STUDIES ON IBADISM

AND OMAN. VOL 13

Edited by Abdulrahman Al Salimi and Ersilia Francesca.

IDENTITIES
GLOBAL
LOCAL
IBADI
ANGELIKI

EDITED BY
KONDO

AND
YOHEI
ZIAKA

AND

OLMS
LOCAL AND GLOBAL
IBADI IDENTITIES
EDITED BY
YOHEI KONDO
AND ANGELIKI ZIAKA
STUDIES ON IBADISM
AND OMAN
Edited by

ABDULRAHMAN AL SALIMI
AND ERSILIA FRANCESCA

VOL. 13
LOCAL AND GLOBAL
IBADI IDENTITIES

Georg Olms Verlag

Hildesheim · Zürich · New York
2019
LOCAL AND GLOBAL
IBADI IDENTITIES
EDITED BY
YOHEI KONDO
AND ANGELIKI ZIAKA

Georg Olms Verlag

Hildesheim · Zürich · New York
2019
 This book is protected by copyright.
No part of this book may be used, other than
within the narrow limits of copyright legislation,
without the prior consent of the publisher.
This particularly applies to reproduction in any form
including microfilm, to translation, and to storage
and processing in electronic systems.

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the
Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available
in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Printed on durable and acid-free paper

Cover design and Typesetting: Weiß-Freiburg GmbH – Grafik und Buchgestaltung
Printed in Germany
© Georg Olms Verlag AG, Hildesheim 2019
© Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs, Muscat, Oman
© Sheikh Abdullah Bin Mohammed Al Salmi
All rights reserved
www.olms.de

ISBN 978-3-487-15567-8
 Table of Contents

Foreword by Sheikh Abdullah Bin Mohammed Al Salmi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Introduction by the Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter 1: Forming Identities in the Centre of the Muslim World

Josef van Ess: Changing Images: The Khawārij in Public Perception

during the First Centuries of Islam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Hossein Modarressi (I): Living in the Land of the Oppressors:
Common Ibāḍī-Shīʿite Solutions for a Common Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Hossein Modarressi (II): Mutual Understanding and Harmonious Relations
between Ibāḍī and Shīʿite Communities in 2 nd /8 th-Century Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Miklos Muranyi: The Tafsīr of Hūd b. Muḥakkim al-Hawwārī (d. in the 2 nd Half of the 3 rd /9 th Century)
and Yaḥyā b. Sallām al-Baṣrī (124/742–200/815): A Synoptical and Intertextual Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Abdulrahman Al Salimi: The Critique of Ḥadīth in Early Ibāḍī Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Chapter 2: Transmitting and Transforming Identities

2.1 Oman

Wilferd Madelung: Kitāb al-Akilla of Qāḍī Najjād b. Mūsā l-Manḥī and the Ibāḍī Creed in Oman . . . . . . . 69
Adam Gaiser: High Medieval Ibāḍī Writings on the Murjiʾa:
Some Observations on the Nature of Madhhabization in Medieval Omani Ibāḍī Heresiography . . . . . . . . . . 73
Amanda Propst: The Prophet Muḥammad in Early Ibāḍī Siyar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Yohei Kondo: Migration, Scholarly Exchange, and the Early Development of Ibāḍī Law in Oman . . . . . . . . . . 87
Hilal al-Hajri: Portuguese Colonization in Omani Literature:
The Image of National Identity and Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

2.2 North Africa

Brahim Bahaz: The Early Foundations of Ibāḍī Identity in the Medieval Maghrib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Mustapha Bendrissou: Le Patrimoine de l’opposition Ibāḍite au Moyen-Orient
et au Maghreb durant les trois premiers siècles de l’hégire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Anna Maria Di Tolla: Sijilmāsa from Tribal City to City-State (Late 8 th and 10 th Centuries):
The Role of the Miknāsa Tribe in the South-East of Morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Vermondo Brugnatelli: A Medieval Ibāḍī Tawḥīd in Berber: A Preliminary Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Paul M. Love, Jr.: Curating Ibāḍī Archives: Notes on the Social Life and Archival Logic
of the Bin Yaʿqūb Family Library in Jerba, Tunisia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

5
Chapter 3: Ibāḍī Identities and Muslim Modernism

Jerzy Zdanowski: Nūr al-Dīn al-Sālimī (1286-1332/1869-1914)

and Islamic Reform in the Modern Identity Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Valerie J. Hoffman: Ibāḍī Thought in Modern Oman and Zanzibar:
An Analysis Drawn from Political Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Amal N. Ghazal: Science and Education: An Ibāḍī Project of Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Augustin Jomier: Merchants and ʿUlamāʾ (1920-1950s):
Socio-Religious Change and the Mīzābī Trading Diaspora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Farhat Jaabiri: The Ibāḍī Identity in Tunisia in the Modern Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Chapter 4: Community, Mobility, and New Identities

Ahmed Abou-El-Wafa: The Homeland and Location Concept in Ibāḍī Jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Saleh Ahmed Al-Busaidi: The Concept of Spatial Dimensions in the Ibāḍī School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Mohammed Ech-Cheikh: Arab Classical Culture Between Identity and Difference:
The Case of the Ibāḍī Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Efim Rezvan: ‘The Sindbad Story’ as a Part and Projection of the Omani Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Muhsin Bin Hamoud Al-Kindi: Ibāḍī Identity and Referentials of Communication
in the Modern Omani Poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Brahim Benyoucef: Mobility and Identity: The Case of the Mzābī Ibāḍite Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Soufien Mestaoui & Slimane Tounsi: The Ibāḍī Diaspora in France:
From Immigration to Acculturation and Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Chapter 5: Defining Identities in a Global World

Kazuko Shiojiri: The Japanese View of Islam and the Interfaith Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Namie Tsujigami: Saudi Women as Emerging New Social Actors:
Consumption and Business Opportunities in Sex-Segregated Riyadh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Emily Goshey: Eternal Punishment in Modern Ibāḍī Discourse:
A Moral Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Sean Foley: From Madison Avenue to Muscat:
Ibāḍī Response to the Modern Cigarette Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Kimberly Wortmann: Daʿwa at the Sultan’s Mosque:
An Example of Ibāḍī Women’s Activism in Muscat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Angeliki Ziaka & Niki Papageorgiou: Tradition and Modernity:
Shaping Oman’s Religious Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

The Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

Index of Qurʾānic Verses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Index of Proper Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Index of Arabic Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

6
 The Tafsīr of Hūd b. Muḥakkim al-Hawwārī
(d. in the 2nd Half of the 3rd/9th Century)
and Yaḥyā b. Sallām al-Baṣrī (124/742–200/815):
A Synoptical and Intertextual Approach
Miklos Muranyi
Contextualisation of the Authors
and Their Works
The commentary on the Qurʾān by the Ibāḍī scholar Hūd
b. Muḥakkim al-Hawwārī (d. in the 2nd half of the 3rd /9th
century) has been available since 1990 in four volumes
in an accurate edition by Balḥājj b. Saʿīd Sharīfī.1 Short
notices on some fragments of this work have been made
by A. de C. Motylinski in his Bibliographie du Mzab. Les
livres de la secte abadhite,2 and seven decades later by Jo-
seph Schacht in his Bibliothèques et manuscrits abadites.3
Josef van Ess had the opportunity to study one of the
fragments in his Untersuchungen zu einigen ibāḍitischen
Handschriften,4 which has been mentioned by J. Schacht
already. After the publication of the work, Claude Gilliot
presented his study Le commentaire coranique de Hūd b.
Muḥakkam/Muḥkim about some basic characteristics of
this commentary.5
The author lived in the late 3rd /9th century in the Jabal
Awrās; his father, from the tribe of Banū Hawwāra, was
appointed qāḍī by the tribes of the Jabal Nafūsa during
the reign of Aflaḥ b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, before 258/871.6
Nothing is known about his son Hūd who died possibly at
the end of the 3rd /9th century. Approximately at the same
time the Ibāḍī scholar Ibn Sallām al-Ibāḍī (d. 273/887)
informs us in his Badʾ al-Islām wa-sharāʾiʿ al-dīn about
some scholars from the tribe of the Hawwāra who set-
tled in the district between Sūsa and al-Qayrawān in the
region of al-Sabkha called manzil Abī l-Azhar al-Hawwārī
and in al-Ajdābiyya.7 Ibn Sallām visited some of them in
Aṭrābulus after 260/873; in his rather vague reports about
13 persons Ibn Sallām stresses that some of these schol-
ars applied the controversial discussed qiyās as source in
their reasonings on legal issues (masāʾil). The presence of
a student named ʿAlī b. Mūsā l-Hawwārī is documented
in a certificate of the Kitāb al-taṣārīf by Yaḥyā b. Sallām
al-Baṣrī in 370/980.8
We don’t know how Ibn Muḥakkim came into the
possession of the Tafsīr by Yaḥyā b. Sallām, who lived
in al-Qayrawān after 180/796 and left Ifrīqiyā for politi-
cal reasons short before his death. He died in Egypt and
has been buried in the cemetery on the Muqaṭṭam.9 His
commentary on the Qurʾān has been transmitted in al-
Qayrawān during the lifetime of Ibn Muḥakkim. He very
probably visited al-Qayrawān where he learned the Tafsīr
of Yaḥyā b. Sallām at the time of its transmission by
the son and grandson of the author in that city, though
there are no credible reports about his direct contacts
to the scholars of al-Qayrawān. However, the possibil-
ity can not be excluded that he received the work from
one of his fellow tribesmen who lived in that city. To my
knowledge there is one person in that period who can be
considered as a possible direct link between the work of
Yaḥyā b. Sallām and Hūd b. Muḥakkim in the 3rd /9th cen-
tury: the celebrated Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. Naṣr b. Ziyād
(235/849–317/929). He was one of the influential scholars
of the Mālikiyya in al-Qayrawān, a Berber of origin and
member of the Banū Hawwāra.10
Abū Jaʿfar was also one of the key figures in the trans-
mission of Ibn Sallām’s Tafsīr—or parts of it—in al-
Qayrawān, as it is documented in the riwāyāt of the work
collected by Ibn Khayr al-Ishbīlī (502/1008–575/1179) and
after him almost three centuries later by the Egyptian
scholar Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773/1372–852/1449).11 In
both sources the name is written inaccurately.12
The activities of Hūd b. Muḥakkim in the 3rd /9th cen-
tury in North Africa mark an important turning point
in the transmission of early commentaries on the Qurʾān.
41
MIK LOS MUR AN Y I
The work of Ibn Muḥakkim, which relies on the com-
mentary by Yaḥyā b. Sallām, is a major contribution to
the Qurʾān exegesis of Iraqi origin in North Africa and is
the subject of this study.
According to a report by al-Darjīnī (d. about 670/1271)
in his Ṭabaqāt for the years 300–350/912–961, the com-
mentary of Hūd b. Muḥakkim had been offered for sale
and seems to have been popular amongst merchants of
the time.13 Two centuries later the Ibāḍī historian al-
Shammākhī (d. 928/1522) mentions Ibn Muḥakkim’s
Tafsīr as a significant work on the field of Qurʾān exegesis
according to the methods of the preceding generations
(ʿalā ṭuruq al-mutaqaddimīn).14 Thus, it appears that al-
Shammākhī considered Ibn Muḥakkim as the author of
this tafsīr work.
Fuat Sezgin, surprisingly, identified Ibn Muḥakkim
unambiguously as “the author of the preserved Qurʾān
commentary (sic) of the Ibāḍits”.15
Meanwhile, Balḥājj b. Saʿīd Sharīfī in the introduction
to his edition of the Tafsīr made a considerable obser-
vation: the Tafsīr by Ibn Muḥakkim is an adaptation of
the Tafsīr by Yaḥyā b. Sallām al-Baṣrī and not an inde-
pendent work, even if we take into account some addi-
tions and changes in the wordings by Ibn Muḥakkim.
The edited text, which I call here the ‘upper text’ of Ibn
Muḥakkim, has a clearly definable structure and follows
the earlier ‘lower text’, that is the commentary of Yaḥyā b.
Sallām. In other words when reading the commentary of
Ibn Muḥakkim the wording of the work of his predeces-
sor Yaḥyā b. Sallām is always present. And even in cases
in which Ibn Sallām describes an event of his own life,
the version of the story presented by Ibn Muḥakkim does
not mention his name. In the commentary on Qurʾān
XXIV:27: “O believers, do not enter houses other than
your houses until you first ask leave (ḥattā tastaʾnifū …)”,16
Yaḥyā b. Sallām presents an episode of his life as a student:
Yaḥyā reports: When we wanted to study ḥadīth and ar-
rived at the entry door of the faqīh one of us asked twice for
permission to enter. If we didn’t receive admission, another of
us came and asked twice for permission to enter …, etc.17
Even in such a case Ibn Muḥakkim does not mention the
original first person narrator, i.e. Ibn Sallām, but says
only: dhakara baʿḍuhum qāla … .18
The manuscripts of the work attributed to Hūd b.
Muḥakkim and collected by Balḥājj b. Saʿīd Sharīfī over
years are late copies of the original; the oldest manuscript
is dated from 1002/1594;19 the others, all together five
manuscripts, are dated from the 12th to the 13th /17th–18th
centuries.20 But even in this case the editor admits: “If I
would be permitted to formulate a title for the book other
42
than what I have found in the manuscripts, the title would
be: Tafsīr al-Shaykh Hūd b. Muḥakkim (Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr
Ibn Sallām al-Baṣrī), due to the fact, that Ibn Sallām’s
commentary is without any doubt the basic text (aṣl) for
the commentary of al-Shaykh Hūd al-Hawwārī”.21
However, the editor makes in his presentation of the
text some questionable efforts, which should be men-
tioned here briefly. In a relatively great number of cases
he has amended the version by Ibn Muḥakkim through
the addition of texts from the Mukhtaṣar by Ibn Abī
Zamanīn. These additions appear either in the running
text or in the footnotes with the sigle zāʾ. Even if Yaḥyā
b. Sallām is mentioned in these conjectural emendations
they are not eligible for the reconstruction of the original
‘lower text’, i.e. the Tafsīr by Ibn Sallām. For example:
In Qurʾān IX:28: wa-in khiftum ʿaylatan fa-saufa
yughnīkumu llāhu min faḍlihī … (“If you fear poverty,
God shall surely enrich you of His bounty …”) we
find in the commentary by Ibn Muḥakkim the fol-
lowing text in the edition:
‫کانوا یصیبون يف مواشیهم يف أسواقهم … ملا کانوا یصیبون من أسواقهم‬
.‫يف املوايش‬
The editor suggested a different reading:
‫یصیبون يف مواسمهم ويف أسواقهم‬
with the addition of this passage in the Mukhtaṣar
by Ibn Abī Zamanīn, from wa-kāna li-ahli Mak-
kata maksabatun … to fa-aʿlamahumu llāhu annahū
yuʿawwiḍahum min dhālik.22
However, according to the original text in the
MS al-Qayrawān the correct reading of this passage
runs as follows:
‫یصیبون يف مواسم يف أسواقهم … ملا کانوا یصیبون من أسواقهم يف‬
.‫املواسم‬
The additional text wa-kāna li-ahli Makkata maksa-
batun … etc. is an explanation by Ibn Abī Zamanīn
himself and not part of the original text by Yaḥyā b.
Sallām.
The explanation of the noun al-ʿaylatu is in both
the original commentary by Ibn Sallām and in the
‘upper text’ by Ibn Muḥakkim identical: wa-hiya
l-fāqatu. But this is missing in the Mukhtaṣar by Ibn
Abī Zamanīn, where an explanation of the noun, at-
tributed to the rāwī Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b. Sallām,
has been inserted: qāla Muḥammad: al-ʿaylatu l-
faqru.23
 T H E TA F S Ī R S OF H Ū D B . M U Ḥ A K K I M A L-H AW WĀ R Ī A N D YA Ḥ YĀ B . S A L L Ā M A L-BA ṢR Ī

