Maghazi and the Muhaddithun: Reconsidering the Treatment of "Historical" Materials in Early

Collections of Hadith
Author(s): Muhammad Qasim Zaman
Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 1-18
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/176112 .
Accessed: 30/03/2011 20:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Journal of Middle East Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
Int. J. Middle East Stud. 28 (1996), 1-18. Printed in the United States of America

Muhammad Qasim Zaman

MAGHAZI AND THE MUHADDITHUN:

RECONSIDERING THE TREATMENT OF
"HISTORICAL" MATERIALS IN EARLY
COLLECTIONS OF HADITH

I
Islamicists have long been interested in the historiography of the sira and maghazi
literature. Ibn Ishaq's Sira has been fruitfully compared with al-Waqidi'sMaghdzi,
and both have been compared with sections in al-Bukhari's Sahih or with other
collections of hadith.1It has often been observed that the materials constituting the
Sira of Ibn Ishaq or the Maghdzi of al-Waqidi-works which may for convenience,
but only with reservations, be designated "historical"-are often the same as those
preserved in collections of hadith such as al-Bukhari's. It has also been observed
that what distinguish these materials from one another are essentially the former's
narrative and chronological structures and the motives and methods governing
these structures.2John Wansbrough, who has compared these texts, postulates as
well a "development from loosely structured narrative to concise exemplum...
[which] illustrates perfectly the stylistic difference between Sira and sunna, be-
tween the mythic and normative preoccupations (Geistesbeschiftigungen) of early
Muslim literature."3
Whether Wansbroughis right in claiming so precise a "development" or "move-
ment" from sira to sunna-which, for him, means the movement from Ibn Ishaq
through al-Waqidi to al-Bukhari-will not be examined here. Nor is it the purpose
here to make another attempt at comparing Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, al-Tabari,and so
on with one another or with any of the hadith texts. This essay seeks rather to ar-
gue that collections of hadith, some of which have substantial sections on maghdzi
and other "historical" matters, should not be treated-as Wansbrough, for one,
would seem to do-as a single, undifferentiatedentity that can be compared with
"historical" works as a unit, or of which al-Bukhari'scollection can be considered
a representative sample. There are in fact significant differences among various ha-
dith collections in, for instance, the methods and purposes governing the selection
and use of the maghazi materials and in the contents of such materials themselves.
It is the purpose of what follows to document some of these differences and to try
to account for them.

Muhammad Qasim Zaman is a lecturer at the Quaid-i Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.

? 1996 Cambridge University Press 0020-7438/96 $7.50 + .10

2 MuhammadQasim Zaman

This enquiry has implications for the study not only of hadith but also of early Is-
lamic historiography and historical thought in general. Some of these are briefly
worth stating here. The early muhaddithun'shandling of the maghdzi will be seen to
shed considerable light on how they, as the emergent religious elite of Islamic
societies, viewed some of the most crucial aspects of the earliest history of Islam,
what they thought worth remembering about it, and what place and function such
materials as they did preserve came to have in their collections of hadith. However,
if anything of substance is to be learned about the muhaddithun,it must be grounded
in the understandingthat the literary strategies which they brought to bear on the
materials in question differed quite markedly from one traditionist to another.
Although "historical" materials in hadith will not be compared here with more
conventional specimens of early Islamic historiography,this study should demon-
strate that any attempt to make such a comparison will have to take account of the
diversity of concerns, methods, and choices-and of the form and content-govern-
ing collections of hadith.
These collections do not constitute a monolithic corpus any more than does the
Arabic historical tradition itself. That works of a particulargenre can and often do
differ quite significantly from one anotherin how they treat their subject matter and
to what end, even as they discuss the same subjects or handle similar materials, is
a realization that has been slow in coming to many areas of Islamic studies.4 With-
out such a recognition, however, interpretingthe meaning and significance of par-
ticular texts, their relationship to works of the same or other genres, and judgments
about their place in Islamic historiographyor intellectual history-if not about that
historiography or history itself-may often prove to be quite misleading.

II

Materials pertaining to, or having something to do with, the maghazi are part of all
major collections of hadith; a separate Kitdb al-Maghazi is, however, found in
only a few. Collections that do have independent "books" on maghazi include the
Musannaf of CAbdal-Razzaq ibn Hammam al-Sancani (d. 826),5 the Musannaf of
Ibn Abi Shayba (d. 849),6 and the Sahih of al-Bukhari (d. 870).7 This essay will be
limited to a study of the Kitab al-Maghazi in each of these three early collections.
Although materials bearing on maghazi are often found in different contexts and
under various headings in the same collection of hadith, we shall be concerned
only with such materials as are part of a Kitab al-Maghdzi itself.
Of the "books" of maghdzi being considered here, CAbdal-Razzaq's purportsto
be the earliest, followed by those of Ibn Abi Shayba and al-Bukhari. Although the
former two are each part of a Musannaf now, it is not entirely certain that they have
always been such. Much of CAbdal-Razzaq's Kitdb al-Maghdzi may have come
from a similarly titled and now lost work of Macmaribn Rashid (d. 770), as Motzki
has noted;8 but the indebtedness to Macmarscarcely precludes the possibility that
this material, as transmittedby CAbdal-Razzaq, was perhaps from the outset also a
part of the latter'sMusannaf:9The Kitdb al-Maghazilof Ibn Abi Shayba seems, for
its part, to be very similar in content to, if not identical with, his Ta'rikh.The latter
work is extant in manuscript and has been briefly described by H. Schtitzinger.10
 "Historical" Materials in Early Collections of Hadith 3

The Ta'rikh may have originated, and continued to exist, as a separate work, even
as it was being included in Ibn Abi Shayba's Musannaf as the Kitab al-Maghazi.
Whether the latter was part of the Musannaf from the start or became so at some
later stage is not known.11Ibn Abi Shayba'sMusannaf also has a Kitab al-Ta'rikh,
but it is concerned exclusively with certain military campaigns and conquests in
the years following the Prophet'sdeath and apparently bears little resemblance to
the contents of the Berlin manuscriptof the Ta9rikhas described by Schutzinger.'2
Now, whether or not the Kitab al-Maghazi of CAbdal-Razzaq and of Ibn Abi
Shayba originally formed part of their Musannafs is of ratherless importance than
the fact that they came to be regarded as such at some stage. That they were so re-
garded is hardly surprising, for insofar as a distinction between muhaddithtn and
akhbdriyyuncan be made at all,13the work of both our compilers is to be reckoned
among the former rather than the latter. Much of Ibn Abi Shayba's materials also
come from muhaddithin, as do 'Abd al-Razzaq's:Macmar,to whom the latter is so
thoroughly indebted, and al-Zuhri (d. 742)-a principal source used by Macmar-
were both among the most distinguished of the early scholars not only of maghazi
materials but of hadith in general. The maghazl of CAbdal-Razzaq and Ibn Abi
Shayba are different in many importantrespects from that of al-Bukhari, as well as
from each other, as this essay will show; nevertheless, they do represent the selec-
tion, ordering, and presentation of materials from a traditionist'sperspective, and
lend themselves to analysis as hadith texts. A closer look at these materials should
illustrate this point.

