The First Arabic Annals: Fragments of Umayyad History 3110712652, 9783110712650

The earliest development of Arabic historical writing remains shrouded in uncertainty until the 9th century CE, when our

232 43 679KB

English Pages 127 [136] Year 2021

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

The First Arabic Annals: Fragments of Umayyad History
 3110712652, 9783110712650

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
Introduction: An Arabic History from 8th-Century Egypt
1 Using isnāds to Identify Quotations of Books
2 Repeated riwāya-isnāds to al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh Presenting Common Information
3 Five Independent Witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s Recension of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh
4 Al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh or Ibn Bukayr’s?
5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh
6 Al-Layth and Ibn Bukayr
Conclusions
Edition and Translation
Bibliography
Index of Names and Places

Citation preview

Edward Zychowicz-Coghill The First Arabic Annals

Studies in the History and Culture of the Middle East

Edited by Stefan Heidemann, Gottfried Hagen, Andreas Kaplony, Rudi Matthee, and Kristina L. Richardson

Volume 41

Edward Zychowicz-Coghill

The First Arabic Annals Fragments of Umayyad History

ISBN 978-3-11-071265-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-071289-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-071294-0 ISSN 2198-0853 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020947343 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgements This is not the thesis book, but I first ran into what I thought was probably alLayth’s -Taʾrīkh during my doctoral research. As such, gratitude is due to all those involved in the thesis. Though I couldn’t possibly list them all here, main thanks must go to my supervisors, Robert Hoyland and Mark Whittow. While it may be impossible to guess where Robert is physically at any given time, he has always been both good-natured and incisive from the other end of an email. Mark, on the other hand, could inevitably be found in Beam Hall, grinding coffee, or Holywell Street, flipping omelettes. Tragically, he is harder to reach now. Though this book is not really his sort of thing, I hope to dedicate something more flamboyant to him in future. James Howard-Johnston set me down this path as an undergraduate and has commented valuably on everything I have written since, acting as an extra supervisor despite his defunctitude, as he has done for so many in Oxford. All split infinitives are my own. Warmest thanks go to Michael Cook for convening the Holberg Seminar, where this work was first presented, and the other participants that year, who read and commented on an early draft of this work: Theo Beers, Lale Behzadi, Antoine Borrut, Sébastien Garnier, Lidia Gocheva, Matthew Keegan, Pamela Klasova, Christian Mauder, Najah Nadi, Khaled El-Rouayheb, and Jack Tannous. Those who suggested I work it into a book turned out to be right. I would also thank Stefan Heidemann, the board of Der Islam, and the two anonymous reviewers, both for their suggestions and for encouraging the publication of this work as a book.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-202

Contents Acknowledgements

V

Introduction: An Arabic History from 8th-Century Egypt

1

1

Using isnāds to Identify Quotations of Books

2

Repeated riwāya-isnāds to al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh Presenting Common Information 8

3

Five Independent Witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s Recension of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh 13 Witness One: Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam 13 Witness Two: Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī 15 Witnesses Three and Four: Baqī b. Makhlad and Ḥarmala b. Yaḥyā alTujībī 20 Witness Five: Abū ʿUmar al-Kindī 23

4

Al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh or Ibn Bukayr’s?

5

The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh Campaigns 32 Pilgrimage Notices 34 Governor Notices 35 Death Notices 38 Battle and Conquest Notices 40 Caliphal Succession Notices 41 Narrative and Other Material 42 Survival Rate 43 Discussion 44

6

Al-Layth and Ibn Bukayr

25

51

Conclusions 57 Methodology: Riwāya-cum-matn Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh 59 Further Study 60

5

57

30

VIII

Contents

Edition and Translation 63 Principles of the Edition and Translation Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh 66 Undated Notice 116 Bibliography

117

Index of Names and Places

123

63

Introduction: An Arabic History from 8th-Century Egypt The aim of this book is to demonstrate that it is possible to reconstruct much of the content, scope, and even form of a piece of Arabic historical writing from the mid-8th-century CE, the -Taʾrīkh of al-Layth b. Saʿd (d. 175 H/791 CE). I will argue that it is most plausibly a piece of late Umayyad annalistic historical writing whose existence has, to my knowledge, not previously been discussed, substantial amounts of which can be identified through its quotation in later texts. We have access to very few firmly attributable samples of 8th century Arabic historywriting. Yet, as Patricia Crone has noted, an Umayyad tradition of chronography and lists of office-holding must underlie the Arabic historical record’s remarkable ability to preserve names of early political actors, which can be confirmed through non-literary sources.1 Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh is a part of that tradition which we are now able to inspect. Historical annals have not featured heavily in discussions of early Islamic historiography, which have tended to focus on the more Arabic-specific type of isnād-khabar historical writing: compilations of short, discrete narrations of events written in a vivid, even ‘hard-boiled’ style.2 Duri’s traditional account of the emergence of Arabic historical writing, for example, views ‘[events’] classification in chronological order’ as a given in Arabic historical thought from the invention of hijrī dating onwards and characterises the two strands of Arabic historical writing as, on the one hand, maghāzī arising from religious traditions of ḥadīth and, on the other, akhbār arising from tribal traditions of ayyām. Yet despite his insistence on chronological ordering from the outset, Duri seems to present annalistic history as a culmination, a relatively late feature of Arabic historical writing associated with the universalising historians of the 3rd and early 4th centuries.3 Franz Rosenthal devoted rather more attention to the form in his 1 Crone 1980, 17. I am grateful to Mehdy Shaddel for recently bringing to my attention another piece of evidence for this: the manuscript survival, in the hand of Ibn ʿAsākir himself, of a copy of a year-by-year list of the leaders of the ḥajj from the accession of ʿAlī to the fall of the Umayyads, also noting the successions of caliphs. Originally compiled by the Kūfan Qurʾān reciter Abū Bakr Ibn ʿAyyāsh (b. 97 H/715-6 CE, d. 193 H/809 CE) it was incorporated wholesale into the -Taʾrīkh of Abū Bishr Hārūn b. Ḥātim (d. 249 H/863–4 CE). Shaddel is working on a project investigating this and other texts of relevance to the rise of the Arabic annalistic tradition. Ibn ʿAyyāsh’s text, with references to the manuscript, can be found in al-Shihābī 1978. 2 On which see Leder 1992, Beaumont 1996. 3 Duri 1983, 21 for ‘chronological order’, pp. 22–50 for maghāzī and akhbār, p. 75 for annalistic history as a late development. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-001

2

Introduction: An Arabic History from 8th-Century Egypt

survey of Muslim historiography, stating that the earliest surviving histories organised by date were penned by authors who died in the mid-9th century, and that the earliest known annalist was Haytham b. ʿAdī (d. c. 206–209 H/821–825 CE), conclusions that have been reiterated recently by Robinson, Andersson, and Marsham.4 In this book I will argue rather that annalistic records of events were a part of the developing tradition of Arabic historical writing from its inception in the Marwānid period, that we have the material to trace the development of Arabic annalistic history before our earliest extant examples of it, and that alLayth’s lost -Taʾrīkh is an important part of that story. We will see that al-Layth’s Taʾrīkh is a pretty scant dating record of events. As such, it might not be viewed as a particularly promising topic for the historian. Hayden White, however, long since demonstrated the possibility for reading even the barest annalistic record as a representing a particular notion of reality.5 The stories which we tell about early Islamic history are responses to the stories which early Muslims chose to write about themselves, stories in which memories of the past – be they living or preserved through technologies of remembrance such as writing or oral instruction and memorisation – were made meaningful through inclusion in particular narrative structures. The laconic account of historical annals might seem like a disinterested provision of neutral data, but in their brevity they are if anything even more selective and programmatic than other types of historical writing, constructing a remembered past which privileges as significant particular categories of information and historical processes. As such, al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh is an important witness to how Islamic history and time were envisaged in one of the earliest Arabic histories ever written. Furthermore, while Arabic annals were not as voluminous as the more lively khabars which make up most of the text of our extant early Arabic histories, they ultimately did provide one of the key frameworks through which historians such as al-Ṭabarī presented the rich data of the Arabic historical tradition. Al-Ṭabarī himself makes it clear that he is reliant on earlier authors who had developed chronologies of events based on the hijrī calendar, repeatedly invoking the same isnāds to them in order to provide brief dating notices.6 The two most commonly-cited are

4 Rosenthal 1968, 71–86, pp. 71–73 on the earliest works, where he places al-Wāqidī alongside al-Haytham as a younger contemporary annalist. His conclusions are restated by Andersson/ Marsham 2017, 24, and Robinson 2003, 30 (‘al-Haytham b. ʿAdī . . . [was] the first to write an annalistic work of history’), though at ibid., 19, Robinson suggests an earlier point for annalistic history alongside caliphal history and prophetic biography which would better fit the timescale which I propose. 5 White 1987, 6. 6 As briefly noted by Rosenthal 1968, 73, for the case of al-Wāqidī, following Horovitz.

Introduction: An Arabic History from 8th-Century Egypt

3

Abū Maʿshar (d. 170 H/787 CE) and al-Wāqidī (d. 207 H/822 CE), al-Ṭabarī frequently comparing the two,7 but there are also frequent citations of similar notices on the authority of Hishām b. Muḥammad al-Kalbī (d. c. 204–206 H/819–821 CE)8 and al-Madāʾinī (d. c. 215–228 H/830–843 CE), as well as the aforementioned alHaytham b. ʿAdī.9 All of these historians were based in Iraq and Abū Maʿshar, Ibn ʿAdī, and al-Wāqidī, at least, enjoyed close contact with the ʿAbbāsid caliphs.10 The surviving fragments of the annalistic works of these well-known figures has not, to my knowledge, been the subject of sustained study. That is not the goal of the current book, however, which instead focusses on al-Layth’s Taʾrīkh, unused by al-Ṭabarī, which is as early or earlier than them all, and emerged in the quite different circumstances of 8th-century Egypt. Al-Layth’s Taʾrīkh is not now extant, but later medieval Muslim scholars were aware of its existence and had access to it. The 10th-century Egyptian historian al-Kindī (d. 350 H/961 CE) refers explicitly to information he found in the Taʾrīkh al-Layth b. Saʿd (History of al-Layth b. Saʿd) in his Kitāb wulāt Miṣr (The Governors of Egypt); Ibn al-Nadīm (d. c. 385–388 H/995–998 CE) ascribes a Kitāb al-taʾrīkh to al-Layth in his -Fihrist, an attempted catalogue of all Arabic literature composed in Baghdād; and a later Iṣfahānī scholar Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd alWahhāb (d. 511 H/1118 CE) was known by al-Samʿānī (d. 562 H/1166 CE) to possess a manuscript of the Taʾrīkh al-Layth b. Saʿd in the riwāya (recension) of al-Layth’s student Ibn Bukayr.11 These references confirm the later circulation of an historical text attributed to al-Layth. Such brief bibliographical references tell us little about the nature of the work concerned, however, and uncritical acceptance of ascriptions of texts to early authors can lead to real confusion in tracing the early development of an Arabic genre.12 Despite the fact that it is not extant, however, we can do much better than speculate about whether al-Layth’s 8th-century history actually existed and what it might have been like. A wealth of quotations of this text can be found in three extant, independent works; two from the 9th century,

7 E.g. al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh (1387 H), iv, 102, 249. 8 E.g. al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh (1387 H), v, 181, 611; vi, 495; vii, 22, 160, 200. 9 E.g. al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh (1387 H), iii, 590; iv, 269; v, 234. 10 Leder, “al-Wāḳidī”, EI2; Pellat, “al-Haytham b. ʿAdī al-Ṭāʾī”, EI2, Scheiner, “Abū Maʿshar”, EI3. 11 al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 10; Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist (1997), 248; al-Samʿānī, Muʿjam (1975), ii, 380–381: wa-ammā majmūʿātuhu mina -l-kutub . . . kitābu -l-taʾrīkhi ʿani -l-Layth b. Saʿd al-Fahmī ʿan Abī Ṭāhir b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ʿan Abī -l-Shaykh ʿan Abī -l-ʿAbbās al-Faḍl b. al-ʿAbbās b. Mihrān ʿan Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Bukayr ʿanhu. Both Abū -l-ʿAbbās (d. 293 H/905–6 CE) and Abū -lShaykh (d. 369 H/979–80 CE) were from Iṣfahān, demonstrating that the work was circulating in Iran already at the end of the 3rd/9th century. See al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), vi, 997, viii, 305. 12 E.g. Rippin 1994.

4

Introduction: An Arabic History from 8th-Century Egypt

and one later book directly reliant on another, different 9th-century work. A scattering of further, minor witnesses confirm that these works are all reliant on the same earlier text. Altogether, these extensive extracts allow us to examine the content and form of this previously unstudied –Taʾrīkh. Chapters 1–4 of this book show how these fragments have been selected and how they can be firmly identified as quotations of or, in some cases, paraphrases from al-Layth’s Taʾrīkh, arguing that the identified fragments constitute just over half of the original work. Chapter 5 presents and analyses the scope and content of the work. Chapter 6 discusses its author and the context which produced it. After concluding remarks, an edition and translation of the extant fragments is provided.

1 Using isnāds to Identify Quotations of Books The proliferation of quotation, accompanied by chains of citation (isnāds), in Arabic works has led to many attempts to reconstruct lost sources and important, critical discussions about the potential pitfalls of trying to do so.13 The method which I use to recover fragments of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh is rooted in finding common passages in multiple, independent later works which explicitly state that al-Layth was the original source of the common material in order to identify citation-markers in those later works which genuinely point to extracts from a text in circulation. This approach is allied to criticism of both the form and content of the passages attached to these citation-markers which demonstrates that the circulating text had a coherent, annalistic organisational structure and routinely recorded information of particular, limited types, all of which together indicates the circulation of a self-consciously composed early historical text. Tracing the lost Taʾrīkh of al-Layth mentioned in bibliographic or biographical sources requires more than simply collecting every instance in an extant work where al-Layth appears in a chain of transmission (isnād) invoked to authorise an historical anecdote (khabar, pl. akhbār). Such uncritical methods of ‘reconstructing’ early texts have been long debunked.14 Instead we must look to patterns in the isnāds associated with al-Layth that indicate a body of 13 Conrad 1993, Landau-Tasseron 2004, Papaconstantinou 2013. See also the important work on the circulation of al-Madāʾinī’s works by Lindstedt 2014a, 2014b, though it should be noted that al-Madāʾinī may not be totally representative. Landau-Tasseron 2004 provides the most substantial treatment, showing two case studies where reconstruction cannot appropriately be done (pp. 57–62, 62–67), and one in which it can (pp. 67–82), explaining the distinction between the two and providing criteria for determining in specific cases the likelihood of accurate preservation of elements of earlier works, rather than advocating a priori scepticism or acceptance of ascription. 14 Conrad 1993 and Landau-Tasseron 2004. A practical example in our case is al-ʿUmarī, the editor of al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), who at pp. 45–6 claims – incorrectly in my view – that all of al-Fasawī’s quotations of al-Layth came from al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh, pinning all of these quotations to a bibliographic piece of information (that al-Layth wrote a -Taʾrīkh) without interrogating the significance of the different isnāds through which al-Layth was indirectly quoted, the differing forms or content types of the matns given on al-Layth’s authority, or a comparison of parallel citations in other texts. Al-Layth is a transmitter in the isnāds of many extant historical akhbār which were probably not part of his -Taʾrīkh, reflecting the varying ways and circumstances in which an 8th-century scholar like al-Layth would have taught historical information of different types to his students who then re-transmitted it in different ways, as well as the compilatory activity of later historians who brought together historically relevant information from diverse sources. It is only when a transmitter is referenced in a consistent, regular https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-002

6

1 Using isnāds to Identify Quotations of Books

material which he taught to his students and which was subsequently transmitted together as a united package of information; a body of text which we might think of as a proto-book.15 The reason we must look for patterns in isnāds, rather than explicit attributions of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh, is that in many cases pre-modern Arabic authors would introduce a quotation from an earlier work not by naming the source work’s composer and title, but rather by presenting the riwāya through which they had authorised knowledge of the earlier work.16 This riwāya to the quoted work would therefore appear in the later book as an isnād (which I call a ‘riwāya-isnād’), followed by a quotation of the earlier work. The quotation itself might well start with an isnād invoked in the quoted book, which would make the composer of the quoted book appear simply as one name in the middle of an isnād. For example, when in his Kitāb quḍāt Miṣr the 10th-century Egyptian historian al-Kindī quoted an excerpt from the 9th-century historian Ibn ʿAbd alḤakam’s Futūḥ Miṣr, he did not write something like, ‘Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam wrote in his book Futūḥ Miṣr’. Instead, we find: Abū Salama and Ibn Qudayd related to me, saying: Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam related to us, saying: Aḥmad b. ʿAmr b. Sarḥ said: Some of the Banū Miskīn raised a legal matter to Abū Khuzayma regarding . . . 17

If we check Futūḥ Miṣr we find Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam relate exactly the same khabar on the authority of Aḥmad b. ʿAmr b. Sarḥ.18 We find many other cases of Futūḥ Miṣr being quoted in al-Kindī’s Quḍāt, always prefaced by this riwāya-isnād to Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam through Abū Salama.19 Al-Kindī is in fact quoting Futūḥ Miṣr, but the citation practice he is using obscures the fact unless you know what you

manner, providing a coherent body of information, that we may consider that what is being referenced was a body of text that was transmitted as a package. 15 Such a proto-book might certainly have circulated in written forms, most usually derived from notes taken by students at a teacher’s lecture, or copies made by students from that teacher’s notes. For a fuller discussion of such packages, see the introductory remarks to Coghill 2020, 543–4. The model is based on the processes of transmission described by Schoeler 2006, esp., 28–44, idem., 2009. 16 On this, see Atassi 2012, Scheiner 2016. Idem., 2017, 165–167, proposed four criteria, including a ‘frequently occurring chain of transmitters’, which can be used as indicators that a given author had access to an earlier written work. 17 al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 364. 18 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 242. 19 Sometimes alone, sometimes along with Ibn Qudayd or al-Qāsim b. Ḥubaysh, or with both. We know that Ibn Qudayd had transmitted Futūḥ Miṣr to al-Kindī from the riwāya of ms B of Futūḥ Miṣr, see Torrey’s introduction to Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 10–11.

1 Using isnāds to Identify Quotations of Books

7

are looking for. Without access to an extant manuscript of Futūḥ Miṣr, we would have to infer al-Kindī’s use of a book composed by Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam from his repeated invocation of isnāds whose first two links were < Abū Salama – Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam – . . . [various] >, i.e. al-Kindī’s riwāya-isnād to Futūḥ Miṣr, followed by a variety of further informants, i.e. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s isnāds. The same practice may be observed in Futūḥ Miṣr itself, in which quotations of Ibn Hishām’s recension of Ibn Isḥaq’s -Sīra are introduced not by a reference to a fixed work, but by the riwāya-isnād < Ibn Hishām – al-Bakkāʾī – Ibn Isḥāq – . . . [various] >, followed by a quotation of a khabar from that text.20 Quotation of fixed books by riwāya-isnād rather than title continued for centuries, as shown by Jens Scheiner’s work on quotations of 9th-century works in Ibn ʿAsākir’s Taʾrīkh Dimashq or Ahmad Atassi’s work on the later transmission of Ibn Saʿd’s Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr.21 To confidently ascribe quotations found in a later work to al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh we would need to identify in an extant work similarly regular patterns of the repeated use of a single riwāya-isnād to al-Layth, supporting a corpus of quotations which could conceivably have been part of a single historical work. Other independent witnesses using their own riwāya-isnāds to quote similar material in the same way and attributing it to al-Layth – ideally, in some cases quoting the same passages verbatim – would support the contention that these riwāya-isnāds represent the citation of a stable, circulating text. Preferably, these repeatedly invoked riwāya-isnāds would be accompanied by other indicators that support the notion that the source being quoted was a written work, such as verbs in the riwāya-isnād associated with written transmission or explicit references to the title or sub-sections of the work.22

20 For a close discussion of these quotations, see Zychowicz-Coghill 2017, 112–58. It should be noted that the question of the authorship of the -Sīra is rather complicated: Ibn Hishām was selective in his use of Ibn Isḥāq’s material, perhaps reorganised it significantly, and added his own comments and occasional akhbār. Thus, we must recognise that multiple figures in a repeated riwāya-isnād may have exerted influence on the content and form of the package of text as accessed by the author who is quoting it. See al-Samuk 1978, Kudelin 2010. 21 Scheiner 2016, Atassi 2012. 22 Scheiner 2017, 165–7.

2 Repeated riwāya-isnāds to al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh Presenting Common Information Three works provide such a repeated, regular pattern of isnāds claiming al-Layth as the originator of a body of historical information presented in a common, annalistic form: Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s (d. 257 H/871 CE) Futūḥ Miṣr; Baqī b. Makhlad’s (d. 276 H/889 CE) recension of Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ’s (d. 240 H/854 CE) -Taʾrīkh; and quotations of al-Fasawī’s (d. 277 H/890–1 CE) -Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh found in Ibn ʿAsākir’s (d. 571 H/1176 CE) Taʾrīkh Dismashq. Futūḥ Miṣr contains 41 short passages constituted by factual, dated historical notices supported by the isnād < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth >.23 Baqī’s recension of Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh contains 16 seemingly full annals each made up of multiple historical notices of a similar type to those found in Futūḥ Miṣr, each introduced by the statement: Baqī said: It was recited in the presence of Ibn Bukayr, on the authority of al-Layth, while I was listening, that he [al-Layth] said . . .24

Finally, Ibn ʿAsākir’s Taʾrīkh Dimashq has over 110 excerpts of comparable material introduced by two regular riwāya-isnāds which conclude with the link < . . . - Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī – Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth >. Here, we should remember al-Dhahabī’s comment that Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (d. 511 H/1118 CE) had al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh in the riwāya of Ibn Bukayr. All three of these witnesses confirm that al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh circulated in the recension of his student Ibn Bukayr. Each of these students of Ibn Bukayr claim to have learned the -Taʾrīkh, or parts of it, directly from him, which would make them independent witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s recension of the -Taʾrīkh. Many parallel passages quoted by these different students of Ibn Bukayr show them reproducing essentially the same text, yet each also uses the same isnād to quote excerpts not quoted by the others, further supporting the contention that they are independent witnesses. These factors, along with the common type of content found in these quotations and the common annalistic form in which it is presented, point to a stable, coherent text which Ibn Bukayr was teaching to his students on al-Layth’s authority. Finally, as will be fully discussed later in this book, the clear contrast between the material Ibn Bukayr taught these students on his own authority and what he

23 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 76, 122, 119, 122 (twice), 171, 173, 174, 178, 180, 187, 189, 194, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201–2, 202, 203, 204, 207, 211, 213 (five times), 214, 215, 216, 217 (twice), 218, 220, 221, 222, 223 (twice), 233, 237. 24 Khalīfa, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 225, 227, 229, 235, 253, 261, 263, 264, 264–265, 265, 266, 267, 267–268, 270 (two entries), 271. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-003

2 Repeated riwāya-isnāds to al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh Presenting Common Information

9

ascribed to al-Layth strongly suggests that the -Taʾrīkh was indeed composed by al-Layth rather than Ibn Bukayr. An illustration of what this looks like in practice may help the reader at this point. In Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ’s -Taʾrīkh we find the following excerpt appended by Baqī b. Makhlad to Khalīfa’s annal for the year 65: Baqī said: It was recited in the presence of Ibn Bukayr, on the authority of al-Layth, while I was listening, that he [al-Layth] said: In the year 65 Marwān entered Egypt in the new moon of the month of Rabīʿ II. Then he departed from Egypt in Jumādā II. Then he died at the beginning of Ramaḍān. The commander of the faithful ʿAbd al-Malik succeeded to the caliphate in Jerusalem in the month of Ramaḍān. In it [i.e. the year 65]: Ḥubaysh b. Dalja was killed; the Commander of the Faithful celebrated the Feast of the Sacrifice in Ḥimṣ; Ibn al-Zubayr led the people in the pilgrimage.25

This appears to be a whole annal from al-Layth’s Taʾrīkh being publicly recited in front of Ibn Bukayr to authorise its transmission on his authority. The use of the phrase quriʾa ʿalā Ibn Bukayr wa-anā asmaʿu ʿan al-Layth qāla is a clear indicator, beyond the repeated use of the same isnād, that Baqī is quoting from a work which was being orally/aurally transmitted from a written exemplar.26 This particular extract gives an extremely sparse narration of the Umayyad caliphal contender Marwān b. al-Ḥakam’s campaigning in that year, details of his death and his son ʿAbd al-Malik’s succession, and a couple of other events of note. In contrast to this form of quotation – a list of events from a single year – the authors of Futūḥ Miṣr and Taʾrīkh Dimashq did not tend to reproduce whole annals from al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh but rather individual notices (i.e. the discrete pieces of information which made up those lists). As such, in these texts the excerpts of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh appear as fleeting, dated data. Yet common notices found across all three texts demonstrate that they were each quoting from the same body of material. Thus, in parallel to the statement quoted above from Baqī’s recension of Khalīfa’s Taʾrīkh that, ‘In the year 65 Marwān entered Egypt in the new moon of the month of Rabīʿ II’,27 we read in Taʾrīkh Dimashq and Futuḥ Miṣr, respectively: Ibn Bukayr related to us: al-Layth related to me, saying: . . . in the year 65 was Marwān’s entrance to Egypt in the new moon of Rabīʿ II.28

25 Khalīfa, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 261. For the Arabic, see the edition at the end of this book. 26 Thus fulfilling two of Scheiner’s criteria indicating use of a book, Scheiner 2017, 165–7. 27 fī sanat 65 dakhala Marwān Miṣr fī hilāli shahri Rabīʿ al-Ākhar. 28 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 255: ḥaddathanā Ibn Bukayr ḥaddathanī al-Layth qāla . . . wa-fī sanat 65 dukhūlu Marwān Miṣr fī hilāli Rabīʿ al-Akhara.

10

2 Repeated riwāya-isnāds to al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh Presenting Common Information

Marwān’s entrance [to Egypt] was – as Yaḥyā b. Bukayr related to us from al-Layth b. Saʿd – in the year 65.29

Futūḥ Miṣr’s excerpt omits the exact date, and there is a slight discrepancy between the witnesses as to whether Marwān’s action is formulated verbally or nominally,30 but it is clearly the same notice. The minor divergences between the quotations can easily be explained by a copyist’s error or choice or, as we shall see, Futūh Miṣr’s tendency to paraphrase when it invokes the -Taʾrīkh to provide a date for a previously presented event. In another example, each of the three witnesses quote al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh on the date of the caliph Muʿāwiya’s death: Baqī said: It was recited in the presence of Ibn Bukayr, on the authority of al-Layth, while I was listening, that he [al-Layth] said: In the year 60 the commander of the faithful Muʿāwiya died in Rajab, four nights [Khalīfa, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 229] having passed from the month.31 Yaʿqūb [al-Fasawī] related to us: Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Bukayr related to me from alLayth, saying: Muʿāwiya died in Rajab, four days having passed from the month, in the year 60.32 [Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lix, 238–9]33 Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Bukayr related to us from al-Layth b. Saʿd, saying: Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān died in the year 60.34 [Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 198]

Again, Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam abbreviates the exact date in Futūḥ Miṣr whereas both Baqī b. Makhlad and al-Fasawī (in Taʾrīkh Dimashq) retain a fuller date with essentially identical wording, albeit with minor variations in how Muʿāwiya’s name and title are presented.

29 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 233: wa-kāna madhkhaluhu kamā ḥaddathanā Yaḥyā b. Bukayr ʿan al-Layth b. Saʿd fī sanat 65. 30 dakhala versus madkhal versus dukhūl. 31 wa-fī sanat 60 tuwuffiya amīru -l-muʾminīna Muʿāwiya fī Rajab li-4 layālin khalat minhu. 32 tuwuffiya Muʿāwiya fī Rajab li-4 layālin khalat minhu sanat 60. 33 In another place Ibn ʿAsākir quotes the same notice but with 4 days remaining of Rajab, a minor scribal error, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lix, 58. This error appears to have been reproduced by Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), x, 207. Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, also relying on alFasawī’s quotation of Ibn Bukayr, has the same wording as those quoted above in the main text, see al-Khaṭīb, Baghdād (2002), i, 578. 34 tuwuffiya Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān sanat 60.

2 Repeated riwāya-isnāds to al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh Presenting Common Information

11

In these later works and a handful of others35 I have found in total 301 separate annalistic notices (i.e. discrete pieces of information dated by year), discounting duplicates,36 quoted and ultimately ascribed to the isnad < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth >. These notices use a common, formulaic vocabulary to repeatedly present information about limited types of events, always accompanied by a date. Of these 301 discrete notices from the –Taʾrīkh which I have found, 65 are attested in more than one witness, firmly indicating that the repeated citations of < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > in these works all relate to the same original body of text: al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh. The earliest notice which I have found relates to Muḥammad’s death in the year 10 of the hijra (632 CE), the latest notice, one of only five undated notices, appears to refer to events in 132 H/749–750 CE, recounting Marwān II’s flight before the ʿAbbāsid revolution.37 We have notices surviving from 99 of the 123 years bounded by those two dates.38 The density of references to events from these years and the absence of outliers gives us confidence that the coverage of the surviving annalistic notices reflects something like the original chronological scope of the -Taʾrīkh. It was, thus, an annalistic history running from the institution of the caliphate to the end of the Umayyad period. While Ibn Bukayr clearly played an important role in the propagation of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh, the periodisation of the -Taʾrīkh, ending in the middle of al-Layth’s lifetime (c. 93–175 H/711–791 CE), over two decades before Ibn Bukayr’s birth (c. 154–231 H/770–846 CE), further suggests that al-Layth was indeed the source of its content, as will be discussed in Chapter 4. Those readers who are willing at this point to trust in my ascription of this body of quotations to al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh and want to proceed directly to a dis-

35 The other texts, which provide only a few explicit citations, are the Kitāb al-Wulāt wa-l-Quḍāt of al-Kindī (d. 350 H/961 CE), the Taʾrīkh Baghdād of al-Khaṭīb (d. 463 H/1071 CE), the -Bidāya wa-l-nihāya of Ibn Kathīr (d. 774 H/1373 CE), and the Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb and Iṣāba fī tamyīz alṣaḥāba of Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852 H/1449 CE). Whether al-Kindī had direct access to the -Taʾrīkh is not made obvious, whereas like Ibn ʿAsākir the other three texts accessed it through quotations found in al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh, as will be explained in the next section. 36 I.e. the same notice, even if it is quoted in Baqī’s recension of Khalīfa, Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s Futūḥ, and Ibn ʿAsākir’s Taʾrīkh, only counts as one discrete notice by this count. 37 The earliest entry is quoted at Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (2003), viii, 107. The latest dated entries are for the year 128 H, given at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xi, 145, xiv, 447–8, xv, 336. The entry which appears to be about 132 H is at ibid., lxv, 209, see the entry for 132 H in the edition and translation for the argument for the dating. 38 The years for which I have not found notices are 11, 12, 14, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 77, 81, 83, 84, 85, 89, 91, 92, 107, 111, 112, 117.

12

2 Repeated riwāya-isnāds to al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh Presenting Common Information

cussion of its scope, content, agenda, and author should skip the next two chapters to Chapter 5: The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh. Those who wish to scrutinise this ascription and see how exactly these fragments of an 8th-century annalistic history came to be quoted in various 9th-century or later works, and how we may reasonably infer a stable, original text, should read on.

3 Five Independent Witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s Recension of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh The extant quotations of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh which I have identified come from five apparently independent witnesses to the text: Ḥarmala b. Yaḥyā al-Tujībī (d. c. 243–4 H/857–9 CE), Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (d. 257 H/871 CE), Baqī b. Makhlad (d. 276 H/889 CE), Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī (d. 277 H/890–1 CE), and al-Kindī (d. 350 H/961 CE). Of those, the first four apparently acquired the text from Ibn Bukayr in person, while al-Kindī must have accessed it through an intermediary text and/or transmitter. The independence of these witnesses is attested both by their explicit statements that they directly accessed Ibn Bukayr’s version and by the fact that while each of the witnesses, apart from Ḥarmala,39 quotes some material which is also quoted by the other witnesses, all of them also quote extracts from the -Taʾrīkh which cannot be found in the others’ works. In this chapter I will demonstrate where and how we observe these witnesses quoting the text and what this can tell us about the original form of the -Taʾrīkh.

Witness One: Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam The presence of citations of the -Taʾrīkh in Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s Futūḥ Miṣr is the simplest to explain. Ibn Bukayr was one of Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s teachers and was his fifth most commonly used immediate source in Futūḥ Miṣr by my count, being the direct informant for 88 isnāds in the book. As we have seen, in 41 of these cases the isnād connects only to al-Layth, with the quoted matn presenting formulaic, annalistic notices from the -Taʾrīkh. Occasionally more than one ‘notice’ is presented in the same excerpt, for example: Yaḥyā b. Bukayr related to us from al-Layth b. Saʿd, saying: ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ died in the year 43. In it [the year 43] ʿUtba b. Abī Sufyān was appointed as governor over the Egyptians. In it [the year 43] Sharīk b. Sumayy campaigned against Labda of the Maghrib.40

39 Ḥarmala’s status as a witness is of marginal importance to the recovery of the text: he is the source of only three notices. As discussed below, these are not paralleled in the other witnesses and so it may be that these were his additions rather than his quotation of < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth >, but this would not weaken the case made from the other witnesses. 40 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 180: ḥaddathanā Yaḥyā b. Bukayr ʿan al-Layth b. Saʿd qāla tuwuffiya ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ sanat 43 wa-fīhā ummira ʿUtba b. Abī Sufyān ʿalā ahli Miṣr wa-fīhā ghazā Sharīk b. Sumayy Labda al-Maghrib. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-004

14

3 Five Independent Witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s Recension of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

By my classification, this excerpt includes three ‘notices’: the death of ʿAmr, the appointment of ʿUqba, and the campaign of Sharīk. Counted in this fashion, the 41 excerpts of the -Taʾrīkh in Futūḥ Miṣr present 54 discrete notices. The excerpt above resembles the form of narration found in the seemingly full annals appended by Baqī to Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh, in particular an initial year-date, or event dated by year, followed by a list of notices for the same year punctuated by the conjunction wa-fīhā, ‘and in it [i.e. that year]’. Thus, this excerpt seems to be a quotation which remains relatively close to the wording of the -Taʾrīkh.41 However, in general Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam does not quote the -Taʾrīkh verbatim but rather paraphrases it to provide a date for an event which he has just mentioned in his narrative. This is most obvious when Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam cites < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > as the source of a date regarding the action of a person, but only uses a pronoun to refer to a figure he has just mentioned in the narrative of Futūḥ Miṣr. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam writes, for example: Bishr b. Ṣafwān went on a delegation to Yazīd [the caliph] with gifts which he had prepared for him. Then, while he was still on the road, news of Yazīd’s death reached him [Bishr]. His [Yazīd’s] death was – as Yaḥyā b. Bukayr related to us from al-Layth b. Saʿd – on Friday night, four nights remaining of Shaʿbān in the year 105.42

In al-Layth’s original text Yazīd’s name would of course been given and the form of the citation is obviously a paraphrase indicating that the –Taʾrīkh was the source of the information, rather than claiming to give a verbatim quotation. These paraphrases are often introduced using the above formula of ‘kāna [event] kamā/fīmā ḥaddathanā Yaḥyā b. Bukayr ʿan al-Layth b. Saʿd [date]’, rather than with the isnad formally preceding a matn. This may be Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s indication that he is invoking the -Taʾrīkh to date an event rather than quoting it verbatim. The majority of Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s use of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh is to supplement his narrative of the conquest and rule of the Maghrib in this way. 45 of the 54 notices from the Taʾrīkh quoted in Futūḥ Miṣr relate to this section. I have elsewhere argued that the backbone narrative which Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam re-used in this section was a text composed by Ibn Lahīʿa from information provided to him by informants who died in the late Umayyad period.43 Ibn ʿAbd alḤakam used al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh to provide dates for undated events in that

41 Two other quotations in Futūḥ Miṣr retain this seemingly original form of multiple notices separated by the conjunction wa-fīhā, ibid., 76, 217. 42 Ibid., 215. The reference to the -Taʾrīkh reads: wa-kānat wafātuhu kamā ḥaddathanā Yaḥyā b. Bukayr ʿan al-Layth b. Saʿd laylata -l-jumʿati li-4 layālin baqīna min Shaʿbān sanat 105. 43 Coghill 2020, 545–54.

Witness Two: Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī

15

narrative, as in the quotation above, or to provide alternative dates contradicting those in that narrative, for example: Kulthūm, Ḥabīb, and their troops perished and the army fell back, routed, to Ifrīqiya. Kulthūm was killed in the year 113. Yaḥyā b. Bukayr related to us from al-Layth b. Saʿd, saying: Kulthūm was killed in the year 114 . . . 44

In conclusion, while these notices found in Futūḥ Miṣr can be used to identify some of the content of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh, we should be wary of assuming that Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam always preserves its exact wording. This accords with what we observed in the previous chapter of this book, where we saw Baqī and alFasawī’s quotations preserving closely similar wording and detail for a particular notice from the –Taʾrīkh, in contrast to Futūḥ Miṣr, which presented an abbreviated version of the same notice.

Witness Two: Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī Ibn ʿAsākir’s Taʾrīkh Dimashq (The History of Damascus), despite being written some four centuries after al-Layth’s time, contains over 110 quotations of alLayth’s -Taʾrīkh, preserving 222 discrete notices as I have defined them. As such, it preserves more information from al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh than any other source. However, the claim that we can use a 12th-century text quoting a 9th-century author quoting our 8th-century text as an independent witness requires the most explanation. Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571 H/1176 CE) used thousands of excerpts and quotations from earlier biographical and historical works to compile his opus, which stretches to 80 volumes in the modern edition. This took the form of a comparatively brief historical topography of Damascus followed by a vast biographical dictionary of people connected to Damascus or other locations in Syria.45 Ibn ʿAsākir did not have direct access to al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh. Rather, he reproduced quotations of it which he found in the -Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh (Knowledge and history) of al-Fasawī (d. 277 H/890–1 CE). We can tell this because Ibn ʿAsākir almost always cites the terminal isnād-links < al-Fasawī – Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > after one of the same two isnāds which he uses to present text from the -Maʿrifa.

44 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 220. For another example of contradiction of dates see, e.g. ibid., 217. For another example of the -Taʾrīkh being invoked to date an event which is undated in Futūh Miṣr’s backbone narrative, see e.g. ibid., 221. 45 On Ibn ʿAsākir’s reliable use of earlier sources and methods of quoting them see Scheiner 2016 and 2017 and also Cameron 2001 and Judd 2001.

16

3 Five Independent Witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s Recension of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

These isnāds are thus riwāya-isnāds, as explained above.46 This indicates that Ibn ʿAsākir was quoting al-Fasawī quoting al-Layth’s Taʾrīkh.47 We would not have to bother with Ibn ʿAsākir’s second-hand quotations if al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa was fully extant. Unfortunately, it is not. The first part of al-Maʿrifa was an annalistic history to 240 H/854 CE, but the section up to the year 134 H/752 CE is lost.48 We recall that the last firmly dated entry of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh which I have found dates to the year 128 H/745–6 CE, with one notice which may refer to the year 132 H, which seems to have been the end of the work. Therefore, all of al-Fasawī’s quotations of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh would have been in the section of al-Fasawī’s work devoted to the Umayyad period which is now lost, aside from being quoted in later sources. Indeed, the absence of al-Layth’s material, as transmitted by Ibn

46 For al-Fasawī, see al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), vi, 641–2, Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxxiv, 161, which state that al-Fasawī studied with Ibn Bukayr. On at least one occasion Ibn ʿAsākir is explicit that the riwāya-isnād which he gives to al-Fasawī, followed by al-Fasawī’s riwāya-isnād to al-Layth, is a quotation of al-Fasawī’s -Taʾrīkh. See Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 170, where he gives a long quotation, an identification within which he goes on to question, saying ‘So it is in Yāʿqūb [al-Fasawī]’s Taʾrīkh but this is a false surmise, for this Khālid is not the son of ʿAbd al-Malik . . . ’: kadhā fī taʾrīkh Yaʿqūb wa-huwa wahmun fa-inna Khālid hādhā laysa bibni ʿAbd al-Malik. Scheiner 2017, 196, notes Ibn ʿAsākir’s use of al-Fasawī, though by my count Ibn ʿAsākir’s repeated riwāya-isnād citations of al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa amount to many more than Scheiner’s count of 17. Akram Diyāʾ al-ʿUmarī, the editor of al-Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh, also recognised that the isnāds in Taʾrīkh Dimashq leading back to < Yaʿqūb (al-Fasawī) – Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > had originally been part of al-Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh, and used them in his attempt to reconstruct the lost portion of the work, e.g. al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), iii, 299, 307, 309, 319, 331–2, 333, 334, 336 (twice), 349. However, al-ʿUmarī missed a lot of entries in Taʾrīkh Dimashq derived from al-Maʿrifa. I have found some 110 entries derived from al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh in Taʾrīkh Dimashq, almost all derived from quotations of al-Maʿrifa. Nevertheless, al-ʿUmarī valuably collects other sources which quote al-Fasawī’s text, and therefore also quote alFasawī’s quotations of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh, e.g. al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), iii, 262 (Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya), iii, 311 (Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba), iii, 316 (al-Khaṭīb, Baghdād), iii, 337 (Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb). 47 Ibn ʿAsākir used at least two isnāds to access al-Fasawī’s information from al-Layth, one beginning with Abū al-Qāsim b. al-Samarqandī, one with Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Ḥamza al-Sulamī, though both converge in the figure of Abū al-Ḥusayn b. al-Faḍl, with a single chain then stretching back to al-Fasawī. See, for example, the isnāds at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ii, 142, 168, viii, 84, ix, 67, 171 etc. We can conclude that he was working from two different mss of al-Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh with different but converging riwāyas. It should be noted that very occasionally (ibid., xi, 145, xxxi, 290, xlvi, 476) Ibn ʿAsākir also accessed annalistic material from al-Layth through a different isnād which leads to an Egyptian student of Ibn Bukayr, Rawḥ b. al-Faraj (d. 282), for whom see al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), vi, 750–1. Though I have not systematically analysed all the isnāds used to access al-Fasawī’s work in Taʾrikh Dimashq, the one beginning with Ibn al-Samarqandī is by far the most commonly used. On Ibn ʿAsākir’s relationship with Ibn al-Samarqandī, see Scheiner 2017, 249. 48 See the brief summary of al-Fasawī’s work in Juynboll, “Ridjāl”, EI2.