The manuscripts of the Tafsīr by Yaḥyā b. Sallām are Qurʾānic ‘aw bi-aydīnā’, however, the interpreta-
considerably older than the ones of the Tafsīr by Ibn tion in the original text has been changed by Ibn
Muḥakkim. The available copies in Tunisian libraries Muḥakkim in favour of a different handling of the
reach back into the 4th/10th century. Hind Shalabī collect- hypocrites by quoting Sūra XXXIII (al-Aḥzāb),
ed a number of old fragments and complete parts (ajzāʾ) of verses 60–62, and the sunna of the Prophet: fa-bi-l-
the work which are preserved in al-Maktaba l-ʿAbdaliyya, kaff ʿan iẓhār nifāqihim kaffa l-nabiyyu ʿan qitālihim
in al-Maktaba Ḥasan Ḥusnī ʿAbd al-Wahhāb in the National (refraining from the public demonstration of nifāq
Library of Tunis and in al-Qayrawān—today in the Centre entails the refraining from killing the munāfiqūn):
d’Études de la Civilisation et des Arts Islamiques in Raqqāda.
Hind Shalabī published the commentaries on Sūra XVI ‫أي تظهروا نفاقکم فنقتلکم علیه؛ فإنّا إنّام کففنا عن قتلکم بک ّفکم عن‬
(al-Naḥl) to Sūra XXXVII (al-Ṣāffāt) together with a short ‫ کذلك سنّة‬:‫ أي‬،)60-62 ‫ اآلیة‬،‫ وهو کقوله (األحزاب‬.‫إظهار نفاقکم‬
description of the manuscripts she used in her edition.24 A .‫ القتل إن مل ینتهوا عن نفاقهم‬،‫کل أ ّمة خلت من قبلك‬ ّ ‫اهلل يف منافقي‬
great number of manuscripts on parchment preserved in ّ
‫ فکفوا‬.‫ إن هم مل ینتهوا عن إظهار نفاقهم‬،‫وکذلك سنّته يف منافقي أ ّمتك‬
al-Qayrawān has not been edited; they are still unsorted .‫کف النبي عن قتاهلم‬
ّ ‫فبالکف عن إظهار نفاقکم‬ ّ .‫عن إظهار نفاقهم‬
and to some extent in a very bad condition.25
In the following the quotations from the earlier As far as I can see, this unique interpretation of
‘lower text’, i.e. from the commentary by Ibn Sallām of Sūra XXXIII, verses 60–62, is not documented in
the 2nd /9th century will be followed by the text by Ibn the relevant exegetical sources of the Qurʾān. It
Muḥakkim as presented in the later version, i.e. the ‘up- is worth mentioning that a similar interpretation
per text’, according to the late manuscripts used for the of these verses is given by Hūd b. Muḥakkim, but
printed edition and with reference to the Ibādī scholar without reference to the possibility of refraining
on his omissions and additions in his arrangement of the from the public demonstration of nifāq as mentioned
original text. above. Consequently, the wording of the interpre-
tation of these verses29 does not correspond to the
‘lower text’, i.e. the original text of Ibn Sallām in
Yaḥyā b. Sallām: Interpretation of Sūra IX the edition by Hind Shalabī.30 The commentators
(al-Tauba), verses 52–58 interpret these verses generally in connection with
both the adultery and the demonstration of hypoc-
The source is a hitherto unpublished and unique manu- risy.
script in al-Qayrawān.26 It was written by a certain ʿAbd In the exegesis of the segment: hal tarabbaṣū-
al-Wāḥid b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Duḥmān in Ramaḍān 385/Sep- na … iḥdā l-ḥusnayayni, Ibn Sallām refers to Qatāda
tember 995 as a copy from the exemplar of the historian in the first place and accordingly to al-Ḥasan al-
Abū l-ʿArab al-Tamīmī (d. 333/945). The copyist studied Baṣrī; they are not quoted by Ibn Muḥakkim. He
this manuscript (samiʿtuhū min) in the circle of ʿAmrūn b. refers only to the wording attributed to Mujāhid
Muḥammad (d. 395/1004)27 already in 345/956. (qāla Mujāhid):

MS Yaḥyā b. Sallām, on Sūra IX, verse 52: .‫القتل يف سبیل اهلل أو الظهور عىل أعداء اهلل‬

،﴾‫ـن‬ ُ ‫ ﴿إِالَّ إِ ْحدَ ى ا‬،‫ون بِنَا﴾ یعني املنافقنی‬

ِ ‫حل ْسنَـ َی ْی‬ َ ‫ ﴿ ُق ْل َه ْل ت ََر َّب ُص‬:‫قوله‬ This explanation of the phrase iḥdā l-ḥusnayayni
‫أن نظهر عىل املرشکنی فنقتلهم ونغنمهم أو ُن ْقتل فندخل‬ ْ :‫قال احلسن‬ is documented also in the Tafsīr of Mujāhid liter-
ِ ِ ِ ٍ َ ِ ِ
‫ فیهلککم‬،﴾‫ص بک ُْم أن ُیصی َبک ُُم اهللُ ب َعذاب ِّم ْن عنده‬ َ ِ ُ ‫َت َّب‬
َ َ ‫﴿ون َْح ُن ن‬
َ ،‫اجلنّة‬ ally, but in the transmisson of Warqāʾ < Ibn Abī
‫ أي نستخرج ما يف قلوبکم من النفاق حتى تظهروا‬،﴾‫ ﴿ َأ ْو بِ َأ ْی ِدینَا‬،‫به‬ Najīḥ < Mujāhid.31 The unique source mentioned
.﴾‫ون‬ َ َ ‫ت َّب ُصوا إِنَّا َم َعکُم ُّم‬
َ ‫ت ِّب ُص‬ َ َ ‫ ﴿ َف‬،‫الرشك فنقتلهم‬ ّْ by Ibn Sallām, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. Mujāhid, is not
mentioned by Ibn Muḥakkim. Though the son of
َ ‫﴿ه ْل ت ََر َّب ُص‬
‫ وهو مثل‬،‫ إال الفتْح أو القتْل يف سبیل اهلل‬:﴾‫ون‬ َ :‫قال قتادة‬ Mujāhid was subject of harsh criticism by the biog-
:‫ ذکره عبد الوهاب بن جماهد‬.‫ وهو قول جماهد أیضا‬،‫قول احلسن‬ raphers, this seems not to have been the reason for
28
.‫ القتل يف سبیل اهلل أو الظهور عىل أعداء اهلل‬:﴾‫نی‬ ِ ْ ‫حل ْسنَـ َی‬
ُ ‫﴿إِ ْحدَ ى ا‬ not taking notice of him by Ibn Sallām. One of the
main features of the Tafsīr by Ibn Muḥakkim is the
Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 138: absence of the main sources of Ibn Sallām.

In the first part of the text Hūd b. Muḥakkim fol-

lows the wordings of the original text. After the

43
MIK LOS MUR AN Y I

MS Yaḥyā b. Sallām: Sūra IX, verse 53: Sūra II, verse 88, his own description of the unbelief
of the munāfiqūn by rejection of the tawḥīd:
‫ ﴿ ُق ْل َأن ِْف ُقوا َط ْوع ًا َأ ْو ک َْره ًا﴾ مـام یفرض علیکم من النفقة يف‬:‫قوله‬
ِ ِ ِ
‫الرش ُك‬ ْ :﴾ َ‫ ﴿ َّلن ُی َت َق َّب َل منک ُْم إِ َّنک ُْم کُنت ُْم َق ْوم ًا َفاسقنی‬،‫اجلهاد‬
ْ ّ :‫فس ُق‬ ‫ وهو‬،‫ بتوحیدهم إ ّیاه وإقرارهم به ونب ّیه‬:‫ أي‬،‫وال یذکرون اهلل إال قلیال‬
.‫ألنّـکم لیست لکم حسبة وال نیة‬ :‫ یعني بالقلیل وإقرارهم وتوحیدهم‬،)155 ،‫کقوله (سورة النساء‬
‫ فهو‬،‫ یعني هبذا ک ّله إقرارهم وتوحیدهم‬.)88 ‫وکقوله (سورة البقرة‬
Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 139: .‫ فیکمل هلم اإلیامن‬،‫قلیل إذ مل یستکملوا مجیع فرائض اإلیامن‬

Apart from the variant MS Yaḥyā b. Sallām:

