Printer Friendly

ON EARLY ISLAMIC HISTORIOGRAPHY: ABU [ISMA.sup.[subset]]IL AL-AZDI AND HIS FUTUH AL-SHAM.

The present paper examines the Futuh al-sham (Conquests of Syria) attributed to Abu [Isma.sup.[subset]]il al-Azdi, in an attempt to establish its authenticity, date, and provenance. Several historical sources confirm the authorship of this work and demonstrate that al-Azdi's reporting reflects little religious or regional favoritism. Identifying the origin of the material that comprises al-Azdi's text highlights the similarity between the reports given by him and those attributed to other narrators of his time. Their common early source is likely to be Abu Mikhnaf al-Azdi (d. 157/774), an early narrator from Kufa with proto-[Shi.sup.[subset]]ite sympathies.

THE FUTUH AL-SHAM BY ABU [ISMA.sup.[subset]]IL AL-AZDI is one of the earliest extant Arabic sources dealing with the Islamic conquest of Syria and is one of the few extant historical documents from the second/eighth century. It is, however, commonly ignored in most modern scholarship as a result of Michael J. de Goeje's negative criticism of it, which dates back to 1864. [1] In recent years, this state of affairs has started to change, though slowly, as a result of a study by Lawrence I. Conrad that reestablished some confidence in the Azdi text. [2] Nevertheless, further research is needed to solve some of the puzzles that still pertain to this particularly valuable document.

The aim of the following study, therefore, is to examine this book in the light of newly found evidence, mainly sources that have not been checked by modem researchers or were not available to them. An investigation of the transmission of the Azdi text, as well as the evidence it provides, establishes its authenticity, date, and provenance. Azdi's Futuh al-sham is, in fact, a late second/eighth century compilation based on a work having the same title by Abu Mikhnaf al-Azdi (d. 157/774) of Kufa, and hence it depended originally on material that was in circulation in Kufa.

AZDI AND HIS FUTUH AL-SHAM

Abu [Isma.sup.[subset]]il Muhammad ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah al-Azdi al-Basri is an obscure personality. His name is absent from the known biographical dictionaries. There is one ambiguous exception. In Kitab al-thiqat by Ibn Hibban al-Busti (d. 354/965), a Muhammad ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah al-Azdi is mentioned as being a traditionist from Basra who transmitted hadiths from [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asim ibn Hilal al-Basri (d. ca. 185/797) and from [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-Wahhab ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]][Ata.sup.[contains]] al-Basri (d. 204/819). [3] Probably the same traditionist is the one mentioned in a chain of authorities (isnad) quoted in Hilyat [al-awliya.sup.[contains]] by Abu [Nu.sup.[subset]]aym al-Isfahani (d. 430/1039). There, he is cited as the informant of a certain Yahya ibn Bistam, [4] who was also from Basra and who was alive in 214/829. [5] One can, therefore, place the life of Muhammad al-Azdi the traditionist in the late second/eighth and early third/ninth century.

The information found in the two dictionaries is, however, sparse. The Azdi of Futuh al-sham becomes familiar to compilers of histories and biographical dictionaries after the sixth/twelfth century, but only as the author of a book entitled Futuh al-sham. Therefore, it is possible that the traditionist and the author of Futuh al-sham are different Azdis.

The two surviving manuscripts of Azdi's Futuh al-sham are now in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, nos. Arabe 1664 and 1665. They comprise 82 and 149 folios, respectively. The first manuscript was copied in Jerusalem on 22 Dhu al-Hijja 613 (21 April 1217) by a Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghassani. [6] The second, which is clearer than the first, was copied on 1 Dhu al-[Qa.sup.[subset]]da 764 (12 August (1363). [7] Arabe 1664 refers to Azdi's text under the title Kitab mukhtasar futuh al-sham li-l-Waqidi (Synopsis of the Conquests of Syria by Waqidi) by Abu Is-[ma.sup.[subset]]il Muhammad ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah al-Azdi al-Basri. But this title does not appear in the other manuscript, and it seems that it was added later by one of the owners of that manuscript.

Azdi's Futuh al-sham also exists today in two editions. The first was published in Calcutta in 1854 by William N. Lees, who edited the work, with the title Kitab futuh al-sham, on the basis of one slightly damaged manuscript found in India. A few pages at the beginning of that manuscript are missing or badly worm-eaten, [8] as are another three pages in the body of the text, and few pages at the end of it. [9] The second edition was published in Cairo in 1970 by [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-[Mun.sup.[subset]]im [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir. [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir, not aware of the presence of the two manuscripts at the Bibliotheque Nationale, claimed to have found another manuscript in Damascus in a private library and to have based his new edition, entitled [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh futuh al-sham, on it. [10] [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir described the manuscript he found as complete, compared to the incomplete one Lees had published. [11] However, by comparing both editions, it is clear that [[blank].sup.[sub set]]Amir copied Lees' text, concocting a few additions to make it appear different and more complete. [12] Apparently, neither of the two manuscripts at the Bibliotheque Nationale seems to have been the one used by Lees, because they both contain the folios that are missing from his edition. In this study, Lees' edition is used as a base, and the other two manuscripts are referred to only when necessary.

AZDI IN MODERN SCHOLARSHIP

The main problems concerning Azdi's Futuh al-sham are first, the problem of authorship, that is, whether the work is really that of Azdi or of someone else; second, the problem of dating the material in it; and third, the problem of establishing the provenance of this material. One can add on the basis of these three problems a fourth, namely that if the text is originally that of Azdi, how can we know that its material retained its original form and was not subjected to changes and alterations over the years?

Lees emphasized the importance of the Futuh al-sham by saying that it is "one of the most valuable remains of Arabic history that has ever been published;... I am not aware that we have any complete work in original that was written at so early a period as this fotooh." [13] Since 1854, several other early Arabic compilations have been published. Even so, the work of Azdi remains one of the earliest works in the Futuh genre to have been preserved. Lees also faced the problem of not finding any notice for Azdi in the dictionaries available to him and resorted to analyzing the chains of authorities in the Azdi text for a possible dating of the period in which Azdi lived. The conclusion he came to was that Azdi died around 178/794, or slightly before that date. [14]

Shortly after Lees' edition, and belying his expectation that it would throw light on some of the obscurities of early Islamic history, de Goeje published a censorious criticism of the text in which he ruled out any possibility of dating it to the early Islamic period. De Goeje, who had in front of him Lees' edition only, argued that Azdi never existed, that his name was a corruption of the name of the famous traditionist Abti [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah Muhammad ibn [Isma.sup.[subset]]il al-Bukhari (d. 256/870). [15] and that Futuh al-sham was compiled at the time of the Crusades [16] for the glorification of Islam and the heroes who made it triumphant. [17]

The assertion by de Goeje that the text of Azdi is a mere forgery was based upon several wrong inferences. For instance, he identified Muhammad ibn Yusuf, who is quoted in the Azdi text thirteen times, as "Mohammed ibn Jousof ibn Wakid ibn Othman Abou Abdollah ad-Dhabbi al-Farjabi (120-212), ... et ce Mohammed ibn Jousof est l'un des Schaikhs de Bokhari." [18] But the Muhammad ibn Yusuf identified by de Goeje does not refer to the Muhammad ibn Yusuf of the Azdi text because the latter appears to be the informant of Abu Mikhnaf al-Azdi (d. 157/774), who identified him as Abu Yusuf Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Ansari from the tribe of al-Harith ibn al-Khazraj, [19] from Medina. It is not the purpose of this study, however, to go over all of de Goeje's arguments. Conrad has already shown most of them to be inaccurate and none are confirmed by the present paper.

Because of de Goeje's criticism, Azdi's text has been generally ignored as if it did not exist--until, that is, Conrad published his analytical study. Arguing in favor of dating the text to the late second century or the early third century A.H. at the latest, [20] Conrad concluded chat Azdi was either a Syrian, from Hims in particular, or lived in Hims; that he died between 190 and 205 A.H.; and that his text is a Syrian account of the conquests of Syria. [21] In addition to studying these chains of authorities, Conrad examined the text's use of certain terms that were applied in the early Islamic period but were replaced by other terms later on, such as the names of some cities. He also spotted echoes of early religious trends that were later eclipsed. Consequently, Conrad emphasized the importance of including Azdi's text in any study of the history of early Islamic Syria. [22] Moreover, Conrad pointed to a possible link between accounts from Azdi's text and material transmitted on the authority of the fa mous Damascene traditionist [Sa.sup.[subset]]id ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd [al-.sup.[subset]]Aziz al-Tanukhi (d. 167/783); on the basis of this he suggested a possibly now lost work by [Sa.sup.[subset]]id al-Tanukhi as a source for Azdi's text. [23]

Thanks to Conrad's reappraisal, the Futuh al-sham is again being used. [24] Walter Kaegi, stressing the fact that the Azdi text needs further study, argued that some of Azdi's statements "have more of a ring of authenticity than scholars have previously assumed," and that "the author or one of his sources possessed some very specific and accurate information concerning the reign of Heraclius." [25] In modern Arab scholarship, Azdi and his Futuh al-sham appear in a few studies that accept its authenticity unquestionably. [26] It suffices to mention Ihsan [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbas who briefly compared similar passages from the Azdi text and from the section on the conquests of Syria in the Futuh of Muhammad ibn [A.sup.[subset]]tham al-Kufi (d. fourth/tenth century). On the basis of this comparison, [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbas noted that Azdi's Futuh al-sham must be older than Ibn [A.sup.[subset]]tham's, since the former's narration and chains of authorities approximate the style of the compilers of the secon d and early third century in which period the text of Azdi should be placed. [27]

THE AUTHENTICITY OF AZDI'S FUTUH AL-SHAM

The attribution of Futuh al-sham to Azdi is made mainly in biographical dictionaries. But it is also found in works of history, belles-lettres, and in the indices of books. The sources that explicitly attribute this work to him are: Fahrasat of Ibn Khayr al-Ishbili (d. 575/1179), [28] Ghazawat of Ibn Hubaysh (d. 584/1188), [29] [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh alislam of Dhahabi (d. 748/1348), [30] al-Isaba and Tahdhib of Ibn Hajar al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Asqalani (d. 852/1448), [31] and al-[I.sup.[subset]]lan of Sakhawi (d. 902/1497). [32] Of these sources, only Ibn Khayr provides information concerning the transmission of the text from Azdi to him. [33] Ibn Hubaysh, by contrast, included the entire text of Azdi in his Ghazawat. But he did not indicate how the text of Azdi got to him and it seems likely that he knew it through the same transmission as that cited by Ibn Khayr. Muhyi al-Din ibn al[[blank].sup.[subset]]Arabi (d. 638/1240), similarly, quotes in his Muhadarat a few long passages from the Azdi text but w ithout mentioning the title of the book. [34] Azdi is also identified by Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar as the author of a Futuh al-sham in many biographical notices of informants on whose authority Azdi transmitted accounts of the conquests. In other biographical notices cited by Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar, individuals are identified only as being mentioned in the text of Azdi. However, neither Dhahabi nor Ibn Hajar devoted to Azdi a biography in any of their several biographical dictionaries. [35]

