾān verses, too, supports the argument that this pericope still belonged to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s tradition: 74 There were two parties: The Banū Qaynuqāʿ and their adherents, allies of Khazraj; and al-Naḍīr and Qurayẓa and their adherents, allies of Aws. When there was war between Aws and Khazraj the Banū Qaynuqāʿ went out with Khazraj, and alNaḍīr and Qurayẓa with Aws, each side helping his allies against his own brethren so that they shed each other’s blood, while the Torah was in their hands by which they knew what was allowed and what was forbidden them. Aws and Khazraj were polytheists worshipping idols knowing nothing about paradise and hell, the waking and the resurrection, the scriptures, the permitted and the forbidden. When the war came to an end they ransomed their prisoners in accordance with the Torah each side redeeming those of their men who had been captured by the polytheist. God said in blaming them for that: ‘Will you believe in a part of the scripture and disbelieve in another part?’ 75

Following the citation of Q. 2: 85 at the end of this passage is a longer exegetical explanation which connects the Qurʾān verse with the wrong conduct of the Jews of Medina described above. The author of the story or Ibn Isḥāq reinforces this explanation yet again with the sentence: “According to my information (fī mā balaghanī) this passage came down with reference to their behaviour with Aws and Khazraj.” Then follow Qurʾān verses Q 2: 287–289, which accuse the Jews of always having been disbelieving and having opposed or killed their prophets from Moses to Jesus. Some of the verse segments are again furnished with explanations. 76 For further indications see chapter 4 below. Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 372–373; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 540–541; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 182; Guillaume: p. 253. 76 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 373; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 541; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 182–183; Guillaume: pp. 253–254. 74 75

52

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Narration 4 Isnād: A mawlā of the family 77 of Zayd b. Thābit told me from ʿIkrima or from Saʿīd b. Jubayr from Ibn ʿAbbās: The apostle wrote to the Jews of Khaybar: “In the name of God, the Compassionate the Merciful, from Muḥammad the apostle of God, friend and brother of Moses who confirms what Moses brought. God says to you, O scripture folk, and you will find it in your scripture:

This is followed by Q 48:29, and subsequently:

I adjure you by God, and by what He has sent down to you, by the manna and quails He gave as food to your tribes before you, and by His drying up the sea for your fathers when He delivered them from Pharaoh and his works, that you tell me, Do you find in what He has sent down to you that you should believe in Muḥammad? If you do not find that in your scripture then there is no compulsion upon you. “The right path has become plainly distinguished from error” 78 so I call you to God and his prophet.” 79

In a later source, Ibn Kathīr’s Bidāya, this narration is also still on hand in the tradition of another of Ibn Isḥāq’s pupils, Salama b. Faḍl (d. 191/807) who comes from Rayy. 80 The text diverges somewhat at two places from Ibn Hishām’s version. This suggests that it is not dependent on Ibn Hishām. In other words, it is not In the isnād of narration 3 Ibn Hishām mentions “a mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit” as the source, but here (and in other texts, see below II, p. 69, 71, 94) “a mawlā of the family of Zayd b. Thābit”. 78 Quotation from Q 2: 256. 79 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 376–377; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 544–545; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 186; Guillaume: p. 256. 80 Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, vol. 2, p. 324. According to ʿAbd Allāh b. Yūsuf al-Zaylaʿī, Naṣab al-rāya, ed. Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Banūrī, Miṣr 1357, vol. 4, p. 419, this tradition is also quoted at the beginning of Abū Nuʿaym’s Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa with the isnād Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās; yet I could not find it in the edition of Ḥaydarābād. 77

SOURCE ANALYSIS

53

probable that Ibn Kathīr or someone before him took the text over from Ibn Hishām and furnished it with another isnād. This also confirms the isnād which reads as follows: Salama b. Faḍl → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. Unlike as in Ibn Hishām’s isnād, there is no mention of a mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit. Salama b. Faḍl’s isnād shows again that the mawlā (of the family) of Zayd b. Thābit (according to Ibn Hishām) and Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad (according to Salama b. Faḍl) are one and the same person. 81 Narration 5 Isnād: I was told by someone (balaghanī) from ʿIkrima, the mawlā of Ibn ʿAbbās or from Saʿīd b. Jubayr from Ibn ʿAbbās. Although Ibn Isḥāq’s source remains anonymous, we can nonetheless conclude from the conspicuous isnād component “from ʿIkrima … or from Saʿīd b. Jubayr” that it is probably the mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit called Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. 82 Pericope 1:

Jews used to hope that the apostle would be a help to them against Aws and Khazraj before his mission began; and when God sent him from among the Arabs they disbelieved in him and contradicted what they had formerly said about him [the messias]. Muʿādh b. Jabal and Bishr b. al-Barāʾ b. Maʿrūr, brother of the Banū Salima, said to them: ‘O Jews, fear God and become Muslims, for you used to hope for Muḥammad’s help against us when we were polytheists and to tell us that he would be sent and describe him to us.’ Salām b. Mishkam, one of the Banū al-Naḍīr said, ‘He has not brought us anything we recognize and he is not the one we spoke of to you.’ So God sent down about that saying of theirs: Q 2:89. 83

See above II, pp. 43–44. See also below II, pp. 68–69. 83 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 378–379; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 547; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 189; Guillaume: p. 257 (Guillaume quotes the Qurʾān according to the numbering of Flügel which fell into 81 82

54

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

After the citation of this Qurʾān verse, Ibn Hishām leads over to the following text with “qāla Ibn Isḥāq” (Ibn Isḥāq said). The same question arises here as at the end of the first pericope of Narration 3. 84 Is this the beginning of a new tradition from another source whose isnād Ibn Hishām suppresses, or is the immediately following text still from the previously mentioned anonymous informant and the associated isnād has been omitted? It is striking that this and many of the subsequent texts have the same structure as the traditions of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad with which we have already become familiar: a) an account about certain persons, their behavior or statements, b) Qurʾān verses, that God “sent down” about them (fa-anzala llāhu fī…). There is therefore some evidence that the subsequent brief pericopes that give an account of diverse notable Medinan Jews also go back to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad and are constituents of a longer one of his traditions, insofar as they are not introduced by a separate isnād. This supposition, as is still to be shown through text variants of other pupils of Ibn Isḥāq 85 and through partial conformity with texts for which Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s authorship is certain, will be able to be confirmed. 86 The reason for Ibn Hishām’s imprecise rendering of Ibn Isḥāq’s traditions may have been quite practical, namely, to not have to continually interrupt the narration with the same transmission chain. As the fifth narration is quite voluminous, only the short pericopes will be given in translation; for the longer pericopes only the beginnings will be given followed by a brief summary. Pericope 2: Mālik b. al-Ḍayf/Ṣayf said when the apostle had been sent and they [the Jews] were reminded of the condition that had

desuetude. My numbering follows the Qurʾān edition published in 1923–4 by al-Azhar). A parallel version of Ibn Isḥāq’s pupil Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd is found in Abū Nuʿaym, Dalāʾil, pp. 44–45. Wa (and) statt aw (or) in the isnād is probably a transmission error. The text insignificantly deviates from Ibn Hishām’s version in two passages. 84 See above II, p. 50. 85 See below II, p. 56 (pericope 9). 86 See below II, p. 65 (pericope 38).

SOURCE ANALYSIS

55

been imposed on them and what God had covenanted with them concerning him [Muḥammad], ‘No covenant was ever made with us about Muḥammad’… Q 2: 100. 87 Pericope 3: Abū Ṣalūbā al-Fiṭyawnī/Fiṭyūnī said to the apostle: ‘O Muḥammad, you have not brought us anything we recognize, and God has not sent down to you any sign that we should follow you.’… Q 2: 99. 88

Pericope 4: Rāfiʿ b. Ḥuraymila and Wahb b. Zayd said to the apostle, ‘Bring us a book; bring it down to us from heaven that we may read it; bring out rivers for us from the earth, then we will follow you and believe in you.’… Q 2: 108. 89

Pericope 5: Ḥuyayy b. Akhṭab and his brother Abū Yāsir b. Akhṭab were the most implacable enemies of the Arabs when God chose to send them an apostle from among themselves and they used to do all they could to turn men away from Islam… Q 2: 109. 90 Pericope 6: When the Christians of Najrān came to the apostle the Jewish rabbis came also and they disputed one with the other before the apostle. Rāfiʿ b. Ḥuraymila said [to the Christians], ‘You have no standing,’ and he denied Jesus and the Gospel; and a Christian said to the Jews, ‘You have no standing,’ and he denied that Moses was a prophet and denied the Torah… Q 2: 113. 91

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 379; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 547–548; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 189; Guillaume: p. 257. …: the points signify here and in the following pericopes the formula “So God sent down concerning…”. 88 Op. cit. 89 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 379; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 548; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 189; Guillaume: pp. 257–258. 90 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 379–380; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 548; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 190; Guillaume: p. 258. 91 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 380; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 549; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 190; Guillaume: p. 258. 87

56

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Pericope 7: Rāfiʿ b. Ḥuraymila said [to Muḥammad]: ‘If you are an apostle from God as you say, then ask God to speak to us so that we may hear His voice.’… Q 2: 118. 92

Pericope 8: ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣūriyā al-Aʿwar al-Fiṭyawnī/Fiṭyūnī said to the apostle, ‘The only guidance is to be found with us, so follow us, Muḥammad, and you will be rightly guided.’ The Christians said the same… Q 2: 135–141. 93

Pericope 9: When the qibla was changed from Syria to the Kaʿba – it was changed in Rajab at the beginning of the seventeenth month after the apostle’s arrival in Medina – Rifāʿa b. Qays; Fardam/Qardam b. ʿAmr; Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf; Rāfiʿ b. Abī Rāfiʿ; alḤajjāj b. ʿAmr, an ally (ḥalīf) of Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf, and al-Rabīʿ b. al-Rabīʿ b. Abī l-Ḥuqayq and Kināna b. Rabīʿ b. Abī l-Ḥuqayq came to the apostle asking why he had turned his back on the qibla he used to face when he alleged that he followed the religion of Abraham. If he would return to the qibla in Jerusalem they would follow him and declare him to be true. Their sole intention was to seduce him from his religion… Q 2: 142–147. 94 Pericope 10: Muʿādh b. Jabal brother of Banū Salima; Saʿd b. Muʿādh brother of Banū ʿAbd al-Ashhal; and Khārija b. Zayd brother of [Banū] al-Ḥārith b. al-Khazraj asked some of the Jewish rabbis about something in the Torah and they concealed it from them and refused to tell them anything about it… Q 2: 159. 95

Pericope 11: The apostle summoned the Jewish scripture folk to Islam and made it attractive to them and warned them of God’s punishment and vengeance. Rāfiʿ b. Khārija and Mālik b. ʿAwf said

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 380; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 549; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 191; Guillaume: p. 258. 93 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 380–381; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 549–550; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 191; Guillaume: p. 258. 94 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 381; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 550; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 191–192; Guillaume: pp. 258–259. 95 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 382; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 551; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 193; Guillaume: p. 259. 92

SOURCE ANALYSIS

57

to him that they would follow the religion of their fathers, for they were more learned and better men than they… Q 2: 170. 96

Pericope 12: When God smote Quraysh at Badr, the apostle assembled the Jews in the market of the Banū Qaynuqāʿ when he came [back] to Medina and he called on them to accept Islam before God should treat them as he had treated Quraysh. They answered, ‘Don’t deceive yourself, Muḥammad. You have killed a number of inexperienced Quraysh who did not know how to fight. But if you fight us you will learn that we are men and that you have met your equal’… Q 3: 12–13. 97

Pericope 13: The apostle entered a Jewish school where there was a number of Jews and called them to God. Al-Nuʿmān b. ʿAmr and al-Ḥārith b. Zayd said to him: What is your religion, Muḥammad? He answered: ‘The religion of Abraham (millat Ibrāhīm wa-dīnihi).’ They retorted: ‘But Abraham was a Jew.’ The apostle said to them: ‘Then let the Torah judge between us.’ They refused… Q 3: 23– 24. 98

Pericope 14: The Jewish rabbis and the Christians of Najrān, when they were together before the apostle, broke into disputing. The rabbis said that Abraham was nothing but a Jew. The Christians said he was nothing but a Christian… Q 3: 65–68. 99

Pericope 15: ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḍayf/Ṣayf, ʿAdī b. Zayd and al-Ḥārith b. ʿAwf agreed among themselves that they should affect to believe in what had been sent down to Muḥammad and his companions at one time and deny it at another so as to confuse them, with the

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 382–383; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 552; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 193; Guillaume: p. 259. 97 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 383; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 552; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 193–194; Guillaume: p. 260. 98 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 383; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 552–553; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 194; Guillaume: p. 260. 99 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 383–384; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 553; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 194–195; Guillaume: p. 260. 96

58

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

object of getting them to follow their example and give up his religion… Q 3: 71–73. 100

Pericope 16: Abū Nāfiʿ/Rāfiʿ al-Quraẓī said when the rabbis and the Christians from Najrān had assembled before the apostle and he invited them to Islam, ‘Do you want us, Muḥammad, to worship you as the Christians worship Jesus, Son of Mary?’ One of the Christians of Najrān called al-Ribbīs (or al-Rīs or al-Raʾīs) said, ‘Is that what you want of us and invite us to, Muḥammad?’ or words to that effect. The apostle replied, ‘God forbid that I should worship anyone but God or order that any but He should be worshipped. God did not send me and order me to do that’ or words to that effect… Q 3: 79–81. 101 (Q 12: 41 inserted between Q 3: 80 and 81 is possibly an addition by Ibn Isḥāq).

Pericope 17: Shās b. Qays, who was an old man hardened in unbelief and most bitter against the Muslims and exceeding[ly] envious of them, passed by a number of the apostle’s companions from Aws and Khazraj in a meeting while they were talking together. When he saw their amity and unity and their happy relations in Islam after their enmity in pagan times he was filled with rage and said: ‘The chiefs of Banū Qayla in this country having united there will be no firm place for us [Jews] with them.’ Summary of the rest of the narration: Shās b. Qays sends a young Jew to them [the Prophet’s Companions of the Aws and Khazraj] commissioned to remind them of the battle of Buʿāth between the Aws and Khazraj and the casualties on both sides. This leads to a dispute between the two tribes which escalates to the point that it threatens to become an armed engagement. When the messenger (apostle) of God hears of this he hurries to the disputants with a group of Meccan emigrants, warns them of a relapse into heathenism after having been lead to Islam by God, and reminds them that

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 384; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 553; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 554; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 195; Guillaume: pp. 260– 261. 101 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 384–385; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 554; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 195–196; Guillaume: p. 261. 100

SOURCE ANALYSIS

59

they have now become brothers in faith (wa-allafa bihi bayna qulūbikum). The disputants thereupon recognized that Satan and the cunning of their enemies had led to their dispute and embraced one another… Q 3: 98–105. 102

Pericope 18: When ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām, Thaʿlaba b. Saʿya, Usayd b. Saʿya, Asad b. ʿUbayd and other Jews became Muslims and believed and were earnest and firm in Islam, the rabbis who disbelieved said that it was only the bad Jews who believed in Muḥammad and followed him. Had they been good men they would not have forsaken the religion of their fathers and adopted another… Q 3: 113–114. 103

Pericope 19: Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews because of the tie of mutual protection and alliance which had subsisted between them… Q 3: 118–120. 104

Pericope 20: Abū Bakr went into a Jewish school and found a good many men gathered round a certain Finḥāṣ, one of their learned rabbis and another rabbi called Ashyaʿ. Abū Bakr called on the former to fear God and become a Muslim because he knew that Muḥammad was the apostle of God who had brought the truth from Him and that they would find it written in the Torah and the Gospel.

Summary of the rest of the narration: Finḥāṣ answered that the Jews could not recognize the God of the Muslims because he was poor compared to the Jews. The proof of this is that Muḥammad, commissioned by his God, loaned money from the Jews with interest (ribā), while he forbids the Muslims to take interest. This answer so enraged Abū Bakr that he slapped Finḥāṣ hard in the face. The Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 385–387; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 555–557; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 196–198; Guillaume: pp. 261–262. 103 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 387; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 557; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 198–199; Guillaume: p. 262. The conclusion that vers 114 also is part of the pericope is corroborated by traditions collected by al-Ṭabarī, see below II, p. 75 ff. 104 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 387–388; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 558; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 199–200; Guillaume: pp. 262–263. 102

60

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

latter complained to Muḥammad. Abū Bakr, upon being questioned by Muḥammad as to the reason for his deed, accused the rabbi of blasphemy, which the latter denied… Q 3: 181, 186 (verses concerning Abū Bakr), 187–188 (verses concerning Finḥāṣ and the other rabbis with a concluding commentary). 105

Pericope 21: Kardam b. Qays, an ally of Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf; Usāma b. Ḥubayb; Nāfiʿ b. Abī Nāfiʿ; Baḥrī b. ʿAmr; Ḥuyayy b. Akhṭab; and Rifāʿa b. Zayd b. al-Tābūt used to go to some of the anṣār advising them not to contribute their assets [for the Islamic cause] ‘for fear that you will come to poverty. Don’t be in a hurry to contribute, for you do not know the outcome.’… Q 4: 37–39. 106

Pericope 22: Rifāʿa b. Zayd b. al-Tābūt was a notable Jew. When he spoke to the apostle he twisted his tongue and said: ‘Give us your attention, Muḥammad, so that we can make you understand.’ Then he attacked Islam and reviled it… Q 4: 44–46. 107 Pericope 23: The apostle spoke to the chiefs of the Jewish rabbis, among them ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣūray/Ṣūriyā al-Aʿwar and Kaʿb b. Asad calling on them to accept Islam, for they knew that he had brought them the truth; but they denied that they knew it and were obstinate in their unbelief… Q 4: 47. 108

Pericope 24: Those who formed parties of Quraysh and Ghaṭafān and Banū Qurayẓa were Ḥuyayy b. Akhṭab; Sallām b. Abī l-Ḥuqayq Abū Rāfiʿ; al-Rabīʿ b. al-Rabīʿ b. Abī l-Ḥuqayq; Abū ʿAmmār; Waḥwaḥ b. ʿĀmir; and Hawdha b. Qays, the latter three being of Banū Wāʾil [Aws] while the rest were of [the Jewish] Banū al-Naḍīr. Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 388–389; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 558–559; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 200–201; Guillaume: pp. 263– 264. 106 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 389–390; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 560; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 201; Guillaume: p. 264. 107 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 390; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 560; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 201–202; Guillaume: p. 264. 108 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 390–391; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 560–561; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 202–203; Guillaume: pp. 264– 265. 105

SOURCE ANALYSIS

61

When they came to Quraysh they [the men of Banū Wāʾil] told them that these were Jewish rabbis, the folk who possessed the first (sacred) book, and they could ask them whether their [Quraysh’s] religion or that of Muḥammad was the better. When they [Quraysh] did ask them [the rabbis] they answered: ‘Your religion is better than his and you are on a better path than he and those who follow him… Q 4: 51, 54. 109 Pericope 25: Sukayn and ʿAdī b. Zayd said: ‘O Muḥammad, we do not know of God’s having sent down to mortals anything after Moses.’… Q 4: 163–165. 110 Pericope 26: A number of them [the Jews] came in to the apostle and he said to them, ‘Surely you know that I am an apostle from God to you.’… Q 4: 166. 111

Pericope 27: The apostle went out to the Banū al-Naḍīr to ask their help in the matter of the blood-money of the two ʿĀmirites whom ʿAmr b. Umayya al-Ḍamrī had slain. When they were alone together they said, ‘You will not find Muḥammad nearer than he is now; so what man will get on top of the house and throw a stone on him so that we may be rid of him? ʿAmr b. Jiḥāsh b. Kaʿb volunteered to do so. The apostle got to know of their scheme and he left them… Q 5: 11. 112

Pericope 28: Nuʿmān b. Aḍāʾ, Baḥrī b. ʿAmr 113 and Shaʾs b. ʿAdī came to the apostle and he invited them to come to God and warned them of His vengeance. They replied: ‘You cannot frighten

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 391; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 561–562; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 203; Guillaume: p. 265. 110 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 392; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 562; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 204; Guillaume: p. 265. 111 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 392; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 562–563; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 204; Guillaume: p. 265. 112 Op. cit. For another account of the event see Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 652; al-Saqqā: vol. 2, p. 190; Tadmurī: vol. 3, pp. 143–144; Guillaume: p. 437. 113 In the edition of ʿAbd al-Salām Tadmurī the name is erroneously given as ʿUmar. The name Baḥrī b. ʿAmr also appears in pericope 21. 109

62

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

us, Muḥammad. We are the sons and the beloved of God’ as [also] the Christians say… Q 5: 18. 114

Pericope 29: The apostle invited the Jews to Islam and made it attractive to them and warned them of God’s jealousy and His retribution; but they repulsed him and denied what he brought them. Muʿādh b. Jabal, Saʿd b. ʿUbāda and ʿUqba b. Wahb [three Muslims] said to them: ‘O Jews, fear God, for you know right well that he is the apostle of God and you used to speak of him to us before his mission and describe him to us.’ Rāfiʿ b. Ḥuraymila and Wahb b. Yahūdhā said, ‘We never said that to you, and God has sent down no book since Moses nor sent a messenger or warner after him… Q 5: 19. 115 The account is interrupted here by the following five traditions also dealing with Jewish opponents of the Prophet. They are distinguished by separate isnāds: 116 − Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī told me [Ibn Isḥāq]… − One of the Banū Qurayẓa told me… − Muḥammad b. Ṭalḥa b. Yazīd b. Rukāna told me… − Ṣāliḥ b. Kaysān told me… − Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn told me…

Pericope 30: Kaʿb b. Asad; Ibn Ṣalūbā; 117 ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣūray; 118 Shaʾs b. Qays said one to another, ‘Let us go to Muḥammad to see if we can seduce him from his religion, for he is only a mortal’; so they went to him and said: ‘You know, Muḥammad, that we are the rabbis, nobles and leaders of the Jews; and if we follow you the rest of the Jews will follow you and not oppose us. Now we have a Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 392–393; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 563; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 204–205; Guillaume: p. 266. 115 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 393; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 563–564; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 205; Guillaume: p. 266. 116 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 393–396; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 564–566; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 205–208; Guillaume: pp. 266– 268. 117 In the edition of Tadmurī: Ibn Ṣūriyā. 118 In the edition of Tadmurī: ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣūriyā. 114

SOURCE ANALYSIS

63

quarrel outstanding with some of our people and if we believe in you and say that you are truthful will you, if we appoint you arbitrator between us, give judgment in our favour?’ The apostle refused to do so… Q 5: 42. 119