‫مما فرض علیهم‬ :‫عاصم بن حکیم عن جممع بن حییى عن خالد بن زید عن ابن عمر قال‬
.‫یقبل اهلل نفقة يف ِرئآء‬
Ibn Muḥakkim presents here a different interpreta- ّ
.‫ أ ّیام قل ألنه لغری اهلل‬:‫حدّ ثني أبو األشهب عن احلسن قال‬
tion of the Qurʾānic fāsiq(īna); he says:
Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 139:
.‫فسق الرشك‬
ْ ‫فسق دون‬
ْ ‫فسق النفاق ألنه‬
Both, the statement by Ibn ʿUmar and the follow-
Then he continues the commentary in the wordings ing explanation by al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī in the trans-
of Ibn Sallām: mission of Abū l-Ashhab, Jaʿfar b. Ḥayyān al-Baṣrī
(d. 165/782)33 are missing in the commentary of Ibn
.‫ألنّکم لیست لکم حسبة وال نیة‬ Muḥakkim. According to the historian Ibn Yūnus
(d. 347/958)34 in his Taʾrīkh al-ghurabāʾ Ibn Sallām had
Thus, he distinguishes sinfulness by hypocrisy contacts with the above mentioned ʿĀṣim b. Ḥakīm
(nifāq) from polytheism (shirk) respectively. His in Egypt.35 The statement attributed to Ibn ʿUmar
understanding of the last part of this verse corre- was transmitted in the family of Mujammiʿ b. Yaḥyā
sponds to the interpretation by al-Ṭabarī: “Speak, who lived in the mid of the 2nd/8th century in Kūfa.
Muḥammad, to those hypocrites (qul yā Muḥammad Khālid b. Zayd b. Jāriyya was his uncle.36 These lines
li-hāʾulāʾi l-munāfiqīna) spend (from) your property are also not mentioned by Ibn Abī Zamanīn in his
as you will …”.32 Mukhtaṣar of Ibn Sallām’s Tafsīr. As far as I can see,
this qawl attributed to Ibn ʿUmar is not documented
MS Yaḥyā b. Sallām, Sūra IX, verse 54: in the appropriate ḥadīth collections at all.
Ibn Muḥakkim differentiates in his own termi-
،﴾‫اهت ْم إِالَّ َأ َّهنُ ْم َک َف ُروا بِاهللِ َوبِ َر ُسولِ ِه‬ ِ
ُ ُ ‫﴿و َما َمنَ َع ُه ْم َأن ُت ْق َب َل من ُْه ْم َن َف َق‬
َ :‫قال‬ nology quite clearly between munāfiq and mushrik,
.‫وأظهروا اإلیامن‬ and accordingly between īmān and nifāq at the end
of this paragraph. This conception is in accord-
Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 139: ance with the teachings of Jābir b. Zayd at the end
of the 1st /early 8th century, as a basic attitude in the
Instead of the (false) demonstration of belief (iẓhāru Ibāḍī theology towards the enemies of God and His
l-īmān) Ibn Muḥakkim’s explanation seems to be Messenger.37
clearer:
MS Yaḥyā b. Sallām: Sūra IX, last part of the verse 54:
.‫أقروا هبام‬ ْ ‫خالفوا اهلل ورسوله‬
ّ ‫وإن‬
‫اإلنفاق يف سبیل اهلل وما َف َـر َض‬
ُ َ ‫َار ُه‬
،﴾‫ون‬ َ ‫﴿والَ ُی ِنف ُق‬
ِ ‫ون إِالَّ َو ُه ْم ک‬ َ :‫قال‬
As to the second half of the same verse in the MS .‫اهلل علیهم‬
Yahyā b. Sallām:
Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 140:
‫ یراءون الناس هبا وال یذکرون اهلل‬،﴾‫ال َة إِالَّ َو ُه ْم ک َُس َال‬
َ ‫الص‬ َ ‫﴿والَ َی ْأت‬
َّ ‫ُون‬ َ
،‫إال قلیال‬ After quoting the wording of Ibn Sallām literally
Ibn Muḥakkim attaches here his own classification
the commentary by Ibn Muḥakkim is at the begin- of the group mentioned in the verse and states con-
ning in accordance with the wording of Ibn Sallām; sequently his well-defined attitude towards them as
then he inserts by quoting Sūra IV, verse 155, and expressed above:

44
 T H E TA F S Ī R S OF H Ū D B . M U Ḥ A K K I M A L-H AW WĀ R Ī A N D YA Ḥ YĀ B . S A L L Ā M A L-BA ṢR Ī

ّ ‫ويف هذه اآلي ک ّلها‬

‫حجة عىل أهل الفراق أن لو کان املنافقون مرشکنی مل‬ Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 140:
ّ ‫ُیـ ْف َرض علیهم اجلها ُد الذي مل‬
.‫یقروا به وال نفقة‬
Ibn Muḥakkim quotes the verse paraphrased with
Thus, the contextual differentiation in Ibn the commentary by al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī but without
Muḥakkim’s theological thinking is consistent mentioning the transmitter al-Ḥasan b. Dīnār43:
with his previous interpretation of the Qurʾānic fisq
al-nifāq vs. fisq al-shirk. This approach in the com- ّ :‫قال احلسن‬
.‫لیعذهبم بالزکاة يف احلیاة الدنیا‬
mentary on the verse can not be deduced from Ibn
Sallām’s interpretation. A similar phenomenon can MS Yaḥyā b. Sallām:
be observed in the interpretation of the expres-
sion āyātin bayyinātin in Sūra XXII (al-Ḥajj), verse ‫خصون‬ ِ ‫ یعني أهنم ینفقون أمواهلم وی ْش‬:‫ويف تفسری عمرو عن احلسن‬
ُ ّ
16: “We have sent it down as signs, clear signs, and ‫ یعني‬،‫ألهنم أولیاء املرشکنی مع أعداءهم‬ّ ‫أبداهنم ویقتلون أولیاءهم‬
for that God guides whom He desires”. Ibn Sallām .‫ألهنم یرسون هلم العداوة‬
ّ ‫املؤمننی‬
comments on these terms: “(these are) the legal and
the prohibited things (al-ḥalāl wa-l-ḥarām)”.38 Ibn Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 140:
Muḥakkim has a more comprehensive understand-
ing of these terms and adds: “the religious duties Ibn Muḥakkim quotes in this case both the source
and the legal stipulations (al-ḥalāl wa-l-ḥarām wa-l- and the above-mentioned wordings of Ibn Sallām
farāʾiḍ wa-l-aḥkām)”.39 almost literally but followed by his own explanatory
A similar conception and extensive interpreta- remark and quotes additionally Sūra III (Āl ʿImrān),
tion of Sūra VI (al-Anʿām), verse 89 : “Those are verse 118:
they to whom we gave the Book, the Judgment …
ِ ِ ِ ِ
(alladhīna ātaynāhum al-Kitāb wa-l-ḥukm …)” is also ُ ُ‫وهو قوله ﴿ َقدْ َبدَ ت ا ْل َبغ َْضا ُء م ْن َأ ْف َواه ِه ْم َو َما ُتْفي ُصد‬
‫ور ُه ْم﴾ من‬
documented in the first chapter of Badʾ al-Islām .‫ أي أعظم من الذي بدا من أفواههم‬،﴾‫ْرب‬ ُ َ ‫العداوة والبغضاء ﴿ َأک‬
44

wa-sharāʾiʿ al-dīn40 about the interpretation of belief

(īmān) and islām by Ibn Sallām al-Ibāḍī (d. after The interpretation by al-Kalbī in the transmission
273/887), a contemporary of Hūd b. Muḥakkim. of Yaḥyā b. Sallām,
According to his view these Qurʾānic words have
the meaning: “the religious duties, the legal stipula- ُ ‫ال ُت ْع ِج ْب َك َأ ْم َو ُاهل ُ ْم َوالَ َأ ْوالَ ُد ُه ْم إِن ََّام ُی ِریدُ ا‬
‫هلل‬ َ ‫ ﴿ َف‬:‫ یقول‬:‫وقال الکلبي‬
tions, the declaration and the authority of God over ‫ وفیها‬،‫ إنام یرید اهلل لیعذهبم هبا يف اآلخرة‬،﴾‫اة الدُّ ْن َیا‬ ِ ‫لِیع ِّذهبم ِهبا ِيف احلی‬
ََ َ َُ َ ُ
His creation (yaʿnī al-farāʾiḍ wa-l-aḥkām wa-l-bayān ،‫تقدیم وتأخری‬
wa-l-iḥtijāj li-llāhi ʿalā khalqihī)”. Thus, the exten-
sion in the commentary by Ibn Muḥakkim on Sūra is to be found in Ibn Muḥakkim’s wording para-
XXII, verse 16, like in the other verses mentioned phrasing the Qurʾānic verse as it is attributed also
above, is an alternate approach of Ibāḍī origin to the to Qatāda.45 The fact that the punishment will take
interpretation of the passage in Yaḥyā b. Sallām’s place in the hereafter considers Ibn Muḥakkim as
work. a mysterious sign of the revelation (min khafiyy al-
The same extension by Hūd is documented at Qurʾān). It is a unique addition to the interpretation
the beginning of the Sūra XXV (al-Furqān), verse 1: of the verse by al-Kalbī:
“He who sent down the Salvation … (alladhī nazzala
l-furqāna)” in the interpretation of the term furqān:41 ‫ إنّام یرید‬،‫ فال تعجبك أمواهلم وال أوالدهم يف احلیاة الدنیا‬:‫وقال الکلبي‬
.‫ هذا من خفي القرآن‬.‫ فیها تقدیم وتأخری‬.‫لیعذهبم هبا يف اآلخرة‬ ّ ‫اهلل‬
.‫ فرقانه حالله وحرامه‬.‫ وهو القرآن‬:‫قال قتادة‬
The last words of the verse 55 have a similar inter-
Ibn Muḥakkim adds here again: farāʾiḍuhū wa- 42
pretation in both commentaries:
aḥkāmuhū without mentioning Qatāda.
َ ‫﴿و ُه ْم کَافِ ُر‬
.﴾‫ون‬ َ ‫ متوت أنفسهم‬،﴾‫﴿وتَزْ َه َق َأن ُف ُس ُه ْم‬
َ :‫قوله‬
MS Yaḥyā b. Sallām: Sūra IX, verse 55:
However, this is followed in the interpretation of
‫ال ُت ْع ِج ْب َك َأ ْم َو ُاهل ُ ْم َوالَ َأ ْوالَ ُد ُه ْم إِن ََّام ُی ِریدُ اهللُ لِ ُی َع ِّذ َ ُهبم ِ َهبا ِيف‬
َ ‫ ﴿ َف‬:‫قوله‬ wa-hum kāfirūn by Ibn Muḥakkim in accordance
ِ‫ ﴿لِ ُی َع ِّذ َ ُهبم ِ َهبا يف‬:‫ حدّ ثني احلسن بن دینار عن احلسن قال‬.﴾‫اة الدُّ ْن َیا‬ ِ ‫احلی‬
ََ with his understanding of the term, as presented
.‫کرها‬ ‫منهم‬ َ
‫ذ‬ ‫خ‬ َ ‫ت‬ ْ
‫أن‬ ‫ة‬ ‫الزکا‬ :‫قال‬ .﴾‫ا‬ ‫ی‬ ‫ن‬ ِ
‫اة‬ ‫ی‬
ْ ْ‫ُؤ‬ ُ َ ْ ُّ‫الد‬ َ ‫حل‬
َ ‫ا‬ above: ay kufr al-nifāq.