Most of the sources mentioned above, which are from Syria, Egypt, and Spain, speak of a work entitled Futuh al-sham attributed to Abu [Isma.sup.[subset]]il al-Azdi. Two chains of authorities, one stated in the text of AzdI and the other cited by Ibn Khayr, are said to have passed down the text. The first is almost identical in the two manuscripts and in the two edited versions. [36] Accordingly, the following complete chain [37] can be reconstructed out of four almost identical ones:

Abu [Isma.sup.[subset]]il Muhammad ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah al-Azdi al-Basri

al-Husayn ibn Ziyad al-Ramli [38]

Abu al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbas al-Walid ibn Hammad al-Ramli

Abu al-Hasan [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Ishaq [39] al-Baghdadt

Abu al- [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbas Munir ibn Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Khashshab

Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn [Sa.sup.[subset]]id ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah al-Habbal [al-Nu.sup.[subset]]mani al-Tujibi [40]

Abu al-Husayn [41] Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Musabbih al-[Muqri.sup.[contains]] [42]

Abu Tahir Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Abmad al-Silafi al-Isfahani

A pupil of Silafi

According to this chain, the person who transmitted Futuh al-sham from Azdi was al-Husayn ibn Ziyad al-Ramli. The name in this form does not appear in any of the known biographical dictionaries. However, in Tusi's Fihrist of [Shi.sup.[subset]]ite scholars, a certain a1-Husayn ibn Ziyad is identified as the author of a hadith compilation entitled Kitab al-ruda[subset] (the Book of Foster Relationship), which, according to Tusi, was transmitted from al-Husayn ibn Ziyad by al-Walid ibn Hammad. [43] So, having al-Walid ibn Hammad appear as the transmitter of al-Husayn's book would mean that this al-Husayn is the same person mentioned in the chain of the Azdi text. According to Tusi, too, al-Husayn was known to have transmitted hadiths from the Shi[subset]ite imam Abu al-Hasan [subset]Ali ibn Musa al-Rida (d. 203/818). [44] Al-Husayn is mentioned as well by Kashshi, [45] and by Ibn Hajar, who identified him as al-Husayn ibn Ziyad al-Kufi. [46] Therefore, it can be said that al-Husayn was an [subset]Alid (Shi[subse t]ite) from Kufa and was known to have been active between the late second/eighth and mid-third/ninth century. As for the nisba al-Ramli [47] attached to his name, it may refer to his possible residence in Ramla, Palestine, sometime in the third/ninth century. What is peculiar in the case of al-Husayn and al-Walid is that Kufans did engage in trade with Ramla in olive oil. That the profession of al-Walid ibn Hammad was selling olive oil is evident from the epithet al-Zayyat (oil seller) attached to his name. Thus, it is possible to suppose that al-Husayn, who was nicknamed al-Simsar (the broker), was also engaged in this kind of trade, and that he resided in Ramla for some time for the sake of buying olive oil and transporting it to Kufa. [48]

Al-Walid ibn Hammad al-Ramli transmitted the text of Azdi from al-Husayn ibn Ziyad, probably in Ramla, as mentioned before. Abu al-[subset]Abbas al-Walid ibn Hammad al-Ramli al-Zayyat was an average traditionist. He is said to have studied hadith in Damascus with Hisham ibn [subset]Ammar al-Dimashqi (d. 245/859). A few known traditionists, like Abu Bishr al-Dulabi (d. 310/923) and Abu al-Qasim al-Tabarani (d. 360/971), transmitted hadiths from him. [49] Al-Walid is said to have compiled a book entitled Kitab fada[contains]il bayt al-maqdis (the Book on the Merits of Jerusalem). [50] He died around the year 300/912. [51]

Abu al-Hasan [subset]Ali ibn Ahmad al-Baghdadi, according to the chain above, is said to have copied the text of Azdi from an oral transmission by al-Walid iba Hammad in 286 (August 899). Abu al-Hasan, known as Ibn al-Maqaburi al-Bazzaz, was originally from the town of Wasit, in Iraq, and moved to live in Baghdad, where he studied hadith with scholars like Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Shadhan al-Jawhari (d. 286/899). Later, he came to reside for sometime in Ramla, and is said to have been in Damascus around the year 341/952, where he was also active in hadith circles, and later moved to Cairo. [52]

In Cairo, Abu al-[subset]Abbas Munir ibn Abmad al-Khashshab al-Misri (d. 412/1022) [53] copied the text of Azdi from Abu al-Hasan al-Baghdadi, who was reading the text to his pupils in his house in 343/954. Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Sa[subset]id al-Habbal al-Tujibi al-Misri (d. 482/1089) copied the text from Abu al-[subset]Abbas al-Khashshab also in Cairo. He is said to have studied hadith with the latter, and to have met and studied hadith with[subset]Abd al-Ghani ibn Sa[subset]id al-Misri (d. 409/1018) in 407/1016. This Abu Ishaq al-Tujibi is known to have been a bookseller and to have died at the age of ninety. [54] From him, Abu al-Husayn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Musabbih al-Muqri[contains] [55] copied the text of Azdi in Cairo, as well. Abu al-Husayn was known as Ibn al-Qabila (son of the mid-wife) and was, according to Silafi (d. 576/1180), one of the prominent reciters of the [Qur.sup.[contains]]an in the mosque of [subset]Amr ibn al-[subset]As in al-Fustat. [56]

Abu Tahir Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Isfahani al-Silafi copied the text from Abu al-Husayn in Cairo in Dhu al-Hijja 515 (February 1122). Silafi was born around the year 475/1074 in Isfahan. He traveled throughout the Muslim world for the sake of studying hadith and other religious sciences. For that purpose, he lived in Damascus for two years (509-11/1115-17), after which he moved to Alexandria towards the end of 511/early 1118 and resided there until his death in 576/1180. [57] It is through this Silafi that all known extant copies of Azdi's Futuh al-sham were transmitted. [58]

The manuscript Lees used was copied from Silafi by a pupil whose name is not stated anywhere in the manuscript. [59] But the place and date of the transmission are known: Alexandria, in the month of Muharram 573 (July 1177). [60] The damage to the first and last pages of the manuscript makes it impossible to identify this pupil or to determine if it was transmitted from him to other people. The manuscript, however, seems now to have been lost. [61]

Manuscript Arabe 1664 was copied by another pupil of Silafi called Abu al-Fadl [Ja.sup.[subset]]far ibn [subset]Ali al-Hamadani al-Iskandarani. Abu al-Fadl was born in 546/1151 and is said to have been engaged in circles of learning in Alexandria, Cairo, and Damascus, where he died in 636/1238. [62] A certain Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghassani copied the text of Azdi from the text of Abu al-Fadl in Jerusalem in Dhu al-Hijja 613 (March 1217). This copy of the Azdi text passed into the possession of Nur al-Din Abu al-Hasan [subset]Ali ibn [Mas.sup.[subset]]ud al-Mawsili (d. 704/1304). Abu al-Hasan al-Mawsili was active in circles of learning in Cairo, Aleppo, and Damascus, where he is said to have resided. [63] The other [sama.sup.[subset]] (oral certification) written on the first and last folios of this manuscript records the names of the people who owned it at different times after Abu al-Hasan al-Mawsili. [64]

Manuscript Arabe 1665 was copied from Silafi by a third pupil of his, called Abu al-Maymun [subset]Abd al-Wahhab ibn [subset]Atiq ibn Hibat Allah ibn Wardan al-[subset]Amiri al-Misri (d. 626/1229), [65] in Alexandria during a series of lectures, the last of which was on Sunday 14 [Rabi.sup.[subset]] I 574 (30 August 1178). Subsequently, it was copied by Jamal al-Din Abu al-Fadl Yusuf ibn [subset]Abd al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]ti ibn Mansur ibn Naja al-Iskandarani al-Makhili [66] in Cairo also during a series of lectures, the last of which was on Saturday 14 Ramadan 635 (30 April 1238). [67] This Jamal al-Din (568/1172-672/1273) was known to have met Silafi and received from him an ijaza (license). [68] This manuscript was transmitted from Abu al-Fadl al-Makhili to a person who must have transmitted it in turn to others, as inferred by a date of transmission at the end of the manuscript: 1 Dhu al-[Qa.sup.[subset]]da 764 (12 August 1363). [69] But no names are mentioned. There are also some [sama.sup.[subset]] record ed at the end of this manuscript which indicate some of the people who later owned it.

Beside Egypt, the Futuk al-sham of Azdi was also known in Spain. As mentioned earlier, Ibn Khayr al-Ishbili stated that the Azdi text reached him through the following chain of authorities:

Azdi

[al-Husayn ibn Ziyad] [70]

Abu al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbas al-Walid ibn Hammad (d. Ca. 300/912)

Abu al-Hasan al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]addil [71]

Abu Muhammad al-Nahhas al-Misri (d. 416/1025) [72]

Hakam ibn Muhammad al-Judhami al-Quartubi (d. 447/1055) [73]

Abu [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali al-Ghassani al-Qurtubi (d. 498/1105) [74]

Abu Bakr al-Ishbili (d. 580/1184) [75]

Ibn Khayr (d. 575/1179) [76]

In addition to the allusion to the Azdi text by Ibn Khayr, the work was reproduced almost in its entirety in Ibn Hu baysh's Ghazawat. It is very likely that Ibn Hybaysh, being also from Spain, knew the copy referred to by Ibn Khayr. It is equally possible that Ibn Hubaysh copied the text of Azdi in Egypt from Silafi, because the latter was one of his teachers. [77] None of these possibilities can be verified, however, because Ibn Hubaysh did not mention how the text of Azdi reached him.

A third chain of authorities through which the text of Azdi was possibly transmitted is found in Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir's [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh. Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir quotes one passage from Azdi, but without attributing any work to him. This material has the following chain of authorities:

Azdi

al-Husayn ibn Ziyad

al-Walid ibn Hammad (d. ca. 300/912)

Abu Bishr al-Dulabi (d. 310/923) [78]

al-Hasan ibn Rashiq al-Misri (d. 370/980) [79]

Abu [Shu.sup.[subset]]ayb [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad al-Misri and Abu Muhammad [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-Rahman al-Misri [80]

[Rasha.sup.[contains]] ibn Nazif al-Dimashqi (d. 444/1052) [81]

Abu al-Qasim al-Nasib al-Dimashqi (d. 508/1114) [82] and Abu al-Wahsh al-[Muqri.sup.[contains]] al-Dimashqi (d. 508/1115) [83]

Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir (d. 571/1176) [84]

Based on these three chains of authorities, it is possible to say that the work of Azdi was transmitted from al-Walid ibn Hammad by at least two scholars, Abu al-Hasan al-Baghdadi and Abu Bishr al-Dulabi. Both traditionists were known to have come to Syria for the sake of learning hadith and other religious sciences. They carried the work to Cairo in the second half of the third century A.H. Abu al-Hasan al-Baghdadi copied the text from al-Walid ibn Hammad in [Sha.sup.[subset]]ban 286 (August 899), as mentioned earlier; whereas, in the case of Abu Bishr al-Dulabi, it may be argued that he copied the text of Azdi from al-Walid ibn Hammad sometime before 260/874, when he moved to Cairo. [85]

The indications of the availability of Azdi's Futuh alsham in more than one region suggest that the text was older than the sixth/twelfth century, when it was transmitted in Alexandria by Silafi to at least three of his pupils on different occasions. But it is undeniable that a wide interest in the Azdi text really developed only during the period of the Crusades. The survival of the text, thus, seems to have resulted from the reemerging interest in Futuh literature at that time. This explains why the text is absent from all prior historical sources. During the time of the Crusades at least three manuscripts of Azdi's Futuh al-sham were copied from Silafi (d. 576/1180) in Alexandria. It was then that the text was quoted in other compilations--quoted in its entirety in Ghazawat of Ibn Hubaysh (d. 584/1188), and partially in Muhadarat of Ibn al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Arabi (d. 638/1240). There is, moreover, no reason to doubt that Azdi existed, for his text was transmitted through more than one chain of authori ties, all of which, nevertheless, originated from a single earlier chain as follows:

Azdi

al-Husayn ibn Ziyad

al-Walid ibn Hammad [86]

The important point is the ascription of a similar contemporary text to [Sa.sup.[subset]]id ibn al-Fadl and, as will be observed in the following section, the ascription of the same material to still more compilers from the same period as Azdi.

