Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:39:40.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Qur'ān 2:114 and Jerusalem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Suliman Bashear
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Qur'ān 2:114 describes those who prevent God's name being uttered in His mosques (man mana'a masājida ‘llāhi an yukhdara fīā’smuhu) as ‘most unjust’ (aẓlamu). If further states that ‘they shall not be allowed to enter them except in fear; they shall endure the curse of chastisement in this world and great torture in the aftermath ’.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 215 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 According to the modern standard Egyptian edition of 1342/1923 = 2/108 of Flügel's edition:Concordantiae Corani Arabicae, Lipsiae, 1842, 118–19. In J. M., Rodwell'sGoogle Scholar translation-edition it was given no. 19/108. See his: The Koran translated, London & New York repr. 1913, 350.

2 Unless otherwise stated, the English renderings given in this paper are based upon those of Arberry, J., The Koran interpreted, London, 1964.Google Scholar The literal wording of the verse in Arabic is: wa-man aẓlamu mamman mana'a masājida allāhi ‘an yudhkara fīnā ismuhu wa-sa'ā fī kharābihā; ‘ūlā'ikā mā kāna lahum an yad-khulūhā illā Khd'ifin, lahum fī al-dunyā Khizyun wa-fi al-'ākhirati ‘adhābun ‘aẓīm.

3 e.g., C., Sale, The Koran, New York & London, 1984Google Scholar repr. of the original 1734 ed., p. 15, n. (b). See also the notes of Wherry, E. M. on Sale's translation entitled: A comprehensive commentary on the Quran, London, 1896, i, 331–2.Google Scholar J. M. Rodwell says that if the Meccans are those meant by this verse then it is misplaced here, op. cit., p. 350, n. 2. In Watt's, M. words: ‘the reference is uncertain. It can hardly be the pagan Meccans in this Medinan context. Jerusalem has been suggested,’ Companion to the Quran, London, 1967, 27.Google Scholar Compare also with Blachere, R., Le Coran, Paris, 1951, in, 759–60.Google ScholarRudi, Paret'sDer Koran (Stuttgart, 1982, 18) does not comment at all.Google Scholar

4 See his unpublished Ph.D. thesis,’The Quranic Asbāb al-Nuzūl material: an analysis of its use and development in exegesis’, McGill University, 1981, 180–7.Google Scholar I am grateful to Professor Rippin for making the relevant chapter available to me and for the valuable comments he gave on several issues dealt with in this paper.

5 As developed in his Quranic studies, Oxford, 1977, to which further references will be made below.Google Scholar

6 Ithdf al-Akhissd, Cairo, 1982.Google Scholar This work was translated into English by Reynolds, J. as The history of the Temple of Jerusalem, 1836. However,Google Scholar it was wrongly attributed to Jalāl al-Dīn Suyutl, and the translation is outdated. Extracts were translated also by Le Strange, G. and published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 19, 1887, 247–305.Google Scholar Reference to a manuscript copy of the work in the Hebrew University (no. 64&2) and some use of it were made by M. J. Kister and A. El'ad in their’ Haddithu...’ and ‘ Moslem Holy Places... ’, respectively, to which further reference will be made below. Recently M. Ibrahim published selected extracts in his edition of Fadd'il, Kuwait, 1985. Though he mentions the existence of more manuscripts of this work, the editor does not seem to be aware of the published Cairo 1982 edition.

7 Ithāf al-Akhişşā I, 100. Lit.: nazalat fī man al-rūm al-muslimīn min bayt al-maqdis.

8 Lit.: wa-lillāhi al-mashriqu wa-'l-maghribu, fa-aynamā tuwallū fa-thammata wajhu allāh. waqālū ittakhadha allāhu waladan, subhānahu, bal lahu mā fī al-samāwāti wa-'l-arḍi Kullun lahu qānitūn.

9 An example of such treatment is Qushayri Latd'if, Cairo, n.d., i, 127–9 and Muhyl, al-DIn b. ‘Arabī (d. 638 A.H.), TafsTr, Beirut, 1968, I, 78–80.Google Scholar the latter work was possibly compiled by Ibn ‘Arabī’s student, Kashanl (d. 731 A.H.). In any case, it must not be confused with Abū Bakr, Ibn ‘Arabī's (d. 543 A.H.). Ahkdm al-Qur'dn, Beirut, 1972, i, 32–3Google Scholar, to which further reference will be made below.

10 G. D. Anawati, s.v. ‘ ‘Īsā ’, E.I. (new ed.), lv, 81–6; A. J. Wensink and D. A. King, s.v. ‘Kibla ’, E.I. Suppl., v, 82–8, and the references cited therein.

11 Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr, Cairo, 1938, IV, 10: ‘wa-‘indī fīhī wajhun...’Google Scholar

12 Ṭabarī, , Jāmi’, Cairo, 1954, 498.Google Scholar This Ibn Sa'd, also known as al-‘Awfī, should not be confused with Ibn Sa'd al-Hāshimī (d. 230 A.H.), the famous author of Tabaqāt. Al-‘Awfīs ancestor, ‘Atiyya b. Sa'd, with whom the chain of isnād ends, is reported to have a tafsīr work from al-Kalbī. More will be said about these two below. See E.I. (new ed.), s.v. ‘ Ibn Sa'd’, vn, 922–3.

13 Ibn, Kathlr (d. 774 A.H), Tafsīr, Cairo 1977, II, 506,Google Scholar quoting Tafsīr al-‘Awfī, clearly that mentioned in the preceding note. Cf. also Suyūtī, Mufḥimāt, Cairo, 1908, 5Google Scholar, who quotes al-'Afawī, possibly a misspelling of the same ‘Awfī. In another source of Suyūṭī, Durr, Cairo, n.d., i, 108, as in Shawkārīs Falfi, Cairo, 1964,1, 132, the same form of tradition is quoted from both Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Hātim.

14 As in Qurṭubi, (d. 671 A.H.), Jāmi’, Cairo, 1967, II, 77,Google Scholar and Nawawī (d. 676 A.H.), Marah, Sirbaya, 1970,1, 31.Google Scholar These two quote the unidentified Ghanawī&Ghaznawī, perhaps also a copyist's distortion of ‘Afawī&‘Awfī.

15 See: Tafsīr Mujāhid, Beirut, n.d., I, 86; Ṭabarī, II, 498; Ibn Kathlr, II, 506;Google Scholar and Ibn Ḥumayd (d. 249 A.H.) as quoted by Suyūṭī, Durr, i, 108 and Shawkani, i, 132. Cf. also a similar notion cited by Ibn ‘Arabī, Aḥkām, I, 33 who does not, however, attribute it to Mujāhid.

