AN ANALYSIS OF THE EARLIEST ARAB HISTORICAL WRITERS ( Ibn Ishäg, Al-Tabarl and Al-Balädhurl ). MOHAMMADIAIQMAN DEPARTMENTOF ARABIC UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW Submitted for the degree of Ph. D. in the Faculty of Arts in the University of Glasgow December, 1981. i Acknowledimment. I an thankful to my supervisor, Dr. J. N. Mattock for the guidance of my research project on Arab Historiography. While correcting my errors he has always shown the kindness to forgive initial inadequacies. He is an able personality in the field of oriental sciences= creates hard principles for research students to discover new scientific points. He, indeed,, has an unparalleled place among philosophers. His continuous supervision has enabled me to produce the lengthy research project. In the past, in my estimationýno-one prior to Dr. J. N. Mattock has produced such remarkable research work on the Earliest Arab Historiographers. Worthy praise and credit-goes to ay supervisor, with whom I have been very happy -working during the whole period of research. I find him very kind and helpful to me. I pray to God, 0 he may live long ". In the circumstances of supporting myself, there have inevitably been financial problems and I would like to mention those who have helped me. Firstly, my thanks are due to Dr. Abdul Ghafur Muslim who has drawn my attention to research on Muslim Historians. I appreciate his help and encouragement in this field. I am grateful to Mr. N. H. Cheema, Mr. Saleea Akhtar and particularly to Mr. Nhushi MohammadAkhtar for his sponsoring letter to the British Home Office for financial support. U ABSTRACT This dissertation consists of an examination of one period of history, that from the Hijra of the Prophet until his death, as it appears in the works of three of the earliest Arab historians, Ibn Ishäq, Strat Rasül A11äh ( this is actually a recension of the appropriate portion of Ibn Ishäq's larger history made by Ibn Hishäm ), Al-Tabarl, Ta'rJkh al-rusul wa '1-mulük, and al-Baladhurt, Kitäb futüh al-buldän. The method adopted has been to make a detailed summary of the relevant portion of each work, to allow a conspectus of its scope, its sources, and its dependence ), on another of the three ( if appropriate to be readily obtained= this is followed by a commentary on points of N interest in the work. The sources of the three historians are treated in a separate section. The conclusion attempts to present a general view of the characteristics of each author's treatment of the period. iii The vhonetic transcriction of the Arabic alrhabet. ,- ti ü- 2 ai y -b= :.:j - th; -3f 'L - hi 3- " d= f- z= Ly"", - ss Z- kh; _> - dh= tr' r= p "C (ý`ý' shi (J,p". a; dl ti ' ýb- ' ". ýj - gh= tý - f= 0-q; ý-k; (J- 1f rp mi 99 ü, )i (J - ni -hi , -x ( ax, au V'YýýýaY. aiýi i iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements. i Abstract. ii Table of transliteration. Table of contents. iv Introduction. 1 Summary of Ibn Ishäq's Text. 6 Commentary on Ibn Ishäq. $2 Summary of Taber 's Text. 106 Commentary on Tabari 158 Summary of al-Balädhuri's Text. 192 Commentary on al-Balädhurt. 240 Sources of the historians. 261 Conclusion. 297 Bibliography. 313 cMýi ýý"ý 1 The basic object of historiography is first to try to ascertain what various historians conceive to be the nature of their task, -and then to examine the different ways in which they approach this task. The early Arab historians discussed here present particular problems to anyone who wishes to investigate their from this In the Ishäq, his works point of view. case of _Ibn survives only in the recension of Ibn Hisham, who appears not only to have removed a considerable amount of the material originally present ( as is demonstrated by the fact that Tabari quotes a number of passages that are not found in our present text, ), but to have the in which also . rearranged order some of the material is presented. He also, of course, adds his own notes, which, for our present purposes, have been disregarded; as far as Ibn Ishäq's text is concerned, however, Ibn Hishäm seems, to judge from-Tabari's . quotations, most of which are not minor from his recension, to have made only a few alteration. In the both Tabari case of . and al-Baladhuri, we possess only abbreviated versions of their original histories ( or so, at least, tradition informs us ); these abbreviations may or may not be their own work. In no instance, then, can we claim to be able to discover the intentions of any of our three authors, or, indeed properly to investigate his method of fulfilling them, from the works themselves. It is, however, surely not unreasonable to attempt to examine these works, in the only form in which they can be