DATE AND PROVENANCE OF AZDI'S FUTUH AL-SHAM

As mentioned in the previous section, Ibn Hubaysh used the text of Azdi in his Ghazawat. It is obvious that the differences in the Ghazawat version are not significant, and that most of the missing pages in Lees' edition can be reproduced also from the text of Ibn Hubaysh. Ibn Hubaysh, however, dropped almost all chains of authorities, stating only the first informant in each account, which is the case throughout his work; but only in four instances are the informants different from those given in the Azdi text. [87]

The importance of Ibn Hubaysh's Ghazawat stems from his reference to this material as having been taken from two Futuh al-sham books and not one only. [88] In addition to Azdi, he cited the name of a [Sa.sup.[subset]]id ibn al-Fadl, who is identified by Ibn Hubaysh as another author of a work having the same title as Azdi's. [89] Abu [[blank].sup.[subset]]Uthman [Sa.sup.[subset]]id ibn al-Fadl was a native of Basra and was known to have transmitted hadiths from the traditionist [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asim ibn Sulayman al-Ahwal (d. 142/759). He resided for some time in Damascus, where he was active in hadith circles, and returned to Basra, where he died sometime around 185/801. [90] [Sa.sup.[subset]]id's name is also mentioned in a chain of authorities given by Ibn Hubaysh that is identical to the chain of authorities for the same account in the Azdi text, except that the name of [Sa.sup.[subset]]id replaces that of Azdi. [91]

For Ibn Hubaysh, the texts of [Sa.sup.[subset]]id and Azdi seem identical, as he gives no indication of any differences between them. The fact that the material that constitutes the text of Azdi is ascribed by Ibn Hubaysh to two authors suggests that this material might have been taken, by both Azdi and [Sa.sup.[subset]]id, from a common source; or that one of the two depended on the other. But because Ibn Hubaysh did not state how the texts of Azdi and [Sa.sup.[subset]]id were transmitted to him, the possibility that their texts were based on an older compilation needs at this level further supporting evidence.

Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir's [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh, which only recently has been consulted seriously in studies of Islamic historiography, holds the key to the problem of dating the contents of the Azdi text. The biographical importance of Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir's work lies in his citation of the chains of authorities that transmitted almost every single piece of information from its original, assumed informant to him. Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir's use of this technique enables us, for example, to follow the variation of a certain account through the various chains of authorities that transmitted it, which may in turn determine to what extent each narrator adhered to the original version of the account, and whether or not he altered or introduced additions to it.

There is no reference to Azdi's Futuh al-sham in Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir's [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh. The name of Abu [Isma.sup.[subset]]il Muhammad ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah al-Basri is mentioned, however, in the chain of authorities for one account in the biographical notice for Adham ibn Mihriz al-Bahili, [92] an informant quoted in the Azdi text. The same account is also found in the Azdi text with the same chain of authorities, [93] where only two words, whose omission does not change the meaning, are dropped. Furthermore, Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir included fifty-nine accounts that are almost identical to accounts found in the Azdi text but quoted from narrators other than Azdi. These fifty-nine accounts are found in biographical notices for individuals who either transmitted them or were mentioned in them. The narrators to whom Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir ascribed these same accounts are Abu Mikhnaf al-Azdi (d. 157/774), [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Qudam i (d. after 200/815), and Abu Hudhayfa al-Bukhari (d. 206/821). They, with the exception of Abu Hudhayfa, quoted their material from the same informants as those cited for the same accounts by Azdi. Abu Mikhnaf is quoted for seven, Qudami for twenty-four, and Abu Hudhayfa for twenty-eight. Most are not reproduced in their entirety by Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, who in such cases quoted part of the account and then made a note indicating that the material in question has a continuation. [94]

The first narrator is Abu Mikhnaf Lut ibn Yahya al-Azdi. He was an [[blank].sup.[subset]]Alid ([Shi.sup.[subset]]ite) from Kufa and was famous for his transmission of historical accounts; but his reputation as a scholar of hadith was very poor. He is described in Sunnite biographical dictionaries as matruk al-hadith (i.e., his hadith transmission was disregarded as being unreliable), and that he used to transmit material from unknown people--a charge almost equal to forging the material. [95] In the [Shi.sup.[subset]]ite biographical dictionaries, however, Abu Mikhnaf is highly esteemed as a narrator and is recognized as an authority on historical accounts in Kufa. [96] The [Shi.sup.[subset]]ite compilers did not comment on the soundness of his hadith transmission. He died in 157/774, and is said to have left several books, of which a Futuh al-sham was one. [97]

Abu Mikhnaf was the subject of a study by Ursula Sezgin, who examined what survived of Abu Mikhnaf's books in later compilations, basically in Baladhuri's Ansab and Tabari's [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh. [98] She argued that Abu Mikhnaf was not a prose writer [99] but rather a collector who used to take reports from a variety of religio-political sources, rarely correcting the inaccuracies in them, and that his material is in general reliable. [100] Sezgin also maintained that although the accounts Abu Mikhnaf reported generally sympathize with [Shi.sup.[subset]]ites, his work is not as sectarian as the writings of other [Shi.sup.[subset]]ite scholars. [101]

The accounts of Abu Mikhnaf reached Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir through the following chain of authorities:

Abu Mikhnaf (d. 157/774)

[Zur.sup.[subset]]a ibn al-Safar

Abu [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allan Muhammad ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Aziz [102]

[[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-Salam ibn al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbas al-Hadrami al-Himsi [103]

Abu al-Qasim al-Qadi al-Himsi (d. 324/935) [104]

Abu Talib al-Umluki al-Himsi [105]

Abu al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]ammar al-Umluki al-Himsi (d. 431/1040) [106]

Abu [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah al-Qadi al-Dimashqi (d. 482/1090) [107]

Abu al-Qasim al-Saffar al-Dimashqi (d. 543/1148) [108]

Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir (d. 571/1176) [109]

The second narrator is Abu Muhammad [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah ibn [Rabi.sup.[subset]]a al-Qudami. He came from the town of Missisa, in southeastern Anatolia, and was known to have transmitted hadiths from the famous jurist Malik ibn Anas (d. 179/795). His reputation as a traditionist, however, was extremely poor and he was accused of forging hadiths, especially on the authority of Malik. Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir attributed to Qudami a work on Futuh al-sham. [110] He died after the year 200/815. [111] The accounts of Qudami reached Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir through the following chain of authorities:

Qudami (d. after 200/815)

Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Missisi [112]

Abu [Ya.sup.[subset]]qub Ishaq ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ammar al-Mississi [113]

[[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-[Ba.sup.[subset]]labakki (d. 380/990) [114]

Abu al-Husayn al-Dulabi al-Baghdadi [115]

[[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Aziz ibn Ahmad al-Dimashqi (d. 466/1074) [116]

Abu turab al-Ansari al-Dimashqi (d. 506/1112) [117] and Abu al-Qasim al-Husayni al-Dimashqi (d. 508/1114) [118]

and Abu al-Wahsh al-[Muqri.sup.[contains]] al-Dimashqi(d. 508/1115) [119]

and Abu Muhammad ibn al-Samarqandi al-Dimashqi (d. 516/1122) [120]

and Abu Muhammad ibn al-Akfani al-Dimashqi (d. 524/1129) [121]

Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir (d. 57 1/1 176) [122]

The third narrator is Abu Hudhayfa Ishaq ibn Bishr al-Bukhari. He was born in the town of Balkh and moved to Bukhara, in central Asia. He was known to have transmitted from famous hadith and maghazi scholars of the second/eighth century, such as the jurist Malik ibn Anas and Ibn Ishaq (d. 150/767). Abu Hudhayfa is said to have visited Baghdad at the time of the [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 170-93/786-809) and was engaged in the transmission of hadith and other genres of scholarship there. Although famous for his great ability at memorization, his reputation as a traditionist and as a narrator was very poor. He was accused of being a liar, and of dropping the names of his informants and claiming instead to have heard his informants' informants. In the [Shi.sup.[subset]]ite biographical dictionaries, however, Abu Hudhayfa is recognized as trustworthy. [123] He is said to have composed several works of history, including a Kitab al-futuh that had a section on the conquests of Syria ( al-Sham). [124] These works were presumably transmitted by his pupil [Isma.sup.[subset]]il ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Isa al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Attar al-Baghdadi (d. 232/847). Abu Hudhayfa died in Bukhara in 206/821. [125] The accounts of Abu Hudhayfa reached Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir through the following chain of authorities:

Abu Hudhayfa (d. 206/821)

[Isma.sup.[subset]]il ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Isa al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Attar al-Baghdadi (d. 232/847) [126]

al-Hasan ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali al-Qattan al-Baghdadi (d. 298/910) [127]

Abu [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali ibn al-Sawwaf al-Baghdadi (d. 359/970) [128]

Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Hammami al-Baghdadi (d. 417/1026) [129]

Abu [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali ibn al-Muslima al-Baghdadi (d. 479/1086) [130]

Abu al-Qasim ibn al-Samarqandi al-Dimashqi (d. 536/1142) [131]

Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir (d. 571/1176) [132]

From the history of the transmission of the works of these three narrators, the following can be deduced:

Parts of Abu Mikhnaf's Futuh al-sham were in circulation in Hims in the third and fourth centuries A. H. Abu al-[Mu.sup.[subset]]ammar al-Himsi made them known in Damascus in the early fifth century when Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir was informed about them.

Qudami's Futuh al-sham was known in the region of Missisa, in southeastern Anatolia, starting in the third century. Abu Muhammad al-Ba[subset]labakki introduced it some time in the fourth century in Damascus where Ibn [subset]Asakir became acquainted with it.

Abu Hudhayfa's Kitab al-futuh was in circulation in Baghdad. There Abu al-Qasim al-Samarqandi was introduced to it in the late fifth century, and it was transmitted from him by Ibn [subset]Asakir in Damascus in the early sixth century.