45
MIK LOS MUR AN Y I
MS Yaḥyā b. Sallām: Sūra IX, verse 56:
ِ َ ‫حی ِل ُف‬
َ ،‫ فیام أظهروا من اإلیامن‬،﴾‫ون بِاهللِ إِ َّهنُ ْم َملنک ُْم‬
‫﴿و َما‬ ْ َ ‫﴿و‬
َ :‫وقوله‬
ْ ‫ عىل دمائهم‬،﴾‫﴿و َما ُهم ِّمنک ُْم‬
‫إن‬ َ ،‫الکفر‬ ‫من‬ ‫ون‬ ‫یرس‬
ّ ‫فیام‬ ،﴾ ‫ُهم ِّمنک ُْم‬
.‫الرشك‬ ْ ‫أظهروا‬
Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 140:
The interpretation is only partly identical to Ibn
Sallām’s wording and shows more details about the
description of nifāq:
‫فیام أظهروا لکم من اإلقرار بدینهم واال ّدعاء مل ّلتهم … إذ مل یعملوا‬
َ ‫بأعاملکم ویـوفوا بوفائکم ﴿ولکنّهم قو ٌم َی ْف َر ُق‬
‫ون﴾ أي خیافون عىل‬
ْ ‫دمائهم‬
.‫إن هم أظهروا نفاقهم وباینوا به‬
Now, let’s have a look at another section in the printed
edition of Yaḥyā b. Sallām’s commentary. An interesting
treatment of the ‘lower text’—the Tafsīr by Ibn Sallām—
can be observed in the evaluation of Sūra XXXIII (al-
Aḥzāb), verse 49, and its reworking by Hūd b. Muḥakkim:
ْ ‫وه َّن ِم ْن َقـ ْب ِل‬
‫أن‬ ِ ِ ‫﴿یا َأهیا ا َّل ِذین آمـنُوا إ َذا َنکَحتُم ا ْل‬
ُ ‫ـمؤْ منَات ُث َّم َطـ َّلـ ْقـت ُُم‬
ُ ُ ْ َ َ
﴾ً‫احا َمجِیال‬ ‫س‬ ‫ن‬ ‫وه‬ ‫ح‬ ‫س‬
ً َ َ َّ ُ ُ ِّ َ َ … ‫ن‬َّ ‫وه‬ ُ ‫َمت َ ُّس‬
O believers, when you marry believing women and than
divorce them before you touch them … set them free with
kindliness.
Ibn Muḥakkim quotes Ibn Sallām’s interpretation, in
the following five lines verbatim without mentioning his
name.46 In the next sentence the validity of the triple re-
pudiation in this case will be discussed, which is not sub-
ject in the commentary by Ibn Sallām. Nevertheless, Ibn
Muḥakkim introduced this paragraph with the wording
of Ibn Sallām: wa-in ṭallaqahā thalāthan min qabli an yad-
khula bihā followed by the explanation of Ibn Muḥakkim:
fa-hiya bi-manzilati taṭlīqatin wāḥida. If the repudiation is
pronounced before consummation one single pronounc-
ing is sufficient. This legal norm is attributed by Ibn
Muḥakkim to the statement (qawl) of Abū ʿUbayda, Jābir
b. Zayd and Ibn ʿAbbās.47 This position is verifiable in a
comparable construction also in the Mudawwana by Abū
Ghānim as the qawl of Abū ʿUbayda in the transmission
of Abū l-Muʾarrij.48
After this short insertion Ibn Muḥakkim follows the
explanations in Ibn Sallām’s text with the repetition of
the opening paragraph mentioned above: wa-in ṭallaqahā
thalāthan min qabli an yadkhula bihā lam yatazawwajhā
ḥattā tankaḥa zawjan ghayrahū … quoting the descrip-
tion of the triple repudiation in the ‘lower text’ literally.
However, he attributes this paragraph surprisingly to
46
Ibrāhīm (al-Nakhaʿī), who is not mentioned in this case
as source of Ibn Sallām. Nevertheless, Ibn Muḥakkim
affiliates himself to the Ibāḍī position; the statement of
Abū ʿUbayda and others takes precedence over the proce-
dure of the triple repudiation: wa-l-qawlu l-awwalu qawlu
aṣḥābinā: qawl Bni ʿAbbās wa-Jābir b. Zayd wa-Abī ʿUbayda
fa-bihī akhadhū wa-ʿalayhī iʿtamadū.49 It should be empha-
sised that Ibn Muḥakkim does not ignore the original
explanation of the masʾala in the ‘lower text’, even though
he follows the statement of Abū ʿUbayda and others in-
serted by himself at the beginning of the legal commen-
tary on the verse.
Sūra XLIII (al-Zukhruf ), Verse 3:
Innā Jaʿalnāhū Qurʾānan …
Before we turn to the treatment and presentation of the
sources of Ibn Sallām by Ibn Muḥakkim we take a look
at the significant interpretation of Qurʾān XLIII:3 by Ibn
Muḥakkim. His short exegesis of the wordings “innā
jaʿalnāhū qurʾānan ʿarabiyyan (We have made it an Arabic
َ ُّ َ Qurʾān)” will throw light on the understanding of the
‫و‬
createdness of the Book in the community of his time.
There are different interpretations of the verb
jaʿalnāhū in this verse among the exegetes. Abū Bakr
al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272) collected some of the earliest
of them: al-Suddī (d. 128/745) said: “anzalnāhū qurʾānan
(we revealed it as Qurʾān)”; Mujāhid: qulnāhū … (we
said, it is a Qurʾān; this interpretation is not docu-
mented in the printed edition of his Tafsīr); Sufyān al-
Thawrī (d. 161/778): “bayyannāhū … (we explained it as
Qurʾān)”; al-Ṭabarī: “anzalnāhū … (we have sent it down
as Qurʾān)”, as al-Suddī above; Ibn Kathīr: “nazzalnāhū
(we revealed it as Qurʾān)”.—A different interpretation
gives al-Zamakhsharī in his al-Kashshāf on the back-
ground of his Muʿtazilism: “ṣayyarnāhū … (we made out
of it a Qurʾān)”, and also: khalaqnāhū … (we created it as
Qurʾān)”.
This last interpretation of the verb jaʿalnāhū is already
in existence in Ibn Muḥakkim’s work where he says: ay
khalaqnāhū. In support of this interpretation he adds
parallels to the meaning of the verb in Sūra XXI (al-
Anbiyāʾ), verse 32: “wa-jaʿalnā l-samāʾa saqfan (and We set
up the heaven as a roof …)” and Sūra XVII (al-Isrāʾ), verse
12: “wa-jaʿalnā l-layla wa-l-nahāra āyatayn …(We have ap-
pointed the night and the day as two signs)” and again
Sūra XXI (al-Anbiyāʾ), verse 30: “wa-jaʿalnā mina l-māʾi
kulla shayʾin ḥayyin ( … and of water We fashioned every
living thing)”. In fact, these parallels can be understood
and translated as an interpretation of jaʿalnā(hū) with the
verbs ‘we made out of it: sayyarnāhū’ and also ‘we created
 T H E TA F S Ī R S OF H Ū D B . M U Ḥ A K K I M A L-H AW WĀ R Ī A N D YA Ḥ YĀ B . S A L L Ā M A L-BA ṢR Ī

it: khalaqnāhū’. A similar interpretation has been widely ‫ وقال‬.‫ یعني فاقتلوهم‬:‫ قال حییى‬.‫ ثم إذا خرجوا فأیتموهم‬،‫فأیتموهم‬
known in the discussions about the createdness of the ‫قو ٌم یقرؤون القرآن ال جیاوز‬
ْ ‫ فإنّه سیخرج من ضئيض هذا‬،‫بعضهم‬
Qurʾān before the time of Ibn Muḥakkim: the famous .‫الرمیة‬
ّ ‫بن‬ ‫هم‬‫الس‬
ّ ‫ یمرقون من الدّ ین کام یمرق‬،]‫تراقیهم‬
proponent of this understanding of the relevant verses of
the Qurʾān, Bishr b. Ghiyāth (d. 218–219/833–834), had Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 141, line 6:
the same interpretation of the keyword ‘ jaʿalnā(hū)’.50
Hence, Ibn Muḥakkim seems to follow this understand- He quotes without isnād only Mujāhid: yarūzuka.
ing of the verb, which was probably not the original In the original commentary by Mujāhid in the
wording in the text of Ibn Sallām. riwāya of Ibn Abī Najīḥ < Mujāhid is documented:
Since we have the commentary on this sūra neither yattahimuka, yasʾaluka wa-yarūzuka.53 This phrase
in the printed sections nor in the today available manu- corresponds to the wording of Ibn Sallām in the
scripts of the Tafsīr by Yaḥyā b. Sallām at our disposal, transmission of ʿĀṣim b. Ḥakīm but without the
we have to follow the information about its wording in first expression yattahimuka. The shortest variant is
the Mukhtaṣar by Ibn Abī Zamanīn (324/935–399/1008). given by Ibn Muḥakkim, as it is also the case in the
Unfortunately, he interprets only the suffix in jaʿalnāhū transmission of the episode about the distribution of
by saying: yaʿnī al-Qurʾān. However, Ibn Abī Zamanīn the booty. Ibn Muḥakkim introduces this section by
quotes in an additional remark Muḥammad, the son of a simple dhakarū with his omission of the transmit-
Yaḥyā b. Sallām who was a well-known transmitter of the ters Qatāda and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. The opponent
Tafsīr of his father in al-Qayrawān where he died in the in the variant of Ibn Muḥakkim is a hypocrite: rajul
year 262/875.51 Ibn Abī Zamanīn quotes:52 min al-munāfiqīn. The two lines in squared brack-
ets as variants of the tradition are missing in Ibn
.‫ کذلك قال غری حییى‬،‫ ومعنى (جعلناه) بـ ّیـناه‬:‫حممد‬ Muḥakkim’s text, which ends with:

This makes sense for the reconstruction of the origi- .‫الرمیة‬

ّ ‫السهم من‬
ّ ‫یمرقون من الدّ ین کام یمرق‬
nal text by Yaḥyā b. Sallām: apparently he transmitted
the interpretation of Sufyān al-Thawrī, one of his main The next variant in the original text in the Tafsīr of
sources in his commentary; bayyannāhū, as quoted by al- Yaḥyā b. Sallām runs in the manuscript as follows:
Qurṭubī as well (see above). On his part, Ibn Muḥakkim
replaced the apparently original wording with khalaqnāhū ‫ بینا‬:‫وحدّ ثني ّقرة بن خالد عن عمرو بن دینار عن جابر بن عبد اهلل قال‬
in accordance with his view about the createdness of the ْ :‫ إذ قام رجل فقال‬،‫رسول اهلل یقسم مغانم حننی باجلعرانة‬
:‫ فقال‬،‫اعدل‬
Qurʾān. ‫ سعید عن قتادة عن‬.‫ لقد شقیت‬:‫ فقلت‬:‫ قال ّقرة‬.‫إن مل َأعْدل‬ ْ ‫یت‬ُ ‫لقد َش ِق‬
‫ ما‬،‫ وا ّلذي ن ْفيس بیده‬:‫ قال رسول اهلل‬:‫احلسن بن دینار عن احلسن قال‬
.‫ إنّام أنا خازن أضع ح ْیت ُأمرت‬،‫أعطیکم شیئا وال أمنعکموه‬
The Omission of the Sources by Hūd b.
Muḥakkim This episode has been transmitted in different vari-
ants54; the earliest text is documented in the so-called
One of the most significant differences in Ibn Muḥakkim’s Ṣaḥīfa of Hammām b. Munabbih (d. about 101/719).55
text, as already mentioned, is the incomplete reference Ibn Muḥakkim mentions in his variant only Jābir b.
to Ibn Sallām’s sources in the original work, even if the ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī in different wordings:
commentaries in both are with regard to the contents to
a large extent identical. ‫إن رجال أتى النبي وهو یقسم‬ّ :‫أن جابر بن عبد اهلل األنصاري قال‬ ّ ‫ذکروا‬
.‫ فام عدلت الیوم‬،‫أن تعدل‬ َ
ْ ‫إن کان اهلل أ َم َر َك‬
ْ ،‫ یا حممد‬:‫ فقال‬،‫ذهبا وفضة‬
MS Yaḥyā b. Sallām: Sūra IX, verse 58: .‫إن مل أعدل َف َم ْن یعدل‬ ْ ،‫ لقد شقیت‬:‫فقال له النبي‬

ّ ‫ أخربين عاصم بن حکیم‬،﴾‫ات‬

‫أن‬ ِ ‫ ﴿و ِمنْهم من ی ْل ِمزُ َك ِيف الصدَ َق‬:‫قوله‬ According to the wording of this episode it seems
َّ َ َّ ُ َ
‫ ﴿ َفإِ ْن ُأ ْع ُطوا ِمن َْها َر ُضوا وإِن َّمل ْ ُی ْع َط ْوا ِمن َْها‬،‫ یروزك ویسألك‬:‫جماهدا قال‬ very likely that Ibn Sallām had combined various
‫عهد بأعرابیة أتى‬ ْ ‫أن رجال حدیث‬ ّ ‫ون﴾؛ سعید عن قتادة‬ َ ‫إِ َذا ُه ْم َی ْس َخ ُط‬ traditions56 in his work in only two traditions. The
:‫ قال بعضهم‬.‫ من املنافقنی‬:‫وفضة؛ قال احلسن‬ ّ ‫النبي وهو یقسم ذهبا‬ ّ second tradition is introduced by Ibn Muḥakkim
‫ إن‬،‫حممد‬ ّ ‫ یا‬:‫ فقال قتادة‬.‫ غائر العیننی‬،‫ مرشف احلاجبنی‬،‫ناتىء اجلبنی‬ again with his characteristic dhakarū without isnād.
‫ـم ْن یعدل‬ َ ‫ َف‬،‫ ویلك‬:‫ فام عدلت؛ فقال رسول اهلل‬،‫کان اهلل أمرك أن تعدل‬ This is also the case in the transmission by al-
‫قوم‬
ْ :‫فإن يف أ ّمتي أشباه هذا‬ ّ ،‫ اخذروا هذا وأشباهه‬:‫ثم قال‬ ّ ،‫علیك بعدي‬ Ṭabarī: dhukira lanā anna rajulan min ahl al-bādiya
‫ فإذا خرجوا‬،‫ [فإذا خرجوا فأیتموهم‬،‫یقرؤون القرآن ال جیاوز تراقیهم‬ ḥadīthu ʿahdin bi-aʿrābiyya … and: anna l-nabiyya