Pericope 31: Abū Yāsir b. Akhṭab; Nāfiʿ b. Abī Nāfiʿ; ʿĀzar b. Abī ʿĀzar; Khālid; Zayd; Izār b. Abī Izār; and Ashyaʿ came to the apostle and asked him about the apostles he believed in. So the apostle said: ‘ We believe in God and what he has sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord; we make no difference between any one of them. And we are submissive unto Him. When he mentioned Jesus, son of Mary, they denied that he was a prophet, saying, ‘We do not believe in Jesus, son of Mary, or in anyone who believes in him.’… Q 2: 136; Q 5: 59. 120

Pericope 32: Rāfiʿ b. Ḥāritha; Sallām b. Mishkam; Mālik b. alḌayf/Ṣayf; and Rāfiʿ b. Ḥuraymila came to the apostle and said: O Muḥammad, do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham (millat Ibrāhīm wa-dīnihi) and believe in the Torah which we have and testify that it is the truth from God?’ He replied, ‘Certainly, but you have sinned and denied the covenant that was imposed on you in the Torah and you have concealed what you were ordered to make plain to men. I dissociate myself from your sin. They said, ‘We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you.’… Q 5: 68. 121

Pericope 33: Al-Naḥḥām b. Zayd; Fardam/Qardam b. Kaʿb; and Baḥrī b. ʿAmr came to the apostle and said to him: O Muḥammad, do you not know that there is another god with God? The apostle

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 396; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 567; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 208; Guillaume: p. 268. 120 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 396–397; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 567; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 208–209; Guillaume: p. 268. 121 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 397; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 567–568; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 209; Guillaume: p. 268. 119

64

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

answered: ‘God, there is no God but He. With that [message] I was sent and that I preach.’… Q 6: 19–20. 122

Pericope 34: Rifāʿa b. Zayd b. al-Tābūt and Suwayd b. al-Ḥārith had hypocritically affected to embrace Islam and some of the Muslims were friendly with them… Q 5: 57–61. 123 Pericope 35: Jabal b. Abī Qushayr and Shamwīl b. Zayd said to the apostle: O Muḥammad, tell us when the hour will be if you are a prophet as you say.’… Q 7: 187. 124

Pericope 36: Sallām b. Mishkam; Nuʿmān b. Awfay/Awfā Abū Anas; Maḥmūd b. Diḥya; Shaʾs b. Qays; and Mālik b. al-Ḍayf/Ṣayf came to the apostle and said to him: ‘How can we follow you when you have abandoned our qibla and you do not allege that ʿUzayr is the son of God?’… Q 9: 30. 125

Pericope 37: Maḥmūd b. Sayḥān; Nuʿmān b. Aḍāʾ; Baḥrī b. ʿAmr; ʿUzayr b. Abī ʿUzayr; and Sallām b. Mishkam came to the apostle and said: ‘Is it true, Muḥammad, that what you have brought is the truth from God? For our part we cannot see that is arranged as the torah is.’ He answered, ‘You know quite well that it is from God; you will find it written in the torah which you have. If men and jinn came together to produce its like they could not.’ Finḥāṣ; ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣūray; Ibn Ṣalūbā; Kināna b. Rabīʿ b. Abī l-Ḥuqayq; Ashyaʿ; Kaʿb b. Asad; Shamwīl b. Zayd; and Jabal b. ʿAmr b. Sukayna were there and they said: ‘Did neither men nor jinn tell you this, Muḥammad?’ He said: ‘You know well that it is from God and that I am the apostle of God. You will find it written in the Torah you have.’ They said: ‘When God sends an apostle He does for him what he wishes, so bring down a book to us from heaven Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 397; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 568; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 209–210; Guillaume: pp. 268–269. 123 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 397–398; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 568–569; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 210; Guillaume: p. 269. 124 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 398; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 569; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 210–211; Guillaume: p. 269. 125 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 398–399; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 570; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 211; Guillaume: p. 269. 122

SOURCE ANALYSIS

65

that we may read it and know what it is, otherwise we will produce one like the one you bring.’… Q 17: 88. 126

Pericope 38: Ḥuyayy b. Akhṭab; Kaʿb b. Asad; Abū Nāfiʿ/Rāfiʿ; Ashyaʿ; and Shamwīl b. Zayd said to ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām when he became a Muslim, ‘There is no prophecy among the Arabs, but your master is a king.’ Then they went to the apostle and asked him about Dhū l-Qarnayn (the man with the two horns) and he told them what God had sent him about him from what he had already narrated to Quraysh. They were of those who ordered Quraysh to ask the apostle about him when they sent al-Naḍr and ʿUqba to them. (This is an allusion to Q 18 :83–98 and the Pericopes 7–9 of Narration 2). 127

Pericope 39: It begins with an abbreviated isnād: I was told that Saʿīd b. Jubayr said. ‘A number of Jews came to the apostle and said: Now, Muḥammad, God created creation, but who created God?’ The apostle was so angry that his colour changed and he rushed at them being indignant for his Lord. Gabriel came and quietened him saying, ‘Calm yourself, O Muḥammad.’ And an answer to what they asked came to him from God: ‘Say, He God is One. God the Eternal. He begetteth not neither is He begotten and there is none equal to Him’… Q 112. When he recited that to them, they said, ‘Describe his shape to us, Muḥammad; his forearm and his upper arm, what are they like?’ The apostle was angrier than before and rushed at them. Gabriel came to him and spoke as before. And an answer to what they asked came to him from God: ‘They think not of God as He ought to be thought of; the whole earth will be in His grasp at the day of resurrection and the heavens folded up in Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 399–400; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 170–171; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 211–212; Guillaume: pp. 269– 270. 127 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 400; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 571; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 212; Guillaume: p. 270. Verses of the sūra are not quoted, but it is referred to the content of the pericopes 8 and 9 of narration 2 which report the sabab al-nuzūl (cause of revelation) of Sūrat al-Kaḥf (see above II, p. 39). The translated text of the pericope is given below on II, p. 68. 126

66

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

His right hand. Glorified and Exalted is He above what they associate with Him’… Q 39: 67. 128 Then follows a tradition which no longer belongs to the narration of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad about the Jews; its isnād is: ʿUtba b. Muslim, mawlā of the Banū Taym, from Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān from Abū Hurayra told me: … All 39 pericopes of this composition have the same structure. A detailed description of a situation is more or less given in which mostly named Jews 129 are critical of Muḥammad, put his religious views into question or behave with enmity towards him. This situation is described as the trigger for the revelation of several Qurʾān verses which are quoted in part or in full. It is conspicuous that the pericopes are for the most part arranged in the order of the sūras. Whoever is responsible for this composition, Ibn Isḥāq or already Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, can’t be said with certainty for the moment. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the texts come from a tafsīr work which commentates the individual verses in the order they appear in the Qurʾān with asbāb al-nuzūl. 130 This Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 400; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 571–572; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 212–213; Guillaume: p. 270. As to content, this tradition goes well with the preceding ones. Considering the shortened isnād, however, the question arises whether this tradition can really be ascribed to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. That this question can be positively answered, will turn out in the next chapter that shall scrutinise Ibn Isḥāq’s transmissions from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad in al-Ṭabarī’s Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾān, Beirut 1405. In this source, the present text is found with a complete isnād in the chapter Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ (Q 112). 129 Only in five pericopes (no. 10, 12, 14, 19 and 26) no names of Jews are given. 130 Tafsīr (exegesis) signifies here a sort of Qurʾānic commentary; asbāb al-nuzūl (occasions or causes for the sending down of verses) signifies a type of Qurʾānic exegesis that emphasizes the historical background of the revelation of one or more Qurʾānic verses. See Andrew Rippin, “Occasions of Revelation”, in: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, vol. 3, pp. 569–573. 128

SOURCE ANALYSIS

67

speaks more for Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad than for Ibn Isḥāq. Pericopes 9 and 38 are particularly interesting for our source analysis. A transmission of Pericope 9 is also contained in alʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī. 131 While Ibn Hishām introduces this pericope merely with “Ibn Isḥāq said,” al-ʿUṭāridī gives a complete isnād: ḥaddathanā Yūnus b. Bukayr ʿan Ibn Isḥāq; qāla: haddathanī Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit; qāla: [ḥaddathanī Saʿīd b. Jubayr] 132 aw ʿIkrima, shakka Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad; 133 ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās (Yūnus b. Bukayr transmitted to us from Ibn Isḥāq; he said: Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad the client of Zayd b. Thābit told me; he said: [Saʿīd b. Jubayr] or ʿIkrima, Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad was not sure, from Ibn ʿAbbās); he said: “The qibla (direction of prayer) was changed from Syria to the Kaʿba in Rajab at the beginning of the seventeenth month after the emigration of the apostle to Medina.” The manuscript of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī breaks off at this point. Only single names are still legible to indicate that the text continued in a similar manner as in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra. A comparison of the constituent texts of both traditions shows that they are very similar but not identical. Al-ʿUṭāridī’s version begins with a principal clause, Ibn Hishām’s with a subordinate clause introduced with lammā (as). The dating with Ibn Hishām is inserted as an apposition (wa-ṣurifat), while with al-ʿUṭāridī it is integrated into the sentence in a normal way. Ibn Hishām has min maqdam rasūl allāh alMadīna (after the apostle’s arrival in Medina), al-ʿUṭāridī, on the other hand, min muhājar[a] rasūl allāh ilā Madīna (after the apostle’s emigration to Medina). Muhājar looks like a faulty transmission or replication of maqdam; a later copyist could then have inserted ilā

131 132

space.

Ḥamīd Allāh, Sīra, no. 473, pp. 278–279. Here the manuscript is seemingly unreadable; the editor has left a

It is not clear who the author of this gloss is; Ibn Isḥāq himself but also Yūnus b. Bukayr or al-ʿUṭāridī could be the author. See also below II, pp. 89–91. 133

68

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

before al-Madīna. 134 Owing to the discrepancies it is not likely that both versions are directly dependent on each another. It is worth mentioning that later in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, Ibn Isḥāq gives another date of the qibla change: ‘It is said that the qibla was changed in Shaʿbān at the beginning of the eighteenth month after the apostle’s arrival in Medina.’ 135 This is evidence that Ibn Isḥāq did not invent the tradition about the change of the qibla in Pericope 9 but rather has it from an informant whose opinion he does not share. This text fragment from al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī confirms the hypothesis asserted above mainly based on textual and structural criteria set forth: The many anonymous pericopes concerning Muḥammad’s Jewish opponents, which in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra are ascribed to Ibn Isḥāq alone, were originally provided with isnāds naming Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as Ibn Isḥāq’s source for these accounts. Pericope 38 provides a substantive argument for this. Ibn Hishām has the following text: Ḥuyayy b. Akhṭab; Kaʿb b. Asad; Abū Nāfiʿ/Rāfiʿ; Ashyaʿ; and Shamwīl b. Zayd said to ʿAbd Allāh b. Salām when he became Muslim, ‘There is no prophecy among the Arabs, but your master is a king.’ Then they went to the apostle and asked him about Dhū l-Qarnayn and he told them what God had sent him about him from what he had already narrated to Quraysh. They were of those who ordered Quraysh to ask the apostle about him when they sent al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith and ʿUqba b. Abī Muʿayṭ to them.

The last two sentences allude to Pericope 7 of Narration 2. As demonstrated above, Ibn Isḥāq gave as the source of this narration “a scholar of Mekka” whom I was able to identify as Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. The substantive relationship of Pericope 38 of That min muhājar really is a transmission error and that min maqdam is the original expression of Ibn Ishāq, confirms a version of the tradition in al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 2, pp. 2–3. Al-Ṭabarī’s transmission is discussed later on, see below II, pp. 89–91. 135 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 427; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 606; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 248; Guillaume: p. 289. 134

SOURCE ANALYSIS

69

Narration 5 with Pericope 7 of Narration 2 suggests that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad is also Ibn Isḥāq’s source for Pericope 38 of Narration 5. Narration 6 Ibn Hishām’s Sīra presents, after the long accounts on the Battle of Badr, some traditions about “the affair of the Banū Qaynuqāʿ.” The text begins with: He [Ibn Isḥāq] 136 said: To the expeditions of the apostle in this period belongs the affair of the Banū Qaynuqāʿ. One narrative (ḥadīth) on the Banū Qaynuqāʿ is as follows: The apostle assembled them in the market of the Banū Qaynuqāʿ and addressed them as follows: ‘O Jews, beware lest God brings upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims. You know that I am a prophet who has been sent – you will find that in your scriptures and God’s covenant with you. They replied, ‘O Muḥammad, you think that we are your people. Do not deceive yourself because you encountered a people with no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for by God if we fight you, you will find that we are real men!’

Ibn Isḥāq said: A freedman (mawlā) of the family of Zayd b. Thābit told me from Saʿīd b. Jubayr or from ʿIkrima from Ibn ʿAbbās; he said: The following verses came down only about them: Q 3: 12–13. 137

This story is also contained in the transmission of Muḥammad b. Salama (d. 191/807), another of Ibn Isḥāq’s pupils. 138 Apart from a 136

ing text.

The name is lacking but can be added on the basis of the preced-

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/2, p. 545; al-Saqqā: vol. 2, p. 47; Tadmurī: vol. 3, p. 9; Guillaume: p. 363. The version which Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, vol. 4, p. 3 displays, probably originates from Ibn Hishām as well. Ibn Kathīr’s isnād starts first with Ibn Isḥāq. 138 The version of Muḥammad b. Salama is found in the fragment of a manuscript of the Ẓāhiriyya Library in Damascus which hark back to a transmission of al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī. This fragment has been edited and 137

70

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

few transmission errors, it is almost identical to that of Ibn Hishām. In both versions the isnād is not given until the end of the description of the situation, directly before the Qurʾān citation. This unusual structure of the text is thus not attributable to Ibn Hishām’s reworking but to Ibn Isḥāq himself. This isnād presumably, however, not only belongs to the Qurʾān citation, but likewise to the entire narration. Substantiation for this assumption is furnished by a counterpart to the narration found as Pericope 12 of Narration 5 in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra. 139 It reads as follows: When God smote Quraysh at Badr, the apostle assembled the Jews in the market of the Banū Qaynuqāʿ when he came [back] to Medina and called on them to accept Islam before God should treat them as he had treated Quraysh. They answered, ‘Don’t deceive yourself, Muḥammad. You have killed a number of inexperienced Quraysh who did not know how to fight. But if you fight us you will learn that we are men and that you have met your equal. So God send down concerning their words: Q 3:12–13. 140

This text has no isnād. However, as already determined above in the investigation of Narration 5, Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, the mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit, is the likely source of this pericope. The structure and wording of Pericope 12 of Narration 5 and Narration 6 are so similar that there can be no doubt that they originated from one and the same author. The isnād given by Ibn Hishām and Muḥammad b. Salama for Narration 6 is proof thereof, even published by Muḥammad Ḥamīd Allāh in his Sīrat Ibn Isḥāq together with a manuscript of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī. The tradition in question has the number 496–497 on p. 294. The isnād reads: … ḥaddathanā Muḥammad b. Salama ʿan Muḥammad b. Isḥāq, qāla ḥaddathanī mawlan li-āl Zayd b. Thābit ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr aw ʿIkrima ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās (…Muḥammad b. Salama transmitted to us from Muḥammad b. Isḥāq, who said: A client of the family of Zayd b. Thābit transmitted to me from Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima from Ibn ʿAbbās). 139 See above II, p. 57. 140 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 383; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 552; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 193–194; Guillaume: p. 260.

SOURCE ANALYSIS

71

though it was not inserted until the end of the plot directly before the Qurʾān citation. It can thus be assumed that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad is also Ibn Isḥāq’s source for the first part of Narration 6. Narration 7 Isnād: Ibn Isḥāq said: [The verses] of the Qurʾān which were sent down concerning this expedition [of al-Rajīʿ] are [the following], as a freedman (mawlā) of the family of Zayd b. Thābit told me from ʿIkrima, freedman of Ibn ʿAbbās, or from Saʿīd b. Jubayr from Ibn ʿAbbās. He [ʿIkrima or Saʿīd] said: Ibn ʿAbbās said: 141 When the expedition in which Marthad and ʿĀṣim took part came to grief in al-Rajīʿ some of the disaffected said, ‘Alas for those beguiled fellows who perished thus! They did not stay with their families nor did they deliver the message of their master.’ So God sent down concerning the words of the hypocrites and the good this group [of Muslims killed in al-Rajīʿ] gained by their death. God said: Q 2: 204; God said [also]: Q 2: 205–207. 142

Concerning this tradition of Ibn Hishām from Ibn Isḥāq, a variant is found in Ibn Kathīr’s Bidāya. 143 Ibn Kathīr, however, provides no full isnād, but gives only Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → Saʿīd or ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. Ibn Kathīr’s text diverges clearly from Ibn Hishām’s version. This suggests that his text does not come from the latter. Since Ibn Kathīr has taken This turn of phrase is unusual. One would expect ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās qāla instead of ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās qāla: qāla Ibn ʿAbbās. 142 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/2, pp. 642–643; al-Saqqā: vol. 2, p. 174; Tadmurī: vol. 3, pp. 129–130; Guillaume: p. 429. Parts of the Qurʾānic verses are provided with exegetical commentaries that derive either from Ibn Isḥāq or Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. On the traditions about the incident of al-Rajīʿ see the detailed study by Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, “The Raid of the Hudhayl: Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī’s Version of the Event”, in: Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions, pp. 305– 384. 143 In Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, vol. 4, p. 67. 141

72

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

most of the other traditions of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad with which we have become familiar from al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī, it can be assumed that Ibn Kathīr’s text mirrors Yūnus b. Bukayr’s tradition in this case as well. This is further suggested by the fact that the name Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad has come to our attention up to now only in isnāds from Yūnus b. Bukayr’s version of Ibn Isḥāq’s Vita of the Prophet. 144 Summary The seven narrations presented from Ibn Isḥāq’s Vita of the Prophet can be assigned to one and the same source. When summarizing what has been reviewed of this paragraph so far, the following can be held fast in this regard: The source invoked by Ibn Isḥāq for the seven narrations was Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, a mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit, who lived around the turn of the 1st century H. in Mekka. The traditions ascribed to this scholar exhibit a characteristic profile. The isnād of these traditions is conspicuous among Ibn Isḥāq’s chain of informants. Ibn Isḥāq generally names two informants as links between Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad and the Companion of the Prophet, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās: Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima, a mawlā of Ibn ʿAbbās. These two are not linked with “and,” as later became conventional in collective isnāds, but with “or.” This is unusual, because this conjunction suggests that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad could or would not state from which of the two persons he got his information. It is hardly conceivable that the Medinan Ibn Isḥāq in the second quarter of the 2nd century simulated such a weak isnād. He would surely have placed only one in the isnād, either Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima, if he had created the isnād himself. This isnād fits better with a scholar of the second half of the 1st century where bookkeeping was not yet done as regards from whom precisely which information about the Prophet was received. But the name appears also in versions of another pupil of Ibn Isḥāq; see below II, p. 76. 144

SOURCE ANALYSIS

73

Studies have shown that the custom of asking one’s teachers about their informants arose at the end of the 1st century H., and then slowly spread in the course of the 2nd century H. In Mekka, asking about an isnād didn’t begin until the start of the 2nd century, in Iraq even later. 145 Most of the scholars of the elder tābiʿūn generation who had their knowledge from numerous sources had then to be very careful when asked about their informants, or express themselves as imprecisely as Ibn Isḥāq reports was done by Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. A third alternative is that they named someone who could have been their informant for a certain tradition. This means that the isnād Saʿīd b. Jubayr “or” ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās fits more with Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad than with Ibn Isḥāq. The fact already mentioned that this type of isnād is unique in Ibn Isḥāq’s work strengthens this conclusion. It is striking that the texts of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad are practically all composed following the same pattern: 1. Report about a situation from the life of the Prophet, mostly with the names of the persons involved; 2. Designation of the Qurʾān verse or verses revealed by God concerning these persons, their words or deeds. Muslim scholars call this sabab al-nuzūl (occasion/reason for the revelation). 146 This pattern appears occasionally also in other traditions of the vita of the Prophet, but not with the consistency evident in those of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. His texts show that Qurʾān verses were already quite early, in the last quarter of the 1st century H., placed in a relationship with the life of the Prophet. Owing to the structural consistency of his texts, other texts from Ibn Hishām’s Sīra can possibly be attributed to him, texts which have no isnād. 147 In the present study, however, we do not wish to 241.

145

See Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence, pp. 235–236; 240–

See above II, p. 128. E.g. parts of the narrations about Muḥammad’s bad treatment by the Quraysh (Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 233–240; alSaqqā: vol. 1, pp. 354–364; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 8–18; Guillaume: pp. 161–167 and Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 260–262; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 392– 396; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 43–46; Guillaume: pp. 179–181 with insertions of another origin) and about the hypocrites among the Medinan followers 146 147

74

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

pursue this path any further but rather allocate to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad only such texts having an isnād or are placed in a context which has an isnād indicating Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. Besides the isnāds, the structural characteristics of the texts that can be ascribed to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad are evidence against the argument that Ibn Isḥāq was himself the original author of the texts. What is further striking is that all of the texts of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad presented above put the opponents of the Prophet in the pillory: leading personalities from the tribe of the Quraysh in Narrations 1 and 2; rabbis and other influential men from among the Jews in Narrations 3 to 6 and from among the hypocrites, the crypto-Muslims, of Medina in the last narration. The Jews above all play a significant role. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad seems to have collected an especially large amount of information about them. To get this information he must have had access to the circles of former Jews. This and his interest in Muḥammad’s Jewish opponents are indications that he himself possibly came from a formerly Jewish family and his father had become a Muslim. The fact that he was a mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit who grew up in Medina’s Jewish circles and had attended a Jewish school 148 further fuels the impression that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad had Jewish roots. As a further provisional result of this study, the following can be held fast: Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad was a source for Ibn Isḥāq for his vita of the Prophet. This conclusion can be arrived at neither based on the texts alone nor based on the isnāds alone. Only a combination of these indications (isnād-cum-matn method) allows such a conclusion. Based on the texts alone, it can only be determined that they possibly have their provenance with Ibn Isḥāq. The decisive argument in this regard is that Ibn Hishām commentated the text and sometimes weaves in his own points of view which diverge from the text in his possession, i.e., from Ibn of Muḥammad (Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 355–361; alSaqqā: vol. 1, pp. 519–527; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 160–168; Guillaume: pp. 242–246). See also the following chapter. 148 See Lecker, “Zayd b. Thābit”, p. 476.