Of these three narrators, each of whom was known to have composed a work on the conquest of Syria, Abu Mikhnaf was the earliest. The possibility that Azdi had based his work on that of Abu Mikhnaf is founded on the fact that Azdi states in his own Futuh al-sham that he had heard a certain account from his father. [133] The same account is reproduced three times in Ibn [subset]Asakir's Ta[subset]rikh, one from Abu Mikhnaf, who claimed to have heard it from his father as well. [134] The remaining part of the chain of authorities in both texts is the same. It seems far from being a simple coincidence that both Azdi and Abu Mikhnaf would transmit, each from his father, the same account with the same chain of authorities. Another indication of family connection is Abu Mikhnaf's claim of transmission from his maternal grandfather, [subset]]Abd al-Malik ibn Nawfal ibn Musahiq (d. 145/762) of Medina. [135] Azdi too claims to have transmitted directly from [subset]]Abd al-Malik. One report on the authority of [subset ]Abd al-Malik is quoted by both Azdi and Abu Mikhnaf. [136]

In addition, there are four reports from Abu Mikhnaf that are identical to reports in Azdi, including their chains of authorities; [137] two reports that are almost identical save that no informants of Abu Mikhnaf were quoted; [138] and three allusions to material in Abu Mikhnaf that appears in Azdi as well. [139] Furthermore, when one checks the informants of Abu Mikhnaf, as quoted in Tabari's Ta[contains]rikh, and compares them to the most important mentioned by Azdi as his, it is apparent that they are the same. Yet, it is obvious that Abu Mikhnaf was well informed as to the specific identities of his informants and was able to offer information about them not found in any other source. Azdi mentioned them only by name. The informants of Abu Mikhnaf, as can be established from the chains of authorities quoted in Tabari's Ta[contains]rikh, and those of Azdi that are common to both, and the numbers of accounts transmitted from each are as follows:
 Mikhnaf Azdi
1. [subset]Abd Allah ibn [subset]Abd al-Rahman 4 1
 al-Mazini
2. [subset]Abd al-Malik ibn Nawfal ibn Musahiq 17 9
3. [subset] Abd al-Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Jabir 1 2
4. Abu Jahdam al-Azdi 3 14
5. Abu Jannab al-Kalbi 21 1
6. Abu al-Mughaffil 1 1
7. Abu al-Muthanna al-Kalbi 1 1
8. Al-Ajlah ibn [subset]Abd Allah 1 1
9. [subset]Amir ibn Malik Abu Tayyiba al-Qayni 2 4
10. Farwa ibn Laqit al-Azdi 20 2
11. Hamza ibn [subset]All ibn Mihfiz 1 1
12. Al-Harith ibn Ka[subset]b al-Azdi 16 4
13. Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Khazraji 7 13
14. Al-Mujalid ibn Sa[contains]id al-Hamad 16 2
15. Al-Nadir ibn Salih 38 1
16. Al-Qasim ibn al-Walid 1 2
17. Qudama ibn Hazim ibn Sufyan 1 1
18. Sa[subset]d Abu Mujahid al-Ta[contains]i 5 3
19. Al-Saq[subset]ab ibn Zuhayr 21 3
20. Suqayf ibn Bishr al-[subset]Ijll 1 1
21. Yahya ibn Hani[contains] al-Muradi 2 3


This list shows that, although they were at least one generation apart, both Abu Mikhnaf and Azdi had access to the same informants. The possibility that Azdi depended on Abu Mikhnaf without acknowledging him seems obvious.

Qudami, like Azdi, must have depended on Abu Mikhnaf as well. First, some of the informants from whom he transmitted were also the informants of Abu Mikhnaf. But Qudami died after 200/815, and he could not have met the informants of Abu Mikhnaf, who died in 157/774. It is very probable that he used Abu Mikhnaf's Futuh al-sham, possibly among other sources, as a reference for his own work, and that he neglected to indicate his sources and instead cited their informants directly. This possibility is supported by a passage in Ibn [subset]Asakir's Ta[contains]rikh, where the chain of authorities for an account, transmitted by Ibn [subset]Asakir from Quadami is given in the following way:

Al-Nadir ibn Salih told me on the authority of Salim ibn Rabi[subset]a, he said: he (Salim) told me while we were in the army of Mus[subset]ab ibn al-Zubayr. [140]

Iba [subset]Asakir adds that the same account was also transmitted by Abu Mikhnaf, and that he suspects that Qudami had taken it from Abu Mikhnaf, whose name was dropped. [141] The same chain of authorities was in fact used by Abu Mikhnaf. In Tabari's Ta[contains]rikh, Abu Mikhnaf is quoted for two accounts which he transmitted on the authority of al-Nadir ibn Salih from Salim ibn Rabi[subset]a, [142] where al-Nadir had stated that he had met Salim during the emirate of Mus[subset]ab ibn al-Zubayr (d. 71/690) and that he had asked him about previous events that Salim had witnessed. [143]

Another indication of Quadami's dependence on Abu Mikhnaf's Futuh Al-sham is the fact that both Abu Mikhnaf and Qudami transmitted from an informant by the name of Sa[subset]d ibn Mujahid al-Ta-[contains]1. [144] Curiously enough, the correct name of this informant, as can be verified in the biographical dictionaries and other historical works, is Sa[subset]d Abu Mujahid, [145] and not Sa[subset]d ibn Mujahid. [146] Only Abu Mikhnaf and Qudami give the name in this form, which indicates that the latter copied the name without verification as it appeared in Abu Mikhnaf's work. The two examples discussed above could not have been the result of simple coincidence and the argument that Qudami used Abu Mikhnaf's Futuh Al-sham as one of his sources seems reasonable.

As for Abu Hudhayfa, the accounts dealing with the conquests of Syria transmitted on his authority by Ibn [subset]Asakir are almost identical to those in the Azdi text. But Abu Hudhayfa, in the few instances where he cited his informants, mostly quoted from the famous Ibn Ishaq (d. 150/767) and from Sa[subset]id ibn [subset]Abd al-[subset]Aziz al-Tanukhi al-Dimashqi (d. 167/783). It seems that he was also acquainted with the book of Abu Mikhnaf, for he quoted one account from him. [147]

The accounts of Abu Hudhayfa that are identical to those in Azdi's text are twenty-eight in number. Some of them have almost identical chains of authorities. Therefore, it is possible to say that Abu Hudhayfa had access to the same material as Azdi, but through a different line of transmission. Accordingly, I am inclined to argue that this material must have constituted a corpus known to narrators in Medina like Ibn Ishaq, to narrators in Kufa like Abu Mikhnaf, and to narrators in Damascus like S acid Al-Tanukhi. These three are roughly of the same generation-they died in 150/767, 157/774, and 167/783, respectively. But they were from different geographical regions. The existence of no significant difference among their otherwise similar accounts may imply that the corpus in question can be dated to the early second/eighth century. This assumption, however, seems quite implausible. On the other hand, the possibility that Abu Hudhayfa forged the chains of authorities for the accounts of the conquests of Syria which he claimed to have transmitted from these narrators seems much more probable. Given his poor reputation in learned circles, this could very likely have been the case.

The conclusion that can be drawn therefore about these different Futuh compilations of Abu Mikhnaf, Azdi, S Sa[subset]id ibn al-Fadl, and Qudami is that they came from and were known in Iraq, Anatolia, Syria, Egypt and Spain through different transmissions. It is clear that the only common link between all of them is either at the level of Abu Mikhnaf, as already argued, or at the level of his informants. In other words, either Azdi, Sa[subset]id ibn Al-Fadl, and Qudami depended on the text of Abu Mikhnaf, or they, including Abu Mikhnaf, used the same source(s). But the latter assumption is unlikely, given that Abu Mikhnaf was a generation older than the other narrators, and that these narrators, given their death dates around the end of the second century, could not have met informants who lived in the early second century. The fact that this material remained almost identical despite being transmitted by various narrators and in various regions suggests that these narrators, as they transmitted this materi al, adhered to the original version of Abu Mikhnaf without any radical editing. The possibility that any one of them tampered with the material in question seems unlikely in view of the fact that there are no major differences in their content.

One last remark should be made before moving to discuss the informants quoted by Azdi. The material about the conquests of Syria found in Kitab al-futuh of Ibn A[subset]tham al-Kufi [148] might also have been based on the work of Abu Mikhnaf. This material is similar to, though more detailed than Azdi's. The problem of this similarity was discussed by Ihsan [subset]Abbas, who assumed that either Ibn A[subset]tham quoted Azdi or that they both quoted from the same source. [149] The former assumption can still be held as a possibility. One can also argue, in light of the fact that Ibn A[subset]tham was from Kufa, that, as in the case of Azdi, he based his material concerning the conquests of Syria on the work of Abu Mikhnaf, but without acknowledging it.

The extent to which Azdi depended on Abu Mikhnaf cannot be determined fully without the existence of the latter's work. It is also impossible to establish if Azdi added material to the texts he collected from other sources. Yet, since all significant informants who were quoted by Azdi were the informants of Abu Mikhnaf, as shown above, it is unlikely that Azdi added a substantial number of accounts to the original text of Abu Mikhnaf.

The total number of accounts in Azdi's Futuh al-sham is one hundred and twenty-two, [150] nine of which have nothing to do with the conquests of Syria. [151] The remaining ninety-three cover most of the details of the conquests, from the preparations in Medina until the capture of Jerusalem. The informants who were quoted in the Azdi text number forty-one; ten of them cannot be identified. [152] The thirty-one who are identifiable are quoted for eighty-eight out of the one hundred and two accounts. Fifteen from Kufa transmitted twenty-nine accounts, seven from Syria transmitted twenty-eight, six from Medina transmitted twenty-six, and three from Basra transmitted five. Almost all of these informants died between 120/738 and 160/777. Therefore, it is possible to say that the material in the Azdi text originated from three geographical regions: Iraq (especially Kufa), Syria, and Medina. Such a wide variety might be taken to imply that most of the chains of authorities, and subsequently most of the material fo rming the Azdi text, were forged. However, there is no concrete basis for this assumption.