III

Al-Bukhari'sKitdb al-Maghazi is a more or less chronological ordering of the mili-

tary campaigns of the Prophet in Medina.'4 Beginning with a traditionthat refers to
the ghazwa of al-'Ushayra,15a traditionwhose sole interest seems to be to ascertain
the exact number of the Prophet'sexpeditions and to determine (although not date)
the first of them, al-Bukhari quickly proceeds to list traditions having something to
do with the battle of Badr, the first major military engagement between the Prophet
and his Meccan opponents. Traditions about subsequent expeditions or military en-
counters of the Prophet, or about other major episodes in the Medinan period of his
career, are arrayedin sequence, and the kitdb ends with a section on the last illness
and death of the Prophet.
The Kitdb al-Maghazi in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba, a collection that pur-
ports to be older than al-Bukhari's,also follows, if with importantlapses, a gener-
ally chronological sequence. But the scope of Ibn Abi Shayba's Maghdzi is much
wider than al-Bukhari's.The former's text begins with "the affair of the elephant"
immediately before the birth of the Prophet, and shows considerable interest in the
Meccan period of his life. The earlier sections comprise traditions (in this order)
about some of the portents of Muhammad'sprophethood,the beginnings of his mis-
sion, the Meccan persecution, the "night journey" (al-miCrdj),and the conversion
of some of those who were later to be among his prominentcompanions. Traditions
about the migration of certain persecuted Muslims from Mecca to Abyssinia and
the disquisition on Islam by one of these refugees in the court of the ruler there are
4 MuhammadQasim Zaman

reported after traditions about the Prophet's migration to Medina, and traditions
about the letters Muhammadis supposed to have written to Chosroes, Caesar, and
other foreign rulers to summon them to Islam come between the account of the con-
version of prominent companions and the traditions regarding Abyssinia. Now, if
such "historical"works as the Sira of Ibn Ishaq and the Ta'rikhof al-Tabari,and so
on are any indication, this sequence would seem to be very awkward. But then, Ibn
Abi Shayba does not claim that his is a historical sequence. The awkwardness of the
sequence is striking, not because hadith collections are known for considerations of
chronology (a point to which we shall return),but because Ibn Abi Shayba's order-
ing of the material on the Medinan phase of the Prophet'scareer does defer to a con-
ventional, if implicit, chronological framework.
The topics Ibn Abi Shayba covers for the Medinan period of the Prophet's life
are comparable, as is their sequence, to those in al-Bukhari. There are very sig-
nificant differences between the two works in content and, apparently,in purpose,
however, and these will be discussed later. But even in the range of topics, Ibn Abi
Shayba again goes much further than al-Bukhari was to venture. For the former's
Kitab al-Maghazi does not end with the death of the Prophet but, rather, includes
traditions in sequence about the caliphates of all four of the Prophet's immediate
successors. Quite apart from their inherent interest, these traditions' presence in
this context is significant for being yet another indication that the scope of early
works of maghazi was not necessarily limited to the career of the Prophet.16
CAbdal-Razzaq's Kitdb al-Maghazi shares some of the broad range of Ibn Abi
Shayba'sMaghazi but very little of the latter'sorganization. It begins with traditions
about certain events preceding the birth of Muhammad(e.g., the digging of the well
of Zamzam by his grandfather)and, in what is a fairly coherent narrative, gives an
account of the early life of Muhammad until and including the beginnings of his
mission. But without any apparentindication of continuity, or awareness of the lack
of it, the next section concerns itself with the episode of Hudaybiyya, and the one
which follows it goes back to the battle of Badr. If there is a patternin the way topics
arejuxtaposed, it is not self-evident, although it is fairly certain that considerations
of chronological sequence are not foremost among the compiler's concerns.17The
variety of topics in CAbdal-Razzaq'sMaghazi is striking, however. Apartfrom those
concerned with the Prophet'slife and career, there are exegetical traditions about
aspects of pre-Islamic "salvation history,"so to speak-about the ashdb al-ukhdud,
the ashab al-kahf, and the building of the bayt al-maqdis. There are also traditions
about certain episodes of Muslim history in the post-Muhammadanperiod.18
Implicit in this survey of the organization of materials in the compilations of
al-Bukhari,Ibn Abi Shayba, and CAbdal-Razzaq is the assumptionthat they acquired
their present shape at the hands of their putative compilers. This may not necessar-
ily be the case. "[B]ooks were originally the product of followers, not masters,"
Calder says of the earlyfiqh works.19This is a judgment he would be perfectly will-
ing to extend to early collections of hadith.20It is therefore possible that the seem-
ingly arbitraryjuxtaposition of traditions in 'Abd al-Razzaq's Maghazi is no more
the compiler's fault (if it is a fault at all) than that some deference to a chronological
frameworkby Ibn Abi Shayba and al-Bukhari is the achievement of either. But the
organization of the material in the master's "notebooks" need not have differed
 "Historical" Materials in Early Collections of Hadith 5

greatly from what it came to be in "finished works,"the "real books,"21disseminated

later. Calder's suggestion that "works like the Sahlhs of [al-]Bukhari and Muslim
should probably be recognized as emerging into final form at least one generation
later than the dates recorded for the deaths of their putative authors"22seems to take
too mechanical a view of the stabilization of texts, but even if his suggestion is fol-
lowed, we would still have to account for the peculiarities of form and content
which particulartexts (as "finished works") exhibit. The concern here is not with
dating texts or with determining when they emerged as "finished works"; it is only
with examining what distinguishes one text of hadith from another and what such
differences can tell us about the strategies governing each. These differences would
remain worth examining whether the hadith texts in question had stabilized by the
time their putative authorsdied or had become such at the hands of their pupils. The
peculiarities of the texts under consideration here may now be illustrated with some
specific examples.

IV
Badr
The basic content of several traditions about the battle of Badr is common to the
maghazi of CAbdal-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shayba, and al-Bukhari. All three compila-
tions have traditions about the slaying of Abu Jahl, the quintessential unbeliever.
They also show varying degrees of interest in those taken prisoner at Badr, contain
exegetical traditions, and have much else in common. So too with many of the ten-
dencies which particulartraditions embody. Al-Bukhari'sinterest in matters doctri-
nal and theological becomes clear in the very first tradition about Badr, which has
a predestinationist tendency,23and is in evidence throughout his Maghazi. A con-
cern with juridical matters is also prominent, although in this respect, and at least
for Badr, Ibn Abi Shayba's material is of equal, if not greater, interest.
The juridical questions on which Ibn Abi Shayba and al-Bukhariprovide material
are, with some overlapping, rather different. The primary concern of the former
seems to be with questions of booty, the treatmentof prisoners, the amount of ran-
som demanded for them, and so forth. For his part, al-Bukhari is concerned, much
more than is Ibn Abi Shayba, with attesting to the religious merit that participation
in the battle of Badr assuredto the companions. Those who had taken part in it came
to be regardedas the best of Muslims; the social, and juridical, significance of such
an estimation was that these men were later entitled to the highest stipends in the
diwan, which was established by CUmarduring his caliphate.24To underscore, per-
haps, the significance of the men involved, al-Bukhari concludes the section on
Badr with a list of names; this is not an exhaustive list of all the participants,how-
ever, but one limited to those who have already figured in the Sahih's traditions
relating to Badr (man summiya min ahl Badrfi'l-JdmiC).25The presence of this list
here and the principle of selection governing it are both of some interest, but more
striking is its initial order. The list begins with the Prophet and then names all four
of the Rashiduncaliphs, in the orderin which they succeeded the Prophetand one an-
other.What is evidently being assertedhere is not only that, of all of the participants
in the battle of Badr, these four companions are of the highest religious staturebut
6 MuhammadQasim Zaman