16 As in Naysāb؛rī, (d. 728 A.H.), Gharā'ib, Cairo, 1962, i, 417Google Scholar and ‘Imādī, (d. 982A.H.), Irshād, Riyadh, 1971, i, 242.Google Scholar

17 As in Gharnātī, (d. 541 A.H.), Muharrar, Cairo, 1947, i, 395Google Scholar and Tha'ālibī, (d. 873–5 A.H.), Jawahir, Algiers, 1985,I, 125.Google Scholar

18 Abu, Hayyan (d. 754 A.H.), Bahr, Cairo, 1328 A.H., I, 357.Google Scholar

19 Ibn, Qutayba, Tafsir, Beirut, 1958, 61.Google Scholar

20 Jassas, , Ahkdm, Cairo 1347 A.H., I, 69.Google Scholar

21 Mahallī, and Suyuti, , Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Cairo, 1966, 21.Google Scholar

22 Suyuti, , Durr, i, 108Google Scholar; Shawkani, i, 132; and, without source, Ibn Kathlr, n, 510.

23 Tūsī, (d.460A.H.), al-Bavān, Najaf, 1957,Google ScholarTabarsī, (d. 548 A.H.) Majma‘ Cairo, 1958, I, 376;Google ScholarMajlisī, (d. 1111 A.H.) Bihar, Teheran, n.d., xx, 319.Google Scholar

24 Māturīdī, , Ta'wīlāt, Cairo, 1971,1, 261.Google Scholar

25 Zamakhsharī, , Kashshāf Beirut, 1947, I, 179.Google Scholar

26 Rāzī, , iv, 9–10;Google ScholarNaysaburi, , i, 417.Google Scholar

27 Tusi, , i, 416Google Scholar and Tabarsī, , l, 376.Google Scholar

28 This chain of isnād occurs, as far as I know, only in one such source, the title of which is noteworthy: Tafsīr al-Zajjāj&al-Muzanī ‘Aiā Ra'y Ibn ‘Abbās, MS, Princeton, Yehuda 24111, 12(a-b).Google Scholar The content of this work, however, is identical to the other versions of the pseudo-Ibn ‘Abbas source (see following note). Recently, A. Rippin has made a thorough investigation, in ‘ Tafsir Ibn Abbas and criteria for dating early Tafsir texts’, an unpublished paper presented at the fourth International Colloquium, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 1987. On the problem of the isnād’ Ibn Jurayj—‘Atā’’ in tafsīr traditions, see Ibn, Ḥajar, Tahdhīb, Haydarabad 1326 A.H., VII, 213–1.Google Scholar

29 There are several published and manuscript versions of the pseudo-Ibn ’Abbās source which include this transmission; some of them appear to be compilations by Fayrūzabādī, (d. 718 A.H.), e.g., Tafsir, MS Princeton, Yehuda815, 12 (a-b);Google ScholarTanwīr al-Miqbās, in the margin of Suyūṭīs Durr, op. cit.; another edition of the same by Fayruzabadi, Cairo, 1951, 13: idem, Tanwīr al-Miqyās, Cairo, 1356 A.H., 15–16; Tanwīr al-Iqtibās, two lithog. eds., n.p., 1280 A.H. and 1302 A.H., 14–15. Other editions are mentioned by Rippin, A., ‘Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbas ’, art. cit. Note must be taken of the orthographic proximity of miqbās and miyās, etc., and of the idea that this work represents a ‘ra'y ‘ approach in exegesis in spite of the ma ‘thur (traditional) form of its transmission.Google Scholar

30 Wāhidī, , Asbāb, Cairo 1969, 33;Google Scholar but compare with idem, al-Wajīz, in the margin of Nawawī, op. cit., i, 30. Indeed, A. Rippin confirms the existence of manuscript versions of such Tafsīr by both al-Kalbī and Dīnawarī (d. 310 A.H.) which are identical in content to the above-mentioned pseudo- Ibn ‘Abbās sources: ‘ Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās’ art.cit.; idem, ‘Al-Zuhrl, , Naskh al-Qur'dn’, BSOAS, XLVII, 1,1984, 22–4.Google Scholar Note, however, the fact that al-Kalbī appears in all the chains of isnād of Ibn al-Mubārak who was also known by his nisba ‘al-Dmawarā’. It must also be recalled that al-‘Awfī, who was cited for a similar notion of Ibn ‘Abbās, was reported to have transmitted his Tafsīr from al-Kalbl.

31 Qurtubī, , II, 77;Google ScholarNawawī, , i, 31;Google ScholarNaysābūrī, , I, 417;Google Scholar ‘Imadī, , I, 242.Google Scholar

32 (Anonymous, ), Asbdb al-Nuzul, MS, Princeton, Yehuda (5143), 4(b)Google Scholar; Khazin, (comp. 725 A.H.), Lubdb, Cairo, n.d., l, 83;Google ScholarBaghawī, (d. 516 A.H.), Ma'dlim, in the margin of Khazin, I, 84;Google ScholarĀlūsī, , (d. 1270 A.H.), Ruh, Cairo, 1964, i, 498.Google Scholar

33 Balkhī, /Muqaddasī, (wrote 355 A.H.), Bad’, Paris, 1980, III, 114, 155.Google Scholar

34 Farisī-Fasawī, (d.289A.H.), Bad’, Wiesbaden, 1978, 296–7.Google Scholar

35 Muqātil, , Tafslr, Cairo n.d., I, 62–3.Google Scholar

36 Tha'labī, , al-Kashf wa-'l-Bayān ‘an Tafsīr al-Qur'ān, MS Berlin, Sprenger 409, 159–61.Google Scholar I am indebted to Dr. Uri Rubin of Tel-Aviv University for placing the relevant pages of his copy at my disposal. Note, however, that a clearly different Tafsīr, bearing the same title but attributed to Tha'labī, who died in 427 A.H., does not have any commentary on this verse; MS Princeton, Yehuda 2(800), 123 (a-b).

37 Compare: Anon, . Asbāb, 5 (a), Tha'labī, 159;Google ScholarWāhidī, , 34;Google ScholarTūsī, , i, 416;Google ScholarGharnāṭī, , I, 395;Google ScholarBaghawī, , I, 83;Google ScholarṬabarsū, I, 376;Google ScholarRazī, , iv, 10;Google ScholarAbū, Ḥayyan, i, 357;Google ScholarNaysaburī, , i, 417;Google ScholarSuyūṭī, , Mufḥimāt, 5.Google Scholar

38 ‘Compare: Tabarī, , i, 489;Google ScholarJassās, , i, 69;Google ScholarQurtubī, , n, 77;Google ScholarIbn, Kathīr, II, 506 and the two Fadā'il works of al-Musharraf b. al-Murajja, Fadā'il Baylal-Maqdis wa-'l-Shām wa-'l-Khalīl,Google ScholarMS, Tübingen 27, 16 (a) and Mujīr, al-Dīn, al-Uns ai-Jalīl, ‘Amman 1973, i, 151.Google Scholar The existence of such an interpretation not only of 2:114 but of 9:29 too was briefly noted by ‘Ofer Livne in a paper entitled, ‘ A note on some traditions of Fadā'ilal-Quds’, presented at the third International Colloquium, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June-July 1985, pp. 8–9, nn. 46–51.