The following list shows the informants of Azdi who could be identified and who were also the informants of Abu Mikhnaf:

Informants from Kufa

1. Abu Jannab Yahaa ibn Abi Hayya al-Kalbi (d. ca. 147/764), an [subset]Alid. [153]

2. Abu Ma[subset]shar Ziyad ibn Kulayb al-Hanzali al-Barra[contains] (d. ca. 120/738). [154]

3. Al-Ajlah ibn [subset]Abd Allah al-Kindi (d. 145/762), an [subset]Alid. [155]

4. Farwa ibn Laquit al-Azdi al-[subset]Amiri. The name is cited in the Azdi text each time as "Farwa or Qurra." Farwa must be correct because it is cited in this form in Tabari's Ta[contains]rikh and in Ibn [subset]Asakir's Ta[contains]rikh. [156] The accounts quoted from Farwa by Abu Mikhnaf present mostly details about the revolt of the Kharijite Shabib ibn Qays (d. 77/696), in which Farwa was fighting against the Umayyads in Kufa and its region, [157] placed by Tabari in the year 77/696. [158] Moreover, Abu Mikhnaf transmitted from Farwa accounts the latter had quoted from Adham ibn Mihriz al-Bahili, a commander in the Umayyad army that was stationed in Iraq during the emirates of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (d. 95/714). [159] In the text of Azdi, Farwa transmitted two accounts from Adham. [160]

5. Al-Harith ibn Ka[subset]b al-Walibi al-Azdi, an [subset]Alid. [161]

6. Isma[contains]il ibn Abi Khalid (d. 145/762), famous traditionist. [162]

7. Al-Mujalid ibn Sa[subset]id al-Hamadani (d. 144/762), known traditionist. [163]

8. Al-Nadir ibn Salih al-[subset]Absi. [164] He fought in the army of Shurayf ibn Hani[contains] al-Madhhiji (d. 78/697) that participated in the conquests of Sijistan, [165] placed by Tabari in the year 23/644. Al-Nadir was later engaged with Mutarrif ibn al-Mughira, whose army was fighting that of al-Hajjaj in the region around Mada[contains]in in Iraq in 77/697. [166] He is said to have resided in Kufa after the defeat of Mutarrif. [167]

9. Al-Qasim ibn al-Walid al-Hamadani al-Khibdha[subset]i (d. 141/758), a known traditionist. [168]

10. Qudama ibn Hazim ibn Sufyan al-Khath[subset]ami. His name and the chain of authority in the Azdi text where he is mentioned varies in the two manuscripts and in Lees' edition: Qudama from Jabir from Sufyan; Qudama ibn Hazim from Sufyan; and Qudama ibn Jabir from Sufyan. [169] Qudama was quoted by Abu Mikhnaf when reporting on the fight between Shabib ibn Qays al-Khariji (d. 77/696) and the Umayyad army in the region of Kufa in 76/695.170 The name, as it appears in Tabari's Ta[contains]rikh, is Qudama ibn Hazim ibn Sufyan, which is also the case in Ibn [subset]Asakir's Ta[contains]rikh. [171]

11. Sa[subset]d Abu Mujahid al-Ta[contains]i (d. ca. 125/743).172

12. Al-Saq[subset]ab ibn Zuhayr al-Azdi al-Kabiri (d. ca. 135/752). [173] Abu Mikhnaf identified him as the descendent of Kabir ibn al-Dawl from the Azd. [174]

13. Suqayf ibn Bishr al-[subset]Ijli. [175] His name is cited in Tabari's Ta[contains]rikh as Sayf.

14. Yahya ibn Sa[subset]id al-Azdi. He was the father of Abu Mikhnaf. Azdi claimed to have heard an account from his father. [176] The same account is transmitted in Ibn [subset]Asakir's Ta[contains]rikh from Abu Mikhnaf on the authority of his father. [177] It seems certain that Abu Mikhnaf's version was the original and that Azdi referred to Abu Mikhnaf's father, not his own.

15. Yahya ibn Hani[contains] ibn [subset]Urwa al-Muradi (d. ca. 125/ 743), a known traditionist. [178]

Informants from Syria

16. [subset]Abd al-Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Jabir al-Azdi (d. ca. 155/772), a famous traditionist. [179]

17. Abu Hafs al-Azdi. [180]

18. Abu Jahdam al-Azdi. He was in the army of al-Hajjaj that was fighting a rebel group in Dayr al-Jamajim in Iraq in 83/702. [181]

19. Abu al-Khazraj al-Ghassani: His name is given by Ibn [subset]Asakir as Abu al-Jarrah--probably the result of a punctuation problem. He came originally from a place near the town of Busra, south of Damascus, as can be inferred from the Azdi text as well as his biography in Ibn [subset]Asakir's Ta[contains]rikh, and he witnessed the conquests of Syria. [182] There is a problem in the chain of authorities where Abu al-Khazraj was quoted by Azdi. It reads as if Azdi transmitted directly from him, which could not have been the case. It must read as it appears in Ibn [subset]Asakir's Ta[contains]rikh: al-Musayyab ibn al-Zubayr from Abu al-Khazraj (or al-Jarrah).

20. Abu Tayyiba [183] [subset]Amr ibn Malik al-Qayni. He was recruited while a young boy to the army of [subset]Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad (d. 67/686), who was fighting a rebel pro-[subset]Alid army under al-Mukhtar ibn Abi [subset]Ubayd al-Thaqafi (d. 67/687) in Iraq in 66/685. [184]

21. [subset]Amr ibn Mihsan ibn Suraqa ibn [subset]Abd al-[subset]la ibn Suraqa al-Azdi. He fought with Mu[subset]awiya at the battle of Siffin (37/657). [185]

22. Yazid ibn Yazid ibn Jabir al-Azdi (d. Ca. 133/750), a famous traditionist. [186]

Informants from Medina

23. [subset]Abd Allah ibn [subset]Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi [subset]Amra al-Ansari al-Mazini. [187] His first name only is given by Azdi in a chain of authority where [subset]Abd Allah is quoted as transmitting from his father. [188] The full name is cited by Abu Mikhnaf in Tabari's [contains]rikh. [189]

24. [subset]Abd al-Malik ibn Nawfal ibn Musahiq al[subset]]Amiri (d. ca. 145/762), [190] a known traditionist, Abu Mikhnaf's maternal grandfather. [191]

25. Abu [subset]Ubada [subset]Isa ibn [subset]Abd al-Rahman ibn Farwa al -Ansari al-Zuraqi. [192]

26. Hisham ibn [subset]Urwa ibn al-Zybayr al-Asadi (d. ca. 145/762). He is said to have frequented Kufa at the time when the caliph al-Mansur was residing there. He died either in Baghdad or in Kufa. [193]

27. Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Thabit al-Khazraji, Abu Yusuf al-Ansari. [194]

28. [subset]Ubayd Allah ibn al[subset]]Abbas ibn [subset]Abd al-Muttalib (d. 58/678 or 87/706). [195]

Informants from Basra

29. Abu al-Muthanna al-Kalbi. He was quoted by Abu Mikhnaf as transmitting from a relative of his from Basra, which suggests that he himself was from Basra. [196]

30. [subset][Ata[contains]] ibn [subset]]Ajlan al-Hanafi (d. ca. 135/752). [197]

31. Malik ibn Qusama ibn Zuhayr al-Mazini al-Tamimi. His father was from Bara and died during the emirate of al-Hajjaj over Iraq or after the year 80/699.198

As mentioned above, fifteen informants out of the thirty-one identified were from Kufa. As for the Syrians, the most frequently quoted either resided for some time in Kufa, as in the case of Abu Jahdam al-Azdi (fourteen accounts) and [subset]Amr ibn Malik al-Qayni (four accounts); [199] were known to have visited it, as in the case of Yazid ibn Yazid ibn Jabir (five accounts); or were known to have been Abu Mikhnaf's informants, as in the case of [subset]Abd al-Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Jabir (two accounts). [200] Of the Medinan informants, [subset]Abd al-Malik ibn Nawfal (nine accounts) was Abu Mikhnaf's maternal grandfather; [201] and Hisham ibn [subset]Urwa (one account) is said to have frequented Kufa at the time of the [subset]Abbasid caliph al-Mansur (r. 136-58/754-75). One may conclude from this that Azdi's text was based largely on material that was in circulation in Kufa (sixty-four accounts).

Accordingly, the view that the Azdi text is of Syrian provenance, as Conrad maintains, needs to be revised. Conrad suspected that Sa[subset]id ibn [subset]Abd al[subset]Aziz al-Tanukhi al-Dimashqi (d. 167/783) had a role in passing down some of the material that Azdi used. [202] As mentioned already, Abu Hudhayfa transmitted on the authority of Sa[subset]id al-Tanukhi some of the accounts which are almost identical to those of Azdi. However, there is no way to ascertain that Abu Hudhayfa was actually quoting Sa[subset]id al-Tanukhi.

Given his poor reputation in scholarly circles, it is likely that he tampered with the chains of authorities and replaced Abu Mikhnaf's name with that of the highly acclaimed and trustworthy traditionist Sa[subset]id al-Tanukhi. Moreover, the link in the material of Azdi to Abu Mikhnaf of Kufa can be proven much more convincingly, as we have seen.

Alternately, if we assume that Sa[subset]id al-Tanukhi actually had a role in transmitting the accounts Abu Hudhayfa quoted from him, it should be noted that he did not mention his informants by name, unlike Abu Mikhnaf and Azdi. In Ibn [subset]Asakir, for instance, Sa[subset]]id al-Tanukhi is quoted, through the intermediary of Abu Hudhayfa. for three reports that are almost identical to reports in Azdi. [203] In the three instances, Sa[subset]id al-Tanukhi identified his informants as qudama[contains]] ahi al-shum (men long established in Syria); whereas in the Azdi text these informants and their chains of authorities are as follows:

Rashid ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-Rahman al-Azdi (two accounts). [204]

al-Muhajir ibn Sayfi al-[subset]Udhri

[al] [subset]ab[subset]]ab ibn Zuhayr

Sahl ibn Sa[subset]d al-Ansari. [205]

Thabit (al-Bunani al-Basri)

Muhammad ibn Yusuf

Only Rashid ibn [subset]Abd al-Rahman al-Azdi could be connected to Syria, as he had participated in its conquests, [206] whereas all the others were either from Iraq (al-Saq[subset]]ab and Muhajir were from Kufa, and Thabit from Basra), or from Medina (Muhammad ibn Yusuf and Sahl ibn Sa[subset]]d). Although Sa[subset]id al-Tanukhi could have had his material from non-Syrian informants, his reference to these ambiguous informants as "men long established in Syria" suggests a tampering with the chains of authorities. But even if one accepts his reliability, the presence of these accounts and their transmission by non-Syrian informants prior to his time would suggest that there was more than one source for them. This would dismiss altogether the argument that Sa[subset]id al-Tanukhi was a source for the Azdi text or at the least some of the Azdi accounts.

Another point made by Conrad in favor of the text's Syrian provenance is its pro-Himsi character. [207] In fact, the Azdi text does highlight the role of men from Hims in battles during the conquest of Syria. The most relevant account in this respect fits very well in the Awa.[contains] genre, naming the first army commander to reach Hims, the first to kill an unbeliever in Hims, the first to be born in Hims, the first to receive money from the state-treasury, and the first to frequent the kuttab (Qur.sup.[contains]]an and scribal teachers) in Hims. [208] Ironically enough, it was transmitted from Adham ibn Mihriz al-Himsi--who features in some of these firsts--by Farwa ibn Laqit al-Azdi, an [subset]Alid from Kufa. [209] from Kufa. [209] Moreover, an abridged form of the same account appears in Yaqut's Mu[subset]jam al-buldan and is quoted there from Abu Mikhnaf, [210] which also supports the dependence of Azdi on Abu Mikhnaf. If one accepts that showing a preference for Hims would suggest a link to Hims, the n we should expect that both Abu Mikhnaf and Farwa ibn Laqit were from Hims, or at least pro-Himsi. This, however, is clearly not the case since Farwa and Abu Mikhnaf were both pro-[subset]Alids from Kufa. Therefore, if the Azdi text includes material in favor of Hims, it does not necessarily mean that its provenance was Hims or Syria.

CONCLUSION

Based on these arguments, I believe that the text of Azdi was compiled some time in the late second/eighth century, and was based on the Futuh al-sham of Abu Mikhnaf (d. 157/774) of Kufa. Moreover, the material that constitutes Azdi's text was not unique to Azdi. It was known to other compilers of his generation, Sa[subset]id ibn al-Fadl al-Basri, al-Qudami al-Missisi, and Abu Hudhayfa al-Bukhari. The fact that this material survived in an almost identical form strongly suggests that these narrators kept it as they were introduced to it and without editing it significantly. Accordingly, Azdi's Futuh alsham is one of the oldest historical sources for the conquests of Syria that has survived until modern times.