also that the order of their succession is the order of their religious merit. Both as-
sertions were distinctive of early Sunnism and have remained so.26
Al-Bukhari's list also draws attention to a fundamental and distinctive feature of
his method. Its governing principle (one not peculiar to his material on Badr) is to
bring together all kinds of disparate traditions bearing on matters of doctrine, ju-
ristic import, fa.da'il, and so forth, not because they are in any sense integral or
even relevant to the "historical" event of Badr, but only because one or another of
the Prophet's companions, who appears in these traditions, was present at Badr.
The narratio of "historical" works has not simply given way here to exemplum.
Exempla certainly pervade the traditions, but-in the case of the material on Badr,
at least-they are not necessarily derived from, dependent on, or even related to
some prior narrativeabout Badr. The reason such exempla are found in this context
is only that the people with reference to whom they are articulatedhad participated
in the battle of Badr.
The case is rather different with the traditions regarding Badr in the maghazi of
CAbdal-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shayba. The former'saccount is brief and-compared
with the themes touched upon in Ibn Abi Shayba's traditions-limited in scope,
but the bulk of it (reported with the isnad: Macmar [ibn Rashid]-Ayyub [ibn Abi
Tamima]-'Ikrima) takes the form of a continuous and coherent tradition with a
certain unity, a beginning and an end. That is, CAbdal-Razzaq's Maghazi may
broadly be deemed to have a narrative structure.27In contrast, Ibn Abi Shayba's
account is fragmented into frequently overlapping and discontinuous traditions
that are not necessarily sequential. But if his traditions lack a narrative structure,
they are not devoid of what F. R. Ankersmit has characterized as "narrative
substance"-namely, "statements [in terms of which] ... an 'image' or 'picture'of
the past... is constructed."28Ibn Abi Shayba's Maghazi is hardly an exercise in
history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist ("as it actually happened"). For all their dis-
continuity, however, his traditions do afford an "image" of Badr; the "image" is
obviously incomplete in comparison, for example, to what Ibn Abi Shayba himself
must have known of the "history"of Badr, but it is presumably sufficient to enable
him to articulate the various juristic and dogmatic concerns he has in view. For Ibn
Abi Shayba, Badr is not simply a point of reference, as it is in the case of al-Bukhari,
for which quite disparate traditions can be grouped together. It is the subject of a
narratio, composed mostly of traditions that are directly related to the event of
Badr or its significance.29 Disparate traditions can, in al-Bukhari, be juxtaposed
because they are meaningful and significant in themselves, not as a function of
their context. They may collectively underscore the significance of Badr or of the
men who participatedin the battle, but the meaning of these traditions remains in-
trinsic to them and would seem to be little affected by their inclusion in this or any
other context. The contrast here with Ibn Abi Shayba's traditions may be illus-
trated with the familiar example of certain pro-CAbbas,or pro-CAbbasid,tendencies
in the traditions about Badr.
Al-'Abbas, an uncle of the Prophet and the ancestor of the 'Abbasid dynasty
(750-1258), had fought in the battle of Badr on the side of the polytheists. That he
had remained a polytheist, or at least had sided with those who held that belief, did
not accord well with 'Abbasid legitimist claims, which hinged both on al-'Abbas's
 "Historical" Materials in Early Collections of Hadith 7

close kinship with the Prophet and on stories about his early commitment to the
nascent faith. Where there was much other rewriting of early Islamic history, some
effort was also expended to make the position of al-CAbbasmore amenable to the
interests and aspirationsof the ruling house. Traditionsglorifying him were brought
into circulation; those unfavorable to him were suppressed, among others by Ibn
Hisham in his recension of Ibn Ishaq'sSira.30Not all traditions about al-'Abbas need
be tendentious; that many are, and especially those that betray an CAbbasidlegiti-
mist agenda in emphasizing his kinship with the Prophet or otherwise extoll him,
is very likely.
The only tradition regarding al-CAbbasin al-Bukhari'ssection on Badr describes
the Prophet's firm refusal to treat him any differently from the other prisoners in
the matter of ransom.31CAbdal-Razzaq, too, has a single tradition about al-'Abbas;
this tradition, which is not part of his main narrative,reports that the Prophet was
unable to sleep because al-CAbbas-who had been taken prisoner at Badr-was in
pain, and that it was only after al-CAbbas'schains had been loosened that the
Prophet could find some comfort.32In contrast to the one, isolated tradition that
al-Bukhari and CAbdal-Razzaq each preserve, Ibn Abi Shayba's traditions have
greater variety and leave little doubt about the ideological commitments of the
compiler. One tradition reports that it was through the agency of an angel that
al-CAbbaswas captured, for all that the Ansari who brought him as a prisoner to
the Prophet thought that it was he who had accomplished the deed.33(This report
not only confirms the presence and role of angels during the battle-a point of
manifest exegetical interest-but may also be read as illustrative of al-'Abbas's
special position: after all, only an angel was able, or fit, to capture him.) Another
tradition reports the Prophet'sinstructions immediately before the battle that mem-
bers of the Banu Hashim-the Prophet'sown clan-in the enemy camp were not
to be killed, for the unbelievers had coerced them into fighting against the Mus-
lims.34 Yet another tradition depicts al-'Abbas demanding some favorable treat-
ment from his captor for being the uncle of the Prophet.35Finally, a curious
tradition has al-'Abbas, as a prisoner, giving an unsolicited but sound legal opin-
ion to the Prophet on the basis of Q.8:736-a tradition which serves to confirm
what some of the others insinuate: that is, that al-'Abbas was already a Muslim,
that he had fought on the side of the polytheists only under coercion, and that he
was intimately acquainted with the contents of divine revelation.
Ibn Abi Shayba is evidently not uncomfortable with the fact that al-'Abbas had
fought on the side of the polytheists and been captured by the Muslims. Rather, it
is precisely in acknowledging this otherwise inconvenient fact that his traditions
exhibit some of that decidedly pro-cAbbasor pro-cAbbasidcolor, which accords so
well both with the ruling dynasty's legitimist concerns and with what is otherwise
known of Ibn Abi Shayba's association with the promotion of those concerns.37
That Ibn Abi Shayba's traditions can unambiguously reflect a pro-cAbbasidagenda
is not simply a function of their content, however; it is by virtue of the narrative
context in which they are embedded that these traditions cease to be discrete units
and become meaningful as an ensemble.38The traditions are not just some fadadil
of al-'Abbas, unrelated to Badr and to each other, and presented here simply be-
cause al-'Abbas is known to have participated in that battle.39Their effectiveness,
8 Muhammad Qasim Zaman

even their meaning, is enhanced by, if not contingent on, their context, Badr, of
which these traditions make up one distinct and prominent theme. They are there-
fore integral to the way Ibn Abi Shayba chooses to recount the "history" of Badr.

Hudaybiyya
The difference between the traditions of al-Bukhari and those of Ibn Abi Shayba
and CAbdal-Razzaq is perhaps nowhere as stark as in what they have to say about
Hudaybiyya. A schematic representation of the contents of each would probably
give a better sense of this difference than would highlighting some of their pecu-
liarities, as we did for the material on Badr.
Al-Bukhari is concerned almost exclusively with juristic and theological matters
and in general with such aspects of normative precedent as might be located in or
attached to Hudaybiyya. The following is an outline of his material:40
1. a theological tradition about some of the concomitants of right belief in God;
2. a miracle of the Prophet at Hudaybiyya: increase in the supply of drinking water;
3. a tradition on the penalty for shaving the head before performing the lesser pilgrimage
(Cumra);
4. the caliph CUmar'sshowing special consideration to a woman whose father had been
present at Hudaybiyya;
5. the nature of the oath pledged to the Prophet at Hudaybiyya;
6. prohibition of the flesh of domesticated donkeys;
7. an exegetical tradition about the revelation of Q.48:1, believed to refer to Hudaybiyya;
8. two "historical"traditions:one about the Prophet'sconsulting his companions about the
proper course of action to be adopted when informed that the Quraysh would not allow
them to proceed to Mecca; the otheraboutthe treatybetween the Qurayshand the Muslims;
9. Ibn CUmar'sfollowing the sunna of the Prophet in the matter of sacrificial animals when
he too was unable to proceed to Mecca for pilgrimage on account of the (second)fitna;
10. an explanation of why Ibn CUmarpreceded CUmarin pledging the oath of loyalty to the
Prophet at Hudaybiyya;
11. an anti-ra'y comment by one of those present at the battle of Siffin, recalling the escape
of Abu Jandal to the Prophet's camp at Hudaybiyya and the Prophet's handing him back
over to the Quraysh;and
12. a tradition about the Prophet's severely punishing the treachery of some tribesmen after
his returnfrom Hudaybiyya.
The following are the major components of Ibn Abi Shayba's account of Huday-
biyya:41
1. an exegetical tradition ad Q.48:1;
2. a detailed tradition about the prelude to the treaty between the Quraysh and the Muslims
(the formersending severalemissariesto the latter;negotiationsbetween the two parties;dis-
 "Historical" Materials in Early Collections of Hadith 9