39 Tabarī, , I, 499 with isnād; Tha'labi, 159, Suyuti, , Durr, I, 108 and Shawkam, i, 132, without isndd. Compare also with Ibn, Kathir, II, 506.Google Scholar

40 These are: Dīnawarī, , Akhbār Ṭiwdī, Cairo, 1960, 23;Google ScholarTha'labī, , Qaṣaṣ-'Arā'is, Cairo, 1297 A.H., 324;Google ScholarYa'qūbī, , Tārīkh, Beirut, 1960, i, 65, 146;Google ScholarTabarī, , Tārīkh, Cairo, 1939, i, 382–3, 435;Google Scholar v, 2; idem, Athdr, Cairo, n.d., 384–91; Mas'ūdī, , Murūj, Beirut, 1965–6, i, 68–72, II, 38;Google ScholarIbn, al-Faqīh, Mukhtasar, Leiden, 1885, 98–102;Google ScholarBalkhī, /Muqaddasī, , Bad’, op. cit.; Nuwayri, Nihdyah, Cairo, 1943, xiv, 153, 206–8;Google ScholarIbn, Kathīr, Biddya, Cairo, n.d., n, 36–43;Google Scholaridem, Qasas, Cairo, 1968, II, 309–20; Ibn, al-Athīr, Kdmil, Beirut, 1965, I, 261, 322–5;Google ScholarMajlisī, , Bihār, op. cit., xiv, 351–77;Google ScholarManlnl, , al- I'lām, Jaffa, n.d., 90–1.Google Scholar

41 Rippin notes that Bukhtnassar is ‘normally connected with Qur'an 17:4’, ‘The Quranic Asbāb’, op. cit., p. 180, n. 9. The association of Bukhtnassar with the Christians is rejected by commentators from the fourth century on (see below). In Nuwayrī and Manīnī, the name of the ‘Babylonian King’ is Khardus and not Bukhtnassar. In some Fadā'il sources the latter was strangely said to have transferred holy items from Jerusalem to ‘ rūmya’. See e.g. Ibn, al-Jawzī (d. 597 A.H.), Faclā'il al-Quds, Beirut, 1980, 77–8.Google Scholar On the confusion of his role as presented in the Islamic sources in general, see further details in J., Pauling, ‘Islamische Legende uber Bukhtnassar’, Graecolatine et Orientalia, 4 (1972), 168–70Google Scholar and ‘Ofer Livne, op. cit., pp. 8–9, n. 47. Livne notes also a tradition according to which Muhammad prophesied that as the end of the world approached, the Mahdl would recover the booty carried by Titus to Rome and return it to Jerusalem, ibid., n. 51; Musharraf, 14 (a-b); Ibn al-Jawzi, 107–8.

42 Tabarī, , I, 499.Google Scholar Cf. Tusī, , i, 416Google Scholar and Tabarsī, , i, 376Google Scholar who reject this reasoning by reverting to the metaphorical understanding of Kharāb. On such understanding more will be said below.

43 Tabarī, , I, 500: ‘fa-in zanna zānnun...’, etc.Google Scholar

44 See Jaṣṣāṣ, , i, 69;Google ScholarRāzī, , iv, 10;Google ScholarAbū, Ḥayyān, I, 357 and Naysaburi, , l, 417.Google Scholar

45 Nawawī, , i, 30–1;Google ScholarIbn, Kathīr, II, 507;Google ScholarShawkanī, , i, 132;Google ScholarSuyūṭī, , Durr, i, 108.Google Scholar Cf. also Suyūṭī's, Mufhimāt, 5;Google Scholaridem, Lubab, Tunis, 1981, 22.

46 Wāḥidī, , Asbāb, 34;Google ScholarAbū, Hayyan, i, 357;Google ScholarĀlūsī, , i, 489.Google Scholar Cf. also the form of unspecified authority or source adduced in Razī, , iv, 10;Google ScholarTusī, , I, 416;Google ScholarNaysaburi, , I, 417.Google Scholar

47 For a cross-checking of the sīra traditions of Ibn Ishāq see: Ibn, Hisham, Sira, Cairo, 2nd ed., I, 262–72, 289–91, 317–21, 354–64, 480–91;Google ScholarSuhaylī, , Rawd, Cairo, 1971, II, 48, 51, 77–9, 127–8, 147–67;Google ScholarIbn Sayyid, al-Nās, ‘Uyun, Beirut, 1974, i, 102–14;Google ScholarIbn, Kathīr, Sīra, Cairo, 1964, I, 439–1, 460–86, 492–508;Google ScholarHalabī, , Insan, Cairo, 1964, i, 486–518, II, 25–6.Google Scholar

48 Ibn Abī, Ḥātim, Jarh, Cairo, 1952, IV, 169.Google Scholar

49 Ibn, Babū'ya, Tafsīr imām Ḥasan ‘Askarī, Teheran, , lithog, . ed., 1248 A.H., 255–61.Google Scholar Cf. also al-Kāshī, , al-Asfā, Teheran, 1353 A.H., 31.Google Scholar

50 Qumml, , Tafsīr, Najaf, 1386 A.H., I, 58–9.Google Scholar

51 Tabarsī, , i, 376.Google Scholar

52 Tha'labī, , 159;Google ScholarTabarī, , I, 499;Google ScholarTusī, , I, 416;Google ScholarIbn, Kathīr, II, 507;Google ScholarTha'ālibī, , i, 125;Google ScholarSuyītī, Durr, i, 08;Google Scholaridem, Lubāb, 22; Shawkānī, , i, 132.Google Scholar Cf. also other sources who cite the same notion in the anonymous form ‘ wa-qīl’ i.e. without mentioning Ibn Zayd: Māturīdī, , i, 260–1;Google ScholarZamakhsharī, , i, 179;Google ScholarQurtubī, , II, 77;Google ScholarNasafī, , i, 66;Google ScholarNaysābūrī, , I, 417;Google ScholarKhāzin, , i, 84;Google ScholarMaḥallī, , 21;Google ScholarMajlisī, , xx, 317;Google ScholarBayḍāwī, , Anwār, Cairo, n.d., i, 107, Ibn ‘Arabi, i, 33.Google Scholar