47
MIK LOS MUR AN Y I

ṣallā llāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam kāna yaqūlu … .57 A fur- Yaḥyā b. Sallām refers in the commentary on Sūra
ther characteristic feature of the text variant pre- XXII (al-Ḥajj), verse 28, to eleven sources with their
sented by Ibn Muḥakkim is the complete omission complete isnāds:62
of both the isnāds and Yaḥyā b. Sallām’s name.
.﴾‫ـس ا ْلـ َف ِق َری‬ ِ ِ ِ
َ ‫﴿َـ ُک ُلوا من َْها َو َأ ْطع ُموا البآئ‬
Yaḥyā b. Sallām on Sūra XVI (al-Naḥl), verse 43:58
Ibn Muḥakkim quotes eight of them with his refer-
ِ ‫ال ن‬
﴾‫ُوحي إ َل ْی ِه ْم‬ ً ‫﴿و َما ْأر َس ْلنَا ِمن َق ْب ِل َك إالَّ ِر َج‬ ence to the last names in these isnāds with the term
َ
wa-dhakarū and with the omission of the name of Yaḥyā
His commentary on the verse runs as follows: b. Sallām.63 Thus, he introduces this passage with his
simple quoting: qāla Mujāhid / wa-dhakarū ʿan Jaʿfar b.
:‫ وقال قتادة‬.‫ یعني أهل الکتابنی‬:‫ قال احلسن‬.‫ یقول للمرشکنی‬:‫حییى‬ Muḥammad ʿan abīhī / wa-dhakarū ʿan Ibn Masʿūd / wa-
… ‫یعني أهل التوراة‬ dhakarū ʿan Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab / dhakarū ʿan Ibn ʿUmar
/ dhakarū ʿan al-Ḥasan / dhakarū ʿan ʿĀʾisha bt. Saʿd b.
Hūd b. Muḥakkim II: 371: Mālik / dhakarū ʿan Jābir b. ʿAbd Allāh … . The manner of
these quotations are in accordance with the structure of
Ibn Muḥakkim omits the name of Yaḥyā and his other mukhtaṣar works.
sources altogether; instead of quoting Qatāda and Yaḥyā b. Sallām and Hūd b. Muḥakkim on Sūra XXIII
al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī he says: wa-qāla baʿḍuhum: (al-Muʾminūn), verse 50:64 Yaḥyā gives his commentary in
the following transmission:
.‫ یعني أهل الکتابنی وقال بعضهم یعني أهل التوراة‬،‫یقوله للمرشکنی‬
… ‫ ُذکر لنا أن کعبا کان یقول‬:‫قال حییى‬
Yaḥyā b. Sallām on Sūra XVI (al-Naḥl), verse 81:59
Ibn Muḥakkim’s wording here is completely different:
‫ لعلکم‬:‫أن ابن عباس کان یقرأها‬ َ ‫﴿ َل َع َّلک ُْم ت ُْس ِل ُم‬
ّ ‫ بلغني‬:‫ون﴾ قال حییى‬ wa-qāla baʿḍuhum: balaghanā anna Kaʿban qāla …, but
.‫ یعني يف لبس الدروع‬،‫ أي من اجلراح‬،‫ون‬ َ ‫ت َْس َل ُم‬ he follows the wording of the commentary: hiya aqrabu
(instead of adnā in Ibn Sallām’s transmission) al-arḍi ilā
Ibn Muḥakkim II: 382, line 1: l-samāʾ bi-thamāniyati ʿashara maylan.
Yaḥyā b. Sallām quotes in his commentary on Sūra
He quotes the personal interpretation by Yaḥyā b. XXII (al-Ḥajj), verse 5:65
Sallām literally saying: balaghanā:
﴾‫﴿ونقر يف األرحام ما نشا ُء‬
ّ
‫ من اجلراح يف‬:‫ أي‬،‫ لعلکم تس َلمون‬:‫وبلغنا عن ابن عباس أنّه کان یقرأها‬
.‫لبس الدروع‬ the well-known tradition originated in Kūfa with the
isnād: Yaḥyā ʿan ṣāḥibin lahū ʿan al-Aʿmash ʿan Abī Wāʾil
This wording gives the impression, that Hūd him- ʿan Ibn Masʿūd < the Prophet:
self is the original narrator who received the reading
of Ibn ʿAbbās by a “we have been reported”. This ‫إذا ُخلق أحدکم ُجیمع يف بطن أ ّمه نطفة أربعنی یوما‬
reading is also transmitted with other isnāds by al-
Ṭabarī and Abū Bakr al-Qurṭubī as the reading of etc.66
Ibn ʿAbbās and ʿIkrima.
Both the name of Yaḥyā and the isnād are omitted in the
Yaḥyā b. Sallām opens his commentary on Sūra XXII version of Ibn Muḥakkim:
(al-Ḥajj) in the same manner. The explanation of verse 2
reads as follows:60 ‫ قال رسول اهلل صىل اهلل علیه وسلم إن‬:‫وذکروا عن عبد اهلل بن مسعود قال‬
‫خلق أحدکم جیمع يف بطن أمه نطفة أربیعن یوما‬
ّ ‫ وبلغني‬:‫قال حییى‬
‫أن الکبری حیط یوم القیامة إل ثالث وثالثنی سنة ویرفع‬
.‫الصغری إل ثالث وثالثنی سنة‬ In some cases Yaḥyā b. Sallām gives his own commentary
without quoting earlier authorities; e.g., on Sūra XXXIV
Hūd b. Muḥakkim 3: 100 quotes the paragraph literally, (Sabaʾ), verse 9:67
however, he opens it with: qāla baʿḍuhum: balaghanī anna
l-kabīr …, etc.61 ِ ‫الس َام ِء َو ْاألَ ْر‬
﴾‫ض‬ ِ ِ َ ‫﴿إل ما ب‬
َ ‫ـنی َأ ْیدهیِم َو َما َخ ْل َف ُهم م َن‬
ْ َ َ َ