cussions among the Quraysh);the refusal of the Quraysh'semissary to refer to Muhammad

in the document of agreementas "the Prophetof God," and Muhammad'sagreeing to this
objection;the terms of the treaty;
3. the unhappiness of Muslims with the terms of the treaty;
4. 'Ali's unwillingness to erase the reference in the document to Muhammad's being the
Prophet of God; Muhammaderasing it himself;
5. traditions about the lesser pilgrimage in the following year; the verses revealed on that
occasion;
6. an exegetical tradition about Hudaybiyya ad Q.48:1;
7. CUmar'sconsternation at the terms of the treaty;
8. anothertraditionabout the refusal of the Quraysh'semissary to refer to Muhammadas the
Prophet of God in the document;
9. another tradition about the prelude to the treaty and the terms of the treaty;
10. an exegetical tradition about the oath pledged to the Prophet at Hudaybiyya ad Q.48:18;
11. a miracle of the Prophet:increase in the supply of drinking water;
12. another detailed, comprehensive tradition about the entire episode of Hudaybiyya: the
Muslims prevented from proceeding to Mecca; negotiations among various emissaries of
the Quraysh and the Muslims; discussions among the Quraysh;the treaty; CUmar'scon-
sternation;the escape of Abu Jandal and Muhammad'shanding him over to the Quraysh;
the Prophet'ssacrificing victims at Hudaybiyya;a concluding reportabout the share given
to the ahl al-Hudaybiyya from the spoils of Khaybar;
13. traditionsabout the Prophet'sblessing those who had performedthe ritual of shaving their
heads at Hudaybiyya; and
14. an exegetical tradition ad Q.48:1.
CAbdal-Razzaq's account of the episode of Hudaybiyya42 essentially corresponds
to one of Ibn Abi Shayba's more detailed traditions (no. 12, in the schema of his con-
tents). The two are not identical, however. A look at the isnads of the two accounts
(CAbd al-Razzaq's: MaCmar-al-Zuhri-'Urwa ibn al-Zubayr-Miswar ibn Makhrama
and Marwan ibn al-Hakam; Ibn Abi Shayba's: Khalid ibn Makhlad-CAbd al-Rahman
ibn CAbd al-CAziz al-Ansari-Ibn Shihab [al-Zuhri]-'Urwa ibn al-Zubayr) is itself
instructive. 'Urwa and al-Zuhri are "common links"43 although CAbd al-Razzaq's
isnad is technically superior to Ibn Abi Shayba's. That the latter's tradition is not
transmitted through MaCmar, as CAbd al-Razzaq's is, also raises the question-
which must remain unsettled here-whether the differences in CAbd al-Razzaq's
transmission are due to MaCmar, to CAbd al-Razzaq himself, or to some other cir-
cumstances of origin and transmission.
The differences between the two traditions under discussion here are not quite
momentous, but they are numerous and significant. A few examples should suffice.
First, Budayl ibn WarqaD al-KhuzaCi, in reporting to the Quraysh his conversation
with Muhammad at Hudaybiyya, refers to him as hddha'l-rajul in CAbdal-Razzaq's
tradition but as rasil Allah in Ibn Abi Shayba's. Second, CUmar's sharp reaction is
10 MuhammadQasim Zaman

related in Ibn Abi Shayba to the terms of the treaty; in CAbdal-Razzaq, it is related
to the Prophet'sdecision to return Abu Jandal to the unbelievers. Third, the story
of Abu Basir immediately follows the reference to Abu Jandal in Ibn Abi Shayba
but is, in much greater detail, the concluding part of CAbdal-Razzaq's tradition.
And fourth, an exegetical tradition (ad Q.60:10) about CUmardivorcing two of his
unbelieving wives precedes the story of Abu Basir in CAbdal-Razzaq's tradition; it
is absent in Ibn Abi Shayba.44
Even without taking account of the numerous variant readings, these examples
should give some sense of the differences in two versions of what seems to be es-
sentially the same tradition. Which of the two is closer to an "original" is impos-
sible to say. Both also differ from traditions preserved with the same common
links in "historical" works. Finally, several others of Ibn Abi Shayba's traditions
on Hudaybiyya do not accord in their details with this tradition.

As for the differences between the traditions of Ibn Abi Shayba and those of
al-Bukhari,the outline of the principalcontents of each, given at the beginning of this
section, should suffice as an illustration.A historicalcontent, and thereforea historical
interest,is far more in evidence in the accounts of Ibn Abi Shayba and CAbdal-Razzaq
than in the traditionsof al-Bukhari.That "precedent"is "idealized and hence shorn
of its historical dimension"in what Wansbroughcharacterizesas the "sunna-hadith
literature"45is a generalization that holds for al-Bukhari'smaterials but cannot be
sustainedas regardsCAbdal-Razzaqor Ibn Abi Shayba. Al-Bukharidoes seem to pre-
suppose a narrative(or narratives)of Hudaybiyya;but his traditionsdo not themselves
constitute one. They are rather more directly related to Hudaybiyya than many of
al-Bukhari'straditions on Badr were related to that event. Yet, they are not about
Hudaybiyya:Hudaybiyya is relevant to them (or they to it) solely because it was on
that occasion that certain significant doctrinalandjuristic matterswere enunciatedor
precedents established. Ibn Abi Shayba's traditions, in contrast, may be viewed as
representinga traditionist'sdecision about what is worth rememberingabout Huday-
biyya. Something similar can also be said of CAbdal-Razzaq'saccount.

The Legitimacy of Authority

Unlike the maghazi of CAbdal-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Bukhari'smaghazi end
with the death of the Prophet. In the section dealing with the Prophet's death,
al-Bukharidoes recount traditions, however, that seek clearly to legitimize the suc-
cession of Abu Bakr.46Other traditions make the point (evidently with Shici beliefs
in view) that the Prophetdid not make a wasiyya although he may have wanted to,47
and one traditionis explicit in denying the Shi'i claim to a testamentin favor of cAli.48
CAbdal-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shayba recount traditions not only about the
Prophet's last illness and death, but also about his succession and several other,
later events. The former'straditions range wider, however. CAbdal-Razzaq has tra-
ditions about some of the governors of Syria and Iraq in the period of the Rashi-
dun, about some early Islamic conquests, about the conflict of CAliand Mucawiya,
and about the marriage of Fatima and cAli.49Ibn Abi Shayba's traditions are lim-
ited to the four Rashidun caliphs.
 "Historical" Materials in Early Collections of Hadith 11