SOURCE ANALYSIS

75

Isḥāq’s. A pure isnād analysis can likewise at most demarcate Ibn Isḥāq as common link, and is then at the end of its possibilities, since Ibn Isḥāq is apparently the only one who invoked Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. According to Juynboll’s criteria, not even Ibn Isḥāq would be considered an authentic common link and therefore the author of the text in question, because mostly only two traditions from pupils have survived which ascribe the texts to Ibn Isḥāq (single strand isnāds). 149 Juynboll must therefore see Ibn Hishām as the authentic common link. The isnād-cum-matn method, in contrast, allows Ibn Isḥāq not only to be approved as a common link, it also allows his sources to be identified and a profile for these sources to be created which renders their individuality distinct. This source, Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, can therefore be placed alongside other sources which have long been familiar and generally recognized as such by Western scholars, sources like Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī or Hishām b. ʿUrwa. 150 In content and structure the texts ascribable to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad are clearly distinguishable from those Ibn Isḥāq ascribes to al-Zuhrī or Hishām b. ʿUrwa. The varying profiles of these sources allow the conclusion that Ibn Isḥāq is not the one responsible for having composed the texts and chains of transmitters (isnāds) so disparately, i.e. falsified them, but rather that the differing profiles stem from different “authors.”

4. MUḤAMMAD B. ABĪ MUḤAMMAD OUTSIDE OF THE SĪRA SOURCES

The present reconstruction of Ibn Isḥāq’s source with the name Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad has been limited thus far to texts contained in works focused on presenting material about the life of G.H.A. Juynboll, “Nāfiʿ, the mawlā of Ibn ʿUmar, and his position in Muslim ḥadīth literature”, in: Der Islam 70 (1993), pp. 211–212, 214–215; id., Encyclopedia of Canonical Ḥadīth, Leiden 2007, xviii–xxiii. For a critical view on this theory see Motzki, “Whither Ḥadith Studies?”, pp. 54–61. 150 See Görke/Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte, pp. 22–36 and passim. 149

76

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

the Prophet. As already mentioned, 151 the traditions Ibn Isḥāq attributes to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad are also found in Qurʾān exegetical works, especially en masse in al-Ṭabarī’s Jāmiʿ al-bayān, and now and then also in later compilations like, e.g., Ibn Kathīr’s Tafsīr. 152 Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), who is only one generation younger than al-ʿUṭāridī, seems to have worked numerous older sources into his massive Qurʾān commentary which are not extant as independent works or only in fragments. Towards acquiring more insight into the profile of the author Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad and to review the conclusions worked out so far, an inclusion of alṬabarī’s material can prove rewarding. This should transpire in the following paragraphs. Traditions with the isnāds of which the name Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad crops up, appear 124 times in al-Ṭabarī’s Jāmiʿ. AlṬabarī names as his informants for these traditions mainly two persons, either Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd 153 or Abū Kurayb, 154 seldom Hannād b. al-Sarī, 155 and only once Sufyān [b. Wakīʿ]. 156 From Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd he cites the traditions with the following isnād: Salama b. Faḍl → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit → ʿIkrima, mawlā of Ibn ʿAbbās, or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās. 157 See above II, p. 35. Ibn Kathīr seldom mentions his source for Ibn Isḥāq’s traditions from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. Most of them are probably token from al-Ṭabarī’s Qurʾānic commentary, some of them from Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s Tafsīr (d. 327/938–9). 153 Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd b. Ḥayyān al-Rāzī (d. 248/862), see Mizzī, Tahdhīb, vol. 6, pp. 285–287. 154 Abū Kurayb Muḥammad b. al-ʿAlāʾ al-Kūfī (d. 248/862), Mizzī, Tahdhīb, vol. 6, pp. 466–468. 155 Hannād b. al-Sarī al-Taymī al-Kūfī (d. 243/857), Mizzī, Tahdhīb, vol. 7, pp. 427–428. 156 Sufyān b. Wakīʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ al-Ruʾāsī (d. 247/861), Mizzī, Tahdhīb, vol. 3, p. 229. 157 Sometimes shortened: Salama → Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → ʿIkrima/Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās; sometimes the names ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr appear in another order, rarely is only 151 152

SOURCE ANALYSIS

77

Abū Kurayb’s isnād is: Yūnus b. Bukayr → Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit → Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. 158 The isnād of Hannād b. al-Sarī is the same as Abū Kurayb’s. It appears only four times, three of them in a double transmission (Hannād b. al-Sarī and Abū Kurayb) and only once as an independent tradition. 159 The isnād of Sufyān [b. Wakīʿ] runs also via Yūnus b. Bukayr and his isnād. 160

one of the two names given. Occasionally the nisba “al-Qurashī” is added to the name Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. 158 Once in a while the information “mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit” is lacking. This also happens in the isnāds of Ibn Ḥumayd. Occasionally we find the appellation “shaykh min ahl Miṣr” (a scholar of Egypt) instead of the name Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. 159 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 6, p. 290, 292, 310, vol. 7, p. 164. 160 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 29, p. 152. The edition is faulty at this place. Instead of ḥaddathanā Sufyān, qāla ḥaddathanā Wakīʿ, qāla ḥaddathanā Yūnus b. Bukayr one must probably read ḥaddathanā Sufyān ibn Wakīʿ, qāla ḥaddathanā Yūnus b. Bukayr; furthermore Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad is only characterised as mawlā of Zayd instead of as mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit. In the bibliographical literature, Sufyān’s father Wakīʿ, a contemporary of Yūnus of nearly the same age, is not known as transmitter from Yūnus. This is only said from Sufyān, the son of Wakīʿ. I have rectified the isnād accordingly.

78

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Diagram of al-Ṭabarī’s transmissions al-Ṭabarī

Ibn Ḥumayd

Abū Kurayb

Salama b. Faḍl

Hannād b. al-Sarī

Yūnus b. Bukayr Ibn Isḥāq

Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima

Ibn ʿAbbās

Sufyān [b. Wakīʿ]

SOURCE ANALYSIS

79

Ibn Isḥāq is in al-Ṭabarī’s isnāds the first common transmitter from fundamentally two transmission strings: that of Yūnus b. Bukayr and that of Salama b. Faḍl. As mentioned, Yūnus b. Bukayr (d. 199/814–5) is given in the biographical traditions as a pupil of Ibn Isḥāq. This holds true for as well Salama b. Faḍl (d. 191/807). 161 Are al-Ṭabarī’s isnāds credible? As already mentioned, Marco Schöller takes the view that texts from Ibn Isḥāq’s Vita of the Prophet which in Ibn Hishām’s version have no isnād or one that is weak were furnished in the course of the 3rd century H. and later with good isnāds to render them acceptable to the ḥadīth scholars. He explicitly cites the isnāds with Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. 162 G.H.A. Juynboll, too, proceeds on the assumption that the authors of the large Tradition collections compiled in the 3rd and 4th century supplemented already existing isnāds with contrived transmission chains to give them the semblance of wide dissemination. 163 Is this the case with the transmission material al-Ṭabarī ascribes via Ibn Isḥāq to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad? Are al-Ṭabarī’s isnāds fictitious? Several arguments speak against such an assumption. 1. Internal arguments based on the following evidence: a) the isnāds proceeding via Ibn Isḥāq against the backdrop of the rest of al-Ṭabarī’s isnāds; b) the aberrations between the isnāds that al-Ṭabarī traces back to Ibn Isḥāq; c) double transmissions from Ibn Ḥumayd → Salama and Abū Kurayb → Yūnus with sometimes very similar texts and sometimes mutually divergent texts. 2. External arguments which arise through a comparison with other versions, especially the versions of al-ʿUṭāridī and those of Ibn Hishām. Ad 1 a) The assumption that al-Ṭabarī himself contrived the isnāds which go back via Ibn Isḥāq and Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad to Ibn ʿAbbās and added them to certain traditions is See Fück, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, p. 44, Guillaume, The Life, p. xxx; Al-Samuk, Die historischen Überlieferungen, pp. 144–145; al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb, vol. 8, pp. 207–208 (Yūnus b. Bukayr), vol. 3, pp. 252–253 (Salama b. Faḍl). 162 See above II, p. 36, and note 34. 163 See e.g. Juynboll, “Nāfiʿ, the mawlā of Ibn ʿUmar”, pp. 212–214, 232–235; id., Encyclopedia of Canonical Ḥadīth, xxii–xxiii. 161

80

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

hardly probable in light of the isnād structure of al-Ṭabarī’s Jāmiʿ. Heribert Horst has studied them and determined “that out of 13026 different isnāds only 1662 are cited twice and more often, while only 91 isnāds appear more than 14 times, 21 isnāds of which appear at over 100 places.” Hence more than 11,000 isnāds appear only once, five isnāds more than 1000 times, one of them more than 3000 times. 164 According to Horst’s statistics, in al-Ṭabarī’s Jāmiʿ the isnād Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd → Salama b. Faḍl → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq is cited 380 times. Of this number, 79 isnāds exhibit the continuation Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → Saʿīd b. Jubayr/ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās; 47 isnāds go after Ibn Isḥāq further to Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar b. al-Zubayr, and 41 isnāds to Wahb b. Munabbih. 165 At the last two of Ibn Isḥāq’s informants Horst gives no isnād ends, because these isnād ends are either missing, i.e. the relevant traditions are ascribed to Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar or Wahb b. Munabbih, or the isnād ends are very different. This varied distribution of al-Ṭabarī’s isnāds doesn’t give the impression that a systematic isnād counterfeiter is at work here. Ad 1 b) The fact that al-Ṭabarī cites the texts attributed via Ibn Isḥāq to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad sometimes only from Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd, sometimes only from Abū Kurayb, sometimes from both, and the fact that he derives Yūnus b. Bukayr’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq generally from Abū Kurayb, in some few cases, however, also from Hannād b. al-Sarī or Sufyān b. Wakīʿ, in no way suggests that al-Ṭabarī counterfeited the isnāds. What reason would he have had to distribute the isnāds in such a way? Ad 1 c) The strongest internal argument against the theory that al-Ṭabarī tampered with the isnāds in question is provided by the double transmissions, i.e., the texts that al-Ṭabarī transmits from Ibn Isḥāq not only via Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd → Salama, but via Abū Kurayb → Yūnus b. Bukayr as well. In some cases alṬabarī cites one of Ibn Isḥāq’s texts from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad twice in succession, once in Abū Kurayb’s version from Yūnus b. Bukayr, the second time in Ibn Ḥumayd’s version from Salama b. Faḍl, or in reverse order. Al-Ṭabarī does this when 164 165

See Horst, “Zur Überlieferung”, p. 292. Id., p. 303.

SOURCE ANALYSIS

81

the wording of the two traditions is in clear mutual divergence. 166 If the divergences are clear yet only partial, al-Ṭabarī gives only the isnād for the second version and adds the remark: “like it [the text just cited], apart from….” 167 If the texts of both traditions are very similar, al-Ṭabarī gives after the first version only the isnād of the other version and notes in this regard: “like it [the text just cited].” 168 Practically identical texts of the two traditions are introduced by al-Ṭabarī with a double isnād, e.g.: Abū Kurayb → Yūnus b. Bukayr and Ibn Ḥumayd 169 → Salama b. Faḍl → Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, etc. 170 Such references of al-Ṭabarī to similarities and differences between the two transmission chains are indications that al-Ṭabarī is citing the traditions according to the named informants and is not sticking self-contrived isnāds on texts at will. Moreover, indications of this sort are also evidence that the traditions of Abū Kurayb and Ibn Ḥumayd are independent of one another, i.e., are not copied from each other, but rather derive from a common source. According to the isnāds, this source is Ibn Isḥāq. Ad 2) For the external, i.e. not isnād related, arguments against the theory that al-Ṭabarī or his teachers systematically contrived the isnāds of the traditions we shall return to Ibn Isḥāq’s seven narratives the source of which we have identified as Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. What can be determined from a comparison of the versions of Ibn Hishām (from al-Bakkāʾī) and al-ʿUṭāridī (from Yūnus b. Bukayr) with the versions al-Ṭabarī has from Ibn Ḥumayd (via Salama b. Faḍl) and Abū Kurayb and others? AlṬabarī’s Jāmiʿ contains i.a. fragments of Narrations 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 which will be subjected in the following to a more thoroughgoing E.g. al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, pp. 382–383. E.g. al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 2, p. 78; vol. 3, p. 217; vol. 4, p. 194; vol. 15, pp. 165–166. 168 E.g. al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, p. 411, 441, 442; vol. 2, p. 313; vol. 3, p. 193, 325; vol. 4, p. 52; vol. 5, p. 116. 169 Sometime is added: both said. 170 E.g. al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, p. 483, 488, 495, 496, 512, 564; vol. 2, p. 2, 53; vol. 5, p. 124; vol. 6, p. 28. 166 167

82

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

investigation. In so doing, the internal arguments against the fabrication theory too will be illustrated. Narration 1 171 Al-Ṭabarī mentions of the narration concerning the consultation of Quraysh notables with al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra on the matter of Muḥammad, with which we are familiar from Ibn Isḥāq through the traditions of Ibn Hishām and al-ʿUṭāridī, only the asbāb al-nuzūl which follow the narration, but not the narration itself. 172 He leads them in with the following isnād: Sufyān b. Wakīʿ 173 → Yūnus b. Bukayr → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd → Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. This is the only time al-Ṭabarī names Sufyān b. Wakīʿ as an informant for a tradition of Ibn Isḥāq from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. We encountered this isnād from Yūnus b. Bukayr already earlier in alʿUṭāridī’s tradition on Narration 1, yet al-Ṭabarī’s isnād diverges in one point from al-ʿUṭāridī’s isnād. Al-Ṭabarī still mentions that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad was the mawlā of Zayd [b. Thābit], a remark which is missing in al-ʿUṭāridī’s isnād, although it is included in Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq. 174 Although the text al-Ṭabarī cites is considerably shortened, it can still be recognized that it is not from Ibn Hishām but from Yūnus b. Bukayr – which the isnād also indicates. Ibn Hishām’s Qurʾān citations are substantially more detailed. His version contains the verses Q 74: 11–25 and Q 15: 91–93. In al-ʿUṭāridī’s version from Yūnus b. Bukayr only Q 74: 11, 25 and Q 15: 91–92 are named. Al-Ṭabarī’s version contains only Q 74: 11 and Q 15: 92, i.e., only the beginning and end of the Qurʾān quotes from Yūnus b. Bukayr’s tradition. The divergences in isnād and matn from alʿUṭāridī’s version suggest that al-Ṭabarī’s tradition via Sufyān b. Wakīʿ from Yūnus b. Bukayr is not copied from al-ʿUṭāridī’s tradition but rather, irrespective of it, goes back to Yūnus b. Bukayr. Compare above II, pp. 21–22. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 29, p. 152. 173 See II, p. 160. 174 See above II, p. 44. 171 172

SOURCE ANALYSIS

83

One would otherwise have to assume that al-Ṭabarī himself is responsible for these divergences. Though this is not impossible, what speaks against this assumption is that al-Ṭabarī seems not to have been familiar with Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq, which in the isnād indicates Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as the mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit; at any rate, he mentions this nowhere. Moreover, al-Ṭabarī, as we shall see, is generally out to give his sources as precisely as possible. Al-Ṭabarī’s version of Sufyān b. Waqīʿ thus provides a second tradition from Yūnus b. Bukayr alongside al-ʿUṭāridī’s. Yūnus can therefore be seen as a “partial common link.” This confirms our earlier conclusion that alʿUṭāridī’s tradition really does go back to Yūnus b. Bukayr. Narration 2 175 Al-Ṭabarī’s Qurʾān commentary contains from this narration Pericopes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10, sometimes more complete, other times less. Pericopes 1–4 are given by al-Ṭabarī as a coherent tradition with the isnād Abū Kurayb → Yūnus b. Bukayr → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → shaykh min ahl Miṣr 176 qadima mundhu biḍʿin wa-arbaʿīna sana (a scholar of the Egyptians, he came [to Mekka?] over 40 years ago) → ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. 177 This isnād strongly resembles the transmission chain al-ʿUṭāridī transmits from Yūnus b. Bukayr. 178 The aberrations are: Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (al-Ṭabarī) instead of Ibn Isḥāq (al-ʿUṭāridī) and qadima (al-Ṭabarī) instead of qadīm (alʿUṭāridī). Al-Ṭabarī’s text diverges in many places slightly from alʿUṭāridī’s version; moreover, in eight places, words are missing. A conspicuous difference from al-ʿUṭāridī’s tradition from Yūnus b. Bukayr is that at the beginning of Pericope 1 the name al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith is missing and, instead, there is only talk of rajul min Banī ʿAbd al-Dār (a man of the Banū ʿAbd al-Dār), and with Abū l-

Compare above II, pp. 37–40. Concerning Miṣr instead of Makka see above I, p. 44, note 55. 177 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 15, pp. 164–166. 178 See above II, p. 42. 175 176

84

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Bakhtarī the name of the father, Ibn Hishām, is absent. 179 The absence of the name Abū l-Naḍr in Abū Kurayb’s version from Yūnus b. Bukayr is a further indication that his tradition from Yūnus is independent from al-ʿUṭāridī’s. Al-Ṭabarī points out at the end of his tradition the absence of both of the names. He doesn’t, however, refer to another version from Yūnus b. Bukayr but to Ibn Ḥumayd’s tradition from Salama [b. Faḍl] via Ibn Isḥāq. 180 Al-Ṭabarī does not quote the text of Ibn Ḥumayd’s version, but only the isnād, and remarks in this regard that Ibn Ḥumayd’s text resembles (bi-naḥwihi) that of Abū Kurayb, apart from the absence of both names. That is no invention on alṬabarī’s part. Excerpts from Pericope 2, which al-Ṭabarī at another place cites following Ibn Ḥumayd → Salama → Ibn Isḥāq etc., verify that he indeed also had Ibn Ḥumayd’s text from Salama in his hands. 181 This in turn shows that al-Ṭabarī does not randomly ascribe texts to Abū Kurayb and Ibn Ḥumayd, but rather had two different sources available containing material from Ibn Isḥāq. In Pericope 4 al-Ṭabarī’s text breaks off prematurely. Only Abū Jahl’s plan to murder Muḥammad is told, not its failed execution. This contraction will have been al-Ṭabarī’s doing. Pericope 6 and the beginning of Pericope 7 is found in alṬabarī’s Qurʾān commentary together with the exegesis of Q 68:15. 182 Al-Ṭabarī quotes the text again commensurate with Abū Kurayb’s version from Yūnus b. Bukayr, with the same isnād as at the beginning of Pericope 1. This is consistent with al-ʿUṭāridī’s version from Yūnus in which Pericopes 1–6 are introduced with an isnād, a new isnād not being given until Pericope 7. Al-Ṭabarī’s text The name of the father is also lacking in the version of alʿUṭāridī. This seems to be a transmission error of Yūnus b. Bukayr because both Ibn Hishām and Salama b. Faḍl give the name of the father. 180 In al-Ṭabarī’s edition we find “al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith abnāʾ Banī ʿAbd al-Dār”, but in the edition of al-ʿUṭāridīs Maghāzī “al-Naḍr b. alḤārith akhā Banī ʿAbd al-Dār”. 181 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 18, pp. 183–184. The text differs from alʿUṭāridī’s and Ibn Hishām’s versions; some words are lacking, other words are in another order. 182 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 18, p. 182. 179

SOURCE ANALYSIS

85

diverges frequently from al-ʿUṭāridī’s and Ibn Hishām’s traditions; words are missing or appear in another order. Two divergences are noteworthy. The first is at the beginning. Here al-Ṭabarī not only calls the pericope’s main figure al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith, he also inserts his entire family tree all the way to Quṣayy. In al-ʿUṭāridī’s and Ibn Hishām’s traditions, on the other hand, this detailed name is found at the beginning of Pericope 5. Here al-Ṭabarī evidently encroached on the text. Since he omitted Pericope 5, in Pericope 6 he added al-Naḍr’s pedigree from Pericope 5. The second divergence from al-ʿUṭāridī’s version is found at the end. Al-ʿUṭāridī’s text of Pericope 6 ends with the words bi-mādhā Muḥammad aḥsan ḥadīthan minnī (To what extent is Muḥammad a better storyteller than I?). Pericope 7 begins with a new isnād: Yūnus → Ibn Isḥāq → rajul min ahl Makka (a Mekkan) → Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās. 183 Then come the Qurʾān verses God revealed referring to al-Naḍr, whereupon begins the story of al-Naḍr’s and ʿUqba b. Abī Muʿayṭ’s mission to Medina in order to question the Jewish rabbis about Muḥammad. In Abū Kurayb’s version, the beginning of alʿUṭāridī’s Pericope 7, the Qurʾān verses revealed pertaining to alNaḍr, is the end of Pericope 6. Al-Ṭabarī’s second source, on the other hand, Ibn Ḥumayd via Salama, has the same pericope arrangement as al-ʿUṭāridī. Al-Ṭabarī still states, after quoting Abū Kurayb’s tradition from Yūnus b. Bukayr, the isnād of Ibn Ḥumayd’s tradition from Salama, 184 and remarks in this regard that the tradition is similar (naḥwahu), but that the text fa-anzala llāhu fī lNaḍr thamāniya ayāt (God revealed eight verses pertaining to alNaḍr) 185 in Ibn Ḥumayd’s version has its own isnād, namely: Ibn Isḥāq → al-Kalbī → Abū Ṣāliḥ → Ibn ʿAbbās. These details attest, for one, that al-Ṭabarī paid careful attention to the particularly noticeable differences between the two texts in his possession and, As a reminder: At this place, Ibn Hishām does not give an isnād, but only at the beginning of narration 2. See above II, pp. 40–41. 184 This isnād differs from Yūnus b. Bukayr’s version in one point: instead of Saʿīd b. Jubayr as only informant of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, Ibn Ḥumayd → Salama mentions also ʿIkrima. 185 Probably al-Ṭabarī does not mean this phrase alone but the whole passage of Qurʾānic verses at the beginning of pericope 7. 183

86

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

for the other, that both sources are mutually independent traditions from Ibn Isḥāq. 186 This is also substantiated by comparing alṬabarī’s versions with Ibn Hishām’s text. The texts are very similar, yet indeed diverge from one another in several points. The rest of Pericope 7 and 8 is found with al-Ṭabarī at another place with the isnād Abū Kurayb → Yūnus b. Bukayr → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → shaykh min ahl Miṣr, qadima mundhu biḍʿ waarbaʿīna sana → ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās, 187 with which al-Ṭabarī also introduces the beginning of Narration 2 and Pericope 6. The text corresponds largely with al-ʿUṭāridī’s and Ibn Hishām’s version. Parts of Pericope 10 are found in al-Ṭabarī’s Qurʾān commentary along with the respective Qurʾān verses. With the isnād Ibn Ḥumayd → Salama, etc. al-Ṭabarī cites a piece of Pericope 2, which according to Ibn Isḥāq and his source Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad is to be seen as sabab al-nuzūl (reason of revelation) for Q 25: 7–8 and 20 – a connection which is not made until Pericope 10 – and follows this with the verses. 188 Since Pericope 10 is not included in al-ʿUṭāridīs Maghāzī, we will compare al-Ṭabarī’s text with Ibn Hishām’s version. The versions exhibit clear aberrations from each other. Some words of al-Ṭabarī’s text are absent with Ibn Hishām and vice versa. Al-Ṭabarī’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq contains only verses 7 and 8, Ibn Hishām’s version, in turn, verses 7–10. Verse 20 is incomplete in al-Ṭabarī’s tradition, but quoted in full in Ibn Hishām’s version. The commentary transmitted from Ibn Isḥāq pertaining to this verse is much more detailed with alṬabarī than with Ibn Hishām. That is evidence that Ibn Ḥumayd’s transmission from Ibn Isḥāq’s pupil Salama b. Faḍl is not directly dependent on Ibn Hishām’s transmission from Ibn Isḥāq’s pupil Ziyād al-Bakkāʾī, and that therefore Ibn Isḥāq is the “common link” for both traditions.