48
 T H E TA F S Ī R S OF H Ū D B . M U Ḥ A K K I M A L-H AW WĀ R Ī A N D YA Ḥ YĀ B . S A L L Ā M A L-BA ṢR Ī
(“… what lies before them and what lies behind them of
heaven and earth”) and comments:
ّ ‫ حیثام قام اإلنسان‬:‫قال حییى‬
‫فإن بنی یدیه من السامء واألرض مثل ما خلفه‬
.‫منها‬
Ibn Muḥakkim has the same wording after quoting the
Qurʾānic verse but he does not mention the originator
Yaḥyā.68 A similar case is documented in the interpreta-
tion of verse 41 of the same Sūra in the original work69
as qawl of Yaḥyā and its quotation by Ibn Muḥakkim
without the name of Yaḥyā as source.70
A striking insertion by Ibn Muḥakkim according to
Ibāḍī legal thought is documented in the commentary on
Sūra LXV (al-Ṭalāq), verse 2: “wa-ashhidū dhaway ʿadlin
minkum (And call in to witness two men of equity from
among yourselves)”. Ibn Muḥakkim refers here directly
to a discussion between Abū Ghānim al-Khurāsānī and
his teacher in the Mudawwana:71
‫ حدثني‬:‫ ومل ُی ْشهد؟ قال‬،‫ وغشیها يف العدّ ة‬،‫ فرجل طلق امرأته وأشهد‬:‫قلت‬
‫ ولو‬،‫ حرمت علیه أبدا‬:‫أبر عبیدة عن جابر بن زید عن ابن عباس أنه قال‬
ّ ‫ مل‬،‫نکحت أزواجا غریه فامتوا عنها أو طلقوها‬
.‫حتل له أبدا‬
This legal question appears in the commentary by Ibn
Muḥakkim as follows:
‫﴿و َأ ْش ِهدُ وا َذ َو ْي عَدْ ٍل ِّمـنْک ُْم﴾ فإن هو أراد أن یراجعها قبل‬ ّ
َ :‫وجل‬
‫حرمت علیه يف قول جابر بن زید‬ ّ ‫ فقد‬،‫أن تنقيض العدّ ة وغشیها قبل أن یشهد‬
‫ غشیانه هلا مراجع ٌة ویشهد‬:‫ وکان إبراهیم یقول‬.‫وأيب عبیدة والعامة من فقهائنا‬
.‫بعد ذلك باملراجعة‬
The text of Ibn Muḥakkim is a clear paraphrase of
the discussion between Abū Ghānim and his teacher.
The expression “ … fī qawl (fulān) … wa-l-ʿāmmati min
fuqahāʾinā” is a typical phrase in the Mudawwana l-kubrā.
However, the opinion of Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī is missing
in the Mudawwana; this might be due either to the fact,
that Ibn Muḥakkim had a different text of Abū Ghānim’s
work at his disposal or the statement of Ibrāhīm al-
Nakhaʿī has been originally transmitted by Ibn Sallām in
his commentary as it is quoted here by Ibn Muḥakkim
only.
It is beyond any question that Ibn Muḥakkim had
knowledge of the legal disputes about the masāʾil col-
lected by Abū Ghānim, though he doesn’t mention him
by name as far as I can see. Even the transmission of this
collection in the period of his scholarly activities in the
3rd /9th century remains in the present editions indefin-
able. However, we can assume that the fragments docu-
mented in his commentary represent the earliest stages
of the transmission of some sections from the Mudaw-
wana. There are reasons to suggest that the insertions
of juridical topics by Ibn Muḥakkim into the text of
the commentary can be interpreted also from a differ-
ent point of view. Approximately at the beginning of the
3rd /9th century a new literary genre had been developed
among the commentators: the interpretation of the legal
stipulations of the Qurʾān (aḥkām al-Qurʾān). The earli-
est preserved fragments of such texts date back to the
second half of the 3rd /9th century.72 The relevant inser-
tions by Ibn Muḥakkim in the same period have been
most likely influenced by these developments in the tafsīr
literature of his time.
In the commentary on Sūra XXIV (al-Nūr), verse 2,
Ibn Muḥakkim quotes Yaḥyā b. Sallām literally:73
ُ
‫اململوك‬ ‫ وال حیصن‬،‫ ال حتصن األم ُة وال الیهودی ُة وال النرصانی ُة‬:‫قال بعضهم‬
‫ وال ُحت َْصن املرأة إذا کان‬.‫احلر إذا کانت له امرأة مل یدخل هبا‬ ّ ‫حی َصن‬ْ ُ ‫ وال‬،َ‫احلرة‬
ّ
.‫هلا زوج مل یدخل هبا‬
‫وإذا أحصن الرجل واملرأة بوطىء مرة واحدة ثم زنى بعد ذلك ولیست له‬
.‫ أو زنت امرأة لیس هلا زوج یوم زنت فهام ُحم َْصنَـان ُی ْـر َمجَان‬،‫امرأة یوم زنى‬
Ibn Muḥakkim replaced ‘qāla Yaḥyā’ at the beginning
with his commonly used ‘qāla baʿḍuhum’ and refers at the
end of this paragraph to Jābir b. Zayd: “wa-huwa qawlu
Jābir b. Zayd”, which is missing in the commentary by
Ibn Sallām. In a similar case Abū ʿUbayda, Muslim b. Abī
Karīma, refers to this position of Jābir b. Zayd: the adul-
ّ‫قوله عز‬ terer has to be stoned even if he is married to a Christian
or Jewish woman or to a slave girl. Ibn Muḥakkim’s short
reference to Jābir b. Zayd is probably due to his knowl-
edge of Abū Ghānim’s book where the opinion of Jābir
(kāna yarā) is documented. The appropriate discussion of
this masʾala runs there as follows:74
‫ أ ُیرجم أم ال؟‬،‫تزوج الیهودی َة أو النرصانی َة أو األم َة ثم یزين‬
ّ ‫سألتهام عن رجل‬
.‫الرجم‬
ْ ‫علیه‬ :‫یقول‬ ‫کان‬ ‫أنه‬ ‫زید‬ ‫بن‬ ‫جابر‬ ‫عن‬ ‫عبیدة‬ ‫أبو‬ ‫حدثنى‬ :‫قال أبو املؤرج‬
ُ ُ
‫ أحصن َمـ ْن‬:‫ ویقول‬،‫أن الیهودیة أو النرصانیة أو األمة حتْصنَّـه‬ ّ ‫وکان یرى‬
.‫َمـ َل َك أو ُم ّلك له‬
This statement underlines that by marriage with a wom-
an of the ahl al-kitāb or with a slave girl the husband be-
comes muḥṣan and in case of chastity he must be stoned.
In this legal explanation we also learn, that the con-
tradictory position transmitted by Ibn Sallām and its
quotation by Ibn Muḥakkim literally “lā tuḥṣinu l-amatu
wa-lā l-yahūdiyyatu wa-lā l-naṣrāniyyatu …” etc., has been
attributed to Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī but it was refused by the
Ibāḍī scholars.75 The short reference by Ibn Muḥakkim
“wa-huwa qawl Jābir b. Zayd” in the commentary on verse
2 of Sūra XXIV provides evidence of his knowledge of
the discussion among Ibāḍī scholars as presented by Abū
Ghānim.
49
MIK LOS MUR AN Y I
In the interpretation of Sūra XXIV (al-Nūr), verses
8–9:
ٍ ‫﴿ َأن ت َْشهدَ َأربع َشهاد‬
﴾ِ‫ات بِاهلل‬
َ َ َ َْ َ
Ibn Muḥakkim refers to the text of Yaḥyā in its exact
wording:
.‫ ُأحلق الولد هبا وهي عصبته وعصبتها بعدها‬،‫وإن کان العنها يف إنکار ولدها‬
ْ same arrangement as it is documented in the commen-
‫وإن أکذب نفسه وقد بقي من املالعنة يشء ُجلد حدّ القذف وهي امرأته‬ ْ tary of Ibn Sallām but without the isnāds, here given
76
.‫والولد له‬
At this point Ibn Muḥakkim inserts into his commen-
tary the different legal opinions of the Ibāḍī scholars
about this case as follows:
،‫ویفرق بینهام وال جیتمعان أبدا‬
َّ ‫ أحدمها أنّه ُجیلد حدّ القاذف‬:‫يف ذلك قوالن‬
ّ‫ ُجیلد حد‬:‫ وقال ابن عبد العزیز‬.‫وهو قول أيب عبیدة والعامة من فقهائنا‬
‫ والولد ولده يف قوهلم‬،‫ وعامة الناس کلهم عىل هذا القول‬،‫القاذف وهي امرأته‬
.‫مجیعا‬
It is worth mentioning that the discussion of this legal
issue is documented in the Mudawwana by Abū Ghānim
in two different chapters, but without imposition of the
flogging for the false accusation of unchastity and with-
out reference to Abū ʿUbayda and Ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.77 The
following statement by Yaḥyā b. Sallām:
‫نفسه بعد اللعان ُجلد وال سبیل له علیها‬ ْ
َ ‫وإن أکذب‬
is verbatim quoted by Ibn Muḥakkim with a brief addi-
tion:
‫وال سبیل له علیها يف قوهلم مجیعا‬
which clearly refers syntactically to the Ibāḍī scholars—
Abū ʿUbayda and Ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz—at the beginning of
the commentary by Ibn Muḥakkim. This legal norm is
laid down also as the Medinense sunna as early as the first
transmission of the Muwaṭṭaʾ by Mālik b. Anas.78
The commentary on Sūra XXX (al-Rūm), verse 39:
“wa-mā ātaytum min riban li-yarbuwa79 fī amwāli l-nāsi
fa-lā yarbū ʿinda llāhi” by Yaḥyā b. Sallām80 is transmitted
by Ibn Muḥakkim without quoting the complete isnāds,
as usual, and with reference to the reading variant attrib-
uted to Ibn ʿAbbās (li-turbū) and with the transmission of
two traditions of the Prophet.81
The textual interpretation of this verse is exactly bor-
rowed from the commentary by Yaḥyā b. Sallām in his
transmission from ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Abī Rawwād82 < al-
Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāḥim (d. 105/723).83 Both of them have
been native to Khurāsān. Ibn Muḥakkim does not refer
50
to the immediate source of Ibn Sallām but quotes al-
Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāḥim verbatim:84
،‫ تلك اهلدیة ُ ْهتدهیا ل ُی ْهدَ ى إلیك خری منها‬:‫ذکروا عن الضحاك بن مزاحم قال‬
‫ وقد نَـهى عنها النبي علیه السالم‬،‫لیس لك فیها أجر ولیس علیك فیها وزر‬
.﴾‫﴿والَ َمتْنُن تَس َتکْثِ ُر‬
َ :‫فقال‬
Two traditions attributed to the Prophet follow in the
between square brackets:85 [ḥaddathanā Mūsā b. ʿUlayy
(b. Rabāḥ)86 ʿan abīhī] < the Prophet: al-hadiyya rizqu
llāhi …, and: [ḥaddathanā al-Ḥasan b. Dīnār] dhakarū
ʿan al-Ḥasan (al-Baṣrī) < the Prophet: lā yaruddanna
aḥadukum ʿalā akhīhī l-hadiyyata … . As far as I can see,
both these mursal traditions are recorded exclusively in
Ibn Sallām’s commentary followed by Ibn Muḥakkim in
the same manner.
In the following passage Ibn Muḥakkim inserts a brief
notice:
‫ ترك املکافأة من التطفیف یعني مکافأة َمن‬:‫وذکروا عن أيب عبیدة أنّه قال‬
.‫أهدى‬
This segment and the following eight lines introduced by
qāla baʿḍuhum are unique additions to the commentary
of Yaḥyā b. Sallām by Ibn Muḥakkim.87 This paragraph
contains some ethical instructions about the permission
and refusal of presents; it is disliked in the community
to give presents to people in power even if amiability and
cordiality (mulāṭafa) among the people are part of the
conventions in the community:
‫ وقد رأینا‬.‫ هذا مالطف ٌة جتري بنی اإلخوان واألخوات واجلریان‬:‫قال بعضهم‬
‫الناس یالطفون فقهاءهم وعلامءهم وهیدون هلم ویرجون بذلك مودهتم‬
‫ وإنّام ُیک َْر ُه قبول اهلدایا لألمراء والوزراء والقضاة‬،]…[‫وتعظیمهم وترشیفهم‬
‫ فأما َم ْن سواهم ممن لیس‬.‫رشى يف األحکام‬ ً ّ ‫والعامل‬
‫ألن قبول اهلدایا هلؤالء‬
‫ بل هو حسن‬،‫بأمری وال وزیر وال قاض وال عامل فال بأس بقبول اهلدایا هلم‬
ّ
.‫والغل‬ ‫ یثبت املو ّدة ویذهب الضغائن‬،‫مجیل‬
The provenance of these lines is unknown; it is prob-
ably a critical contribution to the Prophetic ḥadīth quoted
in the commentary about the allowance of giving and
accepting gifts.88 However, some ideas in this additional
commentary by Ibn Muḥakkim are documented in the
discussion between Abū Ghānim, the author of the Mu-
dawwana, and his teacher Ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz as well:89
‫ تلك‬:‫ ویروونه عن ابن عباس أنّه قال‬،‫املفرسون‬ ّ ‫ یقول‬:]‫قال [ابن عبد العزیز‬
‫ هنى النبي صىل اهلل‬:‫ قال ابن عباس‬.‫ـهدَ ى إلیه خ ْی ٌـر منها‬
ْ ‫اهلدیة هیدهیا الرجل ل ُی‬
.‫وکل ما هنى النبي علیه السالم فال خری فیه‬ ّ ،‫علیه وسلم عنها‬
 T H E TA F S Ī R S OF H Ū D B . M U Ḥ A K K I M A L-H AW WĀ R Ī A N D YA Ḥ YĀ B . S A L L Ā M A L-BA ṢR Ī

The commentary by Yaḥyā b. Sallām on Sūra XVII (al- with our knowledge we can testify that these connections
Isrāʾ), verse 110: “wa-lā tajhar bi-ṣalātika wa-lā tukhāfit …90 have been made. Nevertheless, Ibn Muḥakkim’s work is
(And be thou not loud in the prayer, nor hushed there- far from being plagiarism. Intertextuality has been un-
in …”) is transmitted by Ibn Muḥakkim in the same derstood as the real presence of a text in another one,
arrangement and with references to both al-Kalbī and since all texts are to a certain extent the integration and
Mujāhid but ignoring the other transmitters like Qatāda transformation of other texts.
and Ibn Lahīʿa.91 The latter quotes in transmission of In this respect, the version presented by Ibn Muḥakkim
ʿAbd Allāh b. Hubayra (d. 126/743–744)92 the statement sheds light on the structure of the lost or still not pub-
attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās as follows:93 lished parts of the original ‘lower text’.97 At the same
time, the valuable modifications of Ibn Sallām’s text and
ِ
،‫ُرس فیام جتهر فیه‬ ِ ّ
ّ ‫ وال ت‬،‫ُرس فیه‬
ّ ‫ فال جتهر فیام ت‬،‫سا ومنها جهرا‬ّ ‫إن من الصالة‬ the additions by Ibn Muḥakkim are basic sources for the
.‫وابتغ بنی ذلك سبیال‬ study and understanding of Qurʾānic verses in the early
Ibāḍī communities.
Qurʾān XVII:110 is quoted in the Mudawwana by Abū
Ghānim in connection with the duty to listen to the
preacher behind the imām during the Friday Prayer, fol-
lowed by this statement of Ibn ʿAbbās.94 Some variants
of the traditions about the reason for the revelation of
this verse are attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās in both the com-
mentaries and in the collections of ḥadīth,95 but his above
quoted statement is, in chronological order, only docu-
mented by Yaḥyā b. Sallām, Abū Ghānim and Hūd b.
Muḥakkim. Due to the insufficient information about
the source in the Mudawwana—dhakara baʿḍuhum / qāla
Ibn ʿAbbās—we can not reconstruct the transmission of
this dictum by Abū Ghānim. Furthermore, there is no
evidence for the knowledge of the commentary of Yaḥyā
b. Sallām among the sources of the Mudawwana. The
statement of Ibn ʿAbbās appears there with a different
connotation.
In fact, Hūd b. Muḥakkim’s work under examina-
tion is an adaptation of the commentary by Yaḥyā b.
Sallām with some textual discrepancies of the original
work and with few but important insertions in accord-
ance with Ibāḍī thought. It is worth mentioning that Ibn
Muḥakkim, with the few exceptions mentioned above,
did not interpret the quoted verses by reference to early
representatives of the Ibāḍī school, which can only be
found scattered in writings or transmissions attributed
to his predecessors in the 2nd /8th century.96 The origi-
nal earlier text composed by Yaḥyā b. Sallām remains in
the later variant by Ibn Muḥakkim to a large extent un-
touched with the exception of the consequent abridge-
ment of the isnāds and with the consequent omission of
Yaḥyā b. Sallām’s name as author.
The interrelationship between the Tafsīr by Yaḥyā b.
Sallām and the one by Hūd b. Muḥakkim is a verifiable
fact. What here happened is nothing else than the bor-
rowing of the prior text, i.e. the text of Yaḥyā b. Sallām,
and its transformation with omissions and individual ad-
ditions by Ibn Muḥakkim. He did not have the intention
of making reference to his main source but in accordance