53 Besides the sīra sources mentioned above, Wāqidī's, (d. 207 A.H.) Maghāzī, Oxford, 1966, II, 622,Google Scholar was also consulted. All these sources are unanimous on the point that Qur'ān, 48:24–5 were the verses revealed on the occasion of Hudaybiyya. The absence of any mention of 2:114 in this context was noted by Rippin, A. ‘The Quranic Ashab’, op. cit., p. 180,Google Scholar n. 1. A negative proof of absence and silence can also be drawn from Hawting's, G. ‘Al-Hudaybiyya’, JSAI, 8, 1986, 1–23.Google Scholar

54 Ibn, Manẓūr, Lisān, Cairo repr. 1966, xv, 266–71;Google ScholarZabldi, , Taj, Cairo, 1306 A.H., VIII, 383–5;Google ScholarLane, E., Arabic-English lexicon, New York repr., 1956, v, 1920–1.Google Scholar

55 Ibn Manẓūr, Zabīdī, and Lane, ibids.; Muqātil, , Tafsir i, 62;Google Scholaridem, Ashbāh, Cairo, 1975, 118–21; idem, Tafsīr al-Khamsmi'at ‘Āya, Shfar'am, 1980, 40; Ibn, Qutayba, Ta'wīl, Cairo, 1973, 467–8;Google ScholarFayrūzabādī, , Qāmus, Cairo, 1970, iv, 174;Google Scholaral-Rāghib, al-Isfahānī, Mufradāt, Cairo, 1970, II, 470–2,Google Scholaral-Damghānī, Islāh, Beirut, 1970, 308–11.Google Scholar

56 e.g., Kisā' (d. 189 A.H.), Mutashābih, MS Princeton, Yehuda (903), 50 (b), 63 (a)-64 (b); (Anonymous), MS Princeton, Yehuda (2248), 32 (a-b); al-Kirmānī, al-Burhān, MS Princeton, Yehuda (3999), 10 (b)-ll (a), 26 (a), 41 (a), 72 (b).

57 e.g.:‘wa-man azlamumimtnan Katama’ in Qur'an 2:140; ‘... mimman iftarā’, in Qur'an 6:21, 144, 7:36, 10:17–18, 11:18, 18:15, 29:68, 61:7;‘... mimman Kadhdhaba‘ in Qur'an 6:157, 39:32; ‘... mimman dhakara, in Qur'ān 32:22.

58 Sijistānī, , Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qur'ān, MS Princeton, Yehuda (4169), 74 (a); and the lexicographic works cited above.Google Scholar

59 Beeston, A. F. L.. el ai, Sabaic dictionary, Louvain & Beirut, 1982. 143. 172.Google Scholar

60 Al-'Ālim wa-'l-Muta'allim, Halab, 1972, 65, 72–3.Google Scholar

61 Musnad, Halab, 1962, 210Google Scholar.

62 Shāfi℈ī, al-Fiqh al-Akbar fī al-Tawḥīd, in the margin of Abū Hanīfa, al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Cairo, 1324 A.H., 27Google Scholar.

63 e.g.: ‘The hypostasis of the Archous’ and ‘On the origin of the world’, in J. M., Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library, Leiden, 1978, 155, 157, 166, 170–3.Google Scholar

64 Nawawī, , al-Aḥādīth al-Qudsiyya, Cairo, 1985, 239–40.Google ScholarSee also Dhahabī, Kitāb al-Kabā'ir Damascus & Beirut, n.d., 181, for the noting of which I am indebted to M. J. KisterGoogle Scholar.

65 The pseudo-Ibn ‘Abbās sources, cited aboveGoogle Scholar; Tha‘labī, 159Google Scholar; Baghawī, I, 83Google Scholar; Nawawī, I, 31Google Scholar; Khāzin I, 84Google Scholar.

66 Pseudo-Ibn ‘AbbāsGoogle Scholar; Muqātil, Tafsīr, i, 62Google Scholar; Nawawī, i, 31Google Scholar.

67 See, e.g., Majlisī, xxiv, 221Google Scholar.

68 al-Yaman, Ja'far b. Mansur (d. 347 A.H.), Kitāb al-Kashf, Beirut, 1984, 45, 63, 88–9, 146, 150Google Scholar.

69 Pseudo-Ibn ‘AbbāsGoogle Scholar; Mujāhid, I, 86Google Scholar; Muqātil, Tafsīr, i, 62Google Scholar; Ibn Qutayba, Tafsīr, 61, and cf. also Tha‘labī, 159Google Scholar; Ṭabarī, i, 500Google Scholar; Jaṣṣaṣ, I, 69Google Scholar.

70 Ṭabari, I, 499Google Scholar; Ṭūsī, I, 417Google Scholar; Gharnāṭi, I, 396Google Scholar; Baghawī, i, 84Google Scholar; Zamakhsharī, i, 179Google Scholar; Tabarsī, I, 377Google Scholar; Nasafī, i, 65–6Google Scholar; Rāzī, iv, 11Google Scholar; Khān, I, 84Google Scholar; Tha'ālibī, i, 125Google Scholar; Baydāwī, i, 107Google Scholar; Shawkanī, I, 131Google Scholar; Ālūsī, I, 498Google Scholar; Kāshī, 31Google Scholar; ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Tanzīh al-Qur’ān, Cairo, 1329 A.H., 28–9Google Scholar

71 Jaṣṣāṣ, I, 69–70.Google Scholar

72 Baghawl, e.g., I, 84;Google ScholarṬabarsī, , I, 377;Google ScholarAbū, Hayyān, I, 358;Google ScholarKhāzin, , I, 84;Google ScholarIbn, Kathīr, II, 508;Google ScholarBiqā'ī, Nazm al-Durar, Haydarabad, 1970, II, 118.Google Scholar

73 e.g., ‘Abd, al-Jabbār, Tanzīh, 29;Google ScholarRāzī, , iv, 11.Google ScholarNote that, on the Shī'ite side, a similar notion is cited concerning the destruction of ‘the mosques of the best believers’, but, as one would expect, only by substituting ‘Alī and his Shīa for Abū Bakr (as in Ḥasan ‘Askarī, 255–6), or without specifying any name (as in Kāshī, 31).Google Scholar

74 cf. Ṭabarī, , I, 500;Google ScholarBaghawī, , I, 84;Google ScholarZamakhsharī, , I, 180;Google ScholarṬabarsī, , I, 377;Google ScholarRāzī, , IV, 12; Qurṭubī, , II, 79; Naysābūrī, , I, 418–9; Ibn, Kathīr, II, 509;Google ScholarIbn, Jaziyy, Kitāb al-Tashīl, Cairo, 1973, I, 101.Google Scholar