Moreover, Azdi's source, Abu Mikhnaf, was an [subset]]Alid from Kufa. Most of the informants who were quoted by Azdi, and who were also the informants of Abu Mikhnaf, were either [[blank].sup.[subset]]Alids from Kufa or resided for some time there. The Futuh al-sham was transmitted from Azdi by al-Husayn ibn Ziyad, also an [[blank].sup.[subset]]Alid from Kufa. Therefore, it is possible that Azdi, originally from Basra, lived in Kufa were he was introduced to the Futuh al-sham of Abu Mikhnaf, and he based his own Futuh al-sham on it. Azdi, therefore, should be placed in the generation that followed Abu Mikhnaf, and, as such, his death may be set at around 190/806. Whether he had [[blank].sup.[subset]]Alid sympathies remains an open question. In any case, Azdi's Futuh al-sham represents a Kufi narration of the conquest of Syria that implies no direct religious or political biases on his part.

This paper is based on my dissertation for the degree of Master of Arts in History (American University of Beirut, 1996). I would like to thank my advisor, Tarif Khalidi, and the two readers, Nadia Maria El-Cheikh and Maher Jarrar, for their valuable comments and criticism. I also thank my classmate and friend Khalid Rouayheb, with whom I had many discussions regarding this paper. Certainly, mistakes remain my own responsibility.

(1.) M. J. de Goeje, Memoire sur le Fotouho's-Sham attribue a Abou Ismail al-Bacri, in Memories d'histoire et de geographie orientales, no. 2 (Leiden, 1864).

(2.) Lawrence I. Conrad, "Al-Azdi's History of the Arab Conquests in Bilad al-Sham: Some Historiographical Observations," in Proceedings of the Second Symposium on the History of Bilad al-Sham During the Early Islamic Period up to 40 AH/640 AD, ed. Muhammad [[blank].sup.[subset]]Adnan Bakhit (Amman, 1987), I: 28-62. Conrad is preparing a new edition and translation of Azdi's text.

(3.) Ibn Hibban, Kitab al-thiqat (Haydarabad, 1973-83), IX: 84.

(4.) Abu [Nu.sup.[subset]]aym al-Isfahani, Hilyat [al-awliya.sup.[contains]] wa-tabaqat [al-asfiya.sup.[contains]] (Cairo, 1938), III: 128.

(5.) According to Ibn Abi Hatim, his father Muhammad (d. 264/878) had met Yahya ibn Bistam in that year: Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi, Kitab al-jarh [wa-al-ta.sup.[subset]]dil (Haydarabad, 1952), IX: 132.

(6.) Azdi, Futuh al-sham (Ms. Arabe 1664 in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris), f. 83a(5-8). Henceforth, Azdi (M1).

(7.) Azdi, Futuh al-sham (Ms. Arabe 1665 in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris), f. 149a(5-8). Henceforth, Azdi (M2).

(8.) The worm-eaten part at the beginning of the text is reproduced by Lees at the end: see Kitab futuh al-sham, ed. William N. Lees (Calcutta, 1854), appendix, 1-3. Henceforth, Lees.

(9.) About the condition of the manuscript which Lees used, see Lees, preface, v-vii; and for the three missing pages in the body of the text, see Lees, 90 (n. 2), 120 (n. 2), 178 (n. 2).

(10.) Azdi, [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh futuh al-sham, ed. [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-[Mun.sup.[subset]]im [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir (Cairo, 1970). Henceforth, [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir.

(11.) About the manuscript [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir claimed to have found, see his introduction, 1-m.

(12.) After comparing both edited texts, I found them nearly identical in almost every respect. Both begin and end in the same manner; and curiously, the worm-eaten parts are in most cases identical in both texts. [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir also borrowed the footnotes and comments of Lees without acknowledgment. The differences, however, are mainly verbal; in a few instances lines or chains of authorities either are dropped from or added to [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir's edition. [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir neglected to refer to the missing folios of Azdi's manuscript, and interestingly enough, by comparing the mysterious additions that he makes in lieu of these missing folios with the respective passages in the two manuscripts of the Bibliotheque Nationale, it is obvious that they do not match: compare [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir, 102(4)-103(12) to Azdi (M1), 28b(12)-29a(9) and Azdi (M2), 52a(ll)-53a(8); [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir, 137(2-8) to Azdi (M1), 38b(16)-39a(15) and Azdi (M2), 69b(l)-70a(l0). Moreover, the addition in [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir, 257(13)-259(6), does not figure, on the one hand, in either of the two manuscripts and, on the other hand, is not even in accord with the preceding section in his edition. Thus it is clear that [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir copied the text of Lees. For general comments on [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir's edition, see Akram D. [al-.sup.[subset]]Umari, Dirasat tarikhiyya (Medina, 1981), 70-71, 76-79; Conrad, 29-32.

(13.) Lees, preface, vii.

(14.) Lees, preface, v.

(15.) De Goeje, 14-15.

(16.) De Goeje, 38-39.

(17.) De Goeje, 22-23.

(18.) De Goeje, 15.

(19.) Tabari, [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh al-rusul wa-al-muluk, ed. M. J. de Goeje et al. (Leiden, 1879-1901), I: 3233 and II: 525.

(20.) Conrad, 33-48.

(21.) Conrad, 48-55.

(22.) Conrad, 59.

(23.) Conrad, 50, 59.

(24.) Walter Kaegi, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests (Cambridge, 1992); Albrecht Noth, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-Critical Study, tr. Michael Bonner (Princeton, 1994); and Fred M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing (Princeton, 1998).

(25.) Kaegi, 11-12.

(26.) Muhammad Kurd [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali, "Futuh al-sham," Majallat [al-majma.sup.[subset]] [al-.sup.[subset]]ilmi [al-.sup.[subset]]arabi 20 (1945): 544-49; [[blank].sup.[subset]]Umari, 69-79.

(27.) Ihsan [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbas, Ta'rikh bilad al-sham min qabl al-islam hatta bidayat [al-.sup.[subset]]asr al-umawi, 600-661 (Amman, 1990), 22-23.

(28.) Ibn Khayr, Fahrasat ma rawah [[blank].sup.[subset]]an shuyukhih min al-dawawin al-musannafa fi durub [al.sup.[subset]]ilm wa-[anwa.sup.[subset]] al-[ma.sup.[subset]]ariff ed. Franciscus Codera and J. Ribera Tarrago (Baghdad, 1963), 238.

(29.) Ibn Hubaysh, Ghazaw&t Ibn Hubaysh, ed. Suhayl Zakkar (Damascus, 1992), I: 195.

(30.) Dhahabi, [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh al-islam, ed. [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-Salam Tadmuri (Beirut, 1987-94), 141-50 A.H.: 213 and 255.

(31.) Ibn Hajar, Al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-sahaba (Cairo, 1323 A.H.), I: 180; idem, Tahdhib al-tahdhib (Haydarabad, 1325-27 A.H.), III: 485.

(32.) Sakhawi, al-[I.sup.[subset]]lan bi-al-tawbikh li-man dhamm al-ta' rikh, ed. Saliha al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali (Baghdad, 1963), 263. Sakhawi cites the regional affinity of Azdi as al-Misri instead of al-Basri, most probably a scribal error.

(33.) Ibn Khayr, 238.

(34.) Ibn aI-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Arabi, Muhadarat al-abrar wa-musbmarat al-akhyar (Cairo, 1906), II: 201, 266-67, 279-80, 284-87.

(35.) Ibn Hajar cites Abu [Isma.sup.[subset]]il al-Azdi at least twelve times as the author of Kitab futuh al-sham; see Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba, I: 180, 272; III: 11, 153; VI: 149, 165, 166, 167, 267 (twice), 363; VIII: 186.

(36.) Azdi (M1), la(2-7); Azdi (M2), 4a(3-15); Lees, 35-36; [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir, I.

(37.) This chain of authorities derives mainly from Azdi (M2) because it is the most complete and correct. The differences with the other chains of authorities are indicated below.

(38.) The name of al-Husayn was completely dropped here from Azdi (M1). This is certainly a scribal error, since with the exception of this case, the name appears continuously in the chains of authorities within this same manuscript.

(39.) [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali in Lees, 36, and in al-Khatib a1-Baghdadi, [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh baghdad (Beirut, 1986), XI: 330; Muhammad in Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh madinat dimashq, ed. [[blank].sup.[subset]]Umar ibn Gharama [al.sup.[subset]]-Umrawi and [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali Shiri (Beirut, 1995-), VII: 464.

(40.) Tujibi after a quarter in old Cairo: [Sam.sup.[subset]]ani, al-Ansab, ed. [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah Barudi (Beirut, 1988), I: 448. In Lees' and [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir's editions, it appears as al-Yuhfi, which has no meaning and must be a scribal error: see Lees, 36; [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir, 1.

(41.) Abu al-Hasan only in Azdi (M2), f. 4a(9).

(42.) Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Musabbih al-[Muqri.sup.[contains]] in [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir's edition, which is definitely a mistake: [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amir, 1.

(43.) Tusi, al-Fihrist, ed. Muhammad S. Al Bahr al-[subset]]Ulum (Najaf, 1937), 57; see also Ibn Shahrashub, Ma[subset]alim al-[subset]ulama[contains], ed. Muhammad S. Al Bahr al-[subset]Ulum (Najaf, 1961), 39; Tustari, Qamus al-rijal (Tahran, 1379-87 A.H.), III: 285; and Abtahi, Tahdhib almaqal (Isfahan, 1405 A.H.), II: 411. See also Conrad, 57-58.

(44.) Tusi, Rijal al-Tusi, ed. Muhammad S. Al Bahr al-[subset]Ulum (Najaf, 1961), 374.

(45.) I could not locate the biography of al-Husayn in Kashshi's Rijal. The reference to al-Husayn's name in Kashshi's work is taken from Ibn Hajar.

(46.) Ibn Hajar, Lisan al-mizan (Haydarabad, 1329-31 A.H.), II: 284.

(47.) The nisba al-Ramli is commonly accepted as referring to the town of Ramla in Palestine.

(48.) Ibn [subset]Asakir, VI:40. Sam[subset]]ani (III:91) cites the name of a certain Abu Zakariyya Yahya ibn [subset]]Isa ibn [subset]Abd al-Rahman al-Ramli (d. 202/817) and said about him that he was from Kufa and had resided in Ramla where he was engaged in buying olive oil and sending it to Kufa; see also [subset]Abd Allah Mukhlis, Mi[contains] al-jami[contains] al-abyad fi al-ramla (Beirut, n.d.), 8.

(49.) Tabarani, al-Mu.[contains]jam al-awsat, ed. Muhammad S. Isma[subset]il (Amman, 1999), VI: 419-21, where al-Walid is quoted for fourteen hadith.

(50.) Dhahabi ascribed this book to al-Walid: see Dhahabi, Siyar a[subset]lam al-nubala[contains] (Beirut, 1981-85), XIV: 78; see also Suleiman A. Mourad, "A Note on the Origin of Fada[contains]il Bayt al-Maqdis Compilations," Al-Abhath 44 (1996): 31-48.