For the variants of al-Kalbī see chapter 5 below. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 15, pp. 191–192. 188 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 18, pp. 183–184, 194–195. 186 187

SOURCE ANALYSIS

87

Narration 3 189 Al-Ṭabarī quotes the first part of Pericope 1 in two versions, in that of Abū Kurayb from Yūnus b. Bukayr as well as that of Ibn Ḥumayd from Salama [b. Faḍl]. 190 This is because they diverge from one other in several points. Salama’s tradition exhibits greater agreements with Ibn Hishām’s, without being identical to it. Although Yūnus b. Bukayr’s tradition resembles the two aforementioned, it diverges from their texts in some places and some words are missing or replaced with others. The Qurʾān citations also vary. Yūnus and Salama quote – though not identically – only the beginning of Q 2: 80, while Ibn Hishām renders the verse in full. The second part of Pericope 1, Q 2: 81 with explanation, is cited by al-Ṭabarī only according to Salama’s tradition, 191 without indicating whether he is familiar with a commensurate variant from Yūnus b. Bukayr. Salama’s text resembles Ibn Hishām’s, although the wording of the explanations is not identical. In his commentary to Q 2: 85 al-Ṭabarī presents also parts of Pericope 2 following Salama’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq with alṬabarī’s usual isnād: Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad 192 → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās. 193 Al-Ṭabarī then quotes the beginning of verse 85 with the commentary found also in Ibn Hishām’s tradition: “{Then you are they who kill your people and drive some of them from their houses, supporting one another against them by crime and transgression}, that means: the polytheists, so that they shed their blood along with them and drive them from their houses along with them.” 194 While Ibn Hishām’s tradition still also includes the rest of verse 85 and verse 86 with explanations, this passage is absent with al-Ṭabarī. He continues with the sentences which also See above II, pp. 49–51. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, pp. 382–383. 191 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, p. 384. 192 Al-Ṭabarī mostly adds after this name the attribute “mawlā (client of) Zayd b. Thābit” or more rarely “mawlā āl (client of the family of) Zayd b. Thābit”. In this case the attribute is lacking. 193 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, pp. 397–398. 194 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 372; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 540; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 181; Guillaume: p. 253. 189 190

88

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

with Ibn Hishām close the introduction to the subsequent asbāb alnuzūl story: “Thus God blamed them for what they were doing, He having in the Torah prohibited them from shedding each other’s blood and charged them to redeem their prisoners.“ This is followed by the story of the two Jewish parties, the Banū Qaynuqāʿ which were allied with the heathen Banū l-Khazraj, and the alNaḍīr and Qurayẓa which had allied themselves with the pagan tribe al-Aws. 195 Al-Ṭabarī’s text strongly resembles Ibn Hishām’s, yet it is not identical to it. In the initial analysis of Narration 3, 196 owing to the lack of transmission variants, we were able to hypothesize based only on textual criteria that Pericope 2 belongs to the tradition of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. Ibn Hishām indeed gives only one isnād for Pericope 1 – he calls Ibn Isḥāq’s informant here only “a mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit” – and subsequently leads Pericope 2 in with only “Ibn Isḥāq said.” Al-Ṭabarī’s tradition from Salama now confirms the conclusion reached above. Ibn Hishām has indeed evidently suppressed Ibn Isḥāq’s original isnād from Pericope 2. Narration 5 197 In the previous initial analysis of Narration 5 based on Ibn Hishām’s Sīra we have discerned 38 pericopes which – so the argument – are part of a larger narration. Ibn Hishām gives at the beginning of this narration only a piecemeal isnād. He does not name Ibn Isḥāq’s direct informant but rather his isnād: “balaghanī ʿan ʿIkrima, mawlā Ibn ʿAbbās, aw ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās (I heard from ʿIkrima, the client of Ibn ʿAbbās, or from Saʿīd b. Jubayr from Ibn ʿAbbās).” 198 We have nevertheless assumed, based on the structural resemblance of the individual pericopes, that these 38 pericopes are from one and the same author and that the conspicuous isnād end at the beginning of the narration – ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās – speaks for Muḥammad b. Abī See above II, p. 51. See above II, p. 51. 197 See above II, pp. 53–66. 198 See above II, p. 53. 195 196

SOURCE ANALYSIS

89

Muḥammad as author of the 38 pericopes of the narration and as Ibn Isḥāq’s source. Earlier parallel traditions which substantiate our argument were found in al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī, albeit for only two of the pericopes. Al-Ṭabarī’s Qurʾān commentary offers numerous additional parallels, in fact, for every pericope except numbers 17 and 38. For more than half of the pericopes al-Ṭabarī refers to two transmission lines, that of Yūnus b. Bukayr and that of Salama b. Faḍl, and occasionally calls attention to major discrepancies between the two traditions. In the following we shall take a look at some of the pericopes and compare them with Ibn Hishām’s and al-ʿUṭāridī’s versions in order to check with this narration as well whether alṬabarī’s texts are dependent on them. Pericope 9

Pericope 9 is particularly well suited for the analysis since we are familiar not only with Ibn Hishām’s version but with al-ʿUṭāridī’s as well. 199 Al-Ṭabarī presents it in a double transmission with the isnād: ḥaddathanā Abū Kurayb, qāla ḥaddathanā Yūnus b. Bukayr, waḥaddathanā Ibn Ḥumayd, qāla ḥaddathanā Salama, qāla jamīʿan: ḥaddathanā Muḥammad b. Isḥāq, qāla ḥaddathanī Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, qāla akhbaranī Saʿīd b. Jubayr, shakka Muḥammad, ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās (Abū Kurayb transmitted to us; he said: Yūnus b. Bukayr transmitted to us; [moreover] Ibn Ḥumayd transmitted to us; he said: Salama transmitted to us; both [Yūnus and Salama] said: Muḥammad b. Isḥāq transmitted to us; he said: Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad transmitted to me; he said: Saʿīd b. Jubayr informed me – Muḥammad [b. Abī Muḥammad] was himself [however] not sure – from Ibn ʿAbbās). 200 A comparison with al-ʿUṭāridī’s version from Yūnus b. Bukayr shows that the second half of the isnād, beginning with ḥaddathanā Muḥammad b. Isḥāq, very much resembles al-Ṭabarī’s isnād. Al-ʿUṭāridī has the isnād: ḥaddathanā Yūnus b. Bukayr ʿan Ibn Isḥāq, qāla haddathanī Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā Zayd b. Thābit, qāla: [ḥaddathanī / akhbaranī Saʿīd b. 199 200

See above II, p. 67. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 2, pp. 2–3.

90

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Jubayr?] 201 aw ʿIkrima , shakka Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad , → ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās. The differences are rendered in boldface. In alṬabarī’s isnād the designation mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit is missing. It is difficult to say whether this gap is attributable to al-Ṭabarī or his source Abū Kurayb. In a series of other transmissions of al-Ṭabarī from Abū Kurayb this element is present. It is also strange that in al-Ṭabarī’s isnād the name ʿIkrima, one of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s two informants, is absent, something that is otherwise consistently found in al-Ṭabarī’s isnāds. In al-ʿUṭāridī’s isnād on the other hand, the name Saʿīd b. Jubayr is lacking. It is quite possible that both names were on hand in Yūnus b. Bukayr’s original edition. This is shown by the remark contained in al-Ṭabarī’s and al-ʿUṭāridī’s isnāds “shakka Muḥammad/b. Abī Muḥammad” (Muḥammad/b. Abī Muḥammad was not certain [whether Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima was his informant for this account]). This remark is otherwise nowhere found in al-ʿUṭāridī’s and al-Ṭabarī’s isnāds. The differences between the two isnāds are transmission errors. They are an indication that Abū Kurayb’s tradition from Yūnus b. Bukayr is not copied from al-ʿUṭāridīs, but is independent of it and goes back to Yūnus. The agreements between the two versions are consequently attributable to Yūnus, their common source. Pericope 9 concerns the point in time when the change of qibla (direction of prayer) was prescribed for the Muslims of Medina. Instead of towards Syria (Jerusalem), they are now to pay their devotions in the direction of the Kaʿba in Mekka. Some of the leading Jews come to Muḥammad and explain that they see this measure as peculiar since he alleges to follow the religion of Abraham. They call on Muḥammad to return to the original prayer direction. In this case they would follow him and believe in him. Thereupon, God revealed Q 2: 142. 202 Al-Ṭabarī provides the text of Pericope 9 following Ibn Ḥumayd’s tradition from Salama b. Faḍl, not that of Abū Kurayb from Yūnus b. Bukayr. This is not discernable in the collective isnād, but it is from the text. After dating the qibla change, al-Ṭabarī first of all gives the names of the Jews that came to Muḥammad: 201 202

Here the manuscript is indecipherable. See above II, p. 56.

SOURCE ANALYSIS

91

Rifāʿa b. Qays, Qardam b. ʿAmr, Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf and Nāfiʿ b. Abī Nāfiʿ. Following these four names, al-Ṭabarī interrupts his enumeration with the remark hākadhā qāla Ibn Ḥumayd wa-qāla Abū Kurayb: wa-Rāfiʿ ibn Abī Rāfiʿ (it was so said by Ibn Ḥumayd, but Abū Kurayb said: and Rāfiʿ b. Abī Rāfiʿ). Salama’s version is thus seen to have contained another or an additional name than Yūnus b. Bukayr’s. Whether this is true cannot be checked in the tradition of Yūnus b. Bukayr surviving in the fragment of al-ʿUṭāridī’s Maghāzī, since the names in the manuscript are illegible. There is, however, another way to determine the credibility of al-Ṭabarī’s statement. The name Rāfiʿ b. Abī Rāfiʿ also surfaces in Pericope 31 which al-Ṭabarī cites following Abū Kurayb from Yūnus b. Bukayr. 203 Al-Ṭabarī says at the end of Pericope 31, however, that the tradition of Ibn Ḥumayd from Salama is similar (naḥwahu) and notes no difference in names for this pericope. Ibn Hishām’s text, on the other hand, has in Pericope 9 the same name Yūnus b. Bukayr has, Rāfiʿ b. Abī Rāfiʿ, 204 but in Pericope 31 the name Nāfiʿ b. Abī Nāfiʿ, 205 who Salama – according to al-Ṭabarī – names in Pericope 9. 206 Otherwise, al-Ṭabarī’s text from Salama diverges from Ibn Hishām’s text only at the end. The latter includes Q 2: 142–143 in full and Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s exegetical interpolations, while al-Ṭabarī quotes only the beginning of verse 142 and the first part of verse 143, and leaves the exegetical commentary out. This contraction is perhaps to be ascribed to al-Ṭabarī himself. This is not completely certain, because contractions of Qurʾān verses are also found in al-ʿUṭāridī’s versions of Ibn Isḥāq’s traditions. Pericope 20

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, p. 567. Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 381; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 550; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 191–193; Guillaume: p. 258. 205 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 396; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 567; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 208–209; Guillaume: p. 268. 206 The spelling of the names is a problem in other pericopes as well. Differences are found in the textual variants of the pericopes 3, 11, 13, 21, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 37. 203 204

92

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Text differences between Abū Kurayb’s and Ibn Ḥumayd’s traditions, to which al-Ṭabarī himself refers, are found in yet other pericopes of Narration 5 in his Qurʾān commentary, e.g., in Nos. 10, 11, 13 and 20. 207 Pericope 20 is worth looking into because besides the divergences between Abū Kurayb’s versions from Yūnus b. Bukayr and Ibn Ḥumayd’s from Salama b. Faḍl, which al-Ṭabarī indicates, discrepancies are also discernable between these two traditions and Ibn Hishām’s version. Al-Ṭabarī’s isnāds for this pericope already exhibit a peculiarity. Al-Ṭabarī quotes the pericope according to Abū Kurayb’s tradition, yet doesn’t name after Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad in the isnād his usual two informants “Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima,” but only the last one. This is not a mistake al-Ṭabarī made. This is shown by Ibn Ḥumayd’s isnād cited by al-Ṭabarī at the end of the text. In this isnād too only ʿIkrima is mentioned with the supplement mawlā Ibn ʿAbbās. 208 This is an indication that al-Ṭabarī did not systematically prefix every text he ascribes to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad with one and the same fictive isnād. The pericope reports that Abū Bakr entered a Jewish house of learning in which numerous pupils were gathered around two named Jewish rabbis. Abū Bakr appealed to the Jews to become Muslims, since they knew that Muḥammad is sent with the truth from God because this was written in the Torah and in the Gospel. One of the rabbis countered this proposition with a blasphemous answer, whereupon Abū Bakr, enraged, slapped the rabbi in the face. The rabbi went to Muḥammad and complained about this personal injury. Muḥammad questioned Abū Bakr as to the reasons for his deed, and Abū Bakr explained what had happened. The rabbi, however, denied having given a blasphemous reply. Qurʾān revelations subsequently confirm, however, that Abū Bakr had told the truth. 209 194.

207

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 2, p. 53, 78; vol. 3, pp. 217–218; vol. 4, p.

The usual continuation ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās is lacking. This is a transmission error that was probably caused by the preceding addition. 209 This is a short summary of the story. 208

SOURCE ANALYSIS

93

The discrepancy al-Ṭabarī indicates regarding the texts of Abū Kurayb and Ibn Ḥumayd is: wa-innā ʿanhu la-aghniyāʾ wa-law kāna ʿannā ghaniyyan mā staqraḍa minnā (We don’t need Him [God]. Would He not need us, He would not request a loan from us – Abū Kurayb from Yūnus) vs wa-innā ʿanhu la-aghniyāʾ wa-mā huwa ʿannā bi-ghaniyyin wa-law kāna ghaniyyan mā staqraḍa minnā (We don’t need Him [God], but He certainly needs us. Would He not need us, He would not request from us a loan – Ibn Ḥumayd from Salama). 210 In this place, Ibn Hishām has the wording wa-innā ʿanhu la-aghniyāʾ wa-mā huwa ʿannā bi-ghaniyyin wa-law kāna ghaniyyan mā staqraḍanā amwālanā (We dont need Him [God], but He certainly needs us. Would He not need us, He would not ask for our money as a loan). 211 The differences are printed in boldface. They show that Ibn Hishām’s text is closer to Salama’s than to Yūnus’ text without being identical to Salama’s. This is again an indication that the three traditions from Ibn Isḥāq are not directly dependent on each other. When al-Ṭabarī’s text is compared word for word with Ibn Hishām’s, many minor deviations are noticeable. Al-Ṭabarī’s text is more compressed than Ibn Hishām’s. Numerous words are absent from his text. On the other hand, his version contains a passage not found in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra. Abū Bakr says, after giving the rabbi a hefty slap: wa-lladhī nafsī bi-yadihī law-lā l-ʿahd alladhī baynanā wa-baynaka la-ḍarabtu ʿunqa ka yā ʿaduwwa llāh fa-akdhibūnā mā staṭʿtum in kuntum ṣādiqīna (By Him in whose hand my soul is [i.e. by God]! Were there no contract between us and you, I would have slit your throat, o enemy of God! Declare us liars as long as you can, if you are indeed upright! – Abū Kurayb from Yūnus b. Bukayr) vs wa-lladhī nafsī bi-yadihī law-lā l-ʿahd alladhī baynanā wa-baynakum la-ḍarabtu raʾsa ka ay ʿaduwwa llāh (By Him in whose hand my soul is [i.e. by God]! Were there no contract between us and you, I would have cut your head off, o enemy of God! – Ibn Hishām from al-Bakkāʾī). Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 4, p. 194. Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 388; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 557–559; Tadmurī: vol. 2, pp. 200–201; Guillaume: pp. 263–264. 210 211

94

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

At the end of the pericope, al-Ṭabarī’s text is again shorter than Ibn Hishām’s. Only Q 3: 181 and 186 are quoted, while Ibn Hishām’s text also includes verses 187–188. The comparison of the variants of this pericope show anew that the traditions of Ibn Hishām, Yūnus b. Bukayr and Salama are mutually independent traditions from Ibn Isḥāq. Narration 7 We have already become familiar with Ibn Hishām’s version. 212 It is a brief note on the Muslim expeditionary force that failed at alRajīʿ, and on the reaction of the “hypocrites” among the Muslims concerning this event. Ibn Isḥāq’s source for the text is given here only as “a mawlā of the family of Zayd b. Thābit.“ From this information and from the rest of the isnād it can be concluded that this tradition is to be attributed to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. A variant of this tradition found in Ibn Kathīr’s Bidāya confirms this reasoning. Ibn Kathīr names Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as Ibn Isḥāq’s source, albeit without describing him as a client of the family of Zayd b. Thābit. Not only Ibn Kathīr’s isnād, but also his text diverges considerably from Ibn Hishām’s version. Because of this, we have concluded that in this instance Ibn Kathīr bases himself not on Ibn Hishām’s tradition, but on that of another of Ibn Isḥāq’s pupils. Unfortunately, Ibn Kathīr does not name his source. However, since he nonetheless frequently cites al-ʿUṭāridī’s tradition from Yūnus b. Bukayr, it stands to reason that his tradition in this case as well stems from this source. Whether this is really the case may possibly be clarified through information from al-Ṭabarī’s versions of the story. Al-Ṭabarī quotes the story from his source, Abū Kurayb, which includes, as we have seen in the course of this study, Yūnus b. Bukayr’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq’s Vita of the Prophet. AlṬabarī, however, is also familiar with Salama b. Faḍl’s version. He not only names the relevant isnād, he even mentions a difference between Ibn Ḥumayd’s tradition from Salama and Abū Kurayb’s text from Yūnus. Yūnus’ version begins as follows: 212

See above II, pp. 71–72.

SOURCE ANALYSIS

95

lammā uṣībat hādhihi l-sariyya aṣḥāb Khubayb bi-l-Rajīʿ bayna Makka wa-l-Madīna fa-qāla rijāl min al-munāfiqīn (When this expeditionary force, the companions of Khubayb, were demolished at al-Rajīʿ between Mekka and Medina, people from among the hypocrites said).

Salama’s version has a somewhat different beginning:

lammā uṣībat al-sariyya allatī kāna fīhā ʿĀṣim wa-Marthad bi-lRajīʿ qāla rijāl min al-munāfiqīn (When the expeditionary force, in which ʿĀṣim and Marthad were involved, was demolished at al-Rajīʿ, people from among the hypocrites said). This is also how Ibn Hishām’s text begins.

The rest of al-Ṭabarī’s text diverges in many places from Ibn Hishām’s text. The most significant differences are: maqtūlīn (killed) instead of maftūnīn (martyred); 213 fī buyūtihim (in their homes) instead of fī ahlīhim (with their families); wa-mā aṣāba ulāʾika l-nafar fī lshahāda wa -l-khayr min allāh (and that which said force attained in [blood] testimony and good from God) instead of wa-mā aṣāba ulāʾika l-nafar min al-khayr bi-lladhī aṣābahum fa-qāla (and that which said force attained through that which they were faced. He said); ay mā yuẓhiru bi-lisānihi min al-islam (i.e. what he makes known of Islam by means of his tongue) instead of ay li-mā yaẓharu min alislām bi-lisānihi (i.e. because of that which he makes known of Islam by means of his tongue); {wa-yushhidu llāh ʿalā mā fī qalbihi} ay min al-nifāq (and who calls upon God as witness concerning that which is in his heart}, i.e. of hypocrisy) instead of {wa-yushhidu llāh ʿalā mā fī qalbihi} wa-huwa mukhālif li-mā yaqūluhu bi-lisānihi ({and who calls upon God as witness concerning that which is in his heart} while he does the contrary to what his tongue speaks); {wa-mina l-nās man yashrī nafsahu btighāʾan marḍāti llāh} alladhīna sharaw anfusahum li-llāh bi-l-jihād ({Among the people are some who in striving for God’s benevolence sell themselves} those who through battle sold themselves to God) instead of {wa-mina l-nās man yashrī nafsahu btighāʾan marḍāti llāh wa-llāhu raʾūfun bi-l-ʿibād} ay qad sharaw anfusahum min allāh bi-l-jihād ({Among the people are 213

This looks like a copying error and thus less important.

96

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

some who in striving for God’s benevolence sell themselves; God has empathy with the servants [of God]} i.e. who through battle sold themselves to God). These differences make it clear that al-Ṭabarī’s text is no copy of Ibn Hishām’s text. Al-Ṭabarī’s information that the text comes from Abū Kurayb’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq’s pupil Yūnus b. Bukayr thus seems credible. We thereby have a text we can compare with the version from Ibn Kathīr above which we suspected to have originated with Yūnus. 214 A comparison yields the following: Ibn Kathīr’s text begin with lammā qutila aṣḥāb al-Rajīʿqāla nās min al-munāfiqīn (When the companions of al-Rajīʿ were killed, the people among the hypocrites said). Al-Ṭabarī’s text from Yūnus b. Bukayr, however, begins with lammā uṣībat hādhihi l-sariyya aṣḥāb Khubayb bi-l-Rajīʿ bayna Makka wa-l-Madīna fa -qāla rijāl min al-munāfiqīn (When this expeditionary force, the companions of Khubayb, were demolished at al-Rajīʿ between Mekka and Medina, the people among the hypocrites said). Instead of the verb uṣībat, Ibn Kathīr uses the synonym qutila; the subject of his text is aṣḥāb (companions), not sariyya (force/party/troop). The word aṣḥāb is also used by al-Ṭabarī (though not by Ibn Hishām), but only in apposition to sariyya, and with him it is aṣḥāb Khubayb and not aṣḥāb al-Rajīʿ. Other differences are: maftūnīn (martyred − Ibn Kathīr and Ibn Hishām) instead of maqtūlīn (killed men − al-Ṭabarī); 215 lā hum aqūmu fī ahlihim (they didn’t remain with their families − Ibn Kathīr), whereby fī ahlihim resembles Ibn Hishām’s fī ahlīhim (with their families), instead of lā hum qaʿidū fī buyūtihim (they did not remain in their homes − alṬabarī); fa-anzala llāh fīhim (God revealed concerning them – Ibn Kathīr) vs fa-anzala llāh (ʿazza wa-jalla − al-Ṭabarī) fī dhālika min qawli l-munāfiqīn… (God revealed concerning the aforementioned talk of the hypocrites − al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Hishām). Verse 207 is led in by Ibn Kathīr with the sentence: fa-anzala llāhu fī aṣḥāb al-sariyya (God revealed concerning the relations of the companions); in al-Ṭabarī’s and Ibn Hishām’s versions, on the other hand, such a lead-in is not on hand. Furthermore, in Ibn Kathīr’s text the Qurʾān citations are 214 215

See above II, pp. 96–97. See note 211.