75 cf. Zamakhsharī, , I, 180; R၁zī, , IV, 19–20; Nawawī, I, 30; Naysābūrī, , I, 419; Ālūsī, , I, 500; Baydāwī, , I, 107, ‘Imādī, I, 243.Google Scholar

76 cf.: Shāfi‘ī, , Umm, Cairo, 1961,1, 54;Google Scholaridem, Ahkam al Qur'ān, comp. by Bayhaqī Beirut 1975,1, 83–4, II, 61; al-Nahhās, (d. 338 A.H.) Kitāb al-Nāsikh wa-'l-Mansūkh, Cairo, 1938, 59, 167;Google Scholar ‘Abd, al-Razzāq, Musannaf, Beirut, 1970–1972; I, 412–4, VI, 52–3, X, 356.Google Scholar

77 Ṭūsī, , I, 419–20 and TabarsI, , I, 377.Google Scholar

78 Tha'labī, , 159;Google ScholarA., Jeffery, Materials, Leiden 1937, 27, 119.Google Scholar

79 ibid.; c.f. G. Bergstrasser, Ibn Khalawaihs Sammlung, Stambul, 1934.

80 A., Jeffery, 1, 10. It is accepted in Jeffery that what became the canonical reading of Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324 A.H.) helped to stabilize and canonize the text of the Qur'ān.Google Scholar

81 Ṭūsī, , I, 419–29 and Ṭabarsī, , I, 377–8.Google Scholar

82 Tha‘labī, , 160: ‘ūld'ika mā kāna lahum an yadkhulūhā iliā Khā'ifīn, ya‘nī ahl makka, yaqūl: aftahuhā ‘alaykum hat tā tadkhulūhā wa-takūnū awlā bihā, fa-fatahahā allāhu ta‘āla ‘alayhim.’Google Scholar

83 GharnāṬī, , I, 396;Google ScholarBaghawī, , I, 84;Google ScholarR၁zī, , IV, 12;Google ScholarKhāzin, , I, 84;Google ScholarAbū, Hayyān, I, 358;Google ScholarNaysābūrī, , I, 418–9;Google ScholarBayḍāwī, , I, 107.Google Scholar

84 In fact only the Shī'ite sources, Ṭūsī, , I, 417–8 and Ṭabarsī, , I, 377,Google Scholarcite in vague terms an isolated tradition attributed to Zayd b., ‘Alī to that effect. However, the isnād of this tradition confuses ‘Alī, b. al-Ḥusayn, and ‘Alī b, AM Ṭalib. In the earlier source (Ṭūsī) the isndd ends with the former, while in the later one (Ṭabarsī) it is pushed back to the latter. Note also that this view is placed by Ṭabarsī within the context of the prophetical saying:‘ the land was made a mosque and a purifier for me’-i.e. all lands are my mosques, hence the general applicability. But in Ṭūsī it is expressly presented as a saying of ‘Alī Zayn al-'Ābidīn b. al-Husayn and not of the Prophet. However, in neither case is it made explicit that such a saying referred specifically to 2:114.Google Scholar

85 e.g., R၁zī, IV, 11: ‘ādhā Ka-man yuqālu li-man ādhā ṣāliḥan wāḥidan: wa-man aẓlamu mimman ādhā al-ṣāliḥin’.Google Scholar

86 Zamakhsharī, , I, 179;Google ScholarNawawī, I, 31;Google ScholarNasafī, , I, 65–6;Google ScholarNaysaburī, , I, 418;Google ScholarAbū, Hayyān, I, 357;Google ScholarBaydāwī, , I, 107;Google ScholarKhāzin, , I, 84;Google ScholarTha‘ālibī, , I, 125;Google Scholar ‘Imādī, , I, 242;Google ScholarShawkānī, , I, 131;Google ScholarĀlūsī, , I, 498.Google Scholar

87 ‘The Quranic Asbāb’, op. cit., 183.

88 ‘Ayyāshī, , Tafsīr, Qumm, n.d., I, 56–7; Kashī, 31.Google Scholar

89 Farrā’ l, 74; Abū Hayyān, I, 360. In Ṭūsī words: ‘wa-'l-nāsu ‘alā Khilāfihi’, i.e. in disagreement with Farrā’, Ṭūsī, I, 420–1.

90 Besides Suddī, Ibn Kathīr, II, 510, mentions ‘Ikrima and Wā'il b. Dawūd.

91 cf. Ṭabarsī, I, 501; Ibn Kathīr, II, 510; SuyūṭīDurr, I, 108; Qurṭubī, II, 79; Shawkāanī, I, 132; Ṭūsī, I, 420; Ṭabarsī, I, 378.

92 Muqātil, I, 63; Farrā’, I, 74; cf. also Baghawī, I, 84 who adds al-Kalbī to Muqātil; Gharnāṭī, I, 396–7, who adds Hiraqla to ‘Ammūrya; Zamakhshan, I, 180; Khāzin, I, 84; Ibn Jaziyy, I, 101, who specifies the conquest of Jerusalem itself; Naysābūrī, I, 419.

93 cf. Ṭabarsī, , I, 500;Google ScholarIbn, Kathīr, II, 510;Google ScholarSuyutī, , Durr, I, 108;Google Scholar Shawkānī, I, 132; Ṭūsī, I, 420.

94 cf. Ṭabarsī, , I, 378.Google Scholar

95 R၁zī, , IV, 12;Google ScholarQurtubī, , II, 79;Google ScholarBaydawī, , I, 107;Google Scholar‘Imadī, , I, 243;Google ScholarGharnātī, , I, 396;Google ScholarZamakhsharī, , I, 180;Google Scholar Baghawī I, 84; Maturidī, I, 261; Khāzim, I, 84; Nasafī, I, 66; Wahidī, Wafiz, I, 31; Naysaburī, I, 419. Cf. also Ālūsī l, 500. Abū Hayyān, I, 359, cites an isolated view attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās which interprets ‘Khizy’ as ‘Jizya for the dhimmi’.

96 cf. Ṭūsī, , I, 420;Google ScholarṬabarsī, , I, 378.Google ScholarCf. also R၁zī, , IV, 12 and Naysaburī, , I, 419.Google Scholar

97 Ibn Jaziyy, I, 101; Qurtubl, II, 79; Ibn Kathlr, II, 509–10; BaghawI, I, 84; GharnatI, 1,397, on the SUite side compare with Hasan AskarI, 258.