Witness Two: Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī

17

Bukayr, from the extant annalistic section of al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa beginning in 134 H, despite being present in quoted excerpts from the pre-134 H section, is our strongest evidence that the -Taʾrīkh did in fact conclude around the end of the Umayyad period.49 The upshot of this is that we are reliant on quotations in later works to reconstruct al-Fasawī’s quotations of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh and are not able to tell whether al-Fasawī appended whole annals from the -Taʾrīkh to his own annals, as Baqī did to Khalīfa’s annals, or if he just extracted particular notices of interest, as Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam did. Therefore Ibn ʿAsākir’s quotations of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh are ‘second-hand quotations’, in Landau-Tasseron’s terminology, and must be scrutinised carefully to check whether material from the intermediary source has crept into the quotation, and whether both of the authors doing the quoting were trying to accurately reproduce their source text.50 Fortunately, Jens Scheiner’s work has demonstrated Ibn ʿAsākir’s extreme textual conservatism when quoting earlier works, which gives us confidence that his quotations of al-Fasawī are essentially verbatim.51 Of course, al-Fasawī’s quotation-practice could still have been sloppy. The best way to check this is by comparison of the quotations of alFasawī in the Taʾrīkh Dimashq against another first-hand witness. As Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam can be observed to be paraphrasing al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh at times, Baqī’s additions to Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh are the best comparison. The corresponding notices found in Taʾrīkh Dimashq and Baqī’s extracts show close, often verbatim, lexical and syntactical similarity.52 The similarity in these cases could not have been due to Ibn ʿAsākir’s use of Baqī’s recension of Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh because 49 Ibn Bukayr is regularly cited in the extant annalistic section for his own information on the death-dates of scholars (discussed below in Chapter 4) and thus could have given al-Layth’s dating information on this period to al-Fasawī if it had existed. For quotation of just Ibn Bukayr, see al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), i, 116, 118, 120, 121 etc. 50 Landau-Tasseron 2004, 61, 82. 51 Scheiner 2016. 52 For example, almost all of the annal for 65 H quoted by Baqī in Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 261 can be reconstructed, word for word, by al-Fasawī’s quotations at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 255; xii, 90; xxviii, 211. Four of the five notices of Baqī’s quotation of the annal for 72 H, Khalīfa, 267–8, can be reconstructed practically verbatim from Ibn ʿAsākir, lviii, 249–50; xii, 451 (with a minor and clearly orthographic error in the place-name mentioned), xii, 118. For further comparisons see on the year 58 H, Khalīfa, 225 and Ibn ʿAsākir, lvii, 243 (governorship of Medina); on 59 H, Khalīfa, 227 and Ibn ʿAsākir, xl, 23 (ḥajj-leadership); on 60 H, Khalīfa, 229 and Ibn ʿAsākir, lix, 58 (Muʿāwiya’s death); on 64 H, Khalīfa, 253 and Ibn ʿAsākir, xiv, 251 (Ḥusayn’s death), xv, 23 (ḥajj), lvii, 254 (Marj Rāhiṭ), lvii, 254, 255, 278 (Marwān’s accession); on 70 H, Khalīfa, 266 and Ibn ʿAsākir, xlvi, 475–6 (Ibn Ḥubāb’s death); on the year 73 H, Khalīfa, 270 and Ibn ʿAsākir, xxviii, 249 (Ibn al-Zubayr’s death); and the ḥajj-notices for the years 65–71 H at Khalīfa, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267 and Ibn ‘Asākir, xxviii, 211.

18

3 Five Independent Witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s Recension of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

Baqī’s riwāya does not seem to have circulated in the mashriq and Ibn ʿAsākir explicitly states in his riwāya-isnād to Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh that he is using al-Tustarī’s recension.53 This gives us confidence in both Ibn ʿAsākir and al-Fasawī’s accurate quotation-practice, allowing us to confidently use the quotations in Taʾrīkh Dimashq as good indications of the content of alLayth’s -Taʾrīkh. If al-Fasawī’s selection and citation of al-Layth’s -Tarīkh is somewhat obscured, Ibn ʿAsākir’s activity is relatively easy to reconstruct. Organising his work by biography rather than chronology, his practice was to extract multiple notices relating to a given individual which he found in a particular book, presenting them together after validating his knowledge of them with the riwāya-isnād which connected him to that book. Thus, he broke up the annalistic form of alFasawī’s -Maʿrifa, which may or may not have preserved al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh’s original whole annals. The following extract, taken from Ibn ʿAsākir’s biography of al-Aswad b. Bilāl, is representative: < [riwāya-isnād to al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh] – Yaʿqūb [al-Fasawī] – Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > In it – meaning the year [1]20 – al-Aswad b. Bilāl led the campaign in overall command of the army. In the year [1]21 Ḥafṣ b. al-Walīd made a naval campaign. He was on the coast until he returned from there. Al-Aswad b. Bilāl was in overall command but they did not go forth [on campaign]. In the year [1]22 the Egyptians – with al-Aswad b Bilāl in overall command – departed from Alexandria and came to Crete. They encountered the army and God routed them [the enemy]. They settled Crete and took slaves from it. In it – meaning the year 125 – al-Aswad b. Bilāl made a naval campaign, with ʿAyyāsh b. ʿUqba leading the Egyptians. They raided Cyprus and they transferred its [population] to Syria.54

It seems that Ibn ʿAsākir has culled events relevant to al-Aswad b. Bilāl and authorised by the isnād < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > from several of al-Fasawī’s annals, and then presented them all together in his biographical entry on al-Aswad. AlLayth’s custom of preceding each piece of data with the phrase ‘in it [that year]’ (wa-fīhā), recognisable from Baqī’s excerpts and the quotations found in Futūḥ

53 On the different recensions see Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ (2015), 39–40. For examples of al-Tustarī in the riwāya-isnād see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), i, 24, ii, 101, 111, 114 etc. Furthermore, Ibn ʿAsākir quotes much of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh which is not present in Baqī’s 16 annalistic supplements. 54 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ix, 67. I am reading faṣalū min al-Iskandarīya rather than FḌLW, which occurs in the edition I am using. This reading concurs with the recurrence of the same citation later in the same edition, see ibid., xiv, 448. It should be noted that this later citation also has Ḥafṣ remain in al-Shām rather than al-sāḥil.

Witness Two: Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī

19

Miṣr, is preserved on two occasions.55 However, Ibn ʿAsākir, having removed the notices from the annals which made clear the date to which the fīhā was referring, had to specify the year with his own interjection: ‘meaning the year x’ (yaʿnī sanat x).56 This is a near ubiquitous feature of Ibn ʿAsākir’s quotations of the -Taʾrīkh. Therefore, despite the fact that al-Layth’s dating information appears in Taʾrīkh Dimashq organised by reference to individuals’ biographies, the manner in which it is presented supports the notion that it is the annals which Baqī appended to Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh which preserve the original form in which al-Layth had presented the information. Ibn ʿAsākir was not the only later author to quote the now lost early sections of al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh. As noted by its editor, Akram Diyāʾ al-ʿUmarī, quotations from this text can be found in the Taʾrīkh Baghdād of al-Khaṭīb (d. 463 H/1071 CE), the -Bidāya wa-l-nihāya of Ibn Kathīr (d. 774 H/1373 CE), and the Tahdhīb altahdhīb and Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba of Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852 H/1449 CE). These texts also include quotations of al-Fasawī quoting al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh, corroborating Ibn ʿAsākir’s evidence about al-Fasawī’s replication of material from the -Taʾrīkh. In most cases, these quotations can also be found with the same ascription to < al-Fasawī – Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > in Taʾrīkh Dimashq as well, confirming that they are accurately referring to the same body of quotations. Yet several of the notices found in these other texts cannot be found in the Taʾrīkh Dimashq, indicating that they are also independent witnesses to the excerpts of the -Taʾrīkh found in al-Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh.57

55 Every annal preserved by Baqī uses the wa-fīhā conjunction, and as noted above it is preserved in quotations at Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 76, 180, 217. Khalīfa would later use the same formula in his own annalistic history. 56 Further proof of this is Ibn ʿAsākir’s reproduction of text from the -Taʾrīkh regarding Saʿīd b. alʿĀṣ’ leadership of the pilgrimages of 49, 51, 52, and 53 H. To express this Ibn ʿAsākir repeatedly and consecutively gives the full sentence ḥajja ‘āmaʾidhin bi-l-nāsi Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ. This indicates that this was the original form of the text, which only makes sense in an annalistic format, and which he had quoted verbatim rather than rationalising into something like ‘Saʿīd led the pilgrimage in the year 49, 51, 52, and 53.’ We find the same thing at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 170, xlvii, 21, lvii, 242. Though at one moment, it seems that either Ibn ʿAsākir or his copyist lost patience with repeating the full sentences: Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxviii, 211–2. 57 Al-Khaṭīb quotes al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh three times using the following isnād through al-Fasawī: < Ibn Faḍl – ʿAbd Allāh b. Jaʿfar – Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī – Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth >, see al-Khaṭīb, Baghdād (2002), i, 550 (paralleled by Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lx, 42, 45), i, 557 (c.f. Ibn ʿAsākir, lix, 146), i, 578 (c.f. Ibn ʿAsākir, lix, 58). Al-Khaṭīb uses the same isnād to alFasawī, but not subsequently to al-Layth, in order to quote text which can be found in the extant sections of al-Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh, demonstrating that this is a riwāya which he uses to quote al-Maʿrifa. Compare e.g. al-Khaṭīb, i, 390 with al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), i, 144, al-Khaṭīb, i, 428 with al-Fasawī, i, 147, al-Khaṭīb, i, 436 with al-Fasawī, i, 144. As al-Khaṭīb predated Ibn ʿAsākir he is obviously not reliant on him.

20

3 Five Independent Witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s Recension of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

Witnesses Three and Four: Baqī b. Makhlad and Ḥarmala b. Yaḥyā al-Tujībī As noted previously, the manuscript of Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ’s (d. 240 H/854 CE) -Taʾrīkh contains 16 seemingly full annals which are ascribed to < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth >. But it wasn’t Khalīfa who quoted al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh in his work. Khalīfa was a Baṣran homebody who never studied abroad and may never have even heard of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh.58 However, the only surviving manuscript of his -Taʾrīkh is in the recension (riwāya) of his student Baqī b. Makhlad (d. 276 H/889 CE). Baqī was a Cordoban scholar who had travelled in the east. There he had studied with Khalīfa and learned his -Taʾrīkh, which he subsequently transmitted in al-Andalus.59 However, when Baqī transmitted Khalīfa’s text he made various additions. These included 16 of al-Layth’s annals, which he appended to Khalīfa’s entries between the years 58 H/677–8 CE and 75 H/694–5 CE.60 As we have seen, these are introduced with the phrase, ‘Baqī said: It was recited to Ibn Bukayr, on the authority of al-Layth, while I was listening, that [al-Layth] said: in the year x . . . [a list of events follows].’61 Clearly, on his way home from the east Baqī had learned at least some of al-Layth’s work

Ibn Kathīr also quotes the -Taʾrīkh via al-Fasawī on three occasions: Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (2003), viii, 107, ix, 246 (c.f. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxvii, 19, xxxiv, 287), xii, 366 (c.f. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvi, 350, 360). He does not give a full riwāya to al-Fasawī on these occasions but elsewhere explicitly quotes from the ‘-Taʾrīkh’ of Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī, see Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (2003), ii, 515, also xiv, 630, where he lists the book as one of al-Fasawī’s compositions. The notice he quotes from al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh at ibid., viii, 107 is not found quoted in Taʾrīkh Dimashq or elsewhere, suggesting that Ibn Kathīr had independent access to al-Fasawī’s work. Ibn Ḥajar quotes from al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh via al-Fasawī seven times over the course of his Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba and Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, see Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iv, 129, 530 (c.f. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2, xlvi, 57), iv, 540 (c.f. Ibn ʿAsākir, xlvi, 112, 201–2); Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), viii, 38 (c.f. Ibn ʿAsākir, xlvi, 45), x, 207 (c.f. Ibn ʿAsākir, lix, 58, 238–9), x, 256, xii, 3 (c.f. Ibn ʿAsākir, xxvi, 442). He refers explicitly to al-Fasawī’s Taʾrīkh as his source for these quotations once in each work, see Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iv, 530 and Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), x, 256. The notice at ibid., x, 256 is not attested in the Taʾrīkh Dimashq or elsewhere, though is expressed using the terminology of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh and refers to a figure mentioned elsewhere in the -Taʾrīkh (see Ibn ʿAsākir, lviii, 33), suggesting again that this Ibn Ḥajar had independent access to al-Fasawī’s work. 58 Zakkar, “Ibn Khayyāṭ”, EI2. On Khalīfa and his -Taʾrīkh, see now Andersson 2018. 59 Pellat, “Baḳī b. Makhlad”, EI2. Fierro 1989, Marin 1980. 60 As noted in the introduction to Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (2015), 38–9 and Andersson 2018, 20, Baqī added material to one further annal, that of 231 H, which included the event of his Egyptian teacher Ibn Bukayr’s death, presumably the reason he made the addition. Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 480. 61 quriʾa ʿalā Yaḥyā b. Bukayr wa-anā asmaʿu ʿani -l-Layth qāla . . .

Witnesses Three and Four: Baqī b. Makhlad and Ḥarmala b. Yaḥyā al-Tujībī

21

from Ibn Bukayr and used it to supplement Khalīfa’s annalistic history when he transmitted it. At the end of three of these quotations from < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > Baqī includes a notice or two prefaced by the statement, ‘Ḥarmala added [the following] in his transmission (riwāya) from Ibn Bukayr’.62 The only Ḥarmala listed in the biographical dictionaries as being a student of Ibn Bukayr and an informant of Baqī is the Egyptian scholar Ḥarmala b. Yaḥyā al-Tujībī.63 This indicates that Ibn Bukayr had also transmitted al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh to Ḥarmala, further establishing that Ibn Bukayr was teaching it as a formal text, while making clear that different students’ copies of such a formally transmitted text might differ slightly. This might be due to the lecturer performing the text slightly differently on different occasions, or the note-taker/copyist missing or consciously excluding something which the lecturer had recited or which was written in their written exemplar.64 Having audited the text from Ibn Bukayr directly, Baqī checked his notes against Ḥarmala’s text, finding a couple of additional notices which he then included in his supplements to Khalīfa’s chronicle while scrupulously indicating that he didn’t hear them from Ibn Bukayr directly. Each extract from al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh found in Baqī’s riwāya of Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh presents various events from the year in question and is usually placed before Khalīfa’s own annal for that year. The following is one of the longer excerpts, which gives a flavour of the rest: The commander of the faithful Yazīd died in the year 64 on the night of the full moon65 in the month of Ramaḍān. In it [that year] the Kaʿba was burned on Saturday, three nights having passed of the month of Rabīʿ II. In it the commander of the faithful Marwān b. alḤakam was given the bayʿa in Dhū -l-Qaʿda at al-Jābiya. In it was the battle of Rāhiṭ in Dhū al-Ḥijja, two nights after the feast of the sacrifice. In it the Maghrib was conquered by Zuhayr on the day a-k-s-y-l [sic, read: Kusayla] was killed. Ḥarmala added [the following] in his recension from Ibn Bukayr: Ibn al-Zubayr led the pilgrimage.66

We see again the repeated refrain wa-fīhā (‘In it [i.e. in that year]’), to introduce new events for the same year, functioning effectively as a semi-colon in a list of

62 zāda Ḥarmala fī riwāyatihi ʿan Ibn Bukayr . . . Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 229, 253, 264. 63 See the lists of Ḥarmala’s teachers and students at al-Mizzī, Asmāʾ (1980), v, 548–552. 64 These types of issue are discussed by Landau-Tasseron 2004, 55–6, referencing Gregor Schoeler, whose views may be accessed in Schoeler 2006 and 2009. 65 Yazīd’s death is conventionally dated to Rabīʿ I, see Hawting, “Yazīd (I) b. Muʿāwiya”, EI2. 66 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 253.

22

3 Five Independent Witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s Recension of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

events whose chronology is established by reference to a date stated at the beginning of the annal.67 I have dubbed these ‘seemingly full’ annals because they appear plausibly to be Baqī’s reproduction of entire annals from the -Taʾrīkh. The general lack of notices absent from Baqī’s excerpts that are quoted in other witnesses for these years partially supports this contention. By my reckoning, the above annal comprises six potentially independent notices, and the 16 annals quoted by Baqī in total comprise 81 notices. Of these 81 notices, parallel quotations of 30 can be found attributed to < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > in the other witnesses to the -Taʾrīkh, a hit-rate of over one in three. In these other witnesses, we find only three notices attributed to al-Layth for the years covered by Baqī’s excerpts which Baqī himself did not include.68 That is, of the 33 notices regarding those years which we find quoted by the other witnesses, Baqī preserved 30 of them (91%). This suggests that Baqī did miss or omit some notices from the -Taʾrīkh, but not many. Those that are missing display no obvious ideological bent.69 Three further features suggest that Baqī’s excerpts closely preserve the wording of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh as Ibn Bukayr transmitted it. Firstly, as noted above, they show a near verbatim similarity to corresponding notices which can be found in excerpts of the -Taʾrīkh which derive from al-Fasawī’s quotations. This gives us confidence in both Ibn ʿAsākir and al-Fasawī’s accurate quotationpractice. Second, on the one occasion that we find a more extended quotation of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh from al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa which can be checked against one of Baqī’s extracts, the multiple notices are presented in the same order as we find them in Baqī’s quotations.70 This suggests that both Baqī and al-Fasawī preserved the word order of what must therefore have been a stable text which they independently learned from Ibn Bukayr. Thirdly, a peculiarity of titulature found in Baqī’s quotations of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh suggests that Baqī preserved the original wording. In Baqī’s excerpts from al-Layth the Umayyad caliphs are routinely referred to as amīr al-muʾminīn (commander of the faithful) when mentioned

67 Usually the year is given (wa-fī sanat x . . . ) followed by a list of events, rather than beginning with a dated event as here. 68 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxviii, 211, xxxi, 290, xlvi, 45; Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), viii, 38 (the last two are duplicate notices). 69 The missing notices are the death notice of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr in 68, the killing of an Umayyad pretender during the second fitna in 69, and Ibn al-Zubayr’s leadership of the pilgrimage in the same year (a notice-type routinely quoted by Baqī in other years). 70 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 255, which presents four notices in the same order as we find them at Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 261.

Witness Five: Abū ʿUmar al-Kindī

23

in third person narration, 14 times over the 16 annals quoted from al-Layth.71 In the main body of Khalīfa’s text, however, the Umayyad caliphs are only ever referred to as amīr al-muʾminīn in narrated direct speech between characters, rather than third person narration, and even then only 13 times over the course of Khalīfa’s entire text.72 One might argue that Baqī added these aggrandising titles to the Umayyad caliphs to win favour with the Umayyad emirs of Spain where he transmitted Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh. However, there is no reason why he would not have added these titles to the many references to the Umayyad caliphs in the body of Khalīfa’s original text which he transmitted. As such, it seems more likely that he has conservatively preserved a feature of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh which was not always retained by the other witnesses.73 As such, while al-Fasawī’s preserved quotations of the -Taʾrīkh mostly accord very well with the annals appended to Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh, Baqī’s extracts should be seen as our most accurate sample of al-Layth’s Taʾrīkh as it was transmitted by Ibn Bukayr. A final question remains: why did Baqī append only 16 annals from al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh to Khalīfa’s, rather than incorporate the whole text? I have no definite answer for this: perhaps Baqī did not have much time when he met Ibn Bukayr on his travels and could only sit in on a single session, thus learning a portion of the -Taʾrīkh, or perhaps his selection was intentional, trying to find information to supplement Khalīfa’s comparatively scant annals for the period of the late 60s and early 70s H.74

Witness Five: Abū ʿUmar al-Kindī The 10th-century Egyptian historian Abū ʿUmar al-Kindī, whose Wulāt Miṣr and Quḍāt Miṣr are fundamental sources for reconstructing early Islamic Egyptian history, explicitly states that he is using al-Layth’s Taʾrīkh early in his book to give a piece of information attributed to < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > by another witness.75

71 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 229, 253, 261 (twice), 263, 264 (twice), 265 (twice), 266 (twice), 267 (twice), 271. 72 Ibid., 216 (twice), 217, 239 (twice), 262, 282, 283, 327, 372 (twice), 401, 402. 73 Compare the use of the title in the notices of the accession of the caliphs Marwān and ʿAbd alMalik at Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 253, 261 with their absence in the corresponding notices at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 254, 255, 278. Some notices from al-Fasawī in Taʾrīkh Dimashq retain the use of the caliphal title when Umayyad rulers are mentioned, see for example ibid., lxv, 304. 74 Khalīfa’s entries for the years 58, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74 are all very short. 75 al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 10: wa-qāla al-Layth b. Saʿd fī taʾrīkhihi fataḥahā [Aṭrābulus] sanat 23. The subject, ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, is implicit from the previous passage. Compare Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2, Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 171.

24

3 Five Independent Witnesses to Ibn Bukayr’s Recension of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

On two further occasions he invokes al-Layth directly (qāla al-Layth), without mention of Ibn Bukayr, for dated information of a type frequently found in other quotations of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh, though these are not paralleled in the other sources, which suggests again that al-Kindī is an independent witness.76 However, in the paralleled case al-Kindī uses a different verb to that found in the other witnesses (fataḥa rather than ghazā) and in one of the unparalleled cases he uses a verb for the dismissal of a governor not typically used by the < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > material (ṣurifa, rather than the typical nuziʿa). Either al-Kindī was using a slightly different version of the -Taʾrīkh, or, more likely in my opinion, he was willing to paraphrase it to suit the terminology of his own composition. Given how useful al-Layth’s dating information would have been for al-Kindī’s account of the governors of Egypt, it is likely that al-Kindī used al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh more than he explicitly says. The times when he tells us that he is using al-Layth are when he is reporting a difference of opinion between his sources.77 Al-Kindī does not routinely give an isnād for such information: presumably when his sources were in agreement he did not feel the need to do so. Therefore, it is likely much of his text is based on the sources he refers to only when he reports their conflicting information. Further study of the dating information given by al-Kindī in comparison with the notices attributed to the -Taʾrīkh by the other witnesses could illuminate how far he was reliant on al-Layth’s work, while investigation of the other sources he names would shed light on other Egyptian annalists operating after al-Layth.78

76 al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 69, 75. 77 Al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 69, contrasts his informant ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Abī Maysara’s report that the governor Ayyūb b. Shuraḥbīl’s tenure was terminated by his death with al-Layth and another informant’s report that he was dismissed from office, though all give the same date. At ibid., 75, al-Kindī again contrasts Ibn Abī Maysara’s information with al-Layth and other sources’ reports, this time because they give the same event conflicting dates. 78 Aside from al-Layth, al-Kindī appears to be regularly using dated information about governors from Ibn Abī Maysara (d. ?) (perhaps as a rāwī to a work by his father Abū Maysara ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Maysara, d. 188, see al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), iv, 908, giving information about governors but also judges), Abū Rabīʿa Hishām b. Isḥāq al-ʿĀmirī (d. 235 H, see ibid., v, 958), and Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā b. (al)-Wazīr (d. 250 H, see ibid., v, 1073) (who sometimes uses Ibn Abī Maysara but sometimes is presented contradicting him, and invoking other sources for relevant information about governors and judges). Together, these authors may have built up the chronological framework which underpins al-Kindī’s mature Kitāb al-wulāt. Some of these informants also provide information about appointment of judges, in which context it is worth noting that Abū Maysara was witness inspector to the Egyptian chief judge al-ʿUmarī (in post 185–194 H), perhaps suggesting a judicial institutional context for the development of annalistic records including the appointment of judges, which would also be suggested by the frequent citation of Ibn Lahīʿa, himself a chief judge, for such information.

4 Al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh or Ibn Bukayr’s? The repeated quotation of annalistic material on the authority of < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth b. Saʿd > in several later texts, often independently quoting the same information, makes a strong case for the existence of a common source underlying these citations. But should we believe the isnāds’ claim that this annalistic material originated with al-Layth b. Saʿd? All extant citations of the –Taʾrīkh are through the transmission of Ibn Bukayr. This raises the question of Ibn Bukayr’s role in its production. Could not Ibn Bukayr have composed the –Taʾrīkh himself and ascribed it to his teacher al-Layth, thus leading later authors to misattribute the material to al-Layth? The answer, of course, is yes. But I think it is unlikely. Firstly, this is not a body of ḥadīth where the provision of a longer isnād would have been important for validating the information through a complete set of transmission links back to an eyewitness. In any case, these isnāds do not go back earlier than al-Layth, so would not have fulfilled that function for most of the information anyway. As such, there would have been little epistemological benefit motivating Ibn Bukayr to falsely ascribe this material to al-Layth. Secondly, the periodization of the –Taʾrīkh – ending in 132 H/749–750 CE during al-Layth’s lifetime (c. 93–175 H/711–791 CE) but before Ibn Bukayr’s (c. 154–231 H/770–846 CE) – makes more sense if al-Layth was the author. Finally, a large body of citations of Ibn Bukayr exist which suggest that he did in fact teach one or more bodies of dated information to his students on his own authority. However, this information is of a markedly different character to that which he ascribed to al-Layth, being focussed on the death dates (wafayāt) of companions and scholars rather than the events of state we find associated with the isnād-link < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth >. Thus, it seems that, aside from acting as a transmitter (rāwī) of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh, Ibn Bukayr himself propagated information with a consistent focus on dating. However, this dated information constructed a quite different vision of time and the Muslim community. The following discussion will briefly outline this material, both to demonstrate its distinctiveness from the material from the -Taʾrīkh and to outline the potential foundations for further study of the earliest layers of the tradition of scholarly biography in Egypt. The packages of chronological information which Ibn Bukayr propagated on his own authority seem to fall into two bodies, one concerned with the death dates of Muḥammad’s companions, the other with death dates of scholars. The first of these bodies of information is most extensively quoted in alṬabarānī’s al-Muʿjam al-kabīr ʿalā asmāʾ al-ṣaḥāba (The Great Dictionary of the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-005

26

4 Al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh or Ibn Bukayr’s?

Names of Muḥammad’s Companions).79 While al-Ṭabarānī (260–360 H/873–971 CE) often cites Ibn Bukayr as part of a full isnād supporting a ḥadīth,80 in at least 68 cases he quotes him as the ultimate authority (i.e. last name in an isnād-chain) for a short text giving the death-date of a companion and some brief biographical notes.81 Each time he does this, the intermediary transmitter between al-Ṭabarānī and Ibn Bukayr is an Egyptian scholar named Abū Zinbāʿ Rawḥ b. al-Faraj (d. 282 H/895–6 CE).82 Al-Ṭabarānī never cites Abū Zinbāʿ for biographical information or death-dates of companions except as this intermediary link in an isnād leading directly to Ibn Bukayr. This suggests that Abū Zinbāʿ had not written a wafayāt work containing information gathered from various sources, one of which was Ibn Bukayr, but rather was instead the transmitter (rāwī) of such a work which had been composed by Ibn Bukayr. Aside from this information about the deaths of the prophet’s companions – found most extensively in al-Ṭabarānī’s work – a second body of date-centred biographical notices transmitted on the ultimate authority of Ibn Bukayr can be found in classical sources. This information is focussed on later ḥadīth scholars rather than companions of Muḥammad. Many such quotations can be found in al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh and al-Bukhārī’s -Taʾrīkh al-kabīr.83 These 79 al-Ṭabarānī, Kabīr (1984–90). A native of Syria, al-Ṭabarānī was one of the great ḥadīthtransmitters of his day, studying throughout the central lands of the Islamic world before settling in Isfahan. On him see Fierro, “al-Ṭabarānī”, EI2. 80 e.g. al-Ṭabarānī, Kabīr (1984–90), i, 226, 258, 346 etc. 81 By my current count, though there may be more. See, for example, in just the first volume of al-Ṭabarānī, Kabīr (1984–90), i, 110, 113, 118, 122, 128, 139, 149, 155,198, 203, 336, 367. Ibn Bukayr’s entries on companions always give their death-date and sometimes birth-date, for example ibid., i, 128. Aside from the name, we are often given their kunya, e.g. ibid., i, 198, 336. The age of the companion at death is frequently given, seemingly as proof that they could have encountered the prophet, e.g. ibid., i, 155, 367, ii, 180, 189. Sometimes the circumstances or location of their death are mentioned, for circumstances of death see, ibid., i, 155, 336; for location of death, ibid., i, 198, 336, ii, 148, 270. Brief information about their lives might be included, such as their age at conversion or participation in a glorious event such as the battle of Badr, e.g. ibid., i, 155. al-Ṭabarānī rarely quotes Ibn Bukayr through the same intermediary transmitter (Rawḥ b. al-Faraj) to give a ḥadīth, suggesting that this work focussed on giving information about companions’ deaths and confirmation of their status as companions, rather than also being a collection of ḥadīths organised by companion and including biographical information. 82 On whom, see al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), vi, 750–1; al-Mizzī, Asmāʾ (1980), v, 12–13. 83 For al-Fasawī’s al-Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh see al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), i, 116, 118, 120–1, 123, 124, 131, 133, 139, 143, 145, 147, 148, 149, etc, the last citation of Ibn Bukayr being at ibid., i, 188. Similar material is found in al-Bukhārī, Taʾrīkh (no date), ii, 95, 181, 190, 303, 365, iii, 75, 498, iv, 38, 224, 343, v, 117, 163, 182–3 etc. We also find Ibn ʿAsākir quoting al-Fasawī quoting Ibn Bukayr for the same type of entries, demonstrating that al-Fasawī used Ibn Bukayr’s wafayāt material in the earlier part of his annalistic history alongside his quotations of al-Layth, but

4 Al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh or Ibn Bukayr’s?

27

formulaic entries are again presented on Ibn Bukayr’s own authority, with no isnād-links to earlier informants. Both al-Fasawī and al-Bukhārī had met Ibn Bukayr and therefore quoted him directly rather than accessing his work through a transmitter (rāwī).84 Al-Fasawī tends to quote what seem like whole (if brief) wafayāt-entries, which always start with a name and death date and sometimes go on to give further information.85 Al-Bukhārī, on the other hand, generally

distinguished between them in his isnāds. See Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xv, 397, xix, 293, xxix, 309, xxxiv, 434, xxxvii, 413, xl, 408, xli, 416, lvii, 40. 84 The lack of a repeatedly used intermediary transmitter makes it harder to demonstrate that these quotations indicate the existence of a formally transmitted work by Ibn Bukayr on the wafayāt of scholars, rather than being the result of consultation of Ibn Bukayr by these authors. One indication in support of the idea that Ibn Bukayr was propagating a fixed text is the periodisation of the information quoted from Ibn Bukayr in al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa, in which entries on people who died up to and including the year 199 H/814–15 CE are very regular but then cease entirely. Al-Fasawī (d. 277 H/890–1 CE) likely met Ibn Bukayr long after this date. If he was simply transcribing death dates and biographical notes from informal discussions with Ibn Bukayr, it would be strange that they never discussed people who died after that point. A more likely scenario is that when they met al-Fasawī audited a text which Ibn Bukayr had composed covering a period up to the year 200, which he had continued to propagate without updating it. Further information about al-Fasawī and Ibn Bukayr’s interactions emerges from these quotations. At times, al-Fasawī appears to quote a wafāt-entry from Ibn Bukayr with the usual information, followed by a dialogue of further questions about that person posed by al-Fasawī to Ibn Bukayr on other topics. This suggests that as al-Fasawī learned Ibn Bukayr’s wafayāt-material he asked further questions on issues which he thought were of importance, but which were not covered by Ibn Bukayr’s text. See, for example, al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), i, 148, where al-Fasawī asks Ibn Bukayr further information about Ḥarmala b. ʿImrān’s tribal affiliation, hair-dying habits, and whether or not he had studied with Ibn Shimāsa. Further interesting information about al-Fasawī’s composition of al-Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh emerges from a comment at al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), i, 143 in which al-Fasawī states that a version of his book had been shown to Ibn Bukayr who had contested or corrected a detail in one of al-Fasawī’s quotations of him: qāla [al-Fasawī] qāla Ibn Bukayr tuwuffiya Qabāth b. Razīn al-Lakhmī sanat 157 aw 158 thumma balaghanī annahu ʿuriḍa kitābī ʿalā Ibn Bukayr fa-qāla sanat 156 aw 157. Given the presence of this text in our version of al-Maʿrifa, this demonstrates that a version of al-Fasawī’s work was circulating as far as Egypt within Ibn Bukayr’s lifetime, i.e. before 231 H/845–6 CE, and that al-Fasawī adjusted later presentations of his work to include feedback which he had received, though without in this case altering his original text, even if it had been corrected by its original source. This might suggest that al-Fasawī continued to recite his book from his written exemplar but added comments to it of information he had subsequently learned. 85 In al-Fasawī’s fuller quotations of Ibn Bukayr the formulaic start is tuwuffiya fulān sanat x, with the basic information given on each scholar being their name and patronym, tribe, and year of death. Occasionally a place nisba is given instead of a tribal nisba though sometimes there is no nisba. See al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), i, 139 for place nisbas, ibid., i, 124, 131 for examples without nisbas. The provision of a kunya is probably the next most common feature, the next most common being a birth year. For an example of both, see ibid., i, 133. Details on where a scholar

28

4 Al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh or Ibn Bukayr’s?

quotes Ibn Bukayr for single pieces of information missing in his other sources, such as a scholar’s kunya, suggesting a more selective use of Ibn Bukayr’s wafayāt data.86 As for the chronological scope of this body of information, the earliest death-date which I have found is 95 H/713–14 CE and the latest is 199 H/814–15 CE.87 Ibn Bukayr is used consistently by al-Fasawī to provide deathdates up to the year 199 and never again after that point, which strongly suggests that the version of Ibn Bukayr’s wafayāt work which al-Fasawī had ended at around the year 200.88 Thus, we have a rough sense of the chronological scope of Ibn Bukayr’s work on the death dates of scholars. Al-Fasawī consistently distinguished in his isnāds between this information which Ibn Bukayr told al-Fasawī on his own authority, and the material from the –Taʾrīkh which Ibn Bukayr transmitted to him from al-Layth. Moreover, each of these isnāds supports information which is highly formulaic yet distinct from information supported by the other, supporting the notion that they indicate two separate bodies of information, each the product of different moments and intentions of composition. The quotations of Ibn Bukayr alone show him engaged in generating a very different memory of the Islamic community to that of the annalistic material he transmitted from al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh. Ibn Bukayr dispensed with affairs of state – campaigns, battles, and governors – in preference for the lives and deaths of the companions and the ḥadīth-scholars who preserved their memory of Muḥammad’s deeds and words. Al-Layth, the muḥaddith par excellence of Egypt, would of course also have been deeply invested in these topics. Nevertheless, they barely figure in the fragments of his –Taʾrīkh which survive.

mostly lived might be given, or locations of birth and death, e.g. ibid., i, 120–1 for information about place of residence, ibid., i, 151 for place of birth and death. There is no attempt to systematically list scholars’ teachers or students, but an individual’s particularly prestigious teacher from the tābiʿūn might be named, and Ibn Bukayr mentions at least once the fact that he himself had studied extensively with one of his biographical subjects, e.g. ibid., i, 120–1 for the teacher, i, 148 for Ibn Bukayr’s connection. While Egyptian scholars are particularly prominent in these quotations of Ibn Bukayr, it is clear that he gathered and transmitted information about at least some non-Egyptians. For some of Ibn Bukayr’s notices on non-Egyptians, see ibid., i, 124, 139 (both from Ayla); i, 131 (Kūfan) and al-Bukhārī, Taʾrīkh (no date), ii, 181 (Ḥimṣī); ii, 303, v, 117 (Kūfans), ii, 365, iii, 498, iv, 38 (Damascenes), v, 163 (Baṣran). The bias towards Egyptians in the surviving sample of Ibn Bukayr’s work may have been a feature of his work, or may be because scholars from further east such as al-Fasawī or al-Bukhārī had plenty of information about Kūfan or Baṣran scholars and tended to use Ibn Bukayr for information regarding Egyptian scholars about whom they knew less. 86 For examples of al-Bukhārī using Ibn Bukayr only for a scholar’s kunya, see al-Bukhārī, Taʾrīkh (no date), iv, 38, 224, 343. 87 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xli, 416, al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), i, 188. 88 The last entry is ibid., i, 188.

4 Al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh or Ibn Bukayr’s?

29

Perhaps Ibn Bukayr was responding to a greater formalisation of ḥadīth scholarship in the latter 2nd/8th and early 3rd/9th-centuries, preserving in writing what was known about the earlier figures of the tradition, responding to similar currents which would lead Ibn Saʿd to compose the first great biographical dictionary. Further work on figures such as Ibn Bukayr (in Egypt, for example, Saʿīd b. ʿUfayr) whose biographical work fed into the earliest extant biographical dictionaries may help us to understand further the origins and development of the tradition of mass biographical writing in Arabic. For our current purposes, however, it is enough to note that the –Taʾrīkh which Ibn Bukayr was transmitting on al-Layth’s authority was very different from the material he himself was composing and propagating, giving us good grounds to accept its attribution to al-Layth himself. Despite their clear distinctiveness, it is possible that these two bodies of information were combined by Ibn Bukayr into the same manuscript and even taught by him together. A model for this would be the transmission of the annual list of ḥajj-leaders and caliphal successions compiled by Abū Bakr b. ʿAyyāsh (d. 193/809), which survived as the first part of a text known as the Taʾrīkh of Abū Bishr Hārūn b. Ḥātim (d. 249 H/863-4 CE) (al-Shihābī 1978). In this work, Hārūn named his source before quoting Ibn ʿAyyāsh’s text wholesale, inserting very occasional additions to the text which were marked clearly by isnāds. The text recounted, he then proceeded to give, either with new isnāds or on his own authority, a genealogy of Muḥammad followed by reports of the death dates of companions, successors, and ḥadīth scholars. This material, containing occasional references to birth dates, teaching relationships, the locations where scholars resided, and further information about their names, closely parallels the dating material we find transmitted on Ibn Bukayr’s authority. As such, it is possible that Ibn Bukayr used al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh just as Hārūn used Ibn ʿAyyāsh’s text: as a preface to a proto-rijāl work which nonetheless maintained the integrity of the earlier text. This commonality may even point to a genre of muḥaddiths using early annalistic records of history and office-holding to introduce their own collections of wafayāt material, with a focus on dating tying together the composite package of information. In any case, with the caveat that the production of a ‘book’ from as early as al-Layth’s lifetime was always something of a joint enterprise between a teacher’s writing and lecturing and their students’ dissemination of this, and that al-Layth’s annalistic work may have circulated prefaced to Ibn Bukayr’s rijāl material, it seems reasonable to ascribe the –Taʾrīkh to al-Layth rather than Ibn Bukayr.

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh We have already seen that the earliest notice we have quoted from the – Taʾrīkh is an excerpt placing Muḥammad’s death in Rabīʿ I, 10 years after his emigration (and thus a year earlier than the standard Islamic date), while the latest notice appears to be from 132 H/749–750 CE.89 Thus it seems that the coverage was only through the Umayyad period and stopped with the fall of the Umayyads. Al-Layth, born in 93 or 94 H/711–13 CE, was therefore an adult witness to the last 15 to 20 years of the events his –Taʾrīkh recounts, which is reflected by the greater specificity we see in later entries. As we will see in the next chapter, he was closely linked to the governors of Egypt between the years 109–119 H (c. 727–738 CE), making him likely very well-informed about current events in that period, perhaps with access to whatever state records existed, and perhaps writing at the behest of these governors of Egypt. If it was an official, state-sponsored project, this may explain why it cuts out at the fall of the Umayyad state. Each annal appears to have begun with the phrase, ‘In the year x’ (wa-fī sanat x), which was followed by a list of notices, each separated by the phrase, ‘and in it [the same year]’ (wa-fīhā).90 The presentation of information in the – Taʾrīkh uses extremely formulaic language and as such each piece of data, or notice, may be reduced to one of the following categories, which I have based on the operative verb or noun used by al-Layth: campaign notices (ghazw); pilgrimage notices or other festal celebrations (ḥajj/taḍḥiya); death notices, either violent (qatl) or non-violent (wafāt); appointments and dismissals of governors (taʾmīr/nazʿ); major battles (waqʿa); caliphal successions (mubāyaʿa/istikhlāf); conquests (fatḥ); and finally delegations to the caliph (wafd), movements of

89 Muḥammad’s death is noted at Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (2003), viii, 107. The next notice I have found regards ʿUmar’s accession, Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2, 465. The latest report, ibid., lxv, 209, is a rare, undated report, though still fits the annalistic scheme as it begins with the phrase wa-fīhā. Comparison of the events it describes with what is known from other sources suggest that it refers to the year 132 H. The next latest notices are a cluster of fragments explicitly dated to the year 128, see ibid., xi, 145, xiv, 447–8, 450, xv, 336. 90 On the basis that this is the consistent means of introducing the notices excerpted by Baqī which, as argued earlier, best reflect the original form of the -Taʾrīkh. The events of ʿUmar’s caliphate may have been presented in a slightly different form to the standard for the rest of the annal, using the formula kānat [event] li-sanat x, if the extract at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995)., xliv, 391–2, accurately reflects the –Taʾrīkh. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-006

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

31

commanders or other persons (dukhūl, khurūj, hubūṭ, ṭulūʿ), and other types of basic summary narration.91 The following table shows the distribution between these formulaic data-types in the notices of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh which we find reproduced in Baqī’s recension of Khalīfa’s –Taʾrīkh, in Ibn ʿAsākir’s Taʾrīkh Dimashq, and in my collection of all of the discrete notices from the –Taʾrīkh which I have found. The use of a table and percentages are intended only to give an easily comparable impression of the kind of information al-Layth included in his –Taʾrīkh, and an indication of the relative frequency of each type of notice. It should be emphasised I do not claim that the figures and distribution precisely mirror the original –Taʾrīkh. The data we have are a partial sample, subject to the selection criteria of Ibn ʿAbd alḤakam, Baqī b. Makhlad, al-Fasawī, Ibn ʿAsākir, and the other lesser witnesses to al-Fasawī’s –Maʿrifa. Thus, it cannot be claimed that they definitively reflect the relative distribution of types of information in the –Taʾrīkh. Baqī’s notices

Ibn ʿAsākir’s notices

All discrete notices

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Campaigns

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Pilgrimages

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Violent Deaths

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Troop movements, narrative, etc

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Non-violent deaths

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Battles

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Caliphal successions

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Conquests

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Other

 (%)

 (%)

 (%)

Total







Notice Type Governor changes

Nevertheless, the fact that Baqī seems to have reproduced relatively full annals suggests that, for the years in which he excerpted notices at least, his extracts should represent the original distribution. However, the distribution of notices found in the total sample of excerpts is probably a better indicator of the

91 I characterise summary narration, or diegesis, as absence of direct speech, absence of descriptive phrases, brevity of relation (or narrative speed), and elimination of redundant details, following Beaumont 1996, 9–13.