SOURCE ANALYSIS

97

highly contracted – he quotes only verses 204 and 207, whereas alṬabarī’s and Ibn Hishām’s texts also have verses 205 and 206 – and the explanations accompanying the Qurʾān texts in al-Ṭabarī’s and Ibn Hishām’s traditions are absent. The results of our comparison contradict our suspicion that Ibn Kathīr’s text is based on the tradition from Yūnus b. Bukayr. Ibn Kathīr’s text diverges many times from Ibn Bukayr’s and from Ibn Hishām’s tradition. It is substantially shorter and rather gives the impression of a paraphrase of Narration 7 than a reliable recount of Ibn Isḥāq’s text. Therefore, based on the available sources, the tradition on which Ibn Kathīr’s edition is based cannot be determined. Narrations without parallels in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra In this chapter we have looked into al-Ṭabarī’s variants of traditions and texts from Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, those we assume to originate with an informant of Ibn Isḥāq’s who Ibn Hishām does not name but who in other early sources for Ibn Isḥāq’s vita of the Prophet is sometimes called Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. The aim of the investigation was to check whether al-Ṭabarī’s traditions are independent from Ibn Hishām’s edition. This could bolster our theory that already Ibn Isḥāq had ascribed certain texts to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. Ibn Hishām’s Sīra was our point of departure and frame of reference. This could give rise to the impression that every text al-Ṭabarī ascribes via Ibn Isḥāq to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad is also to be found in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra. This, however, is not the case. Two examples Ibn Ḥumayd → Salama → Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās; he said: AlḤajjāj b. ʿAmr, the confederate (ḥalīf) of Kaʿb b. al-Ashraf, Ibn Abī l-Ḥuqayq and Qays b. Zayd mingled with (baṭanū bi) a group of the Anṣār in order to lure them away from their religion. Rifāʿa b. alMundhir b. Zubayr, ʿAbd Allāh b. Jubayr and Saʿd b. Khaythama said to this group: “Avoid these Jews and beware of close contact and intimacy with them (mubāṭanatahum) so that they do not alienate you from your religion. This group, however, did not allow itself to be dissuaded from being intimate with and having close contact

98

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

with them [the Jews]. God revealed [concerning this group of Muslims]: {Lā yattakhidhi l-muʾminūna l-kāfirīna auliyāʾa min dūni lmuʾminīna (The believers should not take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers)} up to the word: {wa-llāhu ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr (God has power over everything)}” (Q 3: 28–29). 216 Ibn Ḥumayd → Salama → Ibn 217 Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad al-Qurashī, 218 mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās; he said [concerning] His [God’s] word {Lā ikrāha fī l-dīn qad tabayyan al-rushdu mina l-ghayyi (There is no compulsion in religion. Rectitude has become distinct from error)} (Q 2: 256). He said: [This verse] was sent down concerning a man from among the Anṣār, [namely, from] the Banū Sālim b. ʿAwf, whose name was al-Ḥuṣayn. He had two Christian sons whereas he was a Muslim. He asked the Prophet: “Should I not despise them because they prefer Christianity?” God sent down said [verse] with respect to him [this man]. 219 These two stories could be pericopes of Narration 5. The first story fits content-wise with Pericopes 19 and 21. Since the pericopes in Narration 5 are for the most part arranged in the order of the Qurʾān sūras and verses, the first story could have stood in Ibn Isḥāq’s text between Pericopes 13 and 14. The second story, because of the order of the Qurʾān verses, fits between Pericopes 9 and 10. This story too thematizes the problem addressed in the previous story and in Pericopes 19 and 21. 220 It is generally known that Ibn Hishām’s Sīra is a selection out of a more comprehensive historical-biographical work of Ibn Isḥāq. As a rule, however, it is assumed that although he omitted Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 3, p. 228. In the edition erroneously Abū Isḥāq. 218 In the edition: al-Ḥarashī. This is probably an error of transmission or edition. The nisba al-Qurashī is mentioned among others in alṬabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 14, p. 70. 219 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 3, p. 14. 220 Q 2: 256 is also once mentioned in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra but in another context, namely in Muḥammad’s letter to the Jews of Khaybar. As pointed out above, this tradition must also be ascribed to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. See narration 4 on II, pp. 52–53. 216 217

SOURCE ANALYSIS

99

the sections on the history of the world before Muḥammad’s rise and after his death, he nonetheless presents the material on the vita of the Prophet in a form which is complete albeit edited. These two traditions from al-Ṭabarī’s Qurʾān commentary, however, are proof that Ibn Hishām also omitted traditions from Ibn Isḥāq which related to Muḥammad’s vita. Résumé The comparison of al-Ṭabarī’s texts with those of Ibn Hishām and – in one instance – al-ʿUṭāridī, yields the result that the texts are very similar. This is evidence that the traditions were not only transmitted orally, but were also set down in writing. Most of the divergences between the texts of the different versions are typical for the transmission of Arabic texts and books in the classroom, transmission which was originally mainly oral (aural), but gradually assumed the written form. 221 Some of the differences between alṬabarī’s and Ibn Hishām’s texts were nonetheless caused by alṬabarī himself. Since he uses Ibn Isḥāq’s traditions to document the interpretation of individual Qurʾān verses or parts thereof, he doesn’t always quote the traditions in full, or he gives a pericope at another place only partially and presents another part of it in another context. The relatively high resemblance between al-Ṭabarī’s texts and those of Ibn Hishām could lead to the assumption that the traditions are directly dependent on one another, i.e., that, e.g., Yūnus b. Bukayr or Salama b. Faḍl used the work of Ibn Hishām (or his teacher Ziyād al-Bakkāʾī) as source. Against this assumption speak three arguments: 1. In some cases, the differences are so great that we have to assume different paths of transmission. This has been demonstrated through several examples. 2. The fact that Ibn Hishām gives no isnāds for the individual pericopes while Yūnus and Salama indeed do so, and obviously not randomly. For this reason they cannot have had Ibn Hishām’s work as a foundation. 3. See Gregor Schoeler, The Genesis of Literature in Islam. From the Aural to the Read, in collaboration with and translated by Shawkat M. Toorawa, Edinburgh 2009. 221

100

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

The fact that in al-Ṭabarī’s Qurʾān commentary some of Ibn Isḥāq’s traditions from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad are found which very neatly fit with the context of the other traditions but which are not on hand in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra. Examples of this were provided in the previous paragraphs. The great similarity between the texts of Ibn Hishām (from Ziyād al-Bakkāʾī), Yūnus b. Bukayr und Salama b. Faḍl can be best explained by assuming that Ibn Isḥāq is the provenance of all three. He must have used a written template during instruction and, at least in the period when the three aforementioned were studying with him, made it available to his pupils for copying. Ibn Isḥāq’s original edition can for the most part be reconstructed from the variants thereof. 222 This means that the isnāds ending with Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad/mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit/a scholar of Mekka → ʿIkrima/Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās in al-Ṭabarī’s traditions are no artificial constructs linked to the texts in a secondary manner. Schöller’s theory that these isnāds first came into being under Shāfiʿī’s (d. 204/820) influence proves to be untenable since these isnāds were used with certainty already by Yūnus b. Bukayr (d. 199/814–5) and Salama b. Faḍl (d. 191/807) and in all probability trace back to Ibn Isḥāq (d. 151/768) himself.

5. AL-KALBĪ’S VARIANTS

In the analysis of al-Ṭabarī’s transmissions of Pericopes 6 and 7 from Narration 2 we came across a peculiar difference between Abū Kurayb’s versions from Yūnus b. Bukayr and those of Ibn Ḥumayd from Salama b. Faḍl. One author named in his isnād Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as Ibn Isḥāq’s source, the other, however, Muḥammad b. Sāʾib al-Kalbī. Because this is not an isolated incident, we shall in the following introduce and investigate variants of two tradition complexes ascribed to al-Kalbī for which After a comparative study of several parallel transmissions from Ibn Isḥāq, al-Samuk came to he conclusion that an urtext can seldom be reconstructed since the particular versions partially differ one from another considerably (see Al-Samuk, Die historischen Überlieferungen, p. 160). This, however, does not apply to the texts analysed in this study. 222

SOURCE ANALYSIS

101

Ibn Isḥāq invoked Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as his informant. Narration 2 We have seen that this story comprises ten pericopes. 223 Pericope 6 (statements concerning al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith and his behavior with respect to Muḥammad) closes with the following text passage: “God sent down regarding al-Naḍr eight Qurʾān verses, [namely] His word {wa-idhā tutlā ʿalayhi āyātunā qāla asāṭīr al-awwalīn (When Our verses are recited to him, he says: ‘tales of the earlier [generations]’} and all [verses] in which ‘the stories’ (al-asāṭīr) are mentioned in the Qurʾān.” 224 This text belongs, according to al-Ṭabarī’s presentation, to the tradition of Yūnus b. Bukayr with the isnād Ibn Isḥāq → a scholar of the Mekkans 225 → ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. 226 As has been determined above, this “scholar of the Mekkans” is Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. Al-Ṭabarī points out, however, that in Salama’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq this text passage has another isnād, namely, Ibn Isḥāq → al-Kalbī → Abū Ṣāliḥ → Ibn ʿAbbās. Consequently, Ibn Isḥāq would have named as informant for this text passage his contemporary, Muḥammad b. Sāʾib al-Kalbī (d. 146/763). 227 This not only contradicts Abū Kurayb’s tradition from Yūnus b. Bukayr, but also al-ʿUṭāridī’s. The latter separates said text passage about the eight Qurʾān verses sent down with reference to al-Naḍr with the isnād Yūnus → Ibn Isḥāq → rajul min ahl Makka (a Mekkan) → Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās from Pericope 6, and closes without caesura the story about the mission of al-Naḍr and ʿUqba b. Abī Muʿayṭ to the rabbis of Medina, 228 with which we are familiar based on Ibn See above II, pp. 37–40. See above II, p. 39 and 84–85. 225 In al-Ṭabarī’s text we find min ahl Miṣr (the Egyptian) instead of min ahl Makka (the Meccan). This is probably a transmission error. See above II, pp. 44–45 and note 55. 226 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 18, p. 182. 227 See on him W. Atallah, “Al-Kalbī”, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 4, Leiden 1990, pp. 494–496. 228 Ḥamīd Allāh, Sīra, no. 257, p. 182. 223 224

102

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Hishām’s text and have called independent Pericope 7. Al-Ṭabarī’s and al-ʿUṭāridī’s versions from Yūnus thus more or less agree isnādwise. One difference is nonetheless to be noted. Al-Ṭabarī, in his isnāds for Pericopes 6 and 7 names ʿIkrima as transmitter from Ibn ʿAbbās. Al-ʿUṭāridī, on the other hand, names ʿIkrima only in the isnād he cites at the beginning of Narration 2 and which also encompasses Pericope 6. For the text passage about the eight Qurʾān verses revealed concerning al-Naḍr, and for Pericope 7, al-ʿUṭāridī gives Saʿīd b. Jubayr instead of ʿIkrima as the link to Ibn ʿAbbās. Which of the two traditions goes back to Ibn Isḥāq? That of Yūnus b. Bukayr or that of Salama? Did Yūnus perhaps delete the isnād with the name of al-Kalbī, a disputed figure among the religious scholars, and replace it with an isnād suggesting Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as Ibn Isḥāq’s informant? Can a comparison with Ibn Hishām’s version furnish an answer for this question? In Ibn Hishām’s Sīra the passage on the eight Qurʾān verses pertaining to al-Naḍr are also designated as a separate tradition and are equipped with the following isnād: qāla Ibn Isḥāq: wa-kāna Ibn ʿAbbās (r) yaqūl fī mā balaghanī (Ibn Isḥāq said: As I was told, Ibn ʿAbbās was wont to say). The following text concerning the mission of the two Qurashīs to the rabbis in Medina (Pericope 7) is offset therefrom by means of a heading, 229 but doesn’t begin as is usual for Ibn Hishām in Narration 2 with qāla Ibn Isḥāq. 230 In this regard, Ibn Hishām’s version concurs with that of al-ʿUṭāridī. Ibn Hishām’s version, however, does not offer any clarity regarding Ibn Isḥāq’s original isnād. It only notes that the passage on the eight Qurʾān verses pertaining to al-Naḍr are transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās. The transmitters between Ibn Isḥāq and Ibn ʿAbbās remain unnamed. This gap could be filled alike by the names found in Yūnus’ version Presumably the chapter headings are not Ibn Hishām’s but stem from later transmitters of his oeuvre. See Wüstenfeld, Kitāb sīrat rasūl allāh – Das Leben Muhammed’s, vol. 2, xxxix–xl. 230 The absence of qāla Ibn Isḥāq before a pericope can be variously interpreted. In the case of story 1 we have discerned that the absence is probable due to a negligence of Ibn Hishām or a later key transmitter (see above II, p. 24). Otherwise may the absence of qāla Ibn Isḥāq imply that the preceding isnād continues in force (see above II, p. 42). 229

SOURCE ANALYSIS

103

and the names transmitted by Salama. Because names from transmitters in al-ʿUṭāridī’s and al-Ṭabarī’s traditions from Yūnus b. Bukayr as well as al-Ṭabarī’s version from Salama b. Faḍl are invoked, it can be presumed that Ibn Hishām is responsible for their absence. At any rate, this fits with his method of operation when he drafted his abbreviated, cleansed and commentated version of Ibn Isḥāq’s traditions of the vita of Muḥammad. The question of whether Ibn Isḥāq gave Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad or Muḥammad al-Kalbī as source for the tradition on the eight Qurʾān verses pertaining to al-Naḍr thus remains unanswered. It is possible that the different data from Ibn Isḥāq’s pupils are traceable to their teacher who once named Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as the informant and another time Muḥammad alKalbī. The version of a source that arose two centuries after alṬabarī, Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad al-Iṣbahānī’s (d. 535/1140–1) Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa, could suggest such a conjecture. Al-Iṣbahānī quotes not only the passage on the eight Qurʾān verses with the isnād Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → al-Kalbī → Abū Ṣāliḥ → Ibn ʿAbbās, but also the story following it about the mission of al-Naḍr and ʿUqba b. Abī Muʿayṭ to the rabbis of Medina. He unfortunately does not indicate the source from which he cites. Apart from some contractions, the text concurs for the most part with that of Ibn Hishām who, however, diverges only in some details from al-ʿUṭāridī’s and al-Ṭabarī’s tradition from Abū Kurayb. 231 The second part of Pericope 7 begins in al-Iṣbahānī’s Dalāʾil with a new isnād: Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → Saʿīd b. Jubayr aw ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. The text resembles rather al-ʿUṭāridī’s version than that of Ibn Hishām, here, too, apart from some contractions. The end of Pericope 7 and the beginning of Pericope 8 are again more similar to Ibn Hishām’s text, apart from major contractions. The source of al-Iṣbahānī’s version could theoretically be Salama b. Faḍl’s tradition from Ibn Isḥāq, since the isnād component “al-Kalbī → Abū Ṣāliḥ” is present there as well. Of Salama’s Al-Iṣbahānī, Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa, al-Riyāḍ 1409/1988–89, I, pp. 216–17, no. 299, 300. As to al-Ṭabarī’s version from Abū Kurayb → Yūnus, see above II, pp. 84–86. 231

104

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

tradition, however, we know that only the text passage on the eight Qurʾān verses was furnished with the isnād Ibn Isḥāq → al-Kalbī etc., not the text of Pericopes 7 and 8. That is to be concluded from al-Ṭabarī’s transmissions of these pericopes. Although he only gives them from Abū Kurayb via Yūnus with the isnād Ibn Isḥāq → rajul min ahl Makka (a Mekkan) → Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās, and thereby, like al-ʿUṭāridī, attributes them to the author of the whole of Narration 2, he doesn’t mention that Salama’s tradition had another isnād. This speaks against the assumption that Salama is al-Iṣbahānī’s reference. The former could theoretically have them from another of the many pupils of Ibn Isḥāq, but a textual indication suggests rather that al-Iṣbahānī’s version is correct. He inserts the isnād Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → Saʿīd b. Jubayr aw ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās in the text of Pericope 7 at another place which content-wise is not an authentic caesura and where neither Ibn Hishām nor Yūnus b. Bukayr interrupt the text. It is thus to be presumed, at the outside, that Ibn Isḥāq named Muḥammad al-Kalbī as informant for the short text passage on the eight Qurʾān verses. This does not mean that Ibn Isḥāq did not also adopt long traditions from or ascribed to Muḥammad al-Kalbī. Al-Ṭabarī cites in his Qurʾān commentary a long account of a discussion between the Prophet and two rabbis from Medina, Abū Yāsir b. Akhṭāb and his brother Ḥuyayy. He leads this account in with the isnād Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd → Salama b. Faḍl → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → al-Kalbī → Abū Ṣāliḥ → Ibn ʿAbbās → Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Rabāb. 232 It is also found in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, but with an abbreviated isnād: fī-mā dhukira lī ʿan ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās wa-Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Riʾāb (as reported to me from ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās and Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, vol. 1, pp. 92–93. According to the version of Ibn Hishām (see the next note) the name “Rabāb” must probably corrected to “Riʾāb” (see also Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, Beirut 1401/1980–1, vol. 1, p. 39) and instead of ʿan Jābir (also in Ibn Kathīr’s Tafsīr) we must read wa(ʿan) Jābir. For Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Riʾāb see, Ibn Ḥajar, Al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, Beirut n.d. (reprint of the edition Calcutta 1853), no. 1021, p. 222. 232

SOURCE ANALYSIS

105

Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Riʾāb). 233 Here too, Ibn Hishām has likely deleted the names al-Kalbī and Abū Ṣāliḥ. Al-Kalbī’s isnād also appears twice in al-Ṭabarī’s big historical work Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa-lmulūk associated with traditions of the vita of the Prophet. 234 Al-Iṣbahānī’s erroneous connection of Ibn Isḥāq’s pericopes on the mission of al-Naḍr and ʿUqba b. Abī Muʿayṭ to the rabbis of Medina with Muḥammad al-Kalbī, might yet have another reason. There are also indications that an account of this “event” was also circulating under al-Kalbī’s name. Muḥammad b. Saʿd (d. 230/845) in his biographical work al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā quotes a tradition on this mission with the isnād: ʿAlī b. Muḥammad → Abū ʿAlī al-ʿAbdī → Muḥammad b. al-Sāʾib [al-Kalbī] → Abū Ṣāliḥ → Ibn ʿAbbās. 235 The text is: The Quraysh sent al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith b. ʿAlqama, ʿUqba b. Abī Muʿayṭ and others to the Jews of Yathrib. They said to them: “Question them about Muḥammad.” They came to Medina and said: “We have come to you because of something that has occurred among us. A young man (ghulām), a pathetic orphan of ours, speaks outrageous things and alleges to be the messenger from al-Raḥmān (the Merciful). We do not know alRaḥmān, only the Raḥmān of the Yamāma.” 236 They [the Jews] said: “Describe to us his mannerism (ṣifa).” They gave them a description. They [the Jews] asked: “Who among you follows him?” They answered: “The common folk among us (siflatunā).” Thereupon one of their rabbis laughed and said: “This is the Prophet whose description (naʿtahu) we [in the To-

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 377; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 545; Tadmurī: vol. 2, p. 187; Guillaume: p. 256. 234 Al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh al-umam wa-l-mulūk, Beirut 1407/1986–7, vol. 1, pp. 566–567 and vol. 2, pp. 41–42. 235 Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās, Beirut n.d., vol. 1, p. 165. 236 This is probably a reference to Musaylima who appeared as prophet in the Yamāma region claiming to be sent by al-Raḥmān (the gracious [God]). See for this figure W. Montgomery Watt, “Musaylima”, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 7, Leiden 1993, pp. 664–665. 233

106

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS rah?] find and whose folk we find [described as?] hostile to him.

This text tells of the same event but diverges very sharply from the account transmitted by Ibn Hishām and Yūnus b. Bukayr from Ibn Ishāq. According to al-Kalbī’s version, not only al-Naḍr and ʿUqba were sent to the Jews, other unnamed persons were sent as well. The dialogue between them and the Jews has another content, and also the answer the Quraysh delegation gets from a rabbi is entirely different. The element of Raḥmān al-Yamāma is indeed also found in Ibn Isḥāq’s tradition from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, but in an entirely different context, in Pericope 2 of Narration 2, not in Pericope 8. 237 Ibn Saʿd’s account is much shorter than Ibn Isḥāq’s, so short that the text at the end is difficult to understand. This gives rise to the assumption that Ibn Saʿd’s version is an abridged rendering of an originally longer text. A tradition which Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505–6) quotes from Abū Nuʿaym’s Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa confirms this. 238 Abū Nuʿaym names al-Suddī al-Saghīr (d. 127/745), a scholar of Kufa known as a Qurʾān exegete and transmitter, 239 as source for the following tradition from al-Kalbī: Al-Kalbī → Abū Ṣāliḥ → Ibn ʿAbbās, who said: The Quraysh sent a delegation of five persons (khamsat rahṭ, sic!), among them ʿUqba b. Abī l-Muʿayṭ and al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith, [commissioned] to Medina to question the Jews about the Messenger of God (ṣ). They described his mannerism (ṣifa) to them [the Jews]. They [the Jews] then said to them: “We find his description (naʿtahu), his mannerism (ṣifa) and his message (mabʿath) in the Thora. If he is so as you described him, then

Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, p. 189; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, p. 297; Tadmurī: vol. 1, p. 326; Guillaume: p. 134. 238 Al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, Beirut n.d., vol. 4, p. 210. A paraphrase of it is also found in al-Suyūṭī, Kifāyat al-ṭālib al-labīb fī khaṣāʾiṣ al-ḥabīb [al-Khaṣāʾiṣ al-kubrā] Beirut 1985, vol. 1, p. 239. However, in the edition of Abū Nuʿaym’s Dalāʾil that is available to me I could not find the text. 239 For this scholar see G.H.A. Juynboll, “Al-Suddī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 9, fasc. 159–160, Leiden 1997, p. 762. 237

SOURCE ANALYSIS he is a bona fide Prophet and his claim (amruhu) is true. So follow him! But ask him about three things (khiṣāl). He will inform you about two things, but not about the third if he is a Prophet. We indeed questioned Musaylima, the liar, about these three things: he did not know them.” The delegation returned to the Quraysh with this information from the Jews. They came to the Messenger of God and said: “O Muḥammad, give us information about the two-horned one (dhū l-qarnayn) who reached the east and the west. Give us also information about the spirit (al-rūḥ) and about the companions of the cave (aṣḥāb al-kahf).” He answered: “I will inform you thereof tomorrow,” but he did not say “God willing.” [God] thereupon let Jibrīl [Gabriel] delay for 15 days, and he did not come to him [Muḥammad] for having omitted the proviso [formula] (alistithnāʾ). That troubled the Messenger of God. Then Jibrīl brought him [the answers to] that which they had questioned him. Thereupon he [Muḥammad] said: “O Jibrīl, you have had me wait [quite some] time!” He replied: “Because you left out the proviso [formula] and did not say “God willing.” You should never say of anything, “I shall do it tomorrow,” without saying, “God willing.” [Jibrīl] then provided the information on the story (khabar) of the two-horned one, the account of the spirit and the companions of the cave. He [Muḥammad] then sent for the Quraysh, and they came. He informed them of the story (ḥadīth) of the two-horned one and said to them: “As to who the spirit is, my Lord has ordered me to say: That belongs to the knowledge of my Lord, not to my knowledge.” When the statement of the Jews, that he would not give them information about the third thing [were he indeed a prophet] concurred fit [with Muḥammad’s answer] [wāfaqa], they [the Quraysh] said: “Two sorcerers have helped one another” – they meant the Thora and the Furqān 240 – and they also said: “We do not believe any of it.” In conclusion he narrated to them the story of the companions of the cave.