51
MIK LOS MUR AN Y I

Notes

1 Tafsīr kitāb Allāh al-ʿazīz (Dār al-gharb al-islāmī, Beirut, 1990;
see also the edition in Algiers, Dār al-baṣāʾir, 2005).
2 In: Bulletin de Correspondance Africaine 3 (1885) 30 ff.
3 In: Revue Africaine 100 (1956) 375 ff.
4 In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 126 (1976)
42–43.
5 Gilliot 1997: 179–233; id. 1995: 243–249.
6 See the introduction by Balḥājj b. Saʿīd Sharīfī to Ibn Muḥakkim
1990: 12, quoting the Akhbār al-aʾimma l-rustamiyyīn of Ibn al-
Ṣaghīr, p. 49–50.
7 Ibn Sallām 1986: 132–135.
8 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 1980: 56.
9 Ibid.: 72–73, 85.
10 On him see Dabbāgh 1978, I: 6–9; Abū Bakr al-Mālikī 1983, II:
183–186; Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ [n.d.], V: 93–97 (his statement that he transmit-
ted from Yaḥyā b. Sallām is, of course, an error); Khushanī [n.d.]:
159–160, 231.
11 Ibn Khayr 1893: 65–57; Ibn Ḥajar 1998: 111.
12 In both fahrasa-works appears the name as Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad
b. Ziyād—instead of Aḥmad b. Naṣr b. Ziyād—who transmit-
ted the Tafsīr on the authority of Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā b.
Sallām (d. 262/875). Meanwhile, I can not rule out the fact that
there was also another contemporary scholar in al-Qayrawān
with a similar name: Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad b. Aḥmad b. Ziyād who
transmitted the commentary by Yaḥyā b. Sallām in the riwāya
of his son Muḥammad and died 319/931 (see al-Khushanī [n.d.]:
168).
13 Darjīnī 1974: 354 (in the vita of Muḥammad Jammāl al-Madūnī).
14 Shammākhī 1992: 381. See also Ṭarhūnī 2005: 806.
15 Sezgin 1967: 41, no. 17: “ … der Verfasser des uns erhaltenen
Qurʾānkommentars der Ibāḍiten”.
16 My translation of Qurʾānic verses henceforth follows the transla-
tion by A.J. Arberry. For citations of Qurʾānic verses I follow the
numbering of the Egyptian print from 1923.
17 Ibn Sallām 2004: 437.
18 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 171. But see also the additional remark
by Balḥājj Sharīfī in the footnote 2 at this place, that in one of the
manuscripts (‫ ظ‬51 ‫ )سع ورقة‬the name of Yaḥyā b. Sallām is registered,
and he adds: “in rare cases (sic) when Ibn Sallām reports about
himself or about his scholarly life, this is an indication for it (i.e.
dhakara baʿḍuhum qāla)”. However, we have to keep in mind, that
the wording in Ibn Muḥakkim’s text dhakara baʿḍuhum indicates the
reduction of the complete isnāds and names of the transmitters in
the original source. This episode is completely missing
at the relevant place in the Mukhtaṣar tafsīr Yaḥyā b. Sallām by Ibn
Abī Zamanīn (id. 2002, III: 227–228).
19 On this fragment see also van Ess 1976: 43.
20 See also Custers 2016, II: 161–162; Gilliot 1995: 244.
21 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, I: 24 (in the introduction); I don’t hesitate to
register here the sincere assessment of Balḥājj b. Saʿīd Sharīfī in the
original:
‫ تفسری‬:‫لو جاز يل أن أضع للکتاب عنوانا غری الذي وجدته يف املخطوطات لکان العنوان هکذا‬
‫أص ٌل لتفسری الشیخ‬ ّ )‫الشیخ هود اهلواري (خمترص تفسری ابن سالم البرصي‬
ْ ‫ألن تفسری ابن سالم‬
ْ ‫ واألمانة العلمیة تقتضیني‬.‫ وهذا هو عنی احلقیقة والصواب‬.‫شك‬
‫أن‬ ّ ‫ ما يف ذلك‬،‫هود اهلواري‬
.‫ـو هذا و ُأبـ ّیـنَـه يف تقدیمي للکتاب‬
َ ‫َأ ْج ُل‬
See also Ṭarhūnī 2005: 805–806 quoting Balḥājj Sharīfī.
Unfortunately, Ṭarhūnī considers some variants in Ibn Muḥakkim’s
version as distortions (taḥrīf ) by him, even in cases which are not
preserved in published manuscripts of the commentary by Yaḥyā b.
Sallām.
22 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, II: 124, footnote 2.
23 Ibn Abī Zamanīn 2002, II: 201, with further references to the poetry.
24 In two volumes, Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyya, Beirut 2004. It corre-
sponds to the edition of Ibn Muḥakkim’s version from Vol. II: 359
to the end of Vol. III.
25 See Muranyi 1997: 16–19.
26 This part is mentioned by the editor Hind Shalabī in the list of the
unedited fragments in al-Qayrawān (Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 28).
27 Muranyi 1997: 205; Yahyā b. Sallām 1980: 56–57.
28 See also the short version by Ibn Abī Zamanīn 2002, II: 210.
29 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 383.
30 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 739.
31 Mujāhid 1989: 370; Ṭabarī [n.d.], X: 151 (Ibn Abī Najīḥ < Mujāhid
and Ibn Jurayj < (balaghanī) < Mujāhid). On the phrase in the prose
writing see Spitaler 1987: no. 29–30.
32 Ṭabarī [n.d.], X: 151–152.
33 On him see Mizzī 1983–1992, V: 22–25; Ibn Ḥajar 1325/1907, II: 88.
34 On him see Sezgin 1967: 357–358.
35 Ibn Ḥajar 1325/1907, V: 40.
36 Mizzī 1983–1992, XXVII: 245; Ibn Ḥajar 1325/1907, 10: 47–48.
37 Madelung 2015: 23. On the last arguments of Ibn Muḥakkim
“wa-fī hādhi l-āy kullihā ḥujjatun …” see also Gilliot 1995: 249. Ibn
Muḥakkim introduces his additions in similar diction: (id. 1990, II:
159, lines 11–15 (not mentioned by the editor as an insertion by Ibn
Muḥakkim) and 163, line 17, to 164, line 1: “wa-fī hādhā dalīlun ʿalā
ahl al-firāq …”. However, his additions begin already in line 9 of the
same page: “wa-dhakarū ʿan al-Ḥasan …” and not in line 17, as the
editor suggested erroneously. See also id. 1990, II: 132, lines 9–12;
140, lines 3–4: “wa-fī hādhihi l-āy kullihā ḥujjatun ʿalā ahli l-firāq …”.
A long addition by Ibn Muḥakkim is documented in id. 1990, II:
144, line 15, already from: qāla wa-ka-dhālika l-ghārimūn …” to 145,
line 8: “wa-yaqūtu ʿiyālahum” according to the MS al-Qayrawān of
Ibn Sallām’s commentary. Two short but, in my view, important ad-
ditions by Ibn Muḥakkim are worth mentioning: id. 1990, I: 83–84,
to Sūra II (al-Baqara), verse 3: “wa-mimmā razaqnāhum yunfiqūna”,
which commonly has been interpreted as the obligatory alm-tax
(al-zakāt al-mafrūḍa), Ibn Muḥakkim notes: “wa-fī qawl al-Ḥasan
(al-Baṣrī) wa-ghairihī min aṣḥābinā [naʾkhudhu] … wa-baʿḍu aṣḥābinā
yajʿalu l-dhurra maʿa l-burr wa-l-shaʿīr”. The controversial opinions
about the rate of the zakāt are presented by Abū Ghānim 2007, I:
598–616, but neither al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī nor the topic can be found
in the discussions. A comparable passage is documented in the
commentary on Sūra V (al-Māʾida), verse 8: “wa-l-muḥṣanātu min
al-muʾmināti wa-l-muḥṣanātū min alladhīna ūtū l-kitāba min qabli-
kum”. Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, I: 451 notes: “wa-lā yatazawwaju l-ʿabdu
l-muslimu l-amata l-yahūdiyyata wa-lā l-naṣrāniyyata fī qawli l-Ḥasan
wa-bihī naʾkhudhu. An equivalent reference to this masʾala is missing
in the Mudawwana by Abū Ghānim.
38 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 1980: 358, line 2.
39 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 104, the last two lines.
40 Ibn Sallām 1986: 63, line 7–8.
41 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 468.
42 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 200. See also Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 481,
on Sūra XXV (al-Furqān), verse 35, wa-furqānuhā ḥalāluhā wa-
ḥarāmuhā, with the same addition by Ibn Muḥakkim (id. 1990,
III: 209, wa-farāʾiḍuhā wa-aḥkāmuhā, and also in the commentary
on Sūra XXI (al-Anbiyāʾ), verse 48, by Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 319,
Qatāda: al-tawrāt, furqānuhā, ḥalāluhā wa-ḥarāmuhā farqun fīhā
ḥalāluhā wa-ḥarāmuhā wa-farāʾiḍuhā wa-aḥkāmuhā, with the same
extension by Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 209: wa-farāʾiḍuhā wa-
aḥkāmuhā.
43 On him see Ibn Ḥajar 1325/1907, I: 275–276; Ibn ʿAdī 1985, II:
710–717, he collected some traditions which he transmitted in Baṣra
on the authority of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī.

52
 T H E TA F S Ī R S OF H Ū D B . M U Ḥ A K K I M A L-H AW WĀ R Ī A N D YA Ḥ YĀ B . S A L L Ā M A L-BA ṢR Ī

44 This explanation is comparable to his commentary on this verse in ،‫وإن العنها يف إنکار ولدها أحلق الولد هبا إذا مل تکن حبىل قبل أن یالعنها ومل یعرف أنه دخل هبا‬
Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, I: 309: .‫وهي عصبته وعصبتها بعدها‬
‫قد ظهرت البغضاء من أفواههم لبغضهم اإلسالم ورسول اهلل واملؤمننی … أي يف البغض‬ 77 Abū Ghānim 2007, II: 223 and 289, quoting the position of ʿUmar
.‫ فأخرب اهلل بذلك رسوله‬،‫فأسواها فیام بینهم‬
ّ ‫والعداوة ومل یظهروا العداوة‬ b. al-Khaṭṭāb: idhā lāʿana l-rajulu mraʾatahū furriqa baynahumā fa-lā
45 Ṭabarī [n.d.], X: 153, line 7. yajtamiʿān abadan.
46 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 373–374, line 5; Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 727, 78 Mālik 1951, II: 568: in the K. al-ṭalāq, bāb 13: qāla Mālik: al-sunnatu
lines 2–6. ʿindanā anna l-mutalāʿinayn lā yatanākaḥāni abadan; wa-in akdhaba
47 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 374, lines 5–7. nafsahū julida l-ḥadda.
48 Abū Ghānim 2007, II: 372, lines 2–6. 79 In the edition erroneously: ‘li-turbū’; it is the reading by Ibn ʿAbbās.
49 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 374, lines 8–12. 80 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 661–662.
50 Dhahabī 1990, X: 199–202: jarrada l-qawl bi-khalq al-Qurʾān wa-daʿā 81 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 325–326.
ilayhī. See on this van Ess 1993, V: 362. 82 He was a Murjiʾit, lived in Mecca until his death in 159/775
51 Dabbāgh 1972, II: 145–150. (see Mizzī 1983–1992, XVIII: 136–140; Dhahabī 1990, VII: 184–187;
52 Ibn Abī Zamanīn 2002, IV: 174. Ibn Ḥajar 1325/1907, VI: 338–339).—In the edition by Hind Shalabī
53 Mujāhid 1989: 370; and Ṭabarī [n.d.], X: 156. (Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 661) he appears as Ibn Abī l-Rawwād.
54 See Bukhārī 1380/1960: in the Kitāb farḍ al-khums, bāb 7 = Ibn Ḥajar 83 On him see Sezgin 1967: 29–30.
1380/1960, VI: 217); Ibn Ḥibbān 1997, VIII: 194; Ibn ʿAsākir 1995, 84 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 325. For this case see also Muranyi 2018:
XXIX: 273–274, with variants. 81.
55 On him see Sezgin 1967: 86.—Hammām b. Munabbih 1987: 85 Ibid., III: 326, lines 4–7.
38, no. 42, only with the segment: mā ūtīkum min shayʾin wa-lā 86 Died 163/779. He was over six years commander of Egypt during the
amnaʿakumūhū in anā illā khāzinun aḍaʿu ḥaythu umirtu. reign of al-Manṣūr (see Kindī 1912: 119–120; Mizzī 1983–1992, XXIX:
56 See, for example, Bukhārī 1380/1960: in the K. al-Adab, no. 1663; 122–126; Dhahabī 1990, VII: 411).
Ibn Ḥajar 1380/1960, X: 552–553; see also Bukhārī 1380/1960: in the 87 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 326–327.
K. Istitābat al-murtaddīn, no. 6933 = Ibn Ḥajar 1380/1960, XII: 290; 88 See also the footnote no.1 by the editor Balḥājj b. Saʿīd Sharīfī on
Muslim 1955, II: 744, no. 148; Ibn Māja 1955, I: 61, no. 172; Abū Yaʿlā p. 327.
1984, II: 298–299, no. 49. 89 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 290.
57 Ṭabarī [n.d.], X: 156. 90 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 168–169.
58 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 65–66. 91 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, II: 447–448.
59 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 79–80. 92 On him see Ibn Ḥajar 1325/1907, VI: 61–62; he appears as transmit-
60 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 354. ter from ʿIkrima maulā Ibn ʿAbbās, but not from Ibn ʿAbbās himself.
61 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 100. 93 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 169; Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, II: 448: wa-
62 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 366–367. dhakarū ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās … .
63 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 110–111. 94 Abū Ghānim 2007, I: 271: wa-qāla Ibn ʿAbbās kāna yaqūlu fī dhālika:
64 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 402; Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 139. inna min al-ṣalāt jahran wa-minhā sirran …, etc.
65 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 354–355. 95 See, e.g., Ibn Ḥajar 1380/1960, VIII: 404–406. See also the variants
66 The tradition has also another widely known isnād from al-Aʿmash collected by al-Ṭabarī in his Tafsīr (ibid., XV: 182–188); Nasāʾī 2006,
< Zayd b. Wahb < Ibn Masʿūd (see van Ess 1975: 101). I: 176–177.
67 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 747. 96 Mubārak b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥāmid al-Rāshidī collected some short
68 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 389. commentaries on the Qurʾān attributed to Abū ʿUbayda (see Rāshidī
69 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 767. 1992: 328–331).
70 Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 403. 97 See also a similar case on the field of ḥadīth criticism in Muranyi
71 Abū Ghānim 2007, II: 323. The verse is quoted in connection with 2008.
another legal issue as well: Ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz doesn’t permit the
testimony by two members of the ahl al-kitāb to the bequest of a
Muslim (ibid., III: 108, in contrast to al-Rabīʿ b. Ḥabīb according
to his reference to Sūra V (al-Māʾida), verse 106: aw ākharāni min
ghayrikum).
72 The Aḥkām al-Qurʾān by Ismāʿīl b. Isḥāq al-Qāḍī (d. 282/895);
unique fragments of this work in the former library of the Great
Mosque in al-Qayrawān are dated on Jumādā II 282/July–August
895 (see Muranyi 1997: 256–257, 271–276). They were edited by
ʿĀmir Ḥasan Ṣabrī, Beirut 2005. The Aḥkām al-Qurʾān of al-Shāfiʿī
are a collection by al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1065) and have been left uncon-
sidered here.
73 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 425; Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 158.
74 Abū Ghānim 2007, III: 192.
75 Ibid., III: 192, lines 8–10: inna hāʾulāʾi yaqūlūna wa-yarwūna ʿan
Ibrāhīm anna l-yahūdiyyata aw al-naṣrāniyyata aw al-amata lā
yuḥṣinnahū … etc., with the refutation of this legal statement of
Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī following.
76 Yaḥyā b. Sallām 2004: 431, line 7–9. The differences in the wording
by Ibn Muḥakkim 1990, III: 164, are marginal:

53
MIK LOS MUR AN Y I
Bibliography
Abū Bakr al-Mālikī 1983
Abū Bakr ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Mālikī: Riyāḍ
al-nufūs fī ṭabaqāt ʿulamāʾ al-Qayrawān wa-Ifrīqiyya,
ed. Bashīr Bakkūsh, 3 vols., Beirut 1983.
Abū Dāwūd [n.d.]
Abū Dāwūd Sulaymān b. al-Ashʿath al-Sijistānī: al-
Sunan, ed. Muḥammad Muḥyī l-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd,
4 vols., [n.pl. n.d.].
Abū Ghānim 2007
Abū Ghānim Bishr b. Ghānim al-Khurāsānī: al-
Mudawwana l-kubrā, ed. Muṣṭafā b. Ṣāliḥ Bājū,
3 vols., Muscat 2007.
Abū Yaʿlā 1984
Abū Yaʿlā Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. al-Muthannā l-Mauṣilī: al-
Musnad, ed. Ḥusayn Salīm Asad, 6 vols., Beirut 1984.
Bukhārī 1380/1960
al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl: al-Ṣaḥīḥ. In: Ibn
Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī: Fatḥ al-bārī bi-sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-
Bukhārī, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī and
Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Khaṭīb, 14 vols., Cairo 1380/[1960].
Custers 2016
Custers, M.: al-Ibāḍiyya. A bibliography. 3 vols.,
Hildesheim 2016.
Dabbāgh 1972
al-Dabbāgh, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad al-
Anṣārī: Maʿālim al-īmān fī maʿrifat ahl al-Qayrawān,
Vol. 2, ed. Muḥammad al-Aḥmadī Abū l-Nūr and
Muḥammad Māḍūr, Tunis 1972.
Dabbāgh 1978
al-Dabbāgh, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad al-Anṣārī:
Maʿālim al-īmān fī maʿrifat ahl al-Qayrawān, Vol. 3,
ed. Muḥammad Māḍūr, Tunis 1978.
Dāraquṭnī 1993
al-Dāraquṭnī, ʿAlī b. ʿUmar: al-Sunan. 4 vols, Beirut
1993.
Dārimī 1987
al-Dārimī l-Samarqandī, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān:
al-Sunan, ed. Fawāz Aḥmad Zamralī and Khālid al-
Sabʿ al-ʿAlamī, 4 vols., Beirut 1987.
Darjīnī 1974
al-Darjīnī, Aḥmad b. Saʿīd: Ṭabaqāt al-mashāyikh bi-l-
Maghrib, ed. Ibrāhīm Ṭallāy, Constantine 1974.
54
Dhahabī 1990
al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿUthmān: Siyar
aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ and Ḥusayn
al-Asad, 35 vols., Beirut 1990.
Gilliot 1995
Gilliot, C.: Der koranische Kommentar des Ibāḍiten
Hūd b. Muḥkim/Muḥakkam. In: Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement
XI: XXVI, Deutscher Orientalistentag 1995, 243–249.
Gilliot 1997
Gilliot, C.: Le commentaire coranique de Hūd b.
Muḥakkam/Muḥkim. In: Arabica 47 (1997) 179–233.
Hammām b. Munabbih 1987
Hammām b. Munabbih: al-Ṣaḥīfa l-ṣaḥīha, ed. ʿAlī
Ḥasan ʿAlī ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, Beirut 1987.
Ibn Abī Zamanīn 2002
Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh: Tafsīr
al-Qurʾān al-ʿazīz, ed. Ḥusayn b. ʿUkāsha and
Muḥammad Muṣṭafā l-Kanz, 5 vols., Cairo 2002.
Ibn ʿAdī 1985
Ibn ʿAdī l-Jurjānī, ʿAbd Allāh: al-Kāmil fī ḍuʿafāʾ al-rijāl,
ed. Lajna min al-mukhtaṣṣīn bi-ishrāf al-nāshir, 8
vols., Beirut 1985.
Ibn ʿAsākir 1995
Ibn ʿAsākir, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. Hibat Allāh: Taʾrīkh
madīnat Dimashq, ed. ʿUmar b. Gharāma l-ʿAmrawī,
70 vols., Beirut 1995.
Ibn Ḥajar 1325/1907
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī: Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, 13 vols.,
Hyderabad 1325/1907.
Ibn Ḥajar 1380/1960
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī: Fatḥ al-bārī bi-sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-
Bukhārī, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī and
Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Khaṭīb, 14 vols., Cairo 1380/1960.
Ibn Ḥajar 1998
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī: al-Muʿjam al-mufahras, ed.
Muḥammad Shakūr Maḥmūd al-Mayādīnī, Beirut
1998.
Ibn Ḥibbān 1997
[Ibn Ḥibbān]: Ṣaḥīh Ibn Ḥibbān bi-tartīb ʿAlī b. Balbān
al-Fārisī, ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, 18 vols., Beirut 1997.
Ibn Khayr 1893
Ibn Khayr al-Ishbīlī, Muḥammad b. Khayr b. ʿUmar:
Fahrasa mā rawāhū ʿan shuyūkhihī, ed. Franciscus
Codera and J. Ribera Tarrago, Saragossa 1893.
 T H E TA F S Ī R S OF H Ū D B . M U Ḥ A K K I M A L-H AW WĀ R Ī A N D YA Ḥ YĀ B . S A L L Ā M A L-BA ṢR Ī
Ibn Māja 1955
Ibn Māja, Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Qazwīnī: al-Sunan,
ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, 2 vols., Cairo
1955.
Ibn Muḥakkim 1990
Ibn Muḥakkim al-Hawwārī, Hūd: Tafsīr kitāb Allāh al-
ʿazīz, ed. Balḥājj b. Saʿīd Sharīfī, 4 vols., Beirut 1990.
Ibn Sallām 1986
Ibn Sallām al-Ibāḍī: Badʾ al-Islām wa-sharāʾiʿ al-dīn, ed.
Werner Schwartz and Sālim b. Yaʿqūb, Wiesbaden
1986 (= Bibliotheca Islamica, Vol. 33).
Khushanī [n.d.]
al-Khushanī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥārith b. Asad: Ṭabaqāt
ʿulamāʾ Ifrīqiyya, ed. Mohammed Ben Cheneb,
Publications de la Faculte des Lettres d‘Alger, Algiers
[n.d.].
Kindī 1912
al-Kindī l-Miṣrī, Muḥammad b. Yusūf: Kitāb al-wulāt
wa-kitāb al-quḍāt, ed. Rhuvon Guest, Leiden 1912.
Madelung 2015
Madelung, W.: Ibāḍīya and Muʿtazila: The Moderate
Opposition in Early Islam. In: Ersilia Francesca (ed.):
Ibadi Theology. Rereading Sources and Scholarly Works.
Hildesheim 2015.
Mālik 1951
Mālik b. Anas: al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, riwāyat Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā, ed.
Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, 2 vols., Cairo 1951.
Mizzī 1983–1992
al-Mizzī, Abū l-Ḥajjāj Yūsuf: Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmāʾ
al-rijāl, ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, 35 vols., Beirut
1983–1992.
Mujāhid 1989
Mujāhid b. Jabr: Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd
al-Salām Abū l-Nīl, Cairo 1989.
Muranyi 1997
Muranyi, M.: Beiträge zur Ḥadīṯ- und Rechtsgelehrsamkeit
der Mālikiyya in Nordafrika bis zum 5. Jh. d. H. Bio-
bibliographische Notizen aus der Moscheebibliothek von
Qairawān. Wiesbaden 1997.
Muranyi 2008
Muranyi, M.: From thiqa to ḍaʿīf in early ṭabaqāt
literature; an intertextual approach to ʿilm al-rijāl.
In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 34 (2008)
335–344.
Muranyi 2018
Muranyi, M.: The First Compendium of Ibadi Law:
The Mudawwana by Abu Ghanim Bishr b. Ghanim
al-Khurasani. Hildesheim 2018 (= Studies on Ibadism
and Oman, Vol. 14).
Muslim 1955
Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī: al-Ṣaḥīḥ, ed.
Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, 5 vols, Cairo 1955.
Nasāʾī 2006
al-Nasāʾī, Aḥmad b. Shuʿayb: al-Sunan al-kubrā, ed. Jādd
Allāh b. Ḥasan, 3 vols., Riyadh 2006.
Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ [n.d.]
ʿIyāḍ b. Mūsā b. ʿIyāḍ al-Sabtī: Tartīb al-madārik wa-
taqrīb al-masālik li-maʿrifat aʿlām madhhab Mālik,
Vol. 5, ed. Muḥammad b. Sharīfa, Rabat [n.d.].
Rāshidī 1992
al-Rāshidī, Mubārak b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥāmid: al-Imām
Abū ʿUbayda Muslim b. Abī Karīma l-Tamīmī wa-
fiqhuhū. Muscat 1992.
Shammākhī 1992
Aḥmad b. Saʿīd b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Shammākhī: Kitāb
al-siyar, ed. Aḥmad b. Saʿūd al-Siyābī, Muscat 1992.
Sezgin 1967
Sezgin, F.: Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. Band
I: Qurʾānwissenschaften, Ḥadīṯ, Geschichte, Fiqh,
Dogmatik, Mystik bis ca. 430 H. Leiden 1967.
Spitaler 1987
Spitaler, A.: Al-qalam aḥad al-lisānain und andere
Dualformeln gleichen Typs: ein Beitrag zur
Phraseologie des Arabischen. In: Jerusalem Studies
in Arabic and Islam 10 (1987) 369–403.
Ṭabarī [n.d.]
al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr: Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl
āy al-Qurʾān. 30 vols., Cairo [n.d.].
Ṭarhūnī 2005
Ṭarhūnī, Muḥammad b. Rizq ibn: al-Tafsīr wa-l-
mufassirūn fī gharb Ifrīqiyā. Damascus 1426/2005.
van Ess 1975
van Ess, J.: Zwischen Ḥadīṯ und Theologie: Studien zum
Entstehen prädestinatianischer Überlieferung. Berlin
1975.
van Ess 1976
van Ess, J.: Untersuchungen zu einigen ibāḍitischen
Handschriften. In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 126 (1976) 25–63.
55
MIK LOS MUR AN Y I

van Ess 1993

van Ess, J.: Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahr-
hundert der Hidschra. Eine Geschichte des religiösen
Denkens im frühen Islam, 6 vols., Berlin 1991–1997.
Yaḥyā b. Sallām 1980
Yaḥyā b. Sallām al-Baṣrī: Kitāb al-taṣārīf, ed. Hind
Shalabī, Tunis 1980.
Yahyā b. Sallām 2004
Yaḥyā b. Sallām al-Baṣrī: Tafsīr Yaḥyā b. Sallām al-Baṣrī,
ed. Hind Shalabī, Beirut 2004.

56