(51.) Ibn [subset]Asakir, LXIII: 121-23; Dhahabi, Szyar, XIV: 78-79; idem, Ta[contains]rikh, 291-300 A.H.: 320; Ibn Hajar, Lisan, VI: 221-22.

(52.) Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, XI: 322; Ibn [contains]Asakir, XLI: 229-30; see also n. 39 above.

(53.) Dhahabi, Siyar, XVII: 267; Hanbali, Shadharat al-dhahab fi akhbar man dhahab (Cairo, 1350 A.H.), III: 197.

(54.) Safadi, al-Wafi bi-al-wafayat, ed. Helmut Ritter et al. (Stuttgart, 1991), V: 355; Hanbali, III: 366.

(55.) No biographical notice for Abu al-Husayn al-Muqri[contains] could be found in the known biographical dictionaries. Silafi mentioned him in his Mu[subset]jam al-safar, citing the names of all his teachers: see Silafi, Mu[subset]jam al-safar, ed. Sher Muhammad Zaman (Islamabad, 1988), 12-13.

(56.) Silafi, 13. Silafi transmitted from Abu al-Husayn al-[Muqri.sup.[contains]] an account which has the following chain of authorities: Silafi from Abu al-Husayn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Musabbih ibn Hamza al-[Muqri.sup.[contains]] in Cairo from Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn [Sa.sup.[subset]]id ibn ][subset]Abd Allah al-Tujibi ...: Silafi, 12. These names also appear in this order in the chain of authorities that passed down the text of Azdi.

(57.) Ibn [subset]Asakir, V: 208-11; Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-[a.sup.[subset]]yan, ed. Ihsan [subset]Abbas (Beirut, 1968), I: 105-7; Safadi, VII: 351-56; Dhahabi, Siyar, XXI: 5-39.

(58.) De Goeje argued that the chain of authorities cited in Lees' edition is "fictif," basically because he could not identify any of the men who were mentioned in it: de Goeje, 19-22.

(59.) Lees, preface, vi. [subset]Umari identified this pupil as Abu Tahir Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Isfahani. In fact, [subset]Umari, probably unintentionally, read wrongly the words of Lees, and the name he gave to Silafi's pupil is that of Silafi: [subset]Umari, 71.

(60.) Lees, 35-36.

(61.) I could not establish where this manuscript now is. De Goeje indicated (p. 39) that it is in Berlin. However, it seems to have been misplaced or lost, since Sezgin does not mention it in the entry on Azdi: Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (Leiden, 1967), I: 292-93.

(62.) Safadi, XI: 117; Dhahabi, Siyar, XXIII: 36-39.

(63.) Safadi, XXII: 194.

(64.) Azdi (M1), fs. 1a and 83a.

(65.) Dhahabi, Siyar, XXII: 314.

(66.) Al-Makhili after the town of Makhil in the region of Burqa in modern-day Libya, from which Jamal al-Din's family originally came: Dhahabi, Siyar, XXIII: 116-17; Yaqut, [Mu.sup.[subset]]jam albuldan (Beirut, n.d.), V: 73 (Makhil). In the manuscript, it reads al-Mahalli, a scribal error.

(67.) Azdi (M2), f. 4a(7).

(68.) Dhahabi, Siyar, XXIII: 116-18.

(69.) Azdi (M2), f. 149a(2-4).

(70.) It is probable that Ibn Khayr unintentionally dropped the name of al-Husayn ibn Ziyad from this chain of authorities.

(71.) [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Ishaq. He is the same person identified in a pervious chain of authorities: see n. 39 above.

(72.) [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-Rahman ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Umar al-Tujibi: Safadi, XVIII: 205.

(73.) Hanbali, III: 275.

(74.) Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad al-Jayyani: Safadi, XIII: 32; Dhahabi, al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Ibar fi khabar man ghabar, ed. Muhammad Zaghlul (Beirut, 1985), II: 377.

(75.) Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Tahir. He is said to have made the pilgrimage to Mecca, taught in Cairo, Aleppo, and Basra, and to have settled in Bijaya, in modem-day Algeria, where he died in 580/1184: Safadi, II: 113-14.

(76.) Concerning this chain of authorities, see Ibn Khayr, 238.

(77.) Ibn al-Abbar, [Mu.sup.[subset]]jam fi ashab al-qadi al-imam Abi [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali al-Safadi, ed. Franciscus Codera (Baghdad, n.d.), 51. (78.) Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Warraq: [Sam.sup.[subset]]ani, II: 511-12; and Safadi, II: 36.

(79.) Safadi, XII: 16-17.

(80.) I could not identify either of them.

(81.) Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XVIII: 148-49.

(82.) [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Husayni: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XLI: 244-47.

(83.) [Subay.sup.[subset]] ibn al-Muslim al-Darir: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XX: 139-40.

(84.) For his chain of authorities, see Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, VII: 464.

(85.) [Sam.sup.[subset]]ani, II: 511.

(86.) This point goes against one of the conclusions of de Goeje. According to him, Azdi's text was fabricated in the period of the Crusades to promote the call for the jihad, and could not have been transmitted from Silafi: de Goeje, 19-22 and 38-39.

(87.) For these four cases, compare Ibn Hubaysh, I: 158, 238, 247, and II: 6 to Lees, 20, 151-52, 166, and 45, respectively.

(88.) Ibn Hubaysh, I: 195, 238, 303 and 324. The title Kitab futuh al-sham is mentioned twice by Ibn Hubaysh but without naming its author, and in both cases, he states, "[raja.sup.[subset]]a ila (back to) kitab futuh al-shum": Ibn Hubaysh, I: 184 and 202.

(89.) Ibn Hubaysh, I: 195.

(90.) Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XXI: 275-77; and Dhahabi, [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh, 181-90 A.H.: 169.

(91.) Compare Ibn Hubaysh, I: 190 to Lees, 65.

(92.) Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, VII: 464.

(93.) Lees, 132.

(94.) Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir generally resorted to brevity when quoting long accounts, especially if used for biographical purposes. For example, parts of one account given in the section on the history of Damascus are used in four separate biographical entries: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, II: 152-58 is found in XI: 316-17; XLVI: 56, 107-8; and XLIX: 364.

(95.) Bukhari, Kitab al-[ta.sup.[subset]]rikh al-kabir (Haydarabad, 1361 A.H.), VII: 252; Ibn Abi Hatim, VII: 182; Dhahabi, [Ta.sup.[subset]]rikh, 151-60 A.H.: 581; and Kutubi, Fawat al-wafayat, ed. Ihsan [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abbas (Beirut, 1973), III: 225-26.

(96.) Tusi, Fihrist, 129-30; idem, Rijal, 70, 279; Najashi, Rijal al-Najashi (Beirut, 1988), II: 191-93; Tustari, VII: 443-47.

(97.) Ibn al-Nadim, al-Fihrist, ed. Rida Tajaddad (Beirut, 1988), 105; Yaqut, [Mu.sup.[subset]]jam [al-udaba].sup.[subset]] (Cairo, 1938), XVII: 42.

(98.) Ursula Sezgin, Abu Mihnaf: Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie der umaiyadischen Zeit (Leiden, 1971). Julius Wellhausen also, although very briefly, analyzed Abu Mikhnaf's historical transmission in Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz (Berlin, 1902), iii-v.

(99.) U. Sezgin, 91.

(100.) U. Sezgin, 90.

(101.) U. Sezgin, 93-94.

(102.) No biographical notice for either Abu [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah or [Zur.sup.[subset]]a could be found.

(103.) Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XXXVI: 209.

(104.) [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd al-Samad ibn [Sa.sup.[subset]]id: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XXXVI: 229-31; Safadi, XVIII: 445.

(105.) [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XLIII: 55-57.

(106.) Al-Musaddad ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, LVII: 392-93.

(107.) Al-Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Sulami: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XIII: 17-19.

(108.) Al-Khadir ibn al-Husayn: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XVI: 434-35.

(109.) For this chain of authorities, see Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, II: 119. It should be pointed out that the editor of the Beirut edition here misread some names. Therefore, I refer the reader to the partial edition by Salah al-Din al-Munajjid (Damascus: [al-Majma.sup.[subset]] al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Ilmi al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Arabi, 1951), I: 503.

(110.) Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XLVI: 106.

(111.) Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Adiy, al-Kamil ft [du.sup.[subset]][afa.sup.[subset]] al-rijal (Beirut, 1984), IV: 1569-71; [Sam.sup.[subset]]ani IV: 459; Safadi, XVII: 438; Dhahabi, Mizan al-[i.sup.[subset]]tidal fi naqd al-rijal, ed. [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali al-Bajawi (Beirut, 1963), II: 488-89; Ibn Hajar, Lisan, III: 334-36. See also Michael Lecker, "The Futuh al-sham of [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn [Rabi.sup.[subset]]a al-Qudami," BSOAS 57 (1994): 356-60.

(112.) No biographical notice for him could be found. His father, Ibrahim ibn Mahdi, was originally from Baghdad and moved to Missisa, where he died in 225/840: al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, VI: 178.

(113.) No biographical notice for him could be found.

(114.) Abu Muhammad al-Qadi: Safadi, XVII: 489.

(115.) Ahmed ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali al-Khallal: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, V: 69-70.

(116.) Abu Muhammad al-Kittani: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XXXVI: 262-65.

(117.) Haydara ibn Ahmad: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XV: 378-79.

(118.) Seen. 82 above.

(119.) Seen. 83 above.

(120.) [[blank].sup.[subset]]Abd Allah ibn Ahmad: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XXVII: 41-42; Safadi, XVII: 44.

(121.) Hibat Allah ibn Ahmad: Dhahabi, al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]Ibar II: 424.

(122.) For this chain of authorities, see Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, XV: 321-22 and XXIV: 160-61. The same chain is reproduced by Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir in the biographical notice for Dulabi: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, V: 69-70.

(123.) Tusi, Rijal, 149; Najashi, 1:194-95; Tustari, I: 480-83.

(124.) Ibn al-Nadim, 106; Yaqut, [Mu.sup.[subset]]jam al-[udaba.sup.[contains]], VI: 73. Shakhawi named the book Futuh al-sham wa-al-rum wa-misr wa-al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]iraq wa-al-maghrib: Sakhawi, 264.

(125.) Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, VI: 326-28; Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, II: 745-47; Dhahabi, [Ta.sup.[contains]]rikh, 201-10 A.H.: 48-50; Safadi, VIII: 405-6.

(126.) Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, VI: 262-63.

(127.) Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, VII: 375.

(128.) Muhammad ibn Ahmad: Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, I: 289.

(129.) [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali ibn Ahmad: Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, XI: 329-30.

(130.) Muhammad ibn Muhammad: Safadi, I: 152.

(131.) [Isma.sup.[subset]]il ibn Ahmad: Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, VIII: 357-59; Safadi, IX: 88.

(132.) For this chain of authorities, see Ibn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Asakir, II: 61 and XLVI: 107.

(133.) Lees, 203-5.

(134.) Ibn [subset]]Asakir, XV: 321.

(135.) See no. 24 in the regional informants list.

(136.) Compare Ibn [subset]]Asakir, XXIV: 394 to Lees, 43.