240

A synonym for the Qurʾān.

107

108

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Ibn Hishām’s version of the story, for whom Ibn Isḥāq, as demonstrated above, named Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, the mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit, as his informant, diverges considerably therefrom: When al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith said that to him, 241 they sent him and ʿUqba b. Abī Muʿayṭ to the Jewish rabbis in Medina and said to them, ‘Ask them about Muḥammad; describe him to them and tell them what he says, for they are the first people of the scriptures and have knowledge which we do not possess about the prophets.’ They carried out their instructions, and said to the rabbis, ‘You are the people of the Tawrāt (Torah), and we have come to you so that you can tell us how to deal with this tribesman of ours.’ The rabbis said, ‘Ask him about three things of which we will instruct you; if he gives you the right answer then he is an authentic prophet, but if he does not, he the man is a rogue, so form your own opinion about him. Ask him what happened to the young men who disappeared in ancient days, for they have a marvellous story. Ask him about the mighty traveller who reached the confines of both East and West. Ask him what the spirit is. If he can give you the answer, then follow him, for he is a prophet. If he cannot, then he is a forger and treat him as you will.’ Al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith and ʿUqba b. Abī Muʿayṭ b. Abī ʿAmr b. Umayya b. ʿAbd Shams b. ʿAbd Manāf b. Qusayy returned to Quraysh at Mecca and told them that they had a decisive way of dealing with Muhammad. ‘The rabbis of the Jews suggested us to ask him things they ordered us [to ask]. If he answers you on them, then he is a prophet, if he does not, then he is a forger. Then make your own idea on him. They came to the apostle and said: O Muhammad, tell us about young men who disappeared in ancient days, for they have a marvelous story, and about a mighty traveler who reached the confines of both East and West, and tell us what the spirit is. The messenger of God said to them, ‘I will give you your answer tomorrow,’ but he did not say, ‘if God will.’ So they went away; and the apostle, so they say, waited for fif241

This relates to the content of the preceding pericope 7.

SOURCE ANALYSIS

109

teen days without a revelation from God on the matter nor did Gabriel come to him, so that the people of Mecca began to spread evil reports, saying, ‘Muḥammad promised us an answer on the morrow, and today is the fifteenth day we have remained without an answer.’ This delay caused the apostle great sorrow, until Gabriel brought him the Chapter of The Cave, in which he reproaches him for his sadness, and told him the answers of their questions, the youths, the mighty traveler and the spirit. 242

A comparison of the two traditions from al-Kalbī with Ibn Isḥāq’s text from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad makes it clear that all three texts report on the same event and also have some mutual similarities: the Quraysh dispatch a delegation to the Jews of Medina in order to question them about Muḥammad and describe to them his rise as apostle of God; members of this delegation were al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith and ʿUqba b. Abī l-Muʿayṭ. The content of the discussion between the Quraysh delegates and the Jews diverges sharply in the three versions, yet common elements can be discerned in the two texts ascribed to al-Kalbī, namely, the reference to the Raḥmān of the Yamāma/Musaylima and that they find the description of Muḥammad’s bearing in the Thora. The longer alKalbī text and Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s version, in contrast, concur in the main points of the advice given the Quraysh by the Jews. The three questions the Quraysh are to pose to Muḥammad are the same, only the order is different. 243 Both texts do, however, differ in the details. Only the longer al-Kalbī version says that Muḥammad must answer only two of the questions to distinguish himself as an authentic prophet. Both of the long texts also agree that Muḥammad promises to give his answers on the following day and that Gabriel lets him wait 15 days for the soluIbn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld: vol. 1/1, pp. 192–193; al-Saqqā: vol. 1, pp. 300–302; Tadmurī: vol. 1, pp. 328–330; Guillaume: pp. 136– 137. After the insertion of a short anonymous tradition about Muḥammad’s conversation with Gabriel, a detailed presentation and comment of sūra 18 follows. 243 The short text of al-Kalbī does not have these elements. 242

110

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

tion. Al-Kalbī’s text in turn is more detailed and also gives the reason for this delay. This is only inferred by Ibn Isḥāq. While both texts then report that Muḥammad questions Gabriel as to the reason for the delay, Ibn Isḥāq has this in a separate tradition. The answer, however, is different in both texts. In al-Kalbī’s text the explicit reference to the Sūra “The Cave” is missing, as is the Qurʾān verse concerning the spirit which is present in Ibn Isḥāq’s version. With al-Kalbī these asbāb al-nuzūl (reasons of revelation) are contained only implicitly in the text, whereas with Ibn Isḥāq they are set forth in detail. In al-Kalbī’s version, in turn, the reaction of the Quraysh to Muḥammad’s answers is included, while there is no talk of this in Ibn Isḥāq’s text. Viewed from a tradition-historical perspective, this text comparison suggests that the three texts are not mutually interdependent, e.g., that the texts ascribed to al-Kalbī are not the basis of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s version and vice versa. They are too different from one another to be so. How then are their conspicuous commonalities to be explained? It is best to presume that they trace back to a common source, a narrative that was circulating at the close of the 1st century and shaped individually by Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad and al-Kalbī. 244 The commonalities between the two texts attributed to al-Kalbī can be traced with some certainty back to al-Kalbī. A comparison of the quantity and quality of similarities and differences of these three texts transmitted by pupils of al-Kalbī and Ibn Isḥāq with those of the traditions from the following generation of pupils, i.e., Ibn Hishām’s, alʿUṭāridī’s, Abū Kurayb’s, Ibn Ḥumayd’s and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Another evidence for it is a version of the story which al-Suyūṭī in al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 4, p. 317 quotes from a work of Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318/930), a contemporary of al-Ṭabarī. This version, however, differs widely in the details. Ibn al-Mundhir who lived at Mecca ascribed this story to the Meccan scholar of the Qurʾān, Mujāhid (d. 104/722), a contemporary of ʿIkrima and Saʿīd b. Jubayr and like the latter a pupil of Ibn ʿAbbās. This story was probably introduced with an isnād that al-Suyūṭī dropped. For Ibn al-Mundhir and Mujāhid see Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, vol. 1, Leiden 1967, p. 495 f. and 29. 244

SOURCE ANALYSIS

111

b. Ayyūb’s, 245 shows that the texts of Ibn Isḥāq’s pupils exhibit many more mutual similarities. This is likely not to stem from the pupils having copied from each other and left this out of the isnād, but rather from the incidence that in the generation of Ibn Isḥāq’s pupils, the writing-down of texts transmitted aurally was much more prominent than in the previous generation. This is also discernable in other genres of Islamic literature. 246 Narration 1 Suyūṭī quotes in his oeuvre Kifāyat al-ṭālib al-labīb fī khaṣāʾiṣ al-ḥabīb from a work of Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣbahānī (d. 430/1038–9) the following tradition: 247 al-Suddī al-Saghīr → al-Kalbī → Abū Ṣāliḥ → Ibn ʿAbbās: AlWalīd said to his fellow tribesmen (qawmihi): “The people will soon (ghadan) gather themselves for the festival (mawsim) [of the ḥajj] and the news about this man will spread among the folk. And they will soon be asking you about him. What will you then reply to them?“ They said: “We will say [he is] one possessed (majnūn), who is being strangled [i.e. dominated] (mukhtaniq) [by a spirit].” He [al-Walīd] countered: “They will come to him and speak with him. They will then see that he is eloquent and reasonable, and will accuse you of lying.” They replied: “Then we will say [he is] a poet (shāʿir).” He [al-Walīd] said: “You are Arabs who impart poetry. His [Muḥammad’s] talk is no poetic recital (nashīd al-shiʿr). So again, they will accuse you of lying.” They replied: “Then we will say [he is] a soothsayer (kāhin) giving us news of what is to come in the near future (fī ghad).” He countered: “They have come across

245

p. 31.

Transmitter of Ibn Isḥāq’s student Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd, see above II,

See Motzki, “The Jurisprudence of Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī”, pp. 24– 44 and Schoeler, The Genesis, passim. 247 Suyūṭī, Kifāyat al-ṭālib, vol. 1, pp. 189–190. The text probably stems from Abū Nuʿayms Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa. It is however not found in the available edition of the work. 246

112

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS soothsayers. When they hear him speak, they will see that it is not the same as soothsaying, and they will call you liars.”

This text has clear commonalities with Ibn Isḥāq’s tradition from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. 248 We are familiarized with the central figures of the account, al-Walīd and his unnamed fellow tribesmen (Quraysh) and the time of the incident, shortly before the ḥajj festival (al-mawsim). Three of the suggestions from Ibn Isḥāq’s text on how Muḥammad might be explained to the Arabs coming to the festival in Mekka – possessed, poet and soothsayer – are also noted in al-Kalbī’s text, though in another order; Ibn Isḥāq has soothsayer, possessed and poet. His fourth attribute, sorcerer, is missing in al-Kalbī’s tradition. The structure of both texts is similar. The Quraysh make suggestions which are rejected by al-Walīd as inapplicable. The wording of al-Walīd’s counters are mostly different. Missing in al-Kalbī’s text is the solution of the problem, alWalīd’s own recommendation as to what they should tell the visitors; also missing is the execution of this recommendation and the Qurʾān verses which were revealed pertaining to this incident. Another parallel text to Ibn Isḥaq’s version of Narration 1 ascribed to al-Kalbī is found in Zād al-masīr fī l-ʿilm al-tafsīr, written by the famous Ḥanbalī scholar ʿAbd Raḥmān ibn ʿAlī known as Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1200): 249 Ibn al-Sāʾib said: They are a group of the people of Mecca. They spread out (iqtasamū) on the passes of Mecca when the time of the ḥajj festival (mawsim) had come. al-Walīd ibn alMughīra said to them. “Start out and spread out (tafarraqū) on the passes of Mecca where the visitors of the festival will pass you. When they ask you about him, i.e., the messenger of God, then some of you must say: ‘a soothsayer,’ some of you: ‘a sorcerer,’ some of you: ‘a poet,’ and some of you: ‘a seducer (ghāwin).’ And when they come to me, then I declare you to be

See above II, pp. 21–23. Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr fī ʿilm al-tafsīr, ed. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd Allāh, Beirut 1407/1986–7, vol. 4, p. 305. This text is also quoted and discussed in Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions, pp. 278– 281. 248 249

SOURCE ANALYSIS

113

trustworthy!” To them [this group] belonged: Ḥanẓala ibn Abī Sufyān, ʿUtba and Shayba, the sons of Rabīʿa, al-Walīd ibn alMughīra, Abū Jahl, al-ʿĀṣ ibn Hishām, Abū Qays ibn al-Walīd, Qays ibn al-Fākih, Zuhayr ibn Abī Umayyah, Hilāl ibn ʿAbd alAswad, al-Sāʾib ibn Ṣayfī, al-Naḍr ibn al-Ḥārith, Abū Bakhtarī ibn Hishām, Zamaʿa ibn al-Ḥajjāj, Umayya ibn Khalaf, and Aws ibn al-Mughīra.

Ibn al-Jawzī does not name the source from which he cites this tradition. He quotes al-Kalbī alongside many other mufassirūn: Muqātil, Ibn al-Anbarī, al-Farrāʾ, ʿAwfī ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Ḥasan (al-Baṣrī), Mujāhid, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿIkrima, Qatāda, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd, al-Kisāʾī, Abū ʿUbayda and Ibn Jurayj ʿan Mujāhid. As far as we can see, Ibn al-Jawzī’s quotations of their exegetical opinions are in agreement with what is preserved of their exegesis by earlier authors like al-Ṭabarī or in the transmissions of the works ascribed to them, like the works of Muqātil, Abū ʿUbayda, al-Farrāʾ and al-Kisāʾī. Hence we can assume that Ibn alJawzī also quotes al-Kalbī from a work known to him as transmitting the latter’s exegesis. This text fills a part of the gap we ascertained in the comparison of the first text from al-Kalbī with Ibn Isḥāq’s version of the narration. He describes the activity of the Quraysh to give the festival visitors a bad picture of Muḥammad. He concurs with Ibn Isḥāq’s version with regard to the Quraysh posting themselves at the passes leading to Mekka. However, he diverges from this version in the explanation the Quraysh give to the visitors. With Ibn Isḥāq it is merely one attribute, sorcerer (sāḥir), that is agreed to as suggested by al-Walīd, the description which is missing in the previous text from al-Kalbī. According to the second al-Kalbī text, the Quraysh proffer diverse explanations, 250 something that al-Walīd in There is a parallel of it. Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767) presents in his commentary of sūra 15, vers 95 a version of the story which has similarities with the versions of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad and al-Kalbī. All three versions probably derive from the same source. See the translation and analysis of the texts in Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions, pp. 274–276. 250

114

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Ibn Isḥāq’s version is bent on avoiding. Also appearing here instead of “possessed” (majnūn) is the predicate “seducer” (ghāwin). Furthermore, in al-Kalbī’s text there are more names of persons of the Quraysh who participate in the activity. As in the first text of al-Kalbī, the Qurʾān verses relating to this incident are missing in the second one as well. The reason for this could be that al-Kalbī’s accounts were perhaps part of a Qurʾān commentary, and certain verses were added. It is, however, strange that both of al-Kalbī’s texts are contradictory, because in Ibn al-Jawzī’s version the Quraysh use the predicates for Muḥammad which al-Walīd in alSuddī’s tradition rejects as counterproductive. If both texts stem one way or another similarly from al-Kalbī, then one must assume that according to his version of the story the Quraysh were unable to agree on a predicate for Muḥammad. It must then have originally stood at the end of the first text of al-Kalbī. The comparison of al-Kalbī’s and Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s versions of Narration 1 leads to the same results as with Pericope 8 of Narration 2. Al-Kalbī’s texts have the structure and some elements in common with Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s edition. On the other hand, however, they diverge too sharply to be directly dependent on each other. Their commonalities can be explained by an older source upon which both versions depend. The differences will have been caused by the two “authors.” Al-Kalbī and Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad are scholars of the same type. Both explain Qurʾān verses by drawing on accounts of or reference to the life of Muḥammad. 251 Marco Schöller has argued that some traditions ascribed to alKalbī (and via him to Ibn ʿAbbās) were “incorporated into the Tafsīr of al-Ṭabarī” with the isnād Salama/Ibn Bukayr → Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad ibn Abī Muḥammad → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd ibn Jubayr

Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad belongs to the generation that precedes that of Muḥammad al-Kalbī (see above II, pp. 48–49). Muqātil, a contemporary of al-Kalbī and Ibn Isḥāq, is also a representative of this type of exegesis. 251

SOURCE ANALYSIS

115

→ Ibn ʿAbbās. 252 Schöller apparently intends to argue that this isnād is fictitiously related to the traditions and may have been chosen to hide material derived from al-Kalbī. According to Schöller’s argument, the texts of al-Kalbī and Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad must be (almost) identical. In the preceding paragraphs we have mutually compared thematically similar traditions ascribed to alKalbī and Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad and determined that although the texts exhibit commonalities they are nonetheless clearly different. Schöller’s argument accordingly does not apply. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad is not a fictive isnād label, but rather one of Ibn Isḥāq’s real sources.

6. MUḤAMMAD B. ABĪ MUḤAMMAD’S SOURCES

By finding out that Ibn Isḥāq had sources, one of which is Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, the distance between events during the lifetime of the Prophet and later reports thereof has again shrunk by a generation. The time of the events lay only some two generations distant from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, al-Zuhrī or Hishām b. ʿUrwa. This also finds expression in Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s isnād. He does not pretend to have received his information directly from the generation of younger Companions of the Prophet, who could themselves have witnessed or acquired through hearsay something of the life of the Prophet. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad names as his sources of information persons who, although about as old as himself, 253 are considered pupils of a younger Prophet Companion, namely, Ibn ʿAbbās. Are these data credible? Are Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima really Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s informants for these stories? Unlike the case of the tradition Ibn Isḥāq traces via al-Zuhrī and/or Marco Schöller, “Sīra and Tafsīr: Muḥammad al-Kalbī on the Jews of Medina,” in: Harald Motzki (ed.), The Biography of Muḥammad: The Issue of the Sources, Leiden 2000, p. 22, note 15. 253 According to the biographical tradition, Saʿīd b. Jubayr died in the year 94 or 95 at an age of 49 or 57; see Harald Motzki, “Saʿīd b. Djubayr”, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, Supplement vol. p. 697; ʿIkrima died between 105 and 108 at an age of 80 lunar years; see alMizzī, Tahdhīb, vol. 5, p. 216. 252

116

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Hishām b. ʿUrwa to ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr, this question can no longer be answered with methodical certainty. No traditions of Saʿīd b. Jubayr and ʿIkrima from other alleged pupils of theirs are known that exhibit substantial stylistic and textual concurrences with the texts of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. It is nevertheless not to be completely excluded that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s texts and isnāds contain a grain of older wisdom. There are at least some indications that his texts contain elements which in other traditions are likewise traced to Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima. The isnād ʿan Saʿīd b. Jubayr aw ʿan ʿIkrima (from Saʿīd b. Jubayr or from ʿIkrima) could thus also imply that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad used testimonies from both persons (or elements thereof) for composing his narrations. This possibility is illustrated in the following by means of an example. Indication 1 Narration 1 of our study associates Q 74: 11–25 with al-Walīd b. alMughīra. However, it is primarily verses 24–25 that bear directly on the account. The two verses read: “He said: ‘This is nothing but ancient 254 sorcery; this is nothing but the speech of a mortal’.” That fits with the climax of the account in which al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra advises the Quraysh to characterize the Prophet as a sorcerer. This connection between said Qurʾān verses and al-Walīd is not only found in Ibn Isḥāq’s account traced to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. There is yet another account that establishes such a connection. It is found in ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī’s Tafsīr and several later sources. 255 ʿAbd al-Razzāq (d. 211/826–7) gives the following isnād: Maʿmar b. Rāshid → rajul (someone) → ʿIkrima. In the tradition of Ibn Rāhwayh from ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Ayyūb alSakhtiyānī stands instead of the anonymous person between Maʿmar and ʿIkrima, and the isnād has been extended back to Ibn Literally: transmitted ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿajī, Beirut, 1411/1991, vol. 2, p. 263 (in note 2, the editor gives some other sources in which this tradition is found). 254 255

SOURCE ANALYSIS

117

ʿAbbās. 256 Since Maʿmar was one of ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s prominent sources, 257 it can be assumed that ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s ascription of the story to Maʿmar is correct. The account from Maʿmar (d. 153/770), a contemporary of Ibn Isḥāq, portrays a completely different situation as the reason for the “sending-down” of Q 74: 11– 25. Al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra is again the focus, but here it is Abū Jahl, another of Muḥammad’s influential opponents, who discourages al-Walīd to be impressed by the proclamations of the Prophet and advises him to resist Muḥammad’s influence. Abū Jahl gets alWalīd to once more reconsider his positive attitude with respect to Muḥammad and al-Walīd again comes to the realization that the Qurʾān verses are “sorcery” transmitted to Muḥammad from someone else, an informant. Although Maʿmar’s narration is a complete other one than Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s, there are some other agreements between the two texts that are noticeable besides the same Qurʾān verses. Al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra initially expresses himself in both narrations positively regarding Muḥammad and his proclamations. He says in Maʿmar’s account that he himself is well versed in poetry and for this reason cannot brand Muḥammad a poet. Muḥammad’s words are sweet, yet he has charm, his “upper part” is fruitful and his “lower part” well watered. Similar formulations are found in Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s account: Ibn Hishām: Mā huwa bi-shāʿir, la-qad ʿarafnā al-shiʿr kullahu, rajzahu wa-hazajahu wa-qarīḍahu wa-maqbūḍahu wa-mabsūṭahu fa-mā huwa bi-l-shiʿr… Wa-llāhi inna li-qawlihi l-ḥalāwa wa-inna aṣlahu la-adhaq wa-inna farʿahu la-janāh (No, he is no poet, for we know poetry in all its forms and metres, the rajaz, hazaj, qarīḍ, maqbūḍ and mabsūṭ; it [Muḥammad’s utterings] is not poetry… By God, his speech is sweet, his root is a palm-tree whose branches are fruitful). ʿAbd al-Razzāq: Fa-wa-llāhi mā minkum rajul aʿlamu bi-l-ashʿār minnī wa-lā aʿlamu bi-rajazihi wa-lā bi-qaṣīdihi wa-lā bi-ashʿār al-jinn minnī, fa-wa-llāhi mā yashbahu lladhī yaqūlu shayʾan min hādhā. Wa-llāhi See Bayhaqī, Dalāʾil, vol. 2, p. 198. That looks like a later improvement of the isnād. 257 See Motzki, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence, pp. 58–62; id., “The Jurisprudence of Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī”, pp. 4–11 and passim. 256