known to us, 2 since they assumed this form by the agency of some person or persons, who, presumably, had a motive for presenting them in this, rather than any other, form. It is true that we can not say, in our conclusion, that such and such are the characteristics of the historical writing of I. I., al-Ba]; Ahurt and Taber!, with reference to these figures as actual persons and authors; but, with this disclaimer, it is legitimate to use these names to refer, for convenience, to the works that for centuries have passed under them, and represent all that we axe ever likely to know of the originals. The choice, of these three authors was more or less arbitrary, and yet, in a-sense, ' it imposed itself. STrat Raaül Ail h is an interesting and important work, by any standards, and, as really the earliest extant Arab history, clearly deserved to be included. Tkh T '?" al-RLUl va-' 1 aük, as perhaps the most important Arabic historical work ever written, and also a very early one, was an obvious choice, and since it was desirable to work as far as possible on a comparative basis, the limits of the period covered were set by the beginning of Citäb F uta al-B ul dim, 0 which, it was felt, should be included as another important and influential work, and the and of I. I. 's book. Al-Wgidl's Kitäb al-Maah-az!, which it had at first been intended to examine as well, was eventually excluded, with reluctance, principally because of its length, but also, to some extent, because it dealt exclusively with the expeditions and contained no mention ( of events at Medina itself it must be admitted that this 3 objection can also be levelled at al-Balädhurl, except in the first few chapters; it was nevertheless decided to retain his, in view of his. importance and reputation ). It had also been intended, originally, to include al-Iacqübt, but considerations of space and time made this impracticable. Al-Maecüdl was also excluded, almost from the first, since the account that he gives of this period in Kitäb Murnial-Dhaab was perfunctory in the extreme, and- that in Kitäb al-Tanb! h wa-'1-Ishräf a bald statement of events. The period covered, that of the life of the Prophet from the Hilra to his death, might be thought less than ideal for an exercise of this kind, since, the historians would be making use of'very such the sane material and would, for pious reasons, be inclined to handle it with great circumspection. It is true thatý. Tabarl does quote a great deal of I. I. and that both of ( these al-Balädhur3 to a much lesser extent ) include material of a kind that would probably not have been admitted had it not been hallowed by tradition and association. Nevertheless, it is history, as far as the authors themselves are concerned, and it is legitimate to examine it as such. An example of the different ways in which an historical account may be presented, even when the subjectmatter is of the kind that we are discussing, is to be found in Tabari,,, l375.8 - 1983.11 s this is extensi- vely discussed in the commentary and the Conclusion. 4 The form that this examination takes is that which was found, after a number of experiments, to be the most convenient. A very detailed summary is given of the events recorded by each historian, so that the reader may see, if not quite at a glance, at least comparatively easily, what events are described by I. Is each, in how many versions, and at what length. I. taken less as the starting-point for this, and direct, or more or direct, quotations from his are indicated: " as I. I. ------- ( ref. )". There then follows a commentary on points of interest in the accounts given by each author. In this to is commentary a certain freedom has been exercised as what is to considered worthy of comment. The first consideration from the criticise the way in which an account is narrated, point of view of coherence, and dramatic effect; inconsisten- cies, (implausibilities out. Details that . are also pointed give a particular appearance=of verisimilitude to a narrative and interesting touches that raise it above the'rather spare and pedestrian level of much of the writing are also commented on. Since the authors tend merely to rehearse the bald facts, or what they take to be the facts, of any given episode, without any explanation as to why someone does something, or any background information that might serve to help one more clearly to understand a sequence of actions or events, from time to time some comments are made on the content of the narrative= -this is usually done on the account as it is presented, taking it as an independent artistic unit, without the benefit 3 of additional infornation derived from fuller or variant versions given elsewhere.