Striking in both CAbdal-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shayba is the overriding concern
with affirming the legitimacy of authority in the period following the Prophet's
death. The image that the traditions of each help to construct is very close to the
"orthodox" Sunni view of early Islamic history: the succession of Abu Bakr was
prefigured in several indications given by the Prophet prior to his death; CUmar's
own testimony is invoked to report and justify the proceedings at the Saqifa bani
SaCida,where Abu Bakr's election had taken place; CAli,who is said to have been
initially reluctant to recognize the caliphate of Abu Bakr, is quoted to pronounce
on the religious merit of the first two caliphs; several traditions suggest that the
choice of CUthmanas CUmar'ssuccessor was never in doubt, and so forth.
While CAbdal-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shayba have much common material on
these and other matters, the latter's organization and presentation of material is
again of very considerable significance-assuming, of course, that this organiza-
tion is his ratherthan that of a later redactor of his material. As noted already, Ibn
Abi Shayba has traditions about the caliphate of all four of the Rashidun; he limits
his material to these and organizes it in accordance with the historical sequence of
their succession. The significance of this is that by the time of Ibn Abi Shayba's
death in 849, a Sunni "orthodoxy" was still very much in the making; it was not
generally accepted, for instance, that CAliwas a legitimate caliph, much less that
he was comparable to his predecessors.50Traditionalist circles in Kufa and Basra
did, however, recognize CAlias a caliph, and those of Kufa even gave him prece-
dence over 'Uthman,5l although in general his position remained rather ambiva-
lent among the early Sunnis.52If Ibn Abi Shayba's scheme of organization is any
indication of his commitments, it would seem that in placing 'Ali in the fourth
place he is not only deferring to considerations of historical sequence but also
implicitly affirming the view-which was to become the standard Sunni view-
that this sequence also reflects the hierarchy of religious merit. cAli is therefore in-
ferior to cUthman but a legitimate caliph nonetheless and, in fact, a member of the
select company his predecessors comprised. These caliphs are nowhere designated
in this material as the "Rashidun,"but the fact that they are set apart for all others
and presented as the rightful successors of the Prophet does speak for their unique-
ness, their exclusive religious merit. The organization of Ibn Abi Shayba'smaterial
may, in fact, be taken not only as reflecting the emergent Sunni "orthodox" view
as regards the Rashidun but also as contributing to the articulation of that view.
Ibn Abi Shayba need not, of course, have contributedto the Sunni worldview only,
or even primarily, through this collection of hadith. As already noted, he is also
known to have narratedtraditions publicly and to have done so on the bidding of
the 'Abbasid caliph al-Mutawakkil (r. 847-861). It is not unlikely that in narrating
traditions, he would have disseminated a worldview essentially similar to the one
that emerges from his Kitab al-Maghdzi.
So much for the organization of Ibn Abi Shayba's material. As regards the con-
tent, one example-the traditionspertainingto cUthman-should suffice to indicate
some of the concerns and choices governing this traditionist'sselection of material.
Three themes are prominent in the traditions about cUthman. The first is cUthman's
legitimacy: during the caliphate of 'Umar, people already were convinced that
cUthman would be the next caliph,53and the Prophet himself had indicated that in
12 MuhammadQasim Zaman

the approachingfitna cUthman and his associates would be on the right path.54The
second theme is cUthman'srefusal to abdicate55;and the third is his, and others',
warning of disunity and civil strife in the event of his murder.56
The latter two themes in particularare scarcely unusual in materials our sources
preserve on cUthmanand the fitna. Ibn Abi Shayba'saccount is of greaterinterest in
what it omits, however, than in what it preserves. There is no word here of the griev-
ances against cUthman,no effort to explain what may have motivated his murder.57
Ibn Abi Shayba may well have assumed that his audience was acquaintedwith the
context and causes of this event and thathe could, therefore,omit them. However, and
this seems rathermore likely, he may purposely have left out the rebels' grievances
and their allegations of cUthman'sfailings. cUthman'smurderremainsunexplainedin
Ibn Abi Shayba'sMaghazi, and no need is felt to try to exonerate him-or the com-
munity at large-from any blemish, for there is no sense of a blemish at all. There is
the warning of course, from cUthmanand others, that his murderwould inaugurate
unending disunity andfitna, but it remains unintelligible who wanted to kill him and
why. All the same, a strong sense is conveyed that the caliph was completely innocent
and that the community at large was not involved in-and thereforeits rectitudewas
not compromisedby-this fitna.
Ibn Abi Shayba'speculiar choice of traditions regarding cUthman is probably not
so much a reflection of orthodox bewilderment at the events of the first civil war in
Islam as an apparently conscious decision regarding what is worth remembering
about cUthman from a traditionist'sperspective. For he does bring forth some ma-
terial on aspects of the civil war, although not as part of the Kitab al-Maghazi. His
Musannaf has a brief Kitab al-Jamal, too, of which one subsection has traditions
about Siffin and another about the Khawarij. It is in this "book" that the civil war
is treated at some length.58For all its interest, the contents of this collection will not
be reviewed here. Two things may nevertheless be noted. First, the perspective is
again, unsurprisingly, that of a traditionist: this is not a "history" of the first civil
war, only a selection of some traditions which (despite an occasionally discordant
note) seem to have, and seek to further, a definite agenda. Second, these traditions
seek to answer some of those questions which subsequent generations kept asking
about the religious status of the Prophet'scompanions who were embroiled in this
conflict-questions which had to be settled before an "orthodox" Sunni view of
early Islam could crystallize. Thus, it is emphasized, for instance, that while both
sides in the conflict-at Jamal as well as Siffin-were Muslims (and not ordinary
Muslims, for that matter), participants on neither side became "unbelievers" on
account of their involvement. 'Ali fought his opponents on both occasions as
Muslims, and his treatmentof the vanquished at Jamal was guided by the same rec-
ognition.59Then there are traditions about the strong sense of remorse on the part
of some of the principal actors in this drama.60There is a sense, of course, that the
pristine purity of the early days of Islam is irrevocably lost with thisfitna.61But ex-
pressions of regret attributedto certain participants may also be taken, perhaps, to
exonerate them of some of their guilt. In short, a similar nascent Sunni vision guides
both the Maghazl and the Kitab al-Jamal of Ibn Abi Shayba. This is a vision pred-
icated on the enduring righteousness of the community: the four immediate succes-
sors of the Prophet were all legitimate caliphs; cUthmanwas unjustly murdered,but
 "Historical" Materials in Early Collections of Hadith 13

his murder did not compromise the virtue of the community at large; and some of
those involved in the firstfitna may have erred, but they repented and are not to be
criticized.

v
As noted at the outset, it has not been the purpose here to compare the maghdzi of
CAbdal-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shayba, and al-Bukhariwith the "historical"tradition (Ibn
Ishaq, al-Waqidi,etc.) or with other collections of hadith. The three collections stud-
ied here suffice, however, to make the point that so far as maghdzi materialsare con-
cerned, any one collection of hadith-al-Bukhari's, for instance-cannot be taken as
representativeof the rest or as typical of what hadith collections in general have to
offer on the maghazi. By the same token, there seems little justification to posit, with
Wansbrough,a direct development from Ibn Ishaq through al-Waqidito al-Bukhari.
Martin Hinds has already expressed some dissatisfaction with that view. He pro-
poses that the transition was not simply from sira to sunna, as Wansbroughwould
have it, but from "maghdzito sunna via siyar and then sira."62Hinds does not seem
to have developed the point further,63and even though he suggests a more complex
development than Wansbrough,his is unfortunatelynot a strikingly clear formula-
tion. And it is, inter alia, open to the same objection as Wansbrough'sview, for how-
ever he conceives of the "passage" from maghazi to sunna (the latter as enshrined,
we may take it, in collections of hadith), Hinds still seems to take an essentially
undifferentiatedview of the latter. But collections of hadith can differ quite mark-
edly from one another in their maghazi materials, as the foregoing has indicated.
Hadith texts such as those analyzed in this essay are certainly worth comparingwith
the "historical"tradition,but it needs to be recognized that the gradualmove toward
"concise exemplum"-such as Wansbroughpostulates-can also be traced among
hadith collections themselves and probably more fruitfully so.

The hadith materials studied in this essay constitute a specimen of what may, for
want of a better characterization, be designated "traditionist historiography."Ibn
Ishaq, al-Waqidi, al-Tabari,and others who are commonly recognized as "histori-
ans" were traditionists (muhaddithun),too, and their works exhibit certain features
of a traditionist methodology-most conspicuously, the use (with varying degrees
of rigor) of the isndd. There are indications, however, that, in the late 2nd and early
3rd centuries A.H., a practical if imprecise distinction had come to be made between
the muhaddithunand the akhbariyyin,64and although one might write in the tradi-
tion of both, a particularwork (or perhaps one's oeuvre) would probably be consid-
ered to be either hadith or something else. CAbdal-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shayba, and
al-Bukhari were, more than anything else, traditionists, and their maghdzi are but a
component of their corpus of hadith; the same can scarcely be said of the "histori-
cal" writings of Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, al-Tabari, and others. This being so, the
former'smaghdzi may be seen as the kind of "history"a traditionistqua traditionist
sought to preserve and transmit. The traditionists' choices about what was to form
part of their collections of maghdzi, insofar as there were such collections, are in
fact sufficient reason to distinguish them-and their methods and concerns-from
14 MuhammadQasim Zaman

the historians'. Even a relatively fuller treatmentsuch as that of Ibn Abi Shayba is
very different, after all, from what Ibn Ishaq or al-Waqidi aspired to do. Traditionist
historiography is therefore significant not so much as a supplement to what is
otherwise known-although it can sometimes function as such a supplement65-as
for what it tells us about the traditionists themselves, about how they viewed early
Islamic history, and what they deemed worth remembering in it.66
Among traditionists of the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.H., there are many to whom
writings on the maghdzi are attributed.67Most of these seem no longer to be extant,
so it is impossible to ascertain their precise contents. If "traditionisthistoriography"
as postulated here is indeed a distinct genre, it may not be far-fetched to speculate
that the writings of these prominent traditionists also belonged to it and that they
reflected-much as Ibn Abi Shayba'sMaghdzi do-the traditionists'choices and de-
cisions about how to view the history of early Islam.
The three hadith texts studied here are importantas specimens of traditionisthis-
toriography,but they are also significant for some clues they may, on furtherinquiry,
give about a certain shift, a transition-in fact, a diminution-in the traditionists'
historical interests. The Maghdzi of Ibn Abi Shayba still reflect a definite interest in
mattershistorical;those of al-Bukharido not, as we have shown at some length. It is
certainly possible that the differences in materialchosen by these two compilers are
due simply to their individualpreferences,but it is also possible that these differences
reflect something more than individualpeculiarities.The traditionistsare known, after
all, to have had reservationsabout the value, even legitimacy, of historical studies.68
It is tempting to think of al-Bukhari'sahistorical Maghazi as symptomatic of this
disdain (although works of some historical interest were occasionally produced in
traditionistcircles of a later date) and of the consequent decision to divest normative
sunna of many of its historical trappings.Ibn Abi Shayba'sMaghdzi would, from this
view, be interpretableas an example of what traditionist historiographymay have
looked like before it was overtaken by concerns similar to al-Bukhari's.

NOTES
Author's note: I thank Professor Donald P. Little for his valuable comments on an earlier draft.
1Forexample, J. M. B. Jones, "The Chronology of the Maghazi-A Textual Survey,"Bulletin of the
School of Orientaland African Studies, 19 (1957): 245-80; idem, "Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi:The Dream of
'Atika and the Raid to Nakhla in Relation to the Charge of Plagiarism,"Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies, 22 (1959): 41-51; J. Wansbrough,The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition
of Islamic Salvation History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978); W. M. Watt, "The Reliability of
Ibn Ishaq'sSources,"La vie du prophete Mahomet, Colloque de Strasbourg,October 1980 (Paris: Presses
Universitairesde France, 1983), 31-43 (esp. 33 f., 39, and 41, on al-Bukhari);E. Landau-Tasseron,"Pro-
cesses of Redaction: The Case of the Tamimite Delegation to the Prophet Muhammad,"Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies, 49 (1986): 253-70.
2C. H. Becker, "Grundsiitzlichenzur Leben-Muhammadforschung," in Islamstudien (Leipzig: Verlag
Quelle und Meyer, 1924), 1:521 f.; J. Schacht, "A Revaluation of Islamic Traditions,"Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society (1949): 150 f.; J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scrip-
tural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 183; idem, Sectarian Milieu, 85.
3Wansbrough,Sectarian Milieu, 77 f.
4For a critique of the lack or insufficiency of such realization in the scholarship on medieval Islamic
legal theory, for instance, see Wael B. Hallaq, Law and Legal Theory in Classical and Medieval Islam
(London: Variorum, 1995).
 "Historical" Materials in Early Collections of Hadith 15

5CAbdal-Razzaq ibn Hammam al-Sanc'ni, Kitdb al-Musannaf, 11 vols., ed. H. R. al-ACzami(Beirut:

al-Majlis al-CIlmi,1972); Kitab al-Maghdzi: ibid., 5:313-492. On CAbdal-Razzaq and his Musannaf, see
F Sezgin, Geschichte der arabischen Schrifttums (hereafter GAS), 9 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967),
1:99; H. Motzki, "The Musannaf of CAbdal-Razzaq al-Sancani as a Source of Authentic Ahadlth of the
First Century A.H.," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 50 (1991): 1-21; idem, Die Anfdnge der islamischen
Jurisprudenz: ihre Entwicklungin Mekka bis zur mitte des 2./8. Jahrhunderts(Stuttgart:Franz Steiner,
1991), esp. 50-67.
6Ibn Abi Shayba, Kitab al-Musannaf, ed. K. Y. al-Hut (Beirut: Dgr al-Taj, 1989); Kitab al-Maghdzi:
ibid., 7:326-445. On Ibn Abi Shayba, see GAS, 1:108 f.
7Al-Bukhari, al-Jamic al-Sahih, ed. L. Krehl (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1862-1908); Kitab al-Maghazi:
ibid., 3:52-193. On al-Bukhari, see GAS, 1:115-34. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent refer-
ences to CAbdal-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shayba, and al-Bukhari will be to their respective maghdzi.
8Motzki, Die Anfdnge, 55. On MaCmaribn Rashid, see ibid., index, s.v.; Sezgin, GAS, 1:290 f.
9Motzki notes that CAbdal-Razzaq's Kitab al-Maghdzl, as well as his Kitab al-JamiC,which is like-
wise indebted to Macmar,both have traditions other than Ma'mar's."Deshalb ist es denkbar, daB schon
CABDARRAZZAQoder seine Schiiler sie als Teil seines [namely, CAbdal-Razzaq's]Traditionswerkesbe-
trachteten";Motzki, Die Anfdnge, 55 f. On the subsequent transmission of CAbdal-Razzaq'sMusannaf,
see Ibn Khayr al-Ishbili (d. 1179), Fahrasa md rawdh Can shuyukhihi... Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn
Khayr ... al-Ishbili, ed. F Codera and J. R. Tarrago(Baghdad:Maktabatal-Muthanna, 1963 [reprintof
the 1894-95 edition]), 127-31.
10H.Schiitzinger, "Ibn Abi Saiba und sein Ta'rix: Eine Untersuchungan Hand des MS. Berlin 9409,"
Oriens 23-24 (1974): 134-46. (I have not been able to examine ms. Berlin 9409 myself and therefore
rely on Schiitzinger's description of its contents.)
11Schiitzinger,who did not consult any complete text of the Musannaf, thinks that the manuscriptof
Ibn Abi Shayba's Ta'rikh, which he has described is not a part of the Musannaf. His arguments to that
effect, however, are not compelling (see "Ibn Abi gaiba," 145: "Hier erhebt sich ... die Frage, ob es
denkbar ist, dass ein 109 1/2 Blatt umfassendes, chronologisch geordnetes und in Kapitel eingeteiltes
Geschichtswerk Bestandteil eines Musannaf-Buches sein kann. Es ist kaum vorstellbar, dass sich ein
solches Werk in das den Musannaf-Biicherneigene Schema einpasst"), and his descriptionof the contents
of ms. Berlin 9409 reveals a very marked resemblance to the text of the Kitdb al-Maghazi in the
Musannaf. Note that Aloys Sprenger, who was probably acquainted with the complete text of the Mu-
sannaf and who used the Ta'rikh for his Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad (Berlin, 1869), had
little doubt that the Ta'rikhdid form "partof the Mo?annaf of Ibn Aby Shaybah"(see Schiitzinger, "Ibn
Abi Saiba," 140 f., quoting Sprenger'shandwrittennote on the manuscript of the Ta'rikh, and cf. ibid.,
145). On the history of the transmission of Ibn Abi Shayba's Musannaf, see Ibn Khayr, Fahrasa,
131-33.
12IbnAbi Shayba, "Kitab al-Ta'rikh, in Musannaf, 6:546-64; cf. Schiitzinger, "Ibn Abi Saiba," 145.
13E.Landau-Tasseron,"Sayf Ibn 'Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship" Der Islam, 67 (1990):
6 if. and esp. 9 warns of the dangers of such a distinction but defends it nevertheless. Nabia Abbott, too,
makes a sharp distinction between "hadith"and "khabar"-on the basis of their respective contents and
the methods of their transmission, see Abbott's Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, II: Qur'anic Com-
mentary and Tradition(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 29, 77, 91, 118, 145, 233, 244, 256.
14Forthe conventional chronology of the maghazi, see Jones, "Chronology,"245-80.
15For the position of this ghazwa in the overall chronology of the maghazi, see Jones, "Chro-
nology'" 247, 259.
16See M. Hinds, "'Maghazi' and 'Sira' in Early Islamic Scholarship,"in La vie du prophete Maho-
met, 65 f., who makes the same point with reference to the Maghdzi of CAbdal-Razzaq.
17Butsee G. R. Hawting, "al-Hudaybiyya and the Conquest of Mecca: A Reconsideration of the Tra-
dition about the Muslim Takeover of the Sanctuary,"Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 8 (1986):
16, who seems to make much of CAbdal-Razzaq's chronologically awkwardjuxtaposition of his mate-
rials. That there is an implicit "causal sequence" in the way these materials are presented is, however,
a gratuitous assumption.
18See Hinds, "'Maghazi' and 'Sira',"65 f.
19NormanCalder, Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 179.
20Ibid., 195.
16 MuhammadQasim Zaman

21The expressions "notebooks," "finished works," "real books," and so forth, are Calder's: Studies,
179, 180, and 171-81, passim. Cf. B. Gerhardsson,Memory and Manuscript: Oral Traditionand Written
Transmissionin Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1964), 157
ff., on "written notes" and "notebooks" used (illegitimately) in Rabbinic Judaism to study, learn, and
better remember the growing materials of the oral Torah. Although his hypotheses concerning "note-
books" and other "literary forms" characteristic of the intellectual milieu in early Islam seem indebted,
inter alia, to Gerhardsson'swork, Calder claims much more for early Islam than Gerhardssondoes for
Rabbinic Judaism, and it remains unclear, in any case, how much of early Islamic literary practice can
be extrapolated from Rabbinic evidence.
22Calder,Studies, 194.
23Al-Bukhari,Maghazi, 53 f.
24On the diwan: cf. Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition (EI2), Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960-); s.v. "Di-
wan" (A. A. al-Duri et al.).
25Al-Bukhari,Maghazi, 71.
26See notes 50 if., below.
27See L. O. Mink, "NarrativeForm as a Cognitive Instrument"in Historical Understanding,ed. B. Fay
et al. (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1987), 197: "A narrativemust have a unity of its own; this is what
is acknowledged in saying that it must have a beginning, middle, and an end." Also see A Dictionary of
Modern Critical Terms,ed. R. Fowler (London: Routledge, 1987), s.v. "Narrative,""NarrativeStructure."
28F R. Ankersmit, Narrative Logic: A Semantic Analysis of the Historian's Language (The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983), 204 and passim.
29As a narratio, however peculiar in form and content, it presupposes other narratios: Ibn Abi
Shayba's account of Badr has some interesting parallels and contrasts with al-Waqidi's, for instance,
which deserve to be explored, although the task cannot be undertakenin the present context.
3?See the familiar example of the omission, in Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's account, of the
tradition about the capture of al-'Abbas at Badr and of the Prophet'sdemand that he ransom himself;
al-Tabaridoes have a report to this effect, via Ibn Ishaq, which suggests that the report in question was
a part of Ibn Ishaq's original text of the Sira. See A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad:A Translation
of [Ibn] Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), 312 f. Note too that
al-'Abbas does not figure in the list of prisoners at Badr, although 43 men are supposed to have been
capturedand only 42 are named: Guillaume, Life of Muhammad,338 f. and n. 1 on 338; see also R. Sell-
heim, "Prophet, Chalif und Geschichte: Die Muhammed-Biographie des Ibn Ishaq," Oriens, 18-19
(1965-66): 49. For another example of the suppression, or ratherthe editing, of a tradition unfavorable
to al-'Abbas, see M. J. Kister and M. Plessner, "Notes on Caskel's Gamharatan-Nasab,"Oriens, 25-26
(1976): 64 f. What Funkenstein says of ancient and medieval-Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian-
historians would seem to hold for Muslim writers, as well: "it had to occur to some ancient and medi-
eval authors-as indeed it did-that the historian, rather than being a mere spectator, possesses a ius
vitae nocendi of sorts over that which he should record. He or she can make and unmake history, can
obliterate names, events, identities by not recording them, for evil or good purposes. Activity and mem-
ory belong together: without memory, the political activity cannot affect future generations":A. Funken-
stein, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 30.
31Al-Bukhari,Maghazi, 68 f.
32'Abd al-Razzaq, Maghazi, 353 (no. 9729).
33IbnAbi Shayba, Maghazi, 357 (no. 36679).
34Ibid., 363 (no. 36717).
35Ibid., 361 (no. 36700).
36Ibid. (no. 36702).
37See al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ta rikh Baghdad, 14 vols. (Cairo, 1931), 10:66-71 (no. 5185), esp. 67 f.
38L. 0. Mink's view of historical narrative as a "configurational"mode of comprehension, where
"the actions and events of a story comprehended as a whole are connected by a network of overlapping
descriptions,"can probably be applied to a work such as Ibn Abi Shayba's, as well (see Mink, "History
and Fiction as Modes of Comprehension,"in Historical Understanding, 42-60; the quotation is from
p. 58). The "overlap of descriptions," Mink notes, "may not be part of the story itself (as one thing
after another) but only of the comprehension of it as a whole" (ibid.). In Ibn Abi Shayba'sMaghazi, but
also in chronicles such as al-Tabari's,the overlap-of traditions and descriptions-is a part of the story,
 "Historical" Materials in Early Collections of Hadith 17