118

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

inna li-qawlihi alladhī yaqūlu la-ḥalāwa wa-inna ʿalayhi la-ṭulāwa wainnahu la-muthmir aʿlāhu, mughdiq asfaluhu (By God, nobody among you is more learned in poetry than I am, nobody knows the Rajaz, Qaṣīd and the poems of the Jinn better than I do; by God, what he [Muḥammad] says does not resemble these things. By God, his speech that he pronounces is sweet and elegant, his branches 258 are fruitful and his root 259 is well watered) 260. The words in boldface show the literal concurrences. The rest has the same textual tenor. It can be no coincidence that two completely different accounts exhibit such conspicuous commonalities. They cannot be explained through direct mutual dependence of the two accounts. The two text passages are too different for this. It is, however, quite possible that the similar passages of both narrations trace back to a common source. That could be ʿIkrima, the first common transmitter that appears in the isnāds of both accounts. 261 Indication 2 In Narration 1 on the consultation of Quraysh notables with alWalīd b. al-Mughīra, Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad asserts that the activity of the Quraysh about which he is reporting was the occasion for the “sending down” of verses 90–93 of Sūrat al-Ḥijr (Q 15). These verses read: “So We sent it down to the partitioners Literally: high range. Literally: low range. 260 “Lower and upper sector” is meant figuratively and corresponds the expressions aṣl (root) und farʿ (branching) in story 1. This image probably refers to Muḥammad’s genealogy. 261 In al-ʿUṭāridī’s transmission Ibn Isḥāq’s story has the isnād: Yūnus b. Bukayr → Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. Maʿmars story has the isnād: Maʿmar → anonymous/ Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī → ʿIkrima. The statement of al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra is found as a separate tradition with another isnād and with slight textual divergences in Abū Nuʿaym, Dalāʾil, 188. Here it has the isnād: My father and Abū Muḥammad b. Ḥayyān → ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿImrān → Muḥammad b. Abī ʿUmar → Sufyān b. ʿAmr → ʿIkrima. Concerning Muḥammad b. Abī ʿUmar und ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. ʿImrān see Mizzī, Tahdhīb, vol. 6, p. 559. 258 259

SOURCE ANALYSIS

119

(muqtasimīn) (90), who have broken the Qurʾān into fragments (ʿiḍīn) (91). Now by thy Lord, We shall surely question them all together (92), concerning that they were doing. (93).” {trans. Arberry} A relationship between these verses and the incidents portrayed in the narrations is not obvious. One would not think that they have anything to do with each other. In early Qurʾān exegeses, however, just such a relationship is assumed for these verses. According to traditions of the explanations of early exegetes, some of them identify “the partitioners (muqtasimīn) who have broken the Koran into fragments (ʿiḍīn)” as the Quraysh who dismissed the Qurʾān as poetry (shiʿr) or sorcery (siḥr). An advocate of this interpretation was apparently ʿIkrima. To him is ascribed the view that the word ʿiḍīn means “sorcery,” 262 not “pieces,” as other exegetes think. Is it a coincidence that ʿIkrima is one of the two informants given by Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as possible a source for his account? His name in the isnād could be an indication that elements from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s account indeed trace back to ʿIkrima. The conclusion derived from both pieces of evidence is only an educated guess. Although it is supported by isnād and matn of the traditions, it can nevertheless not provide the certainty of an isnād-cum-matn analysis supported by numerous tradition variants with partial common links in the isnād. The possibilities of historical-critical source analysis have thereby been exhausted. The question as to whether in the end Ibn ʿAbbās was the source of elements possibly originating with ʿIkrima, or whether this was simply assumed by Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad in good faith, cannot be answered with the available methods of secular Islamic Studies. 263 In the Traditions of ʿIkrima’s exegesis of ʿiḍīn, his view is not traced back to Ibn ʿAbbās, see Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis”, pp. 257–258. 263 The Muslim scholars assume it, however. An example: Ibn Sayyid al-Nās (d. 734/1333–4), ʿUyūn al-athar fī funūn al-maghāzī wa-l-shamāʾil wa-lsiyar, Beirut 1406/1986, vol. 1, pp. 141–143 introduces a shortened paraphrase of story 2 as follows: It has been transmitted to us from Ibn ʿAbbās via Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (ruwiyanā ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās min ṭarīq Muḥammad b. Isḥāq). 262

III. MUḤAMMAD B. ABĪ MUḤAMMAD:

A SOURCE FOR THE HISTORICAL VITA OF THE PROPHET?

Let us return to the problem on which our study is based: Are the existing Islamic sources useable for a historical reconstruction of the life of the prophet Muḥammad? A historical biography of Muḥammad is entitled to not have to mirror the image sketched by Muslim scholars in the course of centuries in their historical view of the beginnings their religion, an image concerning which, one suspects, portrays the life of the Prophet in the light of later historical developments and glorifies it in religious-theological terms. It is rather expected of a historical biography that it penetrate the political and kerygmatic glorification and restrict itself to the underlying facts as basis of the portrayal. 1 Not only in Islamic Studies is it in many cases a matter of dispute whether and to what extent this is at all possible. When the possibility of a historical biography is taken into consideration, the question arises as to which sources are best suited for this purpose. In Historical Studies the rule holds that sources chronologically and spatially closest to the events about which they are reporting deserve preference over later sources. This does not mean that later sources are worthless and must be excluded from investigations. The rule merely establishes a provisional heuristic priority. Later sources can draw from even older sources that have been lost, and thereby become of value. As described in the first chapter, historians dealing with early Islam have, for the most part, only relatively late sources at their disposal. To come to terms with them and arrive at relevant histor1

Nagel, Mohammed, Leben und Legende, p. 842.

121

122

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

ical information on events two centuries or more earlier is risky. Is Tradition to be separated from distorted and fictitious accounts? One way out of this dilemma is provided by the source reconstruction method. It attempts to identify older sources and date them in order to thereby edge closer to the events. When successful, the possibility presents itself to compare traditions from older sources with those of younger sources. This in turn enables research to arrive at a picture of the developments and changes to which reports on the early period of Islam have been subjected in the passing of time. The source reconstruction method has been implemented in Islamic Studies already for quite some time, but all of its possibilities have yet to be employed with consequence. For instance, it has long been recognized that Ibn Hishām’s Sīra is a reworking of older material stemming two generations earlier from Ibn Isḥāq. A systematic implementation of this method on his traditions has nonetheless yet to be done. It has only been utilized up to now for single traditions. 2 In the present study, it has been shown through examples that Ibn Hishām, in his reworking of Ibn Isḥāq’s Vita of the Prophet, tampered grievously with the traditions at his disposal. By deleting many isnāds, which originally preceded the individual traditions, and by anonymizing individual transmitters, he has made it very difficult to recognize the provenance of numerous traditions. The question of why Ibn Hishām deleted certain isnāds and anonymized transmitters cannot be answered with certainty. In some cases, however, variants of Ibn Isḥāq’s traditions existing in other works, some of them very much later, enable the origin of Ibn Isḥāq’s material on the Vita of the Prophet to be reconstructed. This has been demonstrated for the traditions from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad which appear much more frequently in Ibn Isḥāq’s Vita of the Prophet than can be adumbrated from Ibn Hishām’s See for instance Schöller, Exegetisches Denken, chap. V–VII; Motzki, “The Murder of Ibn Abī l-Ḥuqayq”; Görke, “The Historical Tradition about al-Ḥudaybiya”; Andreas Görke / Gregor Schoeler, “Reconstructing the Earliest sīra Texts: the Hiǧra in the Corpus of ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr”, in: Der Islam 82 (2005), pp. 209–220; id., Die ältesten Berichte; Boekhoff-van der Voort, “The Raid of the Hudhayl”; Anthony, “Crime and Punishment”. 2

A SOURCE FOR THE HISTORICAL VITA OF THE PROPHET? 123 version thereof. As Ibn Isḥāq is the only one from whom traditions from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad are known, it could only be shown through a text analysis that these traditions were not concocted by Ibn Isḥāq, but in fact do trace to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. This means that the accounts of the Prophet from this one of Ibn Isḥāq’s sources are dateable to the closing 1st century. Individual elements of his narrations could stem from somewhat older contemporaries of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, which in individual cases can only be justifiably suspected, not proven. What does the reconstruction of this one of Ibn Isḥāq’s sources contribute to the problem of the historicity of the Vita of the Prophet? Does the identification and dating of accounts stemming from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad help in the attempt to more precisely determine their value for an historical biography of Muḥammad? In his monumental biography Mohammed. Leben und Legende, Tilman Nagel implemented accounts from Ibn Isḥāq attributable to Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad as quasi historical reports. A few examples: Nagel recounts the story of the consultation of Quraysh notables with al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra and remarks in this regard: “The effect of the Koran on many of Mohammed’s contemporaries is here vividly described.” 3 Nagel apparently presumes the story is imparting historical facts. He doesn’t note that it is a sabab al-nuzūl (reason of revelation) story which is closely related to Qurʾān verses. 4 In portraying Muḥammad’s “turn against the Jewish tribes” Nagel refers to Pericope 13 of Narration 5 and to Narration 6. 5 Although Nagel does mention regarding Pericope 13 that “for this reason” the verses of Q 3: 23–24 are to have been revealed to Nagel, Mohammed, p. 200. In the story itself Q 74: 11–25 and 15: 91–93 are mentioned (see above II, 22). However, these verses concern for the most part only the involved persons. The verses that thematise the content of the story but remain unmentioned in the story are: Q 52: 15, 29–30; 74: 24; 6: 7 and 7: 184. 5 Nagel, Mohammed, p. 349 f. 3 4

124

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Muḥammad, he nonetheless considers the account of Muḥammad in the Jewish house of learning (Pericope 13) and the story of the exchange of words between Muḥammad and the Jews at the market of the Banū Qaynuqāʿ (Narration 6) to be sources which reflect the historical “background… against which Mohammed created Sūra 3.” 6 In light of the profile of “Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad,” the source from which these narrations originate, there is reason to doubt Nagel’s assessment. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad was not a historian who collected information in order to understand what was happening in the times when the Prophet lived. He was obviously only interested in finding plausible reasons for Qurʾān verses in the life of the Prophet. His stories give more the impression of having been spun out of the verses of the Qurʾān than of being the result of historical research. He may indeed have procured information from Qurʾān authorities like Saʿīd b. Jubayr und ʿIkrima, but that they recounted all these stories to him is doubtful, also not least of all because similar traditions attributed to Saʿīd b. Jubayr and ʿIkrima by other pupils – as far as I know – do not exist. On the other hand, the comparison of text variants from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, al-Kalbī and Muqātil has shown that all three possibly drew from older sources with similar contents but which are no longer identifiable. Even should these sources be dateable to the second half of the 1st/7th century, it remains uncertain whether or not they are based on good transmission and impart real historical information. What is more, the information which is reconstructible, i.e. the elements common to the different versions of an account, is meager. The suspicion remains that the stories from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad and other informants have Qurʾān verses as their point of departure, but not historical information that is independent thereof. This is illustrated through a few examples: Narration 1 recounts an incident that is supposed to have happened in Mekka at the beginning of Muḥammad’s calling. The degree of detail with which the consultation held by Muḥammad’s opponents is portrayed gives the impression of having been proto6

Nagel, Mohammed, p. 350.

A SOURCE FOR THE HISTORICAL VITA OF THE PROPHET? 125 coled. It is hardly probable that such detailed knowledge of the content of such a consultation would still be discernable a half century later. Who among the Muslims was interested in preserving details about the machinations of Muḥammad’s opponents? They were either dead or had become affiliated with Islam. They and their descendants were more out to suppress or whitewash their past than to emphasize the enmity of their forebears vis-á-vis the Prophet. Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s standard isnād, which for all of his transmissions names Ibn ʿAbbās as the ultimate authority, inspires little confidence because it is employed stereotypically and cannot be checked. Even were Ibn ʿAbbās himself indeed the source for the consultation of Muḥammad’s opponents, its value has to be doubted, since Ibn ʿAbbās was not yet born at that point in time and, at any rate, he can only have had detailed knowledge of the early years of the Prophet second-hand. 7 It is much more plausible to assume that the Qurʾān was the basis for the accounts of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad or his sources. There are many verses from the Mekkan and Medinan period that react to the accusation that Muḥammad’s revelations are “sorcery” (siḥr). This appears to be the most frequently expressed accusation. Conspicuous is verse 24 of Q 74, a sūra considered to be one of the first ones revealed. 8 The verse is also part of the Qurʾān passage cited in Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s account as God’s answer to al-Walīd’s advice to the Quraysh. In the narration the leaders of the Quraysh make additional suggestions regarding denigrating attributes for Muḥammad, like kāhin (soothsayer), majnūn (possessed) and shāʿir (poet). These are found in Q

According to the tradition he is born three years before the hijra. That means that he was only 13 years old when Muḥammad died; see alMizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 4: 178. 8 Fa-qāla: in hādhā illā siḥrun yuʾthar (He said: “This is nothing but ancient sorcery.”). Other references are: 52:15 (a-fa-siḥrun hādhā, Meccan), 6:7 and many other verses (siḥr mubīn, Medinan). 7

126

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

52: 29–30 in exactly the same order. 9 It is more likely that the account is oriented to these two Qurʾān verses than that the Qurʾān verses reflect this concrete incident. It is surely possible that it was remembered for a long time that one of the leading opponents of Muḥammad at the beginning of his career as proclaimer of divine messages was al-Walīd b. alMughīra. It can also have been known that he was wealthy and influential, that his sons were preparing to follow in his footsteps, and that the verses from Q 74: 11–25 were coined for him. The story of the consultation of the Quraysh with al-Walīd nonetheless gives the impression of a fictive account originating from several Qurʾān verses. In Pericopes 2 and 3 of Narration 2 the Quraysh challenge Muḥammad to provide proof for the truth of his message. 10 What was just noted for the discussion of Narration 1 holds here as well. The arguments are recounted with such detail that the minutes of a meeting must be assumed as the source, if the account is a mirror of historical fact. It is clear that Q 17: 90–93 is the template for the arguments attributed to the Quraysh in the story, although it is not explicitly said in the accounts that the verses were revealed in reaction to the demands of the Quraysh. In Pericope 6 of Narration 2 it is reported that al-Naḍr b. al-Ḥārith, who knew Iranian legends, termed the Prophet a simple storyteller and tried to outdo him with his own stories. Q 68: 15 and seven other verses are to have been revealed owing to al-Naḍr’s behavior in this regard. In these Pericopes, too, the Qurʾān is the source upon which the accounts are based. The modus operandi of Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad or his sources is even more clearly seen in Narration 5. Many of their pericopes contain no elements or elements which have very little to say; they rather contain only one or more names of Jews from Medina, the statements that the named persons allegedly made about Muḥammad or his proclamations, and finally one or more Qurʾān 9

Fa-dhakkir fa-mā anta bi-niʿmati rabbika bi-kāhin wa-lā majnūn, am yaqūlūna shāʿir… (Remind! By thy Lord’s blessing thou art not a soothsayer neither possed. Or do they say, ‘He is a poet…). 10 See above II, p. 38.

A SOURCE FOR THE HISTORICAL VITA OF THE PROPHET? 127 verses which make reference to these statements. Two examples thereof: 1) Abū Ṣalūbā al-Fiṭyawnī/Fiṭyūnī said to the apostle: ‘O Muḥammad, you have not brought us anything we recognize, and God has not sent down to you any sign that we should follow you.’ So God sent down concerning his words, ‘We have sent down to thee plain signs and only evildoers disbelieve in them’ (Q 2: 99) (Pericope 3). 2) Sallām b. Mishkam; Nuʿmān b. Awfay/Awfā Abū Anas; Maḥmūd b. Diḥya; Shaʾs b. Qays; and Mālik b. al-Ḍayf/Ṣayf came to the apostle and said to him: How can we follow you when you have abandoned our qibla and you do not allege that ʿUzayr is the son of God? So God sent down concerning these words: ‘The Jews say that ʿUzayr is the son of God and the Christians say the Messias is the son of God. That is what they say with their mouths copying the speech of those who disbelieved aforetime. God fight them! How perverse they are’ (Q 9: 30 until the end of the passage) (Pericope 36). It is hardly conceivable that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad or his informant/s in the second half of the 1st century were in a position to find out what individual Jews in Medina had said to Muḥammad a half century earlier. What is conceivable at best is that he or they could muster up the names of the most important Jewish personalities who were once Muḥammad’s antagonists and procure pieces of information regarding their role in the Jewish opposition. Anything more than that in Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s accounts of the Jews cannot be considered historical, and even this is pure speculation. All of these examples show that as a source for a historical biography of Muḥammad, Ibn Isḥāq’s tradition from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad is only to be used, if at all, with utmost caution. It reflects ideas entertained in the second half of the 1st century on the possible historical background of individual verses. To what extent real historical memories come to bear cannot be determined on the basis of this source alone. This question may perhaps be answerable when studies of more of Ibn Isḥāq’s sources are on hand and can subjected to a comparison. Is this outcome worth the expenditure of the present study? I think it is. We have achieved heightened insight into the sources of the vita of Muḥammad and have gotten to know the weaknesses of

128

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, the account mainly drawn upon for Muslim and non-Muslim portrayals of Muḥammad’s life. A series of texts from Ibn Hishām’s Sīra has been successfully dated to the close of the 1st century, and the conjecture has been substantiated that the roots of some of the texts extend even one generation further back. That is earlier than most non-Muslim historians of Islam have been ready to accept up to now. The present study has thus advanced our knowledge about the sources of the vita of Muḥammad and their background. The yield for a history portraying “how it really was” (Ranke) is meager by comparison. This will disappoint only someone who expects too much from the possibilities of a historian of Islam to eliminate historical facts from salvation-historical sources. 11

11

See also Schöller, Exegetisches Denken, pp. 23–37, esp. 36.

IV. EXCURSUS: IBN ISḤĀQ’S EXEGETICAL TRADITIONS FROM MUḤAMMAD B. ABĪ MUḤAMMAD In the foregoing we became acquainted with Ibn Isḥāq’s traditions from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad which report about the occasions of revelations (asbāb al-nuzūl), i.e., they allege to impart the historical background of single or several Qurʾān verses. Hence, since knowledge of the historical background should facilitate a better understanding of the verses, this type of traditions has an exegetical character. Such a tradition can comprise a long story (e.g. Narration 1 or the pericopes of Narration 2), or even a short account of persons designated by name and their statements or behavior with respect to Muḥammad or the Muslims (e.g., most of the pericopes of Narration 5). A feature shared by them all is that they are accompanied by one or more Qurʾān verses which are mostly introduced by a formula like “God revealed concerning….” In al-Ṭabarī’s Tafsīr, by contrast, the order is reversed. Here the Qurʾān verses or parts thereof are named, whereupon the background account follows. The question arises as to which order is the original one. This question has an answer. What we don’t come across in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra are purely exegetical traditions from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, i.e., explanations of Qurʾān verses which clarify only the meaning of single words or word groups, or are intended to elucidate the sense of verse segments or whole verses. From this it could be concluded that Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad’s “knowledge” that he passed on to Ibn Isḥāq was limited to “occasions of revelations.” A look at al-Ṭabarī’s massive Qurʾān commentary shows, however, that this

129

130

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

was not the case. Found there alongside the above-studied asbāb alnuzūl traditions transmitted by Ibn Isḥāq from Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad are just as many purely exegetical traditions. 1 Some of them explain only one single word, e.g. Q 2: 2: lā rayb fīhi (wherein is no doubt) with lā shakk fīhi 2 or Q 2: 3: alladhīna yuʾminūna (who believe) with yuṣaddiqūna 3 (accept as true). Other texts give longer content relevant explanations of a word, e.g. Q 2: 5: wa-ulāʾika hum al-mufliḥūna (those are the ones who prosper) is explained as: ay alladhīna adrakū mā ṭalabū wa-najaw min sharri mā minhu harabū 4 (that means, those who received what they asked for and are saved from the evil they fled from) or Q 2: 87: wa-ataynā ʿĪsā bna Maryama albayyināti (and We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear signs) is explained as ay al-āyāt allatī waḍaʿa ʿalā yadayhi min iḥyāʾ al-mawtā wakhalqihi min al-ṭīn ka-hayʾat al-ṭayr thumma yanfakhu fīhi fa-yakūnu ṭāʾiran bi-idhni llāh wa-ibrāʾ al-asqām wa-l-khubr bi-kathīr min al-ghuyūb mimmā yaddakharūna fī buyūtihim wa-mā radda ʿalayhim min al-Tawrāt maʿa al-Injīl alladhī aḥdatha llāhu ilayhi 5 (that means the signs that He bestowed on him [lit.: put on his hands) like raising the dead and creating from clay [something] like the shape of a bird and then breathing into it so that it fled away with the permission of God, and also the healing of illnesses and the knowledge of many hidden things that people kept in their houses, and what he rejected of the Exactly 43 % (55 texts) purely exegetical, 42 % (54 texts) asbāb alnuzūl and 15 % mixed form (19 texts). 2 al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 1: 97, isnād: Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd → Salama b. Faḍl → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās. 3 al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 1: 100, isnād: Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd al-Rāzī → Salama b. Faḍl → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās. 4 al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 1: 108, isnād: Ibn Ḥumayd → Salama → Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās. 5 al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 1: 403, isnād: Ibn Ḥumayd → Salama → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad → Saʿīd b. Jubayr or ʿIkrima → Ibn ʿAbbās. 1

IBN ISḤĀQ’S EXEGETICAL TRADITIONS

131

Torah towards them [the Jews] by the Gospel that God made for him). Another type of exegesis which is associated with the name Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad calls attention to the historical background of Qurʾān verses, e.g. to the persons or groups who are meant, without naming concrete persons or describing events. Two examples: Q 2: 7: khatama llāhu ʿalā qulūbihim wa-ʿalā samʿihim wa-ʿalā abṣārihim ghishawātun wa-lahum ʿadhābun ʿaẓīmun (God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a covering, and there awaits them a mighty chastisement [transl. Arberry]). The commentary then follows: qāla: fa-hādhā fī l-aḥbār min yahūd fī-mā kadhabū bihi min al-ḥaqq alladhī jāʾaka min rabbika baʿda maʿrifatihim 6 (this refers to the rabbis of the Jews, to that which they denied of the truth which came from your Lord to you [Muḥammad] after they had received knowledge thereof). Q 2: 8: wa-mina l-nās man yaqūlu āmannā bi-llāhi wa-bi-l-yawmi l-ākhiri wa-mā hum bi-muʾminīna (and some men there are who say, ‘We believe in God and the Last Day’, but they are not believers [transl. Arberry]) is commentated with: qāla: yaʿnī al-munāfiqīn min al-Aws wa-l-Khazraj wa-man kāna ʿalā amrihim 7 (meant are the hypocrites among the [Arab tribes] of the Aws and Khazraj and from among those standing under their command). The question arises as to whether these forms of Qurʾān exegesis, which are not found in Ibn Hishām’s Sīra, really trace back to Ibn Isḥāq or Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. This is doubted by some Western scholars. They attribute responsibility for the isnāds to either al-Ṭabarī himself or to his informants. 8 These doubts were dispelled in the previous chapters for the asbāb al-nuzūl traditions. Does this hold likewise for the purely exegetical traditions and texts al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 1: 115, isnād: Ibn Ḥumayd → Salama → Ibn Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās. 7 al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 1: 116, isnād: Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd → Salama → Muḥammad b. Isḥāq → Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit → ʿIkrima or Saʿīd b. Jubayr → Ibn ʿAbbās. 8 See above II, p. 36, note 61. 6