32

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

original, as the distribution found in Baqī’s excerpts would have been skewed by the fact that they were taken from the period of the second civil war. Therefore, Baqī’s excerpts present more narrative detail and troop movements than average, and marginally more violent deaths, as would fit a period of civil war. They also include a disproportionately high count of pilgrimage notices because al-Layth recorded both Ibn al-Zubayr’s leadership of the ḥajj in Medina and ʿAbd al-Malik’s celebration of the feast elsewhere, thus producing two pilgrimage notices each year for much of this period.92 On the other hand, Baqī’s excerpts contain unusually few appointments of governors. This is because alLayth focussed on appointments in Egypt and Medina. In this period there were few recordable appointments in those locations because Ibn al-Zubayr needed no governor in the Ḥijāz, ruling from there himself, and al-Layth doesn’t appear to have recorded Ibn al-Zubayr’s Egyptian governors. Likewise, there were fewer campaigns recorded in these years because external warfare largely halted while the Muslims fought each other. Aside from these discrepancies, Baqī’s extracts match the general total pretty well, suggesting that we can take our surviving total sample of references as fairly representative of the original. A final comment must be made about the distribution as reflected in the table. When recording a change in governors al-Layth reported both the name of the individual dismissed and that of the new appointee. I have counted these as two discrete notices because the witnesses to the –Taʾrīkh might only quote the information about the dismissal or the appointment. However, this results in an exaggeration of the attention paid in the –Taʾrīkh to appointments of governors, as the same event is represented by two notices. As such, we can safely halve the proportion of governor events, leaving as the most common notices in the –Taʾrīkh those reporting military campaigns, followed by pilgrimage notices. I will discuss each type of notice in order of their preponderance.

Campaigns The most numerous entries from the –Taʾrīkh which I have found, discounting the doubled notices about governors, are reports of campaigns undertaken beyond the borders of the caliphate. They are a consistent presence in the – Taʾrīkh: the earliest extant campaign notice is from the year 18 H after which

92 If we excluded the seven exceptional reports of the caliph’s celebration of ʿīd al-aḍḥā, pilgrimage notices would make up 14 of 81 notices or 17%, essentially the same as the 16% we find in the wider samples.

Campaigns

33

we have regular surviving entries until the last one I have found in 125 H. They are presented either in a verbal (fī sanat x ghazā [person] [place])93 or nominal (fī sanat x ghazwat [person] [place])94 form based on the root gh-z-w. These notices tend to give both the name of the commander of the expedition and its target, though on occasion one or the other is not given. Sometimes different commanders are given for different regional (e.g. Egyptian, Syrian, Medinan) components of a campaigning force, which are designated using the term ahl Miṣr, ahl al-Shām etc. In these cases the commander-in-chief is often made clear by stating who was ʿalā -l-jamāʿa.95 The outcomes of the expeditions are rarely stated. As such, these notices seem intended to represent a continuing, regular military activity of the Muslim community, conducted under a clear command structure, rather than campaigns of exceptional consequence. Another striking feature of these reports is their focus on activity in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and Anatolia. Of the 52 discrete, extant campaign notices whose destinations are clear or can be easily deduced from their commander, 20 record attacks on targets in the Maghrib,96 18 record naval campaigns in the Mediterranean,97 and six against Byzantine Anatolia.98 Only one extant notice records a campaign in the east, and that is part of the record of the early conquests.99 Clearly al-Layth, or his sources, had little information and/ or interest in the campaigns being conducted from the eastern half of the caliphate. Yet the density of notices about westward campaigns suggests that the

93 E.g. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ix, 67 or xii, 436. N.b. in the following, I use e.g. when I am giving only a couple of representative cases of a phenomenon. When I do not use e.g. I am listing all occurrences which I have found of the notices described in the main text. 94 E.g. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 148 or xi, 298. 95 We can be certain that this is the meaning of the phrase as we are told that in the siege of Constantinople of 98 H, Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik, who we know as the commander-in-chief from other sources, was ʿalā -l-jamāʿa, Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lviii, 33. For other instances of a commander being dubbed ʿalā -l-jamaʿa see ibid., ix, 67, xi, 298, xii, 436–7, xiv, 447–8, xxxiii, 229, l, 224–5, 225, lvi, 472. One can also observe the regional army components in these examples. 96 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 148, xi, 298, xii, 436, 451, 452, xvi, 10, xxix, 39 (two notices), xxxii, 120, xl, 530 (four notices), xliv, 391–2 (two notices), l, 224–5, lvi, 472, lix, 23 (two notices); Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 171, 180, 187, 194; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 225, 265, 267–8; al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 10. 97 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ix, 67 (four notices), x, 269, xi, 298, xiv, 447–8 (four notices), xvi, 10, xxxiii, 229, xxxiv, 328, xxxv, 402, xxxvi, 353, lx, 501, 530 (two notices), lviii, 33, lxv, 229, lxx, 219; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 225, 227; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 119. 98 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 148, xxvi, 442, xliv, 391–2, xlvi, 57, lviii, 39, lxiii, 169; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 108; Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iv, 530; Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), xii, 3. 99 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxx, 219.

34

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

continuous military activity of Muslims against Byzantines and Berbers was at the centre of the world-view being constructed by al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh. Moreover, these notices frequently attest to the joint campaigning of Egyptian and Syrian forces against the Byzantines, with 14 discrete notices emphasising this.100 Thus, these campaign notices also allowed al-Layth to stress the Egyptian contribution to Umayyad military ventures directed from Syria, tying the province and its military into the central imperial project. If the –Taʾrīkh was indeed a late Umayyad production, al-Layth’s propagation of this vision supports the notion of the Umayyad polity as a self-conscious jihād-state, and reflects the reality of the papyrological evidence that shows the Umayyad Egyptian economy being harnessed to outfit and supply the naval fleet.101

Pilgrimage Notices Almost as common are reports of who led the pilgrimage, phrased either ḥajja bi-l-nās [person]102 or less commonly aqāma [person] li-l-nās al-ḥajj.103 The ubiquity of these reports in Baqī’s extracted annals, and their frequency in all surviving fragments, suggests strongly that each of al-Layth’s annals recorded whoever led the pilgrimage that year. This would match manuscript evidence which suggests that there was an early tradition of texts which recorded the annual ḥajj leadership. Al-Layth’s earliest pilgrimage notice is from 35 H, but the notices begin in earnest from the 40s H (we have nine notices for this decade), suggesting that the regular form of the -Taʾrīkh – where it consistently recorded the same set of events in each year if possible – was established for the Sufyānid period onwards.104 Given that more campaign notices survive from

100 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ix, 67, x, 269, xi, 298, xii, 436, xiv, 448, xxxv, 402 xxxiii, 229, xxxiv, 328–9, xl, 501, 530, l, 224–5, lvi, 472, lvii, 243, lviii, 33; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 225; Futūḥ (1922), 119. 101 Blankinship 1994. On the Egyptian Umayyad fleet, see Sijpesteijn 2013, 76, 173, ft. 309 and Fahmy 1952. 102 E.g. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 269, xi, 416 (without bi-l-nās). 103 E.g. ibid., xii, 118, lvii, 242. 104 For an annual list of ḥajj-leaders from ʿAlī’s caliphate to the end of the Umayyad period, compiled by Abū Bakr b. ʿAyyāsh, a younger contemporary of al-Layth, see al-Shihābī 1978, 116–124. This text matches the periodisation of al-Layth’s regular pilgrimage notices and largely agrees with it, where we can test it. However, disagreements for the years 46–47, 51–3, 63, 93, 98, 113, and 117 H suggest that they are independent texts. Al-Layth’s earlier outlier of 35 H is Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iv, 129. The reports from the 40s H are found at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxi, 125, xxviii, 266, xlvii, 21, lvii, 242, lx, 42, 45.

Governor Notices

35

the –Taʾrīkh than these annual pilgrimage notices, it seems likely that the – Taʾrīkh sought to record at least one campaign for each year, often more. AlLayth’s representation of time was thus of an annual cycle of pilgrimage and campaigning, all dated back to Muḥammad’s emigration to Medina. For the period in which Ibn al-Zubayr led the pilgrimage while controlling Mecca as anti-caliph the –Taʾrīkh also notes where the ‘Commander of the Faithful’ ʿAbd al-Malik celebrated the Feast of the Sacrifice (ḍaḥḥā amīr al-muʾminīn ʿAbd al-Malik bi-[place]).105 Unlike, say, the regular notices of where the Frankish court spent Christmas or Easter in the Royal Frankish Annals, this is not a consistent attempt to fit ‘the peripatetic rhythm of the political court . . . into the liturgical cycle’.106 No such notices are extant except from this period of Ibn al-Zubayr’s anticaliphate. The use of ʿAbd al-Malik’s caliphal title in these notices, which are obviously placed in dialogue with the annual notices of Ibn al-Zubayr’s ḥajj-leadership, confirms that they are rather a demonstration of al-Layth’s rejection of the caliphal claim inherent in Ibn al-Zubayr’s control of the pilgrimage. As such, these notices show that al-Layth saw the caliph’s orchestration of the pilgrimage as essential to his role. This link between the caliphate and the control of the pilgrimage is attested also by al-Layth’s contemporary Ibn ʿAyyāsh’s inclusion of caliphal successions in his list of annual pilgrimage leadership notices (see footnote 104). Ibn al-Zubayr’s control of the pilgrimage during the second fitna was a problem for an Umayyad-friendly historian like al-Layth which prompted him to spell out ʿAbd al-Malik’s caliphal title every year and stress his participation in festal celebrations, even if they had not been held in Mecca.

Governor Notices News of the dismissal and appointment of governors is another significant body of information recorded by the –Taʾrīkh. The verbs nazaʿa and ammara – usually but not always in the passive – indicate the persons dismissed and appointed, with the province being specified with the prepositions ʿan/ʿalā followed by its name or its ‘people’ [Miṣr/ahl Miṣr].107 Very occasionally the verbs istaʿmala and wallā are used to indicate appointments, but ammara is used for every Egyptian appointment and in 86% of all appointment notices, making it

105 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267. 106 McKitterick 1997, 114. 107 In the passive: e.g. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxix, 39, 345. But the active form is occasionally also used with a subject, e.g. ibid., xv, 331. Ustuʿmila is less common, e.g. ibid., xxi, 125.

36

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

clear that this was al-Layth’s natural terminology for governors.108 Given that the verb wallā is ubiquitously used for these appointments in later Egyptian sources such as al-Kindī’s Wulāt, it seems likely that this usage of ammara reflects an archaic, Umayyad terminology. These notices most commonly concern the governorship of Egypt. Such notices comprise 31 of the 71 fragments relating to governors and are found consistently across the chronological scope of the –Taʾrīkh. It is hard to imagine that the original attempted anything less than a complete reckoning of the governors of Egypt. Notices for the period 96–124 H (c. 714–742 CE) record the caliphs’ appointment of financial governors to Egypt alongside their military military governors, their appointments and dismissals being recorded using the same terminology.109 This second stream of Egyptian governors is distinguished by the fact that the first of them is specifically appointed ‘in charge of the people of the land’ (ʿalā ahl al-arḍ), a term used for the non-Muslim population of Egypt, while when the last is dismissed we are told the new governor, Ḥafṣ, was given combined charge of Egypt’s Arabs and non-Arabs (ummira Ḥafṣ . . . wa-jumiʿa li-Ḥafṣ ʿarabuhā wa-ʿajamuhā). Later sources term these financial governors’ position as ṣāḥib al-kharāj, even though the term kharāj for tax is anachronistic in an Umayyad-era Egyptian context.110 As such, al-Layth’s presentation of these appointments as jurisdictions over different classes of people (over ‘Arab’ versus ‘non-Arab/people of the land’) is likely to be another archaic usage reflecting late Umayyad-era terminology and conceptions. Governor news from provinces outside of Egypt seems to have been relatively frequent in the –Taʾrīkh, but restricted almost entirely to appointments made in

108 Ammara is used 37 times in comparison with four uses of istaʿmala and two of wallā. All of the uses of istaʿmala refer to governors of Mecca or Medina, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xi, 416, xxi, 125, xl, 23, lvii, 242, 243. The uses of wallā refer to appointments to the Libyan Pentapolis and Ifrīqiya, see ibid., xxxviii, 166, Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 110, 216. However, al-Layth’s use of ammara for both of these jurisdictions in other cases suggests that this is not a consistent reflection of different terminologies used for these jurisdictions. 109 See the notices at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), viii, 84–5, xiv, 447–8, xv, 331, xxxvii, 415, xlix, 116. These allow us to reconstruct the following sequence: Usāma b. Zayd (96 or 97–99 H); Ḥayyān b. Shurayḥ (99-? H); Usāma b. Zayd (?-104 H); Yazīd b. Abī Yazīd (104-? H); ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Ḥabḥāb (?-116 H); al-Qāsim b. ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Ḥabḥāb (116–124 H). 110 This is the term used by al-Kindī to describe ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Ḥabḥāb’s role, Wulāt (1912), 73, 74, while al-Kindī claims to consistently record whether the main governor had authority over the kharāj through the Umayyad period in his introductions of each new governor, see ibid., 10 (ʿAmr in charge of kharāj), 11 (Ibn Abī Sarḥ in charge of kharāj), 14 (Ibn Abī Sarḥ delegates kharāj while he is away), 20 (Qays b. Saʿd has kharāj), etc.

Governor Notices

37

Medina and the Maghrib.111 Of the 40 notices regarding governors beyond Egypt, 22 are about Medina, often given in connection with notices about the leadership of the pilgrimage,112 10 concern Ifrīqiya,113 two al-Andalus,114 and two the Libyan Pentapolis (Anṭābulus).115 Only four notices are present from elsewhere, all recounting changes in Iraq.116 This apparently near total indifference to appointments made in the mashriq further demonstrates the western focus of al-Layth’s vision. Appointments outside Egypt are never dated beyond the year but for Egypt the month or exact day of the governor’s assumption of office is usually given from the Marwānid period onwards.117 This indicates that the sources al-Layth was using for his Egyptian dates improved from the Marwānid period, again suggesting that he might have had access to some kind of Marwānid Egyptian state records. The –Taʾrīkh appears only to have had regular information about governors from the 40s H/660s CE onwards: just one fragment survives discussing an appointment before that period.118 From that period onwards, there is consistent information about the governors of Egypt and Medina, and we find regular information about the governors of Ifrīqiya once its conquest established a settled succession of governors.119 However, an anomaly in the distribution of reports about

111 Of the 45 governor notices from the –Taʾrīkh in Taʾrīkh Dimashq, 18 concern Egypt and 27 elsewhere. 112 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 170, xxi, 125, xxxiv, 441, xl, 23, lvii, 242; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 225, 229. 113 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 447–8, xv, 331, xxxviii, 166, xlix, 116, l, 224–5; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 203, 216, 216, 216, 217. 114 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 396, xii, 454. 115 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 110, 203. 116 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxv, 354, lviii, 39. The appointments from Iraq are from the 90s and 100s H and may have been of interest as markers of Umayyad consolidation of direct authority in Iraq. 117 Dates are given to at least the month at: ibid., viii, 84 (in 96 or 97 H), xiv, 447–8 (in 124 H, 127 H, 128 H), xv, 331 (119 H), xxix, 345 (86 H), xxxvii, 17 (109 H), xlix, 309 (99 H). But there is no month given for ʿAmr’s dismissal in 25 H, ibid., xxix, 39, or ʿUqba b. ʿĀmir’s dismissal and Maslama b. Mukhallad’s appointment in 47 H, ibid., lviii, 62. 118 This relates the dismissal of ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ from Egypt and his replacement with Ibn Abī Sarḥ in the year 25. See ibid., xxix, 39, Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 174. This story was well known lore in Egypt: see the stories foreshadowing and describing this incident in ibid., 158–161, 173–174. In contrast to the dearth of reports about governors before 40 H, we have extant notices about the appointment of governors in Egypt in the 43 and 47 H, of the Pentapolis in 43 H, and Medina in 45 and 48 H. See Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxi, 125, xl, 501, lvii, 242, lviii, 62; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 197. 119 The regularity of the fragments on the appointments of the governor of Ifrīqiya begins in earnest in 105 H, with further reports for 106 H, 110 H, 115 H, 116 H, 122 H, and 124 H, though

38

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

the governors of Medina may reveal something about the composition of the – Taʾrīkh. Extant fragments relate 16 notices about the governors of Medina from 45–62 H (c. 665–682 CE), a very high density of reports. There are then no extant notices about the governors of Medina until the year 104 H/722–3 CE, a significant absence of over 40 years, after which we find six further extant notices about Medinan governors. Thus, there is also a reasonably dense coverage – accounting for losses – of Medinan governors for 104–132 H (c. 722–750 CE). There is no logical reason why al-Layth would have excluded the notices from the previous 40 years. Rather, the break suggests a disjuncture between two different sources of information. The earlier, very detailed, succession of Medinan governors must have been derived from a source which cut off around the year 62 H/681–2 CE. The recording of governors resumes in 104 H/ 722–3 CE, presumably with al-Layth’s (b. 93 H/711–12 CE) living memory. AlLayth didn’t think it was necessary or useful, or didn’t have the resources, to fill in the gap. This silence in the extant fragments thus provides further support for al-Layth’s authorship of the –Taʾrīkh and perhaps indicates that his recording of the information which would go into the –Taʾrīkh commenced not long after 104 H/722–3 CE. It also suggests that his sources for the early years of the caliphate, which he incorporated into a history continuing into his lifetime, included a comprehensive list of early governors of Medina from about the years 45–62 H (c. 665–682 CE), perhaps a piece of Sufyānid recordkeeping from either Egypt, the Syrian centre, or Medina itself.

Death Notices Another central feature of the –Taʾrīkh are death-reports. Non-violent deaths are recorded using the formula tuwuffiya [person]120 while violent deaths are reported qutila [person].121 However, in contrast to the wafayāt books which were the forerunners of scholarly biographical dictionaries, these death-notices are not an attempt to comprehensively represent certain classes of people through collective obituary. Non-violent deaths are recorded less commonly than violent deaths and, with one exception, are devoted to recording the deaths of Muḥammad, the caliphs who succeeded him, and the governors of

surviving fragments also note Mūsā b. Nuṣayr’s appointment in 79 H and Muḥammad b. Yazīd’s in 97 H. 120 E.g. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ix, 171, xxxviii, 272. 121 E.g. ibid., x, 396, xi, 145, xii, 90.

Death Notices

39

Egypt and Ifrīqiya whom they appointed.122 Recounting the deaths of ḥadīthtransmitters or other scholars is not a part of this vision of history. Rather these non-violent deaths are part of its concern to record the continuous history of the institutions of the caliphate and the governorship of Egypt. On the other hand, the violent deaths – the vast majority of deaths recorded in the –Taʾrīkh – denote either the death of a contender in some intra-Islamic civil strife, or the death of a commander on campaign against external enemies.123 The notices themselves are usually blank and uninformative, only occasionally elaborating on who did the killing, otherwise expecting the reader to know the circumstances and significances of the death, which al-Layth was fixing into a chronological scheme rather than elucidating or explaining.124 Rather, the death of a person is used to represent the event as a whole, presumably indicating the significance of the action through the death of a major protagonist. These deaths therefore seem to be part of the eventful fabric of al-Layth’s – Taʾrīkh, rather than the regular, rhythmic reports of campaigns and pilgrimages. The irregularity of the temporal distribution of these surviving notices supports

122 For the deaths of Muḥammad and his caliphs (8 notices), see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvii, 164, xlv, 167, lvii, 254, 255, 278, lix, 58, 238–9, lxv, 304; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 229, 253, 261; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 198, 204, 213, 215; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (2003), viii, 107; al-Khaṭīb, Baghdād (2002), i, 578; al-Ṭabari, Taʾrikh (1387 H), x, 207. For nonviolent deaths of governors of Egypt and their associates (12 notices), see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxi, 290, xxxvi, 350, 360, xxxvii, 17, xxxviii, 272, xlvi, 112, 201–2, xlix, 309, lviii, 64; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 264–5, 271; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 180, 213, 216, 237; Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iv, 540; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (2003), xii, 366. I have included in this category ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr and al-Aṣbagh b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxi, 290; ix, 171, xxxvi, 360, both of whom were sons of governors who had been deputised to their father’s office at some point. The death of the Egyptian chief judge and chief of police ʿĀbis b. Saʿīd was also recorded and I have counted it in this category, Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 265. For ʿĀbis, Al-Zirikli 2002, iii, 242. The exception is the Roman emperor Heraclius, whose death is recorded at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxi, 271, xliv, 391–2; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 76. 123 Deaths of Umayyad pretenders or their commanders, e.g. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xi, 145, xii, 90, xv, 83, xl, 41, xlvi, 45, 475–6. Deaths of ʿAlid or Zubayrid leaders or their commanders, e.g. ibid., xiv, 251, xvi, 170, xxviii, 249, lviii, 249–50, lxiv, 228–9. Deaths of campaigners, often in the Maghrib, e.g. ibid., xiv, 447–8, xl, 536, l, 225, Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 202, 213, 214, 217, 218. 124 E.g. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xi, 145, where the seizure and killing of Thābit b. Nuʿaym and his sons in 128 H is unexplained. One must look to other sources, e.g. Hawting, “Marwān II”, EI2, to discover that Thābit was a dissident Syrian commander who led a Kalbī rebellion in Palestine against Marwān II. Events not noted by other sources, such as the imprisonment of the companions of Ibn Muḥriz in 69 H, must remain obscure: Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 265.

40

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

this idea. Of the 35 violent deaths recorded in the extant fragments, 11 are related to the second civil war over the years 61–73 H (c. 680–692 CE), while 14 are related to the Berber revolts and third civil war from 122–8 H (c. 740–6 CE).125 Discounting reports of the murders of the caliphs ʿUmar and ʿUthmān, this leaves a paltry eight extant reports recounting deaths on campaign spread over the chronological breath of the rest of the extant fragments. Thus 20 years of the – Taʾrīkh’s postulated 119-year span provide over 70% of the extant violent death notices. As such, we may conclude that the maqātil were not a regular presence in the –Taʾrīkh, but rather al-Layth’s means of recording exceptional moments of strife, particularly the second and third civil wars and the Berber revolts.

Battle and Conquest Notices Certain military events in the –Taʾrīkh are reported not through the death of one of the participants. The –Taʾrīkh notes the conquest (fatḥ) of major nonMuslim cities or regions in the early period, often accompanied by the name of the commander who oversaw the victory.126 Famous battles, rather than conquests, of the early period of expansion are referred to simply by name, such as al-Yarmūk, ‘the Bridge’, or the naval battle of ‘the Masts’.127 Major battles during civil strife are listed as waqʿat x, for battles such as Ṣiffīn, al-Ḥarra, and Marj Rāhiṭ.128 These are all simple dating notices, albeit with months or days provided for the latter encounters, which do not explain the nature of the conflict. However, the events at the beginning of the second fitna seem to have inspired al-Layth to break into full sentences, as he provides a brief account of events in Mecca.129 Again, the same isnād that usually presents the annals from al-Layth is used to give slightly fuller, sequential narrations of events of the

125 Second fitna deaths: Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xii, 90, xiv, 251, xxviii, 15, 249, xlvi, 45, 475–6, lviii, 249–50, lxi, 378; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 235, 261, 263, 264, 266, 267–8, 270; al-Ṭabari, Taʾrikh (1387 H), viii, 38. Third fitna deaths: Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), viii, 440, x, 396, xi, 145, xii, 454, xiv, 447–8, 450, xv, 83, 331, xix, 478, xxxvi, 7, xl, 41, l, 225; Ibn ʿAbd alḤakam, Futūḥ (1922), 218, 220, 221, 222, 223. Campaigning deaths, mostly in the Maghrib: Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxii, 120, xxxix, 519, xl, 536, xliv, 391–2, 465, lvi, 472; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 270; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 199, 200, 202, 213, 214, 217. 126 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xx, 352, xxxi, 271, xxxv, 354, xliv, 391–2, lx, 41. A late fatḥ outlier was of course al-Andalus: Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 207. 127 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ii, 142 (Yarmūk), xxix, 39 (the Masts), xliv, 391–2 (Yarmūk and the Bridge). 128 Ibid., xxxviii, 78, xxvii, 19, xxiv, 298, respectively. 129 Ibid., xi, 416.

Caliphal Succession Notices

41

third fitna, particularly Marwān II’s attempts to consolidate his power in Greater Syria.130 If al-Layth had begun his –Taʾrīkh in the 110s while his patrons were governors, it is possible that he was now was updating it with the latest news from the Syrian front.

Caliphal Succession Notices The final regular body of information to be included are reports of the deaths and successions of caliphs, the deaths being reported in the same form as other deaths in the –Taʾrīkh and the accessions usually reported with the verb istakhlafa. For the caliphs Muʿāwiya, Marwān I, ʿAbd al-Malik, and Marwān II the passive formulation ‘he was sworn in as caliph’ (būyiʿa) is used. These caliphs had faced a contested succession, which suggests that the text may have invoked the bayʿa to claim a consensual, ritual resolution of these moments of conflict.131 As we have seen, the title ‘Commander of the Faithful’ was routinely used for the Umayyads, notably distinguishing ʿAbd al-Malik from his rival Ibn al-Zubayr. However, when mentioning a caliph or his accession the text does not stress a shared caliphal descent through the reproduction of full genealogies linking them to their common ancestor Umayya b. ʿAbd Shams, nor does it add the Umayyad tribal designation (nisba) to their names. Indeed, if the extracts in the Taʾrīkh Dimashq and Baqī’s extracts are accurate, as I have argued that they are, it appears that more often than not the new caliph being sworn in was referred to only by their given name without mention of their patronymic.132 Umayyad princes, however, are distinguished within the text by mention that they are the son of the commander of the faithful (ibn amīr al-muʾminīn) and occasional provision of their genealogy.133 This only appears to be the case for princes who were sons of the living caliph, which suggests that it was this

130 Ibid., xxi, 318–9, lxv, 209. 131 On the bayʿa, see Marsham 2009. For use of būyiʿa in the above cases, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 41, lvii, 254, 278, lix, 146. Note also that būyiʿa is also used for al-Walīd, whose accession was more straightforward, see ibid., lxiii, 185. 132 For caliphal successions without patronymics, see Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 253, 261; Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 41, xliv, 391–2, 465, lvii, 254, 255, 278, lix, 146, lxv, 304. There are examples of patronymics being used, however, see Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 229; Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlv, 167, lxv, 304; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 204. 133 See Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 269 (Bishr b. al-Walīd [I] amīr al-muʾminīn), xxvi, 442 (ʿAbbās b. amīr al-muʾminīn [al-Walīd I]), xxix, 345 (ʿAbd Allāh b. amīr al-muʾminīn [ʿAbd al-Malik]), xxxvi, 372 (ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Walīd [I] amīr al-muʾminīn), lviii, 67 (Maslama b. amīr al-muʾminīn Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān), lxiii, 169 (al-Walīd b. amīr al-muʾminīn [ʿAbd al-Malik]).

42

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

status – perhaps linked to caliphal attempts to insert their sons into the succession – rather than their simply being members of the wider caliphal family, which invested them with importance in al-Layth’s mind.134 The exact dates are given for both deaths and accessions from Muʿāwiya onwards: the –Taʾrīkh only dates the extant reports on ʿUmar and ʿUthmān to the month.135 Still, the dates of caliphs’ deaths and accessions are the earliest exact dates which al-Layth claimed knowledge of, followed by certain key battles which secured the Umayyad regime (Ṣiffīn, al-Ḥarra, and Marj Rāhiṭ), followed finally with the dates of appointments of Egypt’s governors which come on stream in the Marwānid period. This likely reflects the priorities of early Umayyad memorialisation only later being caught up by the improving institutional memory and record-keeping of Egypt’s governors in the Marwānid period.

Narrative and Other Material As shown in the table, material of other types is rather marginal in the – Taʾrīkh. One hears occasionally of a frontier commander or Egyptian governor going on delegation to the caliph, while after the second fitna there is a burst of commanders dispatched from Fusṭāṭ to the Egyptian coast and the Maghrib, presumably indicating the Marwānid reassertion of direct control in more peripheral areas once the existential Zubayrid threat had ended.136 Very occasionally, slightly more descriptive material – in that verbs beyond the formulaic repertoire outlined above are used – marks the reporting of unique or particularly noteworthy events: ʿUmar’s allocation of the stipends; the burning of the Kaʿba early in the second fitna; and brief progressions of events during the intra-Umayyad strife recorded at the very end of the -Taʾrīkh.137 The plague of

134 For example, the title is not used when Khālid b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān is mentioned during the caliphate of his brother Hishām, Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 170. 135 Ibid., xxxvii, 164 (ʿAbd al-Malik), xl, 41 (killing of the sons of al-Walīd and succession of Marwān II), xliv, 465 (ʿUmar), xlv, 167 (Sulaymān), lvii, 254, 255, 258 (Marwān I), lix, 58, 146, 238, 239 (Muʿāwiya), lxiii, 185 (al-Walīd I). For the information on ʿUmar’s accession and his and ʿUthmān’s murders, dated to the part of the month rather than an exact date, see ibid., xxxix, 519, xliv, 391–2, 465; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 173. 136 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xii, 452, lvii, 255, lviii, 33, lix, 146, lxi, 223, 378; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 229, 261, 264–5, 266, 270, 271; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 119, 201–2, 211, 217, 233; Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), x, 256. 137 On stipends: Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. On the kaʿba: Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 253. Second fitna: Ibn ʿAsākir, xi, 416, xii, 118; Khalīfa, 265, 267–8. Third fitna: Ibn ʿAsākir, viii, 440, xv, 336, xxi, 318, lxv, 209; Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 218.

Survival Rate

43

Emmaus is mentioned, as well as a plague that hit Egypt in 66 H, but disease does not appear to have been of regular interest to al-Layth.138 Aside from one report of drought there are none of the natural disasters or reports on the failure of the harvest which we would expect from a collection of medieval western annals.139 A notice for the year 82 reads ‘al-Zuhrī came to ʿAbd al-Malik’.140 This can hardly be considered a matter of state like the pilgrimage, campaigns, and appointment of governors. Rather, it suggests that al-Layth thought the presence of al-Zuhrī – whom al-Layth had met – at the Marwānid court was some kind of turning point. Though the laconic nature of the –Taʾrīkh means that we cannot know quite what for, it is tempting to read it as a self-conscious nod to the origins of the historical genre in which al-Layth was writing.

Survival Rate The preceding discussion has established both the chronological scope of the Taʾrīkh and certain information which it seems to have tried to cover comprehensively for particular periods. This provides us with tools with which to approximate the proportion of the -Taʾrīkh’s notices which survive in the witnesses through which we access it. Firstly, it seems certain that the -Taʾrīkh originally recorded all caliphal successions. Up to 132 H/750 CE there had been 16 caliphal successions, if we discount ʿAlī, al-Ḥusayn, Ibn al-Zubayr, and others who would have been deemed pretenders in official Umayyad historiography.141 10 of these caliphal successions are recorded in the extant fragments of the -Taʾrīkh, giving us a survival rate of around 63%.142 A second type of notice which appears to have been routinely recorded by the -Taʾrīkh is the leadership of the ḥajj. From 40 H there appears to have been a consistent attempt to record this for each year, with one outlier from the earlier period in 35 H. If we reckon, maximally, that the original text had entries of this type from 35 H to 132 H, and allow for the eight extra entries which resulted in the doublerecording of ḥajj-notices for both Ibn al-Zubayr and ʿAbd al-Malik which we see

138 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ii, 168, xlvii, 28; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 263. 139 For the drought, Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ii, 168, xliv, 391–2, xlvii, 28. 140 Ibid., lv, 297. 141 Early 8th-century Syriac caliph-lists, for example, which seem to reflect an Umayyad notion of the succession of caliphs, do not include these figures, see the examples in Palmer/ Hoyland/Brock 1993. 142 It is possible that the two short lived caliphs Muʿāwiya b. Yazīd and Ibrāhīm b. al-Walīd might not have been recorded in the -Taʾrīkh, which would give a survival rate of 10/14 or 71%.

44

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

in Baqī’s extracts from 64–71 H, this leaves us a total of 106 probable original ḥajj-notices. Of these, 47 survive, a rate of 44%. The third, final, category of events which the -Taʾrīkh seems to have aspired to record completely is appointments, dismissals, and deaths in post of governors of Egypt from the year 40 H. Thus, we would expect it to contain notices recording these events for all of the military governors recorded by al-Kindī’s -Wulāt for the years between 40 H and 132 H.143 Al-Kindī reports a total of 25 changes of military governor in Egypt for this period, which would have resulted in 50 such notices in al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh.144 In our fragments we find 28 notices recording the appointment, dismissal, or death in post of al-Kindī’s governors for this period.145 Therefore this gives us a survival rate of around 56%.146 The relatively close correspondence of these three attempts to gauge the survival rate of the -Taʾrīkh’s notices in the witnesses to the text suggests that we can estimate that the fragments which I have collected represent about half of the original notices of the -Taʾrīkh, perhaps slightly more.

Discussion The dry nature of the reportage means that al-Layth’s opinions about events are only ever exposed implicitly, for example through his continual reference to the Umayyad caliphs as Commanders of the Faithful. Sadly, no entries regarding ʿAlī survive, so we are not able see whether the Umayyad-friendly perspective of the –Taʾrīkh went as far as to contrast the legitimacy of Muʿāwiya against ʿAlī as it did between ʿAbd al-Malik and Ibn al-Zubayr. It is notable, in fact, that very little material from al-Layth’s regarding the first fitna was excerpted by later sources. It may be that the later developed Sunnī memory of

143 Al-Kindī’s list may not represent all the governors. Papyrus records appear to indicate appointments of Egyptian governors not remembered by the Arabic historical tradition, see Younes 2019. However, as al-Kindī explicitly states that he had access to al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh, it seems unlikely that al-Layth’s work recorded governors who were not mentioned by al-Kindī. Therefore, al-Kindī’s list is probably a good indicator of what al-Layth recorded, even if the papyri show that there were in reality more governors than al-Kindī knew of. 144 See the list at al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), ‫ ا – ب‬. 145 There are 29 appointment or dismissal notices relating to Egypt for this period and six death notices of Egyptian governors, giving us 35. However, 6 of the appointment/dismissal notices refer to financial governors, not included on al-Kindī’s list, and one refers to al-Aṣbagh b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz’s temporary deputisation as governor, so we must subtract 7 to give us 28. 146 As Ibn al-Zubayr’s appointment of a governor for Egypt was probably not recorded by the -Taʾrīkh, this is more likely 28/46 or 61%.

Discussion

45

ʿAlī as a legitimate caliph led to the non-citation of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh on these matters. That said, surviving quotations show that al-Layth’s presentation of Ḥusayn’s death at Karbalāʾ is as dry and matter of fact as any of the other death notices. Only its exact dating to the day suggests that it shared the significance of other crucial moments of Umayyad victory like al-Ḥarra or Marj Rāhiṭ.147 It may be that the refutation of ʿAlid claims by the -Taʾrīkh was performed simply through the dry cataloguing of their deaths along with Umayyad pretenders and other rebels. When we consider the scope of this text in comparison to other annalistic traditions its peculiarity comes into sharp relief. Unlike early medieval annals from western Europe, we find no holy men doing pious deeds, no miracles, and no natural or astrological oddities.148 Instead of emphasising the tracking hand of God through human events, al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh was a far more institutionalised dating record of the offices of the caliphate (at least in Egypt and at its centres, political and cultic), the campaigns in the west, and the struggles for control of the state. Events from the time of the pre-Umayyad caliphs are covered, but mostly in terms of conquests and campaigns, whereas from Muʿāwiya’s reign onwards there seems to have been consistent annual recording of the leaders of the pilgrimage, campaigns against the Byzantines, and changes to the governors of Egypt and Medina, with the Ifrīqiyan governors coming on stream once that province was added to the caliphate. There is little justificatory or legendary representation of the Umayyads (beyond an implicit acceptance of their legitimacy through the use of their title ‘commander of the faithful’) and little ethnic language, making it difficult to read it as a text constructing a people or a dynasty, as one can the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or the Royal Frankish Annals.149 The annual progression of time is, of course, the main narrative thrust of the work. This is recorded in the Islamic calendar of hijrī years with months and dates being given for certain events of significance from the start (caliphal successions, major battles), and more frequently for routine events recorded later in the -Taʾrīkh (e.g. new governors appointed in Egypt). No attempt is made to 147 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 251. At al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), ii, 578, there is a much extended report about Ḥusayn’s death on the authority of < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > . Here there is a hint of victim-blaming: Ḥusayn refuses to be taken prisoner, suggesting that the Umayyad forces tried to avoid bloodshed. However, given the formulaic report found in Taʾrīkh Dimashq on the subject, one suspects that this report is either misattributed or was part of a different body of material taught by al-Layth to Ibn Bukayr and subsequently passed on and thus appeared in al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa with the same isnād as the riwāya-isnād to alLayth’s -Taʾrīkh. 148 Ibid., pp. 348–9. 149 Foot 2012, 360–1.

46

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

reconcile the Islamic calendar of 12 lunar months with the other operative temporalities of the middle east. This stands in contrast to contemporary practices in Syriac historiography, such as the example of Jacob of Edessa (d. 708 CE) whose annals are numbered from their own starting year (327 CE), while occasionally attempting to synchronise this against the Seleucid, Antiochene and Diocletianic eras, the Olympiads, and the regnal years of the Byzantine rulers and their Sasanian and later caliphal antagonists.150 Likewise, the Byzantine historian Theophanes the Confessor (d. 817–818 CE), writing in Greek, reckons each year from creation and the incarnation, as well as the years in office of the Byzantine emperor, his Sasanian or caliphal counterpart, and the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch.151 No such recognition of alternative temporal reckonings or jurisdictions appear to have been present in al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh. Nor even does it appear to have accounted the reign-lengths of the caliphs, which would become a feature of mature Arabic chronicles. Rather, the hijrī calendar, whose early adoption is a sign of the caliphate’s self-consciously novel identity, was deemed a sufficient, total temporal scheme.152 The tendency towards dating western annals from the incarnation of Christ has led scholars of that tradition to claim that the chronological scheme of those annals wove the events it incorporated into a moralising, eschatological scheme (plotted between the incarnation and the end of days).153 The ideological functions of the hijrī date in the early Islamic period require further research. However, it is notable that its commencement with the institution of the Islamic polity both continued certain long-established near eastern trends of beginning eras with moments of polity-foundation, and associated this reckoning with the Islamic state.154 Further, the use of the lunar cycle focusses the annual cycle on Islamic rituals such as the ḥajj while divorcing them from seasonal cycles of harvest, summer campaigning and the like. Finally, we may consider the possible models that may have informed this new style of Islamic historical writing: annalistic historical writing is not a universal practice and we may assume that it developed in contact with an existing

150 On dating in Syriac more generally see Debié 2015, 262–87. Witakowski 2008, 32–34, 37. 151 Neville 2018, 61. 152 Documentary evidence attests to the use of the hijrī era from at least 22 H/643 CE, see papyrus PERF 558, edited at Grohmann 1952, 113–115. For dated hijrī inscriptions from almost as early see Imbert 2011 and Ghabban/Hoyland 2008. 153 For examples, see Foot 2012 and McKitterick 1997. It should be noted that dating from the incarnation, however, is not attested in Syriac works until the 12th-century and was not common until the 16th, Debié 2015, 233. 154 Shaddel 2018 introduces the state of the discussion.

Discussion

47

tradition.155 The western annalistic tradition, while providing interesting comparative material, is probably too far divorced from channels of intellectual exchange with the emerging tradition of Arabic historiography. The importance of Persian scribes and genres in the early development of Arabic literature makes it a more plausible candidate.156 Sasanian historiography however, while still a debateable topic, appears to have been divided between rather bare lists of rulers and reign lengths, and epic narratives focussed on the deeds of great men and rulers.157 Neither seems a sufficiently comparable precedent for the types of material compiled by al-Layth. Nor does the limited amount of Coptic-language historiography which seems to have existed appear to have used an annalistic form.158 Rather, as argued by Franz Rosenthal, Syriac and Greek annals seem the closest comparable type of historical writing, knowledge of which could certainly have been circulating in the elite cultural spheres which produced the first Arabic annals.159 The later sections of the Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa (d. 708 CE), for example, are presented in similarly laconic style to al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh.160 Despite some differences of content,161 there is much that is comparable. Jacob’s Chronicle routinely provides the dates of the deaths and successions of Byzantine emperors, much as al-Layth did for caliphs. Jacob covered the episcopal appointments to a limited range of sees of both local and institutional importance (the patriarchal sees, plus his own Edessa), whereas al-Layth recorded the appointment and dismissal of the governors of Egypt, Medina, and Ifrīqiya. Conflicts between the Byzantines and Persians was recorded in laconic notices of campaigns

155 McKitterick 1997 notes the contrast between Merovingian Francia, which did not produce annals, and Carolingian Francia, which did. 156 Schoeler 2009. 157 For our fullest recent assessment of the nature of Middle Persian historical materials translated into Arabic, including the Book of Lords and other more epic tales, Hämeen-Anttila 2018. See also Hoyland 2018, 1–23. 158 Witakowski 2012, 138–141. 159 As argued by Rosenthal 1968, 74–77, whose discussion of these issues I largely agree with, while suggesting a more particular point of contact between the Syriac and Arabic traditions. Hoyland 1991, 213–9 also suggests a Syriac influence on the emergence of Arabic annals, though considering it a 9th-century Arabic development. On Syriac historical writing see Brock 1979, Debié/Taylor 2012, and most comprehensively Debié 2015. Ibid., 40–1 shows clearly that al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh fits well into the category of ‘chronique brève’. I thank Jack Tannous for suggesting I consider Syriac parallels to the -Taʾrīkh and ever-enthusiastic bibliographic help. 160 Jacob of Edessa, Chronicle (1899). 161 The Chronicle’s focus on the sectarian nature of conflicts and affiliations of actors, its celebration of holy figures who flourished at particular times, its inclusion of natural disasters or oddities, the construction of cities, and the assembly of ecclesiastical councils, find little parallel in the -Taʾrīkh.