98 See, e.g., Thawrī, (d. 161 A.H.), Tafsīr, Rampur, 1965,Google Scholaron the Sunnī side, and Furat, Tafsīr, Najaf, n.d., on the Shī’ī one.Google Scholar

99 Ṭūsī, , I, 416.Google ScholarCf. also Ṭabarsī, I, 375.Google Scholar

100 Durr, I, 108.Google Scholar

101 This is repeatedly said by some of the commentaries cited above to have been the noncanonical reading of Hasan al-BasrīGoogle Scholar. See, e.g., Gharnātī, i, 397Google Scholar; Zamakhsharī, i, 180Google Scholar; Qurtubī, II, 79Google Scholar; Rāzī, iv, 24Google Scholar; Alusi, I, 500 and Ibn, Khalawayh, Mukhtaṣar fī Shawādhdh al-Qur’ān, Cairo, 1934, 9.Google ScholarOn the transmitters of this reading see also Qabāqibī, , Itḥāf, MS Princeton, Yehuda (2297), 5 (a), 122 (a)Google Scholar.

102 It must be remembered that this verb belongs to the group of noqā’iḍ verbs capable of conveying two opposite meanings. From the insistence on giving it the meaning ‘turn towards’ in this verse and the argument against interpreting it a s ‘to turn away’, one can only surmise that the latter meaning was also advocated, e.g. Ṭabari, I, 505, calls it shudhūdh ‘irregularity’; in Ālūsī I, 502 it is considered gharīb ‘strange’.

103 Some commentators make a point of mentioning that Hasan's reading was originally ‘tawallaw’ and associate such a reading with the threat conveyed by the verse to the committers of ẓulm, namely that wherever they may flee to, God's authority will still reach them. See Abū Hayyān, i, 360Google Scholar; Ālūsī, I, 502Google Scholar; and, less explicitly, also Naysābūrī, i, 423Google Scholar. Other commentators base their presentation of this tawallū, on the orthographic form tatawallū, so that it may still be taken to convey the meaning of ‘you turn towards’. See Zamakhsharī, i, 180Google Scholar; Qurtubī, ii, 79Google Scholar; Rāzī, iv, 24Google Scholar; Nawawī, i, 31Google Scholar. Such an ingenious exercise, however, contradicts Hasan's reading which is explicitly stated as: ‘tawallaw, bi-fatḥ al-tā’ wa- ’l-lām’. Gharnāṭī, , I, 397;Google ScholarAbu Hayyan, I, 360 and even Qurtubi himself, ii, 79Google Scholar. Naysābūrī, i, 423, in his turn, insists that even tuwallū is addressing the runners away in the second personGoogle Scholar.

104 As noted by Rāzī, iv, 23Google Scholar.

105 Compare Rāzī, iv, 22 with Wāhidī, Asbāb, 35–6, and see also Abū Hayyān, l, 361Google Scholar.

106 Compare: Wāhidī, Asbāb, 36Google Scholar; Ibn Jaziyy I, 101Google Scholar; Tabarsī I, 379Google Scholar; Rāzī, iv, 20Google Scholar; Baydāwī, I, 108Google Scholar; Naysābūrī, i, 422Google Scholar.

107 This is narratively expressed by referring to instances of prayer in the dark, at war, while travelling on the back of a camel, a non-ordained (nāfila) prayer, etc. Further details with respective traditional authorities in Muqātil, , Tafsīr, i, 63Google Scholar; Tabari, l, 502–3,Google Scholar; Ibn Kathīr, ii, 513–9Google Scholar; Māturīdī, i, 273Google Scholar; Waḥidī, , Asbāb, 35–6Google Scholar; Ibn Jaziyy, I, 101Google Scholar; Abū Ḥayyān, i, 360Google Scholar; Biqā‘ī, ii, 123Google Scholar. On the Shrite side compare also with Qummī i/59Google Scholar; ‘Ayyāshī i/56–7Google Scholar; Ṭabarsī i/380Google Scholar.

108 Ṭabarī, i, 502–3Google Scholar; Gharnāṭī, I, 398Google Scholar; Tūsī, i 224Google Scholar; Rāī, iv, 20Google Scholar; Qurṭubī ii/82Google Scholar; Abū Hayyān i/360Google Scholar; Naysābūr i/422Google Scholar.

109 Lit: ‘aqsama bi-llāhi al-sha ‘biyyu mā rudda al-nabiyyu ‘an qiblati bayti ’l-maqdisi iliā lighaḍabihi ‘ala bayti ’l-maqdis/‘ala ahlihā’, Thawrī, 12. Kister, who notes this tradition, refers also to ‘Abd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf as another source for it. ‘You shall only set …’, Le Muséon, 82, Louvain, 1969, 183Google Scholar.

110 ibid., p. 183 n. 42, cf. Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, i, 329.

111 With the name of ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Āmir al-Yaḥṣubī is associated the Syrian variant reading of ‘Uthman's codex. He is sometimes called ‘al-shāmī’ and is said to have been qādī of Damascus during al-Walīd I's reign. See: al-Dānī (d. 444 A.H.), al-Taysīr, Istanbul, 1930, 5–6Google Scholar. A. Jeffery, Materials, p. 1, n. 1, notes that to Ibn ‘Āmir was attributed a work on Ikhtilāf al-Masāhif. On Ibn ȘĀmir's reading of 2:116 see: Ibn Abī Dawūd (d. 316 A.H.), Kitāb al-Masāhif in Jeffery, 44Google Scholar; Ibn Khalawayh, , al-Ḥujja, Beirut, 1971, 65Google Scholar; Muhammad b. Ja‘far al-Khuzā‘ī (d. 408 A.H.) al-Muntahā, MS Princeton, Yehuda (3558), 90(a)Google Scholar; al-Dānī, , al-Muqni‘ Damascus, 1940, 1940, 102, 110Google Scholar; idem, al-Ta‘rīf, Muhammadiyya, 1982, 72–3; idem, al-Taysīr, op. cit., 76; idem, al-Mufradat, Cairo n.d., 189; Ibn, al-Jazarī (d. 833 A.H.), al-Nashr, Cairo, 1920, n, 220.Google ScholarSee also Qabāqibī, 122(a)Google Scholar; Biqā–ī, ii, 126–7Google Scholar; Ṭabarsī, i, 381Google Scholar; Gharnātī, i, 400–1Google Scholar; Bayḍāwī, I, 198Google Scholar; Nawawī, i, 31Google Scholar; Ṭūsī, I, 426Google Scholar; Nasafī, I, 66Google Scholar; Baghawā, i, 85Google Scholar. In Abū Ḥayyān, i, 362 and Ālūsī, I, 502, the name of Ibn ‘Abbās is also added to Ibn ‘ĀmirGoogle Scholar.

112 In Ṭabarī, i, 506, the ‘wāw’ links qālū to mana‘a and sa’ā, i.e., the Christians in 2:114Google Scholar. See also Bayḍāwī, I, 108Google Scholar. Note, however, that dropping the wāw could still imply conjunction (malḥūzun fīhi ma‘nā al-’tf) in spite of the apparent resumption. Ālūsī, i, 502Google Scholar; Gharnāṭī, i, 400–1Google Scholar; Ṭabarsī, I, 308Google Scholar; and compare with Nasafī i, 66Google Scholar.