132

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

which refer to a historical background, without going into details and naming the persons involved? Ibn Hishām’s version of Ibn Isḥāq’s Vita of the Prophet contains hundreds of quotations of or direct references to Qurʾān verses which are found in 66 sūras. 9 These figures alone are proof of the extreme importance the Qurʾān had for Ibn Isḥāq in the compilation of his work. 10 This impression is reinforced by chapters which, though associated with a specific historical event of the Prophet’s life, are above all devoted to the exegesis of an entire sūra or extensive sections thereof, e.g., Sūra 3: 121–179 (Uḥud), 11 Sūra 8 (Badr), 12 Sūra 9 (Tabūk and contemporaneous incidents) 13 and Sūra 18 (the challenging of Muḥammad by the Quraysh). 14 In Ibn Hishām’s Sīra these exegetical passages are not introduced with separate isnāds. This could mean that either Ibn Hishām deleted Ibn Isḥāq’s original source data or that Ibn Isḥāq named no sources and is himself the author of the relevant Qurʾān interpretations. Al-Ṭabarī’s Qurʾān commentary, which for Ibn Isḥāq’s traditions is based not on Ibn Hishām and his source but on two of Ibn Isḥāq’s other pupils, nonetheless shows that Ibn Isḥāq did indeed use exegetical sources, at least for a part of his Qurʾān exegesis. One of these sources was obviously Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad. 15

See the table of the Qurʾānic passages in Wüstenfeld, vol. 2, pp. 220–224; it is however not complete. 10 A systematic analysis of the Qurʾān quotations, their exegetical function and of the sources of Ibn Isḥāq’s exegesis is a desideratum. 11 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld, vol. 1, pp. 592–604; al-Saqqā, vol. 2, pp. 106–119; Tadmurī, vol. 3, pp. 70–83; Guillaume, pp. 391–400. 12 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld, vol. 1, pp. 476–485; al-Saqqā, vol. 1, pp. 666–677; Tadmurī, vol. 2, pp. 309–320; Guillaume, pp. 321–327. 13 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld, vol. 1, pp. 894–929; al-Saqqā, vol. 2, pp. 515–537; Tadmurī, vol. 4, pp. 155–179; Guillaume, pp. 602–624. 14 Ibn Hishām, Sīra, Wüstenfeld, vol. 1, pp. 193–197; al-Saqqā, vol. 1, pp. 302–308; Tadmurī, vol. 1, pp. 330–334; Guillaume, pp. 137–139. 15 For two other sources see II, p. 35. 9

APPENDIX: I SNĀDS OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TRADITIONS

p. 7: ʿAbd al-Malik b. Hishām (d. 218/833) ↓ Ziyād b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Bakkāʾī (d. 183/799) ↓ Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (d. 151/768) p. 15 ff Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Jabbār b. Muḥammad al-ʿUṭāridī (d. 272/886) ↓ (ʿAbd al-Jabbār b. Muḥammad al-ʿUṭāridī, d. ?) ↓ Yūnus b. Bukayr (d. 199/815) ↓ Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (d. 151/768) ↓ Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad (d. about 110/727–8) ↓ Saʿīd b. Jubayr (d. 95/713–4) or ʿIkrima (d. 105/723–4) ↓ Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68/687–8)

133

134

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

p. 17: Abū Nuʿaym al-Isfahānī (d. 430/1038) ↓ Ḥabīb b. al-Ḥasan (d. ?) ↓ Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā al-Marwazī (d. 287/900 or 289/902) ↓ Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ayyūb (d. 228/842–3) ↓ Ibrāhīm b. Saʿd (d. 183/799 or 184/800) ↓ Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (d. 151/768) ↓ Muḥammad b. Abī Muḥammad, mawlā of Zayd b. Thābit (d. about 110/727–8) ↓ ʿIkrima (d. 105/723–4) or Saʿīd b. Jubayr (d. 95/713–4)

BIBLIOGRAPHY ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, “Kitāb al-Maghāzī”, in: al-Muṣannaf, ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, vol. 5, Beirut 1403/19832, pp. 313–492 ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, Tafsīr, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿajī, 2 vols, Beirut, 1411/1991 Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī, Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa, Ḥaydarābād 1369/19502 Anthony, Sean W., “Crime and Punishment in Early Medina: The Origins of a Maghāzī-Tradition”, in: H. Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions, pp. 385–465 Atallah, W., “Al-Kalbī”, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 4, Leiden 1990, pp. 494–496 Athamina, Khalil, “The sources of al-Balādhurī’s Ansāb al-ashrāf ”, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 5 (1984), pp. 237–262 al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā, Ansāb al-ashrāf, ed. Maḥmūd Firdaws al- ʿAẓm and Ṣubḥī Nadīm al-Mārdīnī, vol. 1, Damascus 1997 Baumotte, Manfred (ed.): Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus. Texte aus drei Jahrhunderten, Gütersloh 1984 al-Bayhaqī, Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn, Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa wa-maʿrifat akhwāl ṣāḥib al-sharīʿa, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Qalʿajī, 7 vols, Beirut 1405/1985 Bernards, Monique and John Nawas, Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam, Leiden 2005 Blachère, Régis, Le Problème de Mahomet, Paris 1952 Boekhoff-van der Voort, Nicolet, “The Raid of the Hudhayl: Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī’s Version of the Event”, in: H. Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions, pp. 305–384 135

136

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Buhl, Frants, Das Leben Muhammeds, transl. from the Danish (published 1903) by H.H. Schaeder, Leipzig 1930 al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl, “Kitāb al-Maghāzī”, in: Al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, book 64, vol. 5, 3–172, Beirut 1412/1992 al-Bukharī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl, Kitāb al-Taʾrīkh al-kabīr, 9 vols., Ḥaydarābād 1941–1942 Caetani, Leone, “Uthman and the Recension of the Koran”, in: The Muslim World 5 (1915): 380–90 Caetani, Leone, Annali dell’islam, vol. 1–2, Milano 1905 Caetani, Leone, La biografia di Maometto, profeta ed uomo di stato. Il principio del Califfato. La conquista d’Arabia [Studi di storia orientale 3], Milano 1914 Chabbi, Jaqueline, “Histoire et tradition sacrée – la biographie impossible de Mahomet”, in: Arabica 43 (1996), 189–205 Conrad, Lawrence I., “Recovering Lost Texts: some Methodological Issues”, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 113 (1993), pp. 258–263 Cook, Michael, Early Muslim Dogma: A Source-Critical Study, Cambridge 1981 Cook, Michael, Muhammad, Oxford 1983 Crone, Patricia and Michael Cook, Hagarism. The Making of the Islamic World, Cambridge 1977 Crone, Patricia, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton 1987 Déroche, François, “Manuscripts of the Qurʾān”, in: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, vol. 3, Leiden/Boston 2003, pp. 254–259 al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, Mīzān al-iʿtidāl fī naqd al-rijāl, 4 vols, Cairo 1963, repr. Beirut n.d. Donner, Fred M., Narratives of Islamic Origins. The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Princeton, N.J. 1998 Fück, Johann, Muḥammad b. Isḥāq. Literarhistorische Untersuchungen, PhD thesis, Frankfurt a.M. 1925 Fück, Johann, “Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence”, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 10 (1953), 196–198 (repr. in J. Fück, Arabische Kultur und Islam im Mittelalter. Ausgewählte

BIBLIOGRAPHY

137

Schriften, ed. Manfred Fleischhammer, Weimar 1981, pp 252– 257 Goldziher, Ignaz, Vorlesungen über den Islam, Heidelberg 1910 Görke, Andreas and Gregor Schoeler, “Reconstructing the Earliest sīra Texts: the Hiǧra in the Corpus of ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr”, in: Der Islam 82 (2005), 209–220 Görke, Andreas und Gregor Schoeler, Die ältesten Berichte über das Leben Muḥammads. Das Korpus ʿUrwa b. az-Zubair, Princeton, N.J. 2008 Görke, Andreas, “The Historical Tradition about al-Ḥudaybiya. A Study of ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr’s Account”, in: H. Motzki, The Biography of Muḥammad, 240–271 Graham, William A., “J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, Oxford 1977”, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 100 (1980), 137–141 Guillaume, Alfred, New Light on the Life of Muhammad, Manchester 1960 [Journal of Semitic Studies. Monograph No. 1] Guillaume, Alfred, The Life of Muhammad. A Translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, Oxford 1955/Karachi 1967 Ḥamīd Allāh, Muḥammad (ed.), Sīrat Ibn Isḥāq : al-musammāt bi-Kitāb al-Mubtadaʾ wa-al-mabʿath wa-l-maghāzī, n.pl. [Rabat] 1396/1976, repr. Konya 1401/1981 Horst, Heribert, „Zur Überlieferung im Korankommentar aṭṬabarīs“, in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 103 (1953), pp. 290–307. Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Kitāb al-Jarḥ wa-l-taʿdīl, 9 vols., Ḥaydarābād 1371– 1372/1952–1973 Ibn Abī Shayba, “Kitāb al-Maghāzī”, in al-Muṣannaf, ed. Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah, vol. 20, Jidda/Damascus/Beirut 1427/2006 Ibn al-Jawzī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAlī, Zād al-masīr fī ʿilm al-tafsīr, ed. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd Allāh, Beirut 1407/1986–7 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī, Al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, 8 vols in 4, Beirut n.d. (Repr. of the edition Calcutta 1853)

138

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, 12 vols, Ḥaydarābād 1325/1907, repr. Beirut 1968 Ibn Ḥibbān, Kitāb al-Thiqāt, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿīd Khān, 9 vols, Ḥaydarābād 1403/1983 Ibn Hishām, Muḥammad, Al-Sīra al-nabawiyya li-Ibn Hishām, ed. Muṣṭafā al-Saqā, Ibrāhīm al-Abyārī, ʿAbd al-Ḥafīẓ Shalabī, 2 vols, 2nd ed., Kairo 1375/1955 Ibn Hishām, Muḥammad, Al-Sīra al-nabawiyya li-Ibn Hishām, ed. ʿUmar ʿAbd al-Salām Tadmurī, 4 vols, Beirut 1408/1987 Ibn Hishām, Muḥammad, Sīrat sayyidinā Muḥammad rasūli llāh (ṣ), ed. Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, 3 vols, Göttingen 1858–1860 Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar, al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya, 14 vols in 7, Beirut 1966 Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm, 9 vols, Cairo 1924–1929, 4 vols, Beirut 1401/1980–81 Ibn Saʿd, Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar, Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, ed. Eduard Sachau e.a., 9 parts in 16 vols, Leiden 1905–1917 Ibn Saʿd, Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās, 8 vols, Beirut 1957–1960 Ibn Sayyid al-Nās, Muḥammad, ʿUyūn al-athar fī funūn al-maghāzī wal-shamāʾil wa-l-siyar, 2 vols, Beirut 1406/1986 Ibn Shabba, ʿUmar, Taʾrīkh al-Madīna al-munawwara, ed. Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt, 4 vols, Jidda 1399/1979 Ibn Warraq (ed.), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, New York 2000 al-Iṣbahānī, Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad b. Faḍl al-Taymī, Dalāʾil alnubuwwa, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad al-Ḥaddād, al-Riyāḍ 1409/1988–9 Jarrar, Maher, Die Prophetenbiographie im islamischen Spanien. Ein Beitrag zur Überlieferungs- und Redaktionsgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main 1989 Juynboll, Gautier H.A., “Al-Suddī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 9, fasc. 159–160, Leiden 1997, p. 762 Juynboll, Gautier H.A. “Some Isnād-Analytical Methods Illustrated on the Basis of Several Women-Demeaning Sayings from Ḥadīth Literature”, in: Al-Qanṭara 10 (1989), pp. 345–384.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

139

Juynboll, Gautier H.A., “Nāfiʿ, the mawlā of Ibn ʿUmar, and his position in Muslim ḥadīth literature”, in: Der Islam 70 (1993), pp. 207–244 Juynboll, Gautier H.A., Encyclopedia of Canonical Ḥadīth, Leiden 2007 Juynboll, Gautier H.A.“J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, Oxford 1977”, in: Journal of Semitic Studies 24 (1979), 293–296 Kindermann, H., “Rabīʿa and Muḍar”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 8, Leiden 1993, pp. 352–354 Kister, M. J., Concepts and Ideas at the Dawn of Islam, Aldershot 1997 Kister, M. J., Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, London 1980 Lammens, Henri, “Qoran et tradition. Comment fut composée la vie de Mahomet”, in: Recherche de Science Religieuse 1 (1910), 27– 51 Lammens, Henri, Fāṭima et les filles de Mahomet. Notes critiques pour l’étude de la Sīra, Roma 1912 Landau-Tasseron, Ella, “On the Reconstruction of Lost Sources”, in: Al-Qanṭara 25 (2004), pp. 45–91 Lecker, Michael, Muslims, Jews and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina, Leiden 1995 Lecker, Michael, Jews and Arabs in Pre- and Early Islamic Arabia, Aldershot 1998 Lecker, Michael, “Zayd b. Thābit”, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 11, fascs. 187–188, Leiden 2002, p. 476 Lecker, Michael, The “Constitution of Medina”. Muḥammad’s First Legal Document, Princeton, N.J., 2004 Lecker, Michael, “Glimpses of Muḥammad’s Medinan Decade”, in: Jonathan E. Brockopp (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Muḥammad, Cambridge 2010, 61–79 Lecker, Michael, “The Assassination of the Jewish Merchant Ibn Sunayna according to an Authentic Family Account”, in: The Transmission and Dynamics of the Textual Sources of Islam. Essays in Honour of Harald Motzki, ed. by Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort, Kees Versteegh and Joas Wagemakers, Leiden 2011, pp. 181–196

140

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Leder, Stefan, Das Korpus al-Haiṯam ibn ʿAdī (st. 207/822). Herkunft, Überlieferung, Gestalt früher Texte der aḫbār Literatur, Frankfurt am Main 1991 al-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī, Imtāʿ al-asmāʿ bi-mā li-l-nabī min al-aḥwāl wa-l-amwāl wa-l-ḥafda wa-l-matāʿ, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Namīsī, 15 vols, Beirut 1420/1999 al-Mizzī, Abū l-Ḥajjāj Yūsuf, Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmāʾ al-rijāl, 8 vols, Beirut 1418/1998 Motzki, Harald, “The Prophet and the Cat: on dating Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ and legal traditions”, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 22 (1998), pp. 18–83 Motzki, Harald, “The Role of non-Arab Converts in the Development of early Islamic Law”, in: Islamic Law and Society 6/3 (1999), 1–25 Motzki, Harald, “The Murder of Ibn Abī l-Ḥuqayq: On the Origin and Reliability of some Maghāzī-Reports“, in: H. Motzki (ed.), The Biography of Muḥammad: the Issue of the Sources, Leiden 2000, pp. 170–239 Motzki, Harald, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence. Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools, Leiden 2002 Motzki, Harald, “The Author and his Work in Islamic Literature of the First Centuries. The Case of ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf ”, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 28 (2003), 171–201 Motzki, Harald, “The Question of the Authenticity of Muslim Traditions Reconsidered: A Review Article”, in: Herbert Berg (ed.), Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins, Leiden 2003, pp. 212–225 Motzki, Harald, “Dating Muslim Traditions. A Survey”, in Arabica 52 (2005), pp. 204–253 Motzki, Harald, “Saʿīd b. Djubayr”, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, Supplement vol. p. 697 Motzki, Harald, “The Jurisprudence of Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī. A Source-Critical Study”, in: H. Motzki with Nicolet Boekhoffvan der Voort and Sean W. Anthony, Analysing Muslim Traditions. Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth, Leiden 2010, pp. 1–46

BIBLIOGRAPHY

141

Motzki, Harald, “Whither Ḥadīth Studies?”, in: H. Motzki with Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort and Sean W. Anthony, Analysing Muslim Traditions. Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth, Leiden 2010, pp. 47–124 Motzki, Harald, “The Prophet and the Debtors. A Ḥadīth Analysis under Scrutiny”, in: H. Motzki with Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort and Sean W. Anthony, Analysing Muslim Traditions. Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth, Leiden 2010, pp. 125–208. Motzki, Harald, “Al-radd ʿalā l-radd: Concerning the Method of Ḥadīth Analysis”, in: H. Motzki with Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort and Sean W. Anthony, Analysing Muslim Traditions. Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth, Leiden 2010, pp. 209–229 Motzki, Harald, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis. A Debate”, in: H. Motzki with Nicolet Boekhoff-van der Voort and Sean W. Anthony, Analysing Muslim Traditions. Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth, Leiden 2010, pp. 231–303 al-Mubārakfūrī, Ṣafī al-Raḥmān, Al-Raḥīq al-Makhtūm. Baḥth fī l-sīra al-nabawiyya, Beirut n.d. [1400/1980] Muranyi, Miklos, “Ibn Isḥāq’s Kitāb al-Maġāzī in der riwāya von Yūnus b. Bukair. Bemerkungen zur frühen Überlieferungsgeschichte“, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 14 (1991), 214–275 Nagel, Tilman, Mohammed. Leben und Legende, München 2008 Neuwirth, Angelika, Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren, Berlin 1981 Neuwirth, Angelika, “Zum neueren Stand der Koranforschung”, in: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Suppl. V (21. Deutscher Orientalistentag in Berlin 1979), Wiesbaden 1983, pp. 183–189 Neuwirth, Angelika, “J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, Oxford 1977”, in: Die Welt des Islams 23–24 (1984), 539–542 Neuwirth, Angelika, “Der Koran”, in: Hellmut Gätje (ed.), Grundriss der arabischen Philologie II. Wiesbaden 1987, pp. 96–135

142

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Noth, Albrecht, “Der Charakter der ersten großen Sammlungen von Nachrichten zur frühen Kalifenzeit”, in: Der Islam 47 (1971), pp. 168–199 Pavlovitch, Pavel, The Formation of the Islamic Understanding of Kalāla in the Second Century AH (718–816 CE). Between Scripture and Canon, Leiden / Boston 2016 Peters, F.E., “The Quest of the Historical Muhammad”, in: International Journal of Middle East Studies 23 (1991), 291–315 Raven, Wim, “Sīra and the Qurʾān”, in: Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, vol. 5, Leiden 2006, pp. 29–49 Raven, Wim, “Sīra”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 9, fascicules 159–160, Leiden 1997, pp. 660–663 Rippin, Andrew, “Occasions of Revelation”, in: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, vol. 3, pp. 569–573 Rodinson, Maxime, Mahomet, Paris 1961 Rotter, Gernot, “Zur Überlieferung einiger historischer Werke Madāʾinīs in Ṭabarīs Annalen”, in: Oriens 23–24 (1974), pp. 103–133 Rubin, Uri, The Eye of the Beholder. The Life of Muḥammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims. A Textual Analysis, Princeton, N.J. 1995 Sadeghi, Behnam and Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qurʾān of the Prophet”, in: Arabica 57 (2010) 343–436 al-Samuk, S. M. Die historischen Überlieferungen nach Ibn Isḥāq. Eine synoptische Untersuchung, Phd Thesis, Frankfurt a. M. 1978 Schacht, Joseph, “A Revaluation of Islamic Tradition”, in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 49 (1949), 143–154 Schacht, Joseph, “On Mūsā b. ʿUqba’s Kitāb al-Maghāzī”, in: Acta Orientalia 21 (1953), 288–300 Schacht, Joseph, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford 19674 [19501] Scheiner, Jens, Die Eroberung von Damaskus. Quellenkritische Untersuchung zur Historiographie in klassisch-islamischer Zeit, Leiden/Boston 2009

BIBLIOGRAPHY

143

Schoeler, Gregor, Charakter und Authentie der muslimischen Überlieferung über das Leben Mohammeds, Berlin 1996 (engl. transl.: The Biography of Muhammad: Nature and Authenticity, New York 2010) Schoeler, Gregor, The Genesis of Literature in Islam. From the Aural to the Read, in collaboration with and translated by Shawkat M. Toorawa, Edinburgh 2009 Schöller, Marco, “Sīra and Tafsīr: Muḥammad al-Kalbī on the Jews of Medina,” in: H. Motzki (ed.), The Biography of Muḥammad: The Issue of the Sources, Leiden 2000, pp. 18–48 Schöller, Marco, Exegetisches Denken und Prophetenbiographie. Eine quellenkritische Analyse der Sīra-Überlieferung zu Muḥammads Konflikt mit den Juden, Wiesbaden 1998 Schwally, Friedrich, “Die Sammlung des Qorāns”, in: TH. NÖLDEKE: Geschichte des Qorāns, part 2, Leipzig 19192, 1–121 (engl. transl. The History of the Qurʾān, Leiden 2013) Schweitzer, Albert, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Tübingen 1906 Sezgin, Fuat, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, vol. 1, Leiden 1967 Shoemaker, Stephen J., The Death of a Prophet. The End of Muhammad’s Life and the Beginnings of Islam, Philadelphia 2012 al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn, al-Durr al-manthūr fī l-tafsīr bi-l-maʾthūr, 6 vols, Beirut n.d. al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn, Kifāyat al-ṭālib al-labīb fī khaṣāʾiṣ al-ḥabīb [alKhaṣāʾiṣ al-kubrā], vol. 1, Beirut 1985 al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr, Annales = Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. Michael J. de Goeje e.a., prima series, vol. 3–4, Leiden 1882–1890 Wansbrough, John, Quranic Studies. Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford 1977 Wansbrough, John, The Sectarian Milieu. Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford 1978 al-Wāqidī, Muḥammad b. ʿUmar, Kitāb al-Maghāzī, ed. Marsden Jones, 3 vols, London 1966 Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953 Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford 1956

144

A STUDY OF EARLY IBN ʿABBĀS TRADITIONS

Watt, W. Montgomery, Bell’s Introduction to the Qurʾān: completely revised and enlarged, Edinburgh 1970 Watt, W. Montgomery, “The Reliability of Ibn Isḥāq’s Sources”, in: La vie du prophète Mahomet. Colloque de Strasbourg (octobre 1980), Paris 1983, 31–43 Watt, W. Montgomery, “Musaylima”, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 7, Leiden 1993, pp. 664–665 Welch, Alford T., “Al-Ḳurʾān”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 5, fascs. 85–86, Leiden 1981 Werkmeister, Walter, Quellenuntersuchungen zum Kitāb al-ʿIqd al-farīd des Andalusiers Ibn ʿAbdrabbih, Berlin 1983 Wüstenfeld, Heinrich Ferdinand, Kitāb sīrat rasūl allāh – Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed Ibn Ishâk bearbeitet von Abd al-Malik Ibn Hischâm, vol. 1/part 1 and 2, Göttingen 1859–1860 Zakkār, Suhayr (ed.), Kitāb al-Siyar wa-l-maghāzī, Beirut 1978 al-Zaylaʿī, ʿAbd Allāh b. Yūsuf, Naṣab al-rāya, ed. Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Banūrī, Miṣr 1357