48

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

against or conquests of cities or provinces, which seem reminiscent of the notices of ghazw and fatḥ in the -Taʾrīkh.162 There is nothing to suggest that Jacob’s Chronicle in particular was the model for this work, but it seems plausible that the tradition which it embodies was the predecessor to the Arabic annalistic tradition of which al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh was an early exemplar.163 Elite Muslims of the Marwānid period would certainly have come into contact with individuals conversant in Syriac traditions of historiography. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān, the governor of Egypt from 65–86 H/685–705 CE, was served as secretary by the Eddessan Miaphysite Christian Athanasios bar Gumoye, dispatched from Mesopotamia to Egypt by the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik. Athanasios was from an elite family and was noted for his education in Syriac secular and religious learning, which would have included knowledge of Syriac historiography. His service in the Egyptian administration as ʿAbd alʿAzīz’s secretary would surely have involved fluency in Arabic and continual contact with Muslim administrative elites.164 As we shall see in the next chapter of this book, this was the same sphere in which al-Layth would be operating from 109 H/727 CE onwards. Closer to the Umayyad centre, people like the Chalcedonian Christians of the Manṣūr family, who served in Damascus as secretaries to the caliphs from Muʿāwiya to ʿAbd al-Malik, must have been similarly multi-lingual and could have exposed Muslims at the Umayyad court to the modes of historical recording current in the Greek- and Syriacwriting communities of the near east.165 Ibn al-Kalbī (d. 204–206 H/819–821 CE), noted in the introduction as being frequently cited by al-Ṭabarī for annalistic notices, was explicitly said to have taken historical information from ‘the accounts of the Arabs and the genealogies of the clan of Nasr b. Rabi’a and the lifespans of those who acted as agents for the Persian imperial family and the history of their times from the monasteries of Hira’ (my italics).166 The point here, again, is not to pin the transmission into Arabic of annalistic historiography to particular individuals, but to highlight the participation of Christians who would have been aware of annalistic history in the milieu of

162 E.g. ibid., 316, for the exactly dated deaths of Theodosios, Marcian, and Leo, with their successors given. See ibid., 317–318, for examples of appointments over Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Edessa, Constantinople, Antioch. For Byzantine-Persian conflict, see ibid., 323. 163 For other texts in this tradition, and references to existing translations, see Brock 1979, 3–27. Useful information about editions and translations can also be found at http://syri.ac/ chronicles. 164 On Athanasios, see Debié 2016. 165 On the Manṣūr family, see Griffith 2016, 29–32. 166 Hoyland 2018, 17, ft. 62. Mentioned also in Wood 2016, 794–795, with wider discussion.

Discussion

49

Umayyad high administration from which, I suggest, Arabic traditions of annalistic writing emerged. Al-Layth himself need not have written his -Taʾrīkh as a result of such encounters: it is possible that he was following the example of, or even building on, earlier importations of this genre into Arabic. For example alZuhrī, an older contemporary of al-Layth, is said to have written a Taʾrīkh alSinīn, surely an annalistic history.167 Al-Layth met al-Zuhrī in 113 H/731–2 CE, apparently had access to written versions of al-Zuhrī’s teachings via his patron and sometime governor of Egypt Ibn Musāfir, and mentioned al-Zuhrī’s arrival at ʿAbd al-Malik’s court in the text of his -Taʾrīkh.168 All of this makes it tempting to suggest that al-Layth was inspired or commissioned to imitate or continue al-Zuhrī’s work in Egypt. Al-Zuhrī was active at the Marwānid court in Syria and so the transmission of the genre into Arabic could have happened there. No matter where it took place, the adoption of a late antique form of historical writing by the earliest Arabic historians contributes to a puzzle in early Arabic historiography: the relative lack of continuity between late antique forms of historical record and Arabic historical writing.169 It has, of course, been made clear that early Arabic historical narratives were made meaningful through their participation in a common semiotic koinē, their use of ‘recognized sets of signs and symbols’ shared with the non-Muslim communities of late antiquity.170 Nevertheless, most early Islamic historical writing, as it appears in our 9th-century compilations onwards, seems to have little formal correspondence to non-Arabic forms of history-writing.171 However, by unpicking the interwoven tapestry of isnāds and khabars of the classical compositions, and thereby carefully establishing packages of historical information composed and circulated in the earliest stages of Arabic historical writing, we see that the emergence of Arabic history did involve adaptation of the genres and forms of

167 Schoeler 2011, 31, for al-Zuhrī’s -Taʾrīkh. 168 For al-Layth’s meeting with al-Zuhrī, see al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), iv, 712. Another report on the same page suggests that al-Layth had access to written versions of al-Zuhrī’s ʿilm but chose not to ride the post-service to hear him in person in al-Ruṣāfa. This does not preclude him from having audited from him earlier in life, as insisted by the first anecdote. As will be discussed in the next section, al-Layth’s mawlā also had a ṣaḥīfa of al-Zuhrī’s ḥadīths, to which al-Layth had access. For al-Zuhrī’s mention in the -Taʾrīkh, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lv, 297. 169 See Di Branco 2010 for a recent discussion with bibliography of the influence of Byzantine historical models on early Islam, though he does not deal with formal concerns. 170 Sizgorich 2004, 15, 20. 171 Sizgorich 2004, 11, states that Arabic historiography was ‘clearly not formally indebted to classical or ecclesiastical historiography’.

50

5 The Scope and Content of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh

late antique historical writing. As suggested by Rosenthal, a tradition of laconic Arabic annals emerged with relatively close formal and thematic correspondence to contemporary Syriac and Greek annals.172 This tradition would not be continued, being superseded in the classical period by more loquacious forms of history. However, these original, brief annals would be quoted in snippets in more ambitious works of early Arabic history such as al-Ṭabarī’s -Taʾrīkh, and the chronological structure of early Islamic history which the early annalistic tradition had established would form the organisational backbone of these grand works.

172 Rosenthal 1968, 74–77.

6 Al-Layth and Ibn Bukayr Relatively little is known about Ibn Bukayr (d. 231 H/845–6 CE), the common transmitter of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh to all of the sources in which it survives.173 He was an Egyptian student of al-Layth who had also studied with Mālik in Medina. He had apparently heard Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ (The Well-trodden Path) 17 times and his recension of this foundational Islamic legal text was known throughout the pre-modern period and is still extant in manuscript.174 He had played a somewhat scandalous part in the administration of al-ʿUmarī, the Chief Judge of Egypt 185–194 H (c. 801–10 CE). While holding the wealth of orphans in trust for alʿUmarī, Ibn Bukayr would use the money to buy rental properties and date palms, pay back the orphans from the rents, and retain the property for himself. Al-ʿUmarī considered this permissible, but the next judge was not so lenient, having Ibn Bukayr tied to a column for several days and publicly shamed.175 Al-Layth b. Saʿd (d. 175 H/791 CE), the author of the -Taʾrīkh, was no obscure annalist.176 He was primarily famous as a scholar of prophetic traditions, a field in which he was considered one of the greatest in his lifetime, ranked by al-Shāfiʿī alongside Mālik b. Anas and Sufyān al-Thawrī. Some reports even have al-Shāfiʿī claim that al-Layth was a better jurist than Mālik and that Mālik’s preeminence was merely because he had the more vociferous followers.177 In any case, al-Layth was universally recognised as one of the pillars of regional ḥadīth-scholarship. He was born and died in Egypt, having studied with some of the great tābiʿūn of the Hijaz during a pilgrimage in 113 H/732–3 CE, when he was 20.178 He was known

173 For the following, see the entries on him at al-Dhahabī, Siyar (1985), x, 612–5; al-Suyūtī, Ḥusn (1967), i, 347; al-Mizzī, Asmāʾ (1980), xxxi, 401–4; al-Bukhārī, Taʾrīkh (no date), viii, 285; al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), v, 963–4; Ibn Ḥajar, Lisān (1971), ix, 448; Mughulṭāy, Ikmāl (2001), xii, 333–6. Guest’s comments in his introduction to al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 24–5, remain useful. 174 For his familiarity with the Muwaṭṭaʾ see al-Dhahabī, Siyar (1985), x, 614. For pre-modern bibliographical references to his riwāya of the text see Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Fahrasa (1983), 119–20, 129, 134; Ibn Khayr, Fahrasa (1998), 72–3; Ibn Ḥajar, Muʿjam (1998), 37. 175 al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 395, 404. 176 Guest’s introduction to al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 29–31, collects the biographical available to him at the time and notes al-Kindī’s reference to a Taʾrīkh of al-Layth. For further references on al-Layth, see al-Dhahabī, Siyar (1985), viii, 136–63; Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, Taḥṣīl (1986), 260; Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), l, 341–2; al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), iv, 710–19; al-Suyūtī, Ḥusn (1967), i, 301–2; al-Mizzī, Asmāʾ (1980), xxiv, 255–79; al-Khaṭīb, Baghdād (2002), xiii, 4–15; Mughulṭāy, Ikmāl (2001), vi, 280–1. Al-Layth is also discussed in Makkī 1998 and is the focus of an encomiastic article, Khoury 1981. 177 al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), iv, 713. The next report has Ibn Bukayr making the same point. 178 Ibid., iv, 712. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-007

52

6 Al-Layth and Ibn Bukayr

also for his wealth, supposedly enjoying an annual income of 25,000 dinars while dispensing of it with such generosity that he had barely anything left for alms at the end of the year.179 His influence was extensive: among his students we find such diverse figures as Abū Yūsuf, who would be Chief Judge for Hārūn al-Rashīd in Baghdād, and Ibrāhīm b. al-Aghlab, who would found the first regional sub-dynasty to acquire de facto independence from the ʿAbbāsids, the Aghlabids of Ifrīqiya.180 Al-Layth knew that he was big news. Ibn Bukayr told alFasawī – when he wasn’t transmitting al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh to him – that al-Layth used to relate how he had turned down an offer to be governor of Egypt from the ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Manṣūr.181 In another report we learn that al-Layth had told his son that al-Manṣūr had said to him as they parted, ‘The intensity of intelligence that I have seen in you stirs my admiration. Thanks be to God who put such a man as you in my flock’.182 Ever modest, al-Layth instructed his son to keep this quiet while he was still alive. For all this, al-Layth’s legacy of written texts is slim. Though widely-quoted as a ḥadīth transmitter, the only surviving text ascribed to him is a slightly testy letter he wrote to Mālik b. Anas explaining why the Egyptians had as good a claim to prophetic knowledge as the Medinans.183 Sezgin could only claim for him some fragmentary ḥadīth manuscripts, a lost text called the Majlis al-Fawāʾid, and the extant letter to Mālik.184 Nevertheless, al-Layth is one of the most frequently invoked Egyptian transmitters in later compilations of both legal and historical material.185 The lack of whole works composed by him reflects the absence of a ‘book culture’ in the 8th century rather than his marginality as a scholar, and renders the -Taʾrīkh of more importance as an historical text which he composed and which was then circulated in his name. It should be noted that al-Layth appears in the isnāds of many historical akhbār with much more loquacious style than the material preserved from his -Taʾrīkh.186 Thus, the -Taʾrīkh cannot be said to be total extent of al-Layth’s historical

179 Merad, “al-Layth b. Saʿd”, EI2. One suspects a tax dodge. 180 Schacht, “Abū Yūsuf”, EI2 and Talbi, “Ibrāhīm I”, EI2. 181 al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), i, 123. Turning down state appointments became a pious trope in the early Islamic period. 182 Ibid., i, 167: aʿjabanī mā raʾaytu min shiddati ʿaqlika wa-l-ḥamdu li-llāhi -lladhī jaʿala fī raʿiyyatī mithlaka. 183 Ibn Maʿīn, Taʾrīkh (1979), iv, 487–98, with an alternative version referenced and partially translated in El Shamsy 2013, 30. See also Brunschvig 1950, 379. 184 Sezgin (1967–2000), i, 520. 185 His importance can be seen in both the frequency with which he is cited in Ibn ʿAbd alḤakam, Futūḥ (1922) and the 3rd-century papyrus ḥadīth manuscripts in Abbott 1957–1972, ii. 186 See, for example, the reports at Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 57–58 or 72–73.

6 Al-Layth and Ibn Bukayr

53

vision, rather only a single instantiation of it produced in particular circumstances for particular purposes. Furthermore, his letter to Mālik, described by Khoury as ‘un véritable chef-d’oeuvre’, shows him to have been a fine writer capable of subtle, argumentative prose.187 Thus, despite the relative lack of other authored texts by al-Layth, we must understand his recording of history with the blank, formulaic annals through which he depicted it in his -Taʾrīkh as a conscious choice of register suitable for the genre of text which he intended to produce, rather than the product of a limited stylist.188 Two features of al-Layth’s life which have not been picked up by scholarship are germane for our consideration of the –Taʾrīkh: firstly, his association with Ibn Lahīʿa; and secondly, the origin of his wealth – and presumably status – in his connection to a family of Umayyad governors of Egypt. His relationship with Ibn Lahīʿa was life-long. In 113 H/732–3 CE they performed the pilgrimage together as youths, where they are reported to have enjoyed an amiable rivalry trying to outdo one another in collecting ḥadīth from the aged Hijazi tābiʿūn.189 In their prime they were the natural figures of religious authority in the mosque of al-Fusṭāṭ.190 In old age, when Ibn Lahīʿa’s house – including his library – burned down in 169 or 170 H/786–8 CE, al-Layth gave him 1,000 dinars to pick himself up.191 Ibn Lahīʿa has long been recognised as an important figure in the development of a local Egyptian historical tradition. A systematic analysis of the isnāds in Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s Futūḥ Miṣr shows that Ibn Lahīʿa did not just transmit scattered historical khabars but rather assembled and transmitted extended narrative accounts of pre-Islamic Egyptian

187 Khoury 1981, 195. 188 Many western medieval authors of laconic annals or chronicles, such as Flodoard of Rheims, can similarly be seen to operate between very basic and ornate registers depending on the type of text they were producing, see Foot 2012, 349. 189 In 113 H/732–3 CE. See al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), iv, 712, where al-Layth tricks Ibn Lahīʿa out of studying with the important scholar Nāfiʿ. In the same account Ibn Lahīʿa gets his own back in the case of al-Aʿraj. 190 al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), iv, 1216–7 for a story in which an unexpected windfall of alms is placed under their joint custody. At al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 132 they are the joint authorities advising the permissibility of reconstructing churches destroyed under the governor ʿAlī b. Sulaymān, on which see Dridi 2015. 191 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lx, 334 for 1,000 dinars. al-Dhahabī, Siyar (1985), viii, 13 for the date 169 H, alternatively, ibid., viii, 18, for 170 H. The burning of Ibn Lahīʿa’s library was a topic of some interest for the biographers, wrapped up with concerns about his memory and no doubt a means for discussing the legitimacy of writing ḥadīth: al-Dhahabī, Siyar (1985), viii, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 31; Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxii, 139, 147, 148, 149, 157; Ibn Ḥajar, Lisān (1971), ii, 476. Various stories circulated about al-Layth’s generosity to his fellow scholars, including Mālik b. Anas and Asad b. Mūsā, see Khoury 1981, 192–3.

54

6 Al-Layth and Ibn Bukayr

history and Egyptian and North African conquest history, whose content derived from information taught to Ibn Lahīʿa in the late Umayyad period, and whose narrative structure underpins the organisation of much of Futūḥ Miṣr.192 Al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh was another first draft of Islamic history produced in Egypt at around the same time, and the close relationship between these two scholars shows what a small, shared world produced the authoritative visions of Egyptian history which would end up in Futūḥ Miṣr and other later texts. Where al-Layth’s wealth came from has not – to my knowledge – been effectively explained. Khoury supposed that it was primarily his ‘travail intellectuel et spirituel’ which enriched him, on the basis of ‘la sagesse et la pénétration de son esprit’.193 While the modern academic might wish for such a causal relationship between mental acuity and fabulous wealth, a prosopographical approach offers an alternative explanation. Al-Layth was a mawlā – a non-Arab client – of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Khālid b. Musāfir (d. 127 H/745–6 CE).194 Ibn Musāfir was Egyptian Chief of Police (ṣāḥib al-shurṭa) from 109–118 H while his two relatives – ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Walīd b. Rifāʿa – monopolised the governorship of the province.195 In 118 al-Layth’s patron himself succeeded them and became governor for several months.196 Al-Layth, born in 93, would thus have been 16 when his patron’s family effectively took control of the Egyptian state for a decade. Any explanation of al-Layth’s future prominence should recognise that he started out his adult life from this position. An unusual report transmitted from al-Layth in Futūḥ Miṣr describes one of these governors undertaking a three month progression through Upper Egypt, counting the population (over five-million, apparently) and allocating the land-tax.197 Al-Layth’s reporting it suggests his involvement in this major act of state administration undertaken by his patrons. Furthermore, it is clear that he benefitted materially from their position. A report in al-Dhahabī’s biography of Ibn Musāfir states that ‘al-Layth was Ibn Musāfir’s client and because of him al-Layth acquired plentiful worldly goods’.198 Various reports in al-Qāsim b. Salām’s Kitāb al-amwāl have Mālik

192 See Zychowicz-Coghill, 2017, 178–322, especially 317–22. 193 Khoury 1981, 191. 194 al-Mizzī, Asmāʾ (1980), xxiv, 255. On walāʾ see CRONE, “Mawlā”, EI2. Also the essays in Bernards/Nawas 2005. 195 al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 75–80. See the table of aṣḥāb al-shurṭa in Bouderbala 2008, 320. 196 al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 79–80. A fiasco, apparently. 197 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 156. 198 al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), iii, 452: wa [rawā] ʿanhu Yaḥyā b. Ayyūb wa-l-Layth b. Saʿd wa-l-Layth fa-mawlāhu wa-bi-sababihi nāla -l-Layth dunyā ʿarīḍatan.

6 Al-Layth and Ibn Bukayr

55

b. Anas, Ibn Lahīʿa and others upbraid al-Layth for his involvement in Egyptian land-transactions which he justified by claiming Egypt was conquered by treaty (ṣulḥan).199 This issue is raised in a chapter on the purchase of land conquered by force and then turned into kharāj-lands. As fayʾ, these lands should have been inalienable from the fisc; these accusations therefore imply that al-Layth had been involved in the private acquisition of what many thought was the common property of the Muslims.200 The governorship of his patrons seems the natural time for such questionable transactions. Worldly benefits were not all he got from his connections. Ibn Musāfir apparently possessed a manuscript (nuskha) on which was written 200 ḥadīths from al-Zuhrī, the Medinan father of Arabic history-writing.201 Al-Zuhrī is known for his associations with the Umayyad court, where he was encouraged, perhaps compelled, to commit his teachings to papyrus.202 This Umayyad court context, to which Ibn Musāfir would have had access due to his role in the Umayyad state in Egypt, is no doubt the origin of Ibn Musāfir’s possession of al-Zuhrī’s manuscript, showing how the latest developments in Islamic literary culture might spread through networks of elite state actors and their dependents. It is probable that such connections helped al-Layth get an audience with al-Zuhrī in Medina, beginning a relationship which was no doubt formative for both al-Layth’s legal and historical scholarship. Al-Zuhrī is supposed to have written an annalistic historical work, so it may be that this connection was foundational to the existence of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh.203 Al-Layth’s activity as a historian must be understood in the context of his dependent relationship to this family who – claiming descent from one of the original conquers of Egypt, Khālid b. Thābit – embodied the local Egyptian Muslim aristocracy who participated in the Umayyad state to take prestigious and lucrative positions in the army, navy, and administration.204 The history which he produced had to make sense from the perspective of this relationship and the structures of power and prestige which supported it. It is perhaps no co-incidence that al-Layth reported that Khālid b. Thābit, the great-grandfather of his patron, was the general who had conquered Jerusalem for Islam, against the commonly circulated story 199 Abū ʿUbayd, Amwāl (no date), 103–4. 200 There is also a story that he simply inherited his wealth from his patron, though as this account misidentifies al-Layth as Ibn Musāfir’s cousin it seems poorly informed, see Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), iv, 328, discussed by Khoury 1981, 191. 201 al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), iii, 452. 202 See Lecker 1996, 28. 203 Schoeler 2011, 31. 204 The prominence of the Rifāʿids is noted by Mikhail 2014, 136–60. Ibn Lahīʿa too had connections to Umayyad-era elites in Egypt, but unlike al-Layth he accommodated himself to serve under the new ʿAbbāsid regime. See Coghill 2020, 555–7.

56

6 Al-Layth and Ibn Bukayr

that the caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb oversaw its capitulation.205 It seems likely that al-Layth produced his –Taʾrīkh at the request of his patrons, much as the Umayyads asked al-Zuhrī or other scholars at their court to produce written historical records. Just as recent research has shown that the monastic chroniclers of both west and east were politically involved and savvy actors, alLayth’s career, the opportunities he received, and the works he wrote cannot be viewed simply as the product of the life of the mind.206 He had been part of the household of the governors of Egypt at the time of many of the events he was recording and may have had access to whatever state records existed. He knew how the Umayyad state worked, and had benefited grandly from that knowledge. None of this is to say that he was not a serious religious scholar, rather that he should be considered among Steven Judd’s ‘piety-minded supporters of the Marwānid caliphate’.207 Such a designation, of course, adds another valence to his pride in refusing ʿAbbāsid office-holding. In any case, the information he gives us, particularly for events in his lifetime, is from a wellplaced if not impartial observer.

205 Abū ʿUbayd, Amwāl (no date), 201. Also found in al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ (1988), 140. 206 On the east, see Debié/Taylor 2012 and Debié 2015. On the west, see Foot 2012. 207 Judd 2013.

Conclusions Methodology: Riwāya-cum-matn This book has argued for a method by which we may recover much of the form, content, and scope of a piece of 8th-century history Arabic historical writing with a reasonable amount of rigour. When multiple later books independently cite the same khabar with a common link in their isnāds, the circulation of that khabar by the common link can be reasonably deduced, as per Motzki’s isnād-cum-matn process. In the example discussed in this book, the common link is Ibn Bukayr, claiming to transmit from al-Layth. The key difference of this book’s approach from that of the isnād-cum-matn procedure is that it engages with instances when a common link between matns quoted in two or more texts is repeatedly accessed in those texts by the same riwāya-isnāds. In our case, not only is Ibn Bukayr the common link for a single matn found in Futūḥ Miṣr and Taʾrīkh Dimashq, but he is the common link for multiple matns in the two texts. Not only this, but whenever this is the case, he is always accessed via one isnād in Futūḥ Miṣr and two regular isnāds in Taʾrīkh Dimashq. When, as in this case, there are multiple instances of common matns quoted by two or more independent witnesses, with the same isnāds repeatedly attached to the common passages in each witness, the common link can be understood as the common rāwī of a package of information which was independently transmitted to these witnesses. In this case, the repeatedly used isnāds in each work can be understood as riwāyas to this package, or riwāya-isnāds.208 If the common matns display close correspondence in wording, indicating a reliable transmission, one can infer that the riwāya-isnāds in these witnesses represent faithful preservation of the text from the package circulated by the common rāwī. Therefore, other matns in these witnesses supported by the nowcorroborated riwāya-isnāds can be reasonably assumed to represent genuine quotations from the common rāwī’s package, even when the content of these other matns cannot be specifically proven to go back to the common rāwī by directly corroborating parallel matns in one of the other witnesses. The other cases in which the riwāya-isnād has been tested demonstrate the plausible reliability of that chain of transmission within that witness. Thus, we may use the secure identification of reliable transmission from a common link in multiple later witnesses to argue for confidence in the other instances of the exact same riwāya-isnād occurring within those later witnesses. 208 As shown in a later context for formal books by Scheiner 2016, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-008

58

Conclusions

The matns which are attached to these riwāya-isnāds can then be brought together in order to reconstruct something of the scope and content of the circulating package, and even its form if we are lucky enough to have indicators of this as we have in the case of al-Layth’s –Taʾrīkh. The procedure might tentatively be dubbed ‘riwāya-cum-matn’. As noted in the introduction, this kind of work builds on the methodical attempts of scholars such as Motzki, Schoeler, Görke and Scheiner to use sustained criticism of isnāds and matns across different extant works to trace genuine early khabars which might give us more accurate information about the events of the 7th century.209 This book’s approach departs from this tradition in that it is less concerned with establishing the reliability of individual snippets of information. Instead, it seeks to recognise that even potentially ‘atomised’ historical information, such as annalistic notices or historical khabars, must nonetheless have in practice been disseminated and transmitted alongside other historical information, potentially creating packages of information which could be re-transmitted, becoming proto-books. It is thus more concerned with tracing information that was packaged together through common transmission, and how these packages of information were then reused. Riwāya-cum-matn is unlikely to be able to reconstruct packages which circulated in the 7th century, as it does not seem that bodies of information were yet packaged and formally transmitted as wholes in that period. Nor, given its inability to definitively prove that all the matns transmitted on the authority of a particular riwāya in a given work survive in their exact original form, is it likely to produce evidence of the early transmission of accounts which will be deemed admissible in debates over specific, controversial events. What it can do, however, is outline relatively extensive early bodies of information that were formally transmitted as wholes, and which were later incorporated into more ambitious texts which made the originals obsolete. This can help us to more securely trace the historical development of genres of texts, the people who were instrumental in these developments, and their social, intellectual, and political milieus. These millieus may then be assessed as the context for these developments. Another important result of identifying the quotation of these non-extant texts within extant works is that it will allow us to conduct far more rigorous studies of the authorial practices and agency of the authors of our extant works, by assessing the extent to which they followed or reformulated the apparent structure or ideological concerns of their main sources,

209 Görke/Schoeler 2008, with a summary and defence of the approach in Görke/Motzki/ Schoeler 2012; Scheiner 2010.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

59

and how they brought material from different sources together to produce new narrative effects and arguments.210

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh In the current case study, we have seen that there are good grounds for accepting that al-Layth b. Saʿd wrote an annalistic history which covered the period of the rāshidūn caliphs down to the end of the Umayyad period. In it, he explicitly represented the Umayyad rulers as legitimate commanders of the faithful, implicitly rejecting the claims of figures such as Ibn al-Zubayr and al-Ḥusayn. The passage of time was demarcated in hijrī years from the foundation of Muḥammad’s community at Medina. An initial period – up to around the year 40 H/660 CE – contained only notices of caliphal succession and irregular reports of conquests and campaigns. After this, each year was marked by the record of whoever led the pilgrimage and the annual occurrence of raids into non-Islamic territory by appointed commanders, crafting an image of a state whose continuity and legitimacy was bound up in a recurrent cycle of pilgrimage and jihād. The campaigns memorialised by al-Layth tended to be those conducted in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and Byzantine Anatolia, demonstrating the western outlook of this Egyptian vision of Islamic history. The collaboration between Egyptian and Syrian forces is stressed where possible, emphasising Egypt’s place alongside Syria at the heart of the Umayyad project. The outcomes of these campaigns were almost never recorded, further supporting the idea that their representation was part of the construction of regular military campaigning as almost a state institution, rather than a concern to report significant events in terms of causes and effects. The –Taʾrīkh also took an interest in certain institutions. Caliphal successions and deaths were noted with exact dates. The appointment and dismissal of governors of Egypt was a continuous concern, with al-Layth able to provide exact dates from the Marwānid period onwards. The governors of Medina and Ifrīqiya were likewise consistently reported, whereas appointments in the east appear to have been rarely noted, further demonstrating the western focus of the work. In contrast to this interest in governors, al-Layth does not appear to

210 Conducting this kind of analysis in the case of Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s Futūḥ Miṣr was the main thrust of my doctoral dissertation, Zychowicz-Coghill 2017, esp. pp. 178–346, a revised publication of which is forthcoming. For a case study see Coghill 2020.

60

Conclusions

have recorded the succession of judges or police-chiefs in Egypt or elsewhere, unlike later Egyptian historians such as Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (judges) or al-Kindī (judges and police-chiefs). The eventful fabric of the –Taʾrīkh was made up of deaths, battles, and conquests, which were almost never explained beyond giving the deceased or the location. Violent deaths might be of campaigners martyred in non-Muslim territory or antagonists in internecine Muslim strife, with no indication either way given in the text. These were well-known events and persons being fixed into a chronological scheme, rather than being elucidated for an uninformed reader. The deceased were almost invariably military commanders, pretenders, or relatives of caliphs or governors, rather than jurists or cultural figures such as poets, showing that these notices gained their place in the –Taʾrīkh due to their importance for matters of state. Al-Layth himself was no stranger to the Umayyad state, being the mawlā of a family who monopolised the governorship of Egypt from 109–118 H (c. 727–738 CE) and gaining great personal wealth through that connection. Given this connection, the interest of the –Taʾrīkh in Umayyad state matters, and the periodisation of the –Taʾrīkh apparently ending with the fall of the Umayyad regime, it is reasonable to conclude that it was composed in the late Marwānid period, perhaps continually from the 110s H/730s CE, as a result of ties of patronage between members of the Marwānid office-holding elite in Egypt and alLayth. As such, it appears that a simple form of annalistic Arabic historical writing was current from at least the late Marwānid period, providing a framework to be expanded upon in the burgeoning literary culture of the ʿAbbāsid period.

Further Study Little has been written about other early, non-extant Arabic annalistic histories. However, as noted in the introduction, al-Ṭabarī regularly quotes annalistic material with regular isnāds leading to Abū Maʿshar, Ibn al-Kalbī, al-Wāqidī, Ibn ʿAdī, and al-Madāʾinī. A similar approach to that used in this book could systematically try to reconstruct the nature of their annalistic works and allow us to assess the extent to which they produced similar or different visions of Islamic time and history. It would be particularly interesting to see the differences between their work, produced in or around Baghdād, and in Abū Maʿshar, Ibn ʿAdī, and al-Wāqidī’s cases by figures operating under the patronage of the ʿAbbāsids, and that produced by al-Layth in Egypt with his connections to Umayyad-era elites. It would also be interesting to see the extent to which their formulaic terminologies were similar, which might indicate self-conscious adoption of a common model.

Further Study

61

Common notices shared between these figures might indicate which of them were reliant on which others, if at all. If all these annalists shared common material for the earliest period, this might indicate reliance on an original set of Arabic annals, perhaps the Taʾrīkh al-sinīn supposedly written by al-Zuhrī. Along with recent work on Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ’s -Taʾrīkh, there would probably be sufficient material to trace and contextualise the early development of annalistic historical writing in Arabic. Similar attention paid to particular authorities on wafayāt who were quoted in later works, such the quotations of Ibn Bukayr by al-Bukhārī, al-Fasawī and al-Ṭabarānī discussed in Chapter 4, might also allow us to shed further light on the early development of mass biographical literature in Arabic.

Edition and Translation Principles of the Edition and Translation The fragments of the -Taʾrīkh of al-Layth b. Saʿd are presented below in a table of two columns. The left column is a transcription of the passages which I have identified as being direct quotations from or (in the case of references in Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s Futūḥ Miṣr and al-Kindī’s Kitāb al-wulāt) paraphrases of the Taʾrīkh. I leave a space between fragments found in different locations within the same witness, or which come from different witnesses. I transcribe the passages exactly as found in the editions of the witnesses without correcting, for example, the absence of hamzat al-qaṭʿ, or lengthening shortened word forms (such as ‫ ﺛﻠﺚ‬to ‫)ﺛﻼﺙ‬. Al-Layth’s notices as quoted in Taʾrīkh Dimashq often begin with the conjunctions wa-fīhā or ʿāmaʾidhin, which refer back to the year given at the start of each annal. As these notices had been removed from the context of that annal, making the referent uncertain, either al-Fasawī or Ibn ʿAsākir clarified which year the notice belonged to by inserting the text: yaʿnī sanat x. I leave these clarifications in the edited text and the translation, where I separate it from al-Layth’s text with hyphens, e.g. ‘ - meaning the year x’ - . I have not included the isnāds attached to these passages. However, every extract presented below is accompanied in the text which preserves it by an isnād which culminates in the link < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth b. Saʿd > or, in the case of al-Kindī’s references, the statement qāla al-Layth after an initial reference to the Taʾrīkh al-Layth b. Saʿd. Where the isnād interrupts the passage, as in Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s insertion of kamā ḥaddathanā Ibn Bukayr ʿan al-Layth b. Saʿd into his paraphrases, I replace it with an ellipsis. At the end of each fragment of Arabic text is a footnote which refers the reader, initially, to the extant location of the text I have transcribed and, subsequently, to any other witnesses to the same passage in other texts which also attribute it to < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth >. I note in the footnote whether the other witnesses are only quoting parts of the transcribed text, and whether there is any variation in the quotation of the passage, giving the Arabic text if the variation is significant. If a variation in another witness offers an additional detail which might be an original feature (e.g. an exact date, the name of the commander of a given expedition, or the ism of a name given only with the patronymic) I include this in the edited Arabic text in round brackets. This would look as follows: (‫ُﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻠﺚ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ )ﺑﻤﺼﺮ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻄﺮ‬ https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-009

64

Edition and Translation

If the other witnesses give a variation to the text (e.g. a differently spelled name or location) which may be correct, I include this in the edited Arabic text in round brackets immediately after the word to which it offers a variant, with a question mark at the end of the variant word. This looks as follows: (‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﻭﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺭﻭﺩﺱ)ﻗﺒﺮﺱ؟‬ Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam often does not give the name of the person al-Layth’s information is referring to when he paraphrases the -Taʾrīkh to give a death date for someone he has just discussed in his main narrative, writing instead something like: ‘According to Ibn Bukayr on the authority of al-Layth, his death was in the year n’. In these cases, I give the name of the person to whom the paraphrase refers in square brackets in the Arabic text. When multiple witnesses to the same passage or notice exist, for the main edited Arabic text I use the passage from the witness I consider most faithful to the postulated original text. In this I follow the order of faithfulness for which I have argued in the discussion above. That is: Baqī b. Makhlad’s quotations added to Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh > Ibn ʿAsākir’s quotations of al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa > Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s paraphrases in Futūḥ Miṣr. I have arranged the fragments in date order according to annals, with each row of the table containing all the notices I have found ascribed for that year. I think it is very likely that the -Taʾrīkh presented its annals in consecutive order, however the table arrangement is for ease of reference and is not a claim about the manuscript layout of the original. We may only speculate about this on the basis of inference from manuscripts of comparable texts.211 I indicate the year

211 For example, in the extant manuscript of the annalistic section of al-Fasawī’s al-Maʿrifa wa-ltaʾrīkh (Saray, Revan Köşk 1554), the annals are presented in continuous text with no line breaks or punctuation, but rather with elongated letter strokes in particular words guiding the reader to new segments of text. If we take the example of al-Fasawī’s annal for the year 137 H (ff. 2a-2b, by my count), we see such elongated letter strokes in verbs introducing new isnāds (ḥaddathanā Salama . . . ) or other forms of attribution (wa-qad qāla qawmun . . . ), death notices (fa-māta ʿinda inqiḍāʾi -l-ḥajji . . . ), conjunctions marking new notices (wa-fīha kharaja Ḥarmala . . . ), or simply the beginning verb in some sentences, perhaps those being represented as separate notices (thumma wathaba ʿalā ahli Khurāsān . . . fa-akhadha ṭarīqa Khurāsān . . . wa-kharaja fī hādhihi -lsanati . . . ). While the formulaic marker introducing the next annal (wa-fī sanati 138 . . . ), familiar from al-Layth’s text, is not similarly stressed, in most cases of this manuscript they are, either by elongating the word sana within continuous text or giving this phrase as a heading in larger script on a new, indented line. As a closely comparable type of text, we might imagine this kind of layout for al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh. However, it is possible that this layout simply reflects rubrics developed later. This manuscript of al-Maʿrifa is not an autograph, being most likely written in the 6th ḥijrī century (12th century CE), with its audition certificates (samāʿāt) showing that it was the product

Principles of the Edition and Translation

65

at the beginning of each new row of the table, giving the ḥijrī date in square brackets in the Arabic column and the common era date in square brackets in the English column. Within each year I arrange the different extracts according to the ordering principle which I deduce from the seemingly full annals preserved by Baqī’s quotations. That is: caliphal deaths and successions > major incidents (waqaʿāt, narrative events) > campaign notices > governor notices > pilgrimage notices, with respect paid to the order of events when these are relevant.212 Nevertheless, the ordering is of course conjectural. Of the 301 notices preserved by the fragments, only five have been preserved without their date. Four of these refer to events which can be dated by other sources, in which case I have included these passages in the annals for those years, marked by a (?) before the extract in both Arabic text and English translation to indicate that it is not certain that al-Layth dated these events to that year.213 A final case is harder to date and as such I have placed it at the end of the edition and translation under the heading ‘Undated notice’. The English text in the right column is a translation of the Arabic. Text in square brackets indicate a clarification I have added to the translation which is not strictly found in the Arabic text. Rounded brackets in the translation are the equivalent to their counterparts in the Arabic text, indicating additional text found in a different witness when I close the bracket without a question mark, or a variant in another witness or manuscript when I close the bracket with a question mark. Footnotes to the English translation are commentary intended to explicate the often laconic notices for the non-specialist. References are given to the source of the information only if it is not easily accessible through a search for the place or individual on the Encyclopaedia of Islam. These notes are not intended to be exhaustive. I have tried only to include such information as is necessary to understand what type of activity the notice refers to (e.g. whether the report of an individual’s violent death, such as ‘Fulān was killed’, indicates a general’s death

of several acts of recopying, see al-Fasawī, Maʿrifa (1981), i, 59–60. It is possible that these rubrics were recopied faithfully and thus represent something similar to al-Fasawī’s original, but this cannot be proven. As such, we cannot definitely attribute this layout to al-Fasawī’s annalistic section, let alone al-Layth’s. The papyrus fragments of literary texts from 9th and perhaps even late 8thcentury Egypt edited by Abbott (1957–72) may better reflect the form of written production we should imagine, though these do not include an annalistically arranged history, so do not offer an exact comparison. Another option is to consider how near-contemporary annalistic Syriac chronicles were arranged, on which see Debié 2015, 87–103, though the lasting formal effect of the ‘canons’ of Eusebius may well have not been transferred into Arabic annals. 212 Thus, in the annal preserved for 64 H by Baqī, events which are dated specifically to Rabīʿ I, Rabīʿ II, and Dhū -l-Qaʿda are presented consecutively. See Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 253. 213 These occur in 37, 92, 127, and 132 H.

66

Edition and Translation

on campaign in North Africa or a caliph’s son murdered in Damascus as part of civil strife). For military campaigns in which only the general is named, I attempt to provide biographical information about that general which gives a clue as to the origin of the campaign and its destination. In contrast to the footnotes to the Arabic text, footnotes to the English text refer the reader to translations rather than editions of other Arabic texts where possible. Two terms have proven somewhat awkward to translate, which I flag here. The first is ahl, when used in conjunction with a province, for example ahl Miṣr. We often see governors being appointed over the ahl [province], in which case I render the term as the inhabitants of that province, i.e. ‘the Egyptians’. However, the same collocation is often used to describe parts of a campaigning army, or even a whole army, even when it is obvious that not all of ‘the Egyptians’ could have been in the army. In such cases I translate the term as ‘the Egyptian contingent’ or ‘Egyptian troops’. This military usage makes one suspect that when a governor is appointed over the ahl Miṣr, it is conceived primarily as an appointment to command over the Egyptian military establishment (i.e. the jund). This suspicion is perhaps borne out by the fact that the financial governors of Egypt are represented as al-amīr ʿalā ahl al-arḍ, suggesting a distinction between the tax-paying non-Muslims of Egypt (ahl al-arḍ) and the arms-bearing Muslims (ahl Miṣr).214 This brings us to our second problematic term, amīr, which is used to indicate both the general in command of a campaigning army and the governor of a province, with the verb being used for appointment of governors derived from this term (ammara). As such I translate it as ‘commander’ or ‘governor’, depending on context, though the roles are clearly overlapping and it should be noted that this terminological distinction is not a native one.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ُﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺑﻴ ٍﻊ‬The messenger of God died on Monday with one ‫ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺃﺱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺳﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ‬night having passed of Rabīʿ I, in which [month] he came to Medina at the beginning of  years from  ‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬ his [first] arrival.

214 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), viii, 84–5, see the entry for 96 H below. 215 Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (2003), viii, 107.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

67

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﻒ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺟﺐ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ‬The commander of the faithful ʿUmar succeeded to  ‫ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬the caliphate in Rajab of the year . [ H] [– CE] ‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺩﻣﺸﻖ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻴﺮﻣﻮﻙ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ‬Then, the year  had the conquest of Damascus   ‫ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬and then al-Yarmūk. [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺴﺮ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬Then, the year  had al-Jābiya and the Bridge.



216 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2, presents the following notices, up to the year 23 H, as one long, interrupted passage in his biography of ʿUmar. Al-Layth’s terminology here is slightly different from that used elsewhere, breaking up years by the conjunction thumma, then listing the events in nominal form (kāna(t) x wa-y wa-z) before concluding the entry by assigning the listed events to a particular year (li-sanat n). This appears to indicate that he presented the events of the early conquest-era using a different rubric to that used for the more regular information provided from c. 40 H/660 CE onwards. For a parallel citation of this notice on ʿUmar’s succession, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 465: ‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﻒ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬. 217 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. See also ibid., ii, 142: ‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻴﺮﻣﻮﻙ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻓﺎﻟﺨﻠﻴﻔﺔ ﻳﻮﻣﺌﺬ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻥ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻧﻬﺮﻫﺎ‬. The comments afterwards appear to be Ibn ʿAsākir or another’s editorialising: it would have been clear who the caliph was at that time in al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh. 218 The battle of Yarmūk was the decisive battle fought by the conquering Arabians against the Byzantines in Syria, fought near the confluence of the river Yarmūk and the Wādī -l-Ruqqād, near the old Ghassānid capital of al-Jābiya. Its date is disputed. Kaegi, “Yarmūk: The battle”, EI2, places it in 15 H, but al-Ṭabarī, for instance, has it in 13 H, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xi, 87. This excerpt is quoted immediately after the excerpt for the year 13 and it is possible that the notice about Damascus should be appended to that date, as there is no‫ ﻭ‬conjunction connecting the Damascus notice to the Yarmūk notice which is clearly attributed to the year 15. 219 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. 220 Al-Jābiya, between the Golan Heights and the Ḥawrān, was the location of a large encampment used as the principle residence of the pre-Islamic Ghassānid leaders, who exerted control over the Syrian desert marches for the Byzantines. The location continued to be used as the main camp for the early Islamic armies based in Syria. This notice refers to a journey of the caliph ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb’s journey to al-Jābiya, variously dated between 15 and 17 H, where he gave instructions to his generals, and according to some (probably tendentious) reports oversaw the submission of Jerusalem, see Lammens, “al-Djābiya”, EI2, and al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xii, 188–99. The battle of the Bridge was the only major Muslim defeat in their campaign against Sasanian Persia, and took place at a location called al-Marwaḥa, opposite Quss al-Nāṭif, on the Euphrates. See al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xi, 188, who places this event in 13 H.

68

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺇﻳﻠﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺳﺮﻍ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬Then, the year  had Jerusalem and Sargh.



[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﻋﻤﻮﺍﺱ ﻭﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ‬Then, the year  had the drought; the plague of of ʿUtba b. Suhayl of ‫ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻬﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻟﺆﻱ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ‬Emmaus; and the campaign  ‫ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬the tribe of ʿĀmir b. Luʾayy. [ H] [ H]

‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺟﻠﻮﻻﺀ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬Then, the year  had Jalūlāʾ.



221 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. 222 The conquest of Jerusalem is often attributed to ʿUmar and associated with his visit to alJābiya, as in al-Ṭabarī. Al-Layth, however, claimed the conquest of Jerusalem was conducted by the ancestor of his patron (mawlā), Khālid b. Thābit: see Abū ʿUbayd, Amwāl (no date), 201, and also al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ (1988), 140. Sargh is a village on the border of the -Ḥijāz and Syria where ʿUmar is reported to have met the commanders of his armies in 17 H, at which point he returned to Medina because of the outbreak of plague. See al-Ṭabari, Taʾrikh (1989–2007), xiii, 92–6, Conrad 1998. 223 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. See also ibid., ii, 168: ‫ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﻋﻤﻮﺍﺱ ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬. See also, ibid., xlvii, 28: ‫ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻮﻓﺎﺓ ﻭﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﻋﻤﻮﺍﺱ ﻭﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻬﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻟﺆﻱ ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬. Here the term ramāda (drought) has been replaced by the more general (and more common) term wafāt (death). 224 A major famine led to 18 H being dubbed the ‘Year of the Drought’, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xiii, 151. By some accounts it also saw the outbreak of plague known as the Plague of Emmaus, which lasted from 17 or 18 H to 19 H, with Arabic sources referring to 20–25,000 dead, including the prominent companion of Muḥammad and general Abū ʿUbayda, who died at Emmaus, see Stearns, “ʿAmwās, plague of”, EI3. ʿUtba b. Suhayl is relatively unknown, a companion said to have emigrated to Syria and to have died in the plague. See al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xiii, 97 and Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iv, 361. 225 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. See also ibid., xx, 352: ‫ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺟﻠﻮﻻﺀ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻓﺘﺘﺤﻬﺎ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻭﻗﺎﺹ‬. The extra comment here that Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ led the conquest may be editorialising by an intermediary transmitter: the verb iftataḥa is not used elsewhere in the fragments. 226 A town in Iraq east of the Tigris on the road to Khurāsān, between Dastajird and Khāniqīn, remembered as the site of a serious Muslim victory over Sasanian forces, said in some sources to have occurred in 16 H. See Streck, “Djālūlāʾ”, EI2, and al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xiii, 36–53.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

69

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺑﺎﺏ ﻟﻴﻮﻥ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ‬Then, the year  had the conquest of Babylon[-in‫ ﻭﻗﻴﺴﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ‬Egypt], their commander being ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ; [the  ‫ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﻫﺮﻗﻞ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬conquest] of Caesarea in Syria, their commander being ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr; and the death of Heraclius.

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻧﻬﺎﻭﻧﺪ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻧﻲ‬Then, the year  had Nihāwand, their commander   ‫ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬being al-Nuʿmān b. Muqarrin al-Muzanī. [ CE] [– CE] ‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ‬Then, the year  had the first conquest of (‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﻭﺃﺫﺭﺑﻴﺠﺎﻥ )ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ‬Alexandria, their commander being ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ,  ‫ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻓﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ‬and [the conquest of] Azerbaijan (, their commander being al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba). The stipends were allocated.

227 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. See also ibid., xxxi, 271: ‫ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﻴﺴﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻋﺒﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﻫﺮﻗﻞ ﻟﺴﺘﺔ ﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 76: ‫ﻣﺎﺕ ﻫﺮﻗﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺘﺤﺖ ﻗﻴﺴﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ‬. 228 This Babylon is a Roman fortress in Egypt located in what is now called Old Cairo, whose conquest is remembered as the crux point of the Muslim campaign to conquer Egypt. Heraclius is the Byzantine emperor. 229 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. 230 Nihāwand is a town in the Zagros mountains on a road running through the mountains to Iṣfahān and central Persia. Al-Layth is referring to an important victory here over the Sasanians. Sayf b. ʿUmar dated it to 18 or 19 H, while Ibn Isḥāq, Abū Maʿshar, and al-Wāqidī agreed with al-Layth on 21 H. Al-Nuʿmān was a commander based in al-Kūfa. See Minorsky, “Nihāwand”, EI2. 231 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. For the notice on the first conquest of Alexandria see also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 178: ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﺘﺤﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﺧﺮ‬ ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬. For that on Azerbaijan, with the additional information about the commander, matching the form of other entries of this type in the -Taʾrīkh and thus included in the edition in round brackets, see also Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lx, 41: ‫ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﺫﺭﺑﻴﺠﺎﻥ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ‬. 232 The introduction of stipends refers to ʿUmar’s institution of a regular system of state payments to Muslims, supposedly on the basis of their seniority in Islam. See Cahen, “ʿAṭāʾ”, EI2.

70

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] Then, in the year of ʿUmar, the year , was the first [campaign against] Iṣṭakhr and [the campaign against] Hamadhān in [the month of] Dhū -l-Qaʿda, but Iṣṭakhr was not conquered; the campaign of ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ against Tripoli in the Maghrib; and the campaign against Amorion, in which the commander of the Egypt contingent was Wahb b. ʿUmayr al-Jumaḥī and the commander of the Syrian contingent was Abū -l-Aʿwar. Then ʿUmar the commander of the faithful was killed at the start of the pilgrimage. That was in the year , as well as the campaign of Buṣr b. Abī Arṭāt against Libya.

‫ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺇﺻﻄﺨﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻭﻫﻤﺬﺍﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﻌﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﻭﻟﻢ ﺗﻔﺘﺢ ﺇﺻﻄﺨﺮ ﻭﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ‬ ‫ﺃﻃﺮﺍﺑﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻤﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺃﻫﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻫﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺤﻲ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻷﻋﻮﺭ ﺳﻨﺔ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺛﻢ ﻗﺘﻞ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺝ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺑﺴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﺭﻃﺎﺓ‬  ‫ﻟﻮﺑﻴﺔ‬

233 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 391–2. For the notice on ʿAmr’s campaign against Tripoli, see also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 171: ‫ﻏﺰﺍ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﻃﺮﺍﺑﻠﺲ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻠﺚ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬. See also alKindī, Wulāt (1912), 10: ‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻪ ﻓﺘﺤﻬﺎ )ﺃﻃﺮﺍﺑﻠﺲ( ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬. For the notice on Amorion see also Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlvi, 57: ‫ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻤﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻫﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﻴﺮ‬ ‫ ;ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺤﻲ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻷﻋﻮﺭ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬plus Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 108: ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﻫﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﻴﺮ‬ ‫ ;ﺍﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻤﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻠﺚ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺄﻡ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﻷﻋﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻤﻲ‬and Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iv, 530: ‫ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺟﻴﺶ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻷﻋﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻤﻲ‬،‫ ﻭﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺟﻴﺶ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻫﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺤ ّﻲ‬،‫ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋ ّﻤﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬. For the notice on ʿUmar’s death see also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 173: ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﻓﺎﺓ ﻋﻤﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ‬ ‫ ;ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺝ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻠﺚ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬plus Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xliv, 465: ‫ﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﻤﺮ‬ ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬, seemingly a paraphrase from an alternative line of transmission. On the same page, from the usual line of transmission we find a fuller date and reckoning of ʿUmar’s reign length, apparently attributed to al-Layth: ‫ﻭﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﻤﺮ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺎﺀ ﻷﺭﺑﻊ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻱ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺧﻼﻓﺘﻪ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺳﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﺳﺘﺔ ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ‬. The use of an exact date for the caliph’s death is a usual feature of other fragments, though the reckoning is not. However, the lack of either of these other features in the other witnesses to this fragment, suggesting that in this case both features are interpolations from an intermediary transmitter. For the notice on Busr’s attack on Libya, see also Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 148: ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺑﺴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺭﻃﺄﺓ ﻟﻮﺑﻴﺔ‬. 234 Iṣtakhr was an important Sasanian ceremonial site, near Achaemenid Persepolis is in Fārs province, south-western Iran, while Hamadhān is in western Iran, the province of Jibāl, thus these entries describe campaigns against the Sasanians. Amorion is in western Asia Minor on the road to Constantinople, and thus this campaign was against the Byzantines.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

71

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]



‫ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﺘﺤﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﺧﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬Its [Alexandria’s] final conquest was in the year .

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻧﺰﻉ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﺮﺡ‬was dismissed [from Egypt] and ʿAbd Allāh b. Saʿd



b. Abī Sarḥ was appointed governor.

[ H] [– CE]  ‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺳﺎﺑﻮﺭ ﻭﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺑﺴﺮ ﻭﺩﺍﻥ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ‬Then, the year  had [the conquest of] Sābūr;   ‫ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬and the campaign of Busr against Waddān.

[ H] [– CE] ‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ‬Then, the year  had the campaign of ʿAbd Allāh   ‫ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬b. Saʿd against Ifrīqiya.

235 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 178. 236 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxix, 39. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 174: ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﺰﻝ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻭﺗﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬. 237 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam is paraphrasing here, having already mentioned Alexandria. Arabic sources remembered two conquests of Alexandria, the second after a revolt against Muslim rule, see Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 175–178. 238 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 148. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 194, where Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam invokes al-Layth’s notice without explicitly quoting it to date a reference in one of his sources to a prior raid which Busr b. Abī Arṭāt had conducted in the region: ‫ﺛﻢ ﺧﺮﺝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺮﺏ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻌﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺪﻳﺞ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﺮﻱ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺘﺔ ﻭﺍﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻭﻣﻌﻪ ﺑﺴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻲ ﺍﺭﻃﺎﺓ ﻭﺷﺮﻳﻚ ﺑﻦ ﺷﻤﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺩﻱ ﻓﺎﻗﺒﻞ‬ ‫ﺣﺘﻰ ﻧﺰﻝ ﺑﻤﻐﻤﺪﺍﺵ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺮﺕ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﺴﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻬﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﺮﺕ ﻓﺎﺩﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﺸﺘﺎﺀ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻀﻌﻔﺎ ﻭﺑﻠﻐﻪ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻫﻞ ﻭﺩﺍﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻧﻘﻀﻮﺍ ﻋﻬﺪﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻲ ﺍﺭﻃﺎﺓ ﻓﺮﺽ ﻋﻠﺒﻬﻢ‬. 239 Sābūr being both a city and district in Fārs, see Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), iii, 167–8. Al-Ṭabarī’s annalistic informants Abū Maʿshar and al-Wāqidī agree with al-Layth that its conquest was in 26 H, though his narrative account of its conquest places it earlier. See al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh (1387 H), iv, 250–1. 240 The commander is Busr b. Abī Arṭāt. Born before the hijra, he was a fervent partisan of the Umayyads and also led naval and ground campaigns against the Maghrib or Byzantine territory from the 20s to 50s H. Waddān is an oasis in the Jufra depression of the Libyan desert between the districts of Sirte and the Fazzān. See Despois, “Djufra”, EI2. 241 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxix, 39. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 187: ‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬. 242 The name given to an area of North Africa, derived from the Roman province name of Africa, established as a governorate independent from Egypt around 86 H/705 CE, initially stretching from Tripolitania to the Atlantic. See Valérian, “Ifrīqiya”, EI3. This campaign by the

72

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺒﺮﺱ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ‬In the year  was the first [campaign against] ‫ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺇﺻﻄﺨﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﺓ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ‬Cyprus, in which their commander was Muʿāwiya and [a campaign against] Iṣṭakhr for ‫ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬b. Abī Sufyān,



the final time.

[ H] [– CE ‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﻭﺩﺓ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ‬Then, the year  had the [campaign against the]  ‫ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﺛﻼﺛﻴﻦ‬blacks, their commander being ʿAbd Allāh b. Saʿd. [ H] [– CE] Then, the year  had [the battle of] the Masts, their commander being ʿAbd Allāh b. Saʿd.

‫ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺫﻭ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ‬  ‫ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﺛﻼﺛﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺪﻳﺞ ﺑﻔﺰﺍﺭﺓ ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ‬  ‫ﻭﺛﻼﺛﻴﻦ‬

In that year, the year : the campaign of Muʿāwiya b. Ḥudayj with Fazāra.250

governor of Egypt resulted in the defeat of the Byzantine exarch Gregory but no permanent Muslim control in the area. 243 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxx, 219. I read ‫ ﺍﻣﻴﺮﻫﻢ‬for ‫ﺍﻣﺮﻫﻢ‬, in agreement with the conventions of the other fragments. 244 Muʿāwiya, the future Umayyad caliph, was governor of Syria. This campaign marks the development of a Syrian Muslim navy. 245 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxix, 39. 246 This campaign, led by the governor of Egypt, reached Dumqula (Dongola) in modern Sudan, the capital of the Christian kingdom of al-Maqurra. The Muslims did not conquer the region but made a treaty in which they received regular payment of slaves, see Holt, “Dongola”, EI2 and Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 188–189. 247 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxix, 39. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 189: ‫ﺛﻢ ﻏﺰﺍ‬ ‫ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻲ ﺳﺮﺡ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﺛﻠﺜﻴﻦ‬. 248 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lix, 23. 249 The battle of the masts was a decisive naval victory of the Muslim navy over its Byzantine counterpart, led by the emperor Constantine himself, fought off the coast of southern Asia Minor, perhaps near modern Finike in Turkey. See Bosworth, “Dhāt al-Ṣawārī”, EI2. 250 Muʿāwiya was an Egyptian Muslim notable who had participated in the conquest of Egypt and would lead many campaigns to the Maghrib. Fazāra is not a place name I have found, so perhaps refers to a contingent of the Arab Fazāra tribe. See al-Samʿānī, Ansāb (1962), x, 212–5. An alternative reading – a plausible orthographic error – might be Hawāra, the berber tribe based in the Libyan region at this time, mentioned in the entry for 43 H below.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

73

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﺛﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺫﻭ ﺧﺸﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺟﺐ ﻭﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬Then, in the year , was [the matter of] Dhū ‫ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺝ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ‬Khushub in Rajab. That year the commander of the was killed at the start of the  ‫ ﻭﺛﻼﺛﻴﻦ‬faithful ʿUthmān  pilgrimage.

[ H] [– CE]

‫)?( )؟( ﻭﻗﻌﺔ ﺻﻔﻴﻦ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬ The battle of Ṣiffīn was in the month of Rabīʿ



I.

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻔﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ‬. . . ‫ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻤﺎﺓ‬The [battle of the] Dam was in [the month of] Ṣafar   ‫ ﻭﺛﻠﺜﻴﻦ‬of the year .

251 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxix, 519. See also Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iv, 129, which uses the notice by al-Layth to date another notice on ʿUthmān’s death. 252 Khushub, or Dhū Khushub, is a valley a night’s journey from Medina according to Yāqūt, see al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh, xv, 160, ft. 285. What is referenced here is the encampment at Khushub of a dissident group of Egyptians who had come to Medina to protest the caliph ʿUthmān’s rule, who ultimately attacked and killed him. See the extended references to these events in ibid., xv, 145–223. 253 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxviii, 78. 254 Ibn ʿAsākir does not give the annal in which al-Layth placed this notice, but the Arabic historical tradition generally ascribed Ṣiffīn to the year 37 H. 255 The battle was an engagement of the first civil war, between ʿAlī and his supporters, claiming the caliphate, and Muʿāwiya, the future Umayyad caliph, and his supporters, demanding vengeance for the killing of ʿUthmān on those in ʿAlī’s camp whom they held responsible. A major engagement was avoided by ʿAlī agreeing to an arbitration, which resulted in the desertion of some of his army and ultimately the loss of his claim and his life, leaving Muʿāwiya to take the caliphate. The extended face-off and skirmishes were said to have lasted 77 days, ending in Ṣafar, so it could have commenced in Rabīʿ I as stated by al-Layth. See Lecker, “Siffīn”, EI2. 256 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 122.The ellipsis is the isnād: ‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﻌﺪ‬. 257 The Battle of the Dam was a fierce battle of the first civil war, fought between ʿAmr b. alʿĀṣ, sent with Syrian forces by Muʿāwiya and joined by Egyptian partisans of ʿUthmān’s cause, against ʿAlī’s governor of Egypt and son-in-law Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr. ʿAmr and his supporters won the day and Egypt for the Umayyads. See al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 28–30.

74

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﺑﻮﻳﻊ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺑﺈﻳﻠﻴﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻣﻀﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ‬Muʿāwiya was sworn in as caliph with the  ‫ ﻭﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ‬community’s pledge of allegiance in Jerusalem; he entered al-Kūfa in the year .

‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﺑﻦ‬Al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba did the pilgrimage in  ‫ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ‬that year – meaning the year .261 [ H] [– CE] In the year : the campaign of ʿUqba b. Nāfiʿ against Ghadāmis.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ‬  ‫ﻏﺪﺍﻣﺲ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺣﺞ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ‬  ‫ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ‬

In the year 41 ʿUtba b. Abī Sufyān did the pilgrimage.

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﺭﺑﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺑﺮ ﻓﻐﺰﺍﻫﻢ‬In the year  the Berbers made war and ʿUqba  ‫ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ‬b. Nāfiʿ campaigned against them. ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ‬  ‫ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ‬In the year : that year ʿUtba b. Abī Sufyān led the people in pilgrimage.

258 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lix, 146. See also al-Khaṭīb, Baghdād (2002), i, 577:‫ﺑﻮﻳﻊ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺈﻳﻠﻴﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻣﻀﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ‬. 259 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lx, 42. See also ibid., lx, 45: ‫ﺣﺞ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ‬. See also al-Khaṭīb, Baghdād (2002), i, 550, which is the same as the previous reference. 260 Muʿāwiya became the first Sufyānid Umayyad caliph after his conflict with ʿAlī was ended by the latter’s assassination by a Khārijī. His journey to al-Kūfa marked the renunciation of ʿAlī’s son al-Ḥasan’s claim to the caliphate, and his Iraqi supporters swearing allegiance to Muʿāwiya. On these events see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xviii, 2–11. 261 I.e. he was appointed to lead the ḥajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca incumbent on all Muslims in their life if they are able. 262 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 530. 263 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxviii, 266. 264 Ghadames is an oasis town in modern western Libya, near the border with Tunisia and Algeria. ʿUqba was an important commander based in Egypt who made many campaigns against the Maghrib. 265 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 530. 266 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxviii, 266–7.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

75

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ died in the year  (in Egypt on the day of [Eid] al-Fitr/ January ); ʿUtba b. Abī Sufyān was appointed governor over the Egyptians; Sharīk b. Sumayy campaigned against Leptis Magna.

‫ُﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻠﺚ ﻭﺍﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ‬ ‫)ﺑﻤﺼﺮ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻄﺮ( ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ُﺃ ّﻣﺮ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻲ‬ ‫ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺷﺮﻳﻚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻤﻲ‬  ‫ﻟﺒﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺮﺏ‬

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ‬In the year : the campaign of ʿUqba b. Nāfiʿ  ‫ ﻫﻮﺍﺭﺓ‬against the Hawāra. ‫ ُﻭّﻟﻲ ﺭﻭﻳﻔﻊ ﺑﻦ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﺃﻧﻄﺎﺑﻠﺲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻠﺚ‬Ruwayfiʿ b. Thābit was appointed governor of the  ‫ ﻭﺍﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ‬Pentapolis in the year . ‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬In that year – meaning the year 43 – Marwān b. al ‫ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ‬Ḥakam led the people in pilgrimage. [ H] [– CE]  ‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ‬In the year  ʿUtba b. Abī Sufyān died.

‫ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ‬



[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺑﻦ‬In the year  Marwān b. al-Ḥakam led the people  ‫ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﺛﻢ ﻋﺰﻝ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ‬in pilgrimage; then he was dismissed and Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ was appointed governor [of Medina].

267 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 180. Al-Layth is given as authority for the date of ʿAmr’s death at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlvi, 112, with two isnāds giving the verbatim quotation at ibid., xlvi, 201–2: ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﺑﻤﺼﺮ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻄﺮ‬. 268 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 530. 269 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 110. 270 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 242. 271 Labda in Arabic, on which see Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), v, 10. 272 A berber tribe present in the region of North Africa west of Egypt in modern Libya. 273 The Libyan Pentapolis, Anṭābulus in Arabic, also known as Cyrenaica, based on the city of Cyrene/Barqa. 274 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxviii, 272. 275 ʿUtba was governor of Egypt at the time. 276 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 242. See also ibid., xxi, 125, for the identical detail of Saʿīd’s appointment.

76

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺑﺴﺮ ﻭﺷﺮﻳﻚ‬In the year : the campaign of Busr and Sharīk to   ‫ ﻷﺫﻧﺔ‬Adhana. ‫ ﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻋﻨﺒﺴﺔ‬That year – meaning the year 46 – ʿAnbasa b. Abī  ‫ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ‬Sufyān led the people in pilgrimage. [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﻭﻋﺒﺪ‬In the year : the raid of ʿUqba b. ʿĀmir and ʿAbd ‫ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺭﻭﺩﺱ)ﻗﺒﺮﺱ؟( ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬al-Raḥmān b. Khālid b. al-Walīd against Rhodes from Egypt  ‫( ﻧﺰﻉ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ‬Cyprus?); ʿUqba b. ʿĀmir was dismissed  and Maslama was appointed governor.

‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬That year – meaning the year 47 – ʿAnbasa b. Abī  ‫ ﻋﻨﺒﺴﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ‬Sufyān led the people in pilgrimage.

277 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 148. 278 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlvii, 21. 279 Modern Adana in SE Turkey: Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), i, 133, places it near al-Maṣṣīṣa/ Mopsuestia. This is Busr b. Abī Arṭāt and presumably Sharīk b. Sumayy, mentioned in the annal for 43 H. 280 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 501. Note that ibid., xxxiv, 328–9, has the same text regarding the raid but states that it is directed at Cyprus (‫ )ﻗﺒﺮﺱ‬rather than Rhodes. Ibid., lviii, 62, has the same text regarding the change of governors in Egypt. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 197: ‫ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺨﻠﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﺍﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ‬. 281 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlvii, 21. 282 We are told that ʿUqba’s appointment to lead the fleet to Rhodes was a ruse by Muʿāwiya to enable him to appoint Maslama b. Mukhallad, see al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 37–38. Khālid was the son of the famous conquest-era general and based in Ḥimṣ, suggesting a joint EgyptianSyrian venture, see al-Dhahabī, Islām (2003), ii, 419.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

77

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ‬In the year : the campaign of ʿUqba b. Nāfiʿ  ‫ ﻭﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﺸﺘﺎﻫﻢ ﺳﺎﻣﻮﺱ‬and Mālik b. Hubayra, in which they spent the winter on Samos.

‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻧﺰﻉ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ‬ In [that year] – meaning the year  – Marwān was ‫ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬dismissed from Medina and Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ was  ‫ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ‬appointed governor. That year Marwān b. al-Ḥakam led the people in pilgrimage. [ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﺃﺭﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺣﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ‬In the year  Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ led the people in  ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ‬pilgrimage.

283 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 530. 284 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 242–3. See also ibid., xxi, 125 for the same text about the exchange of governors. 285 The island in the eastern Aegean, thus on the naval route to Constantinople. Mālik was a Syrian general and sometime governor of Ḥimṣ for Muʿāwiya, see Zirikli 2002, v, 267. 286 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxi, 125.

78

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

287 ‫ﻀﺎﻟﺔ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﺳﻨﻨﺔﺔ ﺧﺧﻤﻤﺴﺴﻴﻴﻦﻦ ﻏﻏﺰﺰﻭﻭﺓﺓﺍﺑﺍﺑﻦﻦﻗ ﻗﺤﺬﺤﻡﺬﻡﻭﻓ‬In the year : the (first] campaign of Ibn ‫ﻋﺒﺮﻴﺪ)ﺧﻭﺮﺍﻗﺑﺎﺓﻦ ﺷ‬ ‫ ﻭﻭﺍﻟﻓﺤﻀﺎ‬Qaḥdham, Faḍāla b. Ubayd, Ibn Shajara, and al‫ﺼﻟﻴﺔﻦ ﺑﺑﻦﻦ ﻧﻤﻴ‬ ‫ﺍﺑﻦ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ‬288 ‫ﺠﻋﺮﺒﻴﺓﺪ ﻭ‬  289  ( ‫ﻰﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻧﻤﻴﺮ )ﺧﺮﻗﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺼﻴ‬ ‫ )ﻭﺍﺍﻟﻷﺤﻭﻟ‬Ḥuṣayn b. Numayr (against Kh-r-q-ā-ʾ).



‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﺳﻨﻨﺔﺔ ﺧﺧﻤﻤﺴﺴﻴﻴﻦﻦ ﻏﻏﺰﺰﻭﻭﺓﺓﺍﺑﺍﺑﻦﻦﺣﺪﺣﻳﺪﻳﺞﺞﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ‬ 290 ‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻗﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺹﻲ‬ ‫ﺳﻭﻌﺣﻴﺪﺞ ﺑﻋﻦﺎ ﺍﻣﻟﺌﻌﺬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨ‬ 291 ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻗﻴﻞ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ‬ 

In the year : the last campaign of Ibn Ḥudayj. That year – meaning the year 50 – Muʿāwiya did the pilgrimage, though it has been said that it was Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ.294

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ‬That year – meaning the year  – Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ  ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﻭﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺑﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ‬did the pilgrimage, though it is said that it was rather Muʿāwiya.

[ H] [ CE]

‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬That year – meaning the year  – Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ  ‫ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ‬led the people in pilgrimage.

287 The editor corrects his text from Ibn al-ʿAdīm’s version for this name in his Bughyat alṭalab fī taʾrīkh Ḥalab, which is ‫ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﺮﻡ‬in the manuscript of Taʾrīkh Dimashq. 288 Here Ibn ʿAdīm gives ‫ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻤﺮﺓ‬. 289 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 385. See also ibid., xlviii, 299–300 and lxv, 229, which both have the same text, adding the target of the campaign, ‫ﺧﺮﻗﺎﺓ‬, with an alternative manuscript reading of ‫ ﺧﺮﻓﺔ‬and ‫ﺣﺮﻣﻪ‬, none of which I have found. 290 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lix, 23‫ز‬ 291 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxi, 125. See also ibid., lix, 159–60, which correctly has ‫ ﻗﻴﻞ‬for ‫ﻗﺘﻞ‬. 292 The toponym is unknown, and also written Ḥ-r-m-a and Kh-r-f-a in alternative manuscripts. Faḍāla b. ʿUbayd was a Syrian general remembered as conducting a campaign against the unknown Jarraba in 49 H, a naval raid in 50 H, and a raid explicitly into Byzantine territory in 51 H. See al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xviii, 94, 96, 122. Yazīd b. Shajara was a naval commander also based in Syria, see ibid., xviii, 94, 183, 192. Thus, it seems likely that this notice refers to a naval campaign from Syria against the Byzantines. 293 Muʿāwiya b. Ḥudayj, the Egyptian commander who led several major campaigns against the Maghrib. 294 Meaning Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān, the caliph. 295 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxi, 125. See also ibid., lix, 159–60. 296 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxi, 125.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

79

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬That year – meaning the year  – Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ  ‫ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ‬led the people in pilgrimage. [ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ‬In that year – meaning the year : the campaign  ‫ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﻭﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﻣﺸﺘﺎﻫﻢ ﺑﻘﺮﻳﻄﻴﺎ‬of Ibn Masʿūd and ʿUqba b. Nāfiʿ, in which they spent the winter on Crete.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ‬  ‫ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻧﺰﻉ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﻋﻦ )ﺃﻫﻞ( ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺑﻦ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ‬

In the year : the campaign of Khālid b. Thābit against Ifrīqiya. In [that year] – meaning the year 54 – Saʿīd b. alʿĀṣ was dismissed from (the people of) Medina and Marwān b. al-Ḥakam was appointed as governor.

[ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻗﻴﺲ ﻭﻋﻮﺍﻡ‬In the year : the campaign of Ibn Qays and ‫ ﻣﺸﺘﺎﻫﻢ ﺑﻨﻀﻠﺔ)ﺑﻨﻌﻠﻪ؟( ﻭﻏﺰﺍ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻋﺒﺪ‬ʿAwwām in which they spent the winter at N-ḍ-l-a  ‫( ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬N-ʿ-l-a?). That year ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān campaigned with them in charge of the Medinan ‫ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ‬ contingent. 

‫ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ‬

297 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxi, 125. 298 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 530. See also, ibid., xxxv, 402, with the same text but a minor orthographic error (‫ ﻋﺮﻭﺓ‬for ‫)ﻏﺰﻭﺓ‬. 299 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 16. 300 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxi, 125. See also ibid., lvii, 242–3, which is the same but says that Saʿīd was dismissed from the ‫ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬. 301 ʿUqba was a general based in Egypt famed for his campaigns in the Maghrib. ʿAbd alRaḥmān b. Masʿūd al-Fazārī was known for conducting summer raids against the Byzantines, so was perhaps based in Syria. 302 Khālid was based in Egypt and commanded the Egyptian navy from 51 H, see al-Suyūṭī, Ḥusn (1967), i, 194. 303 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvi, 353. 304 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 243. 305 Ibn Qays is likely ʿAbd Allāh b. Qays, Muʿāwiya’s naval commander in Syria, who according to al-Ṭabarī led a campaign against Byzantine territory in 57 H, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xviii, 191, and whose death in the Maghrib is mentioned in the next annal, perhaps giving a likely location for this campaign. On him see Al-Zirikli 2002, iv, 114–115. A less plausible alternative, given al-Layth’s western focus and the presence on the campaign of a Medinan contingent, al-

80

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation That year Marwān b. al-Ḥakam did the pilgrimage in the year . [ H] [– CE] In the year : the campaign of ʿĀbis b. Saʿīd and Mālik b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Khathʿamī against ʾ-ṣ-ṭ-ā-dh-na. This was after ʿAbd Allāh b. Qays and Kurayb b. Mishkam were killed in Ifrīqiya. When they were killed ʿĀbis was set over the Egyptian contingent, Junāda b. Abī Umayya set over [the] Syria[n contingent], and Mālik b. ʿAbd Allāh placed in overall command. They wintered in Ifrīqiya in the ‘Year of Hunger’ after they set out to return from ʾ-ṣ-ṭ-ā-dh-na.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﺎﺑﺲ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺜﻌﻤﻲ ﺍﺻﻄﺎﺫﻧﻪ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﺪ‬ ‫ﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﻗﻴﺲ ﻭﻛﺮﻳﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺸﻜﻢ ﺑﺄﻗﺮﻳﻄﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻗﺘﻼ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻋﺎﺑﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﺟﻨﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻭﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻓﺸﺘﻮﺍ ﺑﺄﻗﺮﻳﻄﻴﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ‬  ‫ﻣﺮﺟﻌﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺻﻄﺎﺫﻧﻪ‬

‫ ﺛﻢ ﻋﺰﻝ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ‬Then Marwān b. al-Ḥakam was dismissed –  ‫ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ‬meaning in the year 56 – and al-Walīd b. ʿUtba was appointed as governor [over Medina]. [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ‬In the year : the campaign of Ibn Shajara, while   ‫ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﻮﻑ ﻗﺮﻃﻴﺸﺎ‬Ibn ʿAwf took Crete.

Aḥnaf b. Qays who was active in Khurāsān at this time. ʿAwwām is obscure. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the future governor of Egypt, would have been sent by his father Marwān who was governor of Medina at this time. I can locate neither this toponym or the variant ms reading N-ʿ-l-h. 306 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvi, 472. See also, ibid., xi, 298: ‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﺎﺑﺲ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺜﻌﻤﻲ ﺍﺻﻄﺎﺫﻧﺔ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻋﺎﺑﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﺟﻨﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻭﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﺷﺘﻮﺍ ﺑﺈﻗﺮﻳﻄﻴﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺮﺟﻌﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺻﻄﺎﺫﻧﺔ‬. See also, ibid., xxxii, 120: ‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﺑﺲ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺜﻌﻤﻲ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﻗﻴﺲ‬. 307 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 243. 308 Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), i, 211, tells us this location is in the Maghrib but no more. ʿĀbis was a long-standing chief of the shurṭa (police) in Egypt, though not at the time of this campaign. See al-Kindī, Wulāt, 38, 42, 44, 48, 49, 310–314; Bouderbala 2008, 319. Mālik, based in Palestine, was a famed general who led summer campaigns against the Byzantines from the time of Muʿāwiya to ʿAbd al-Malik, see Zirikli 2002, v, 263. 309 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxv, 229. 310 For Ibn Shajara, see footnote 292, above. Ibn ʿAwf is probably the Sufyān b. Awf al-Azdī who participated in the conquest of Syria and whom Muʿāwiya appointed to lead summer campaigns against the Byzantines, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xviii, 96, 165, 180, Zirikli 2002, iii, 105, though note that al-Wāqidī claimed he died in 52 H. Thus both were Syrian commanders.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

81

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation

[ H] [– CE] In the year : the campaign of Akdar and Saʿīd b. Yazīd against Rhodes; the campaign of Mālik b. al-Abjar against Ifrīqiya; Marwān was dismissed from [governing] the Medinans and . . . ‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ‬al-Walīd b. ʿUtba was appointed as [their] governor . . . that year al-Walīd b. ʿUtba did the pilgrimage.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﺳﻨﻨﺔﺔ ﺛﺛﻤﻤﺎﺎﻥﻥﻭﻭﺧﺧﻤﻤﺴﻴﺴﻴﻦﻦﻏﻏﺰﺰﻭﺓﻭﺓﺃﻛﺃﺪﻛﺪﺭﺭﻭﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺱﻚﻭ ﺑﻏﻦﺰ ﺍﻭﺓﻷﺑﻣﺠﺎﻟﺮﻚﺃﻓﺑﺮﻳﻦﻘﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﻭﺰﻳﺳﺪﻌﻴﺪﺭﻭﺑﺩﻦﺱﻳﺰﻭﻳﺪﻏﺰﺭﻭﻭﺓﺩﻣﺎﻟ‬ ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻫ‬ ‫ﺃ‬ ‫ﻦ‬ ‫ﻋ‬ ‫ﻥ‬ ‫ﺍ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ﻉ‬ ‫ﺰ‬ ‫ﺠ ﻧﺮﺰﺃﻓﻉﺮﻳﻣﻘﻴﺮﺔﻭﺍﻭﻥﻓﻴﻬ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻦ ﻧﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻭﻓﻷﻴﺑﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺍﻟﻦﻤﺪﻳﻋﻨﺘﺒﺔﺔﻭﺃﻣ‬ 311

[ H] [– CE] In the year : the campaign of Junāda b. Abī Umayya, ʿAlqama b. Junāda al-Ḥajrī, and ʿAlqama b. al-Akhtham(/al-Ajtham) against Rhodes; that year (ʿUthmān b.) Muḥammad b. Abī Sufyān led the people in pilgrimage.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﺳﻨﻨﺔﺔ ﺗﺗﺴﺴﻊﻊﻭﻭﺧﺧﻤﻤﺴﻴﺴﻴﻦﻦﻏﻏﺰﺰﻭﺓﻭﺓﺟﻨﺟﺎﻨﺩﺎﺓﺩﺓﺑﻦﺑ ﺃﻦﺑﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﻭﺑﻋﻲﻠﻘﺃﻤﻣﺔﻴﺔﺑﻦﻭﻋﺟﻠﻨﻘﺎﺩﻤﺓﺔ ﺍﻟﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺤﺠﺟﺮﻨﺎﻱﺩﺓﻭﺍﻟﻋﻠﺤﻘﻤﺠﺔﺮ ﺑﻱﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺜﻢ‬ ‫ﻭﻋﻠﻘﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺜﻢ )ﺍﻷﺟﺜﻢ؟( ﺭﻭﺩﺱ ﻭﺣﺞ‬ ‫))ﺍﻷﺟﺜﻢ؟( ﺭﻭﺩﺱ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ )ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺑﻦ( ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ )ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻥ‬ ‫ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ‬313 ‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ‬

311 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 225. See also Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 243: ‫ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻧﺰﻉ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ‬. 312 The island in the southern Aegean, thus part of naval advances towards Constantinople. Saʿīd might be Saʿīd b. Yazīd b. ʿAlqama al-Fihrī, from the Palestinian jund, who would be appointed to govern Egypt by Yazīd I, see al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 40–41. Al-Akdar is probably the Lakhmī chief al-Akdar b. Ḥamām, based in Egypt, who would later be a partisan for the Zubayrids, see Zirikli 2002, ii, 6. Mālik b. al-Abjar is obscure. 313 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 227. See also Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 23: ‫ﻭﺣﺞ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ‬. See also Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xi, 298: ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺟﻨﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻠﻘﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺟﻨﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮﻱ ﻭﻋﻠﻘﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻷﺟﺜﻢ ﺭﻭﺩﺱ‬. 314 Junāda was an important naval commander for the Umayyads who had participated in the conquest of Egypt. He died in Syria, perhaps suggesting he was based there, see Zirikli 2002, ii, 140. The first ʿAlqama had also witnessed the conquest of Egypt and was a naval commander for Muʿāwiya, see Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iv, 452. The second ʿAlqama is obscure.

82

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year : the commander of the faithful, Muʿāwiya, died in Rajab, with four nights having passed from [the month] and Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya succeeded as caliph; the Egyptians conveyed food to Rhodes; al-Walīd b. ʿUtba was dismissed from Medina, Mecca, and al-Ṭāʾif; that year ʿAmr b. Saʿīd led the people in pilgrimage, then he was dismissed at the beginning of Dhū al-Ḥijja and alWalīd b. ʿUtba was made governor. Ḥarmala added in his transmission from Ibn Bukayr: Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, may God be pleased with him, went out to Iraq and Ibn al-Zubayr [went out] to Mecca.

‫ﻭﻭﻓﻓﻲﻲ ﺳﺳﻨﻨﺔﺔ ﺳﺘﺳﻴﺘﻴﻦﻦﺗ ﺗﻮﻓﻮﻓﻲﻲﺃﻣﺃﻴﻣﻴﺮﺮﺍﻟ ﺍﻤﻟﺆﻤﻣﺆﻨﻴﻣﻨﻦﻴﻦﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ 315 ‫ﺑﺭﻊﺟﻟﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﻒﻲﻳﺰﻳﺭﺪﺟﺑﺐﻦ ﻷﺭ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﺍﻌﺎﺳﺘﻭﻳﺨﻠﺔ ﻓ‬ ‫ﺐﻝﻷﺭﺧﺑﻠﻊﺖﻟﻴﺎﻣﻨﻝﻪ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻨﻪ‬ ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻫ‬ ‫ﺃ‬ ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻤ‬ ‫ﺣ‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﻬ‬ ‫ﻴ‬ ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﺔ‬ ‫ﻳ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﻌ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ﻦ‬ ‫ﺑ‬ ‫ﺪ‬ ‫ﻳ‬ ‫ﺰ‬ ‫ﻳ‬ ‫ﻒ‬ ‫ﻣﻭﺍﻌﺎﺳﻭﺘﻳﺨﺔﻠ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺣﻤﻞ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺭﻭﺩﺱ ﺍﻟﻄﻌﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﻦﻴﺍﻬﻟﺎﻤﺪﻧﻳﻨﺰﺔﻉ ﻭﺍﺃﻟﻣﻮﻟﺮﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﺱﻦﺍﻟﻋﻄﺘﺒﻌﺎﺔﻡﻋﻭﻓ‬ ‫ﺼﺎﺮﻧ ﺇﺰﻟﻉﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻮﻟﻭﻴﺩﺪ ﺑ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﻓﻴﻬ‬ ‫ﺑﻋﻦﻤﺮﻋﻭﺘﺒﺑﺔﻦ ﻋﺳﻦﻌﻴ ﺍﺪﻟﻤﻋﺪﻠﻳﻨﻰﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﻤﺃﺪﻣﻳﻨﺮﺔ ﻋﻭﻤﻣﻜﺮﺔﻭ ﺑﻭﺍﻟﻦﻄﺎﺳﺋﻌﻴ‬ ‫ﻒﺪ ﻓﺤﺞ‬ ‫ﻰﺬ ﺍﻟﺑﺎﻤﻟﻨﺪﺎﻳﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻒﺪ ﺛﻓﻢﺤ ﻧﺞﺰﻉﻋﺎﻓﻣﺌﻲﺬ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ‬ ‫ﺱ ﻭﻋﻣﻤﻜﺮﺔﻭﻭﺑﺍﻟﻦﻄﺎﺳﺋﻌﻴ‬ ‫ﻋﻋﺎﻠﻣﺌ‬ ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻬ‬ ‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﺴ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ﻲ‬ ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ﻉ‬ ‫ﺰ‬ ‫ﻧ‬ ‫ﻢ‬ ‫ﺛ‬ ‫ﺪ‬ ‫ﻴ‬ ‫ﻌ‬ ‫ﺳ‬ ‫ﻦ‬ ‫ﺑ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻤ‬ ‫ﻋ‬ ‫ﺱ‬ ‫ﺫﺑﺎﻟﻱﻨﺎﺍﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺯﺍﺩ ﺣﺮﻣﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺫﺭﻭﻱﺍﻳﺘﺍﻟﻪﺤﻋﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﻦ ﺍﺑﻭﺃﻦﻣ ﺑﺮﻜﻴﺍﻟﺮﻮﻟﻴﻭﺪﺧ ﺑﺮﻦﺝ ﻋﺣﺘﺒﺴﺔﻴﻦﺯﺍﺑﺩﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺭﺣﺮ‬ ‫ﻋﻌﻦﺮﺍﺍﺑﻕﻦ ﻭﺑﺍﺑﻜﻴﻦﺮ ﺍﻟﻭﺰﺑﺧﻴﺮﺮﺝﺇﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺿﻣﻠﻲﺔ ﺍﻟﻓﻠﻪﻲ ﻋﺭﻨﻭﻪﺍﻳﺇﻟﺘﻪﻰ ﺍﻟ‬ ‫ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻕ‬ ‫ﺴﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﺣﻜﺔ‬ 316 ‫ﻭﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻜﺔ‬

315 We find the date of Muʿāwiya’s death identical to that found in Baqī’s recension at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lix, 238–9: ‫ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺟﺐ ﻷﺭﺑﻊ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬, and in al-Khaṭīb, Baghdād (2002), i, 578. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 198, gives just the year: ‫ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻲ‬ ‫ﺳﻔﻴﻦ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬. There is, however, a minor discrepancy in which the date is given as ‘four nights remaining’ of Rajab at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lix, 58: ‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻓﺎﺗﻪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺫﻛﺮ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺭﺟﺐ ﻷﺭﺑﻊ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬, with the same discrepancy at Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), x, 207. 316 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 229. 317 Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, son of the former caliph ʿAlī, and Ibn al-Zubayr, son of a prominent companion of Muḥammad, would launch counter caliphates, the former short-lived, against the Umayyad claimants, attempting to gain support in Iraq and the Ḥijāz respectively. Ibn alZubayr escaped from Medina to Mecca in order to avoid giving the pledge of allegiance to Muʿāwiya’s son Yazīd, where his local support put him beyond Umayyad attempts to bring him to heel, though he did not make a public claim to the caliphate until 63 or 64 H/683–4 CE. See Campbell, “Ibn al-Zubayr”, EI3.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

83

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year  al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī and his companions (– may God be pleased with them –) were killed (on a Saturday with ten nights passed from al-Muḥarram, the day of ʿĀshūrāʾ); al-Walīd b. ʿUtba led the people in pilgrimage.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟَّﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ )ﻟﻌﺸﺮ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺧﻠﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺮﻡ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻋﺎﺷﻮﺭﺍﺀ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ( ﻭﺣﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ‬

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻋﺰﻭﺓ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ‬In the year : the campaign of ʿUqba b. Nāfiʿ  ‫ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ‬against Ifrīqiya. ‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺨﻠﺪ‬In the year  Maslama b. Mukhallad died.



‫ﺘﺒﺍﺛﺔﻨﺘﻴﺳﻨﻦﺔ ﺛﻢ ﻋﺰﻝ‬323 ‫ﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ‬.‫ﻮﻟ‬.‫ﺍﻟ‬.‫ ﺍﺛﻭﻨﺘﺣﻴﺞﻦ‬In the year [6]2 al-Walīd b. ʿUtba did the ‫ﻦ ﻋ‬. ‫ﺑ‬. ‫ﺪ‬.‫ﻋﻭﺘﺒﺣﺔﺞ ﺍﺳﻟﻨﻮﺔﻟﻴ‬  324 ‫ﻥ ﺑﻋﺜﻦﻤﺎﻣﻥﺤ ﺑﻤﺪﻦ ﻣﻋﻠﺤﻤ‬ ‫ ﺛﻭﻤﺍﻌﺳﺘﺰﻌﻝﻤ ﻭﻞﺍﺳﻋﺘﺜﻌﻤﺎﻤﻞ‬pilgrimage. Then he was dismissed and ʿUthmān ‫ىﺎﺪﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬ ‫ ﻋﻠىﺎﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬b. Muḥammad was appointed governor over Medina.

318 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 235. With more detail on the exact date of al-Ḥusayn and his companions’ death, but without the pious invocation, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 251: ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﻟﻌﺸﺮ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺧﻠﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺮﻡ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻋﺎﺷﻮﺭﺍﺀ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ‬. On the pilgrimage, see also ibid., xl, 23. 319 This is the only such pious invocation in the text, including in notices on ʿUmar b. alKhaṭṭāb’s death. As such, it seems likely to be an interpolation, perhaps by Baqī b. Makhlad or one of the copyists of the manuscript of Khalīfa’s -Taʾrīkh. 320 They were killed by the forces of the Umayyad caliph Yazīd I at Karbalāʾ. 321 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 530. 322 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lviii, 64. 323 Here Ibn ʿAsākir or a copyist abbreviates two notices about pilgrimages in subsequent years, and assumes that the reader understands that the notice relate to the decade of the 60s because of the notices immediately preceding this one giving the pilgrimage notice for the year 60. The text in the ellipsis reads: ‫ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﺳﻨﺔ‬. 324 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 23. 325 He was governor of Egypt.

84

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year  ʿUqba b. Nāfiʿ and his companions were struck down in the Maghrib.

‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺃﺻﻴﺐ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ‬  ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻐﺮﺏ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻗﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺓ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺭﺑﻌﺎﺀ ﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ‬  ‫ﺫﻱ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺣﻜﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺻﻔﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺤﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﻜﺔ ﺭﺿﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻟﻴﺼﻠﻲ ﺑﻬﻢ ﻧﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺭﺙ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺹ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺰﻭﻣﻲ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻜﺔ ﻓﺄﺗﻤﺎ ﺣﺞ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﻟﻢ‬ ‫ﻳﻜﻦ ﺩﻋﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﺩﻋﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺕ‬ ‫ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻭﺑﻮﻳﻊ ﺑﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻼﻓﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﻜﺔ ﻧﺤﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺭﺙ ﻭﺃﻟﺤﻘﻮﻩ‬  ‫ﺑﺪﺍﺭﻩ‬

The battle of al-Ḥarra was on Wednesday, three [nights] remaining of Dhū -l-Ḥijja in the year . That year – meaning the year  – Yaḥyā b. Ḥakīm b. Ṣafwān al-Jumaḥī did the pilgrimage. The Meccans had judged him fit and appointed [him] over themselves to lead them in prayer alongside331 al-Ḥārith b. Khālid b. al-ʿĀṣ b. Hishām al-Makhzūmī, the governor of Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya over Mecca, so they both performed the pilgrimage for these people. [Ibn] al-Zubayr had not put out his caliphal claim, rather he put out his claim after the death of Yazīd. He received the caliphal pledge of allegiance after the death of Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya, when the Meccans had made al-Ḥārith retire and confined him in his house.332

326 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 536. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 199: ‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﻭﺍﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻠﺚ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬. 327 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxvii, 19. The isnād here has the oddity of interposing one ‫ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﻭﻱ‬between Ibn Bukayr and al-Layth. With the same text, see ibid., xxxiv, 287, and Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (2003), ix, 246. 328 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xi, 416. 329 The Egypt-based general who was the main figure in the early phase of Islamic conquests in North Africa after the initial campaigns of Ibn Abī Sarḥ and Muʿāwiya b. Ḥudayj. He was killed at Tahūdha, south-east of Biskra in modern Algeria, on his return from a campaign which had supposedly taken him as far as the Atlantic. 330 The rocky desert ground outside Medina where an Umayyad army sent from Syria by Yazīd I defeated a force of Medinans who had risen in resistance to his caliphate, before supposedly pillaging the holy city. 331 naḥwa, the preposition, meaning towards or ‘the like of’. An alternative reading could be naḥḥaw, ‘they removed x from his/its place’, as occurs later in the notice, but this would require both an orthographic and syntactical alteration to the text of the edition. The use of the dual in the following verb also suggests that al-Ḥārith had not been entirely removed yet. 332 Al-Ṭabarī’s informants claimed that Ibn al-Zubayr led the pilgrimage this year, rather than al-Layth’s more complicated picture, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xix, 218.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

85

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] The commander of the faithful Yazīd died in the year  on the night of the full moon in the month of Rabīʿ I; the Kaʿba was burned on Saturday, three [nights] having passed of the month of Rabīʿ II; the commander of the faithful Marwān received the pledge of allegiance in Dhū -l-Qaʿda at al-Jābiya; the battle of Rāhiṭ occurred in Dhū -l-Ḥijja two nights

‫ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﺣﺮﻗﺖ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ ﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﺧﻠﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ‬ ‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﻮﻳﻊ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻌﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻗﻴﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻫﻂ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻷﺿﺤﻰ ﺑﻠﻴﻠﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺘﺢ ﻟﺰﻫﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺮﺏ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺃﻛﺴﻴﻞ ﺯﺍﺩ ﺣﺮﻣﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺘﻪ‬  ‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ‬ 

**

333 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 253. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 254, has a slightly paraphrased account of this on the basis of the usual isnād to al-Layth: ‫ﺑﻮﻳﻊ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻌﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺑﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﻷﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﻨﺼﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻗﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﻫﻂ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻱ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻷﺿﺤﻰ ﺑﻠﻴﻠﺘﻴﻦ‬, seemingly using the dates from the -Taʾrīkh as the basis for his calculation of the period of interregnum between Yazīd’s death and Marwān’s succession, before returning to a verbatim quotation which matches Baqī’s reproduction of the -Taʾrīkh. This paraphrase may well have been al-Fasawī’s rather than Ibn ʿAsākir’s. The same information, verbatim, about the date of Marwān’s accession is found at ibid., lvii, 255 and lvii, 278. The notice about Marj Rāhiṭ is found, verbatim, at ibid., xxiv, 298, and near-verbatim at Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba (1415 H), iii, 389. The same death date of Kusayla is found on the authority of al-Layth in Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 200. 334 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxiv, 291, has the same isnād to al-Fasawī’s -Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh, followed by < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > attached to a more narrative account of the conflict between Marwān and al-Ḍaḥḥāk which culminated in the battle of Marj Rāhiṭ. However, as this account not only does not appear in Khalīfa’s annal for this year and it duplicates certain information from Khalīfa’s entry, it seems probable that this narrative was not a part of the -Taʾrīkh, but rather a different form of historical narration which al-Layth also taught to Ibn Bukayr which he subsequently transmitted to al-Fasawī. Yet as it is possible that it was in fact a part of the -Taʾrīkh missed or omitted by Baqī, I include the text and translation here: ‫ﻭﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﺎﻙ ﺑﻴﻌﺔ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﻭﺩﻋﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﺎﻙ ﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﺳﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺗﺒﻌﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺸﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮﺍﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻟﺤﻘﻮﺍ ﺑﺎﻷﺭﺩﻥ ﻭﺳﺎﺭ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻭﺑﻨﻮ ﺑﺤﺪﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺾ‬ ‫‘ ;ﺣﺎﻙ‬Al-Ḍaḥḥāk proclaimed the pledge of allegiance to ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr and called [people to pledge it] to him. When he did this the majority of the Umayyad family, their followers from the retinue of Muʿāwiya and Yazīd, and those whose inclination was towards the Umayyads marched until they joined together in Jordan. Marwān and the clan of Baḥdal marched to al-Ḍaḥḥāk.’ 335 The Kaʿba was burned when Yazīd I’s army advanced against Mecca, where Ibn al-Zubayr was established along with others who would not acknowledge Yazīd’s succession. There are different stories about how it was burned, whether it was due to direct bombardment with a

86

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation after the feast of the sacrifice; the Maghrib was conquered for Zuhayr on the day that A-k-s-y-l [sic: Kusayla] was killed. Ḥarmala added in his transmission from Ibn Bukayr: Ibn al-Zubayr led the pilgrimage.

[ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺩﺧﻞ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ‬In the year  Marwān entered Egypt in the new moon  ‫ ﻫﻼﻝ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺛﻢ ﺧﺮﺝ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ‬of the month of Rabīʿ II; then he departed from Egypt in Jumādā II; then he died at the beginning of ‫ﺟﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ ﺛﻢ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﺭﻣﻀﺎﻥ‬ Ramaḍān and the commander of the faithful ʿAbd al‫ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﻒ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺑﺈﻳﻠﻴﺎﺀ ﻓﻲ‬Malik succeeded to the caliphate at Jerusalem in the

‫ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﻣﻀﺎﻥ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺣﺒﻴﺶ ﺑﻦ ﺩﻟﺠﺔ ﻭﺿﺤﻰ‬ ‫ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺑﺤﻤﺺ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﺑﻦ‬ 338 ‫ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ‬

ballista by the Syrian army, the spread of fires from buildings burned nearby, or careless torchhandling by one of Ibn al-Zubayr’s soldiers. See al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xix, 222–226. 336 Marj Rāhiṭ is the name of an area of pasture-land to the north-east of Damascus. After the death of Muʿāwiya I’s infant grandson Muʿāwiya II, the Syrian Muslim army was split into two tribal factions. The Kalbī tribesmen and their affiliates gathered to al-Jābiya and swore allegiance to Marwān I, while the Qaysī tribesmen under their leader al-Ḍaḥḥāk gathered south of Damascus at Marj al-Ṣuffar. The two factions met in battle at Marj Rāhiṭ, with the Kalbīs and Marwān I victorious, giving him control of Syria and allowing him to press his caliphal claim. See Elisséeff, “Mardj Rāhiṭ”, EI2. 337 Kusyala was a Berber leader who, after the death of the Muslim general ʿUqba b. Nāfiʿ, appears to have established control in Ifrīqiya. Zuhayr b. Qays al-Balawī, a supposed companion of Muḥammad and veteran of previous Muslim campaigns in the Maghrib, defeated Kusayla in a battle west of al-Qayrawān, in which the latter lost his life. 338 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 253. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 234, uses the year date of Marwān’s entry to Egypt: ‫ﺩﺧﻞ ﻣﺮﻭﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺪﺧﻠﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬. On Marwān’s movements to and from Egypt and his death, expressed near-verbatim, Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lvii, 255: ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺩﺧﻮﻝ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻣﺼﺮ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻫﻼﻝ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺛﻢ ﺧﺮﺝ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ ﺛﻢ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﻣﻀﺎﻥ‬. See also ibid., lvii, 278, for the information on his death and ʿAbd al-Malik’s succession, verbatim except that the title commander of the faithful is not used. On Ibn Ḥubaysh’s death, verbatim, see ibid., xii, 90. On Ibn al-Zubayr’s pilgrimage see, verbatim, ibid., xxviii, 211. 339 Marwān entered Egypt to wrest control over it from a pro-Ibn al-Zubayr party within the country which, after the death of Yazīd, had requested that Ibn al-Zubayr send them a governor. Marwān came to Egypt, fought and defeated Ibn al-Zubayr’s governor Ibn Jaḥdam, and appointed his own son ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz as governor. See al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 40–42.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

87

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation month of Ramaḍān; Ḥubaysh b. Dulja was killed; the commander of the faithful ʿAbd al-Malik celebrated the feast of the sacrifice in Ḥimṣ; Ibn alZubayr led the people in pilgrimage. [ H] [– CE] In the year : the first campaign of Buṭnān; ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād and his followers were killed at al-Khāzir; Nātil (b. Qays) and his followers were killed in Palestine; that year the commander of the faithful celebrated the feast of the sacrifice in Salamiyya; plague broke out in Egypt; the battle of Ajnādayn [happened]; Ibn alZubayr led the people in pilgrimage.

‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺑﻄﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻭﻣﻘﺘﻞ‬ ‫ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﻟَﻠّﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺨﺎﺯﺭ ﻭﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﻧﺎﺗﻞ‬ ‫)ﺑﻦ ﻗﻴﺲ( ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﻔﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ ﻭﺿﺤﻰ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ‬ ‫ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﻭﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﺑﻤﺼﺮ‬  ‫ﻭﻭﻗﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﺟﻨﺎﺩﻳﻦ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ ﺑﻠﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ‬

340 Ḥubaysh was sent with an army by Marwān from Syria to the Hijāz, where he took Medina for Marwān but was then defeated by Zubayrid forces sent from al-Baṣra and Mecca. See al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xx, 161–163. 341 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 263. On the raid of Buṭnān and the deaths of ʿUbayd Allāh and Nātil, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxi, 378, in two places: ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ‬ ‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺨﺎﺭﺯ ﻭﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﻧﺎﺗﻞ ﺑﻦ ﻗﻴﺲ ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ‬. . . ‫ﺑﻄﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻭﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﻧﺎﺗﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﻔﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ‬. Ibid., xxviii, 211, uses al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh as his source for a list of years in which Ibn alZubayr led the pilgrimage, including this year. 342 Buṭnān, or Buṭnān Ḥabīb, is a river-valley about 30km east of Aleppo. The Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik and his army camped there several times as a staging post to campaign against Iraq. See al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxi, 134, 155, 167, 171. 343 A river situated between Irbil and Mosul, between the Great Zab river and Mosul. See Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), ii, 337. ʿUbayd Allāh and his father Ziyād b. Abīhi had served Muʿāwiya as governors in Iraq and Khurāsān. He died fighting for ʿAbd al-Malik in battle against the forces of al-Mukhṭār, who led a pro-ʿAlid movement in al-Kūfa. 344 Nātil b. Qays al-Judhāmī was a partisan of Ibn al-Zubayr operating in Palestine during the second fitna. See al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xviii, 221; xx, 50, 56, 63. 345 A town in central Syria, SE of Ḥamāt and NE of Ḥimṣ. 346 The famous Battle of Ajnādayn was an engagement between the Muslim armies and the Byzantines in Palestine in c. 13 H/634 CE, however I cannot find reference to this later battle with the same name.

88

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year : the campaign of Buṭnān; al-Mukhtār b. Abī ʿUbayd was killed; ʿUmar b. Saʿd was killed; the commander of the faithful celebrated the feast of the sacrifice in Damascus. Ḥarmala added in his transmission: Ibn al-Zubayr led the people in pilgrimage.

‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺑﻄﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﻭﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻭﺿﺤﻰ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺪﻣﺸﻖ ﺯﺍﺩ ﺣﺮﻣﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﺑﻦ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ‬

[ H] [– CE] In the year : the campaign of al-Rayyān against the Yemen with the mawālī; the commander of the faithful remained [in place?] that year; ʿĀbis b. Saʿīd died; that year the commander of the faithful celebrated the feast of the sacrifice in Damascus; Ibn al-Zubayr led the people in pilgrimage.

‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮﺍﻟﻲ‬ ‫ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﺑﺲ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﺿﺤﻰ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺪﻣﺸﻖ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ‬  ‫ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ‬

347 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 264. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxviii, 211, uses alLayth’s -Taʾrīkh as his source for a list of years in which Ibn al-Zubayr led the pilgrimage, including this year. 348 See footnote 342. 349 Al-Mukhṭār was the leader of a pro-ʿAlid uprising which took control of al-Kūfa and its dependent territories, against both the Umayyads and Zubayrids, from around 66 H/685 CE until his death at the hands of a Zubayrid army sent from al-Baṣra. 350 ʿUmar b. Saʿd was the son of the companion, conqueror of Iraq, and founder of al-Kūfa, Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ. He was killed by al-Mukhṭār’s troops along with other Kūfans accused of participation in the Umayyads’ killing of al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī at Karbalāʾ in 61 H/680 CE. 351 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 264–5. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxviii, 211, uses al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh as his source for a list of years in which Ibn al-Zubayr led the pilgrimage, including this year. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxi, 290, has a report from < Ibn Bukayr – alLayth > on the death of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ for this year: ‫ﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻤﺼﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬. However, he does not access this report through his normal riwāya-isnād via al-Fasawī. Rather, Ibn Bukayr related it to Abū Zinbāʿ Rawḥ b. al-Faraj. As such, and because it concerns an important ḥadīth-transmitter rather than an official of state, it may be part of Ibn Bukayr’s wafayāt material some of which he just happens to have transmitted from al-Layth. 352 Mawālī (sg. mawlā) were either converts to Islam or freed slaves, here seen operating as a military unit, on whom see Crone “Mawlā”, EI2. The campaign of al-Rayyān is obscure. 353 On ʿĀbis see footnote 308.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

89

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

357 ‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺑﻄﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ ﻭﻏﺰﻭﺓ‬In the year : the final campaign of Buṭnān; the campaign of Ḥassān against the Aurès ‫ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﺭﺍﺱ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻭﺛﻖ ﺃﺻﺤﺎﺏ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﺮﺯ‬ 358  ‫[ ﻭﺿﺤﻰ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺪﻣﺸﻖ‬Mountains]; the followers of Ibn Muḥriz were

fettered; that year the commander of the faithful celebrated the feast of the sacrifice in Damascus.

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‬In the year  ʿAmr b. Saʿīd was killed.



‫ ﺗﺴﻊ‬. . . ‫ ﻭﺍﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ‬Ibn al-Zubayr led the people in pilgrimage,  ‫ ﻭﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬meaning the year . [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ ﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺘﻞ‬In the year  the commander of the faithful [in place?]; ʿUmayr b. al-Ḥubāb was ‫ ﻋﻤﻴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﺎﺏ ﻭﺿﺤﻰ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬remained   ‫ ﺑﺪﻣﺸﻖ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ‬killed; that year the commander of the faithful

celebrated the feast of the sacrifice in Damascus; Ibn al-Zubayr led the people in pilgrimage.

354 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 265. 355 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlvi, 45. Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), viii, 38, gives al-Layth as his source for this date. 356 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxviii, 211. 357 See footnote 342. 358 The eastern extension of the Atlas Mountain System, in modern north-eastern Algeria. Ḥassān is Ḥassān b. al-Nuʿmān, who conducted the permanent conquest of the Maghrib in this period. 359 ʿAmr, known as al-Ashdak, was an Umayyad who had served Yazīd, Marwān and ʿAbd alMalik as a general, but in 69 H/689 CE raised a revolt in Damascus asserting his claim to the caliphate while ʿAbd al-Malik was campaigning in Iraq. This induced the latter to return, put down the revolt, and execute the pretender. 360 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 266. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlvi, 475–6, has the information about ʿUmayr’s death in three places. Ibid., xxviii, 212, uses al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh as his source for a list of years in which Ibn al-Zubayr led the pilgrimage, including this year. 361 ʿUmayr b. al-Ḥubāb was a Sulamī leader of the Qays party in Iraq who fought with the partisans of al-Mukhṭār in the major Umayyad defeat of the battle of al-Khāzir in 67 H/686 CE, as well as a succession of battles against ‘Yemeni’ tribes and the Kalb before being killed in battle against the Taghlib in al-Jazīra. See al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxi, 74–80 and AlZirikli 2002, v, 87–88.

90

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

(‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﻓﺮﺳﻄﺎ )ﻗﺮﻃﺴﺎ؟‬In the year : the campaign of F-r-s-ṭ-ā  ‫( ﻭﺿﺤﻰ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺪﻣﺸﻖ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﺑﻦ‬Qarṭasā?); that year the commander of the faithful celebrated the feast of the sacrifice in  ‫ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ‬ Damascus; Ibn al-Zubayr led the people in pilgrimage.

[ H] [– CE] In the year : the campaign of the commander of the faithful against al-Kūfa; al-Muṣʿab b. al-Zubayr was killed at Maskin; Ḥassān b. Nuʿmān campaigned against Raʾs al-Q-y-ḥ (/Awrās al-Fatḥ?); that year al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf led the people in pilgrimage; he fought Ibn al-Zubayr while he led the (people in) pilgrimage.

‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻓﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻌﺐ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﻜﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻧﻌﻤﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﺭﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺢ )ﺭﺃﺱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺢ؟( ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝ ﺑﻦ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬  ‫ﻭﻗﺎﺗﻞ )ﻫﻮ ﻭ( ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ )ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ( ﺍﻟﺤﺞ‬

362 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 267. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxviii, 212, uses alLayth’s -Taʾrīkh as his source for a list of years in which Ibn al-Zubayr led the pilgrimage, including this year. 363 Wurtzel suggests we read Qarṭasā in Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 127, a village in the Delta of Egypt. See Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), iv, 325. However, there is no reference to activity there during the second fitna. 364 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 267–8. The notice of the death of al-Muṣʿab without the location is given at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lviii, 249–50. Ibid., xii, 451, has a different target of Ḥassān’s campaign: ‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺎﻥ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺢ‬. The discrepancy is clearly from an orthographic error: the syntactical clumsiness of awrās al-fatḥ, if it is supposed to indicate a ‘conquest’ (fatḥ), makes me prefer the unknown toponym. Ibid., xii, 118, has a near-verbatim report on al-Ḥajjāj’s pilgrimage and fight with Ibn al-Zubayr: ‫ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝ ﺑﻦ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﻓﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﻭﺃﻗﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺞ‬. 365 This campaign was successful, winning Iraq for the Umayyads and leaving ʿAbd al-Malik free to dispatch a force to Mecca to defeat Ibn al-Zubayr himself. 366 Muṣʿab was Ibn al-Zubayr’s brother and governor of Iraq. Maskin was a place near Awānā (around ten farsakhs from Baghdād in the direction of Takrīt) on the Tigris river near the Monastery of the Catholicos, known to be the location of ʿAbd al-Malik’s victorious battle against Muṣʿab, see Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), i, 274 (for Awānā) and v, 127 (for Maskin). 367 An unknown toponym, presumably in the Maghrib where Ḥassān was campaigning at this time. 368 Other sources stress al-Ḥajjāj’s leadership of the pilgrimage, in military garb, while Ibn al-Zubayr could not participate because he was besieged, see al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrikh (1387 H), vi, 174–5.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

91

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year : ʿAbd Allāḥ b. al-Zubayr was killed in Jumādā I (/II?); Kurayb b. Abraha went down to Alexandria; Abrad b. Habbār went up to Ifrīqiya in charge of the army; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muʿāwiya went down to Rosetta by the bridge; that year alḤajjāj b. Yūsuf led the people in pilgrimage.

‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ )ﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ؟( ﻭﻫﺒﻂ ﻛﺮﻳﺐ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﺮﻫﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻃﻠﻊ ﺃﺑﺮﺩ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺒﺎﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺶ‬ ‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﻭﻫﺒﻂ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻌﺒﺮﺓ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝ ﺑﻦ‬  ‫ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬

[ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ ﻫﺒﻂ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ‬In the year : ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān went down  the prophetess [al-kāhina] was ‫ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﻗﺘﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻨﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻃﻠﻊ‬to Alexandria;  Sufyān b. Wahb went up to Ifrīqiya; killed; ‫ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻭﻫﺐ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ‬ Muḥammad b. Marwān attacked the Romans at the ‫ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺰﺍﺏ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝ‬Zab river; that year al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf led the  ‫ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬people in pilgrimage.

369 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 270. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxviii, 249, has the notice of Ibn al-Zubayr’s death but places it in Jumādā II rather than Jumādā I. 370 By the Umayyad force led by al-Ḥajjāj. 371 miʿbara – this could be a ferry or a bridge. These individuals are commanders based in Egypt. Kurayb b. Abraha was a South Arabian tribal leader in Egypt who had supported the Umayyad cause against Zubayrid partisans at key moments in the civil war, see al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 40–46. Abrad is unknown. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān is the son of Muʿāwiya b. Ḥudayj, a Tujībī tribal leader who participated in the conquest of Egypt and had fought on the side of the party of ʿUthmān, and thus the Umayyads, in the first fitna. Both Kurayb and ʿAbd alRaḥmān are recorded holding important roles in the early Marwānid administration of Egypt. 372 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 270. 373 The governor of Egypt, normally based in al-Fusṭāṭ. 374 Al-Kāhina led resistance to Muslim advances in the Maghrib. The legendary nature of information about her is already apparent in our earliest historical sources and only becomes more elaborated. 375 Claimed as a Companion of Muḥammad, Sufyān had taken part in earlier campaigns in the Maghrib and would ultimately die there. See Al-Zirikli 2002, iii, 105. 376 Muḥammad b. Marwān was Abd al-Malik’s brother, governor of al-Jazīra and Armenia, and main commander in his wars against the Byzantines. The Zab river is a tributary of the Tigris which flows south from the highlands near Lake Van, historic Armenia, modern Turkey.

92

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year : ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān went out to Syria; Khabbāb b. Marthad went down to Alexandria; Ziyād b. Ḥunāṭa died and al-Aṣbagh b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz was made governor [of Egypt]; that year the commander of the faithful ʿAbd alMalik b. Marwān led the people in pilgrimage; ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd al-Khawlānī went up to Ifrīqiya with the army.

‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ ﺧﺮﺝ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻭﻫﺒﻂ ﺧﺒﺎﺏ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﺛﺪ ﺇﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺎﻃﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻷﺻﺒﻎ‬ ‫ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻃﻠﻊ ﻋﻤﻴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﺨﻮﻻﻧﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻴﺶ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ‬

[ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ‬. . . ‫ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﺯﻫﻴﺮ ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ‬Zuhayr [b. Qays] and his followers were killed in   ‫ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ‬the year . ‫ ﺃُ ّﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻄﺎﺑﻠﺲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺯﻫﻴﺮ ﻃﺎﺭﻕ‬When Zuhayr was killed, Ṭāriq was appointed governor over the Pentapolis.384



377 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh (1397 H), 271. 378 Khabbāb is otherwise unknown. 379 Ziyād was a member of the Umayyad party in Egypt who had opposed the Zubayrids in the second fitna and later served as ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz’s chief of police and deputy governor while ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz was out of the country. It was in this capacity that he died, leading to the following statement that al-Aṣbagh, the son of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, was appointed governor, a position he was only holding until his father’s return. See al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 40–46, 51. 380 Reading ‫ ﻃﻠﻊ‬for ‫ﺍﻃﻠﻊ‬. 381 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 203. The ellipsis is for the isnād: ‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ‬. 382 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 203. 383 Zuhayr b. Qays al-Balawī had been a general in ʿUqba b. Nāfiʿ and Ḥassān b. al-Nuʿmān’s campaigns in Ifrīqiya. He was killed leading a force against a Byzantine reoccupation of Cyrenaica, Libya, apparently because his pro-Zubayrid stance in the second fitna meant that the governor of Egypt ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz disliked him and did not give him sufficient troops. See Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 198–20, 202–203. 384 I.e. the Western Pentapolis or Cyrenaica, which came to be governed in early Islamic times from Barqa. It is not clear who this Ṭāriq is.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

93

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In [that year] – meaning the year  – Ḥassān b. alNuʿmān returned from Ifrīqiya.

‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ ﻗﻔﻞ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻡ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ‬  ‫ﺑﻦ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬

In the year : the campaign of al-Walīd, the son of the commander of the faithful, into Roman territory; that year al-Walīd, the son of the commander of the faithful, led the people in pilgrimage.

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ‬Mūsā b. Nuṣayr was appointed governor over   ‫ ﻭﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ‬Ifrīqiya in the year . [ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻤﺎﻥ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – Ḥassān b. al ‫ ﺑﺄﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺮ‬Nuʿmān campaigned with Syrian troops against alN-m-r. [ H] [– CE]  ‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺷﻬﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺪ‬In the year : Ibn Shihāb came to ʿAbd al-Malik.  ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬

385 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xii, 452. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 201–2. 386 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxiii, 169. 387 Ḥassān returned to ʿAbd al-Malik with the spoils of his conquest of the Maghrib, leaving deputies in place. 388 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 203. 389 Mūsā was sent to govern Ifrīqiya by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, displacing Ḥassān b. al-Nuʿmān’s deputy there, as part of a dispute with Ḥassān. 390 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xii, 452. 391 The toponym is unknown, but the detail of the Syrian army suggests a raid against the Byzantines. 392 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lv, 297. 393 That is, the famous historian al-Zuhrī.

94

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [ CE] Al-Aṣbagh died on Thursday night, seven nights remaining of the month of Rabīʿ I; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz died on Monday night, (/?) nights passed of Jumādā I – meaning of the year .

‫ﺗﻮﻓﻰ ﺍﻷﺻﺒﻎ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﻴﺲ ﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻮﻓﻰ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﻟﺜﻼﺙ)ﻹﺛﻨﻰ؟( ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ‬  ‫ﺟﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ‬

In [that year] – meaning the year  – ʿAbd Allāh,

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ ُﺃ ّﻣﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ‬the son of the commander of the faithful, was ‫ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﺪﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﻴﻦ‬appointed governor over the Egyptians. He entered  ‫[ ﻹﺣﺪﻯ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬Egypt] on Monday, th of Jumādā II. ‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – the commander of the faithful ʿAbd al-Malik died on ‫ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﻴﺲ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺭ ﻷﺭﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ‬ Thursday, the night of the full moon,  nights  ‫ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻮﺍﻝ‬ passed of Shawwāl.

‫ ﺛﻢ ﺑﻮﻳﻊ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻮﻣﻪ ﺑﻴﻌﺔ‬Then the commander of the faithful al-Walīd received ‫ ﺍﻟﺨﻼﻓﺔ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻮﺍﻝ‬the caliphal pledge of allegiance on the same day –  ‫ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ‬meaning Thursday th of Shawwāl of the year .

394 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvi, 360. Al-Aṣbagh’s death notice is also found at ibid., ix, 171. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz’s death date is given similarly but on 12th rather than 13th of Jumādā I at Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 237. According to Theo Beers’ Calendar Converter the Monday would have fallen on the 12th, making Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s version of the text correct. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam’s quotation of the notice is quoted at Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvi, 350. Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (2003), xii, 366, quotes al-Fasawī giving this notice on the 13th of Jumādā also, suggesting the error was al-Fasawī’s. 395 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxix, 345. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 122, uses al-Layth as his source to date ʿAbd Allāh’s appointment to this year, without giving the exact date. 396 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvii, 164. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 204, gives the same exact date, without mentioning that it was the full moon. 397 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxiii, 185. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 204, also notes the succession but in paraphrase. 398 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān – at the time governor of Egypt – and his son al-Aṣbagh both died shortly before ʿAbd al-Malik, averting a possible succession dispute resulting from ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz’s claim to the caliphate as ʿAbd al-Malik’s brother.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

95

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ ﺃﺗﻰ ﺑﺮﺃﺱ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﺯﻡ‬In the year : Ibn Khāzim’s head was brought.



[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ ﻏﺰﺍ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – Maslama  ‫ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻭﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﺑﻦ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻃﻮﺍﻧﺔ‬b. ʿAbd al-Malik and ʿAbbās, the son of the

commander of the faithful, campaigned against Tyana.

[ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻣﺼﺮ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – Syrian troops ‫ ﻟﻴﻐﺰﻭﺍ ﻫﻢ ﻭﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ‬came to Egypt in order for [the Egyptians] and the Syrians to make a naval campaign. The Egyptian ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﻜﺮﺯ‬ contingent was commanded by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ‫ ﻓﺨﺮﺟﻮﺍ ﻣﺮﺷﻴﺪ ﻓﺴﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﻳﻮﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﺛﻢ ﺭﺩﺗﻬﻢ‬b. ʿUmāra and Ibn Mikraz was in overall command.  ‫ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺢ ﻓﺠﺎﺀﻫﻢ ﺇﺫﻧﻬﻢ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‬They set out from Rosetta and sailed for a day, before the wind drove them back. They received their permission [to demob?] while they were in Alexandria.

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﻧﺰﻉ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻣﻦ‬In the year  ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Malik was ‫ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﻗﺮﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺷﺮﻳﻚ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﻟﺜﻼﺙ‬dismissed from Egypt and Qurra b. Sharīk was  ‫ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬appointed governor on Monday,  nights passed from the month of Rabīʿ I.

399 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxviii, 15. 400 This may refer to ʿAbd Allāh b. Khāzim who had governed Khurāsān for the Umayyads until, having taken the Zubayrid side in the second fitna, he was killed by his own deputy and his head sent to ʿAbd al-Malik. However, this happened around the year 72 H according to alṬabarī History (1989–2007), xxi, 209–212. Al-Layth’s date matches better the death of Abd Allāh’s son Mūsā, who ruled a rogue statelet based in Tirmidh in Transoxania until he was killed by forces dispatched by the Umayyads in 85 H, according to al-Ṭabarī, ibid., xxiii, 90–108. There is no similar tradition about what happened to Mūsā’s head, however, though apparently his leg was posthumously chopped off. 401 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxvi, 442. Al-Layth is given as the source for this information in Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), iii, 12. 402 A city in Cappadocia, Anatolia, modern Kemerhisar in Turkey. Al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxiii, 140–141, claims they conquered the city. 403 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxiii, 229. 404 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxix, 345. 405 Reading ‫ﻣﻦ ﺭﺷﻴﺪ‬.

96

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

 ‫ )?( )؟( ُﻓﺘﺢ ﻟﻤﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮ ﺍﻷﻧﺪﻟﺲ ﻓﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬Al-Andalus was conquered for Mūsā  b. Nuṣayr and he took from it the table of Solomon ‫ﻣﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺩﺍﻭﺩ ﺻﻠﻌﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺝ‬

and the crown.

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﻓﺘﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺱ ﺑﻦ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬In the year  K-ā-sh-y-a (K-ā-sh-t-a?) was the son of the commander 409 (‫ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻛﺎﺳﻴﺔ)ﻛﺎﺷﺘﺔ؟‬conquered by al-ʿAbbās,  of the faithful.

‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺒﺪ‬That year – meaning the year  – ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, 410 ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬the son of al-Walīd the commander of the faithful, led the people in pilgrimage.

406 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 207. 407 This extract is one of a couple I have found with the usual < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > citation structure and matching content, but no explicit date. Assuming that it did have a date in the original, I have provisionally placed these notices in 92 H, as the conquest of Iberia is usually dated to the successful campaign of Mūsā’s Berber mawlā Ṭāriq b. Ziyād in that year, although Mūsā himself did not arrive until 93 H. I place the event in 92 H, supposing that the phrasing ‘conquered for Mūsā’ may reflect that he did not himself take part in the campaign of 92 H but it occurred ostensibly under his authority. 408 Mūsā was the governor of Ifrīqiya. The table, supposedly belonging to the biblical King Solomon, was a richly ornamented table taken as part of the booty and brought to the caliph al-Walīd in Damascus by Mūsā. 409 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxvi, 442. There is a discrepancy in the pointing of the target of the campaign, neither giving a known location. 410 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvi, 372. 411 An unknown toponym, but al-ʿAbbās’s regular campaigns recorded by al-Ṭabarī against Byzantine Anatolia suggest that it was here. For 93 H, al-Ṭabarī claims that al-ʿAbbās conquered a place called Samasṭiyya or Sabasṭiyya, History (1989–2007), xxiii, 184.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

97

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year  Bishr, the son of the commander of the faithful, came with Syrian troops to Egypt to make a naval campaign with them and an Egyptian troop. The Egyptians were commanded by ʿAbd Allāh b. Mālik b. al-Abjar. Bishr entered Egypt on Monday in Rajab. He went until they reached Derna (ʾ-d-r-n-a?) but then the winds were not good for them and they returned to Alexandria where they received their permission [to demob?] and they went back [to Syria?].

‫ﻭﻭﻓﻓﻲﻲ ﺳﺳﻨﻨﺔﺔ ﺃ ﺃﺭﺑﺭﺑﻊﻊﻭﺗﻭﺗﺴﺴﻌﻴﻌﻴﻦﻦﻗﺪﻗﻡﺪﻡﺑﺸﺑﺮﺸ ﺑﺮﻦﺑ ﺃﻦﻣﻴﺃﻣﺮﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﺍﻟﻟﻤﻤﺆﺆﻣﻣﻨﻨﻴﻴﻦﻦ ﺑﺑﺄﺄﻫﻫﻞﻞ ﺍﻟﺍﻟﺸﺎﺸﺎﻡﻡﺇﻟﺇﻟﻰﻰﻣ ﻣﺼﺼﺮﺮﻟﻴ ﻟﻐﻴﺰﻐﻭﺰ ﺑﻭﻬﺑﻢﻬﻢﻣﻊ‬ ‫ﻣﻊ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ‬ ‫ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻷﺑﺠﺮ ﻭﺩﺧﻞ ﺑﺸﺮ ﻣﺼﺮ‬ ‫ﻰ ﻳﺑﻠﻮﻐﻡﻮﺍﺍﻻﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺼﺮ‬ ‫ﻳﻣﺎﻮﻟﻡﻚﺍﺑﻻﻦﺛﻨﺍﻴﻷ‬ ‫ﻦﺑ ﻓﺠﻲﺮ ﻭﺭﺩﺟﺧﺐﻞ ﺑﻓﺸﺴﺎﺮﺭﻣﺣﺘ‬  412 ‫ﺢﺩﺭﻧﺔ؟‬ )‫ﺐﻐﻟﻮﻬﺍﻢﺃ ﺍﺩﻟﺭﺮﻧﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻰ ﺑﻠ‬ ‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﺣ‬ ‫ﺭ‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﺴ‬ ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ﺐ‬ ‫ﺟ‬ ‫ﺭ‬ ‫ﺛﺃﻢﺩ ﻟﺭﻢﻧﺔ)ﺩﺭ)ﻧﺔ؟( ﺛﻢ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻄ‬ ‫ﺐﻌﻟﻮﻬﺍﻢ ﺇﻟﺍﻟﻰﺮﻳﺍﺢﻹ ﻓﺳﺮﻜﻨﺟﺪﻌﺭﻮﻳﺍﺔﺇﻟﻓﻰﺠﺎﺍﺀﻹﻫﺳﻢﻜﺇﻨﺫﺪﻧﺭﻬﻳﻢﺔ ﻓﺠﺎﺀﻫﻢ‬ ‫ﺗﻓﻄﺮﺟ‬  ‫ﻮﺍ‬413 ‫ﺇﺫﻭﻧﻫﻬﻢﻢ ﺑﻭﻬﺎﻫﻢﻓﻘﺑﻔﻠﻬﺎﻮﺍﻓﻘﻔﻠ‬

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﻓﺘﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – al-Ḥajjāj  ‫ ﺑﻦ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺪ ﻭﺍﻣﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻲ ﻛﺒﺸﺔ‬b. Yūsuf conquered Soghdia; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was appointed governor  ‫ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺴﻜﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻕ‬b. Abī Kabsha al-Saksakī  over the Iraqis.

‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﺸﺮ‬That year – meaning the year  – Bishr, the son of  ‫ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬al-Walīd the commander of the faithful, led the people in pilgrimage.

412 Reading ‘Darna’ instead of ʾ-d-r-n-a is a plausible emendation suggested by the editor of Taʾrīkh Dimashq, ʿUmar Gharāma ʿAmrawī. 413 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 269. 414 Ancient Darnis, in modern Libya. See Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), ii, 452. 415 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxv, 354. 416 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), x, 269. 417 Reading ‫ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﺪ‬for ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺪ‬. Al-Ḥajjāj was not personally on these campaigns, which were led by his general Qutayba b. Muslim, but they were conducted under his aegis as governor of Iraq and all of the east. 418 Al-Ṭabarī and other sources have his name as Yazīd b. Abī Kabsha, al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xiii, 217.

98

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻗﻔﻞ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻓﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﻰ‬Mūsā b. Nuṣayr came back on a delegation to the ‫ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳ ّﺖ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﻭﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﻄﺎﻁ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﻴﺲ‬commander of the faithful in the year , entering  nights remaining of the  ‫ ﻟﺴ ّﺖ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‬al-Fusṭāṭ on Thursday,  month of Rabīʿ I.

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – the ‫ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ‬commander of the faithful al-Walīd died in Jumādā  ‫ ﻷﺭﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﻒ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ‬II, on Saturday,  nights passed of [the month]; Sulaymān succeeded as caliph.

‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻕ ﻭﻧﺰﻉ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻲ‬  ‫ﻛﺒﺸﺔ‬ ‫)؟( ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﺃﻭ ﺳﺖ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﺩﺧﻞ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ ﻣﺼﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‬ ‫ﺩﺧﻞ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺖ ﻹﺣﺪﻯ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻬﺮ‬  ‫ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬

In [that year] – meaning the year  – Yazīd b. alMuhallab was appointed governor over Iraq and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Kabsha was dismissed. [?]424 In [that year] – meaning the year 96 or 97 – Usāma b. Zayd entered Egypt as governor over the people of the land,425 entering on Saturday, 11 [nights] having passed of the month of Rabīʿ I.

419 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 211. See also Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxi, 223, where this is listed with the date 99 H, though Ibn ʿAsākir recognises that the date in his written source must be wrong as Mūsā died in 97 H, see the next annal. 420 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxiii, 185. 421 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxv, 354. 422 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), viii, 84–5. 423 Mūsā was returning via Egypt to the caliph in Syria from the conquest of Iberia instigated by his mawlā Ṭāriq b. Ziyād. 424 For some reason Ibn ʿAsākir was unclear whether this notice was originally included as part of al-Layth’s entry for 96 H or 97 H. 425 The term ahl al-arḍ was used for the non-Muslim population of Egypt. This title seems to indicate a position in charge of the apparatus of taxation which was largely directed at nonMuslims. Usāma b. Zayd appears to have been a civilian administrator, as he was later made Yazīd II’s secretary (kātib) in charge of the administrative registers/bureaus (dawāwīn). For this appointment see the entry for 104 H below and footnotes.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

99

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Mūsā was killed in the year .

‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ‬. . . ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ‬  ‫ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻓﺎﺗﻪ ]ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮ[ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ‬  ‫ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺃُ ّﻣﺮ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ‬  ‫ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ‬

[Mūsā b. Nuṣayr]’s death was in the year .430 Muḥammad b. Yazīd was appointed governor over Ifrīqiya in the year 97.

[ H] [– CE] In the year : the Ifrīqiyan navy arrived under the command of Ibn Abī Burda; they set out on campaign by ship along with an Egyptian troop under the command of Shurayḥ b. Maymūn;433 they, along with the first ships – ʿUmar b. Hubayra and Abū ʿUbayda being in command of the Medinans – wintered in the Pontus; Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik was in overall command.434

‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺳﻔﻦ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺑﺮﺩﺓ ﻓﻐﺰﻭﻫﻢ ﺑﺴﻔﻦ ﻭﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺷﺮﻳﺢ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻴﻤﻮﻥ ﻓﺸﺘﻮﺍ ﻫﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻔﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻭﺃﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ )ﺃﻫﻞ( ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻄﺲ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬

‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬That year – meaning the year  – the governor of  ‫ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﻜﺔ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺳﻴﺪ‬the Meccans, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Usayd, led the people in pilgrimage.

426 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 213. The ellipsis contains the isnād to < Ibn Bukayr – alLayth > . 427 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 213. 428 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 213. 429 The conqueror Mūsā b. Nuṣayr had left his son ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz as governor of al-Andalus, until he was killed by members of the Muslim army. 430 Mūsā had remained in Syria, out of favour with Sulaymān I, since the conquest of alAndalus. 431 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lviii, 33. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 119, providing the same notice near verbatim, though occasionally clarifying the odd syntax or supplying a missing word, and cutting off before naming the overall commander. 432 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvi, 296. 433 Reading ‫ ﻏﺰﻭﺍ ﻫﻮ‬for ‫ﻏﺰﻭﻫﻢ‬, as is found in Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (1922), 119. 434 ‘The Pontus’ here perhaps refers to the Eύξεινος Πόντος, the Greek term for the Black Sea. These events refer to the last great Arab attempt to take Constantinople. ʿUmar b. Hubayra, a major Umayyad commander, had already wintered his ships in Byzantine territory in 97 H/715–716 CE, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), 30, explaining why they are referred to as the ‘first ships’.

100

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] Sulaymān died on Friday,  nights remaining of Ṣafar and ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz succeeded to the caliphate in Ṣafar – meaning the year .

‫ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﻟﻌﺸﺮ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺻﻔﺮ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﻒ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻔﺮ‬  ‫ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻗﺮﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺷﺮﻳﻚ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﻘﻴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ‬  ‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬

In the year : Qurra b. Sharīk died on Friday night,  nights remaining of the month of Rabīʿ I.

In [that year] – meaning the year  – Usāma

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﻧﺰﻉ ﺃﺳﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ‬b. Zayd was dismissed from Egypt in the month of ‫ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ‬Rabīʿ II and Ḥayyān b. Shurayḥ was appointed  ‫ ﺷﺮﻳﺢ‬governor.

435 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlv, 167. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam (1922), 213, uses al-Layth to give the same date for Sulaymān’s death. 436 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlix, 309. 437 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), viii, 85. The text continues with the words: ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬, apparently giving a date for Ḥayyān’s appointment. However all other sources refer to Ḥayyān’s tenure as being during the reign of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, which would fit his replacing Usāma as naturally suggested by the syntax of this sentence. The editor notes a problem with the manuscript for this passage which he ‘corrected’ from marginalia and another text, resulting in my suspicion of this date which does not accord with our other sources. I would guess that the confusion arises from the missing text of a notice of Usāma’s reappointment to Egypt in 102, before he was then promoted to Syria in 104 H, see below. 438 Qurra was the governor of Egypt. Al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 65–66, places his death in Rabīʿ I of the year 96 H. 439 This notice appears to imply that Usāma must have previously replaced the deceased Qurra as governor. However, al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 66–67, has ʿAbd al-Malik b. Rifāʿa replace Qurra. In the extract placed in the annal for 96 H, above, Usāma is specified as the governor ʿalā ahl al-arḍ, i.e. the financial governor (ṣāḥib al-kharāj), and the notice about his transfer to Damascus in the notice for 104 H, below, makes clear he was an administrator. Other sources make it clear that Ḥayyān held this role rather than the military governorship, e.g. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvii, 10, and he is frequently cited as an authority in debates over the tax status of the Copts, see ibid., xxii, 220, xxxvii, 9–10; al-Balādhurī, Futūḥ (1988), 215, 219.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

101

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻃﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺑﺮﺩﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻴﺶ‬In the year : al-Mughīra b. Abī Burda went up   ‫ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ‬with the army to Ifrīqiya. [ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻳﻮﻡ‬. . . [‫ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻭﻓﺎﺗﻪ ]ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ‬The death of [ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz] was on Friday, ‫ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﻟﻌﺸﺮ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺟﺐ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ‬ nights remaining of Rajab in the year .

‫ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬ ‫ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﻒ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻟﺨﻤﺲ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ‬Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik succeeded to the caliphate  ‫ ﺭﺟﺐ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬with  nights remaining of Rajab, on Friday, 

the year .

‫ ﻧﺰﻉ ﺃﻳﻮﺏ ﺑﻦ ﺷﺮﺣﺒﻴﻞ ﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻬﺮ‬Ayyūb b. Shuraḥbīl was dismissed [from Egypt] on  ‫ ﺭﻣﻀﺎﻥ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬the th of the month of Ramaḍān, the year . [ H] [– CE] 447 ‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ‬. . . [‫[ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺘﻠﻪ ]ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ‬Yazīd b. Abī Muslim] was killed in the year 102. 446

‫ﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬

440 Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb (1326 H), x, 256. 441 Al-Mughīra was a commander who had taken part in Mūsā b. Nuṣayr’s campaigns in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, as well as the siege of Constantinople. al-Zirikli 2002, vii, 276. 442 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 213. 443 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxv, 304. 444 Al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 69. This notice is introduced only with ‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ‬, but given al-Kindī’s earlier explicit use of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh and the notice’s correspondence to other material from the -Taʾrīkh it seems reasonable to assume that al-Kindī is referring to it. This rare explicit reference to al-Kindī’s use of al-Layth as a source appears to be because here he has to record the contradictory information about the end of Ayyūb’s tenure found in his sources ʿAbd alʿAzīz b. Abī Maysara, al-Layth, and Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā b. Wazīr. 445 That this refers to Egypt is made clear by the context of the reference in al-Kindī’s Wulāt. The inclusion here of Ayyūb, who was the military governor (ṣāḥib al-ṣalāt), suggests that for this period al-Layth listed Egypt’s military and financial governors without terminological distinction. 446 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 214. 447 Yazīd was governor of Ifrīqiya and was apparently killed by his soldiers of convert origin because of his discriminatory policies towards them. See al-Ṭabarī, xxiv, 164–165; Ibn ʿAbd alḤakam, Futūḥ (1922), 213–214.

102

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺒﻴﺮﺓ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – ʿUmar  ‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻕ ﻭﻧﺰﻉ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ‬b. Hubayra was appointed governor over Iraq and Maslama was dismissed.

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻧﺰﻉ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﺎﻙ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﻣﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ‬Ibn al-Ḍaḥḥāk was dismissed from Medina and  ‫ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺴﻲ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Qaysī was appointed governor – meaning in the year .

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺧﺮﺝ ﺃﺳﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – Usāma ‫ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻓﺠﻌﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻭﻳﻦ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ‬b. Zayd went out to Syria and was appointed in  Yazīd b. Abī Yazīd ‫ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺮ‬charge of the administration. was made governor of Egypt.

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – Yazīd the ‫ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﻷﺭﺑﻊ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺎﻥ‬commander of the faithful died on Friday night,   ‫ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﻒ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬nights remaining of Shaʿbān; Hishām the commander of the faithful succeeded as caliph.

‫ ﻧﺰﻉ ﺑﺸﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺻﻔﻮﺍﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ‬Bishr b. Ṣafwān was dismissed from Ifrīqiya in  ‫ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬the year .

448 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lviii, 39. 449 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxiv, 441. 450 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), viii, 85. 451 Literally, Usāma was put in charge of the administrative registers (dawāwīn). Al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxi, 216, notes that a Usāma b. Zayd al-Salīḥī was appointed as secretary to the caliph Yazīd II (r. 101–105 H/720–724 CE), which must be the event al-Layth is referring to here. Again, al-Layth seems to be talking about the financial governors of Egypt here, as according to al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 71–72, Ḥanẓala b. Ṣafwān was military governor at this time. 452 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxv, 304. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 215, gives < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > as his source for exactly the same date of death. 453 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 216. A series of notices dating deaths and appointments of governors of Ifrīqiya follows this notice, which could plausibly be part of the -Taʾrīkh. However, the use of verbs not typically used in the -Taʾrīkh, e.g. māta instead of tuwuffiya for ‘he died’, plus the fact that the last of these notices (the appointment of ʿUbayda b. ʿAbd alRaḥmān) is then followed by provision of the same information, but now explicitly ascribed to the -Taʾrīkh with an isnād, suggests that these notices are part of the main backbone narrative source which Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam is using for this section of Futūḥ Miṣr, rather than al-Layth’s Taʾrīkh. On the backbone narrative, see Coghill 2020, 545–9.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

103

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬In the year : Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik  ‫ ﻣﻨﻮﻧﺔ)ﻗﻴﻨﻮﻧﻪ؟( ﻭﺣﺼﻮﻧﻬﺎ‬reached M-n-w-n-a (Q-y-n-w-n-a?) [sic: Caesarea] and its fortresses. Egypt] at the ‫ﺻﺮﻑ ﺳﻠﺦ ﺫﻱ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ‬ ُ ‫ ﺇ ّﻥ ﺣﻔﺼﺎ‬Ḥafṣ was dismissed [as governor of  ‫ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬end of Dhū -l-Ḥijja in the year .

[ H] [– CE] In the year  Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik campaigned against the Turks. In [that year] – meaning the year  – ʿAbd alMalik b. Rifāʿa was made governor over the Egyptians in the beginning of al-Muḥarram. Then he died in the middle of [the month] and al-Walīd b. Rifāʿa was made governor in his place.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻏﺰﺍ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻙ‬ ‫ﻚ‬ ‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻤ‬ ‫ﻟ‬ ‫ﺍ‬ ‫ﺪ‬ ‫ﺒ‬ ‫ﻋ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ﺃ‬ ‫ﺔ‬ ‫ﺋ‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﻊ‬ ‫ﺴ‬ ‫ﺗ‬ ‫ﺔ‬ ‫ﻨ‬ ‫ﺳ‬ ‫ﻲ‬ ‫ﻭﻭﻓﻓﻴﻴﻬﻬﺎﺎ ﻳﻳﻌﻌﻨﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺑﻦ ﺭﻓﺎﻋﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ‬ ‫ﺭﻓﺎﻋﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺮﻡ ﺛﻢ‬ ‫ﻢ ﺗﻮﻓﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﺼﻒ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻓﺄﻣﺮ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺮﻡ ﺛ‬ ‫ﺼﻒ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻓﺄﻣﺮ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ‬459 ‫ﺍﻟﺭﻓﻮﺎﻟﻴﻋﺪﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺗﺭﻓﻮﺎﻓﻋﻲﺔﻟﻠﻨ‬

[ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭ ُﻭﻟّﻲ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﺓ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺮﻡ‬ʿUbayda b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was appointed as  ‫ ﺳﻨﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬governor of Ifrīqiya in al-Muḥarram of the year .

454 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lviii, 39. The variant is found in some of the manuscripts. 455 Al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 75. This information is given with a group isnād to al-Layth along with Abū Rabīʿa al-ʿĀmirī and Ibn Wazīr, two of al-Kindī’s other sources. This group isnād probably explains the non-standard terminology (ṣurifa, salkh) used in the text associated with this reference to al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh. The date given by al-Layth and these other authorities is contrasted to a different date given by Ibn Abī Maysara, another source. The discrepancy probably explains why al-Kindī brought up his specific sources in this case, when he usually does not, suggesting that much more of his Wulāt is reliant on al-Layth than is made explicit. 456 Qaysariyya could easily be orthographically corrupted to Q-y-n-w-n-a in Arabic, which is not a known toponym, nor is M-n-w-n-a. Al-Ṭabarī confirms the alternative reading in his report that in this year Maslama reached Qaysariyya ‘near al-Jazīra’, or Caesarea Mazaca, modern Kayseri in Turkey, ancient Cappadocia, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxv, 29. 457 Ḥafṣ b. al-Walīd al-Ḥaḍramī was the military governor of Egypt. 458 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lviii, 39. 459 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxvii, 17. 460 Al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxv, 45, has a campaign by Maslama in the Caucasus against the Turks in 110H. 461 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxxviii, 166. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 216, verbatim.

104

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year : Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik campaigned against the Turks and the Sindīs before returning. That year – meaning the year  – Hishām, the commander of the faithful, led the people in pilgrimage; Ibrāhīm b. Hishām was dismissed from Medina and Khālid b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān was appointed governor.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻏﺰﺍ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ ﺛﻢ ﻗﻔﻞ‬ ‫ﺣﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬ ‫ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻧﺰﻉ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻧﺰﻉ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﻋﻦ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ‬ 463 ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ‬

[ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬That year – meaning the year  – Khālid b. ʿAbd  ‫ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬al-Malik led the people in pilgrimage. [ H] [– CE] [ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAkkī] was killed in the year . ʿUbayda b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān came from Ifrīqiya in the year ; Ibn Qaṭan was made governor of alAndalus.

. . [.‫ﻛﻛﺎﺎﻥﻥ ﻗﻗﺘﺘﻠﻠﻪﻪ ]]ﻋﺒﻋﺒﺪﺪﺍﻟﺍﻟﺮﺮﺣﺣﻤﻤﻦﻦﺑ ﺑﻦﻦﻋﺒﻋﺪﺒ ﺍﺪﻟﻠﺍﻪﻟﻠﺍﻪﻟﻌﺍﻟﻜﻌﻲﻜ[ﻲ‬ 466 ‫ﺲﻤ ﻋ‬ .. ‫ﺲﺸﻋﺮﺸﻭﺮﻣﺎﺋﻭﺔﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬ ‫ﻲﻓﻲﺳﻨﺔﺳﻨﺧﺔﻤﺧ‬.‫ﻓ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪﻭﻡ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﺓ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﺧﻤﺲ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ُﺃ ّﻣﺮ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻗﻄﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ‬  ‫ﺍﻷﻧﺪﻟﺲ‬

462 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lviii, 39. 463 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 170. 464 This refers to Maslama’s campaigns, in response to Turkish raids, beyond the Caspian Gates, mentioned in al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxv, 70, 95–96. Al-Sind can indicate the country between India and southeastern Iran, taking its name from the Indus river, or the people of that country, but here must be used as a vague referent to eastern peoples beyond the dār al-islām, again displaying the western-facing aspect of the -Taʾrīkh. 465 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 170. 466 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 217. 467 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 217. 468 The governor of al-Andalus, famously defeated and killed by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers. More commonly known as al-Ghāfiqī, a sub-tribe of ʿAkk, see al-Zirikli 2002, iii, 312. Al-Layth appears to have a doubled notice reporting his death, see the entry for 122 H. 469 ʿUbayda, governor of Ifrīqiya, was on his way to see the caliph Hishām in Syria. Ibn Qaṭan replaced the deceased ʿAbd Allāh, see the previous notice.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

105

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year  ʿUbayda b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was dismissed from Ifrīqiya and ʿUbayd Allāh b. alḤabḥāb was appointed governor. He was made governor of Ifrīqiya while he was in Egypt. He set out and his son al-Qāsim succeeded [him] in charge of [Egypt]. Then the commander of the faithful ordered that [al-Qāsim] be confirmed in charge of [Egypt].

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻧﺰﻉ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﺤﺎﺏ‬ ‫ﺟﺎﺀﺗﻪ ﺇﻣﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﻤﺼﺮ ﻓﺨﺮﺝ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﻒ ﺍﺑﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬  ‫ﺑﺈﻗﺮﺍﺭﻩ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬

[ H] [– CE] ‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ‬That year – meaning the year [] – Khālid b. ʿAbd  ‫ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬al-Malik led the people in pilgrimage. [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻋﺰﻝ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺃﺑﻮ‬Khālid b. ʿAbd al-Malik was dismissed from Medina ‫ ﺑﻜﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺰﻡ ﺍﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ‬and Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm al ‫ ﻳﺼﻠﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬Anṣārī was appointed as governor to lead the people in prayer – meaning in the year .

470 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlix, 116. See also ibid., xxxvii, 415, verbatim except not including the final information that the commander of the faithful confirmed al-Qāsim in office. See also ibid., xxxviii, 166, for ʿUbayda’s dismissal and Ibn al-Ḥabḥāb’s appointment, verbatim. 471 Ibn al-Ḥabḥāb was not the military but financial governor of Egypt. He is mentioned by al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 73–75, as early as 108 H/727 CE, changing the tax rate in Egypt and directly arranging the hiring and firing of military governors with the caliph Hishām. 472 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 170. 473 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 170.

106

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [ CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺣﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ‬In [that year] – meaning the year []: Ḥafṣ b. al‫ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻳﺤﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﺸﺐ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ‬Walīd made a naval campaign in charge of Egyptian was  ‫ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻣﺮﻳﻢ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‬troops, transporting wood. In overall command  Ibn Abī Maryam – meaning ʿAbd Allāh.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺗﺴﺴﻊﻊ ﻋﻋﺸﺸﺮﺮﺓﺓ ﻭﻭﻣﺎﻣﺋﺎﺋﺔﺔﻧ ﻧﺰﺰﻉﻉﻋﺒﻋﺪﺒ ﺍﺪﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻳﻔﻌﻬﻨﻤﻲﻲ ﺍﺑﻭﺃﻦﻣﺮﻣﺴﺎ‬475 ‫ﺍﻳﻟﻌﺮﻨﺣ‬ ‫ﻲﻤﺍﺑﻦﻦﺧﻣﺎﻟﺴﺪﺎﺍﻓﺮ‬ ‫ﺧﺎﻟﺪﺍ‬‫ﺣﻨﻓﺮﻈﻠ ﺍﺔﻟﻔﺑﻬﻦﻤﻲ‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﻳ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﺼ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﺧ‬ ‫ﺩ‬ ‫ﻥ‬ ‫ﺍ‬ ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﻔ‬ ‫ﺻ‬ ‫ﻦ‬ ‫ﺑ‬ ‫ﺔ‬ ‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﻈ‬ ‫ﻨ‬ ‫ﺣ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻭﺃ‬ ‫ﺻﻣﻔﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺧﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﻟﺨﻤﺲ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ‬ 476  ‫ﺍﻟﺧﻠﺠﻮﻤﻥﻌﺔﻣ ﻟﻦﺨﺍﻟﻤﻤﺲﺤ ﻟﺮﻴﻡﺎﻝ ﺧﻠﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺮﻡ‬

In the year  ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Khālid – meaning Ibn Musāfir al-Fahmī – was dismissed and Ḥanẓala b. Ṣafwān was appointed as governor [of Egypt]. He entered Egypt on Friday, with  nights passed of al-Muḥarram.

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻧﺰﻉ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – Khālid ‫ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ‬b. ʿAbd al-Malik was dismissed from Medina and  ‫ ﺟﻤﻌﺖ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻜﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬Muḥammad b. Hishām was appointed governor. Mecca and Medina were combined [as a single governorate] for him.

‫ ﻭﺣﺞ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺎﺱ‬That year – meaning the year 119 – Maslama, the son ‫ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬of the commander of the faithful Hishām b. ʿAbd al ‫ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ‬Malik b. Marwān, led the people in pilgrimage. [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻼﻝ‬In [that year] – meaning the year []: al-Aswad  ‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ‬b. Bilāl made a campaign holding overall command.

474 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 448. 475 As noted by the editor, Khālidan, in the accusative, seems to be a copyist error as the governor of Egypt at this time was ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Khālid b. Musāfir, see al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 79–80. As such I read this name rather than that an unknown ʿAbd al-Raḥmān dismissed an unknown Khālid. 476 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xv, 331. 477 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 170. 478 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lviii, 67. 479 Ibn Abī Maryam appears to have been a Syrian naval commander and is noted by alṬabarī leading a sea-raid in 111 H, see History (1989–2007), xxv, 64. 480 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ix, 67. 481 Al-Aswad b. Bilāl seems to have been Hishām’s naval commander in Syria during the 120s H, apparently replacing his predecessor Ibn Abī Maryam in reward for some heroics performed combatting a Byzantine naval raid against Beirut, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ix, 65–68.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

107

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year : Ḥafṣ b. al-Walīd made a naval campaign. He was in Syria(on the coast?) until he returned from there. Al-Aswad b. Bilāl was in overall command but they did not go forth.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺣﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺎﻡ )ﺑﺎﻟﺴﺎﺣﻞ؟( ﺣﺘﻰ ﻗﻔﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻼﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻓﻠﻢ‬  ‫ﻳﺨﺮﺟﻮﺍ‬

[ H] [– CE] In the year : Zayd b. ʿAlī al-Hāshimī was killed;486 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghāfiqī, the governor of al-Andalus, was killed.487

‫ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺯﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻬﺎﺷﻤﻲ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻓﻘﻲ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻷﻧﺪﻟﺲ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺣﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﺃﺳﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﺑﻦ ﺑﻼﻝ ﻓﺼﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﺄﺻﺎﺑﻮﺍ ﺇﻗﺮﻳﻄﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻠﻘﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻊ ﻓﻬﺰﻣﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﻭﻃﻨﻮﺍ ﺇﻗﺮﻳﻄﻴﺔ‬  ‫ﻭﺃﺻﺎﺑﻮﺍ ﺭﻗﻴﻘﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﻋﺘﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻏﺰﺍ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻛﻠﺜﻮﻡ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻴﺎﺽ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﻛﻠﺜﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ‬  ‫ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻧﺰﻉ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﺤﺎﺏ‬

In the year 122: Ḥafṣ b. al-Walīd made a naval campaign in charge of the Egyptian contingent, with al-Aswad b. Bilāl in overall command. They departed from Alexandria and reached Crete. They encountered the [enemy] army and God routed [the enemy]. They settled Crete and took slaves. In the year : Ḥassān b. ʿAtāhiya campaigned in charge of Egyptian troops. Syrian troops [also] campaigned, with Kulthūm b. ʿIyāḍ in overall command. Kulthūm was appointed governor of Ifrīqiya and ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Ḥabḥāb was dismissed.

482 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 448. See also ibid., ix, 67, verbatim except al-sāḥil for alShām. 483 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xix, 478, with two duplicate notices on Zayd b. ʿAlī. See also ibid., xxxvi, 7, for an invocation of al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh as the source for ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s death date. 484 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 448. See also ibid., ix, 67, for an alternative version which misses the beginning of the notice but is otherwise verbatim except that it has ‫ ﻓﻀﻠﻮﺍ‬for ‫ﻓﺼﻠﻮﺍ‬. 485 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), l, 224–5. 486 Zayd, the grandson of al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, was killed in an ʿAlid uprising against the Umayyads in al-Kūfa. 487 This may be a doubled notice, or an error of quotation, as the death of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān there dubbed al-ʿAkkī - appears to have been noted already in the annal for 115 H, closer to the conventional date of his death at the Battle of Poitiers in 114 H/732 CE. 488 Kulthūm led a large Syrian army, picking up Egyptian support on the way, against the Berber uprising in the Maghrib. Al-Layth only reports this uprising in the following year,

108

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year : the civil strife of Maysara the Poor and the Berber Ifrīqiyans; Ismāʿīl b. ʿUbayd Allāh and Khālid b. Abī Ḥabīb and [a number of] people of the Ifrīqiyans were killed.

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻓﺘﻦ ﻣﻴﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻭﺃﻫﻞ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ )ﻣﻦ( ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺑﺮ ﻓﻘﺘﻞ ﺇﺳﻤﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﻭﻧﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻞ‬  ‫ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﻋﺘﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻏﺰﺍ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻛﻠﺜﻮﻡ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻴﺎﺽ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻏﺰﺍ ﺣﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻬﻢ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﻋﺎﻣﺌﺬ‬ ‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﺗﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻧﺰﻟﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻟﺲ ﺣﺘﻰ‬ ‫ﺑﻠﻐﻮﺍ ﺳﺮﻃﺎﺑﺲ ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﺪﺭﻛﻬﻢ ﺣﻔﺺ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺒﺮﺱ‬  ‫ﻓﺮﺟﻊ‬

In the year : Ḥassān b. ʿAtāhiya campaigned in charge of Egyptian troops. Syrian troops also campaigned, with Kulthūm b. ʿIyāḍ in overall command. In the year : Ḥafṣ b. al-Walīd campaigned in charge of the navy. They did not make an expedition that year but he pursued the enemy who had descended on al-Barallus until they reached Sr-ṭ-ā-b-s. Ḥafṣ did not catch up with them by Cyprus so he returned.

suggesting that this notice may be misplaced, though whether this is an original error or one of transmission is unclear. 489 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), viii, 440. See also Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 218, which has .‫ ﻭﻗﺘﻞ ﺇﺳﻤﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬. . . ‫ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻴﺴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ ﻭﺃﻫﻞ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺑﺮ‬The ellipsis indicates text missing from the manuscript. 490 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xii, 436. 491 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 448. 492 Maysara was a Berber leader who led the early stages of the Berber revolt in Tangiers, supposedly being declared caliph by his followers. He was apparently of humble origin, hence his epithet ‘The Poor’. Ismāʿīl, the son of the governor of the Maghrib ʿUbayd Allāh b. alḤabḥāb, was governing the Sous region for his father, and was Maysara’s first target after Tangiers. Khālid was sent by the governor of Ifrīqiya ʿUbayd Allāh with a significant force to put down the revolt, but was defeated and killed along with many Arab tribal leaders. Other sources state that Maysara had been killed by this point and Berber leader in this battle was his successor Khālid b. Ḥumayd al-Zanātī. 493 This is the same notice reported for the year above, which may be a mistake or may indicate continued campaigning with the same command structure. According to al-Layth’s timescale, it would make more sense for this notice to occur here in 123 H, as he reports the start of Maysara’s rebellion in this year, and it was this rebellion which led to the dispatch of Kulthūm. 494 Al-Barallus was a north Egyptian port town, between Damietta and Rosetta, on a waterway connecting the Mediterranean to a large inland lake, now known as Lake Burullus. See Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), i, 402.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

109

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation

[ H] [– CE] In the year : Kulthūm, the governor of Ifrīqiya, was killed with those who stood fast beside him – Maysara and his followers killed them; Ḥanẓala b. Ṣafwān was appointed governor over the Ifrīqiyans; [Ḥanẓala] went out from Egypt in the month of Rabīʿ II; Ḥafṣ b. al-Walīd was appointed governor over the Egyptians; al-Qāsim b. ʿUbayd Allāh was dismissed from Egypt; [authority over Egypt’s] Arabs and non-Arabs was combined in Ḥafṣ. ‫ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ‬. . . ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻘﺘﻞ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ‬ ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿUqba was killed in the year  ‫ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬ .

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻛﻠﺜﻮﻡ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺻﺒﺮ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻗﺘﻠﻬﻢ ﻣﻴﺴﺮﺓ ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺣﻨﻈﻠﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺻﻔﻮﺍﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺧﺮﺝ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺭﺑﻴﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﺣﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻧﺰﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻢ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﺟﻤﻊ ﻟﺤﻔﺺ ﻋﺮﺑﻬﺎ ﻭﻋﺠﻤﻬﺎ‬

495 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 447–8. See ibid., xv, 331, for near-verbatim notices on Kulthūm, Ḥanẓala, and Ḥafṣ, with only the omission of the detail of Kulthūm’s followers and that Maysara and his followers were the killers. Ibid., l, 225, has the full notices on Kulthūm’s death and Ḥanẓala’s appointment. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 220, uses < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > as the authority for the paraphrased information on Kulthūm’s death, noting that Maysara was responsible: ‫ﻗﺘﻞ ﻛﻠﺜﻮﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻗﺘﻠﻬﻢ ﻣﻴﺴﺮﺓ‬. Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xlix, 116, has the verbatim notice of al-Qāsim’s dismissal and Ḥafṣ’ combined authority over Arabs and non-Arabs. 496 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 222. The isnād is in the ellipsis. 497 Kulthūm and his large Syrian army was defeated by the Berber forces at the Sebou river (Wādī Sabū) in modern northern Morocco. Other sources say that Maysara was dead by this point and Khālid b. Ḥumayd al-Zanātī led the Bebers. Ḥanẓala was military governor in Egypt before being transferred to Ifrīqiya, necessitating his replacement by Ḥafṣ. The dismissal of alQāsim, appointed financial governor of Egypt by his father Ibn al-Ḥabḥāb in 116 H, marks the end of a period of the separation of military and financial governorship, conceived here as authority over Arabs versus non-Arabs. 498 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was killed in battle in Ifrīqiya, having been sent by the new governor, Ḥanẓala, to combat the Berber leader ʿUkkāsha b. Ayyūb al-Fazārī.

110

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In [that year] – meaning the year  – al-Aswad b. Bilāl made a naval campaign with ʿAyyāsh b. ʿUqba in charge of Egyptian troops. They raided Cyprus and they transferred [its population] to Syria. In [that year] – meaning the year  – Balj b. Bishr was killed when he bypassed Ibn Qaṭan to go to the Andalusians as their governor (Balj b. Bishr killed Ibn Qaṭan when he crossed over to the Andalusians as their governor?). Balj then died two months later. Then the Andalusians became divided between four governors until Ḥanẓala sent them a governor called Abū -l-Khaṭṭār al-Kalbī and he united them.

‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻏﺰﺍ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻋﻴﺎﺵ‬  ‫ﺑﻦ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﻏﺰﻭﺍ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﺒﺮﺱ ﻓﺄﺟﻠﻮﻫﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺑﻠﺞ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺑﺸﺮ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺍﺟﺎﺯ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻗﻄﻦ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻷﻧﺪﻟﺲ ﺍﻣﻴﺮﺍ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺛﻢ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﻠﺞ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺷﻬﺮﻳﻦ ﺛﻢ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﻕ ﺃﻫﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﻧﺪﻟﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻣﺮﺍﺀ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺃﺭﺳﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﺣﻨﻈﻠﺔ‬  ‫ﺑﺄﻣﻴﺮ ﻳﺪﻋﻰ ﺃﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺒﻲ ﻓﺠﻤﻌﻬﻢ‬ ‫ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ‬. . . ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﻜﺎﺷﺔ ﻭﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ‬  ‫ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬

499 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), ix, 67. A gloss on this notice from Ibn Bukayr is continued on ibid., ix, 68: ‫ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﺶ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﺭﺑﻲ ﻭﺃﻣﺮﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﺒﺮﺱ‬ ‫ﻓﻴﻐﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﺣﺒﻮﺍ ﺳﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻭﺇﻥ ﺷﺎﺀﻭﺍ ﺳﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻡ ﻓﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﺟﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ ﻓﻨﻘﻠﻬﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻡ ﻓﺎﻧﺘﻘﻠﻮﺍ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‬: ‘Ibn Bukayr said: He – meaning al-Walīd b. Yazīd appointed al-Aswad b. Bilāl al-Muḥāribī in charge of the navy and ordered him to go to Cyprus to ravage them: if they wanted they could go to Syria and if they wished they could go to the Romans. A group of them chose the protection of the Muslims so al-Aswad transported them to Syria. Others chose [to go to] Roman territory and they were transported there.’ 500 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xii, 454. See ibid., x, 396, for verbatim notices on Balj b. Bishr. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 221, uses al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh to note Balj’s death in what may be a paraphrase referring to a lost notice on Ibn Qaṭan’s death: ‫ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻠﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﻠﺞ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺲ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻗﺘﻠﺔ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻗﻄﻦ ﺑﺸﻬﺮ‬. 501 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 223, with the isnad in the ellipsis. 502 Al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxvi, 119–120, says that the inhabitants were given the choice to go to either Byzantine territory or Syria and that both choices were taken up by some. 503 The wording of al-Layth’s notice is unclear: the translation in brackets fits what we know of these events better, but requires some rearrangement of the syntax of the notice. 504 Balj was a commander in the Syrian army led by his uncle Kulthūm which, after Kulthūm's defeat and death in Morocco, fled to Spain. Balj and his forces helped the governor of al-Andalus, Ibn Qaṭan, to put down revolting Berbers in Iberia, but then refused to leave and deposed and killed Ibn Qaṭan, installing Balj as governor. Balj was then killed in the continuing conflict between the newly arrived Syrians and those who had already been in alAndalus.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

111

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation ʿUkkāsha and ʿAbd al-Wāḥid were killed in the year . [ H] [– CE]

‫ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﻴﺲ ﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ‬. . . ‫ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ‬Al-Walīd was killed on Thursday, with three nights   ‫ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬remaining of Jumādā II of the year .

505 These were two Berber leaders in the central Maghrib defeated by the governor of Ifrīqiya, Ḥanẓala. 506 Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ (1922), 223. The isnād is in the ellipsis. 507 The caliph, al-Walīd II, who was killed by an opposing faction of the Umayyad family, which installed his cousin Yazīd III as caliph, displacing al-Walīd's infant sons al-Ḥakam and ʿUthmān from the succession. They were later killed (see notice below). Yazīd III died soon after and was succeeded by his brother Ibrāhīm, but at this point Marwān II moved to claim the caliphate. If al-Layth gave a version of these rapid successions, aside from the murder of the boys, they have not survived.

112

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] In the year : al-Ḥakam and ʿUthmān, the sons of al-Walīd, were killed, with  nights having passed of Ṣafar; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Ḥajjāj killed them. Then ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Ḥajjāj was killed and Marwān b. Muḥammad entered and received the caliphal pledge of allegiance. [?] Sulaymān b. Hishām and his followers returned from the Euphrates. Then he sent his brother Saʿīd b. Hishām to Ḥimṣ. He secured [the city] fast and killed its governor ʿAbd Allāh b. Samura. The commander of the faithful Marwān set out and attacked the Ḥimṣīs. Then Sulaymān b. Hishām fled when the commander of the faithful Marwān marched to Ḥimṣ against him but Saʿīd b. Hishām stayed behind in [the city]. The commander of the faithful besieged him and they fought a fierce battle. [Marwān] conquered [the city] and broke its walls. Then he departed at pace

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻭﻋﺜﻤﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﺑﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻟﺴﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺮﺓ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺮ ﻗﺘﻠﻬﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝ ﺛﻢ ﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝ ﻭﺩﺧﻞ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻭﺑﻮﻳﻊ ﺑﻴﻌﺔ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﺨﻼﻓﺔ‬ ‫)؟( ﺭﺟﻊ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﺕ ﺑﻤﻦ ﺍﺗﺒﻌﻪ‬ ‫ﺛﻢ ﺑﻌﺚ ﺃﺧﺎﻩ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﻤﺺ ﻓﺄﻏﻠﻘﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺘﻞ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻤﺮﺓ ﺃﻣﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﻓﺎﻧﺼﺮﻑ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻓﻨﺰﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺣﻤﺺ ﺛﻢ ﻫﺮﺏ‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺳﺎﺭ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﻤﺺ ﻭﺗﺨﻠﻒ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﻓﺤﺎﺻﺮﻫﻢ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻗﺘﺘﻠﻮﺍ ﻗﺘﺎﻻ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺍ‬ ‫ﻓﻔﺘﺤﻬﺎ ﻭﻛﺴﺮ ﺳﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺍﻧﺼﺮﻑ ﺳﺮﻳﻌﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺘﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻧﺰﻉ ﺣﻔﺺ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﺓ ﺛﻢ ﻧﺰﺍ )ﺗﺮﺍﺀﻯ( ﺑﺤﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻫﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻨﺰﻋﻮﻩ ﻭﺃﻣﺮﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺣﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﺭﺟﺐ ﺛﻢ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺣﻨﻈﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻤﻨﻌﻪ‬  ‫ﺣﻔﺺ ﻭﺃﺻﺤﺎﺑﻪ ﺫﻟﻚ‬

508 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xl, 41. Al-Ḥakam’s death is also noted on al-Layth’s authority at ibid., xv, 83. 509 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xxi, 318. 510 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 447–8. See also ibid., xii, 437, for the same passage verbatim except ‫ ﺗﺮﺍﺀﻯ‬for ‫ ﻧﺰﺍ‬and the omission of the final notice on Ḥanẓala’s appointment as governor and Ḥafṣ and his followers’ resistance. 511 The two sons of al-Walīd II were killed by the regime of the caliph Ibrāhīm because the future caliph Marwān II was campaigning against Ibrāhīm in favour of their right to inherit the caliphate from their murdered father. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Ḥajjāj, grandson of the caliph ʿAbd alMalik, was a partisan of Yazīd III and then Ibrāhīm. He was murdered when Marwān II conquered Damascus, where Marwān then took the pledge of allegiance. 512 This is one of the four quotations attributed to < Ibn Bukayr – al-Layth > which Ibn ʿAsākir does not supply with a date. However, the revolt of Sulaymān b. Hishām which it describes is

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

113

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation to al-Jazīra. In [that year] – meaning the year  – the commander of the faithful Marwān appointed Ḥassān – meaning Ibn ʿAtāhiya – as governor over the Egyptians and dismissed Ḥafṣ with  nights remaining of Jumādā II. Then the Egyptians rose up against Ḥassān, deposed him, and appointed Ḥafṣ b. al-Walīd as governor over themselves at the beginning of Rajab. Then Ḥanẓala was appointed governor over Egypt but Ḥafṣ and his supporters prevented this.

dated by other sources to 127 H, so I conjecturally place this extract in this annal. For those accounts, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxvii, 19–23, which clearly maps onto al-Layth’s account; Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, History (2015), 269, mentions the rebellion of Ḥimṣ and Damascus but does not mention Sulaymān b. Hishām as being the counter-caliph proposed by the Syrians. 513 Sulaymān, grandson of ʿAbd al-Malik, had frequently led the Syrian army on summer raids against the Byzantines. He had fought for the caliph Ibrāhīm against Marwān II but had then come to terms with Marwān's victory. However, when Marwān marshalled Syrian troops to Ruṣāfa to join his Jazīran and frontier forces against the Khārijī rebel al-Ḍaḥḥāk in al-Jazīra, these Syrians convinced Sulaymān to make a counter-claim to the caliphate. Sulaymān thus returned to Syria from Ruṣāfa, near the Euphrates, at which point this notice begins. Marwān was therefore marching back westwards to Ḥimṣ from his abortive campaign in al-Jazīra, to which he returns at the end of this passage. 514 For a similar usage for the root n-z-w, but in the eighth form intizāʾ, see al-Kindī, Wulāt (1912), 14, describing the revolt of Muḥammad b. Abī Ḥudhayfa against ʿUthmān’s governor of Egypt, Ibn Abī Sarḥ.

114

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation

[ H] [– CE] In the year : Ḥawthara b. Suhayl was appointed governor over Egypt in al-Muḥarram with Ḥafṣ b. alWalīd being dismissed; ʿĪsā b. Abī ʿAṭāʾ was appointed alongside [Ḥawthara] in charge of the people of the land; Syrian troops came with him and he seized Ḥafṣ b. al-Walīd and killed a group of the Egyptians and those who he blamed for having fought Ḥassān b. ʿAtāhiya. ‫ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﻗﺘﻞ‬In [that year] – meaning the year  – Ḥafṣ b. al ‫ ﺣﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ‬Walīd was killed. In [that year] – meaning the year  – Thābit ‫ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ‬ b. Nuʿaym and his sons were taken and killed. 

‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺎﺋﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺣﻮﺛﺮﺓ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﻬﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺮﻡ ﻭﻧﺰﻉ ﺣﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻋﻴﺴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﻗﺪﻡ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ ﻓﺄﺧﺬ ﺣﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻭﻗﺘﻞ ﻧﺎﺳﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﻤﺼﻴﻦ‬  ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻗﺎﺗﻠﻮﺍ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺘﺎﻫﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺑﻦ ﻧﻌﻴﻢ ﻭﺑﻨﻮﻩ ﻓﻘﺘﻠﻮﺍ‬

515 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 448. See also, verbatim, ibid., xv, 336. 516 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xiv, 450. 517 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xi, 145. 518 Thābit was a Yamanī leader whose rising against Marwān was centred on Tiberias. Khalīfa, History (2015), 269, places Thābit’s execution in 127, as does al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxvii, 6–7.