(137.) Compare Tabari, I: 2020 to Lees, 55-56; Ibn [subset]]Asakir, II: 119-20 to Lees, 90-91; Ibn [subset]Asakir, XI: 453 to Lees, 167-77; and Ibn [subset]Asakir, XV: 321 to Lees, 203-5.

(138.) Compare Ibn [subset]Asakir, XLI: 131 to Lees, 125; and Yaqut, Mu[subset]jam al-buldan, II: 303 to Lees, 131-32.

(139.) Compare Ibn [subset]Asakir, XV: 185 to Lees, 31-33; Ibn [subset]Asakir, XLIX: 360 to Lees, 79; and Ibn [subset]]Asakir, XX: 40 to Lees, 118-19.

(140.) Ibn [subset]Asakir, XX: 39-40.

(141.)Ibn [subset]Asakir, XX: 40.

(142.) Tabari, II: 18 and 39.

(143.) Tabari, II: 18.

(144.) Tabari, I: 1888, 1889, and II: 548; Ibn [subset]Asakir, LX: 258-59.

(145.) The name in Azdi is Sa[subset]id, not Sa[subset]d.

(146.) Bukhari, II: 2:65; Ibn Abi Hatim, IV: 99; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, VI: 397; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 121-30 A.H.: 113; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, III: 485.

(147.) Ibn [subset]Asakir, LXV: 67-69; Lees, 86-89.

(148.) Ibn A[subset]tham al-Kufi, Kitab al-futuh, ed. Na[subset]im Zarzur (Beirut, 1986).

(149.) [subset]Abbas, 22.

(150.) This figure is based on the number of chains of authorities that are present in Lees' edition. Besides that edition, the two manuscripts and Ibn [subset]Asakir's Ta[contains]rikh and Ibn Hubaysh's Ghazawat were used for additional checking of the accounts and chains of authorities.

(151.) These nine accounts deal with the conquests of Iraq or incidents that took place during the journey of the caliph [subset]Umar on his way back from Syria to Medina: see Lees, 45-61, 236-44.

(152.) These informants are: Abu [subset]Abd Allah ibn al-Husayn, Abu Khaddash, Abu al-Mughaffil, Abu Ziyad, al-Hakam ibn Jawwas ibn al-Hakam ibn al-Mughaffil, Hamza ibn [subset]Ali, al-Hasan ibn [subset]Abd Allan, Mikhnaf ibn [subset]Abd Allah ibn Yazid ibn al-Mughaffil, al-Musayyab ibn al-Zubayr, and [subset]Umar ibn [subset]Abd al-Rahman.

(153.) Ibn Abi Hatim, IX: 138-39; Ibn Hibban, Kitab al-majruhin min al-muhaddithin wa-al-[subset]afa[contains] wa-al-matrukin, ed, Mahmud Zayid (Aleppo, 1396 A.H.), III: 111-12; Ibn [subset]Adiy, VII: 2669-70; Daraqutni, Kitab al-[subset]afa[contains] wa-al-matrukin, ed. Subhi al-Samarra[contains]i (Beirut, 1984), 176; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 141-50 A.H.: 345; idem, Diwan al-du[subset]afa[contains] wa-al-matrukin (Beiruc, 1988), II: 444; Ibn Hajar, Taqrib al-tahdhib, ed. Muhammad [subset]Awwama (Aleppo, 1986), 589, 629.

(154.) Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, VI: 327; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 111-20 A.H.: 365-66); Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, III: 382.

(155.) Ibn Hibban, al-Majruhin, I: 175; Ibn [subset]Adiy, I: 417-19; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 141-50 A.H.: 63; idem, al-Du[subset]afa[contains], 1: 65; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, I:189-90.

(156.) Tabri, I: 2805-6; Ibn [subset]Asakir, VII: 464, XLIX: 359-60.

(157.) Tabari, I: 2805-6; II: 560, 564, 886, 903, 924-26, 941, 947-48, 954-55, 960, 962, 971, 974-75, 977.

(158.) Tabari, II: 948-49, 962.

(159.) Tabari, II: 564; see also Ibn Sa[subset]d, al-Tabaqat al-kubra (Beirut, 1958), VI: 216.

(160.) Lees, 125-30, 131-32.

(161.) Tusi, Rijal, 87; Tustari, III: 32; and Ibn Hajar, Lisan, II: 156.

(162.) Ibn Abi Hatim, II: 174-76; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, IV: 19- 20; Tusi, Rijal, 105; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 141-50 A.H.: 68-69; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, I: 29 1-92.

(163.) Ibn Sa[subset]d, VI: 349; Ibn Abi Hatim, VIII: 361-62; Ibn Hibban, al-Majrulnn, III: 10-11; Ibn [subset]Adiy, VI: 2414-17; Daraqutni, 165; Ibn al-Nadim, 103; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 141-50 A.H.: 288; idem, al-Du[subset]afa[contains], II: 273; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, X: 39-41.

(164.) Ibn Abi Hatim, VIII: 477; and Dhahabi, al-Du[subset]afa[contains], II: 402.

(165.) Tabasi, I: 3357.

(166.) Tabari, I: 983, 985.

(167.) Tabari, II: 1001.

(168.) Ibn Abi Hatim, VII: 122-23; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, VII: 334; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 141-50 A.H.: 255; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, VIII: 340.

(169.) Azdi (Ml), f. 9a(5); Azdi (M2), f. 17a(1); and Lees, 20, respectively. [subset]Amir follows Lees: Amir, 25.

(170.) In Tabari's Ta[contains]rikh, it reads as follows: "Abu Mikhnaf said that Qudama ibn Hazim ibn Sufyan al-Khath[subset]ami told him that a group of them were killed that day": Tabari, II: 938.

(171.) Ibn [subset]Asakir, LXVIII: 32-33.

(172.) Bukhari, 11.2:65; Ibn Abi Hatim,' IV: 99; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, VI: 379; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 121-30 A.H.: 113; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, III: 485.

(173.) Ibn Abi Hatim, 1V: 455; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqdt, VI: 479; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 131-40 A.H.: 451; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, IV: 432.

(174.) Baladhuri, Ansab Al-ashraf, IV, pt. 1, ed. Ihsan [subset]Abbas (Wiesbaden, 1979), 519.

(175.) Ibn Abi Hatim, IV: 322; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, VI: 436.

(176.) Lees, 203-5.

(177.) Ibn [subset]Asakir, XV: 321.

(178.) Ibn Abi Hatim, IX: 195; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, VII: 614; Ibn Manzur, Mukhtasar ta[contains]rikh dimashq, ed. Ahmad Hamush and Muhammad a1-[subset]Umar (Damascus, 1985), XXVII: 302-3; Dhahabi, Td[contains]rikh, 12 1-30 A.H.: 302; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, XI: 293.

(179.) Ibn Sa[subset]d, VII: 466; Bukhari, 111.1: 365; Ibn Abi Hatim, V: 299-300; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, VII: 8 1-82; al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, X: 211-14; Ibn [subset]Asakir, XVI: 48-64; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 15 1-60 A.H.: 500-501; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, VI: 297-98.

(180.) Ibn Hajar, Lisan, VI: 790; Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal fi asma[contains] al-rijal, ed. Bashshar Ma[subset]ruf (Beirut, 1980-92), XIII: 160. His name is given as Abu Muhammad al-A Azdi in Azdi (M2), f. 19a(l0).

(181.) Tabari, II: 1099-1100.

(182.) Lees, 71-72; Ibn [subset]Asakir, LXVI: 105.

(183.) In Tabari, Abu Kabsha.

(184.) Tabari, II: 647. The tribe of Qayn, according to Hamadani, had inhabited the region of Hayyaniyya, south of Damascus, since pre-Islamic times: Hamadani, Sifat jazirat al-[subset]arab, ed. Muhammad al-Akwa[subset] (Beirut, 1973), 274. About Hayyaniyya, see Yaqut, Mu[subset]jam al-buldan, II: 327 (al-Hayyaniyya).

(185.) Ibn [subset]]Asakir, XLVI: 330-31.

(186.) Bukhari, IV:2:369-70; Ibn Abi Hatim, IX: 296-97; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, VII: 619; Ibn Manzur, XXVIII: 29-30; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 131-40 A.H.: 569-70; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, XI: 370-71.

(187.) Ibn Abi Hatim, V: 96.

(188.) Lees, 45-52.

(189.) Tabari, I: 3101.

(190.) Ibn Abi Hatim, V: 372; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, VII: 107; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 141-50 A.H.: 212-13; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, VI: 428.

(191.) Ibn [subset]Asakir, XXIV: 394.

(192.) Ibn Abi Hatim, VI: 281-82; Ibn Hibban, al-Majruhin, II: 119-20; al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, XI: 143; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, VIII: 218-19.

(193.) Ibn Sa[subset]d, VII: 321; Ibn Abi Hatim, IX: 63-64; al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, XIV: 37-42; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, XI: 48-51.

(194.) Tabari, I: 3233, 3402-3.

(195.) Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, III: 248; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 81-100 A.H.: 146-47; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, VII: 19-20.

(196.) Tabari, II: 517.

(197.) Ibn Ma[subset]in, II: 331; Bukhari, 111.2:476; Ibn Abi Hatim, VI: 335; Ibn Hibban, al-Majruhin, II: 129-30; Ibn [subset]]Adiy, V: 2002- 3; Daraqutni, 138; Dhahabi, al-Du[subset]afa[contains], II: 157; idem, Ta[contains]rikh, 131-40 A.H.: 489-90; Ibn Hajar, Lisan, IV: 173; idem, Tahdhib, VII: 208-10.

(198.) Ibn Abi Hatim, VII: 147; Ibn Hibban, al-Thiqat, V: 328; Dhahabi, Ta[contains]rikh, 91-100 A.H.: 457; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, VIII: 378.

(199.) See nos. 18 and 20 in the regional informants list.

(200.) See nos. 16 and 22 in the regional informants list. Yazid is said to have visited Kufa: Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, XI: 370-71. [subset]Abd al-Rahman came to Baghdad at the time of the [subset]Abbasid caliph al-Mansur (r. 136-58/754-75): Ibn [subset]Asakir; XXXVI: 52. Abu Mikhnaf transmitted from him in Tabari's Ta[contains]rikh: Tabari, II: 568. Also, both brothers originally inhabited Basra before they moved to Damascus: Ibn [subset]]Asakir, XXXVI: 57.

(201.) See no. 24 in the regional informants list.

(202.) Conrad, 50, 59.

(203.) Compare Ibn [subset]]Asakir, XVII: 461, II: 148-51, and 151-52 to Lees, 190-91, 194-98, and 198-200, respectively.

(204.) Lees, 190-91, 194-96.

(205.) Lees, 196-200.

(206.) Ibn [subset]Asakir, XVII: 460-61.

(207.) Conrad, 52-53.

(208.) Lees, 131-32.

(209.) See no. 4 in the regional informants list.

(210.) Yaqut, Mu[subset]jam al-buldan, II: 203 (Hims).
COPYRIGHT 2000 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2000 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:MOURAD, SULEIMAN A.
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Date:Oct 1, 2000
Words:14541
Previous Article:SUMBAT [DAVIT.sup.[subset]]IS-DZE AND THE VOCABULARY OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY IN THE ERA OF GEORGIAN UNIFICATION.
Next Article:INTERIORIZED FIRE RITUALS IN INDIA AND IN TIBET.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters