Pavel Pavlovitch Sunni Hadith Kalala - ILS 1.2012

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156851912X571955

Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 86-159 www.brill.nl/ils

Islamic Lawand

Society

Some Sunni Ḥadīth on the Qurʾānic Term Kalāla: An Attempt at Historical Reconstruction*

Pavel Pavlovitch

Abstract

Since the 1980s the Qurʾānic term kalāla has been studied comprehensively, using Islamic literary sources, by David Powers and Agostino Cilardo. Cilardo, who deploys J. Schacht’s ḥadīth-analytical criteria to date the kalāla traditions, points to the first half of the 2nd century AH and, occasionally, to the end of the 1st century AH as the period in which most of these traditions were circulated. Powers, who combines the literary evidence with the documentary evidence of BNF 328a, concludes that kalāla traditions evolved during the second half of the first and the first quarter of the second century AH. In the present essay I employ the isnād-cum-matn methodology to date several kalāla traditions discussed by Powers and Cilardo.

Keywords

kalāla, ʿilm al-farāʾiḍ, Companion traditions, the Summer verse, isnād-cum-matn analysis, dating Muslim traditions.

I. Introduction: e Issue of Kalāla

Since 1982, when David Powers proposed a new reading of Q. 4:12b,1 the enigmatic term kalāla has been a topic of three major studies. Pow-ers has treated the term in two separate monographs published in 1986

Correspondence: Pavel Pavlovitch, Sofia University, “St. Kliment Ohridski,” Center for Oriental Languages and Cultures, 79 Todor Aleksandrov Blvd., Sofia 1303, Bulgaria. E-mail: [email protected].

* I wish to express my gratitude to the executive editors of ILS and to the anonymous readers for their assistance.1) David S. Powers, “e Islamic Law of Inheritance Reconsidered: A New Reading of Q. 4:12b,” Studia Islamica, 55 (1982).

P. Pavlovitch / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 86-159 87

and 2009.2 In the intervening period Agostino Cilardo published a monograph entitled, The Qurʾānic Term Kalāla: Studies in Arabic Language and Poetry, Ḥadīt, Tafsīr and Fiqh.3 Both authors have under-taken an exhaustive scrutiny of the primary sources, including exeget-ical works, ḥadīth collections, poetry, grammar and lexicography. In his latest monograph, Muḥammad is not the Father of Any of Your Men, Powers adduces the evidence of an early manuscript (BNF 328a), which suggests that the text of the Qurʾān remained open and fluid until the end of the 1st century AH.

In the present essay I will follow the historical development of several kalāla traditions. I seek to shed light on the initial stages of the kalāla controversy among Muslim jurists and to elucidate the manner in which scholarly disputes contributed to the shaping and transmission of ḥadīth. In the opening part of the essay I discuss the chronologies of kalāla traditions proposed by Powers and Cilardo. Then I present the basic principles of my analysis, which derive largely, albeit not exclu-sively, from the isnād-cum-matn method. In the main part of the essay I analyze several kalāla traditions in an effort to establish the earliest dates of their circulation. The essay concludes with a comparison between my dating of these traditions, based on isnād-cum-matn anal-ysis, with that of Powers and Cilardo.

II. Methodology: How to Date the Kalāla Traditions?

II.1. D. Powers—Dating the Kalāla Dispute by Literary and Documentary evidence

Powers bases his chronology of the kalāla dispute on two major types of evidence: the documentary evidence of BNF 328a, and literary

2) David S. Powers, Studies in Qurʾān and Ḥadīth: e Formation of the Islamic Law of Inheritance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986); idem, Muḥammad is not the Father of Any of Your Men: e Making of the Last Prophet (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).3) Agostino Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla: Studies in Arabic Language and Poetry, Ḥadīṯ, Tafsīr and Fiqh, Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies Monograph Series 2 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004).

88 P. Pavlovitch / Islamic Law and Society 19 (2012) 86-159

evidence found in the works of Muslim exegetes, traditionists, gram-marians and lexicographers.

Powers maintains that BNF 328a underwent important revisions. First, an original *kalla was changed to kalāla and, second, an additional verse was inserted at the end of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ.4 BNF 328a is dated by Déroche and other scholars to the second half of the 1st century AH;5 on this basis Powers concludes that “the consonantal skeleton and per-formed reading of the Qurʾān remained open and fluid until the end of the first/seventh century.”6 This statement sets a broad chronological framework for the alteration of Q. *4:12b and the subsequent insertion of the supplementary legislation at the end of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ. Insofar as BNF 328a attests to a period of textual fluidity, but is unlikely to be the original codex in which the changes postulated by Powers were introduced, it is conceivable that these revisions originated at an early date. Powers states that the word kalāla was “coined in the first half of the first century A.H. in connection with the revision of Q. *4:12b”;7 he also concludes that the supplementary legislation was added to the end of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ ca. 50 AH.8

4) Yastaftūna-ka qul allāhu yuftī-kum fī ’l-kalāla in imruʾun halaka laysa la-hu waladun wa-la-hu ukhtun fa-la-hā niṣf u mā taraka wa-huwa yarithu-hā in lam yakun la-hā waladun fa-in kānatā thnatayni fa-la-humā ’l-thulthāni min-mā taraka wa-in kānū ikhwatan rijālan wa-nisāʾan fa-li’l-dhakari mithlu ḥaẓẓi ’l-unthayayni yubayyinu ’l-lāhu la-kum an-taḍillū wa’l-lāhu bi-kulli shayʾin ʿalīm.5) François Déroche and Sergio Noja Noseda, Sources de la transmission manuscrite du texte coranique. I. Les manuscrits de style ḥiǧāzī. Volume 1. Le manuscrit arabe 328 (a) de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (Fondazione Ferni Noja Noseda, Leda, and Bibliothèque nationale de Paris: 1998). In his analysis of the manuscript, Yasin Dutton proposes two alternative dates. If Qurʾāns written in Hijazi script are generally earlier than Qurʾāns written in Kufic script, and if Kufic script was already in use in the late Umayyad period, Dutton argues, then “the muṣḥaf represented by MS Arabe 328a might not only date from the later part of Ibn ʿĀmir’s (d. 118/736) life, but also, conceivably, to an earlier period closer to the time of ʿ Uthmān’s promulgation of a ‘standard’ text.” (Yasin Dutton, “An Early Muṣḥaf According to the Reading of Ibn ʿĀmir,” Journal of Qurʾanic Studies, 3:1 [2001], 83). If, however, Ibn ʿĀmir’s reading was fixed only in the middle of the 3rd century AH, then the manuscript may have been written considerably later than the second half of the 1st century AH (ibid., 84).6) Powers, Muhammad, 193.7) Ibid., 219.8) Ibid., 198.


According to Powers the revision of Q. 4:12b and the insertion of the supplementary legislation at the end of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ led to numer-ous problems in the understanding of kalāla. Bewilderment over the meaning of the term triggered the circulation of many traditions.9 It is important to date these traditions as their chronology may be related to the establishment of the consonantal skeleton of the Qurʾān. If some of them were put into circulation as early as 50 AH or shortly thereaf-ter, then the revision of Q. 4:12b may be dated to the first half of the 1st century AH.

According to Powers, the earliest reports about the meaning of kalāla were put into circulation some time after 50 AH and before 100 AH—roughly the lifetimes of the earliest transmitters mentioned in the isnāds.10 On the basis of this conclusion, he proposes a tentative chronology of the kalāla dispute that is consistent with the evidence of BNF 328a:

In the middle of the first century A.H., very few Muslims would have known the meaning of the word kalāla. It was only during the second half of the first century that tentative definitions of the word were advanced by Com-panions of the Prophet. During the last quarter of the first century and the first quarter of the second century, Successors and Followers circulated reports in which one or another definition of kalāla was attributed to either Abū Bakr or ʿUmar.11

9) Ibid., 219.10) Regarding the occasion of the revelation (sabab al-nuzūl) of Q. 4:176 (the camel-sabab), Powers states that the narrative “…appears to have originated in Basra and to have circulated in Basran scholarly circles for approximately a quarter of a century before Maʿmar [sc. b. Rāshid, d. 153/770] brought it to ʿAbd al-Razzāq in Yemen” (Powers, Muḥammad, 202). is dating is based on the assumption that Ibn Sīrīn (d. 110/728), who occupies the earliest position in the isnād, is responsible for the circulation of the tradition. In his discussion of the traditions that attempt to harmonize conflicting definitions of kalāla, Powers appears to assume that the traditions were circulated by al-Shaʿbī, who is the oldest authority in the transmission line (ibid., 214-15). In like manner, Powers proposes that a kalāla tradition cited by al-Ṭabarī with the isnād Ibn Wakīʿ → Abū Usāma → Zakariyyāʾ b. Abī Zāʾida → Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī → Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, may be dated, “some time after the middle of the first century A.H.” (ibid., 205). Here Powers assumes that the oldest authority in the isnād, Abū Salama b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. 94/713), was responsible for the circulation of the report.11) Powers, Muhammad, 218.


Powers divides the early kalāla traditions into Group A and Group B. Group A narratives, which revolve around the figure of ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, consist of traditions in which the caliph is portrayed as either unwilling or unable to disclose the meaning of kalāla. Group B narratives, in which ʿUmar plays an equally important role, offer vari-ous and sometimes contradictory definitions of kalāla.

In Powers’ view, the Group A narratives were put into circulation “beginning ca. 50 AH”12 by a number of Companions and Successors. The names of the putative disseminators, as noted, are derived from the isnāds in which the respective authority occupies the earliest tier in the transmission chain.13 Although Powers acknowledges that the reli-ability of the attributions to these men is “an open question,”14 he appears to have adopted a positive answer to that question. His confi-dence is based on what he describes as “a striking correspondence” between the literary evidence15 and the documentary evidence (BNF 328a).16

By contrast, the Group B narratives, according to Powers, were not put into circulation “until the last quarter of the first century or first decade of the second century A.H.”17 Again, Powers’ argument is based on the assumption that the discussion began during the lifetime of the earliest authorities in the respective isnāds.18

12) Ibid., 219.13) Loc. cit. Ibn ʿUmar (d. 73/693) is the oldest authority in the isnād: Yaʿqūb b. Ibrāhīm → Ibn ʿUlayya → Abū Ḥayyān → al-Shaʿbī → Ibn ʿUmar (al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl Āy al-Qurʾān, ed. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Turkī, 26 vols. [1st ed., Cairo: Hajar li’l-Ṭibāʿa wa’l-Nashr wa’l-Tawzīʿ wa’l-Iʿlān, 1422/2001], 7:721); Ṭāriq b. Shihāb al-Bajalī (d. 82, 83, or 84/701, 702 or 703)—in the isnād: Abū Kurayb → ʿAththām → al-Aʿmash → Qays b. Muslim → Ṭāriq b. Shihāb (al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 7:721); Masrūq b. al-Ajdaʿ (d. 63/683)—in the isnād: Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. Shaqīq → al-Ḥasan b. Shaqīq → Abū Ḥamza → Jābir → al-Ḥasan b. Masrūq → Masrūq b. al-Ajdaʿ (al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 7:722).14) Powers, Muḥammad, 220.15) Ibid., 197-224.16) Ibid., 155-96.17) Powers, Muḥammad, 221.18) Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab (d. 94/713), Abū Salama (d. 94/713), Ṭāʾūs b. Kaysān (d. 100/718-19), ʿAmr b. Murra (d. 110/728-29), and Muḥammad b. Ṭalḥa (d. 111/729-30) (Powers, Muḥammad, 221).


To sum up, according to Powers, several important developments relating to kalāla occurred in quick succession during the course of the turbulent 1st century AH: (a) the alteration of the consonantal skeleton of Q. 4:12b and the revision of its meaning, followed by the insertion of the supplementary legislation at the end of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ (ca. 20-50 AH); (b) the composition of BNF 328a (ca. 50-100 AH); (c) the initial circulation of the Group A narratives in which ʿUmar either professes not to know the meaning of kalāla or refuses to disclose its meaning (ca. 50-100 AH); and (d) the first appearance of the Group B counter-traditions in which a Companion explains the meaning of kalāla (ca. 75-125 AH). These counter-traditions were at first inconsistent, but were harmonized by dicta attributed to either ʿUmar or Abū Bakr, or to both, probably at the turn of the 1st century AH.

II.2. A. Cilardo—Dating Kalāla Traditions According to the Common Link (CL)

A. Cilardo opens his monograph with a short critique of Juynboll and Motzki, who, he argues, tend “to examine in particular the transmitters abstractly rather than the juridical questions involved; the debate con-cerns the reliability of the isnāds per se with little consideration of the matns.”19 While this criticism may apply to Juynboll, who dates tradi-tions almost exclusively on the basis of isnāds, it does not take into account the important modifications of Juynboll’s methodology intro-duced by Motzki.

Cilardo states that he does not claim to date ḥadīths because “there may be no definite method for this up to now.”20 Inasmuch as a critical exposition of exegetical and legal concepts depends on numerous and often competing traditions, however, the process of comparison (inev-itably) reveals conceptual development, which is essentially diachronic. Cilardo understands this, emphasizing that “the traditions offered the basic elements for doctrinal elaboration.”21 His assertion that traditions “cannot be understood outside the context of the debate on the question that they refer to,”22 is no doubt influenced by Schacht’s famous

19) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, xi.20) Ibid., xii.21) Loc. cit.22) Loc. cit.


principle that traditions cannot be earlier than their first application as polemical arguments.23 Cilardo also assumes that the distribution of ḥadīths in different regional centers is related to the history of the local schools and to juristic disputes with representatives of other regional centers.24 Although Cilardo does not attempt to date ḥadīths, he fre-quently speculates about the chronology of the kalāla traditions and the regions in which they circulated. His assumption that “one cannot adopt any general criterion in order to date a ḥadīṯ”25 leads him to apply several criteria derived mostly from Schacht’s Origins.

Cilardo makes extensive use of the common link (CL) theory to define the chronological and regional origins of traditions. He does not enumerate the criteria according to which CLs may be identified, but appears to accept the formal convergence of several isnād lines on a key figure as an indicator of that key figure’s status as a CL.

Like Powers, Cilardo sometimes bases his dating on the oldest trans-mitters in the isnād. While discussing the Iraqi doctrine on kalāla (man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid ), Cilardo notes the presence of the Medi-nese al-Zuhrī along with the Basran Qatāda and the Kufan Abū Isḥāq in a collective isnād whose matn reads: al-kalālau man laysa la-hu waladun wa-lā wālid. According to Cilardo this tradition “may be presumed to have originated at the time of Qatāda, Abū Isḥāq and al-Zuhrī, pre-sumably in the first half of the second century H”.26 Inasmuch as the above transmission terminates with Qatāda, Abū Isḥāq and al-Zuhrī, none of whom qualifies as a CL, it appears that Cilardo attributes the ḥadīth to these authorities because they occupy the oldest level in the isnād. In addition, Cilardo’s immediately following statement that al-Zuhrī “ represents the Medinese opposition to the ‘living tradition’ of the school”27 brings to mind Schacht’s polemical argument principle.

A very important operative assumption is contained in Cilardo’s statement that “the ḥadīṯ materials [sc. about kalāla] reflect a debate that preceded the doctrinal systematization made by the Medinese (Mālik) and the Iraqi schools (Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, al-Shaybānī)

23) Joseph Schacht, e Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford, 1950), 140.24) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, xii.25) Ibid., 20.26) Ibid., 23, also isnād 3 in the Appendix.27) Loc. cit.


and that was concluded in the second half of the second century H.”28 It is no wonder then that Cilardo locates most of the CLs in the first half of the 2nd century AH, occasionally as early as the turn of the 1st century AH.29 This effectively brings Cilardo near the upper boundary of Powers’ chronology, according to which the Group B kalāla traditions were first put into circulation in the last quarter of the 1st century and the first quarter of the 2nd century AH.

II.3. Isnād-cum-matn Analysis

Isnad-cum-matn analysis has been successfully used for dating Muslim historical and legal traditions.30 This method has been applied mostly to prophetic traditions31 but only infrequently to Companion ḥadīth.32

28) Ibid., 20.29) Ibid., 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31.30) Isnād-cum-matn analysis has been widely used since 1996, when H. Motzki and G. Schoeler published two studies that benefited from this method (Harald Motzki, “Quo vadis, Ḥadīṯ-Forschung? Eine kritische Untersuchung von G.H.A. Juynboll: ‘Nāfiʿ, the mawlā of Ibn ʿUmar, and his position in Muslim Ḥadīth Literature,’” Der Islam, 73:1-2 [1996]; Gregor Schoeler, Charakter und Authentie der muslimischen Überlieferung über das Leben Mohammeds [Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996], augmented and translated into English as Gregor Schoeler, e Biography of Muḥammad: Nature and Authenticity, transl. Uwe Vagelpohl, ed. James E. Montgomery [New York and London: Routledge, 2011). e isnād-cum-matn method was first used by Josef van Ess in his Zwischen Ḥadīṯ und eologie: Studien zum Entstehen prädestinatianischer Überlieferung (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975). For a concise description of the isnād-cum-matn method, see Harald Motzki, “e Murder of Ibn Abī l-Ḥuqayq: On the Origin and Reliability of Some Maghāzī-Reports,” in e Biography of Muḥammad: e Issue of the Sources, ed. Harald Motzki (Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 2000), 174-75; idem, “Dating Muslim Traditions: A Survey,” Arabica, 52:2 (2005), 251-52; Andreas Görke, “Eschatology, History and the Common Link: A Study in Methodology,” in Method and eory in the Study of Islamic Origins, ed. Herbert Berg (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2003), 191 ff.31) In addition to the studies referred to in the previous footnote, see Harald Motzki, “e Prophet and the Cat: On Dating Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ and Legal Traditions,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 22 (1998); Gregor Schoeler, “Mūsā b. ʿUqba’s Maghāzī,” in e Bio-graphy of Muḥammad: e Issue of the Sources, ed. Harald Motzki (Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 2000), 66-97; Andreas Görke, “e Historical Tradition about al-Ḥudaybiya. A Study of ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr’s Account,” in e Biography of Muḥammad: e Issue of the Sources, ed. Harald Motzki (Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 2000), 240-75.32) To the best of my knowledge, the only scholar who has applied the isnād-cum-matn method to traditions attributed to Companions (specifically, ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd, ʿUmar


To the best of my knowledge, kalāla traditions have never been studied by means of isnād-cum-matn analysis: Powers dates these traditions according to the earliest authority in the transmission chain, whereas Cilardo emphasizes analysis of the isnāds to the exclusion of the matns. I have therefore decided to apply the isnād-cum-matn methodology to several kalāla traditions. First, however, it will be appropriate to explain isnād-analytical terms and to make brief methodological remarks.

To detect the CL and Partial Common Links (PCLs),33 one must first look for the key figures in an isnād bundle. The key figures are identifiable when the isnād variants of a given tradition are charted in a diagram. In that diagram, which may comprise scores of isnāds, the key figures are the transmitters at whose level the isnād branches out into several strands. With regard to the oldest key figure, the isnād as a rule divides into two dissimilar parts: a trunk, which consists of single-strand attributions from the putative source of information up to the oldest key figure; and a crown, which comprises numerous branches that extend from the oldest key figure. The crown may consist of single-strand isnāds, of isnāds that branch at one or more tiers above the earliest key figure, or a combination of both.

To avoid confusion, I distinguish between the key figure and the CL. G.H.A. Juynboll has alluded to this difference,34 but I shall state it explicitly. The key figure is any transmitter in the isnād bundle at whose level the isnād branches to several other transmitters. The CL is the earliest key figure who can be proven to have circulated a given

b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, Abū al-Aswad al-Duʾalī and ʿImrān b. Ḥuṣayn) is Van Ess (although he never uses the term ‘isnād-cum-matn analysis’ to describe his method). See Van Ess, Zwischen Ḥadīṯ und eologie, 1-55.33) e term ‘Common Link’ was used for the first time by Joseph Schacht (Origins, 171-75). Subsequently, the CL theory became the foundation of G.H.A. Juynboll’s isnād-analytical method (G.H.A. Juynboll, “Some Isnād-Analytical Methods Illustrated on the Basis of Several Woman-Demeaning Sayings from Ḥadīth Literature,” al-Qantara, 10:2 [1989], 343-84; idem, “Some Notes on Islam’s First Fuqahāʾ Distilled from Early Ḥadīṯ Literature,” Arabica, 39:3 [1992], 287-314; idem, “Nāfiʿ, the mawlā of Ibn ʿUmar, and his position in Muslim Ḥadīth Literature,” Der Islam, 70:2 [1993], 205-44; idem, Encyclopedia of Canonical Ḥadīth [Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007], xii-xix [henceforth ECḤ]). 34) Juynboll, “Nāfiʿ,” 210, 212, 214, 226-27; ECḤ, xx-xxii. A similar distinction, albeit not formulated in specific terms, is clearly made by Schoeler, according to whom the status of a CL remains provisional until proven by matn analysis (Charakter und Authentie, 24-5).


tradition.35 The PCL is any key figure above the tier of the CL who can be proven to have transmitted a variant of the CL tradition. At first sight, the oldest key figure in the isnād bundle may appear to be the CL of the tradition. Such an impression, however, may be misleading, and the oldest key figure may turn out to be a seeming CL (SCL). In such a case one may find the real CL above the tier of the SCL. One may speak of a key figure’s being a CL/PCL only when the isnāds that converge on that key figure carry sufficiently overlapping matns.

Narrative consistency is a main issue in isnād-cum-matn analysis. Based on the correspondence of literary motifs and partial overlap of narrative fragments, a number of scholars have attempted to trace tra-ditions to a common stem.36 While such an approach is rewarding (albeit assailable)37 in the field of historical reports, which have reached us in the form of extensive narratives, the same does not necessarily hold for legal traditions. Many of these traditions are neatly formulated short pronouncements for which stricter requirements for narrative consistency are needed for the successful reconstruction of the older versions. It should be noted that in the process of reconstruction, one attempts to recover the older PCL variants from later ḥadīth collections that were composed mainly in the 3rd century AH and reached us

35) ree different definitions of the CL have been advanced after Schacht coined that term. According to Juynboll, the CL is the person who invented the single-strand isnād back to the Prophet “in order to lend a certain saying more prestige” (Juynboll, “Some Isnād-Analytical Methods,” 353). Consequently, “the historicity of transmissions represented in an isnād bundle starts being conceivable only after the spreading out has begun, namely at the cl level, and not before that” (ibid., 354). According to Motzki, the CL is the first major collector of traditions and, therefore, the CL tradition is older than the CL itself (Motzki, “Quo Vadis,” 45; cf. idem, “Dating,” 238-42). According to Cook and Calder, the CL is the figure to whom a number of later authorities, who were engaged in a process of mutual isnād criticism, ascribed a certain tradition (Michael Cook, Early Muslim Dogma [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], 107-16; Norman Calder, Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993], 235-41). In the latter case the CL has nothing to do with the circulation of the tradition, which was the work of later traditionists. For a review of the CL definitions, see Görke, “Eschatology, History and the Common Link,” 188-90. 36) Schoeler, Charakter und Authentie; Motzki, „e Murder of Ibn Abī l-Ḥuqayq“; Jens Scheiner, „Isnād-cum-matn-Analyse und historische ahbār: Überlieferungs- und Ereignis-geschichte am Beispiel der Eroberung von Damaskus,“ Ph. D. esis, Nijmegen (2009).37) See for instance H. Berg’s review of Schoeler’s Charakter und Authentie in Journal of the American Oriental Society, 119:2 (1999), 315-17.


through even later recensions. These (tentative) PCL variants are then used for the reconstruction of the even older CL version. Thus, the deeper the attempted reconstruction, the more tentative its results. To minimize methodological arbitrariness, I will recognize as belonging to a CL/PCL only those matns that exhibit a small degree of structural instability, arguably attributable to the peculiarities of the transmission process rather than to polygenesis. Larger narratives, which may have undergone a process of fictionalization, will be compared with each other with the goal of removing the later fictional accretions38 and, consequently, of distilling a meaningful narrative core. The above approach is helpful in avoiding the pitfalls of the assumption that mean-ing should be the definitive base of matn analysis. In the latter case, one is often unsure about the disseminator, the exact wording or even the existence of the alleged ‘common archetype’.39

The issue of narrative consistency as well as the historicity of the numerous instances in which Muslim traditionists cite directly much older informants is closely related to the modes of transmission between masters and their students. If traditions were transmitted mostly orally, the peculiarities of memorization and the creative diversity of the oral

38) Fictionalization does not necessarily preclude authenticity. Fictional elements may be attached to a non-fictional narrative that refers to actual facts. By introducing temporal or spatial indicators and grammatical delimiters, the narrator constructs a plot consisting of more or less easily identifiable sections of acting. In Islamic legal traditions, one notices distinct layers of fictionalization signalled by the introduction of details relating to specific locations, historical periods, actors and their emotional states and attitudes. In some cases, I will divide the tradition into consecutively numbered clauses that reflect either fictionalization or the non-fictional activity of linguistic elucidation and legal amendment. On fictionalization in the Islamic tradition, see further Sebastian Günther, “Fictional Narration and Imagination within an Authoritative Framework: Towards a New Under-standing of Ḥadīth,” in Story-Telling in the Framework of non-Fictional Arabic Literature, ed. Stefan Leder (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1998). Although he does not use the term ‘fictionalization’, Schoeler, following Noth, also speaks of a process of modification or reshaping (‘Veränderungs-’ oder ‘Umgestaltungsprocess’) in the course of which topoi, bias and stylization affect the base narrative (Charakter und Authentie, 11-12, 166).39) e incompleteness of the reconstructed CL versions has been highlighted by Melchert, according to whom “Motzki talks of identifying a kernel of historical truth, but if that is taken to be whatever element is common to his multiple versions, it seems to be normally so small as to be virtually worthless.” (Christopher Melchert, “e Early History of Islamic Law,” in Method and eory in the Study of Islamic Origins, ed. Herbert Berg [Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2003], 303).


variants would account for minor narrative inconsistencies.40 At the same time, completely identical matns will become likely suspects of forgery. Furthermore, if traditions were transmitted orally, one should hardly consider worthy of credence isnāds that accommodate extensive gaps between the death dates of adjacent transmitters. A written trans-mission, on the other hand, could alleviate (but not remove) the age problem and account for the existence of identical matns. A process of transition from orality to written record, where both modes of transmis-sion coexisted in scholarly circles, is the most plausible scenario with respect to the 2nd century AH.41 As the floruit of CLs of the kalāla traditions is mostly the 2nd century AH, I will assume, unless proven otherwise, that oral delivery (supported by written notes) was the reg-ular mode of transmitting knowledge from these CLs to the following two generations of students. Although the chances of purely written transmission are notably higher in the 3rd and the 4th centuries AH, one should not underestimate the role of orality during that period.42 It also

40) Gregor Schoeler, “Die Frage der schriftlichen oder mündlichen Überlieferung der Wissenschaften im frühen Islam,” Der Islam, 62:2 (1985), 207-8; 210-13. Schoeler argues that even in cases in which teachers based their lectures on written notes, “wurde der Stoff oft unterschiedlich dargeboten; und diese unterschiedlichen Darbietungen konnten Aus-gangspunkt für verschiedenen Rezensionen (Überlieferungen) werden” (G. Schoeler, “Die Frage,” 224). In this case, oral delivery would have been responsible for variations in per-formance, which, according to Schoeler, do not necessarily preclude the reconstruction of the main outlines of a (historical) tradition (Charakter und Authentie, 163 ff).41) M. Cook has shown that during the 2nd century AH writing was becoming increasingly important in the transmission of knowledge. Nevertheless, during this period notes taken (often surreptitiously) during lessons were used privately, mainly as mnemonic aids. ey were not intended for public circulation as published books. Some traditionists even destroyed their notes lest they end up in the possession of other persons (Michael Cook, “e Opponents of Writing of Tradition in Early Islam,” Arabica, 44:4 [1997], 476-81; cf. Schoeler, Charakter und Authentie, 27-58; Sebastian Günther, “Assessing the Sources of Classical Arabic Compilations: e Issue of Categories and Methodologies,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 32:1 [2005], 77-8). At the same time, some scholars (e.g. Mālik b. Anas) are known to have prepared written texts of their lectures but not in the sense of fixed books, while others, like Ibn Isḥāq and al-Mufaḍḍal al-Ḍabbī, reportedly produced such books (Schoeler, “Die Frage,” 210-12).42) e time and effort required for the preparation of a manuscript and to send it from one location to another contributed to the persistence of orality throughout the 3rd and the 4th centuries AH. See Ghada Osman, “Oral vs. Written Transmission: e Case of Ṭabarī and Ibn Sa‘d,” Arabica, 48:1 (2001), 80.


should be noted that the issue of the modes of transmission does not necessarily bear on the question of authenticity. As Schoeler has warned, “schriftlich kann man ebenso gut fälschen wie mündlich!”43

With regard to possible correlations between isnāds and matns, I shall account for (but not blindly stick to) the following scenarios:

1. An isnād cluster in which only single strands branch from the key figure (i.e. a spider). In this case I will follow Juynboll’s skeptical approach: the key figure is not a historically tenable CL, but a seeming CL (SCL). e matns provided by the collectors sitting at the top of each spider leg may either concur or vary to different degrees. If they concur, one cannot deny the possibility of isnād proliferation. If they differ, one can say little or nothing about the wording of the hypothetical stem. Neither can one identify the transmitters who altered the matns, as the possibilities multiply in propor-tion to the number of legs and the intermediate links between the SCL/SPCL and the collectors.

2. A key figure (an apparent CL) is followed by a historically plausible PCL and one or more single-strand isnāds. Even if the single strands carry (almost) identical matns that resemble the PCL’s matn, such evidence may be accepted as a proof of the key figure’s being a (S)CL only with qualifications.

3. A key figure (an apparent CL) is followed by two historically plausible PCLs and one or more single-strand isnāds. If the matns provided by the PCLs and the single strand isnāds are identical, one may accept the single strands as evidence that the key figure is the CL of the tradition. If the PCL matns agree, but the single-strand matns differ, one speaks of a (S)CL.

4. If the key figure (the apparent CL) is followed by three or more historically tenable PCLs, then one does not need the evidence of the single strands in order to confirm the key figure as the actual CL of the tradition.

To avoid simplicity, I shall temper these four scenarios with important qualifications. If a key figure is cited directly by a Collector (CR), that is to say, by the compiler of an extant ḥadīth collection, chronicle or biographical lexicon,44 such an unmediated citation enjoys every chance

43) Schoeler, “Die Frage,” 226 ff.44) Sebastian Günther differentiates between a ‘collector’ and a ‘compiler’. In his view the collector (Sammler) is “any scholar who—for the first time—collected data on a particular topic, arranged it and systematised it in larger text ‘units’… Many of these larger systematic text units … appear to have eventually served the compilers of the eighth to the eleventh centuries CE as their ‘actual sources’” (Sebastian Günther, “Assessing the Sources,” 88).


of being authentic. Before one can dismiss it as, say, part of a spider bundle, its matn must be compared to other matns passing through the same key figure. If a sufficient degree of overlap is established, the evidence of the CR may increase the degree of certainty. The greater the number of CRs who cite a key figure, the stronger the chances of that key figure’s being a CL/PCL.45 On occasion, important chrono-logical information may be gleaned from a comparison of traditions in which the conceptual development of a given doctrine is observable.

Finally, evidence drawn from the massive biographical lexica (kutub al-rijāl), although important for ḥadīth analysis,46 must nevertheless be treated with caution. Most of the capacious rijāl dictionaries, such as those composed by al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463/1071), Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571/1176), al-Mizzī (d. 742/1341), al-Dhahabī (d. 747/1374) and Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1449), were produced long after the isnād had been established as a device for authentication. As a result, the names of many tradents, mentioned by later rijāl critics only in passing, may have been deduced from earlier isnāds. Reliance on the (repetitive) evidence of the biographical literature in the case of such tradents, who appear with great frequency in single-strand isnāds, is a form of circular reasoning.47

According to Günther, “[m]ostly, ‘collectors’ are senior scholars from the end of the eighth to the beginning of the ninth century” (loc. cit.); thus, it seems that by ‘collectors’ Günther means the direct informants of the compilers of the six books and later ḥadīth corpora. Be that as it may, one wonders how to identify, for example, Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī (d. 203/818-19), ʿAbd al-Razzāq (d. 211/837), Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849) and Ibn Rāhwayh[i] (d. 238/853). Clearly, these men were both collectors and compilers. In order to avoid terminological ambiguity, I will use the term ‘collector’ for all compilers of ḥadīth books.45) Some CRs may have preferred to assign an independent isnād to a tradition copied from a common written source. is hypothesis, however, must be proven by biographical data in each individual case; otherwise it remains a mere conjecture, especially with respect to early CRs in whose time oral delivery was prevalent.46) G.H.A. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 161-218. In his later scholarship Juynboll cautions against credulous acceptance of the numerous fulāns mentioned in single-strand isnāds. According to his criteria, one should trust only those master-pupil relationships that are attested in a sufficiently large number of isnād bundles (G.H.A. Juynboll, “Early Islamic Society as Reflected in its Use of Isnāds,” Le Museon, 107 [1994], 156-57).47) According to Berg, “biographical materials … were produced symbiotically with the isnāds they seek to defend.” (H. Berg, e Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: e Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period [London-New York:


III. A Study of Several Kalāla Traditions

In order to check the accuracy of the chronologies proposed by Powers and Cilardo one must—in the best-case scenario—study all kalāla tra-ditions. This is an impossible task for a journal article; the same holds for the even more limited analysis of the postulated transition from the Group A narratives (in which the meaning of kalāla is unknown or withheld) to the Group B narratives (in which the word is defined). To narrow the scope of my analysis, I have chosen to study several clusters of Group A and Group B traditions. To avoid arbitrariness, I focus my attention on short legal statements, which, according to Schacht, reflect an early stage in the development of Islamic jurisprudence.48 If success-ful, the dating of these traditions will provide a limited basis for assess-ing the conclusions about chronology made by Powers and Cilardo.

III.1. e Indefinite Traditions: ʿUmar B. Al-Khaṭṭāb considers Kalāla One of the ree Most Important ings in is World

One of the salient features of the kalāla traditions is that they are rarely associated with the Prophet. Even when Muḥammad appears in some of the kalāla narratives, he never defines the term in his own words. By contrast, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (r. 13-23/634-44) is a ubiquitous figure in the kalāla traditions. Sometimes ʿ Umar is said to have been ignorant of the meaning of kalāla, despite its being one of the most important things he aspired to know. An early variant of this tradition is found in the Muṣannaf of ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 211/826):

alāthun la-an-yakūna ’l-nabiyyu ṣalʿam bayyana-hunna la-nā aḥabbu ilayya min al-dunyā wa-mā fī-hā: al-khilāfatu wa’l-kalālatu wa’l-ribā.

Curzon, 2000], 26). is assertion has been criticized by Motzki, who maintains that “Berg’s claim that the biographical materials were produced symbiotically with the isnāds and that the two sources are not independent has not been substantiated by him or anyone else until now and it is certainly questionable in its generalization.” (Harald Motzki, “e Question of the Authenticity of Muslim Traditions Reconsidered: A Review Article,” in Method and eory in the Study of Islamic Origins, ed. Herbert Berg [Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2003], 214).48) Schacht, Origins, 180-89.


Dia

gram

1:

e ‘th

ree

thin

gs’ t

radi

tion.

Sufy

n a

l-Tha

wr�

, d. 1

61, K

f.

�Am

r b. M

urra

, d. 1

16-1

8, K

f.

Rzq.

= IIA

Sh.

= ��

w. →

al-F

a�l b

. Duk

ayn

= �

km. -

Tha

l th

un la

-an-

yak�

na ’l

-nab

iyyu �

al�a

m b

ayya

na-h

unna

la-n

a�

abbu il

ayya

min

al-d

uny

w

a-m

f�-

h : a

l-khi

l fa

tu wa’

l-kal

lat

u wa’

l-rib

; MM

j. =

Khll

- al-k

al l

atu w

a’l-r

ib

wa’

l-khi

l fa

; ��br

., - a

l-kal

lat

u wa’

l-khi

l fa

tu wa-

abw

bu ’l

-rib

.

�aya

l. =

Bhq.

- (

1) T

hal

thun

la-a

n-ya

k�na

’l-n

abiy

yu �al

�am

bay

yana

-hun

na la

-n

a�ab

bu ilay

ya m

in �

umri ’l

-na�

am: a

l-khi

l fa

tu wa’

l-kal

lat

u w

a’l-r

ib .

(2)

[Q�

la �A

mr

b. M

urra

]: Qu

ltu li

-Mur

ra:

“Wa-

man

yas

hukk

u f�

’l-ka

l la

ti huw

a m

d�

na ’l-w

alad

i wa’

l-w l

id?”

Q�l

a: “I

nna-

hum

ya

shuk

k�na

f� ’l

-w l

id.”

T�w

. →

Wah

b. b

. Ja

r�r

- (1)

Tha

l th

un la

-an-

yak�

na r

as�l

u ’l-

l hi �

al�a

m b

ayya

na-h

unna

la-n

qa

bla a

n ya

m�t

a a�

abbu il

ayya

min

-m

�al

’l-a

r�:

al-k

hil

fatu w

a’l-r

ib

wa’

l-kal

la.

(2a)

Fa-q

ultu

: “Al

-kal

lat

u l sh

akka f�

-hi m

d�

na ’l-w

alad

i wa’

l-ab.

” (2

b) Fa

-q�l

a: “A

l-abu y

ashu

kk�n

a f�-

hi.”

Ibn

Ab� S

hayb

a

Wak

��, d

. 196

Al

-�ay

lis

�, d.

203

-4, B

�.

Shu�

ba, d

. 160

, B�.

�Abd

al-R

azz

q, d

. 211

Al-�

a� w

�

Al-F

a�l b

. Duk

ayn,

d. 2

18

Al-B

ayha

q�

Al-�

kim

al-N

ays

b�r�

Ibn

M j

a

Al-�

a� w

� Ab

� Ba

kr a

l-K

hall

l Al

-�ab

ar�

Diag

ram

1 -

The

‘thre

e th

ings

’ tra

diti

on

SSufy

n a

l-Tha

wr�

, d. 1

61, K

f.

�Am

r b. M

urra

, d. 1

16-1

8, K

f.

�Um

ar b

. al-K

ha��

b

Rzq.

IA

Sh.

= ��

w. →

al-F

a�l b

. Duk

ayn

= �

km. - Mj.

= Kh

ll -

�br.

,

�aya

l. =

Bhq.

-

T�w

. →

Wah

b. b

. Ja

r�r

-

Ibn

Ab� S

hayb

a

Wak

��, d

. 196

Mur

ra b

. Sha

r ��

l al-H

amd

n�,

d. 7

6

Al-�

ay l

is�,

d. 2

03-4

, B�.

Shu�

ba, d

. 160

, B�.

�Abd

al-R

azz

q, d

. 211

Al-�

a� w

�

Al-F

a�l b

. Duk

ayn,

d. 2

18

Ab�

Um

ayya

Mu�

. b.

Ibr

h�m

al-K

huz

��

Al-B

ayha

q�

Ab�

Bakr

b. F

awra

k

�Al.

b. Ja

�far

Y�nu

s b. �

ab�b

Al-�

kim

al-N

ays

b�r�

�Al�

b. M

u�. b

. �U

qba

Al-H

ayth

am b

. Kh

lid

Ibn

M j

a

�Al�

b. M

u�. a

l-�a

n fu

s�

Al-�

a� w

�

Ibr

h�m

b.

Mar

z�q

Wah

b b.

Jar�

r, d.

206

, B�.

Yaz�

d b.

Si

n n

Colle

ctiv

e isn

�d

Ab�

Bakr

al

-Kha

ll l

Mu�

.?

Al-�

abar

�

Ibn

Wak

��

Diag

ram

1 -

The

‘thre

e th

ings

’ tra

diti

on

Mu�

. = M

u�am

mad

�Al.

= �A

bd A

ll h

Kf. =

K�f

a

B�. =

Ba�

ra

�Abd

al-R

azz

q vi

a Su

fy n

al-T

haw

r�


ree things that I wish the Prophet [ṣ] had explained to us are dearer to me than this world and its contents: the caliphate, kalāla, and usury.49

ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s isnād includes Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161/778) → ʿ Amr b. Murra (d. 116-18/734-37) → ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. The isnād evi-dence (Diagram 1) shows the Kufan traditionist Sufyān al-Thawrī in the position of an important key figure in the ‘three things’ bundle. He may be: (a) a PCL of ʿAmr b. Murra, who in that case would be—as Cilardo maintains50—the CL of the bundle; (b) a CL of the bundle, in which case ʿAmr b. Murra will be a SCL; or (c) a SCL, in which case the real CL should be sought in a higher level of the isnād. In order to assess these possibilities, let us start from Sufyān’s apparent PCLs. In addition to the CR, ʿ Abd al-Razzāq, there are two key figures above the level of Sufyān: Wakīʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ (d. 197/812) and Abū Nuʿaym al-Faḍl b. Dukayn (d. 218/833), both Kufans.

Four collectors cite Wakīʿ. Ibn Abī Shayba, who is a CR,51 has a ver-sion that is identical with ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s tradition. By contrast, Ibn Māja,52 who is a CR with respect to Ibn Abī Shayba, and also Abū Bakr al-Khallāl,53 change the order of the three things that ʿ Umar wished the Prophet had explained to the Muslims. Instead of al-khilāfatu wa’l-kalālatu wa’l-ribā, these two CRs have al-kalālatu wa’l-ribā wa’l-khilāfa. Al-Ṭabarī has yet another variant: al-kalālatu wa’l-khilāfatu wa-abwābu ’l-ribā,54 which apparently was influenced by two factors. First, like the variant in Ibn Māja and al-Khallāl, it begins with kalāla; second it employs the longer iḍāfa-construct, abwābu ’l-ribā, which is an unam-biguous borrowing from a bundle of later traditions that use the locu-tion bābun min abwābi ’l-ribā. Therefore, we may reasonably conclude

49) ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, al-Muṣannaf, ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, 12 vols. (2nd ed., Beirut: al-Majlis al-ʿIlmī, 1403/1983), 10:302, no. 19184.50) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 30.51) Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, ed. Ḥamad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Jumʿa and Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Laḥīdān, 16 vols. (1st ed., Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd Nāshirūn, 2004), 7:517, no. 22312.52) Ibn Māja, Sunan, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, n.d.), 2:911, no. 2727.53) Abū Bakr al-Khallāl, Sunna, ed. ʿ Aṭiyya al-Zahrānī, 5 vols. (1st ed., Riyadh: Dār al-Rāya li’l-Nashr wa’l-Tawzīʿ, 1410/1989), 1:72-73, no. 331.54) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 7:720.


that al-Ṭabarī knew a variant similar to the tradition of Ibn Māja and al-Khallāl, but he moved abwāb al-ribā to the end of the dictum for stylistic and semantic reasons. The iḍāfa-construct fits better after the two isolated words; indeed, it must be moved towards the end of the phrase, lest its first term (abwāb) be understood as relating to both ribā and khilāfa. Thus, Ibn Māja, al-Khallāl and al-Ṭabarī apparently knew one version of the tradition, and Ibn Abī Shayba knew a slightly different one. Ibn Abī Shayba’s variant may have been subjected to a slight change at the hands of a later redactor who was indifferent to the arrangement of the three issues. Although I suspect that the PCL, Wakīʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ preferred the wording, al-kalālatu wa’l-ribā wa’l-khilāfa, given the observed matn fluidity, this assumption cannot be proven.

Al-Faḍl b. Dukayn appears in two single-strand isnāds mentioned in the late collections of al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321/851-2)55 and al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (d. 405/1014).56 Two attributions based on single-strand isnāds are insufficient to qualify al-Faḍl b. Dukayn as anything but a SPCL of the tradition.

Cited by both a CR and a PCL, Sufyān al-Thawrī may be considered a CL of the ‘three things’ tradition. Due to the variations in the matn, it is difficult to decide whether Sufyān preferred al-khilāfatu wa’l-kalālatu wa’l-ribā or al-kalālatu wa’l-ribā wa’l-khilāfa. This uncertainty, however, is not relevant to our effort to date the tradition, which, according to the evidence of the isnāds and matns, was first circulated in a Kufan milieu in the first half of the 2nd century AH. It may be even older, but this can be determined only after we consider the role of the Kufan traditionist ʿAmr b. Murra (d. 116-18/734-37), the purported infor-mant of Sufyān al-Thawrī.

In addition to al-Thawrī, ʿ Amr b. Murra is cited by Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/776-7), at whose level the isnād branches to the Basrans, Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī (d. 203-4/818-19) and Wahb b. Jarīr (d. 206/821-2)(Diagram 1). In the Musnad of al-Ṭayālisī one finds the following matn:

55) Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ, 16 vols. (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1415/1994), 13:224-25.56) Al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak ʿalā ’l-Ṣaḥīḥayn, 5 vols. (1st ed., Cairo: Dār al-Ḥaramayn li’l-Ṭibāʿa wa’l-Nashr wa’l-Tawzīʿ, 1417/1997), 2:362, no. 3248.


1. alāthun la-an-yakūna ’l-nabiyyu ṣalʿam bayyana-hunna la-nā aḥabbu ilayya min ḥumri ’l-naʿam: al-khilāfatu wa’l-kalālatu wa’l-ribā.

2. [Qāla ʿ Amr b. Murra]: Qultu li-Murra: “Wa-man yashukku fī ’l-kalālati huwa mā dūna ’l-waladi wa’l-wālid?” Qāla: “Inna-hum yashukkūna fī ’l-wālid.”

1. ree things that I wish the Prophet [ṣ] had explained to us are dearer to me than the finest camels: the caliphate, kalāla, and usury.

2. [ʿAmr b. Murra said]: I said to Murra: “Who doubts that kalāla means those [relatives] apart from the child57 and the parent?” [Murra] said: “Verily, they have doubt about the parent.”58

Al-Bayhaqī repeats al-Ṭayālisī’s matn verbatim.59 By contrast, al-Ṭaḥāwī has the isnād, Ibrāhīm b. Marzūq → Wahb b. Jarīr → Shuʿba (Diagram 1), which carries the following matn:

1. alāthun la-an-yakūna ’l-nabiyyu ṣalʿam bayyana-hunna la-nā qabla an yamūta aḥabbu ilayya min-mā ʿalā ’l-arḍ: al-khilāfatu wa’l-ribā wa’l-kalāla.

2. (a) Fa-qultu: “Al-kalālatu lā shakka fī-hi mā dūna ’l-waladi wa’l-ab.” (b) Fa-qāla: “Al-abu yashukkūna fī-hi.”

1. ree things that that I wish the Prophet [ṣ] had explained to us before he died are dearer to me than what is on this earth: the caliphate, usury, and kalāla.

2. (a) I [?] said: “Kalāla, no doubt, means those [relatives] apart from the child and the father?” (b) He [?] said: “e father, about him there is doubt.”60

After citing the tradition on the authority of Wahb b. Jarīr and Shuʿba, al-Ṭaḥāwī informs us about another isnād associated with Shuʿba. In this case the transmission line passes through Yazīd b. Sinān, who cites both Wahb b. Jarīr and al-Ṭayālisī as his informants from Shuʿba (Dia-gram 1). Al-Ṭaḥāwī does not provide a matn for the second isnād. He merely observes that it is identical to the previous matn (thumma dha-kara [Shuʿba] bi-isnādi-hi mithla-hu). As with all collective isnāds, one

57) In translating walad as ‘child’ I follow both Powers and Cilardo.58) Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī, Musnad, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Turkī, 4 vols. (1st ed., Dār Hajar, 1420/1999), 1:61-2, no. 60.59) Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 10 vols. (1st ed., Hyderabad, 1344), 6:225.60) Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ, 13:224.


cannot be sure about the degree of variation between the adduced matn and the one said to be identical to it. A comparison between al-Ṭaḥāwī’s above-cited matn and the matn of al-Ṭayālisī which, according to al-Ṭaḥāwī, are identical, shows a considerable degree of difference. Qabla an yamūta is an obvious addition to al-Ṭayālisī’s matn; min-mā ʿalā ’l-arḍ is a variant of Sufyān’s al-dunyā wa-mā fī-hā; the order of the ‘three things’ is different than in the versions of both Sufyān and al-Ṭayālisī. The second clause of the tradition, which states the mean-ing of kalāla, is blurred in al-Ṭaḥāwī’s version. Apparently it consists of two fragments that may be chronologically plotted: someone states that, doubtless, kalāla means “those [relatives] apart from the child and the father” (Clause 2a), and someone claims that there is a doubt about the father (Clause 2b). Both (originally separate) pronouncements are woven into one narrative by the connective “fa-,” a typical element of fictionalization.61 Given the single-strand isnād, at present it is impos-sible to determine who circulated the modified variant through Wahb b. Jarīr. I will return to the significance of al-Ṭaḥāwī’s tradition through Wahb b. Jarīr in §III.3.

With regard to al-Ṭayālisī’s tradition, three possibilities come to mind. Al-Ṭayālisī may have received the tradition from Shuʿba; he may have borrowed Sufyān’s tradition and supplied it with an ‘inde-pendent’ isnād through Shuʿba, thereby concealing his dive under the bundle’s original CL; or he may have transmitted a variant of Wahb b. Jarīr’s tradition. The existence of a second clause, in which Wahb and al-Ṭayālisī attempt to explain the meaning of kalāla, is an indication of a later accretion. This does not necessarily mean that clause 1 did not originate with ʿAmr b. Murra, but insofar as we cannot definitely establish his contribution to the circulation of the ‘three things’ tradi-tion, the safest conclusion is to consider Sufyān al-Thawrī as its CL. In that case, the ‘three things’ tradition would have emerged in Kufa in the first half of the 2nd century AH. This is only a provisional conclu-sion, however: additional chronological data will be gained from a comparison between the Group A and Group B traditions (see §III.3).

61) Günther, “Fictional Narration,” 446.

Dia

gram

2:Al

-Kal

ālat

um

ākh

alā

’l-w

alad

aw

a’l-w

ālid

.

�Abd

al-R

azz

q

Ibn

Ab� S

hayb

a

Ibn

�Abb

s

Sufy

n a

l-Tha

wr�

, d. 1

61, K

f.

Wak

��, d

. 196

, Kf.

Isr

��l b

. Y�n

us, d

. 160

, Kf.

Ab�

Is�

q, �A

mr.

b. �

Al.

al-S

ab��

, d. 1

25, K

f.

Sal�m

/Sul

aym

b. �

Abd

al-K

�f�;

IABa

rr: S

ulay

m n

b. �

Uba

yd

Al-�

abar

�

Ibn

Wak

��

J bi

r b.

Yaz

�d,

d. 1

27, K

f.

Al-S

ha�b

�

6:47

6;

6:47

6a;

6:47

7b

Mu�

. b. B

ashs

h r Mu�

amm

al

6:47

7;

6:47

8

Ibn

Bash

sh r

w

a-Ib

n W

ak��

�AR

b. M

ahd�

, B�.

6:47

7a

IASh

321

35; T

br. 6

, 477

b

6:47

8

10:5

80,

3213

5; 3

2136

�br.

6:4

76a,

Rzq

. 191

90

�Am

r b. D

�n r

, d. 1

26, M

k.

Al-�

asan

b. M

u�.

b. a

l-�an

afiy

ya

�br.

6:4

77;

D r.

, 297

4

�br.

6:4

77a;

IA�

, 493

4

�br.

6:4

76a

�br.

, 6:4

78

�br.

, 6:4

78

�br., 6:478

�Imr

n b.

�ud

ayr,

d.

149

, B�.

Al-S

umay

�

IASh

10:

580,

32

136;

�br

6:4

76

10:3

04, 1

9190

Ibn

Ab� �

tim

A�m

. b.

Sin

n

3:88

7, 4

934

�Um

ar

Ab�

Bakr

Al-D

rim

�

Mu�

. b. Y

�suf

2:46

2, 2

974

Sa��d

b. M

an��

r

Hus

haym

b. B

ash�

r,

d. 1

83, W

si�

Zaka

riyy

a b.

Ab�

Z �

ida,

q

�� a

l-K�f

a

Tfsr

., 3:

1183

, 590

Ibn

�Abd

al-B

arr

5:19

6

�Uba

yd A

ll h

b. M

�s

Al-B

ayha

q�

Ab�

Sa��d

b. A

b� �A

mr

Ab�

�Al.

b. Y

a�q�

b

Mu�

. b. N

a�r Ya

�y

b. Y

a�y

6:22

4

Diag

ram

2 -

Al-K

al�l

atu m

� kha

l� ’l-

wala

da wa’l

-w�l

id

6:47

7

IASh

. → W

ak��,

321

35: �A

n Ib

n �A

bb�s

: “Al

-Kal

lat

u m

khal

’l-

w l

ida w

a’l-w

alad

.”

�br.

, 6:4

76a

- �An

Ab�

Bak

rin q�

la: “

Al-K

al l

atu m

kh

al

’l-w

alad

a wa’l

-w l

id.”

�br.

, 6:4

77 -

�An

Ibn

�Abb

�s q�

la: “

Al-K

al l

atu m

kh

al

’l-w

alad

a wa’l

-w l

id.”

= IIA

Barr

= DD

r.,

2974

= �

br.,

6:47

7a (w

hich

is a

col

lect

ive

isn�d

sai

d to

be

iden

tical

w

ith 6

:477

) = � �

br.,

6:47

7b.

Tbr.

, 6:4

78 -

On th

e au

thor

ity o

f Sal

�m b

. �Ab

d: A

l-Kal

lat

u m

khal

’l-

wal

ada w

a’l-w

lid

.� =

SSBM

., 59

0 (m

� �ad

�) =

IIA�

tm.,

4934

(m� k

hal�

).

IASh

., 32

136:

K�n

a �Um

ar ya

q�l:

“Al-K

al l

atu m

kh

al

’l-w

alad

a wa’l

-w l

id.”

� ��

br.,

6:47

6: K

�na �

Umar

raju

lan ay

sara fa

-kha

raja

yawm

an w

a-hu

wa ya

q�lu

bi-y

adi -h

i h�

-kad

h� yu

d�ru

-h� i

ll� an

na-h

u q�

la: (

1) “

At

�ala

yya

��nun

wa-

an

l a

dr� m

’l-

kal

latu . (

2) W

a-in

na ’l

-kal

lat

u m

khal

’l-

wal

ada w

a’l-w

lid

.”

The

clus

ter o

f Isr

��l

b. Y

�nus

The

clus

ter o

f Suf

y n

al-T

haw

r�

A�m

. = A

�mad

Mu�

. = M

u�am

mad

�Al.

= �A

bd A

ll h

�AR.

= �A

bd a

l-Ra�

m n

Kf. =

K�f

a

B�. =

Ba�

ra

Zak

ariy

yāʾ


Dia

gram

2: A

lKal

ālat

mā

khal

ā lw

alad

wal

wāl

id.

III.2. Kalāla–Collateral Relatives Entitled to Inherit in the Absence of a Child and a Parent

III.2.1. Al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid (kalāla are [those relatives] Apart from the Child and the Parent)

In one set of traditions, found in some of the earliest extant ḥadīth collections, kalāla is defined as collateral relatives (al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid ).

This dictum is attributed to the first caliph Abū Bakr (r. 11-13/632-4), to his successor ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (r. 13-23/634-44), and to the Companion Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68/686-8), reputed to have been the fore-most early Qurʾān exegete; the virtually unknown Kufan Successor, Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿAbd al-Salūlī, is also said to have transmitted the dictum. The isnād diagram for this tradition (Diagram 2) is significantly different from the tree-like charts that usually appear when the trans-mission lines of a single tradition are collated. There is no discernable trunk in the isnād bundle; rather, the lines of transmission take the form of multidirectional branches reaching to and extending from several key figures, the most prominent of whom are Abū Isḥāq ʿAmr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī (d. 127/745), Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus b. Abī Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī (d. 160/776-7), Sufyān al-Thawrī (97-161/716-78), Wakīʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ (d. 197/812) and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī (d. 198/814).

At first glance, the diagram shows two key figures (Sufyān al-Thawrī and Wakīʿ) in the position of inverted (partial) common links (IPCLs). It is at the level of these two figures that several earlier isnāds join together. Wakīʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ is a potential PCL of both Sufyān al-Thawrī and Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus. He also appears in a single-strand isnād through the Basran traditionist ʿ Imrān b. Ḥudayr al-Sadūsī (d. 149/766-7). The latter tradition cannot be credited to Wakīʿ due to the considerable difference between the matn variants quoted by Ibn Abī Shayba (CR) and al-Ṭabarī. Whereas Ibn Abī Shayba attributes to ʿ Umar the saying, al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid,62 al-Ṭabarī prefaces the dictum with a long descriptive preamble. ʿUmar’s words are supplemented by an introductory clause (clause 1) according to which at a certain junc-ture he forgot the meaning of kalāla:

62) Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 10:580, no. 32136.


Kāna ʿUmaru rajulan aysara fa-kharaja yawman wa-huwa yaqūlu bi-yadi-hi hā-kadhā yudīru-hā illā anna-hu qāla: (1) “Atā ʿalayya ḥīnun wa-anā lā adrī mā ’l-kalāla. (2) Wa-inna ’l-kalālata mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid.”

ʿUmar was a left-handed man. One day he went out to speak, [waving] his hand like this in circles. [He said:] (1) “ere was a time when I did not know what kalāla [means]. (2) Verily, kalāla is those [relatives] apart from the child and the parent.”63

Clause 1 brings to mind a number of traditions in which ʿUmar is said to have forgotten the meaning of kalāla. Whatever the exact provenance of al-Ṭabarī’s tradition, its length and content indicate that it does not belong to the mā khalā cluster, which consists of short dicta asserting that kalāla signifies collateral relatives. As a result we are left with two isolated traditions using the line Wakīʿ → ʿImrān b. Ḥudayr al-Sadūsī. Such evidence is insufficient to qualify Wakīʿas either a CL or a PCL.

Another isnād through Wakīʿ mentions Sufyān al-Thawrī on the authority of Jābir b. Yazīd al-Juʿfī, who quotes ʿĀmir b. Sharaḥīl al-Shaʿbī. According to this tradition it was not ʿUmar but Abū Bakr who said, al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid. Al-Ṭabarī’s Tafsīr is the only source that mentions Wakīʿ in the isnād of this tradition.64 The CR, ʿ Abd al-Razzāq, uses the same isnād, but starts at the level of Sufyān al-Thawrī,65 who is located one level below Wakīʿ. Since the isnād lines converge on Sufyān, who is cited directly by a CR, we reasonably may conclude that Sufyān, not Wakīʿ, is the CL of this version.

Two traditions cited by Ibn Abī Shayba (CR) and al-Ṭabarī use the line Wakīʿ → Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus → Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī → Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿ Abd al-Kūfī → Ibn ʿ Abbās to convey a matn that resembles the other matns in the mā khalā cluster.66 The only difference is the reversal of the word order: wālid before walad, that is, al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-wālida wa’l-walad. Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus is an important key figure, who may be the CL of the entire cluster. Wakīʿ, who is almost certainly the originator of the wālid wa’l-walad variant, may be treated as a PCL of Isrāʾīl.

63) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:476.64) Loc. cit.65) ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, 10:34, no. 19190.66) Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 10:580, no. 32135; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:477.


Another likely PCL in the Isrāʾīl b. Yunūs cluster is the Basran mawlā ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī. He is quoted twice by al-Ṭabarī67 and once by Ibn Abī Ḥātim,68 with all variants agreeing on a uniform matn, al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid. Note, however, that one of the isnāds cited by al-Ṭabarī is collective (marked as 6:477a on Diagram 2). While referring to a distinct isnād (Muḥammad b. Bashshār and Ibn Wakīʿ → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī → Isrāʾīl b. Yunūs → Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī → Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿAbd al-Kūfī → Ibn ʿAbbās), al-Ṭabarī limits himself to stating that the matn attached to this isnād is similar to the matn attached to the isnād Muḥammad b. Bashshār → Muʾammal → Sufyān al-Thawrī → ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿ Abbās (marked as 6:477 on Diagram 2). Although the matn of 6:477 is similar to those of the other traditions through Isrāʾīl b. Yunūs (indeed, to the matns of the entire mā khalā cluster), its isnād differs from that of 6:477a: it reaches Ibn ʿAbbās through ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya instead of through Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī → Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿAbd al-Kūfī.

Collective attributions are problematic for several reasons. One can-not be sure about the exact level of variation that the collector may have disregarded when reaching the conclusion that several isnāds convey similar matns. We also must keep in mind that the collective isnād may have been introduced by a later transmitter/collector who wanted to remove explicit or implicit flaws in the original transmission line. That a different wording was suppressed by al-Ṭabarī in 6:477a is indicated by the fact that the isnād trunk of 6:477 (ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya) usually supports a tradition stating, al-kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid (Diagram 5), where kalāla refers to the deceased (al-mawrūth min-hu) and not to the heirs (al-waratha), as in the mā khalā cluster. Unlike the man lā cluster, in 6:477 al-Ṭabarī adduces mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid, but this may have resulted from confusion or from a deliberate harmonization of the matn with the mā khalā matns passing through Sufyān al-Thawrī and Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus.

67) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:477, 478.68) Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, ed. Asʿad Muḥammad al-Ṭayyib, 10 vols. (1st ed., Mecca—Riyadh: Maktabat Nizār Muṣṭafā al-Bāz, 1417/1997), 3:887, no. 4934.


Given the problematic nature of al-Ṭabarī 6:477, one must exercise caution when evaluating the evidence of 6:477a, which, according to al-Ṭabarī, shares with 6:477 an identical matn. This has the effect of reducing the number of isnāds through Ibn Mahdī to two—one included in the Commentary of al-Ṭabarī (6:478 on Diagram 2), and the other quoted in the Commentary of Ibn Abī Ḥātim. Although their matns are similar, the isnāds of these two traditions differ significantly. In Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s version, Ibn Mahdī quotes Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus → Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī; by contrast, in al-Ṭabarī, 6:478, Sufyān al-Thawrī is the link between Ibn Mahdī and Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī. Al-Ṭabarī’s mention of Sufyān al-Thawrī instead of Isrāʾīl b. Yunūs in an isnād bundle that clearly converges on the latter is difficult to explain. Al-Ṭabarī (or his informant, Muḥammad b. Bashshār) may have been misled by Sufyān’s prominence in the isnāds of the kalāla traditions. It is possible, however, that this isnād is a dive that seeks to circumvent Isrāʾīl b. Yunūs. The point of invoking a parallel isnād may have been that both al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Bashshār were aware of Ibn Mahdī’s disparaging opinion of traditions related by Isrāʾīl b. Yunūs.69 The problematic nature of the isnāds above Ibn Mahdī, together with his negative stance towards Isrāʾīl, does not allow us to consider Ibn Mahdī as anything more than an (S)PCL.

To my mind, the strongest argument in favor of the Kufan tradition-ist Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus as the CL of the mā khalā tradition is matn unifor-mity.70 To our dismay, however, matn uniformity is not accompanied by similar isnād regularity. Wakīʿ may have been a PCL of Isrāʾīl, but

69) Ibn Mahdī used to say that Isrāʾīl b. Yunūs was a thief who stole traditions (kāna luṣṣan yasriqu ’l-ḥadīth) (Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-ʿIlal wa-Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, ed. Waṣī Allāh b. Muḥammad ʿAbbās, 4 vols. [2nd ed., Riyadh: Dār al-Khānī, 1422/2001], 3:366, no. 5609; Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, al-Jarḥ wa’l-Taʿdīl, 9 vols. [Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, n.d.], 2:330).70) Arguably, the matn uniformity may be due to a written source used by later traditionists who cite Isrāʾīl. is hypothesis is partly supported by reports that Isrāʾīl was especially fond of writing (Ibn Ḥanbal, ʿIlal, 3:366, no. 5010; especially al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmāʾ al-Rijāl, ed. Bashshār ʿ Awwād Maʿrūf, 35 vols. [2nd ed., Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1403/1983-], 2:522). On the other hand, neither ʿ Abd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī nor Wakīʿ are known to have possessed a book written by Isrāʾīl. Moreover, they are reported to have preferred oral transmission (on Wakīʿ, see al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, 30:471, 480; on ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī, see ibid., 17:439).


Ibn Mahdī’s status as a PCL is questionable. Only one isnād carrying a full matn passes through the line Ibn Mahdī → Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus. This matn is implicitly supported by a collective isnād cited by al-Ṭabarī but explicitly contradicted by another al-Ṭabarī tradition, which circum-vents Isrāʾīl by referring to al-Thawrī. Finally, Ibn ʿ Abd al-Barr’s single-strand isnād,71 which includes Isrāʾīl, is of limited corroborative value, given that we cannot establish the existence of a sufficient number of PCLs. Thus, Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus may at best be regarded as a (S)CL in the mā khalā cluster.

Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus relies on his grandfather, Abū Isḥāq ʿAmr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī (d. 127/745). Cilardo identifies Abū Isḥāq as the CL of reports referring to a change in Meccan doctrine about kalāla,72 but his conclusion does not account for the matn differences between the indi-vidual traditions attributed to this Kufan traditionist. In addition to the isnād through Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus, al-Sabīʿī appears in several single-strand isnāds. One of them is found in the Tafsīr of Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, on the authority of Hushaym b. Bashīr and Zakariyyāʾ b. Abī Zāʾida.73 Saʿīd chooses the mā ʿadā ’l-wālida wa’l-walad clause, which makes his tradition different from the otherwise uniform wording of the present cluster. Al-Bayhaqī also relies on the isnād Hushaym b. Bashīr → Zakariyyāʾ b. Abī Zāʾida, but, unlike Saʿīd, his matn reads, al-kalālatu man lā yadaʿu waladan wa-lā wālidan.74 Al-Bayhaqī states that the same matn was reported by Isrāʾīl on the authority of Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī; to the best of my knowledge, however, such a tradition is not found in the extant collections. In all likelihood, al-Bayhaqī was misled by the existence of other single strands through Abū Isḥāq → Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿAbd al-Kūfī that employ the locution lam yadaʿ waladan wa-lā wālidan.75 These strands, however, do not include Isrāʾīl and are therefore

71) Ibn ʿ Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd li-mā fī ’l-Muwaṭṭaʾ min al-Maʿānī wa’l-Asānīd, ed. Muṣṭafā b. Aḥmad al-ʿAlawī, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Kabīr al-Bakrī, and Saʿīd Aḥmad Aʿrāb, 26 vols. (Rabat: Mudīriyyat al-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyya, 1387-1412/1967-1992), 5:196.72) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 37, also isnād 21 in the Appendix.73) Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Sunan, ed. Saʿd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Ḥumayyid, 6 vols. (1st ed., Riyadh: Dār al-Ṣumayʿī li’l-Nashr wa’l-Tawzīʿ, 1414/1993), 3:1183, no. 590.74) Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 6:224.75) Muḥammad b. ʿUbayd al-Muḥāribī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ → Abū Isḥāq → Salīm /Sulaym b. ʿAbd; Ibn Wakīʿ → Ibn Fuḍayl → Ashʿath → Abū Isḥāq → Sulaym b. ʿAbd (al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:478).


of no relevance to the isnād cluster at issue here. Like the single line to al-Sabīʿī cited in al-Ṭabarī 6:478, they are likely dives under Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus. As a result, al-Sabīʿī is referred to by an isolated (S)CL (Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus) and a number of single-strand isnāds, some of which may be the result of forgery. Such a spider does not inspire confidence in the identification of Abū Isḥāq as the CL of the mā khalā tradition. Rather it supports Juynboll’s conclusion that “[h]e [sc. al-Sabīʿī] appears a particularly popular target for dives by later transmitters, which resulted in numerous otherwise undatable spiders.”76

Below al-Sabīʿī, the transmission is tenuous. Al-Ṭabarī 478 not only substitutes Sufyān al-Thawrī for Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus, but also terminates with Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿAbd. Al-Ṭabarī 477a and 477b, Ibn Abī Shayba 32135 and Ibn Abī Ḥātim extend the isnād to Ibn ʿAbbās. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr does the same but, instead of Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿAbd, mentions Sulaymān b. ʿUbayd. Both Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿAbd and Sulaymān b. ʿUbayd are utterly unknown persons, or indeed one person to whom similar names have been assigned. Their appearance in the lower part of the isnād means that the transmission line grew backwards so as to include Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿAbd as a fictitious link to Ibn ʿAbbās. That Isrāʾīl b. Yunūs is responsible for the raising (rafʿ) of the isnād is sug-gested by the biographical literature and especially by the works devoted to criticizing ḥadīth narrations (kutub al-ʿilal).77

In addition to Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus, Sufyān al-Thawrī (97-161/716-78) is a prominent key figure in the mā khalā cluster. With several branches

76) ECḤ, 47.77) Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentions two occasions on which Isrāʾīl b. Yunūs raised traditions to the level of the Prophet, whereas Sufyān al-awrī preferred versions in which the isnāds terminate at the Companion level (such isnāds are known as mawqūf). On both occasions Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s father prefers the mawqūf isnād (Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Kitāb al-ʿIlal, ed. Saʿd b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥumayyid and others, 7 vols. [1st ed., Riyadh, 1427/2006], 3:672-73, no. 1180, 4:715-16, no. 1762). Isrāʾīl is also said to have raised a tradition to the level of ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd by referring to Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī and ʿAlqama b. Qays, but Abū Isḥāq, who did encounter ʿAlqama, never heard traditions from him (ibid., 5:498-99, no. 2135). is case is very similar to the currently observed elevation to the level of Ibn ʿAbbās. On the importance of ʿ Ilal works for the recognition of artificially extended isnāds, see Jonathan Brown, “Critical Rigor vs. Juridical Pragmatism: How Legal eorists and Ḥadīth Scholars Approached the Backgrowth of Isnāds in the Genre of ʿIlal al-Ḥadīth,” ILS, 14:1 (2007), 1-41.


entering and exiting from him, at first sight he looks like an inverted CL who collected traditions from several sources and passed them to a number of later transmitters. A more definite assessment of the role of this Kufan authority in the transmission of the mā khalā tradition requires a close examination of the isnāds in which he appears (Diagram 2); the results of this examination will then be compared to those of our examination of al-Thawrī’s status as a well-established CL in the ‘three things’ cluster (Diagram 1).

Al-Ṭabarī cites Sufyān several times. Recall that al-Ṭabarī 6:477 uses the isnād Sufyān → ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya. Al-Dārimī attaches the same isnād to a tradition that states, al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-wālida wa’l-walad,78 that is, it follows the wording of the tradition circulated by Wakīʿ on the authority of Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus (Diagram 2). Insofar as Wakīʿ’s inverted word order is unique to the mā khalā cluster, one suspects that it affected the wording of al-Dārimī’s tradition. What influenced al-Dārimī’s choice of isnād is more difficult to identify, but the line ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿAbbās is most likely intrusive in the mā khalā cluster. It is attested with far greater frequency in the Hijazi cluster, al-kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid, where, at the level of ʿAmr b. Dīnār, the isnād branches out to Ibn Jurayj and Sufyān b. ʿUyayna (Diagram 5). In my opinion, in the mā khalā cluster (Diagram 2) al-Ṭabarī and al-Dārimī mistook Sufyān b. ʿUyayna for Sufyān al-Thawrī (in their works, both mention only Sufyān!). The Meccan Sufyān b. ʿUyayna (d. 198/813) is a prominent key figure in the man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid cluster, whereas a considerable part of the mā khalā traditions pass through his Kufan namesake, Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161/778). The similarity of the personal names may account for the transfer of the isnād line ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿAbbās from its cluster of origin to the mā khalā cluster. The isnād intrusion was facilitated by the conceptual overlap of the matns. Ultimately, the transfer resulted in a harmonization whereby the man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid formulation was modified so as to bring it into line with the matns constituting the mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid cluster.

78) Al-Dārimī, Sunan, ed. Fawwāz Aḥmad Zamarlī and Khālid al-Sabʿ al-ʿAlamī, 2 vols. (Qudaymī Kutub Khāna, n.d.), 2:462, no. 2974.


Another al-Ṭabarī tradition that involves Sufyān al-Thawrī is the single-strand isnād (al-Ṭabarī 6:478 on Diagram 2) that terminates with Salīm/Sulaym b. ʿ Abd al-Kūfī instead of Ibn ʿ Abbās. This isolated isnād is not sufficient to corroborate al-Thawrī’s status as the CL of the tradi-tion. It may, however, indicate an early stage of back-projection during which the isnād had not yet been extended to Ibn ʿAbbās. Finally, al-Ṭabarī takes advantage of the family isnād Ibn Wakīʿ → Wakīʿ to cite a tradition through Sufyān al-Thawrī that attributes the mā khalā definition to Abū Bakr. It will be recalled that the same tradi-tion is known to the CR, ʿAbd al-Razzāq. The two matns are similar; and the isnāds intersect at the level of Sufyān al-Thawrī. Does this allow us to identify al-Thawrī as a CL responsible for the circulation of the Abū Bakr tradition? Although it is supported by only two isnāds, al-Thawrī’s tradition gains credence from its citation by a CR (ʿAbd al-Razzāq), whose matn coincides with that of al-Ṭabarī. The other traditions passing through Sufyān al-Thawrī are less likely to be associ-ated with him. They are partly based on an intrusive isnād (ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿAbbās) that originated in another cluster (Diagram 5), and partly represent an attempted dive under the (S)CL, Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus.

Given that the results of our analysis of the traditions associated with Sufyān al-Thawrī are inconclusive, a comparison with external data may facilitate our effort to define his role in the circulation of the mā khalā cluster. As we have seen, Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus is a (S)CL of the cluster at issue. True, Isrāʾīl’s status as a (S)CL is weaker than that of an estab-lished CL, but, on the other hand, Sufyān is mentioned by only one CR and one single-strand isnād. Thus he loses ground to Isrāʾīl in terms of the sheer number of citations. Although Isrāʾīl’s quantitative superi-ority is not accompanied by qualitative superiority, in my view, the balance tilts in favor of Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus on account of two important factors. First, Isrāʾīl relies on the more widespread attribution to Ibn ʿAbbās. Abū Bakr is usually found in later Iraqi traditions that contest certain definitions of kalāla attributed to ʿUmar. Insofar as a number of these Abū Bakr traditions pass through Sufyān b. ʿ Uyayna (Diagram 7), once again we encounter the possibility that Ibn ʿUyayna was mis-taken for al-Thawrī in the mā khalā cluster. Second, our analysis in §III.1. has shown that Sufyān al-Thawrī is the indubitable CL (or PCL)


of the ‘three things’ cluster. Thus, he is associated with the indefinite traditions claiming that ʿUmar did not know the meaning of kalāla. If we accept Sufyān as the CL of the mā khalā cluster, he will appear as the disseminator of one of the important definitions of kalāla. While it is possible that Sufyān’s personal opinion changed over time, it is more reasonable to assume—given the erratic structure of the mā khalā bundle—that he is a SCL who did not contribute to the circulation of its constituent traditions.

Ibn �ibb n

Ab� Ya�l

A�m. b. Ibr h�m al-Nukr� huwa l-Dawraq�, d. 246, Bgh.

Shab ba b. Saww r al-Mad �in�, d. 204

Shu�ba, d. 160

S lim b. Ab� al-Ja�d, d. 97

Ma�d n b. Ab� �al�a

�Umar b. al-Kha�� b

1:219-20, 256

5:444-5, 2091

Ab� �Aw na

Ab� �Al� al-Za�fr n� (d. 260, Bgh.) wa-al-D�r� (d. 271, Bgh.) wa-Ibn al-Mun d� (d. 272, Bgh.)

1:341, 1218; 3:440, 5610

Al-Bayhaq�

Ab� �Al. al-� fi�

Ab� �Amr b. Ab� Ja�far

� mid b. Mu�. b. Shu�ayb

Zuhayr b. �arb, d. 234, Bgh.

6:224

Al-�abar�

Al-�asan b. �Arafa, d. 257, Bgh.

7:719

Qat da b. Di� ma, 61-117.

Diagram 3 - al-Kal�latu m� khal� l-ab

Ab� Ya�l : A long khu�ba by �Umar, in which he says inter alia: (1) Wa-m� aghla�a liyya ras�lu ’l-l�hi al�am f� shayin aw m� n�zaltu ras�la ’l-l�hi al�am f� shayin min �yati ’l-kal�lati �att� �araba adr� wa-q�la: “Yakf�-ka yatu ’l-�ayfi ’l-lat� unzilat fi �khiri ’l-Nis � - ‘Yastaft�na-ka f� ’l-kal la’. (2) Wa-sa-aq�� f�-h� bi-qa��in ya�lamu-hu man yaqrau wa-man l� yaqrau (3) huwa m� khal� ’l-aba ka-dh� a�sab. = �AAwn., = �bn

Bhq. - adduces only the kal�la narrative (without �Umar’s khu�ba).

�br. - adduces only the kal�la narrative (without �Umar’s khu�ba).

Bgh. = Baghd d

�Al. = �Abd All h

Diagram 3: al-Kalālatu mā khalā l-ab.

ākhiri


After establishing that Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus is the most likely (S)CL of the mā khalā cluster, two attendant chronological questions are in order. First, one must determine if a hypothetical early Iraqi doctrine lies below the mā khalā traditions. Second, what is the relationship between the ma khalā cluster and the ‘three things’ cluster? May we conclude that the latter, which is one of Powers’ Group A narratives, is earlier than the former, which is one of his Group B narratives?

The regional affiliation of the key figures in Diagram 2 indicates that the mā khalā cluster represents Kufan doctrine. The lack of a CL earlier than Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus (d. 160/776-7) makes it impossible to say that this doctrine existed in the last decades of the 1st century AH. The attribu-tion of a Kufan doctrine to Ibn ʿAbbās may be explained, following Cilardo, as reflecting a change in Meccan doctrine,79 or, alternatively, as an attempt to ascribe Kufan doctrine to the traditional authority of the Meccans.

Our second question, concerning the chronology of the Group A and Group B traditions, calls for a more extensive analysis, to be addressed in a separate section at the end of this essay (§III.3).

III.2.2. Al-Kalālatu mā khalā ’l-ab (Kalāla are those [relatives] apart from the father)

Traditions similar to the early Kufan definition of kalāla as collateral relatives who are entitled to inherit in the absence of a child and a par-ent are found in several ḥadīth collections. These traditions have two salient features: (1) they substitute ab (father) for wālid (parent); and (2) they eliminate the child (walad) from the definition. Some of these traditions are integrated into larger matns (on which more later).

An early instance of the mā khalā l-ab tradition (Diagram 3) is found in al-Ṭabarī’s Tafsīr. For the sake of convenience I have divided the matn into several consecutively numbered clauses:

1. Mā aghlaẓa liyya rasūlu ’l-lāhi ṣalʿam aw mā nāzaʿtu rasūla ’l-lāhi ṣalʿam fī shayʾin mā nāzaʿtu-hu fī āyati ’l-kalālati ḥattā ḍaraba ṣadrī wa-qāla: “Yakfī-ka min-hā āyatu ’l-ṣayfi [’l-latī unzilat fi ākhiri ’l-Nisāʾ]: ‘Yastaftūna-ka qul Allāhu yuftī-kum fī ’l-kalāla’.”

79) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 37.


2. Wa-sa-aqḍī fī-hā bi-qaḍāʾin yaʿlamu-hu man yaqraʾu wa-man lā yaqraʾu.

3. Huwa mā khalā ’l-aba ka-dhā aḥsab.

1. Never was the Messenger of Allah [ṣ] so coarse with me, or never did I contend with the Messenger of Allah [ṣ] about a thing as frequently as I contended with him about the kalāla verse, till he poked my chest and said: “Let the verse [that was revealed at the end of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ] be sufficient for you: ‘When they ask you for advice, say: Allah advises you with regard to kalāla’.”

2. I shall proclaim a decree about it [viz., al-kalāla] that shall be recognized by he who recites [the Qurʾān] as well as by he who does not recite [the Qurʾān].

3. It [viz., kalāla] means those [relatives] apart from the father, thus do I reckon.80

Whereas al-Ṭabarī and al-Bayhaqī provide an independent matn for these three dicta attributed to ʿUmar, other collectors place ʿUmar’s deliberation on kalāla in a large compound tradition couched as one of the last sermons (khuṭba) delivered by the caliph before he was stabbed to death.81 It is clear that long narratives of this type were produced by collating shorter and originally independent traditions. Al-Ṭabarī’s version, echoed by al-Bayhaqī, is an indication that the kalāla tradition existed independently of the farewell sermon, perhaps during the lifetime of the CL of the present cluster. At first sight, the CL of the mā khalā ’l-ab tradition is obvious. Dia-gram 3 shows that without exception the isnāds converge on the Iraqi traditionist Shabāba b. Sawwār (d. 204/819-20). It should immediately be noted, however, that the isnād structure above Shabāba is a spider. Furthermore, half of the lines that make up the legs of the spider may be suspected of the infamous “age trick”. Abū ʿAwāna bases his isnād

80) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 7:719; al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 6:224.81) In his khuṭba ʿUmar instructs that after his death, which was imminent, his successor should be chosen by the group (rahṭ) of six persons with whom the Prophet had been pleased. He predicts that “adversaries of Allah” will censure this instruction (sa-yaṭʿanūna fī hādhā l-amr), as in fact happened during the reigns of ʿ Uthmān and ʿ Alī. en, abruptly, ʿUmar changes the topic of his speech to address kalāla. Finally, the caliph turns his attention to dietary customs, warning his audience not to eat garlic and onion unless their pungency is “killed by cooking.” (Abū Yaʿlā, Musnad, ed. Ḥusayn Salīm Asad, 14 vols. [1st ed., Damascus: Dār al-Maʾmūn li’l-Turāth, 1984-], 1:219-20, no. 256; Abū ʿAwāna, Musnad, ed. Ayman b. ʿ Ārif al-Dimashqī, 5 vols. [1st ed., Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1419/1998], 1:341, no. 1218; 3:440, no. 5610; Ibn Ḥibbān, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ, 18 vols. [Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1984-], 5:444-45, no. 2091).


on a group of three informants between himself and Shabāba b. Sawwār. Examination of the death dates of the three indicates that at least two of them could not have met Shabāba. ʿAbbās b. Muḥammad al-Dūrī is said to have died in Ṣafar 271/August 884,82 and Ibn al-Munādī died a year and a half later, in Ramaḍān 272/March 886.83 Thus both died almost seventy years after the death of Shabāba in 204/819-20. Argu-ably, this age difference is mitigated by reports about the very long lifespan of Shabāba’s two students. Reports that al-Dūrī died at the age of 88 lunar years are (barely) plausible, but claims that Ibn al-Munādī performed the Ramaḍān fast ninety-two times before his death in Ramaḍān 272 are difficult to accept at face value. Even more incredible are the claims that al-Ḥasan b. ʿArafa (d. 257/871), who is mentioned in al-Ṭabarī’s isnād after Shabāba, lived 110 lunar years.84

None of the tradents immediately above Shabāba is a CR, and none of them is known to have used a written source containing Shabāba traditions. Although it is conceivable that Shabāba transmitted some sort of tradition to the following generations of traditionists and CRs, the exact contents of this tradition cannot be recovered. Indeed, Shabāba’s original matn may have had nothing in common with the kalāla issue. This is suggested by the existence of a variant tradition with the same isnād (Shabāba b. Sawwār → Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj → Qatāda b. Diʿāma → Sālim b. Abī Jaʿd → Maʿdān b. Abī Ṭalḥa → ʿUmar), which includes only one of the clauses of the compound tradi-tion, a clause that is not related to kalāla.85

The source of the mā khalā ’l-ab clause may be sought in a large cluster of traditions in which the Prophet advises ʿ Umar that he should

82) Al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmāʾ al-Rijāl, ed. Bashshār ʿ Awwād Maʿrūf, 35 vols. (2nd ed., Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1403-/1983-), 14:248.83) Ibid., 26:52.84) Ibid., 6:205 ff. 85) is is the clause that prohibits eating uncooked garlic and onion (Al-Nasāʾī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ and Ḥasan ʿAbd al-Munʿim Shalabī, 12 vols. [1st ed., Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1421/2001] 6:236-37, no. 6648). Other collectors omit Shabāba from the isnād while preserving the other authorities in its lower part (Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. Muḥammad Muṣṭafā al-Aʿẓamī, 4 vols. [Beirut/Damascus: al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1400/1980], 3:83-4; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 3:592-3, no. 8741). is is another indication that the isnād Qatāda → …→ ʿUmar was used to support parts of the compound tradition.

S lim

b. A

b� a

l-Ja�

d, d

. 97

Ma�

d n

b. A

b� �

al�a

�Um

ar b

. al-K

ha��

b

Al-�

ay l

is�,

B�.

His

h m

al-D

astu

w �

�, 76

-154

, B�.

Qat

da b

. Di�

ma,

61-

117,

B�.

1:57

, 53

Ibn

�an

bal

�Aff

n b

. M

uslim

�am

m m

b. Y

a�y

, d. 1

64, B

�.

1:24

9-50

, 89

Sa��d

b. A

b� �A

r�ba

, d. 1

58-9

, B�.

1:31

1-2,

179

Al-Q

a��

n, d

. 198

, B�.

1:31

7-8,

186

Mu�

. b.

Ja�fa

r 1:41

9-20

, 341

Al-B

azz

r

Mu�

. b. a

l-M

utha

nn

1:44

4, 3

14

Ab�

Ya�l

�Uba

yd A

ll h

b. �U

mar

1:16

5-6,

184

Ibn

Sa�d

�Am

r b.

��i

m

�Am

r b. a

l-H

ayth

am

3:31

1

Mus

lim

5:71

-4, 5

67

Ab�

�Aw

na

Y�nu

s b. �

ab�b

3:43

9-40

, 560

9

Ibn

Ab�

Shay

ba

Ism

��l

b. �U

layy

a,

110-

93, B

�.

13:4

81-2

, 380

59

�Al.

b. B

akr,

d. 2

08, B

�.

Mu�

. b.

�Uba

yd A

ll h

b. Y

az�d

Al-B

ayha

q�

8:15

0

2:91

0-1,

272

6

Ibn

M j

a Al

-Nas

��

Is�

q b.

Ib

r h�

m

Mu�

dh

b.

His

h m

10:7

8, 1

1070

Al-�

abar

�

Ya�q

�b. b

. Ib

r h�

m 7:

721

Ibr

h�m

b.

Sa�

�d

7:72

2

Mu�

. b.

Bash

sh r

Ibn

Ab� �

Ad�

7:72

2a

Cl. 1

(The

Sum

mer

ver

se)

11:8

1-2,

161

7

Diag

ram

4 -

The

sum

mer

-ver

se tr

adit

ion

�aya

l. -

�Um

ar’s

khu

�ba.

(1)

Inn�

l� ad

a�u b

a�d� s

hay

an h

uwa a

ham

mu il

ayya

min

al-k

al�l

a wa-

m� n

�za�t

u ra

s�la ’l-

l�hi a

l�am

muh

dhu

a�i

btu-

hu m

� n�z

a�tu-

hu f�

shay

in f�

’l-ka

l�la

ti wa-

m� a

ghla

�a liy

ya f�

sh

ayin

muh

dhu

a�i

btu-

hu m

� agh

la�a

liyy

a f� ’l

-kal

�lat

i �at

t� �

arab

a bi-y

adi-h

i qib

ala a

dr� w

a-q�

la: “

Y �U

mar

inna

-m

yakf

�-ka

yat

u ’l-�

ayfi ’l

-lat�

unzi

lat f

� kh

iri S

�rat

i ’l-N

is �

.”

�bl

., 18

6 -

very

sim

ilar

to �

ayal

., bu

t af

ter

clau

se 2

�bl

. ins

erts

cla

use

(2) f

a-in

a�ish

aq�i

f�-h

� qa�

iyya

tan ya

q�� b

i-h� m

an ya

qrau

’l-Qu

r�na w

a-m

an l�

yaqr

au ’l-

Qur�

n �

BBzr

., 31

4 �

Ya�

ll , 1

84 �

Ib

n Sa

�dd (c

olle

ctiv

e) ==

Msl

m.,

567

� N

as.,

1107

0 (n

o kh

u�ba

).

�bl

., 89

- W

a-ay

mu ’l

-l hi m

at

ruku

f�-m

�a

hida

ilay

ya r

abb�

fa-s

takh

lafa

-n� s

hay�

an a

ham

mu il

ayya

min

al-k

al l

a

�bl

., 17

9: M

� saa

ltu ra

s�la ’l-

l�hi a

l�am

�an

shay

in ak

thar

a min

-m� s

aaltu

-hu

�an al

-kal

�lat

i �at

t� �a

�ana b

i-ib

a�i -hi f

� ad

r� wa

-q�l

a: “T

akf�-

ka

yatu ’l

-�ay

fi ’l-la

t� f�

khi

ri S�r

ati ’l

-Nis

�.”

; =

TTbr.

, 7:7

21

� M M

j., 2

726

- (1

) In

n� w

a’l-l�

hi m� a

da�u

ba�d

� sha

yan h

uwa a

ham

mu il

ayya

min

amri ’l-

kal�

la w

a-qa

d sa

altu

ras�

la ’l-l�

hi al�a

m fa

-m� a

ghla

�a liy

ya f�

shay

in m

� agh

la�a

liyya

f�-h

� �at

t� �a

�ana b

i-ib

a�i -hi f

� ja

nb� a

w f�

adr

� wa-

q�la

: “Y

�Um

ar ta

kf�-k

a y

atu ’l

-�ay

fi ’l-la

t� na

zala

t f�

khir

i S�r

ati ’l

-Nis

�.”

� ��

br, 7

:722

but

�br

. om

its th

e sa

altu

cla

use

� IIA

Sh, 3

8059

� ��

br.,

7:72

2a (a

dds

Cl. 2

) � BB

hq.,

8:15

0 (a

dds �

Um

ar’s

serm

on a

nd C

l. 2)

.

�bl

., 334

1 - 1

= �

ayal

.; 2

� �

bl. 1

79; 3

= �

bl. 1

86.

Cl. 1

+ C

l. 2

(�Um

ar’s

inte

nded

dec

ree)

�Um

ar’s

last

serm

on +

Cl.

1

�Um

ar’s

last

serm

on +

Cl.

1 +

Cl. 2

B�. =

Ba�

ra

�Al.

= �A

bd A

ll h

Mu�

. = M

u�am

mad

Dia

gram

4:

e su

mm

er-v

erse

trad

ition

.


refer to “the Summer verse”86 in order to understand the meaning of kalāla (Diagram 4). Although the wording of these traditions does not include the mā khalā ’l-ab clause at the end of the kalāla narrative, they share with the Shabāba matn either clause 1 alone or clauses 1 and 2 side-by-side. This indicates that the mā khalā ’l-ab clause was the last one to be added to the expanding matn of the tradition. The analysis of the large cluster may provide clues for when and where mā khalā ’l-ab was circulated as part of the compound kalāla matn. In Diagram 4 three key figures refer to the Basran traditionist Qatāda b. Diʿāma who, according to Cilardo, is the ‘common transmitter’.87 Let us test the validity of Cilardo’s conclusion by examining the matns of the traditions that pass through the key figures to determine whether they are real PCLs. These matns may be divided into two groups: (1) compound matns that include the kalāla narrative as part of ʿUmar’s farewell sermon, and (2) matns that include only the kalāla narrative. The second group may be further subdivided into (a) traditions that end with the Prophet’s advising ʿUmar to consider the Summer verse, and (b) traditions that add to this ʿUmar’s resolution to proclaim a decree about kalāla that will be recognized by both those who recite the Qurʾān and those who do not recite it. The Basran traditionist Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba (d. 158-9/774-6) is one of the three key figures above the level of Qatāda b. Diʿāma. Saʿīd is cited by two key figures: Ismāʿīl b. ʿUlayya (d. 193/808-9) and ʿAbd Allāh b. Bakr (d. 208/823-4). The earliest CR to mention Ibn ʿUlayya is Ibn Abī Shayba. He cites a very large compound matn (ʿUmar’s fare-well sermon) in which the kalāla narrative reads as follows:

1. Innī wa’l-lāhi mā adaʿu baʿdī [shayʾan] ahamma ilayya min amri ’l-kalāla. Wa-qad saʾaltu rasūla ’l-lāhi ṣalʿam fa-mā aghlaẓa liyya fī shayʾin mā aghlaẓa liyya fī-hā ḥattā ṭaʿana bi-iṣbaʿi-hi fī janbī aw ṣadrī thumma qāla: “Yā ʿ Umar takfī-ka āyatu ’l-ṣayfi ’l-latī unzilat fi ākhiri ’l-Nisāʾ.”

2. Wa-in aʿish fa-sa-aqḍī fī-hā qaḍiyyatan lā yakhtalifu fī-hā aḥadun yaqraʾu ’l-Qurʾāna aw lā yaqraʾu ’l-Qurʾān.

86) “e summer verse” is one of the linguistic tags attached to Q. 4:176. According to Powers, this tag was initially used to identify Q. 4:12b (Powers, Muḥammad, 203).87) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 26.


1. By Allah, I shall not leave after my death a matter more important to me than the matter of kalāla. I had queried the Messenger of Allah [ṣ] and never was he so coarse with me about a matter as he was coarse with me about it [viz., al-kalāla,] until he poked my side or my chest with his finger, whereupon he said: “O ʿUmar, let the Summer verse that was revealed at the end of [Sūrat] al-Nisāʾ be sufficient for you.”

2. If I live, I will proclaim a decree about it [viz., al-kalāla] about which both he who recites the Qurʾān and he who does not recite the Qurʾān shall not disagree.88

Ibn Māja cites an isnād on the authority of Ibn Abī Shayba. Compari-son of the two traditions reveals two notable differences.89 First, Ibn Māja provides only the kalāla narrative (he omits ʿUmar’s sermon); second, in the kalāla narrative, which agrees verbatim with the corresponding part of Ibn Abī Shayba’s matn, Ibn Māja adduces only clause 1. His decision to cite only the kalāla narrative may be explained by the chapter heading, Bāb al-kalāla (A chapter about kalāla). One wonders, however, why he omitted clause 2 from the matn. Given that Ibn Māja received his information from Ibn Abī Shayba, one would have expected to find a matn that included clauses 1 and 2, as in Ibn Abī Shayba’s tradition.

The remaining traditions that pass through Ibn ʿ Ulayya may explain the difference between the matn of Ibn Māja and that of his informant, Ibn Abī Shayba. A tradition cited by Ibn Ḥanbal, another CR, may be helpful in establishing Ibn ʿUlayya’s variant:

Mā saʾaltu rasūla ’l-lāhi ṣalʿam ʿ an shayʾin akthara min-mā saʾaltu-hu ʿ an al-kalālati ḥattā ṭaʿana bi-iṣbaʿi-hi fī ṣadrī wa-qāla: “Takfī-ka āyatu ’l-ṣayfi ’l-latī unzilat fi ākhiri Sūrati ’l-Nisāʾ.”

I did not query the Messenger of Allah [ṣ] about anything as frequently as I queried him about kalāla, until he poked my chest with his finger and said: “Let the Summer verse that was revealed at the end of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ be sufficient for you.”90

88) Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 13:481-2, no. 38059.89) Ibn Māja, Sunan, 2:910-11, no. 2726.90) Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ and ʿ Ādil Murshid, 50 vols. (1st ed., Bayrūt: Muʾassasat al-Risāla, 1416-/1996-), 1:311-2, no. 179.


It will be noted that Ibn Ḥanbal omits clause 2 (ʿUmar’s intended decree), and that his variant of clause 1 is significantly different from what we have seen in the matns of Ibn Abī Shayba and Ibn Māja. The only common textual elements are the locution ḥattā ṭaʿana bi-iṣbaʿi-hi fī ṣadrī and the prophetic dictum, which does not include the Yā ʿ Umar vocative address. Al-Ṭabarī provides a variant that agrees down to the smallest detail with Ibn Ḥanbal’s tradition.91 Inasmuch as there is no way to verify the Ibn Māja → Ibn Abī Shayba line and, by extension, to determine if Ibn Abī Shayba quoted a tradition that he actually received from Ibn ʿUlayya, the evidence of the other two isnāds prevails. The variant of Ibn Ḥanbal and al-Ṭabarī is less fictionalized and stands closest to what would have been Ibn ʿUlayya’s two-part question-and-answer narra-tive.92 Although the wording of Ibn ʿUlayya’s PCL tradition cannot be reconstructed in every detail, it is clear that the matn ended with an injunction that the Summer verse be consulted in the case of kalāla, on which point all variant matns speak in identical terms. To what extent does Ibn ʿUlayya’s PCL variant conform to Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba’s tradi-tion—if such a tradition existed? To answer this question I turn to the other possible PCLs of Ibn Abī ʿArūba. Two isnāds converge on the Basran traditionist ʿAbd Allāh b. Bakr (Diagram 4). Unfortunately, they manifest problems similar to those observed in the traditions of Ibn Māja and Ibn Abī Shayba through Ibn ʿUlayya. Al-Ṭabarī cites a matn that is almost identical to Ibn Māja’s,93 whereas al-Bayhaqī, in his al-Sunan al-Kubrā, includes a compound matn that repeats Ibn Abī Shayba’s tradition, with negligible differenc-es.94 As in the case of Ibn Māja and Ibn Abī Shayba through Ibn ʿ Ulayya, these differences do not allow us to conclude that ʿAbd Allāh b. Bakr is a PCL of Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba. In addition to the isnāds through Ibn ʿ Ulayya and ʿ Abd Allāh b. Bakr, Ibn Abī ʿ Arūba is mentioned in two single-strand isnāds. In both tradi-tions the kalāla narrative is identical. But whereas Ibn Ḥanbal cites the

91) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 7:721.92) On the two-part narratives, see R. Marston Speight, “Narrative Structures in the Ḥadīth,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 59:4 (2000), 265-7.93) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 7:722.94) Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 8:150.


compound matn, al-Ṭabarī has only the kalāla narrative. Al-Tabarī’s decision to omit ʿ Umar’s sermon most likely stemmed from the specific topic of his discussion (the meaning of kalāla in Q. 4:176). If so, then we may assume that he cited the same tradition as Ibn Ḥanbal did. In conjunction with the existence of a PCL variant associated with Ibn ʿUlayya, the single-strands allow us to consider Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba as a (S)CL (or [S]PCL). Even if Ibn Abī ʿArūba is in fact a (S)CL/(S)PCL in this cluster, it is difficult at the present time to define the contents of his tradition, except for the short statement that Q. 4:176 is sufficient for the under-standing of kalāla (takfī-ka āyatu ’l-ṣayfi ’l-latī unzilat fi ākhiri ’l-Nisāʾ). Otherwise, the contents of the matns attributed to Ibn Abī ʿArūba are diverse: some place the kalāla issue in the larger ʿUmar sermon, while others contain only the kalāla narrative. The kalāla narrative itself is not uniform: it contains either clause 1 (the Summer verse) and clause 2 (ʿUmar’s intended decree), or clause 1 alone. The instability of this narrative raises a number of questions. Did Ibn Abī ʿArūba circulate both clauses of the kalāla narrative? Was his tradition confined to clause 1 or parts thereof? Who inserted clause 2? Who inserted the kalāla narrative into ʿ Umar’s last sermon? The answers to these questions must wait until the study of the other potential PCLs is complete. In Diagram 4 the Basran Hishām al-Dastuwāʾī (d. ca. 154/771) is an important key figure and a possible PCL of Qatāda b. Diʿāma. Hishām appears in three single-strand isnāds and one isnād that bran-ches out at the level of his student, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (d. 198/813). Because of al-Qaṭṭān’s prominent position, I begin my analysis with him. According to Ibn Ḥanbal, al-Qaṭṭān transmitted the follow-ing matn:

1. Wa-innī lā adaʿu baʿdī shayʾan ahamma ilayya min al-kalālati wa-mā aghlaẓa liyya rasūlu ’l-lāhi ṣalʿam mundhu ṣāḥabtu-hu fī shayʾin mā aghlaẓa liyya fī ’l-kalālati wa-mā rājaʿtu-hu fī shayʾin mā rājaʿtu-hu fī ’l-kalālati ḥattā ṭaʿana bi-iṣbaʿi-hi fī ṣadrī wa-qāla: “Yā ʿ Umar a-lā takfī-ka āyatu ’l-ṣayfi ’l-latī fī ākhiri Sūrati ’l-Nisāʾ.”

2. Fa-in aʿish aqḍi fī-hā qaḍiyyatan yaqḍī bi-hā man yaqraʾu ’l-Qurʾāna wa-man lā yaqraʾu ’l-Qurʾān.


1. Verily, I shall not leave after my death a matter more important to me than al-kalāla. Never was the Messenger of Allah [ṣ] from the time I became a Com-panion of his so coarse with me about a matter as he was coarse with me about al-kalāla; and never did I consult him about a matter as frequently as I consulted him about al-kalāla, until he poked my chest with his finger and said: “O, ʿUmar, is not the Summer verse [that was revealed] at the end of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ sufficient for you?”

2. If I live, I shall proclaim a decree about it [viz., al-kalāla] on the basis of which both those who recite the Qurʾān and those who do not recite the Qurʾān shall act.95

In Ibn Ḥanbal’s tradition, the kalāla narrative is part of ʿUmar’s larger farewell sermon. Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj96 and al-Bazzār97 quote the same tradition with a slight variant in which the mā rājaʿtu clause is placed before the mā aghlaẓa clause. This is explicable both by the narrative logic and by the fact that Muslim and al-Bazzār rely on Muḥammad b. al-Muthannā as their link to al-Qaṭṭān. Thus, Ibn al-Muthannā appears to be responsible for the specific word order of this matn. That this matn faithfully represents al-Qaṭṭān’s tradition is suggested by its occur-rence in the collection of Abū Yaʿlā.98 Notwithstanding the slight dif-ference in the word order, it is clear that the compound matn in general and its kalāla section (including clauses 1 and 2) in particular go back to Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān, who must have circulated his version dur-ing the second half of the 2nd century AH. Did al-Qaṭṭān receive the tradition from Hishām al-Dastuwāʾī? The remaining lines of transmis-sion going back to Hishām may provide the evidence needed to answer this question. Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī (d. 203-4/819-20) is a CR of al-Dastuwāʾī.99 Clause 1 of al-Ṭayālisī’s tradition does not differ from the correspond-ing clause of the tradition through al-Qaṭṭān in a manner that would

95) Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, 1:317-9, no. 186.96) Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī, Ṣaḥīḥ, 18 vols. (2nd ed., Muʾassasat Qurṭuba, 1994/ 1414), 5:71-4, no. 567.97) Al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-Zakhkhār al-Maʿrūf bi-Musnad al-Bazzār, ed. Maḥfūẓ al-Raḥmān Zayn al-Dīn, 13 vols. (1st ed., Beirut/Medina: Muʾassasat ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, Maktabat al-ʿUlūm wa’l-Ḥikam, 1988/1409) 1:444, no. 314.98) Abū Yaʿlā, Musnad, 1:165-66, no. 184.99) Al-Ṭayālisī, Musnad, 1:57, no. 53.


point to an alternative provenance.100 More important—and version-specific—is the omission of clause 2 in al-Ṭayālisī’s tradition. This omis-sion is confirmed by Abū ʿAwāna, who cites al-Ṭayālisī through Yūnus b. Ḥabīb.101 Unlike al-Ṭayālisī, both Ibn Saʿd and al-Nasāʾī cite, on the authority of al-Dastuwāʾī, a tradition that is almost identical to the one through al-Qaṭṭān,102 that is, it does include clause 2 of the kalāla nar-rative. Al-Nasāʾī departs from Ibn Saʿd, and from the rest of the tradi-tions through al-Dastuwāʾī, by providing a matn that treats only the kalāla issue (clause 1 and clause 2), independent of the farewell-sermon narrative. With their almost identical matns, the kalāla traditions through Hishām al-Dastuwāʾī appear to support his CL status. Before settling on this conclusion, however, we must account for an important differ-ence, to wit, the occasional absence of clause 2 in which ʿUmar vows to issue a decree about kalāla. Al-Ṭayālisī, who is Hishām’s only CR, does not have clause 2. Al-Qaṭṭān, who is an unambiguous CL/PCL, transmits a tradition that includes clause 2. Ibn Saʿd and al-Nasāʾī, although not referring to al-Qaṭṭān, have the same wording as he does. Insofar as Ibn Saʿd and al-Nasāʾī rely on single-strand isnāds, one may discount their evidence. In this case Hishām al-Dastuwāʾī would have transmitted clause 1 (as reproduced by al-Ṭayālisī), to which clause 2 was later added by al-Qaṭṭān. Al-Qaṭṭān’s version would have been copied by Ibn Saʿd and al-Nasāʾī.

It will be recalled that al-Ṭayālisī’s contemporary, Ismāʿīl b. ʿUlayya (d. 193/808-9), also transmitted a matn that does not contain clause 2. Ibn ʿ Ulayya’s isnād, however, passes through Saʿīd b. Abī ʿ Aruba, not Hishām al-Dastuwāʾī. Unlike al-Dastuwāʾī, whose contribution to the circulation of the short kalāla version is clear, Saʿīd b. Abī ʿAruba is a (S)CL\(S)PCL. Note however that only three of seven traditions that pass through Ibn Abī ʿArūba include ʿUmar’s sermon, whereas seven of

100) e only difference is nāzaʿtu-hu (“I contended with him”) in place of rājaʿtu-hu (“I consulted with him”).101) Abū ʿ Awāna, Musnad, 439-40, no. 5609. Note that Abū ʿ Awāna quotes the compound matn incompletely. He opens the tradition with ʿUmar’s warning about impending fitna, but omits the garlic-and-onion section that usually follows the kalāla section.102) Ibn Saʿd, Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr, ed. ʿ Alī Muḥammad ʿ Umar, 11 vols. (1st ed., Cairo: Maktabat al-Nājī, 1421/2001), 3:311; al-Nasāʾī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 10:78, no. 11070.


nine traditions that pass through al-Dastuwāʾī do include the sermon. While it is impossible to identify who placed the Summer-verse tradi-tion in ʿUmar’s sermon, doubtless, the compound narrative is (consid-erably) later. Insofar as both al-Qaṭṭān and al-Ṭayālisī refer to the sermon, their variant apparently postdates Ibn ʿ Ulayya’s tradition, which therefore may be associated—albeit with caution—with Ibn Abī ʿ Arūba. The latter’s not entirely certain position calls for even greater caution when considering Qatāda b. Diʿāma as the possible CL/(S)CL of the present cluster. The variant through Ḥammām b. Yaḥyā (d. 164/780-1) is of little help for our effort to determine Qatāda’s role: in addition to ʿUmar’s sermon, Ḥammām cites both clauses 1 and 2.103 This disap-points our expectation that a tradition related by Qatāda would have contained only a variant of clause 1. If we compare clause 1 of the Summer-verse tradition (Diagram 4) with the earliest variant of the ‘three things’ tradition, related by Sufyān al-Thawrī on the authority of ʿAmr b. Murra (Diagram 1), important details come to light. In the ‘three things’ tradition ʿUmar regrets not asking the Prophet about kalāla; in the Summer-verse tradition ʿUmar puts his question to the Prophet, who appears to have been annoyed by his Companion’s eagerness to know the meaning of kalāla. Eventu-ally, the Prophet advises ʿUmar to consult the Summer verse. It is con-ceivable, therefore, that the Summer-verse tradition was an important stage in the transition from Powers’ Group A to Group B traditions. If so, it would have emerged somewhat later than the ‘three things’ tradi-tion, most likely during the lifetime of Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba (d. 158-9/774-6) and Hishām al-Dastuwāʾī (d. ca. 154/771), and less likely during the lifetime of Qatāda (61-117/681-735). The narrative core of the Summer-verse tradition emerges if we remove the fictional adorn-ment and focus on the advice to consult Q. 4:176, which is the most stable narrative element in the matn cluster at issue. Ibn Ḥanbal’s tradi-tion no. 179 stands closest to such an early narrative (the narrative core is marked in boldface):

103) Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, 3:311; Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, 1:249-50, no. 89.


Mā saʾaltu rasūla ’l-lāhi ṣalʿam ʿan shayʾin akthara min-mā saʾaltu-hu ʿan al-kalālati ḥattā ṭaʿana bi-iṣbaʿi-hi fī ṣadrī wa-qāla: “Takfī-ka āyatu ’l-ṣayf i ’l-latī unzilat fī ākhiri Sūrati ’l-Nisāʾ.”

Some time after the circulation of the Summer-verse clause, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān added a second clause asserting that ʿUmar vowed to issue a decree about kalāla. Although the contents of ʿUmar’s decree are not disclosed, the addition of clause 2 may be interpreted as a tacit criticism of the assertion in clause 1 that Q. 4:176 should be understood literally (i.e. laysa la-hu walad). Eventually, a third clause was attached to the matn in which ʿUmar reveals his understanding of kalāla: the heirs of the deceased except for the father (mā khalā ’l-ab). This formu-lation, which reasserts the literal understanding of Q. 4:176, apparently seeks to undermine the critical implication of clause 2. Clause 3 appears to have been produced by the Iraqi traditionist Shabāba b. Sawwār, although the spidery structure of the isnād above him points to an even later provenance for the tradition. Given that all tradents who relate on Shabāba’s authority were active in Baghdad, it is reasonable to assume that it was in Baghdad that the mā khalā l-ab dictum was attached to the original narrative. The tradition (without clause 3) may have been introduced in the capital city by al-Qaṭṭān, al-Ṭayālisī, and Ibn ʿ Ulayya, all of whom are known to have been active there.104

In sum, mā khalā ’l-ab is a late Iraqi formulation about which there is no evidence to support Cilardo’s conclusion that it represents the doctrine of the Medinese school. Although we accept Cilardo’s observa-tion that mā khalā l-ab was added to the original matn, we reject his conjecture that Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/776-7) was the originator of the addition, which represents Shuʿba’s opposition to the doctrine of his school.105 Cilardo’s view that Qatāda (d. 117/735) is the CL of the Summer-verse tradition106 should be treated with caution: Although Qatāda may have circulated a variant of the Summer-verse tradition,

104) Al-Qaṭṭān and al-Ṭayālisī are said to have related traditions in Baghdād (al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh Baghdād, ed. Bashshār ʿ Awwād Maʿrūf, 17 vols. [Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2001], 10:32; 16:204). Ibn ʿ Ulayya reportedly moved to Baghdād, where he was entrusted with the investigation of grievances (wuliya ’l-maẓālim) at the end of the reign of Hārūn al-Rashīd (r. 170-93/786-809) (ibid., 7:199).105) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 26-7.106) Ibid., 26.

Sufy

n [b

. �U

yayn

a],

107-

196

Al-�

abar

� Al

-�a�

w�

Y�nu

s b. �

Abd

al-A

�l

Ibn

Ab� S

hayb

a

Mu�

. b. B

akr

Ibn

Jura

yj, d

. 150

�Am

r b.

D�n

r a

l-Mak

k�, t

. 126

Ibn

�Abb

s

�Abd

al-R

azz

q

Al-�

asan

b. M

u�. b

. al-�

anaf

iyya

10:3

03, 1

9189

6:4

77a

Msh

kl, 1

3:23

7

��s

b. Ib

r h�

m

10:5

80, 3

2131

Ibn

Wah

b

�br.

, 6:4

77a

6:47

7

Sa�d

n b

. Na�

r

Ab�

Sa��d

al

-A�r

b�

Ab�

Mu�

. �A

l. b.

Y�s

uf

Al-B

ayha

q�

6:22

5

Ab�

Sa��d

b.

Ab� �

Amr

Ab�

�Al.

b.

Ya�q

�b

Mu�

. b. N

a�r

Mu�

. b. �

abb

�

6:22

5a

Ma�

mar

, d. 1

53

Al-Z

uhr�

wa-

Qat

da w

a-Ab

� Is

� q

[�Am

r al

-Ham

d n�

]; R Rz

q., T

fsr.

, 1:1

77:

Al-Z

uhr�

wa-

Qat

da; RR

zq.,

Tfsr

., 1:

177a

: Ab

� Is

� q

al-H

amd

n�

�Am

r b. S

hura

�b�l

al-

Ham

d n�

, d. 6

3

Al-�

asan

b. Y

a�y

Mu�

anna

f, 10

:304

, 191

92;

Tfsr

., 1:

177;

1:1

77a

Ibn

Wak

��

Mu�

. b. �

umay

d

6:47

9 6:

479a

Ibn

�Abd

al-B

arr

Sa��d

b. M

an��

r 3:

1180

, no.

588

Ibn

al-M

ad�n

� w

a-gh

ayru -h

u

Tam

�. 5

:196

Ta

m�.

5:1

97

Diag

ram

5 -

al-K

al�l

atu m

an l�

wal

ada la

-hu

wa-l�

w�l

id

Rzq.

→ Μ

a�m

ar (1

9192

); Rz

q., T

fsr.

, 1:1

77; �

br.,

6:47

9, 6

:479

a (c

olle

ctiv

e),, I

ABar

r, 5

:197

: Al-K

al l

atu m

an la

ysa

la-h

u w

alad

un w

a-l

w l

id.

Rzq.

, Tfs

r., 1

:177

a: Q

�la [

�Am

r b. S

hura

�b�l]

: “M

ra

�ayt

u-hu

m il

l q

ad ta

w t

a��

anna

’l-k

al l

ata m

an l

wal

ada la

-hu

wa-

l w

lid

.”

Rzq.

→ Ib

n Ju

rayj

and

Ibn

�Uya

yna

(191

89) -

(1) S

ami�t

u Ib

n �A

bb�s

yaq�

lu: “

Al-K

al l

atu m

an l

wal

ada la

-hu

wa-

l w

lid

.” (2

) Z�d

a Ibn

�Uya

yna:

Q�la

[al-

asan

b. M

u�am

mad

]: Qu

ltu li-

Ibn

�Abb

�s:

“Fa-

inna

’l-l

ha yaq

�lu:

‘In

imru

�un h

alak

a la

ysa

la-h

u w

alad

un’.”

Q�l

a: “F

a-nt

ahar

an�.”

;; IAS

h., 3

2131

; �br

., 6:

477;

6:4

77a;

- A

l-Kal

lat

u man

l w

alad

a la-h

u w

a-l

w l

id.

Bhq.

, 6:2

25 -

Saa

ltu Ib

n �A

bb�s

�an

al-k

al�l

a. Q�

la: “

Huw

a m

�a

d ’l

-w l

ida w

a’l-w

alad

.” F

a-qu

ltu la

-hu:

“Q

la ’l

-l hu : ‘

In i

mru

�un h

alak

a la

ysa

la-h

u w

alad

un w

a-la

-hu

ukht

’.” F

a-gh

a�ib

a wa

-nt

ahar

an� �

��w

., 13

:237

, Bhq

., 6:

225a

but

��w

. and

Bhq

. do

not s

ay th

at th

e qu

estio

n w

as p

osed

by

al-�

asan

b. M

u�am

mad

, nei

ther

do

they

dis

clos

e th

at Ib

n �U

yayn

a is

res

pons

ible

for

the

addi

tion.

SBM

, 588

- Sa

altu

Ibn

�Abb

�s �a

n al

-kal

�la.

Q�la

: “H

uwa

m

�ad

’l-w

alad

a wa’

l-w l

id.”

Fa-q

ultu

la-h

u: “

In im

ru�un

hal

aka

lays

a la

-hu

wal

ad”?

Fa-g

ha�i

ba w

a-nt

ahar

an� �

IIABa

rr, 5

:196

.

Rzq.

, Tfs

r., 1

:177

; �b

r, 6

:479

, 479

a

�Al.

= �A

bd A

ll h

Mu�

. = M

u�am

mad

Rz

q., T

fsr.

, 1:1

77a;

M

u�an

naf,

1919

2;

IABa

rr, 5

:197

The

clus

ter o

f Ma�

mar

b. R

shi

d

The

clus

ter

of Ib

n Ju

rayj

6:4

77

Di

5lK

lāl

ulā

lda

lh

lāāl

id

d.


Dia

gram

5: a

l-Kal

ālat

u man

lā w

alad

a la-

hu w

a-lā

wāl

id.

the content of this variant is difficult to extract from the highly fiction-alized narratives of the later key figures.

III.2. Kalāla—A Person Who has No Child or Parent

III.2.1. Al-Kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālidAccording to one of the most widespread definitions, kalāla signifies a person who dies leaving neither child nor parent (al-kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid). Unlike the mā khalā/mā ʿadā traditions, in which kalāla refers to the heirs (al-waratha) who are entitled to inherit in the absence of a child and a parent, in the man lā traditions kalāla signifies the deceased, i.e. the person from whom the heirs inherit (al-mawrūthu min-hu). Arguably, this semantic shift has no effect on the legal substance of kalāla: both definitions of the word award inher-itance rights to the same group of collateral relatives. From the stand-point of isnād and matn analysis, however, the difference is substantial and it may have implications relating to where and when the narratives were first put into circulation. I begin my analysis of the man lā cluster with a tradition cited by Ibn Abī Shayba on the authority of Muḥammad b. Bakr, citing Ibn Jurayj (Diagram 5):

ʿAn ʿAmr b. Dīnār ʿan al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad qāla: Qāla lī Ibn ʿAbbās: “Al-Kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid.”

From ʿAmr b. Dīnār from al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās said to me: “Kalāla is he who has no child and no parent.”107

Al-Ṭabarī108 and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr109 cite traditions that agree with Ibn Abī Shayba’s wording. But there is considerable disagreement regarding the isnāds said to carry the tradition from its source to the respective collector. Ibn Abī Shayba has the following isnād: Muḥammad b. Bakr → Ibn Jurayj → ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿAbbās. Al-Ṭabarī has Ibn Wahb → Ibn Jurayj →

107) Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 10:580, no. 32131.108) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:477.109) Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Tamhīd, 5:197.


ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿAbbās (marked as 6:477a); and Yūnūs b. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā → Sufyān b. ʿUyayna → ʿ Amr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿAbbās (marked as 6:477). Examination of Diagram 5 indicates that all of these lines of transmission converge on the Meccan tradition-ist ʿAmr b. Dīnār (d. 126/743-4). Is ʿAmr the CL of the entire cluster? Before attempting to answer this question, let us examine his potential PCLs. Three Hijazi traditionists stand out: Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767-8), Maʿmar b. Rāshid (d. 153/770), and Sufyān b. ʿUyayna (d. 196/811). Sufyān b. ʿUyayna is especially interesting because of his presence in the largest number of isnāds shown on Diagram 5. Al-Ṭabarī (6:477) has a single-strand isnād that reaches Ibn ʿUyayna through Yūnūs b. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā. Unlike the short dictum carried by this isnād, the remain-ing lines of transmission (two of them belonging to CRs) are associated with longer matns couched as a dispute between al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya and his informant, Ibn ʿ Abbās. Al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321/851-2) relates the following tradition:

Akhbara-nā al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad: Saʾaltu Ibn ʿAbbās ʿan al-kalālati qāla: “Huwa man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid.”

Qultu: “Fa-inna ’l-lāha yaqūlu: ‘In imruʾun halaka laysa la-hu waladun’.” Fa-ghaḍiba ʿalayya wa-ntahara-nī.

Al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad informed us: I asked Ibn ʿ Abbās about kalāla. He said: “He who has no child and no parent.”

I said: “Verily, Allah says: ‘If a man should die without a child’.” He [Ibn ʿAbbās] became furious and rebuked me.110

Al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066) cites the same tradition with minor differ-ences (marked as 6:225a on Diagram 5).111 The most notable difference is the redundancy in al-Bayhaqī’s variant: after rebuking al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad, Ibn ʿ Abbās repeats the definition of kalāla as “he who dies without a child and a parent.”

110) Al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ, 13:237.111) Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 6:225.


Another variant is found in the collections of Saʿīd b. Manṣūr (CR), al-Bayhaqī and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr. Saʿīd b. Manṣūr (d. 227/841-2) and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463/1070) each cite a short matn:

ʿAn al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad qāla: Saʾaltu Ibn ʿAbbās ʿan al-kalāla. Qāla: “Huwa mā ʿ adā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid.” Fa-qultu la-hu: “In imruʾun halaka laysa la-hu waladun.” Fa-ghaḍiba wa-ntaharanī.

From al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad who said: I asked Ibn ʿAbbās about kalāla. He said: “ose [relatives] apart from the child and the parent.” I said to him: “If a man should die without a child.” He [viz., Ibn ʿAbbās] became furious and rebuked me.112

Again with minor differences a similar matn is found in al-Bayhaqī’s collection (marked as 6:225 on Diagram 5).113 Although they appear to be similar, the two above-mentioned clusters of traditions about kalāla are based on different definitions of the term. Note that the first two traditions (al-Ṭaḥāwī and al-Bayhaqī, 6:225a) use the locution man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid, that is to say, both belong to the circle of definitions that associate the meaning of kalāla with the person from whom others inherit (al-mawrūthu min-hu). By contrast, the second cluster of traditions (Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, al-Bayhaqī, 6:225 and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, 5:196) define kalāla as mā ʿadā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid, i.e., the heirs (al-waratha) who inherit in the absence of a child and a parent. This difference may have seemed insignificant to al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/ 923)114—and to later collectors, like al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066) and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463/1070), who attribute both the man lā and the mā khalā definitions to the same transmitters. Further confusion may have been created by the written sources to which these collectors may have had access. Whatever the explanation for the mixing of two types of definitions, the presence of mā ʿadā traditions in a distinctly man lā cluster redirects our attention to the cluster of traditions in which dif-ferent Companions are said to have defined kalāla as mā khalā ’l-walada

112) Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Sunan, 3:1180, no. 588; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Tamhīd, 5:196.113) Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 6:225.114) Note that al-Ṭabarī combines both types of traditions under one heading, namely, those heirs except for the parent and child (D. Powers, Muḥammad, 214).


wa’l-wālid (§III.1.1. and Diagram 2). It will be recalled that the Kufans Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus and Sufyān al-Thawrī are the most conspicuous key figures in that rather untidy cluster. Whereas I recognized Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus as a (S)CL, I made two observations with regard to al-Thawrī. First, he is the SCL of the tradition that attributes to Abū Bakr the statement, al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid. Second, on two occasions he is said to have related the same matn on the authority of ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿAbbās. I have concluded that this particular isnād is intrusive in the mā khalā cluster, and that its most likely origin is in the man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid cluster. I have further posited that the intrusion was accompanied by a manipulation of the matn that adjusted the borrowed matn to the wording of the recipient cluster. In other words, in that cluster man lā became mā khalā.

At an even later juncture a reverse intrusion may have taken place. Due to the gradual obliteration of the difference between the man lā and mā khalā definitions, mā khalā traditions were attached to the man lā cluster. The traditions of Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, al-Bayhaqī, 6:225 and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, 5:196—all of which define kalāla as mā ʿadā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid—are easily identified as synonymous with the wording of the mā khalā cluster. To my mind, this reverse matn transfer occurred under the influence of the isnād ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿAbbās, which must have pene-trated the mā khalā cluster (Diagram 2) from the man lā cluster (Dia-gram 5) no later than the lifetime of al-Dārimī (181-255/797-869) or al-Ṭabarī (224-5-310/839-923). The presence of the intrusive isnād in the mā khalā cluster would have confused later collectors like al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066) and Ibn ʿ Abd al-Barr (d. 463/1070), who probably were not concerned with the formal difference between the man lā and mā khalā versions and relied on earlier written sources. While the confusion of al-Bayhaqī and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr is understandable, one is puzzled by the presence of the intrusive isnād in a collection as early as that of the CR, Saʿīd b. Manṣūr (d. 227/841-2). Arguably, Saʿīd lived shortly before, or at the time when, the isnād ʿAmr b. Dīnār → al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya → Ibn ʿAbbās was inserted into the mā khalā cluster. I suspect that the mā ʿ adā variant made its way into Saʿīd’s collection either due to the error of a later copyist or because Saʿīd


himself was unaware of the exact provenance of the various kalāla tra-ditions. Because the mā ʿadā traditions are intrusive in the man lā cluster, they may not be used to substantiate Sufyān b. ʿUyayna’s status as a possible CL. To my mind, in all three mā ʿadā traditions Sufyān b. ʿUyayna is confused with Sufyān al-Thawrī, who is widely attested in the mā khalā cluster. Even though both Sufyāns are reported to have related traditions on the authority of ʿ Amr b. Dīnār,115 one should note that Ibn ʿUyayna died more than seventy years after ʿAmr. Given this considerable age difference, it is difficult to accept as authentic the attribution of mā ʿadā traditions to Ibn ʿUyayna. With the mā ʿadā traditions excluded from Ibn ʿUyayna’s repertoire, he still remains the key figure of two sets of traditions belonging to the man lā cluster (Diagram 5). These are the short dictum, al-kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid (Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Ṭabarī, 6:477; 6:477a, and Ibn ʿ Abd al-Barr, 5:197), and the matn that places the same dictum in a longer narrative describing the heated exchange between Ibn ʿ Abbās and al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya (al-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Bayhaqī, 6:225a). Given the substantial difference between the two traditions, and the absence of apparent PCLs above Ibn ʿUyayna, one wonders about the origin of the variants. Did Ibn ʿ Uyayna circulate any of them and is there a way to determine the relative chronology of the two ver-sions? To answer these questions, I start with an important tradition cited by the CR, ʿAbd al-Razzāq (no. 19189 on Diagram 5):

1. ʿAn al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad qāla: Samiʿtu Ibn ʿAbbās yaqūlu: “Al-Kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid.”

2. [Qāla ʿAbd al-Razzāq]: Zāda Ibn ʿUyayna: Qāla [al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad]: Qultu li-Ibn ʿAbbās: “Fa-inna ’l-lāha yaqūlu: ‘In imruʾun halaka laysa la-hu waladun’.” [Qāla ʿAbd al-Razzāq]: Qāla [al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad]: “Fa-ntaharanī.”

1. From al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad who said: I heard Ibn ʿ Abbās saying: “Al-Kalāla is he who has no child and no parent.”

115) Al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, 22:8.


2. [ʿAbd al-Razzāq said]: Ibn ʿ Uyayna added [to this]: [Al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad] said: I said to Ibn ʿAbbās: “Verily, Allah says: ‘If a man should die without a child’.” [ʿAbd al-Razzāq said]: [Al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad] said: “[Ibn ʿ Abbās] then rebuked me.”116

ʿAbd al-Razzāq cites this tradition on the authority of two informants, Ibn Jurayj and Ibn ʿ Uyayna, both of whom rely on ʿ Amr b. Dīnār. This double attribution carries significant implications, which are clearly evinced by ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s remark that Sufyān b. ʿUyayna added to the matn the section describing the exchange between Ibn ʿAbbās and al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya (clause 2). From this remark one infers that Ibn Jurayj related only clause 1, whereas Sufyān b. ʿUyayna supplemented the matn with clause 2. But who was the source of Sufyān’s tradition? Did he modify a tradition he had learned from ʿAmr b. Dīnar or did he ascribe to ʿ Amr a tradition that he had received from Ibn Jurayj?

Although Sufyān never cites the tradition at issue on the authority of Ibn Jurayj, the latter’s contribution is supported by several factors. First, ʿAbd al-Razzāq clearly indicates that Sufyān altered the matn so as to include clause 2. Second, Sufyān is known to have projected isnāds back to reputable authorities (tadlīs), including ʿ Amr b. Dīnar.117 Third, the time gap between the death dates of Sufyān (d. 198/813) and ʿ Amr

116) ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, 10:303, no. 19189.117) One finds numerous reports about Ibn ʿ Uyayna’s tadlīs in the early ʿ ilal work comprising questions (suʾālāt) put by ʿ Abd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal to his famous father (Ibn Ḥanbal, ʿIlal, 1:187, no. 163 [Ibn ʿUyayna had no audition from al-Zuhrī]; 1:191-92, no. 176; 1:384, no. 750 [tadlīs on the authority of ʿAmr b. Yaḥyā]; 2:224, no. 2080 [Ibn ʿUyayna conceals Maʿmar’s name in a tradition on the authority of Ibrāhīm b. ʿUqba]; 2:257, no. 2175 [tadlīs on the authority of ʿ Amr b. Dīnār]). On one occasion, Ibn Ḥanbal recalls, Ibn ʿUyayna related a tradition on the authority of ʿAmr, but upon being queried admitted that he had received the tradition through two intermediate tradents: al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and Salam b. Qutayba (ibid., 2:257, no. 2175). Al-Dhahabī comments, ironically, “[Sufyān b. ʿUyayna] practiced tadlīs, although he was known to practice tadlīs only from reliable traditionists.” (kāna yudallis wa-lākinna ’l-maʿhūda min-hu anna-hu lā yudallis illā ʿan thiqa) (al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl fī Naqd al-Rijāl, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad Muʿawwaḍ and ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Mawjūd, 7 vols. [1st ed., Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1416/1995], 3:247). Ibn Ḥajar reports that Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān had reasons not to relate from Ibn ʿUyayna. In this regard Ibn Ḥajar quotes an isolated report, said to have been included in Abū Saʿīd b. al-Samʿānī’s Dhayl Tārīkh Baghdād, according to which al-Qaṭṭān once said to Ibn ʿUyayna, “Today you write down traditions and relate them,


b. Dīnar (d. 126/743-4) is 72 lunar years. ʿAbd al-Razzāq uses the indeterminate “ʿan” (on the authority of ) to describe the transmission of the tradition to Ibn Jurayj and Sufyān from ʿAmr b. Dīnār, instead of ḥaddatha-nā (he told us), which is expected in the case of oral trans-mission. The use of “ʿan” may indicate either written transmission or concealment of an isnād flaw. While Sufyān admittedly was acquainted with the use of notebooks (ṣuḥuf),118 we do not posses information that he relied on a written source containing traditions of ʿAmr b. Dīnār.119 If one adheres to the audition scenario, the age difference becomes a major obstacle.120 Given Sufyān’s record of tadlīs, it stands to reason that he revised the isnād by failing to mention his real informant, Ibn Jurayj. The contribution of Ibn Jurayj to the spread of the short variant (clause 1) is highlighted by the traditions of Ibn Abī Shayba (no. 19189) and al-Ṭabarī (6:477a), both of whom attribute to Ibn Jurayj only clause 1. Thus, Ibn Jurayj may be identified as the (S)CL of the man lā cluster. To his short tradition (al-kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid), Ibn ʿUyayna added the clause about the dispute between al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya and Ibn ʿAbbās.

and [tomorrow] you append or curtail their isnāds.” (Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, 12 vols. [Hyderabad: Majlis Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-Niẓāmiyya, 1325], 4:120-21).118) ECḤ, 568. Note however that Ibn ʿUyayna is the CL of a tradition directed against writing (Gregor Schoeler, “Oral Torah and Ḥadīṯ,” in e Oral and the Written in Early Islam, trans. Uwe Vagelpohl, ed. James E. Montgomery [London and New York: Routledge, 2006], 125).119) ʿAmr b. Dīnār, the most famous Meccan advocate of oral transmission, is nevertheless said to have permitted Ibn ʿ Uyayna to write down aṭrāf, that is, the opening and the closing clauses of traditions (Schoeler, “Oral Torah,” 128).120) Juynboll doubts that Sufyān heard traditions from ʿAmr b. Dīnar and al-Zuhrī, on the grounds that Muslim rijāl experts are overzealous in emphasizing that Sufyān did in fact hear from these two masters (ECḤ, 568-9). By contrast, Motzki argues that although “the age difference of 72 years is considerable, … it is not impossible that Ibn ʿUyayna began his studies with ʿAmr at the age of perhaps sixteen and lived to be 90 years old.” (Harald Motzki, e Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence. Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools, translated from the German by Marion H. Katz [Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 2002], 178). According to Motzki, with respect to forgery, the first person to come to mind would be ʿAbd al-Razzāq. But it is unreasonable that he would forge traditions through both Ibn Jurayj and Sufyān b. ʿUyayna, given that the authenticity of Sufyān’s transmission from ʿAmr b. Dīnār may be questionable. While this reasoning is generally plausible, one should consider the possibility that Sufyān himself may have forged traditions from Ibn Jurayj and then ascribed them to ʿAmr. is is the case with the present tradition, which, according to the testimony of ʿAbd al-Razzāq, was altered by Sufyān b. ʿUyayna.


The traditions of ʿ Abd al-Razzāq point to Ibn Jurayj’s contemporary, Maʿmar b. Rāshid (d. 153/770), as another likely (S)CL in the present cluster (Diagram 5). In the Muṣannaf, ʿAbd al-Razzāq cites a tradition with the collective isnād: Maʿmār b. Rashid → al-Zuhrī (Medina), Qatāda (Basra) and Abū Isḥāq ʿ Amr b. ʿ Abd Allāh al-Sabīʿī al-Hamdānī (Kufa) → ʿ Amr b. Shuraḥbīl al-Hamdānī. This isnād carries the follow-ing matn: al-kalālatu man laysa la-hu waladun wa-lā wālid (no. 19192).121 Al-Ṭabarī supports this formulation with two isnāds:122 ʿ Abd al-Razzāq → Maʿmar (6:479); and Ibn Wakīʿ → Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd → Maʿmar (6:479a). The first isnād carries a full matn (al-kalālatu man laysa la-hu waladun wa-lā wālid); the second is said to carry a matn similar to that of the first. Unlike ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s isnāds, those of al-Ṭabarī terminate at the level of al-Zuhrī, Qatāda and Abū Isḥāq, that is to say, they do not include ʿAmr b. Shuraḥbīl al-Hamdānī.

Two traditions in ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Tafsīr suggest that the collective attribution to al-Zuhrī, Qatāda and Abū Isḥāq resulted from the col-lation of independent isnāds. According to the first tradition, Maʿmar told ʿAbd al-Razzāq that al-Zuhrī and Qatāda interpreted kalāla in Q. 4:176 as man laysa la-hu waladun wa-lā wālid.123 In the second tradition, Maʿmar cites Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī, according to whom ʿ Amr b. Shuraḥbīl al-Hamdānī stated: mā raʾaytu-hum illā wa-qad tawāṭaʾū anna ’l-kalālata man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid (I do not reckon them but concurring that kalāla means he who has neither child nor parent).124 But whose opinion is cited by ʿAmr b. Shuraḥbīl al-Hamdānī? Given that the tradition terminates with ʿAmr, one may think that the plural pro-nominal suffix (-hum) in the introductory clause points to the level in the isnād above, not below, him. If so, ʿAmr’s putative opinion would have been that of Maʿmar b. Rāshid or of a later transmitter who ascribed to a group of earlier authorities the definition of kalāla as man laysa la-hu waladun wa-lā wālid. The intermittent occurrence of ʿAmr b. Shuraḥbīl al-Hamdānī in the lowest tier of ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s isnāds is most likely a result of an error. ʿAbd al-Razzāq must have confused

121) ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, 10:304, no. 19192.122) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:479.123) ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, Tafsīr, ed. Muṣṭafā Muslim Muḥammad, 3 vols. (1st ed., al- Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd 1410/1989), 1:177.124) Loc. cit.


ʿAmr b. Shuraḥbīl al-Hamdānī with ʿAmr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī al-Hamdānī.125

Does Maʿmar’s collective attribution prove that his tradition emerged as early as the last decades of the 1st century AH? ʿAmr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī and Qatāda b. Diʿāma are present in the lower parts of the isnāds of the Kufan definition of kalāla and in the Summer-verse tradi-tion, respectively. One cannot avoid the impression that someone reviewed the isnād of these traditions and mentioned their most salient key figures as Maʿmar’s informants. Since the matns were apparently considered of a lesser importance than the isnāds, two disparate views on kalāla were subsumed under a single heading, to wit, the Hijazi definition of kalāla. The latter definition may, nevertheless, have been circulated by al-Zuhrī, who is the third authority in Maʿmar’s collective attribution (but not by Qatāda and Abū Isḥāq, as Cilardo claims). If so, then the Hijazi definition would have existed in the last quarter of the 1st century AH; if not, it would have existed in the first half of the 2nd century. Both scenarios are generally consistent with Powers’ chro-nology for the group B traditions (75-125 AH); Cilardo’s view (100-150 AH), by contrast, is supported only by the second scenario. Towards the middle of the 2nd century AH, Sufyān b. ʿUyayna (d. 198/813) added to the Hijazi tradition a clause describing an exchange between Ibn ʿAbbās and al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya. To cover his tracks, Sufyān related directly from ʿAmr b. Dīnar al-Makkī (d. 126/743-4), even though the seven decades between the death dates of the two traditionists would appear to require one (or more) intermediate links. But why would Sufyān alter the matn and introduce an alternative isnād? For a possible answer I turn now to the man lā walada la-hu tradition.

III.2.2. Al-Kalālatu man lā walada la-huNumerous and often contradictory opinions about the meaning of kalāla are associated with ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (r. 13-23/634-44).

125) According to Cilardo, “it is quite impossible that al-Zuhrī, Qatāda and Abū Isḥāq could have heard ḥadīṯ from ʿAmr, because the temporal gap between them is too great.” (e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 23).

�Abd

al-R

azz

q

Ibn

Jura

yj, d

. 150

Ibn

� w

�s, d

. 132

� w

�s b

. Kay

s n

al-

Yam

n�,

d. 1

06, M

k.

Ibn

�Abb

s

Sa��d

b. M

an��

r

Sufy

n [b

. �U

yayn

a], 1

07-

196,

Mk.

Sula

ym n

b. A

b� M

uslim

al

-A�w

al a

l-Mak

k�, d

. ?

Al-�

kim

al-

Nay

s b�

r�

Mu�

. b. �

Al� a

l-�a

n� n

�

Ibr

h�m

b. I

s� q

b.

Ibr

h�m

Al-B

ayha

q�

Ab�

Mu�

. b.

�Al.

al-I

�bah

n�

Ab�

Sa��d

b. a

l-A�

r b�

Ab�

al-�

usay

n b.

Bis

hr n

Ism

��l

b. M

u�.

al-�

aff

r

Sa�d

n b

. Na�

r

Al-�

abar

�

Ibn

Wak

�� Ib

n Ab

� Sha

yba

Al-�

a� w

�

��s

b. Ib

r h�

m

al-G

h fiq

�

Ibn

Ab� �

tim

Mu�

. b. �

Al. a

l-M

uqri

�

Msh

kl, 1

3:22

7

10:5

79, 3

2129

Al-F

a�l b

. Duk

ayn,

d. 2

18

�Al�

b. M

u�. b

. �U

qba

Al-H

ayth

am b

. Kh

lid

Hyd

., 2:

303-

4; D

r a

l-�

aram

ayn,

2:3

62, 3

247

Hyd

., 4:

336;

D r

al-

�ar

amay

n, 4

:483

-4, 8

046

10:3

03, 1

9187

; �km

., 80

46; �

zm.,

6:12

8 10:3

03, 1

9188

3:88

7, 4

933

3:11

82, 5

89

6:48

0

6:22

5

Ibn

�az

m

I�k

m, 6

:128

Diag

ram

6 -

al-K

al�l

atu m

an l�

wal

ada la

-hu

Rzq.

, 191

87 -

�Um

ar b

. al-K

ha��

b aw

� �in

da ’l-m

awti fa

-q�l

a: “A

l-Kal

lat

u m

qultu

.” Q

�la I

bn �A

bb�s

: “W

a-m

qu

lta?”

Q�l

a: “M

an l

wal

ada ”

= ��

km.,

8046

Rzq.

, 191

88 -

�An

Ibn

�Abb

�s q

�la:

“Inn

� la

-a�d

athu -h

um �a

hdan

bi-�

Um

ar f

a-q

la [

�Um

ar]:

‘Al-K

al l

atu m

qu

ltu’.”

Q�l

a [Ib

n �A

bb�s

]: “W

a-m

qu

lta?”

Q�l

a [�U

mar

]: “M

an l

w

alad

a ” [Q

�la?

]: “�

asib

tu a

nna-

hu q

la:

‘Wa-

l w

lid

’.”

IASh

., 32

129

- �An

Ibn

�Abb

�s q�

la: “

Kunt

u k

hira ’l

-n s

i �ahd

an b

i-�U

mar

fa-s

ami�t

u-hu

yaq

�lu:

‘Al-K

al l

atu m

an l

wal

ada la

-hu’

.”

SBM

, 589

- (

1) [�

�w�s

] sam

i�a Ib

n �A

bb�s

yaq�

lu: “

Kunt

u k

hira ’l

-n s

i �ahd

an b

i-�U

mar

fa-

sam

i�tu-

hu y

aq�l

u: (

2) ‘A

l-Qaw

lu m

qultu

’.” F

a-qu

ltu: “

Wa-

m

qulta

?” (3

) Q�l

a: “A

l-Kal

lat

u man

l

wal

ada la

-hu.

” =

BBhq

. = �

br.,

6:48

0 =

��w

. = �

km.,

3247

.

IA�

tm.,

Tfsr

., 49

33 -

[��w

�s]:

“Sam

i�tu

Ibn

�Abb

s y

aq�l

u: ‘K

untu

kh

ira ’l

-n s

i �ahd

an b

i-�U

mar

fa-s

ami�t

u-hu

yaq

�lu:

“Al

-Qaw

lu m

qultu

”.’”

Q�l

a [Ib

n �A

bb�s

]: “Q

ultu

: ‘W

a-m

qu

lta?”

’ Q�l

a [�U

mar

]: “A

l-Kal

lat

u man

l w

alad

a la

-hu

wa-

l w

lid

.”

�Al.

= �A

bd A

ll h

Mu�

. = M

u�am

mad

�Abd

al-R

azz

q vi

a Ib

n Ju

rayj

Dia

gram

6: a

l-Kal

ālat

u man

lā w

alad

a la-

hu.


As we have seen, ʿUmar is sometimes said to have defined kalāla as “those [relatives] apart from the child and the parent” (Diagram 2); and at other times as “those [relatives] apart from the parent” (Diagram 3). A third cluster of traditions (Diagram 6) brings us to the final moments of ʿUmar’s life. On his deathbed, ʿUmar is said to have discussed kalāla with Ibn ʿAbbās, whose presence in the kalāla traditions is no less frequent than ʿUmar’s. ʿAbd al-Razzāq cites Ibn ʿAbbās’ description of his last conversation with ʿUmar as follows:

ʿAn Ibn ʿ Abbās qāla: “Innī la-aḥdathu-hum ʿ ahdan bi-ʿUmar fa-qāla: ‘Al-Kalālatu mā qultu’.” Qāla [Ibn ʿ Abbās]: “Wa-mā qulta?” Qāla [ʿUmar]: “Man lā walada [la-hu].” [Qāla?]: “Ḥasibtu anna-hu qāla: ‘…wa-lā wālid’.”

From Ibn ʿAbbās, who said: “Verily, among them, I had the latest encounter with ʿUmar, who said: ‘Kalāla is what I said’.” [Ibn ʿAbbās] said: “What did you say?” [ʿUmar said]: “He who has no child.” [? said:] “I reckon he said: ‘… and no parent’.”126

As noted by Cilardo and Powers, ʿUmar’s definition is consistent with the wording of Q. 4:176, in which kalāla is glossed as someone who dies without a child (laysa la-hu walad).127 With regards to the above definition, one wonders about the relationship between the man lā walada la-hu dictum and other dicta that define kalāla as either “he who dies leaving neither parents nor children” or “a person’s heirs to the exclusion of parents and children”? Is it possible that, under the influ-ence of the Qurʾān, kalāla initially was understood as “he who has no child,” but that this definition was later modified in such a manner as to include parents with children? Diagram 6 shows an impressive consistency in the lines of transmis-sion: they converge almost without exception on the Meccan authority Sufyān b. ʿ Uyayna (107-196/725-811). Below Sufyān, the trunk of the isnād-tree includes two Meccans, Sulaymān b. Abī Muslim al-Aḥwal and Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān (d. 106/724-5), the latter referring to Ibn ʿ Abbās. According to Cilardo, Ibn ʿUyayna is “the first transmitter” of the tra-dition; but there is a problem in the lower part of the isnād, where contact between Sulaymān al-Aḥwal and Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān would

126) ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, 10:303, no. 19188.127) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 35; D. Powers, Muḥammad, 206-7.


have been impossible due to the “considerable time gap” between their deaths.128 The extent of this gap is impossible to gauge, because, to the best of my knowledge, none of the extant biographical dictionaries mentions Sulaymān’s death date. The absence of such important infor-mation is even more problematic than the tentative relationship be -tween Sulaymān and Ṭāwūs, as the former may well be a fictitious name inserted in the line of transmission.129

Judging solely from the isnād, Sufyān b. ʿUyayna is the earliest his-torically recognizable CL in the man lā walada cluster, and only one isnād attempts to circumvent him through the line ʿAbd al-Razzāq → Ibn Jurayj → Ibn Ṭāwūs → Ṭāwūs (the dashed line on Diagram 6).130 This seemingly diving isnād does not support Cilardo’s assertion that this ḥadīth, “[p]robably … originated at the time of Sulaymān”:131 it connects to Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān, that is, it circumvents both Sufyān b. ʿUyayna and his dubious informant, Sulaymān al-Aḥwal.

Analysis of the matn provides additional support for the conclu -s ion that Sufyān b. ʿUyayna is the CL of the man lā walada cluster. To facilitate the analysis, I divide the tradition into a preamble, which contains a brief description of the historical context, and a substantive section, in which ʿUmar divulges his view about the meaning of kalāla in the course of his conversation with Ibn ʿAbbās.

The substantive section is remarkably uniform across the different riwāyas, with only two exceptions.132 In ʿAbd al-Razzāq, no. 19188

128) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 35.129) Two facts recur in all biographical entries about Sulaymān al-Aḥwal: that he was the maternal uncle (khāl) of Ibn Abī Najīḥ and that Sufyān b. ʿUyayna transmitted traditions from him (Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, 8:44; al-Bukhārī, al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, 9 vols. [Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2001], 4:37; Ibn Ḥanbal, ʿIlal, 1:397, 801-2; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, 4:143). Whereas the first fact lends Sulaymān a semblance of historicity, the second suggests that Sufyān took advantage of his name, most likely as a means to circumvent the actual CLs of traditions. It is far from gratuitous that Sulaymān al-Aḥwal is absent in the synoptic works of al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Ibn ʿAsākir and al-Dhahabī, whereas the usually cir cum-stantial al-Mizzī and Ibn Ḥajar have nothing to add to the scarce information provided by the earlier sources (al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, 12:62-3; Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, 4:218).130) ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, 10:303, no. 19187; al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, Mustadrak, 4:483-84, no. 8046.131) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 35.132) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:480; Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Sunan, 3:1182, no. 589; al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan


someone adds, hesitantly, “I reckon he said: ‘… and no parent’.” No doubt, this addition was made under the influence of the lā walada wa-lā wālid definition. In the Tafsīr of Ibn Abī Ḥātim (240-327/854-5-938-9),133 composed nearly a century after ʿ Abd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf, all traces of the narrative intrusion are removed and ʿUmar is made to say: al-kalālatu man la-walada la-hu wa-lā wālid. I will discuss ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s reasons for the wa-lā wālid addition at the end of this section. At present we note the limited number of occurrences of the modified tradition, which indicates that it failed to gain wide currency among Muslim traditionists. Undoubtedly, the wording spread by Sufyān b. ʿUyayna was, al-kalālatu man la-walada lā hu.

Unlike the addition of wa-lā wālid, which changes the substance of the tradition, the variations in the preamble are legally insignificant. Most of the transmitters concur that Ibn ʿ Abbās said, kuntu ākhira ’l-nāsi ʿahdan bi-ʿUmar fa-samiʿtu-hu yaqūlu (I was the last person to encounter ʿUmar and I heard him say). Only ʿAbd al-Razzāq departs from this formulation. In his tradition no. 19187 he prefaces the conversation between ʿUmar and Ibn ʿAbbās with the words, ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb awṣā ʿ inda ’l-mawti fa-qāla (While on his deathbed, ʿ Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb instructed). Conversely, in no. 19188, ʿ Abd al-Razzāq attributes to Ibn ʿAbbās the words, Innī la-aḥdathu-hum ʿahdan bi-ʿUmar fa-qāla (Verily, among them I had the latest encounter with ʿUmar, who said). It is clear that the first tradition does not explicitly accord the status of an eyewitness to Ibn ʿ Abbās. The second tradition does confirm this status, and, if the pronominal suffix in the phrase aḥdathu-hum ʿ ahdan is under-stood as a generic reference to humankind (al-nās), the matn should be treated as synonymous with those in which we find the formulation kuntu ākhira ’l-nās ʿahdan.

By comparing the matns with the corresponding isnāds (Diagram 6), we can account for the difference between the two ʿAbd al-Razzāq traditions. Tradition no. 19188 (almost) agrees with its counterparts in the man lā walada cluster because it passes through the same CL, Sufyān b. ʿUyayna. The single-strand isnād in no. 19187 is of special import

al-Kubrā, 6:225; al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ, 13:227. Ibn Abī Shayba omits the conversation between ʿUmar and Ibn ʿAbbās, but nonetheless adheres to the man lā walada formulation (Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 10:579, no. 32129).133) Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr, 3:887, no. 4933.


for the current cluster and for the dating of Sufyān’s kalāla traditions in general. If interpreted as a dive, it may be a sign of ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s discomfort with Ibn ʿ Uyayna’s isnād. As a contemporary of Ibn ʿ Uyayna, ʿAbd al-Razzāq was probably aware of his colleague’s reputation for projecting isnāds back to well-known earlier traditionists.134 The pres-ence of an obscure figure like Sulaymān al-Aḥwal in the isnād of Sufyān’s tradition suggests that Sufyān attributed a tradition he learned from someone else to Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān. If ʿAbd al-Razzāq suspected (or was aware of ) tadlīs in this particular case, it stands to reason that he would have replaced Sulaymān with the son of Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān, thus creating a family isnād, which is highly reliable according to the standards of Muslim isnād critics.

Despite the fact that single-strand isnāds are of limited epistemo-logical value, one should not discount the possibility that ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s tradition through Ibn Jurayj is not a dive. Recall that accord-ing to our analysis in §3.2.1 Sufyān b. ʿUyayna copied and modified a tradition that he borrowed from Ibn Jurayj. Sufyān’s isnād through the nebulous Sulaymān al-Aḥwal suggests that a similar scenario may not be excluded in the present case. That Ibn Ḥazm considers the line ʿ Abd al-Razzāq → Ibn Jurayj as the most accurate isnād in the cluster135 sug-gests that the original tradition may have belonged to Ibn Jurayj or one of his informants.

ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s use of the ambiguous aḥdathu-hum ʿahdan in no. 19188 (instead of the widely accepted ākhiru ’l-nāsi ʿahdan) points to an earlier stage in the development of the narrative during which Muslim traditionists did not state explicitly that the conversation with Ibn ʿAbbās took place immediately before ʿUmar’s death. Insofar as ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s no. 19188 passes through Sufyān, it stands to reason that by changing aḥdathu-hum ʿ ahdan to ākhiru l-nāsi ʿ ahdan Sufyān would have altered a tradition that he knew from an earlier source, most prob-ably Ibn Jurayj. If so, then Sufyān’s tradition would have originated in the first half of the 2nd century AH.

134) See footnote 117.135) Ibn Ḥazm, Al-Iḥkām fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām, ed. Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, 8 vols. (Beirut: Manshūrāt Dār al-Āfāq al-Jadīda, n.d.) 6:128.


Our conclusion that Ibn ʿUyayna is the CL of the man lā walada cluster and that he may have based his tradition on an earlier specimen circulated by Ibn Jurayj encounters one formidable obstacle. Ibn ʿUyayna, it will be recalled, is a key figure in the Meccan cluster in which kalāla is defined as man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid (Diagram 5). The same holds for Ibn Jurayj, who we identified as one of the principal disseminators of the Meccan definition. Here, however, both Ibn Jurayj and Ibn ʿUyayna appear as advocates of the man lā walada definition. How is it that the two traditionists appear both as support-ers of a literal reading of the Qurʾān and as promoters of the sunnaic definition of kalāla? The answer lies in the relationship between the traditions of Sufyān and Ibn Jurayj.

Let us start with an unambiguous fact: the present cluster reveals that man lā walada la-hu is Ibn ʿ Uyayna’s definition of kalāla. One may argue that Sufyān’s attitude to kalāla changed over time so as to include the wālid. The isnād evidence, however, does not contain any clue that would help us to establish the chronology of Sufyān’s ostensible change of opinion. Nor are the bio-bibliographical sources of any help. At times, they emphasize Sufyān’s broad competence in the fields of Qurʾān and Sunna,136 but they leave the impression that his fame is due primar-ily to his gifts as a traditionist with an exceptional memory. To resolve the problem, I return now to Sufyān’s role in the man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid cluster (Diagram 5). In that cluster we saw that ʿ Abd al-Razzāq exposed Sufyān’s tampering with the matn by insert-ing a clause that describes the early authority, al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, as insisting on the literal understanding of Q. 4:176 (i.e. on the man lā walada definition). But why would Sufyān alter the matn and provide it with an artificial isnād? The answer lies in the pres-ent cluster.

While the man lā walada formulation was clearly inspired by Q. 4:176, one need not assume that Ibn ʿUyayna referred to that verse

136) According to Ibn Wahb, there was no one more competent about the Scripture of Allah than Sufyān b. ʿUyayna (al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh, 10:254). According to Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, there was no one more competent about traditions than Sufyān b. ʿUyayna (ibid., 10:255). e formulaic language of the reports and al-Khaṭīb’s decision to juxtapose them suggest that they were circulated as competing traditions about Sufyān’s main field of competence.


explicitly at the outset. Rather he took advantage of the already existing Meccan definition of kalāla as man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid and removed wa-lā wālid from its end. This is clearly indicated by ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s parallel line of transmission through Ibn Jurayj in the man lā walada la-hu cluster (Diagram 6). By launching this line, ʿAbd al-Razzāq sought to expose Sufyān’s tampering with the original Meccan matn. Recall that after citing the man lā walada la-hu tradition, ʿAbd al-Razzāq adds the opinion that wa-lā wālid was also part of that tradi-tion. Thus, he refers back to the original Meccan doctrine as expressed by Ibn Jurayj. Consequently, ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s isnād is an obvious dive that seeks to undermine Sufyān’s fictitious attribution to Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān.

Sufyān b. ʿUyayna responded to this criticism by adding to Ibn Jurayj’s original tradition a polemical ending in which an early author-ity, al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, is said to have insisted that kalāla should be understood according to Q. 4:176 (Diagram 5). To my mind, Ibn ʿUyayna’s opponents responded to this tampering (exposed by ʿ Abd al-Razzāq’s tradition no. 19189) with some tampering of their own. A final clause was added to Ibn ʿUyayna’s tradition, according to which an even earlier authority, Ibn ʿAbbās, rebuked al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya for his literalist view. Thus the exchange between al-Ḥasan and Ibn ʿAbbās is not an indication that the Meccan doctrine “no longer conforms to that of Medina,”137 but rather a sign of a doctrinal dispute within the Meccan school itself. In the course of the legal polemic, the matns were altered while the isnāds grew backwards so as to include older authorities.138 Even though Sufyān did rely on an earlier source, identifiable with Ibn Jurayj, Sufyān did not adhere to the contents of the original matn and concealed its actual source. The beginning of the dispute between Sufyān and his adversaries cannot be dated much before the the end of the first half of the 2nd century AH.

137) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 37.138) e backwards growth of the isnāds led to the emergence of artificial CLs (ʿAmr b. Dīnār [Diagram 5] and Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān [Diagram 6]); this is consistent with Calder’s view that the CL is a result of isnād proliferation (see footnote 35).


III.2.3. e Harmonizing TraditionsTo this point, my analysis of the Group B kalāla traditions has shown that two definitions were circulating in the Hijaz and Iraq in the first half of the 2nd century AH. Although similar in their legal substance, the definitions differed over whether kalāla refers to the deceased or to the heirs. Hijazi traditionists defined the term as a person who dies leaving no parent and no child (man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid) and who therefore is inherited by collaterals. Iraqi traditionists defined the term as referring to the collaterals who inherit in the absence of a par-ent and a child (al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid). Towards the middle of the 2nd century AH Sufyān b. ʿUyayna circu-lated an abridged variant of the Hijazi definition in which ʿUmar, on his deathbed, defined kalāla as “he who dies without a child.” The exclusion of the parent brought ʿUmar’s definition into line with Q. 4:176, which does not mention the parent. But Sufyān’s definition was now inconsistent with both the Hijazi and the Iraqi definitions of kalāla. In an attempt to make his position more persuasive, Ibn ʿ Uyayna circulated a modified variant of the Hijazi tradition. In the new variant, al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya is said to have referred Ibn ʿAbbās to Q. 4:176 regarding the meaning of kalāla. The two contradictory definitions of kalāla gave rise to a third tradi-tion, which sought to harmonize the conflicting views. As in other cases, harmonization was achieved through the imposition of chronology. The accession of ʿUmar to caliphal power and the already discussed ʿUmar deathbed story were selected as chronological topoi that could sustain the claim that the man lā walada wa-lā wālid definition super-seded the man lā walad definition. Two key-figures stand out in the harmonizing cluster (Diagram 7): the Hijazi authority Sufyān b. ʿ Uyayna; and the Wāsiṭī traditionist Yazīd b. Hārūn. The earliest tradition on the authority of Sufyān b. ʿ Uyayna is found in the Muṣannaf of the CR, ʿAbd al-Razzāq (d. 211/826):

1. Kāna Abū Bakr yaqūlu: “Al-Kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid.”

2. Wa-kāna ʿUmar yaqūlu: “Al-Kalālatu man lā walada la-hu.”

3. Fa-lammā ṭuʿina ʿUmar qāla: “Innī la-staḥyī ’l-lāha an ukhālifa Abā Bakr.

Sufy

n [b

. �U

yayn

a],

107-

196,

Mk.

��i

m a

l-A�w

al, d

. 140

��m

ir b

. Sha

ra��

l al-S

ha�b

�, d.

ca.

100

�Abd

al-R

azz

q

10:3

04, 1

9191

Al-D

rim

�

Yaz�

d b.

H r

�n,

d. 2

06 -

W�s

i�

2:46

2, 2

972

Sa��d

b. M

an��

r Tf

sr.,

3:11

85, 5

91

Ya�y

b.

Ab�

�

lib

Mu�

. b. Y

a�q�

b

Ab�

�Al.

al-�

fi�

Al-B

ayha

q�

6:22

3

A�m

. b. N

ajda

Al-�A

bb s

b. F

a�l

Ab�

Na�

r b.

Qat

da

6:22

4

Ibn

Ab� S

hayb

a

Ab�

Mu�

wiy

a M

u�. b

. �

zim

al-T

aym

�, d.

195

10:5

79, 3

2130

Ibn

�Abd

al-B

arr

5:19

9

A�m

. b. �

anba

l

�Al.

b. A

�m. b

. �

anba

l

Ism

��l

b. �A

l� al

-Khu

�b�

Mu�

. b. A

�m.

b. R

izq

Al-K

ha��

b al

-Ba

ghd

d� Al-F

aq�h

wa-

l-M

utaf

aqqi

h, 1

:490

, 531

.

Al-�

abar

�

Y�nu

s [�b

r., A

b�

Bish

r?] b

. �Ab

d al

-A�l

6:47

6

Al-�

a� w

�

13:2

30

Ya�q

�b b

. Ib

r h�

m

Hus

haym

b. B

ash�

r

6:47

5-6

Shu�

ba, t

. 160

, B�.

Mu�

. b. J

a�fa

r Gh

unda

r

Mu�

. b. B

ashs

h r

Mu�

. b. �

Abd

al-S

al m

Q si

m b

. Asb

agh

A�m

. b. �

Al.

Mu�

. b. S

a��d

Ibn

�az

m

I�k

m, 6

:127

5:19

6

Al-W

al�d

b.

Shuj

�

�Al�

b. M

ushi

r

Diag

ram

7 -

The

harm

oniz

ing

trad

itio

ns

Rzq.

191

91: -

(1) K

�na A

b� B

akr y

aq�l

u: “

Al-K

al l

atu m

an l

wal

ada la

-hu

wa-

l w

lid

.” W

a-k�

na �U

mar

yaq�

lu: “

Al-K

al l

atu m

an l

wal

ada la

-hu.

” (2

) Fa-

lam

m� �

u�in

a �Um

ar q�

la: “

Inn�

la-s

ta�y

� ’l-l

ha

an u

kh l

ifa A

b B

akr.

(3) A

r ’l

-kal

lat

a m

�ad

’l-w

alad

a wa’

l-w l

id.”

IIABa

rr c

ites t

he tr

aditi

on w

ithou

t the

Ab�

Bak

r opi

nion

in C

l. 1.

SBM

., 59

1 -

(1) Q

�la �

Umar

: “Al

-Kal

lat

u m

�ad

’l-w

alad

.” W

a-q�

la A

b� B

akr r

.�.:

“Al-K

al l

atu m

�a

d ’l

-wal

ada w

a’l-w

lid

.” (2

) Fa-

lam

m� �

u�in

a �Um

ar r.

�. q�

la: “

Inn�

la-s

ta�y

� ’l-l

ha �a

zza

wa-

jalla

an

ukh

lifa

Ab

Bakr

r.�

.” =

B Bhq

., 6:

224.

Bhq

. add

s to

the

end

of th

e m

atn

“al-k

al l

atu m

�a

d ’l

-wal

ada w

a’l-w

lid

.”

�br.

, 6:4

76 -

Ab�

Bakr

wa-

�Um

ar, r

.�, q

�l�:

“Al-K

al l

atu m

an l

wal

ada la

-hu

wa-

l w

lid

.” =

��w

., 13

:230

.

IASh

., 32

130

- Q�l

a Ab�

Bak

r: “R

a�ay

tu f�

’l-k

al l

ati ra

y�an

fa-in

yak

u �a

w b

an fa

-min

�ind

i ’l-l

hi wa-

in y

aku

kha�

a�an

fa-m

in q

ibal

-� w

a-m

in a

l-sha

y� n

. Al-k

al l

atu m

�a

d ’l

-wal

ada w

a’l-w

lid

.”

D r.

, 297

2 -

Suil

a Ab�

Bak

r �an

al-k

al�l

ati fa

-q�l

a: “I

nn� s

a-aq

�lu

f�-h

bi-r

a�y-

�, fa

-in k

na

�aw

ban

fa-

min

all

hi wa-

in k

na

kha�

a�an

fa-

min

-n� w

a-m

in a

l-sha

y� n

. Ar

-hu

m

khal

’l-

w l

ida w

a’l-

wal

ad.”

Fa-la

mm

� stu

khlif

a �Um

ar q�

la: “

Inn�

la-s

ta�y

� an

arud

da sh

ay�an

q l

a-hu

Ab�

Bak

r.”

� BB

hq, 6

:223

� K

ha��b

, 531

� IA

Barr

, 5:1

96

�br.

, 6:4

75 -

Q�la

Ab�

Bak

r r.�

.: “In

n� q

ad r

a�ay

tu f�

’l-k

al l

ati r

ay�an

fa-in

k n

a �a

w b

an fa

-min

all

hi wa�

di -hi l

sh

ar�k

a la-h

u w

a-in

yak

u kh

a�a�

an fa

-min

-n� w

a’l-s

hay�

ni w

a’l-l

hu m

in-h

u ba

r��.

Wa-

inna

’l-k

al l

ata m

kh

al

’l-w

alad

a wa’

l-w l

id.”

Fa-la

mm

� stu

khlif

a �Um

ar r.

�. q

�la:

“Inn

� la-

sta�

y� m

in a

ll hi ta

b ra

ka w

a-ta

� l

an

ukh

llifa

Ab

Bak

rin f�

ra�

yyin

ra�

-hu

.”

�br.

, 6:4

75-6

: Ab�

Bak

r r.�

. q�l

a f� ’l

-kal

�la:

“Aq�

lu f

�-h

bi-r

a�y-

�, fa

-in k

na

�aw

ban

fa-

min

all

hi wa-

huw

a m

d�

na ’l-w

alad

i wa’

l-w l

id.”

Fa-

q�la

�Um

ar b

. al-K

ha��

b: “

Inn�

la-s

ta�y

� min

all

hi an

ukh

lifa

Ab

Bakr

in”.

Ibn

�az

m: A

b� B

akr q

�la f

� ’l-k

al�l

ati : “

Aq��

f�-h

fa

-in y

akun

�aw

ban

fa-m

in a

ll hi w

a-in

yak

un k

ha�a

�an fa

-min

-n� w

a-m

in a

l-sha

y� n

i wa’

l-l h

u bar

��un m

in-h

u hu

wa

m

d�na ’l

-wal

adi w

a’l-w

lid

.” F

a-la

mm

� k�n

a �Um

ar r.

�. q�

la: “

Inn�

la-s

ta�y

� ’l-l

ha a

n uk

h lif

a Ab

Ba

kr.”

A�m

. = A

�mad

Mu�

. = M

u�am

mad

�Al.

= �A

bd A

ll h

B�. =

Ba�

ra

Mk.

= M

akka

Dia

gram

7:

eha

rmon

izing

trad

ition

s.


Dia

gram

7:

e ha

rmon

izing

trad

ition

s.

Arā ’l-kalālata mā ʿadā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid.”

1. Abū Bakr used to say: “Kalāla is he who has no child and no parent.”

2. ʿUmar used to say: “Kalāla is he who has no child.”

3. When ʿUmar was stabbed, he said: “Verily, I am ashamed before Allah to disagree with Abū Bakr. I [now] reckon that al-kalāla are those [relatives] apart from the child and the parent.”139

This compound matn combines several earlier traditions. Clause 1 (attributed to Abū Bakr) and clause 2 (attributed to ʿUmar) represent the original Hijazi doctrine and its later reformulation by Sufyān b. ʿUyayna, who omitted the parent from the definition. Clause 3, which harmonizes the views expressed in clauses 1 and 2, is itself a compound that combines a slightly modified variant of the Iraqi mā khalā tradition with the ʿUmar deathbed story.

In the variant matn of another CR, Saʿīd b. Manṣūr (d. 227/841-2), the modified Iraqi definition (mā ʿ adā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid) replaces the Hijazi formula (man lā) in clauses 1 and 2.140 This substitution, which probably seeks to produce greater matn coherence, does not change the meaning of the tradition. However, it does reflect a later stage in the development of the matn, which was perfected through additional redactional activities. Saʿīd also shifts the order of clauses 1 and 2. Although this change is chronologically awkward (Abū Bakr is posi-tioned after ʿUmar), it does not affect the legal substance of the tradi-tion. It is a clear sign, however, that chronology was of secondary importance to the transmitters and collectors of Muslim legal ḥadīth.

In addition to the variant traditions of ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, which are in substantial agreement, al-Ṭabarī and al-Ṭaḥāwī rely on the authority of Yūnus b. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā in the following short matn (Diagram 7):

Abū Bakr wa-ʿUmar r.ḍ. qālā: “Al-Kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid.”

Abū Bakr and ʿUmar [r] said: “Kalāla is he who has no child and no parent.”141

139) ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, 10:304, no. 19191. Ibn ʿ Abd al-Barr cites the same tradition on the authority of ʿAbd al-Razzāq but omits clause 1 (Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Tamhīd, 5:195-96).140) Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Sunan, 3:1185, no. 591; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 6:224.141) Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:476; al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ, 13:230.


This tradition looks like a summary of the long matn of ʿ Abd al-Razzāq and Saʿīd b. Manṣūr. Such a summary may have been based on written sources used by al-Ṭabarī and al-Ṭaḥāwī; it does not, however, provide any clue as to the wording of these sources. Be that as it may, at least two CRs (ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Saʿīd b. Manṣūr) cite similar variants of the long matn. Does this allow us to conclude that Ibn ʿUyayna is the CL/PCL of the harmonizing tradition? What is the role of Ibn ʿ Uyayna’s informant, ʿ Āṣim b. Sulaymān al-Aḥwal (d. 140/757-8), in the circula-tion of the same tradition? Before attempting to answer these questions, let us analyze the version through the second key figure, Yazīd b. Hārūn.

The CR, al-Dārimī, cites the following matn:

1. Suʾila Abū Bakr ʿan al-kalālati fa-qāla: “Innī sa-aqūlu fī-hā bi-raʾy-ī fa-in kāna ṣawāban fa-min allāhi wa-in kāna khaṭaʾan fa-min-nī wa-min al-shayṭān. Arā-hu mā khalā ’l-wālida wa’l-walad.”

2. Fa-lammā stukhlifa ʿUmar qāla: “Innī la-staḥyī an arudda shayʾan qāla-hu Abū Bakr.”

1. Abū Bakr was asked about [the meaning of ] kalāla, whereupon he said: “I shall express my opinion. If it is correct, then it is from Allah. If it is erroneous, then it is from me and from Satan. My opinion is [that kalāla means]: those [relatives] apart from the parent and the child.”

2. When ʿUmar was appointed as caliph, he said: “Verily, I am ashamed to con-tradict an opinion expressed by Abū Bakr.”142

The isnād evidence shows that Yazīd b. Hārūn is located at the center of a spider, with only one CR (al-Dārimī) providing a direct quota-tion.143 Although al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī maintains that he received the tradition through ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and his famous father, no trace of such a tradition is found in the Musnad of Aḥmad or in his other works. Thus, all quotations on the authority of Yazīd b. Hārūn, except for al-Dārimī’s, appear in much later collections through numerous intermediate links. Given the existence of only one CR and the absence of isnād branches above the level of Yazīd, he may

142) Al-Dārimī, Sunan, 2:462, no. 2972.143) Loc. cit.; al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 6:223; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Tamhīd, 5:196; al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Kitāb al-Faqīh wa’l-Mutafaqqih, ed. ʿĀdil b. Yūsuf al-ʿAzāzī, 2 vols. (1st ed., al-Mamlaka al-ʿArabiyya al-Saʿūdiyya: Dār Ibn al-Jawzī li’l-Nashr wa’l-Tawzīʿ, 1417/1996), 1:490, no. 531.


be regarded, at best, as a (S)CL. Further evidence relating to Yazīd’s tradition may emerge when we compare it to the version of Ibn ʿ Uyayna and the single strands that make up the present cluster.

As in the tradition through Sufyān b. ʿ Uyayna, Yazīd b. Hārūn insists that Abū Bakr understood kalāla as signifying those relatives who are entitled to inherit when there is no living parent or child. In both tra-ditions ʿUmar is portrayed as deferring to Abū Bakr’s opinion for fear of Allah and out of respect for the first caliph.

These points of agreement notwithstanding, the two traditions are markedly different. Structurally, the tradition through Yazīd b. Hārūn is based on the Iraqi mā khalā version and contains no apparent traces of the Hijazi man lā tradition. Unlike the Ibn ʿUyayna tradition, the Yazīd b. Hārūn tradition does not mention ʿUmar’s earlier definition of kalāla and focuses instead on his agreement with Abū Bakr. Also, in Yazīd b. Hārūn’s tradition, Abū Bakr’s definition is the caliph’s discre-tionary opinion (raʾy), which may be right or wrong. Not surprisingly for a man who was obsessed with memorizing ḥadīth, Ibn ʿ Uyayna does not mention that Abū Bakr was exercising his raʾy about kalāla. By far the most important difference between the two versions, however, relates to chronology. According to Ibn ʿ Uyayna, ʿ Umar did not express his agreement with Abū Bakr until he was on his deathbed; according to Yazīd b. Hārūn, ʿUmar made his statement approximately ten years earlier, immediately following the death of Abū Bakr and his assump-tion of the caliphate. The Ibn ʿUyayna tradition seeks to put an end to the discussion about kalāla by representing ʿUmar’s agreement with Abū Bakr as a final deathbed utterance. Conversely, the Yazīd b. Hārūn tradition pushes the chronology in the opposite direction. By situating the harmonizing opinion at the time of ʿUmar’s accession, it provides for a period of ten years during which the caliph may have changed his mind and defined kalāla as man lā walad.

Given the substantial differences between the matns through Sufyān b. ʿUyayna and Yazīd b. Hārūn, it is difficult to conceive of a base tradition going back to ʿĀṣim b. Sulaymān al-Aḥwal. Independently of Ibn ʿUyayna and Yazīd b. Hārūn, four single-strand isnāds refer to ʿĀṣim (Diagram 7).144 These isnāds may have a corroborative effect on

144) Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, 10:579, no. 32130; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ, 6:475-76; Ibn Ḥazm, Iḥkām, 6:127.


condition that their matns agree and PCLs of ʿĀṣim are securely iden-tified.

The most interesting single-strand isnād is the one cited by Ibn Abī Shayba. It is attached to a matn that is essentially identical to clause 2 in the traditions through Yazīd b. Hārūn:

Qāla Abū Bakr: “Raʾaytu fī ’l-kalālati rayʾan fa-in yaku ṣawāban fa-min ʿindi ’l-lāhi wa-in yaku khaṭaʾan fa-min qibal-ī wa-min al-shayṭān. Al-kalālatu mā ʿadā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid.”

Abū Bakr said: “I have an opinion about kalāla. If it is correct, then it is from Allah. If it is erroneous, then it is from me and from Satan. [My opinion is that] kalāla means those [relatives] apart from the parent and the child.”

The remaining three single-strand isnāds on the authority of ʿĀṣim al-Aḥwal are found in later collections. Like the traditions on the authority of Yazīd b. Hārūn, they include the clause that describes ʿUmar’s acceptance of Abū Bakr’s opinion. Thus, Ibn Abī Shayba’s tra-dition seems to represent the earliest stage in the development of the matn, whereas the other isnāds are attached to a matn that was subse-quently modified with the addition of the ʿ Umar section. Whether Ibn Abī Shayba’s matn actually goes back to ʿ Āṣim al-Aḥwal, and who added the ʿUmar section to it, may be determined after the single-strand tra-ditions are compared to the variants of ʿĀṣim’s potential PCLs.

Both Sufyān b. ʿUyayna and Yazīd b. Hārūn, it will be recalled, may be considered, albeit with qualifications, as disseminators of specific variants of the harmonizing traditions. Their matns, however, disagree to such an extent that it is inconceivable that they derive from a narra-tive core traceable to ʿĀṣim b. Sulaymān al-Aḥwal. Nonetheless, there is a considerable degree of overlap between the tradition of Yazīd b. Hārūn and the single strands that reach ʿĀṣim al-Aḥwal without refer-ring to Yazīd. Ibn Abī Shayba, who relates only the Abū Bakr clause, is the only CR whose matn is composed of one section rather than two. That the two clauses originally may have been independent is suggested by a remark in Ibn Ḥazm’s Aḥkām. Pointing to the clause in which ʿUmar insists that he would be ashamed to disagree with Abū Bakr, Ibn Ḥazm warns, “This is the tradition in which they disguised lies as truth and allowed for deception by citing it separately from what comes


before.”145 Ibn Ḥazm clearly means that someone detached the ʿUmar section in order to cite it as proof that ʿ Umar agreed with every decision of his predecessor. The only hint at such a detachment is found in the Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shayba. This tradition may reflect an early version that contained only Abū Bakr’s opinion about kalāla, but it may also be an abridgement of the harmonizing tradition. In both cases, there is no way to determine if the tradition goes back to ʿĀṣim al-Aḥwal, to Ibn Abī Shayba’s direct informant, Abū Muʿāwiya Muḥammad b. Ḥāzim al-Taymī, or, perhaps, to Ibn Abī Shayba himself.

To sum up: The present cluster consists of compound matns the components of which were taken from earlier Iraqi and Hijazi narra-tives. No evidence in either the isnād or the matn suggests that the harmonizing traditions were spread during the lifetime of al-Shaʿbī (d. ca. 100/718) or even in the first quarter of the 2nd century AH. Nor is there any evidence that would sustain Cilardo’s conclusion that ʿ Āṣim al-Aḥwal is the “common transmitter” of the tradition and, “hence, according to the criterion of common transmitter, we may deduce that this report was put in circulation in the first half of the second century H.”146 The evidence of the isnāds, which do in fact converge on ʿĀṣim, is not supported by the matns, which do not correspond. In fact, there are at least three distinct versions. One of them tentatively may be associated with Ibn ʿUyayna, the second with Yazīd b. Hārūn, and the third with Ibn Abī Shayba or one of his informants. None of the three corroborates ʿĀṣim’s status as the CL of the tradition.

Given the variability of the isnāds and the fluidity of the matn, it is difficult to determine the chronology of the harmonizing cluster, but the last quarter of the 2nd century AH is not unreasonable, at least with regards to Yazīd b. Hārūn’s matn. Ibn ʿUyayna’s status as a possible CL is confusing, in part because the variant traditions cited on his authority are different from one another. We have already seen that towards the middle of the 2nd century AH Ibn ʿUyayna circulated a ḥadīth according to which kalāla means man lā walad. To his critics who defined al-kalāla as man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid, Ibn ʿUyayna responded by adding to their definition a clause in which al-Ḥasan

145) Ibn Ḥazm, Iḥkām, 6:127.146) Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 22.


b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya (d. 99/717-18) supported the man lā walada definition. No doubt, an advocate of the latter definition, Ibn ʿUyayna unexpectedly appears as a key figure in a confusing harmoniz-ing tradition, in which kalāla is defined as man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid. It is possible that Ibn ʿ Uyayna changed his mind about the mean-ing of kalāla over time—just as ʿ Umar is reported to have done, adopt-ing, in the end, the man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid definition. Alternatively, Ibn ʿ Uyayna may have circulated the story about ʿ Umar’s change of mind in order to justify his adoption of the man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid definition. Neither of these possibilities may be sub-stantiated, as we cannot establish (a) the exact contents of Ibn ʿ Uyayna’s hypothetical tradition (the harmonizing traditions that pass through him are dissimilar); and (b) the exact period in Ibn ʿUyayna’s life in which he may have coined or adopted the harmonizing narrative. In my view, it is more likely that the harmonizing tradition was ascribed to Ibn ʿUyayna in an attempt to refute his opinion. If so, this attribu-tion would have been made after Sufyān’s death, most likely in the first half of the 3rd century AH.147

147) Another chronological clue is the reference to rightly-guided caliphs (al-khulafāʾ al-rāshidūn) in the harmonizing traditions. e originator(s) of these traditions clearly insists on the pre-eminence of Abū Bakr and makes ʿUmar retract his original view out of deference to his predecessor. is feature has been noted by Cilardo and Powers, who refer to both chronology and personal eminence to explain Abū Bakr’s status as an overriding authority (Cilardo, e Qurʾānic Term Kalāla, 22-3; Powers, Muḥammad, 207-8). For most of the 2nd century AH, however, Muslim traditionists do not seem to have settled on the hierarchical notion of the four rightly-guided caliphs (Josef van Ess, “Political Ideas in Early Islamic Religious ought,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 28:2 [2001], 153-6; Patricia Crone, God’s Rule: Government and Islam [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], 28, 94). According to M. Q. Zaman, the four-caliph concept developed con comi-tantly with the adoption by the Abbasids of a legitimistic stance that was increasingly amenable to the non-ʿAlīd majority in the caliphate (Muhammad Qasim Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early ʿAbbasids: e Emergence of the Proto-Sunni Elite [Leiden, New-York, Köln: Brill, 1997], 56-9). Based on the concept of hierarchy among al-khulafāʾ al-rāshidūn, the tradition that brings ʿ Umar’s understanding of kalāla into conformity with Abū Bakr’s definition apparently belongs to the end of the 2nd century AH or perhaps even later. If Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849) was one of the contributors to the articulation of the classical rāshidūn concept (Muhammad Qasim Zaman, “Maghāzī and the Muḥaddithūn: Reconsidering the Treatment of ‘Historical’ Materials in Early Collections of Ḥadīth,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 28:1 [1996], 11), he would stand out as one of the most likely originators of the harmonizing cluster.


III.3. e chronological relationship between Group A and Group B traditions

At the end of §III.1 and §III.2.1, I left open major chronological ques-tions. Is ʿAmr b. Murra the CL of the ‘three things’ bundle, as Cilardo maintains? Are the Group A traditions in which the meaning of kalāla is unknown earlier than the Group B traditions in which kalāla is defined, albeit inconsistently? Let me now advance some provisional answers to these questions, based on my analysis of some—but not all—of the kalāla traditions. First, recall the ‘three things’ tradition in which ʿ Umar does not know the meaning of kalāla. On the basis of my analysis of this tradition, I was unable to determine whether or not it is early, but I concluded that Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161/778) is its CL. His matn most likely read, thalāthun la-an-yakūna ’l-nabiyyu ṣalʿam bayyana-hunna la-nā aḥabbu ilayya min al-dunyā wa-mā fī-hā: al-khilāfatu wa’l-kalālatu wa’l-ribā. At the same time I could neither accept nor reject the possibility that the original tradition was spread by an even earlier figure, ʿAmr b. Murra (d. 116-18/734-7).

Compared to Sufyān al-Thawrī’s version, the ‘three things’ tradition related by al-Ṭayālisī includes a second clause: [Qāla ʿAmr b. Murra]: Qultu li-Murra: “Wa-man yashukku fī ’l-kalālati huwa mā dūna ’l-waladi wa’l-wālid?” Qāla: “Inna-hum yashukkūna fī ’l-wālid.” The additional clause shows clearly that its originator(s) was acquainted with (a) the early definition of kalāla as the relatives of the deceased apart from the child and the parent; and (b) Ibn ʿUyayna’s view that kalāla must be understood in accordance with Q. 4:176. Al-Ṭayālisī’s wording suggests that the additional clause was attached to the original tradition by a traditionist who was familiar with both (a) and (b). If so, then the addi-tion could not have been inserted until the second half of the 2nd cen-tury AH, after Ibn ʿUyayna had put into circulation the man lā walada tradition. Alas, this conclusion does not help us to determine whether the original ‘three things’ tradition goes back to the first half of the 2nd century AH or, by extension, whether the Group A traditions are earlier than the Group B traditions.

As we have seen in §III.1, in addition to the tradition in the Musnad of al-Ṭayālisī, al-Ṭaḥāwī cites an isolated tradition on the authority of


Wahb b. Jarīr (Diagram 1). Whereas the first clause in al-Ṭaḥāwī’s tradition is an unmistakable elaboration on the first clause in al-Ṭayālisī’s tradition, the second clause most likely reflects an earlier stage in the narrative development. Al-Ṭayālisī’s clause 2 is an indivisible entity: its first part is a question posed by ʿAmr b. Murra to Murra b. Sharāḥīl, and its second part is Murra’s answer to that question. This type of narrative unity is lacking in clause 2 of al-Ṭaḥāwī’s tradition. The sen-tences are disconnected: in clause 2a someone states, Qultu: “Al-kalālatu lā shakka fī-hi mā dūna ’l-waladi wa’l-ab”; in clause 2b someone else adds, “Al-abu yashukkūna fī-hi.” I suspect that clause 2a was inserted before clause 2b. If so, then the tradition would have undergone three stages of development: (1) the formulation of clause 1 (the ‘three things’ tradition); (2) the insertion of clause 2a (al-kalālatu [lā shakka fī-hi] mā dūna ’l-waladi wa’l-ab); and (3) the insertion of clause 2b (al-abu yashukkūna fī-hi). Note that lā shakka fī-hi is dispensable in clause 2a; it is likely, therefore, that the transmitter who inserted clause 2b added these words to clause 2a in an attempt to establish a connection with clause 2b.

Our analysis of al-Ṭaḥāwī’s tradition shows that clause 2a was inserted after the early Kufan definition of kalāla had been put into circulation in the first half of the 2nd century AH, but before Ibn ʿUyayna’s man lā walad variant was put into circulation towards the middle of the 2nd century AH. To put it another way, clause 2a was inserted by a trans-mitter who knew the ‘three things’ tradition and the Kufan definition of kalāla but apparently was unaware of Ibn ʿUyayna’s tradition; clause 2b was added by a transmitter who was familiar with Ibn ʿUyayna’s tradition. Hence, it stands to reason that the original ‘three things’ tradition (clause 1), which is one of the Group A traditions, must have been formulated before any of the Group B traditions (which contain a definition of kalālā) were put into circulation.

Given that the Kufan Sufyān al-Thawrī circulated a tradition that contained only clause 1, it is highly likely that his Basran colleague, Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj, inserted clause 2a. The redactional process contin-ued in Basra, where Wahb b. Jarīr probably added clause 2b, and al-Ṭayālisī embellished Wahb’s tradition in a manner that made clauses 2a and 2b appear as a single narrative. If correct, this reconstruction sheds light on ʿAmr b. Murra’s contribution to the emergence of the ‘three things’ tradition. It is reasonable to assume that Sufyān al-Thawrī


and Shuʿba did in fact receive clause 1 from ʿAmr; but whereas Sufyān preserved the original matn, Shuʿba added clause 2a to it.

Note that the three items mentioned in the matn vary from one ver-sion to the next, with the exception of one item–kalāla.148 Although I have not found any trace of a tradition that mentions kalāla indepen-dently of the other two items, it is important to note that kalāla is the only constant item in the sequence. The other items—zakāt, jadd, ribā and khilāfa—are interchangeable. In my opinion, this is a clear indica-tion that kalāla was the original issue that occupied the mind of the traditionists who circulated the ‘three things’ tradition.

Although I cannot prove that a ‘one thing’ kalāla tradition preceded the ‘three things’ tradition, the association of the ‘three things’ tradition with ʿAmr b. Murra is plausible. The matn evidence demonstrates that the original ‘three things’ tradition underwent later developments that were influenced by the definition-containing traditions in Group B. My analysis therefore supports Powers’ claim that Group A predates Group B. At the present time, however, it is impossible to date the emergence of the Group A traditions in their entirety. It is nevertheless conceivable that the ‘three things’ tradition was put into circulation in the last decades of the 1st century AH.

IV. Conclusion

D. Powers has argued that the Group A traditions, in which the mean-ing of kalāla is unknown, are earlier than the Group B traditions, in which the meaning of this word is defined. In his view, Group A tradi-tions were first put into circulation no earlier than ca. 50 AH, and the

148) In other ‘three things’ bundles, in place of ribā, ʿ Umar occasionally mentions (a) certain people who recognized the obligation of paying the alms tax (zakāt), but refused to hand it over to the central authorities (ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, 10:302, no. 19185; Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, 1:370-71, no. 262; al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, Mustadrak, 2:361-62, no. 3246; al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ, 13:226, no. 5225); (b) al-kalāla wa’l-jadd wa’l-ribā (Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, 18:219-20, no. 3032; al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, 7:721; Ibn Ḥibbān, Ṣaḥīḥ, 12:175-76, no. 5353; 12:182, no. 5359; Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Sunan, 3:1188, no. 593; al-Bazzār, Musnad, 1:281, no. 177; al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ, 13:223; al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 6:245; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Tamhīd, 5:199). ese bundles, which cannot be associated with definite CLs, are most likely 3rd century elaborations of the original ‘three things’ tradition.


Group B were not put into circulation until the last quarter of the 1st century AH and the first quarter of the 2nd century AH. Let me now compare the results of the present investigation with the chronology proposed by Powers. 1. Isnād and matn analysis of the ‘three things’ tradition (a member of Group A) indicates that in the first half of the 2nd century AH the Kufan Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161/778) portrayed ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb as being obsessed with three issues, invariably including the meaning of kalāla. Sufyān may have heard the tradition from ʿAmr b. Murra (d. 116-18/734-7). If so, the tradition would have been in circulation in the second half of the 1st century AH, a chronology that generally agrees with Powers’ statement that the reports in which the meaning of kalāla is represented as a mystery were put into circulation no earlier than ca. 50 AH.149 The exact wording of ʿAmr’s tradition is a riddle, but, it is suggested, if such a tradition did exist, its matn would have been limited to the issue of kalāla, to which two additional (but vari-able) items were added at a later date. 2. The Summer-verse tradition preserves the motif of ʿ Umar’s bewil-derment over the meaning of kalāla; now, however, it offers a solution in the form of a prophetic dictum which teaches that the correct under-standing of the term should be based on scripture. Early variants of this tradition were related by Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba (d. 158-9/774-6) and Hishām al-Dastuwāʾī (d. ca. 154/771). Previously, Qatāda b. Diʿāma (61-117/681-735) may have expressed a personal opinion according to which the meaning of kalāla is to be found in the Summer verse. Due to the narrative instability of the Summer-verse matn, its original word-ing is resistant to reconstruction. Nevertheless it may be thought to have consisted of a question concerning the meaning of kalāla and the reply that the meaning of kalāla is defined in the Summer verse. Our dating of the Summer-verse tradition carries an important impli-cation. It indicates that as early as the turn of the 1st century AH scrip-ture was the basis for the derivation of legal pronouncements. Sunnaic elaboration of the scriptural material followed at a later stage of the discussions devoted to kalāla.

149) Powers, Muḥammad, 205, 219.


3. During the first half of the 2nd century AH Muslim traditionists who apparently struggled with the syntactical and semantic difficulty of Q. 4:12b circulated two definitions of kalāla. According to Kufan authorities, kalāla signifies the group of relatives who inherit from the deceased, on the condition that there is no surviving child or parent. The Kufan definition is embodied in the legal statement al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid. While agreeing on the legal substance of the term, Hijazi authorities were in formal disagreement with their Iraqi colleagues. According to the Hijazis, kalāla signifies a deceased person from whom others inherit. As a result, Hijazi traditionists defined kalāla as man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid, a person who dies leaving neither child nor parent.

Our dating of the earliest traditions containing a definition of kalāla generally conforms to Powers’ chronology: it is feasible that the Group B traditions existed in the first quarter of the 2nd century AH. Powers’ conclusion that these traditions were first put into circulation in the last quarter of the 1st century AH, however, should be examined on a case-by-case basis and qualified, if necessary. While it is conceivable that the Hijazi definition was circulated by an early authority like al-Zuhrī (d. 124/741-2), its Kufan counterpart is better associated with Isrāʾīl b. Yūnus b. Abī Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī, who flourished in the first half of the 2nd century AH.

4. The desire to define kalāla on an exclusively scriptural basis per-sisted for some time after the initial circulation of the Group B tradi-tions. Towards the middle of the 2nd century AH, Sufyān b. ʿUyayna (d. 196/811) explicitly stated what is only intimated in the Summer-verse tradition. Referring to the seemingly unambiguous text of Q. 4:176, according to which kalāla is a person who dies childless (In imruʾun halaka laysa la-hu waladun), Ibn ʿUyayna circulated a modified version of the Hijazi tradition in which he defined kalāla as man lā walada la-hu. Ibn ʿUyayna’s literalist stance triggered the fabrication of competing traditions; matns were altered and their isnāds extended to older authorities, thereby impugning the rival traditions. In his response to his critics, Ibn ʿUyayna expanded upon his argument by referring to an ‘early’ opinion of al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, who allegedly argued that kalāla must be defined solely on the basis of Q. 4:176. Ibn ʿUyayna’s opponents apparently sought to undermine


his position by claiming that an even earlier authority, Ibn ʿAbbās, had bitterly opposed al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad’s view. The process of mutual isnād and matn criticism ended with the circulation of a number of harmonizing traditions in which ʿUmar agrees that kalāla means man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid/mā ʿadā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid. According to the evidence of our isnād and matn analysis, these traditions did not emerge until the end of the 2nd century AH, that is, considerably later than the chronologies proposed by Powers (75-125 AH) and Cilardo (100-150 AH), respectively.

The results of the present investigation, compared to the chronolo-gies proposed by Powers and Cilardo, are summarized in the following table:

Tradition Powers Cilardo Isnād-cum-matn analysis

The ‘three things’ tradition.

50-75 (circulated by Murra b. Sharaḥīl al-Hamdānī [d. 76/695-96] and a Group A tradition).

Towards the end of the 1st century AH (ʿAmr b. Murra [d. 116-18/734-8] is the CL).

More likely, 100-150 (Kufa).Less likely, 50-100 (Kufa).

The Summer-verse tradition.

75-125 (a Group B tradition).

75-125 (Qatāda b. Diʿāma [61-117/681-735] is the CL).

More likely, 100-150 (Basra).Less likely, 75-100 (Basra).

Al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-walada wa’l-wālid.


75-125 (Abū Isḥāq ʿAmr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī [d. 127/745] is the CL of a part of these traditions).

Most likely 100-150 (Kufa). No clear CL.

Al-kalālatu mā khalā ’l-ab.


100-150 (Shuʿba b. al-Ḥajjāj [d. 160/776-77] is the originator of the mā khalā ’l-ab addition to the Summer-verse narrative).

No earlier than 150-200 (Baghdad). Probably later. No clear CL.

Al-kalālatu man lā walada la-hu wa-lā wālid.


The Iraqi definition, which emerged ca. 100-150.Ibn ʿUyayna added to the original narrative the clause about the exchange between Ibn ʿAbbās and

More likely, 100-150 (Hijaz).Less likely, 75-100 (Hijaz).Some time after the middle of the 2nd century AH, for polemical reasons,


Tradition Powers Cilardo Isnād-cum-matn analysis

al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya.

AH, for polemical reasons, Ibn ʿUyayna added to the original narrative the clause about the exchange between Ibn ʿAbbās and al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya.

Al-kalālatu man lā walada la-hu.


The tradition probably originated during the lifetime of Sulaymān al-Aḥwal, whose date of death is unknown, but who was active ca. 100-150.

Ca. 150 (Mecca). The original view of Ibn ʿUyayna, based on Q. 4:176.

The harmonizing traditions.


100-150 (ʿĀṣim al-Aḥwal [d. 141/758-59] is the CL).

No earlier than 150-200 (Iraq?). Probably later. No clear CL.

Pavel Pavlovitch Sunni Hadith Kalala - ILS 1.2012

Documents

Transcript of Pavel Pavlovitch Sunni Hadith Kalala - ILS 1.2012