113 Note that even in the extreme case of isti’nāf by dropping the wāw, qālū was presented by some as referring to both the Jews and Christians in 2:113. ‘Imādī, I, 244Google Scholar; Biqā’ī, IV, 126–7Google Scholar; and cf. Gharnāṭī, i, 400–1Google Scholar.

114 Anonymous, Asbāb, 4 (b)–5 (a)Google Scholar; Wā1E25;idī, Asbāb, 36Google Scholar; Bayḍāwī, i, 108Google Scholar; Biqā‘ī, II, 126Google Scholar; Ibn Jaziyy, i, 101Google Scholar. Cf. Māturīdī, i, 266Google Scholar; Zajjāj apud Ṭūsī, i, 426Google Scholar and Abū Ḥayyān, i, 362Google Scholar; and see the following note.

115 Note that Zajjāj, as quoted by Ṥūsī and Abū Ḥayyān, ibid., says that the verse was revealed concerning both the Christians and the Arab polytheists. Compare also with Majlisī, ix, 68 and possibly his sourceGoogle Scholar, Ṭabarsī, i, 382, neither of whom mentions Zajjāj by nameGoogle Scholar. In only one source, Ibn Jaziyy, I, 101, is there the isolated notion that the verse could also refer to the ṣābi’ūn and some of the Arabs, who believed that the angels were the daughters of God, as well as to the Christian belief in the sonship of ChristGoogle Scholar.

116 Rāzi, iv, 25Google Scholar. For the sīra material on ix, 30Google Scholar, see Ibn Hishām, Cairo, 1955, I–II, 570Google Scholar; Suhaylī, Cairo, 1971, II, 116;Google ScholarḤalabī, I, 518, ii, 38–9Google Scholar.

117 ‘wa-qālat al-yahūdu ‘uzayrun ibnu allāh, wa-qālat al-naṣārā al-masīḥu ibnu allāh yuḍāhūna qawla al-ladhīna Kafarū min qablu …’.

118 See e.g. Ṭūsī, i, 426Google Scholar; Ṭabarsī, i, 382Google Scholar; Tha’ālibī, i, 127Google Scholar; Wāṭidī, Asbāb, 36Google Scholar; Māturīdī, i, 101Google Scholar; Abū Ḥayyān, i, 362Google Scholar.

119 e.g., the traditions ‘by the exegetes’ (al-mufassirūn) Ḥasan, , Sha‘bī, , ḌDaḥḥāk, and Muqātil, himself, cited by Wāḥidī, Asbāb, Beirut, n.d., 74–32.Google Scholar

120 Damghānī, , Iṣlāḥ, Beirut, 1970, 391Google Scholar; Ibn Qutayba Ta’wīl, Cairo, 1973, 452Google Scholar.

121 Abū, ‘Ubayda, Majāz al-Qur'ān, Cairo, 1954, i, 51.Google Scholar

122 Māturīdī, i, 266Google Scholar.

123 Ṭabarsī, I, 382Google Scholar.

124 He is said to have compiled an important Tafsīr which, unfortunately, has not reached us. However, he could be the same person often quoted by Rāzī. For more on him, see Suyūṭī, , Bughyat, Beirut, 1964, i, 188Google Scholar; idem, Ṭabaqāt, Leiden, 1839, 32; Ibn, al-‘Imād, Shadharāt, Cairo, 1350 A.H., III, 307Google Scholar; Ḥajar, Ibn, Lisān, Haydarabad, 1331 A.H., V, 298Google Scholar; Dhahabī, , Mizān, Cairo, 1963, III, 655Google Scholar; Ṣafadī, , al-Wāfī, Istanbul, 1921, iv, 130.Google Scholar

125 See Tafsīr Mujāhid, l, 86Google Scholar; Farrā’, I, 74Google Scholar; Ṭabarsī, I, 382Google Scholar; Biqā‘ī, II, 127Google Scholar; Ibn Jaziyy, I, 102Google Scholar; Gharnātī, I, 401Google Scholar.

126 e.g.: Māturīdī, i, 266 and Bayḍāwī, i, 108Google Scholar.

127 Ibn Qutayba, Ta’wīl, 452 and Damghānī, 391, respectivelyGoogle Scholar.

128 Goldziher, and Kister, , cf. Kohlberg, E., ‘Barḥā'a …’, JSAI, 7, 1986, 141–2, p. 158, n. 68.Google Scholar Cf. also Schacht, , Origins, Oxford repr., 1975, 267–8.Google Scholar

129 Wansbrough, , Quranic studies, Oxford 1977, 58, 179Google Scholar.

130 Again, without getting involved with the debate over the value of the material of Jarḥ wa-Ta‘dīl, the fact remains that an unimportant tradition of Ibn Zayd, who was generally discounted as ‘weak’ and whose work has not survived in the original, gradually and consistently gathers power and predominance in later Qur’ānic commentaries from the fourth century on. On Ibn Zayd see: J. Schacht, op. cit., 351Google Scholar; Khalīfa, , Tārīkh, Najaf, 1967, ii, 491Google Scholar; Dawūdī, , Ṭabaqāt al-Mufassirīn, Cairo, 1972, i, 265Google Scholar; Bukhārī, , Tārīkh, Haydarabad, 1970, III, 284Google Scholar; Khazraī, Khulāṣat, Cairo, 1322 A.H., 192Google Scholar; Dhahabī, , ‘Ibar, Kuwait, 1960,I, 282Google Scholar; idem, Mīzān, Cairo, 1963, II, 564; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, v, 233Google Scholar; Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb, Haydarabad, 1326 A.H., vi, 177Google Scholar.

131 See Birkeland's, H. comments on the implications of Goldziher's study of hadīth in Old Muslim opposition, Oslo, 1955, 32–4;Google Scholaridem, The Lord guideth, Oslo, 1956, 6–12. In both places, Birkland expresses the opinion that the original core of Ibn ‘Abbās's traditions could still be found in the transmission through the ‘family isnād’ of Ibn Sa’d cited above. While accepting this opinion in principle, we should note Schacht’s legal caution that ‘family isnāds’ are ‘generally an indication of the spurious character of the traditions in question,’ see Origins, 170, 177.

132 Birkeland, The Lord guideth, loc. cit., accepted in principle by WansbroughGoogle Scholar.

133 Schacht put forward the same view from the standpoint of fiqh, Origins, 2. In at least one other field, that of ‘proofs’ (dalā–il) of Muhammad's prophecy. Ibn Rabban (wrote 232–247 A.H.) explicitly says that ijmā' is not enough. Kitāb al-Din wa-'l-Dawla, Tunis 1973, 19Google Scholar.

134 Wansbrough, , Quranic studies, 225–6.Google Scholar

135 A. Jeffery, 1Google Scholar.

136 Wansbrough, op. cit., 226Google Scholar.

137 cf. TūsīGoogle Scholar; Ibn JaziyyGoogle Scholar; Abī HayyānGoogle Scholar; ’Ālusī, loc. citGoogle Scholar.

138 Zamakhshari; Nawawī; Nasafi; Baydāwī; ‘Imādī, loc. cit.Google Scholar

139 Wansbrough, 140Google Scholar.

140 Busse, H., ‘Omar's image’ JSAI, 8, Jerusalem, 1986, 164–8;Google Scholaridem ‘The Tower of David...’, an unpublished paper presented at the fourth International Colloquium: ‘From Jahiliyya to Islam’, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 1987; ‘A. El‘ad, ’Muslim holy places’, art. cit., and the references cited therein.

141 Musharraf, 15 (b)–16 (a)Google Scholar; and the later sources quoting himGoogle Scholar: Shihāb al-Dīn (d. 765 A.H.), Muthīr al-Gharām as, in its turn, quooted by Mujīr al-Dīn, Uns, I, 170–2 and Shams al-Dīn's Ithāf, I, 128–30Google Scholar. Cf. also Ibn Kathir, Bidaya, Cairo n.d., VII, 58 and Taflati (d. 1191 A.H.), Husn al-Istiạṣā, MS Princeton Yehuda (515), 152 (a–b)Google Scholar.

142 This tradition is reported on the authority of the Damascene Sa’īd b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz (d. 167A.H.), see Musharraf, 20 (b)–21 (a) and Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597) Faḍā'il al-Quds, Beirut, 1980, 108–9Google Scholar. On the position of Jerusalem under the late Byzantines, see Hirschberg, , ‘The sources of Muslim tradition’, Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 17, 1951–1952.Google Scholar

143 Wāsiṭī, (d. c. 410 A.H.), Fadā’il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas, Jerusalem, 1979, 21, 24, 44.Google Scholar

144 Besides the above-mentioned faḍā’il works, see also Raba‘ī, (d. 444 A.H.) Faḍā‘il, Damascus, 1950, 23, 26, 39, 61Google Scholar; Ibn ‘Asākir, , Tārīkh, Damascus, 1951, I, 135–95.Google Scholar

145 Ibn al-Firkāh (d. 729 A.H.), Bā ‘ith al-Nufūs, MS Princeton, Yehuda (2336), 29 (a-b)Google Scholar; Ibn ‘Asākir, I, 154Google Scholar; Hasan b. Habīb al-Naysībūrī (d. 406 A.H.) as quoted by Ibn Hishām al-Anṣārī (d. 761 A.H.), Taḥṣīl al-Uns, in M. Ibrahim, op. citGoogle Scholar.

146 Bidāya, Cairo, n.d., VII, 58, quoting Bahā’ al-Dīn, al-Mustaqṣā fi Faḍā’il al-Masjid al-AqṣāGoogle Scholar.

147 Ṭabarī, , Tārīkh, III, 106–7.Google Scholar

148 The pilgrimage of Arculfus in the Holy Land, transl. Macpherson, J. R., in Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, vol. 3, London 1895, 12–5.Google Scholar

149 Shihāb al-Dīn, Muthīr al-Gharām, Jaffa, 1946, 42Google Scholar; Ess, J. van, ‘Early development of Kalām’, in G., Juynboll (ed.), Studies, Carbondale, 1982, p. 120 and n. 59Google Scholar; cf. Dunlop, D. M., Studies in Islam, New Delhi, 1964, i, 12Google Scholar; Friedman, Y., ‘Finality of prophethood in Sunni Islam’, JSAI, 7, 1986, pp. 194–5, nn. 61–3 and the sources quoted thereinGoogle Scholar.

150 Balādhurī, Futūh, Cairo, 1956, I, 189–90Google Scholar; Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, iii, 1–2Google Scholar; Ibn al-‘Ibrī, Tārīkh, Beirut, 1958, 112Google Scholar.

151 See the extensive review of modern works on this subject in ‘A. El‘ad, ‘Muslim holy places’. art.cit., 120–31.

152 cf. Corpus Inscriptiorum Arabicorum, I, 24Google Scholar.

153 This theoretical possibility, vaguely implied by S. D. Goitein, op. cit., 139, was carried a step further by Kister, M. J., On concessions, in G., Juynboll (ed.), Studies, op. cit., 104–5.Google ScholarLately, , Hawting, G. explicitly raised this issue again, The first dynasty of Islam, London, 1986, 6–7.Google Scholar

154 Nu‘aym b. Hammād, Kitāb al-Fitan, MS British Museum, Or. 9449, VI, 130, 135, 139–40Google Scholar.

155 Goldziher, J., Muslim studies, Eng. ed. S. M., Stern, New York, 1971, II, 77.Google Scholar

156 Vassiliev, A., ‘Medieval ideas’, Byzaniion, 16, 1942–1943Google Scholar; Alexander, P., ‘Medieval apocalypses’, American Historical Review, 73, 1967–1968.Google Scholar

157 Brock, S. P., ‘Syriac views’, in Juynboll, (ed.), Studies, op. cit.Google Scholar

158 This tradition is reported on the authority of Yūnus al-’Aylī, mawlā of the clan of Mu‘āwiya (d. 159 A.H.)Google Scholar. On him, see Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb, xi, 450–2Google Scholar. So far I have detected three late sources which cite it from Kitāb al-Nāsikh wa- ’l-Mansūkh by Abū Dawūd. In one of them (Suhaylī, Rawḍ, Cairo, 1971, II, 201) Abu Dawūd is called al-Sinjarī, a possible warning that this was not the famous traditionistGoogle Scholar. See also Ibn Sayyid al-Nās, ‘Uyūn, i, 237 (noted by ‘A. El‘ad ‘Muslim holy places’, art. cit., p. 24, n. 75) and Shams al-Dīn, Itḥaf, op. cit., 189–90Google Scholar.

159 S.D. Goitein, op.cit., 140–1Google Scholar.

160 Kister, M. J., ‘You shall only set …’, art. cit., 178–84, 194;Google Scholarfollowed by El‘ad, ‘Muslim holy places’, 117, 131–3Google Scholar.

161 Muslim studies, II, 279–81Google Scholar.

162 On his family see El‘ad, art. cit., 9–11Google Scholar.

163 Wāsiṭī, 75–6Google Scholar; Shams al-Dīn, 244Google Scholar.

164 Wāsiṭī, 83–4Google Scholar.