however; it is precisely such overlapping traditions that construct and comprise the "image" of the past
that emerges from their configuration. (On the centrality of constructing such an "image" [or "narrative
substance"] to the function of a narratio, see Ankersmit, Narrative Logic, chap. 5 and passim.)
39Itwas, in any case, on the wrong side that al-CAbbashad taken part in the battle.
40Foral-Bukhari'straditions on Hudaybiyya, see his Maghdzi, 110-19. The outline given here takes
note of the major themes but does not encompass all the traditions that make up al-Bukhari'smaterial
on Hudaybiyya.
41Ibn Abi Shayba, Maghdzi, 381-90.
42cAbdal-Razzaq, Maghdzi, 330-43.
43On "common links" see J. Schacht, The Origins of MuhammadJurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1950), 171 f.
44To the coherent narrativeaccount of Hudaybiyya in CAbdal-Razzaq's recension are appended two
furthertraditions, both of which attest that it was CAliibn Abi Talib who wrote the document (kitab) of
the agreement at Hudaybiyya. CAbdal-Razzaq, Maghazi, 342 f. (nos. 9721 f.).
45Wansbrough,Sectarian Milieu, 87 (emphasis added); also cited in Hinds, "'Maghazi' and 'Sira',"63.
46See al-Bukhari, Maghdzi, 187 f., 190.
47Ibid., 185.
48Ibid., 191.
49See Hinds, "'Maghazi' and 'Sira',"65 f. CAlifigures very prominently in many of CAbdal-Razzaq's
traditions, but these do not necessarily have a pro-'Ali, much less a Shici, character.'Abd al-Razzaq is
nevertheless supposed to have been a Shici.
5?Pseudo-al-Nashi' al-Akbar, "Masa'il al-Imdma," in Fruhe muctazilitische Hdresiographie, ed.
J. van Ess (Wiesbaden:FranzSteiner, 1971), 66 (ad the ashab al-hadith of Baghdad).More generally, see
W. Madelung, Der Imamal-Qasim ibn Ibrdahmund die Glaubenslehreder Zaiditen (Berlin, 1965), 225 ff.
51VanEss, Hdresiographie, 65 f.
52See, for instance, al-Khallal, al-Musnad min Masdail Abi CAbdalldh Ahmadb. Muhammadb. Hanbal,
British Library Ms. Or. 2675, fol. 63a, and fols. 56a if.; more generally, see Madelung, Der Imam
al-Qdsim, 225 ff., and T. Nagel, "Das Problem der Orthodoxie im frtihen Islam," in Studien zum Min-
derheitenproblem im Islam (Bonn, 1973), 1:7-44.
53IbnAbi Shayba, Maghdzi, 440 (no. 37075).
54Ibid., 440 f. (no. 37078), 442 (no. 37090).
55Ibid., 441 (no. 37079).
56Ibid., 441 (no. 37079), 442 (nos. 37087 f.).
570n the murderof cUthman, see al-Tabari,Ta'rikhal-Rusul waCl-Mulak,16 vols., ed. M. J. de Goeje
et al. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1879-1901), 1:2980-3025; and R. S. Humphreys, "Qur'anic Myth and Nar-
rative Structurein Early Islamic Historiography,"in Traditionand Innovation in Late Antiquity,ed. F M.
Clover and R. S. Humphreys (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 279 ff., for a perceptive
analysis of al-Tabari'saccounts.
58Ibn Abi Shayba, Musannaf, 7:532-64. Note that Ibn Abi Shayba is said to have compiled, inter
alia, both a Kitdb al-Jamal and a Kitdb Siffin: Ibn al-Nadim, Kitdb al-Fihrist, ed. G. Fliigel (Leipzig:
F C. W. Vogel, 1870-71), 229. If the contents of these two works are identical with those of the afore-
mentioned sections of the Musannaf, the subsumption-in the latter-of traditions relating to Siffin as
a subsection of the Kitdb al-Jamal would seem to be the work of some later redactor or editor.
59Cf. Kitdb al-Jamal, 535 (no. 37768), 542 (no. 37807), and 547 (no. 37841 ff.). Needless to say,
the point these traditions make is also importantfor the juristic precedent it establishes (namely, how to
treat opponents or rebels when they are Muslims).
60'CAisha:ibid., 536 (no. 37771 f.), 542 (no. 37811); CAli:536 (no. 37774), 539 (no. 37795 f.), 541
(no. 37802), 543 (no. 37812), 545 (no. 37832), 548 (no. 37852); Talha: 545 (no. 37827); al-Zubayr,
545 (no. 37828).
61Kitdb al-Jamal, passim, and esp. 540 f. (no. 37798), 544 (no. 37817), 551 (no. 37871). On the
"betrayal"motif in early Islamic historiography, see Humphreys, "Qur'anic Myth and Narrative Struc-
ture,"278 ff.
62Hinds, "'Maghazi' and 'Sira',"63.
63In his article on "Maghazi" in EI2, Hinds only summarizes his earlier findings as set out in
"'Maghazi' and 'Sira'."
18 Muhammad Qasim Zaman

64See Landau-Tasseron,"Sayf Ibn CUmar,"9: "the fact is that certain scholars may be classified
either as muhaddithunor as akhbariyyun,whereas others may not, which means that the differentiation
is not baseless. That the classification of some of the early historians is not clear-cut does not turn the
two fields into one. Nor does it alter the impression that, in general, the attitude of the early unmistak-
able muhaddithuntowards the historians was one of suspicion and distrust."Also see S. Leder, "The
Literary Use of the Khabar: A Basic Form of Historical Writing,"in The Byzantine and Early Islamic
Near East, ed. A. Cameron and L. I. Conrad (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1992), 313 ff.
65See M. Lecker, "The Hudaybiyya-Treatyand the Expedition against Khaybar" Jerusalem Studies
in Arabic and Islam, 5 (1984): 6 ff., ad Ibn Abi Shayba, Ta'rikh, Ms. Berlin 9409, fol. 57a. For a par-
allel passage (with minor variants, which, in all probability, are copyists' mistakes) in Ibn Abi Shayba's
Maghazi, see Maghazi, 382 (no. 36839).
66Anotherspecimen of "traditionisthistoriography"may perhaps be seen in the so-called sahifa of
the Egyptian traditionist and judge Ibn Lahica. He has traditions here about, inter alia, the murder of
cUthman and the revolt of CAbdallahibn Zubayr. On the sahifa and its author, see R. G. Khoury, CAbd
Allah ibn LahFca(97-174/715-790): Juge et grand maitre de l'ecole egyptienne (Wiesbaden: Otto Har-
rassowitz, 1986). Khoury argues (p. 181) that Ibn Lahica was at once a muhaddithand a historian, which
may have been the case. His traditions however are hadith in an apocalyptic idiom more than they are
anything else, and they are of interest primarily for showing how aspects of the first and the secondfitna
may have been remembered by, and recounted in, certain traditionist circles in Egypt.
67See Hinds, "'Maghazi' and 'Sira',"60 f. for a list of scholars-all of whom died in the second half
of the second century A.H.-who are said to have written on the maghazi.
68Al-Sakhawi's(d. 1497) al-IClanbi'l-tawbikh li-man dhamma ahl al-tawrikh (Damascus, 1349 A.H.;
trans. by F. Rosenthal in idem, A History of Muslim Historiography, 2nd ed. [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968],
269-529; the following references are to this translation) is not only an elaborate defense of the legiti-
macy and usefulness of historical studies, it also gives a broad sampling of the kinds of criticism tradi-
tionist scholars had for history (see, especially, Rosenthal, Historiography, 338 if.). Despite the late date
of this treatise, many of the traditionist criticisms it quotes, and seeks to refute, purportto go back to
the first centuries of Islam. It is noteworthy that, besides criticisms directed at historical studies per se,
many a traditionist seems to have been critical even of thejarh wa tacdll genre, a traditionist stronghold,
for it was thought to involve slandering the reputation of scholars. (Whetherjarh wa tacdil was "his-
tory" at all is a question neither al-Sakhawi nor the critics he is engaged with seem to ask.) Note, too,
that al-Sakhawi himself, in outlining a "legal classification" of history, recognizes that certain aspects
of it do fall into the category of the "forbidden":"This applies, especially, to stories told in connection
with the biographies (siyar) of the prophets. Then, there is the information about disputes among the
men around Muhammad (which is also forbidden), because the historical informants (akhbdrt) who
report it as a rule exaggerate and mix things up" (Rosenthal, Historiography, 335).