Al-Layth’s -Taʾrīkh

115

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation [ H] [– CE] (?) In [that year] al-Ḥakam b. Ḍibʿān and his followers in the Palestinian military threw off their allegiance [to Marwān]; Marwān set out, attacked the Ḥimṣīs, dispatched Abū -l-Ward b. Hudhayl, and appointed Yazīd b. Sulaymān as

‫)؟( ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻧﺎﺑﺬ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺿﺒﻌﺎﻥ ﺑﻤﻦ ﺍﺗﺒﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻞ‬ ‫ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ ﻓﺎﻧﺼﺮﻑ ﻣﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﻓﻨﺰﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺣﻤﺺ‬ ‫ﻭﺑﻌﺚ ﺃﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺬﻳﻞ ﻭﺃﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻘﻮﺍ ﺑﻨﻬﺮ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻓﻄﺮﺱ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﻊ‬ ‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺩ ﻭﺟﻴﺸﻪ ﻭﺧﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻥ ﻭﺧﻴﻞ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻣﺼﺮ ﻓﻬﺰﻡ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻄﻴﻦ ﺛﻢ‬ ‫ﺳﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﺑﻦ ﺿﺒﻌﺎﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺪﺱ ﻓﺄﻏﻠﻘﻬﺎ‬ ‫ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﺎﺭ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻤﻦ‬‫ﻣﻌﻪ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‬ ‫ﻓﺤﺎﺻﺮﻫﻢ ﻓﻔﺘﺤﻬﺎ‬

519 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), lxv, 209. 520 Unusually, Ibn ʿAsākir does not make clear which annal this extract was taken from. AlṬabarī, History (1989–2007), xxvii, 4–7, describes a campaign of Marwān to control Palestine in 127 H, including Marwān putting down opposition in Ḥimṣ and sending Abū -l-Ward to quash resistance in Palestine, making this a possible year for these events. However, al-Ṭabarī’s account names Marwān’s opponent in Palestine as Thābit b. Nuʿaym and has Marwān appoint al-Rumāḥis b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Kinānī as his governor of Palestine. Both of these details contradict al-Layth’s notice here, making the association of this account with that campaign unlikely. To further complicate matters al-Layth mentions Thābit b. Nuʿaym’s death in another notice dated to 128 H. The more plausible context appears to be 132 H. Al-Ḥakam b. Ḍibʿān, the antagonist in alLayth’s account, is mentioned by al-Ṭabarī as controlling Palestine in opposition to Marwān in 132 H, ibid., xxvii, 171. Al-Ṭabarī’s same account has Marwān fall back in this year from his defeat at the Zab river in Mesopotamia through Mosul, Ḥarrān, Damascus and thence to the Abū Fuṭrus river near al-Ramla. Ḥimṣ would have been on his route, which could fit al-Layth’s notice that Marwān fought the people of Ḥimṣ in this year. I do not know any parallel accounts of Yazīd b. Sulaymān’s battles against al-Ḥakam, but it is possible that al-Ḥakam attacked the forces which Marwān was marshalling from Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine for a last stand against the ʿAbbāsid revolutionaries at the Abū Fuṭrus river and Sulaymān, Marwān’s commander in Palestine, then had to stamp out his resistance. These struggles would match the comment by al-Yaʿqūbī that as Marwān passed through Syria each district’s army plundered his forces, see al-Yaʿqūbī, Works (2018), 1070–1071, though our sources mostly dwell on the ʿAbbāsid advance through Iraq, rather than Marwān’s problems in Syria which might allow us to match this fragment more closely to events reported elsewhere. The last wildcard is Abū -lWard, one of Marwān’s main generals. We know that at some point after Marwān’s defeat at the Zab Abū -l-Ward met the advancing ʿAbbāsid forces at Qinnasrīn and came to terms with them, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxvii, 176. It is possible that after the battle against al-Ḥakam b. Ḍibʿān at the Abū Fuṭrus river described in this notice Marwān sent Abū -l-Ward

116

Edition and Translation

(continued ) Arabic Text

Translation governor of Palestine. They met in battle at the river Abū Fuṭrus, when Abū -l-Ward, his army, and cavalry from the Jordanians and Egyptians had already joined Yazīd b. Sulaymān. The Palestinians were routed. Then al-Ḥakam b. Ḍibʿān went to Jerusalem and secured it fast against [Yazīd]. Yazīd and his troops went to [al-Ḥakam], besieged them, and conquered [the city].

Undated Notice ‫ )?( )؟( ﻏﺰﻭﺓ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻭﺑﺴﺮ ﺑﻦ‬The campaign of Khālid b. Thābit and Busr b. Abī Arṭāt  523 ‫ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﺭﻃﺄﺓ ﻳﻮﻣﺌﺬ ﺗﺴﺤﺮﺓ‬that year was against T-s-ḥ-r-a.

north as a rearguard against the pursuing ʿAbbāsids. Nevertheless, the year 132 H appears to be the best fit for this notice, despite this making it a slight outlier from the chronological span of the firmly dated notices. 521 Abū -l-Ward was one of Marwān’s commanders, though different sources have different versions of his name and genealogy. On his role in the civil war, with differing chronologies, see ibid., xxvii, 5–6; Khalīfa, History (2015), 266–7. Yazīd b. Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik had opposed Yazīd III from his base in Palestine, see al-Ṭabarī, History (1989–2007), xxvi, 189–90. 522 Given the rest of the passage, al-Layth must mean the Palestinian troops defeated here were those under the leadership of al-Ḥakam b. Dibʿān. The Abū Fuṭrus river is near al-Ramla, see Yāqūt, Buldān (1995), v, 315. 523 Ibn ʿAsākir, Dimashq (1995), xvi, 10. 524 Khālid participated in the conquests during the reign of ʿUmar I and is recorded as participating in campaigns in the 50s H/670s CE. Busr, born before the hijra, was a fervent partisan of the Umayyads and also led naval and ground campaigns against the Maghrib or Byzantine territory from the 20s to 50s H. No firm death dates are attested for either, though Busr is said to have lived into ʿAbd al-Malik’s reign.

Bibliography Abbott, Nabia (1957–72) Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, 3 vols., Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Abū ʿUbayd, al-Qāsim b. Sallām al-Harawī al-Baghdādī (no date), Kitāb al-amwāl, ed. by Khalīl Muḥammad Harrās, Dār al-Fikr: Beirut. Al-Samuk, S. (1978) “Die historischen Überlieferungen nach Ibn Isḥāq. Eine synoptische Untersuchung”, PhD dissertation, University of Frankfurt. Andersson, Tobias / Marsham, Andrew (2017) “The First Islamic Chronicle : the Chronicle of Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ (d. AD 854)”, in Michele Campopiano and Henry Bainton, eds., Universal Chronicles in the High Middle Ages, Woodbridge: York Medieval Press. Andersson, Tobias (2018) Early Sunni Historiography: A Study of the Tarikh of Khalifa b. Khayyat, Leiden: Brill. Atassi, Ahmad Nazir (2012) “The Transmission of Ibn Saʿd’s Biographical Dictionary Kitāb alṬabaqāt al-Kabīr”, Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 12, 56–80. al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā (1988), Futūḥ al-buldān, ed. n. n., Beirut: Dār wa-Maktabat alHilāl. Beaumont, Daniel (1996), “Hard-Boiled: Narrative Discourse in Early Muslim Traditions”, Studia Islamica 83, 5–31. Bernards, Monique / Nawas, John, eds., (2005) Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam, Leiden: Brill. Bosworth, Clifford, “Dhāt al-Ṣawārī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Bouderbala, Sobhi (2008) “Ğund Miṣr: étude de l’administration militaire dans l’Égypte des débuts de l’Islam 21/642 – 218/833”, PhD dissertation, University of Paris. Blankinship, Khalid (1994) The End of the Jihād State: The Reign of Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads, Albany: State University of New York Press. Brock, Sebastian (1979) “Syriac Historical Writing: A Survey of the Main Sources”, Journal of the Iraq Academy, Syriac Corporation 5, 1–30. Brunschvig, Robert (1950) “Polémiques médiévals autour du rite de Mālik”, al-Andalus. al-Bukhari (no date) al-Taʾrikh al-Kabir, 8 vols., ed. n. n., Hyderabad: Daʾirat al-Maʿarif alʿUthmaniyya. Cahen, Claude, “ʿAṭāʾ”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Cameron, Marianna (2001) “Sayf at First: The Transmission of Sayf b. ʿUmar in al-Ṭabarī and Ibn ʿAsākir”, in James Lindsay, ed., Ibn ʿAsākir and Early Islamic History, Princeton: Darwin Press, 62–77. Campbell, Sandra, “Ibn al-Zubayr”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Coghill, Edward (2020) “How the West Was Won: Unearthing the Umayyad History of the Conquest of the Maghrib”, in Andrew Marsham, ed., The Umayyad World, London / New York: Routledge, 539–570. Conrad, Lawrence (1998) “ʿUmar at Sargh: The Evolution of an Umayyad Tradition on Flight from the Plague”, in Stefan Leder, ed., Story-telling in the Framework of Non-fictional Arabic Literature, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 488–528. Conrad, Lawrence (1993) “Recovering Lost Texts: Some Methodological Issues”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 113/2, 258–263. Crone, Patricia (1980) Slaves on Horses, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-010

118

Bibliography

Crone, Patricia, “Mawlā, II. in Historical and Legal Usage”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Debié, Muriel / Taylor, David (2012) “Syriac and Syro-Arabic Historical Writing, c. 500–c.1400”, in Sarah Foot and Chase Robinson, eds., The Oxford History of Historical Writing. Vol. 2, 400–1400, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 155–179. Debié, Muriel (2015) L’écriture de l’histoire en Syriaque: Transmissions interculturelles et constructions identitaires entre hellénisme et islam, Leuven / Paris / Bristol: Peeters. Debié, Muriel (2016) “Christians in the Service of the Caliph: Through the Looking Glass of Communal Identities”, in Antoine Borrut and Fred Donner, eds., Christians and Others in the Umayyad State, Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 53–72. Despois, J, “Djufra”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. al-Dhahabī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad (1985), Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ, ed. by Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ et al., 25 vols., Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla. al-Dhahabī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad (2003), Taʾrīkh al-islām wawafayāt al-mashāhīr wa-l-aʿlām, ed. by Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, 15 vols., Beirut: Dār alGharb al-Islāmī. Di Branco, Marco (2010) “A Rose in the Desert? Late Antique and Early Byzantine Chronicles and the Formation of Islamic Universal Historiography”, in Peter Liddle and Andrew Fear, eds., Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal History, London: Duckworth. Dridi, Audrey (2015) “Christian and Jewish Communities in the Fustatian Area: Non-Muslim Topography and Legal Controversies in the Pre-Fatimid Period”, in Robert Hoyland, ed., The Late Antique World of Early Islam: Muslims among Christians and Jews in the East Mediterranean, Princeton: Darwin Press, 107–132. Duri, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (1983) The Rise of Historical Writing amongst the Arabs, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Elisséeff, D, “Mardj Rāhiṭ”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. El Shamsy, Ahmed (2013) The Canonization of Islamic Law: A Social and Intellectual History, New York: Cambridge University Press. Fahmy, Aly (1952) Muslim Naval Organisation in the Eastern Mediterranean, 2nd ed., New Delhi: S. Chand & Co. al-Fasawī, Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān (1981) al-Maʿrifa wa-l-taʾrīkh, ed. by Akram Diyāʾ alʿUmarī, 3 vols., Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla. Fierro, Isabel (1989) “The Introduction of ḥadīth in al-Andalus”, Der Islam 66, 68–93. Fierro, Maribel, “al-Ṭabarānī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Foot, Sarah (2012) “Annals and Chronicles in Western Europe”, in Sarah Foot and Chase Robinson, eds., The Oxford History of Historical Writing. Vol. 2, 400–1400, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 346–367. Ghabban, ʿAli b. Ibrahim / Hoyland, Robert (2008) “The Inscription of Zuhayr, the Oldest Islamic Inscription (24 AH⁄AD 644–645), the Rise of the Arabic Script and the Nature of the Early Islamic State”, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 19, 209–236. Görke, Andreas / Schoeler, Gregor (2008) Die ältesten Berichte über das Leben Muḥammads: das Korpus 'Urwa ibn az-Zubair, Princeton: Darwin Press. Görke, Andreas / Motzki, Harald / Schoeler, Gregor (2012) “First Century Sources for the Life of Muḥammad? A Debate”, Der Islam 89, 2–59. Griffith, Sidney (2016) “The Manṣūr Family and Saint John of Damascus: Christians and Muslims in Umayyad Times”, in Antoine Borrut and Fred Donner, eds., Christians and

Bibliography

119

Others in the Umayyad State, Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 29–52. Grohmann, Adolf (1952) From the World of Arabic Papyri, Cairo: Al-Maaref Press. Hämeen-Anttila, Jaakko (2018) Khwadāynāmag: The Middle Persian Book of Kings, Leiden / Boston, Brill. Hawting, Gerald, “Marwān II”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Hawting, Gerald, “Yazīd (I) b. Muʿāwiya”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Hoyland, Robert (1991) “Arabic, Syriac and Greek Historiography in the First Abbasid Century: An Inquiry into Inter-Cultural Traffic”, Aram 3, 211–33. Hoyland, Robert (2018) The ‘History of the Kings of the Persians’ in Three Arabic Chronicles: The Transmission of the Iranian Past from Late Antiquity to Early Islam, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Abū –l-Qāsim ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh (1922) Futūḥ Miṣr wa-akhbāruhā, ed. by Charles Torrey, The history of the conquest of Egypt, North Africa and Spain, known as the Futūh Miṣr of Ibn Abd al-Ḥakam, New Haven: Yale University Press. Ibn ʿAsākir, Abū –l-Qāsim ʿAlī b. Ḥasan (1995), Taʾrīkh Dimashq, ed. by ʿUmar Gharāma ʿAmrawī, 80 vols., Beirut: Dār al-Fikr. Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq b. Ghālib al-Muḥāribī al-Andalusī (1983), Fahrasat Ibn ʿAṭiyya, ed. by Muḥammad Abū -l-Ajfān / Muḥammad al-Zāhī, Beirut: Dār al-Gharb alIslāmī. Ibn Ḥajar, Abū –l-Faḍl Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-ʿAsqalānī (1326 H), Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, ed. n. n., 12 vols., Hyderabad: Maṭbaʿat Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif al-Niẓāmiyya. Ibn Ḥajar, Abū –l-Faḍl Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-ʿAsqalānī (1971), Lisān al-mīzān, ed. n. n., 7 vols., Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Aʿlamī li-l-Maṭbūʿāt. Ibn Ḥajar, Abū –l-Faḍl Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-ʿAsqalānī (1415 H), al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, ed. by ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Mawjūd / ʿAlī Muḥammad Muʿawwaḍ, 8 vols., Beirut: Dār al-Kutub alʿIlmiyya. Ibn Ḥajar, Abū –l-Faḍl Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-ʿAsqalānī (1998), al-Muʿjam al-mufahras aw tajrīd asānīd al-kutub al-mashhūra wa-l-ajzāʾ al-manshūra, ed. by Muḥammad Shakūr al-May ādīnī, Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla. Ibn Kathīr, Abū –l-Fiḍāʾ Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar al-Qurashī al-Baṣrī/al-Dimashqī (2003), al-Bidāya wal-nihāya, ed. by ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Turkī, 21 vols., location n. n., Dār H-j-r li-lṬibāʿa wa-l-Nashr wa-l-Tawzīʿ wa-l-Iʿlān (first published 1997). Ibn Khayr, Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Khayr al-Lamtūnī al-Umawī al-Ishbīlī (1998) Fahrasat Ibn Khayr al-Ishbīlī, ed. by Muḥammad Fuʾād Manṣūr, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya. Ibn Maʿīn, Abū Zakariyā Yaḥyā al-Murrī al-Ghaṭafānī al-Baghdādī (1979), Taʾrīkh Ibn Maʿīn, ed. by Aḥmad Muḥammad Nūr Sayf, 4 vols., Mecca: Markaz al-Baḥth al-ʿIlmī wa-Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-Islāmī. Ibn al-Nadīm, Abū –l-Faraj Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (1997) al-Fihrist, ed. by Ibrāhīm Ramaḍān, Beirut: Dār al-maʿrifa. Imbert, Frédéric (2011), “L’Islam Des Pierres: L’Expression De La Foi Dans Les Graffiti Arabes Des Premiers Siècles”, Revue des Mondes Musulmans et de la Méditerranée 129, 55–77. Jacob of Edessa (1899), Chronicle, ed. and tr. by E. W. Brooks, “The Chronological Canon of Jacob of Edessa”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 53, 261–327. Judd, Stephen (2001) “Ibn ʿAsākir’s Sources for the Late Umayyad Period”, in James Lindsay, ed., Ibn ʿAsākir and Early Islamic History, Princeton: Darwin Press, 78–99.

120

Bibliography

Judd, Stephen (2013) Religious Scholars and the Umayyads: Piety-minded Supporters of the Umayyad Caliphate, London: Routledge. Juynboll, G. H. A., “Ridjāl”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Kaegi, Walter, “Yarmūk: The battle”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Abū ʿAmr al-Shaybānī al-ʿUṣfurī al-Baṣrī (1397 H), Taʾrīkh Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, ed. by Akram Diyāʾ al-ʿUmarī, Damascus, Beirut: Dār al-Qalam, Muʾassasat alRisāla. Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Abū ʿAmr al-Shaybānī al-ʿUṣfurī al-Baṣrī (2015), Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660–750), trans. by Carl Wurtzel, ed. by Robert Hoyland, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. ʿAlī (2002), Taʾrīkh Baghdād, ed. by Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, 16 vols., Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī. Khoury, Raif (1981) “Al-Layth Ibn Saʿd (94/713–175/791), grand maître et mécène de l'Egypte, vu à travers quelques documents islamiques anciens”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 40, 189–202. al-Kindī, Abū ʿUmar Muḥammad b. Yūsuf (1912), Kitāb al-wulāt wa-kitāb al-quḍāt, ed. by Rhuvon Guest, Leiden and London: Brill. Kudelin, A (2010) “Al-Sīra al-nabawiyya by Ibn Isḥāq – Ibn Hishām: the History of the Texts and the Problems of Authorship”, Manuscripta Orientalia 16, 6–12. Lammens, Henri, “Baḥdal”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Lammens, Henri, “al-Djābiya”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Landau-Tasseron, Ella (2004) “On the Reconstruction of lost Sources”, al-Qanṭara 25, 45–91. Lecker, Michael (1996) “Biographical Notes on Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī”, Journal of Semitic Studies 41, 21–63. Lecker, Michael, “Siffīn”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Leder, Stefan, “al-Wāḳidī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Leder, Stefan (1992) “The Literary Use of the Khabar: A Basic Form of Historical Writing”, in Averil Cameron and Lawrence Conrad, eds., The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I, Problems in the Literary Source Material, Princeton: Darwin Press, 277–315. Lindstedt, Ilkka (2014a) “Al-Madāʾinī’s Kitāb al-Dawla and the Death of Ibrāhīm al-Imām”, in Ilkka Lindstedt, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, Raija Mattila and Robert Rollinger, eds., Case Studies in Transmission, Ugarit-Verlag: Münster, 103–30. Lindstedt, Ilkka (2014b) “The Role of al-Madāʾinī’s Students in the Transmission of His Material”, Der Islam 91, 295–340. Makkī, Mahmud (1998) “Egypt and the Origins of Arabic Spanish Historiography: A Contribution to the Study of the Earliest Sources for the History of Islamic Spain”, in Maribel Fierro and Julio Samsó, eds., The Formation of al-Andalus, Part 2: Languages, Regions, Culture and the Sciences, Aldershot: Ashgate, 173–233. Marin, Manuela (1980) “Baqi b. Majlad y la introduccién del hadit en al-Andalus,” al-Qantara 1, 165–208. Marsham, Andrew (2009) Rituals of Islamic Monarchy: Accession and Succession in the First Muslim Empire, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. McKitterick, Rosamund (1997) “Constructing the Past in the Early Middle Ages: The Case of the Royal Frankish Annals”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 7, 101–129. Merad, A., “al-Layth b. Saʿd”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Mikhail, Maged (2014) From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt: Religion, Identity and Politics after the Arab Conquest, London / New York: I.B.Tauris.

Bibliography

121

Minorsky, Vladimir, “Nihāwand”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. al-Mizzī, Abū -l-Ḥajjāj Jamāl al-Dīn Yūsuf b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Quḍāʿī al-Kalbī (1980), Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmāʾ al-rijāl, ed. by Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, 35 vols., Beirut: Muʾassasat alRisāla. Mughulṭāy, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn b. Qilīj b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Bakjarī al-Ḥikrī al-Ḥanafī (2001), Ikmāl tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmāʾ al-rijāl, ed. by Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAdil b Muḥammad / Abū Muḥammad Usāma b. Ibrāhīm, 12 vols., Cairo: al-Fārūq al-Ḥadītha li-l-Ṭibāʿa wa-l-Nashr. Neville, Leonora (2018) Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, Andrew / Hoyland, Robert / Brock, Sebastian (1993) The Seventh Century in the WestSyrian Chronicles, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Papaconstantinou, Arietta (2013) “Review of Robert Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam”, Le Muséon 126, 459–465. Pellat, Charles, “al-Haytham b. ʿAdī al-Ṭāʾī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Robinson, Chase (2003) Islamic Historiography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenthal, Franz (1968) A History of Muslim Historiography, Leiden: Brill. Rippin, Andrew (1994) “Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās and Criteria for Dating Early tafsīr Texts”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 18, 38–83. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-ʿAlāʾī, Abū Saʿīd Khalīl b. Kaykaldī al-Dimashqī (1986), Jāmiʿ al-taḥṣīl fī aḥkām al-marāsīl, ed. by Ḥamdī ʿAbd al-Majīd al-Salafī, Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub. Schacht, Joseph, “Abū Yūsuf”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Scheiner, Jens (2010) Die Eroberung von Damaskus: Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zur Historiographie in klassisch-islamischer Zeit, Leiden / Boston: Brill. Scheiner, Jens (2011) “The Conquest of Damascus according to the Oldest Datable Sources”, in Nicolet Boekhoff-Van Der Voort, Kees Versteegh, and Joas Wagemakers, eds., The Transmission and Dynamics of the Textual Sources of Islam, Leiden: Brill, 153–80. Scheiner, Jens (2016) “Single Isnāds or Riwāyas? Quoted Books in Ibn ʿAsākir’s Tarjama of Tamīm al-Dārī”, in M. Pomerantz / A. Shahin, eds., The Heritage of Arabo-Islamic Learning: Studies Presented to Wadad Kadi, Leiden: Brill, 42–72. Scheiner, Jens (2017), “Ibn ʿAsākirʼs Virtual Library as Reflected in his Ta ʾrīkh madīnat Dimashq”, in Steven Judd and Jens Scheiner, eds., New Perspectives on Ibn ʿAsākir in Islamic Historiography, Leiden: Brill, 156–257. Scheiner, Jens, “Abū Maʿshar al-Sindī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed., Brill Online. Schoeler, Gregor (2006) The Oral and the Written in Early Islam, London: Routledge. Schoeler, Gregor (2009) The Genesis of Literature in Islam: From the Aural to the Read, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Schoeler, Gregor (2011) The Biography of Muḥammad: Nature and Authenticity, New York / London: Routledge. Sezgin, Fuat (1967–2000) Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, 12 vols., Leiden: Brill. Shaddel, Mehdy (2018) “‘The Year According to the Reckoning of the Believers’: Papyrus Louvre inv. J. David-Weill 20 and the Origins of the hijrī Era”, Der Islam 95, 291–311. Sijpesteijn, Petra (2013) Shaping a Muslim State: The World of a Mid-Eighth Century Official, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sizgorich, Thomas (2004) “Narrative and Community in Islamic Late Antiquity”, Past and Present 185, 9–42.

122

Bibliography

Sakīna al-Shihābī (1978) “Taʾrīkh Abī Bishr Hārūn b. Ḥātim al-Tamīmī”, al-Majmaʿ al-ʿilmī alʿarabī, Damascus, 107–147. Stearns, Justin, “ʿAmwās, plague of”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed., Brill Online. Streck, M, “Djālūlāʾ”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. al-Suyūṭī, Abū -l-Faḍl Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr al-Khuḍayrī (1967), Ḥusn almuḥāḍara fī taʾrīkh Miṣr wa-l-Qāhira, ed. by Muḥammad Abū -l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm, 2 vols., Miṣr: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya. al-Ṭabarānī, Abū -l-Qāsim Sulaymān b. Aḥmad al-Lakhmī al-Shāmī (1984–90), al-Muʿjam alkabīr, ed. by Ḥamdī b. ʿAbd al-Majīd al-Silafī, 25 vols., Baghdād: Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-lShuʾūn al-Dīniyya. al-Ṭabari, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Āmulī (1387 H), Taʾrikh al-rusul wa-l-muluk, ed. n. n., 11 vols., Beirut: Dar al-turath. al-Ṭabari, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Āmulī (1989–2007), The History of al-Ṭabarī: An Annotated Translation, ed. Ihsan Abbas, C. E. Bosworth, Jacob Lassner, Franz Rosenthal, and Ehsan Yar-Shater, 40 vols., Albany: State University of New York Press. Talbi, Mohamed, “Ibrāhīm I”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Valérian, Dominique, “Ifrīqiya”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed., Brill Online. White, Hayden (1987) The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation, Baltimore, London: John Hopkins University Press. Witakowski, Witold (2008) “The Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa”, in Bas ter Haar Romeny, ed., Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day, Leiden: Brill, 25–48. Witakowski, Witold (2012) “Coptic and Ethiopic Historical Writing”, in Sarah Foot and Chase Robinson, eds., The Oxford History of Historical Writing. Vol. 2, 400–1400, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 138–154. Wood, Philip (2016), “Al-Ḥīra and Its Histories”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 136, 785–799. Al-Yaʿqūbī, Abū Yaʿqūb Aḥmad b. Isḥāq . . . b. Wāḍiḥ (2018), The Works of Ibn Wāḍiḥ al-Yaʿqūbī: An English Translation, ed. by Matthew Gordon, Chase Robinson, Everett Rowson, and Michael Fishbein, 3 vols., Leiden: Brill. Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, Shihāb al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd Allāh Ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Rūmī (1995), Muʿjam al-buldān, ed. n. n., 7 vols., Dār Ṣādir: Beirut. Younes, Khaled (2019) “New Governors Identified in Arabic Papyri”, in Alain Delattre, Marie Legendre, and Petra Sijpesteijn, eds., Authority and Control in the Countryside: from Antiquity to Islam in the Mediterranean and Near East (sixth-tenth century), Leiden: Brill, 13–43. Zakkar, S, “Ibn Khayyāṭ al-ʿUṣfurī”, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Brill Online. Al-Zirikli, Khayr al-Dīn (2002) al-Aʿlām, Beirut: Dār al-ʿIlm li-l-Malāyīn. Zychowicz-Coghill, Edward (2017) “Conquests of Egypt: Making History in ʿAbbāsid Egypt”, DPhil dissertation, University of Oxford.

Index of Names and Places ʿAbbās b. al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik 95, 96 ʿAbbāsids 3, 11, 52, 56, 60 ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Malik 94, 95 ʿAbd Allāh b. Abī Maryam, see Ibn Abī Maryam ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr 69 ʿAbd Allāh b. Khāzim, see Ibn Khāzim ʿAbd Allāh b. Mālik b. al-Abjar 97 ʿAbd Allāh b. Qays, see Ibn Qays ʿAbd Allāh b. Saʿd b. Abī Sarḥ 36, 37, 71, 72, 84, 113 ʿAbd Allāh b. Samura 112 ʿAbd Allāḥ b. al-Zubayr, see Ibn al-Zubayr ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Usayd 99 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Ḥajjāj 112 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (I) b. Marwān 48, 79, 91, 92, 94 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Mūsā b. Nuṣayr 99 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik 96 ʿAbd al-Malik (I) b. Marwān 2, 9, 32, 35, 41, 43, 44, 48, 49, 86, 87, 92, 93, 94 ʿAbd al-Malik b. Qaṭan al-Fihrī, see Ibn Qaṭan ʿAbd al-Malik b. Rifāʿa 54, 103 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAkkī/ al-Ghāfiqī 104, 107 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Kabsha al-Saksakī 97, 98 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḍaḥḥāk, see Ibn al-Ḍaḥḥāk ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Khālid b. Musāfir 54, 106 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Khālid b. al-Walīd 76 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Masʿūd al-Fazārī, see Ibn Masʿūd ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muʿāwiya b. Ḥudayj 91 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿUmāra 95 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿUqba 109 ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Qaysī 102 ʿAbd al-Wāḥid b. Yazīd al-Hawwārī 111 ʿĀbis b. Saʿīd 39, 80, 88 Abrad b. Habbār 91 Abū -l-Aʿwar, ʿAmr b. Sufyān 70 Abū Bakr Bakr b. ʿAyyāsh 1, 29, 34 Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmr b. Ḥazm al-Anṣārī 105

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110712896-011

Abū Fuṭrus (river) 115–6 Abū -l-Khaṭṭār al-Kalbī, Ḥusām b. Ḍirār 110 Abū Maʿshar, Najīḥ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sindī 3, 60 Abū ʿUbayd, see al-Qāsim b. Salām Abū ʿUbayda, Ibn al-Jarrāḥ 68 Abū ʿUbayda (later general) 99 Abū -l-Ward b. Hudhayl 115, 116 Abū Yūsuf, Yaʿqūb b. Ibrāhīm 52 Abū Zinbāʿ Rawḥ b. al-Faraj 26, 88 Adana 76 ahl al-arḍ, non-Muslims of Egypt, see Egyptians, non-Muslim Ajnādayn, Battle of 87 Akdar, al-, b. Ḥamām 81 Akram Diyāʾ al-ʿUmarī 16, 19 Alexandria 18, 46, 48, 69, 71, 91, 92, 95, 97, 107 ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 1, 34, 43, 44–5, 73, 74 ʿAlids (In general) 39, 45, 87, 88, 107 ʿAlqama b. al-Akhtham(/al-Ajtham) 81 ʿAlqama b. Junāda al-Ḥajrī 81 Amorion 70 ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ 13, 14, 23, 36, 37, 69, 70, 71, 75 ʿAmr b. Saʿīd 82, 89 Anatolia 33, 59 ʿAnbasa b. Abī Sufyān 76 Andalus, al-, jund of al-Andalus 96, 99, 104, 107, 110 Antioch 46 Aṣbagh, al-, b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz 39, 44, 92, 94 Aswad, al-, b. Bilāl 18, 106, 107, 110 Atassi, Ahmad 7 Athanasios bar Gumoye 48 Aurès Mountains 89 ʿAwwām (?) 79 ʿAyyāsh b. ʿUqba 18, 110 Ayyūb b. Shuraḥbīl 24, 101 Azerbaijan 69 Babylon (in Egypt) 69 Baghdād 3, 19, 52, 60, 90 Balj b. Bishr 110

124

Index of Names and Places

Barallus, al- 108 Baṣra, al- 20, 28, 87, 88 Baqī b. Makhlad 20–23, 30–32, 34, 41, 44, 64–65, 82, 83, 85 Berbers 34, 40, 72, 74, 75, 86, 108–111 Bishr b. Ṣafwān 14, 102 Bishr b. al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik 97 Bridge, Battle of the 67 Bukhārī, al- 26–28 Busr b. Abī Arṭāt 70, 71, 76, 116 Buṭnān 87, 88, 89 Byzantines 33–34, 45–47, 59, 91, 93 Caesarea (in al-Shām) 69 Caesarea Mazaca (in Cappadocia) 103 Chalcedonian Christians 48 Copts, see Egyptians, non-Muslim Crete 79, 80, 107 Cyprus 72, 76, 108, 110 Dam, Battle of the 73 Damascus 15, 48, 66, 67, 88, 89, 90 Derna 97 Dhū Khushub 73 Emmaus, Plague of 68 Egypt, jund of Egypt, passim Egyptians, non-Muslim 36, 47, 98, 109, 114 Faḍāla b. ʿUbayd 78 Fasawī, al-, Yaʿqūb b. Sufyān 8–11, 13, 15–19 Fazāra 72 Fusṭāṭ, al- 42, 53, 98 Ghadāmis 74 Greek historiography 46–50 Ḥafṣ b. al-Walīd 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 113, 114 Ḥajjāj, al-, b. Yūsuf 90, 91, 97 Ḥakam, al-, b. Ḍibʿān 115–116 Ḥakam, al-, b. al-Walīd b. Yazīd 112 Hamadhān 70 Ḥanẓala b. Ṣafwān 102, 106, 109, 110, 113 al-Ḥārith b. Khālid b. al-ʿĀṣ b. Hishām al-Makhzūmī 84 Ḥarmala b. Yaḥyā al-Tujībī 13, 21

Ḥarra, Battle of al- 40, 42, 45, 84 Hārūn b. Ḥātim, Abū Bishr 1, 29 Hārūn al-Rashīd 52 Ḥassān b. ʿAtāhiya 107, 108, 113, 114 Ḥassān b. al-Nuʿmān 89, 90, 92, 93 Hawāra Berbers 72, 75 Ḥawthara b. Suhayl 114 Haytham b. ʿAdī 2–3 Ḥayyān b. Shurayḥ 36, 100 Heraclius 69 Hijaz, the 51, 53 Ḥimṣ, jund of Ḥimṣ 87, 112–113, 115 Hishām (I) b. ʿAbd al-Malik 102, 104, 105, 106 Ḥubaysh b. Dalja 86–87 Ḥusām b. Ḍirār, see Abū -l-Khaṭṭār Ḥusayn, al-, b. ʿAlī 43, 45, 59, 82, 83 Ḥuṣayn, al-, b. Numayr 78 Iberia, see al-Andalus Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Abū -l-Qāṣim ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 6–7, 8, 9–10, 13–15 Ibn Abī Burda, al-Mughīra 99, 101 Ibn Abī Maryam, ʿAbd Allāh 106 Ibn Abī Sarḥ, see ʿAbd Allāh b. Saʿd Ibn ʿAsākir, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan 7, 8–10, 15–19 Ibn ʿAwf, Sufyān al-Azdī 80 Ibn Bukayr, Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd Allāh 3, 8–9, 11, 13–24, 25–29, 51 Ibn al-Ḍaḥḥāk, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 102 Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī 19–20 Ibn Hishām, ʿAbd al-Malik 7 Ibn Ḥudayj, see Muʿāwiya b. Ḥudayj Ibn Isḥāq, Muḥammad 7 Ibn al-Kalbī, Hishām b. Muḥammad 3, 48, 60 Ibn Kathīr, Ismāʿīl b. ʿUmar 19–20 Ibn Khāzim 95 Ibn Lahīʿa, ʿAbd Allāh 14, 24, 53–54, 55 Ibn Masʿūd, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Fazārī 79 Ibn Mikraz (?) 95 Ibn Muḥriz (?) 89 Ibn Musāfir, see ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Khālid b. Musāfir Ibn al-Nadīm, Muḥammad 3 Ibn Qaḥdham (?) 78 Ibn Qaṭan, ʿAbd al-Malik al-Fihrī 104, 110 Ibn Qays, ʿAbd Allāh 79, 80

Index of Names and Places

Ibn Saʿd, Muḥammad 7, 29 Ibn Shajara, Yazīd 78, 80 Ibn Shihāb, see al-Zuhrī Ibn ʿUfayr, Saʿīd 29 Ibn al-Zubayr 22, 32, 35, 41, 43, 44, 59, 82, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 Ibrāhīm b. al-Aghlab 52 Ibrāhīm b. Hishām 104 Ifrīqiya, jund of Ifrīqiya 37, 39, 45, 47, 52, 59, 71, 79, 80, 81, 83, 91, 92, 93, 99, 101–105, 108, 109 Iraq 3, 37, 82, 97, 98, 102 ʿĪsā b. Abī ʿAṭāʾ 114 Ismāʿīl b. ʿUbayd Allāh 108 Iṣṭakhr 70, 72 Jābiya, al- 67, 85 Jalūlāʾ 68 Jazīra, al-, see Mesopotamia Jacob of Edessa 46–48 Jerusalem 46, 55, 67, 68, 74, 86, 116 John of Damascus, see Manṣūr family of Damascus Jordan, Jordanians 85, 115, 116 Junāda b. Abī Umayya 80, 81 Kāhina, al- 91 Kalbī, al-, see Ibn al-Kalbī Khabbāb b. Marthad 92 Khālid b. ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān 104, 105, 106 Khālid b. Abī Ḥabīb 108 Khālid b. Thābit al-Fahmī 55, 68, 79, 116 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ 8–10, 20–23 Khāriz, al- 87, 89 Khaṭīb, al-, al-Baghdādī 19 Khushub, see Dhū Khushub Kindī, al- 6–7, 13, 23–24, 36, 44, 60, 63 Kūfa, al- 69, 74, 87, 88, 90, 107 Kulthūm b. ʿIyāḍ 107, 108, 109, 110 Kurayb b. Abraha 91 Kurayb b. Mishkam 80 Kusayla 85–86 Layth, al-, b. Saʿd 25–29, 51–56, passim Leptis Magna 75

125

Madāʾinī, al-, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad 3, 5, 60 Maghrib 14, 33, 37, 42, 70, 84, 86 Mālik b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Khathʿamī 80 Mālik b. al-Abjar 81 Mālik b. Anas 51–54 Mālik b. Hubayra 77 Manṣūr (I), al-, Abū Jaʿfar 52 Manṣūr family of Damascus 48 Marj Rāhiṭ, see Rāhiṭ Maskin 90 Masts, the Battle of the 40, 72 Marwān (I) b. al-Ḥakam 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 85, 86 Marwān (II) b. Muḥammad 112, 113, 115 Marwānids, see Umayyads Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik 95, 99, 102, 103, 104 Maslama b. Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik 106 Maslama b. Mukhallad 76, 83 Maysara al-Faqīr 108, 109 Mecca, ahl of Mecca 35, 40, 82, 84, 85, 87, 90, 99, 106 Medina, jund of Medina 32, 35, 37–38, 45, 47, 51, 52, 55, 59, 66, 68, 73, 75, 77, 79, 80–84, 87, 99, 102, 104, 105, 106 Mediterranean 33, 59 Mesopotamia 48, 89, 91, 103, 113, 115 Miaphysite Christians 48 Muʿāwiya (I) b. Abī Sufyān 48, 72, 73, 74, 76–82 Muʿāwiya b. Ḥudayj 72, 78 Mughīra, al-, b. Abī Burda, see Ibn Abī Burda Mughīra, al-, b. Shuʿba 69, 74 Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh Ṣ, messenger of God 11, 25–26, 28–29, 30, 35, 38, 59, 66 Muḥammad b. Abī Sufyān 81 Muḥammad b. Hishām al-Makhzūmī 106 Muḥammad b. Marwān 91 Muḥammad b. Yazīd 99 Mukhtār, al-, b. Abī ʿUbayd 87–89 Mūsā b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Khāzim, see Ibn Khāzim Mūsā b. Nuṣayr 93, 96, 98, 99, 101 Muṣʿab, al-, b. al-Zubayr 90

126

Index of Names and Places

Nātil b. Qays al-Judhāmī 87 Nihāwand 69 North Africa, see Maghrib Nuʿmān, al-, b. Muqarrin al-Muzanī 69 Palestine, jund of Palestine 80, 81, 87, 115–116 Pentapolis (Libyan) 37, 75 Persians 46–48, 67–70 Qarṭasā (?) 90 Qāsim, al, b. Salām, Abū ʿUbayd 54–55 Qāsim, al-, b. ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Ḥabḥāb 105, 109 Qurra b. Sharīk 95, 100 Rāhiṭ, Battle of 85–86 Rayyān, al- (?) 88 Rhodes 76, 81, 82 Romans, see Byzantines Rome 46, 48 Rosetta 91, 95, 108 Ruwayfiʿ b. Thābit 75 Sābūr (in Fārs) 71 Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ 75, 77, 78–79 Saʿīd b. Hishām 112 Saʿīd b. Yazīd 81 Salamiyya 87 Samos 77 Sargh 68 Sasanians, see Persians Shāfiʿī, al-, Muḥammad b. Idrīs 51 Sharīk b. Sumayy 75, 76 Shuʿayb b. al-Layth 52 Shurayḥ b. Maymūn 99 Ṣiffīn, Battle of 40, 73 Sindīs 104 Soghdia 97 Solomon (Israelite king) 96 Spain, see al-Andalus Sufyānids, see Umayyads Sufyān b. Awf al-Azdī, see Ibn ʿAwf Sufyān al-Thawrī 51 Sufyān b. Wahb 91 Sulaymān (I) b. ʿAbd al-Malik 98–100 Sulaymān b. Hishām 112–13

Syria, jund of Syria 15, 33–34, 38, 41, 49, 59, 67–70, 72–73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 92, 93, 95, 97, 102, 107, 108, 110, 114 Syriac (historiography) 43, 46–50 Ṭabarānī, al-, Sulaymān b. Ayyūb 25–26, 61 Ṭabarī, al-, Muḥammad b. Jarīr 2–3, 48, 50, 60 Ṭāʾif, al- 82 Ṭāriq (?) 92 Ṭāriq b. Ziyād 96, 98 Thābit b. Nuʿaym 114–5 Theophanes Confessor 46 Tripoli (in Libya) 70 Turks 103, 104 Tustarī, al-, Mūsā b. Zakariyāʾ 18 Tyana 95 ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Ḥabḥāb 36, 105, 107–109 ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād b. Abīhi 87 ʿUbayda b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 103–105 ʿUkkāsha b. Ayyūb al-Fazārī 109, 111 ʿUmarī, al-, Chief Judge of Egypt 24, 51 ʿUmar (II) b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz 100–101 ʿUmar b. Hubayra 99, 102 ʿUmar (I) b. al-Khaṭṭāb 30, 40, 42, 56, 67–70 ʿUmar b. Saʿd b. Abī Waqqāṣ 88 ʿUmar b. ʿUbayd al-Khawlānī 92 ʿUmayr b. al-Ḥubāb 89 Umayya b. ʿAbd Shams 41 Umayyads (collectively) 22–23, 30, 34, 41–42, 44–45, 48–49, 55–56, 59–60 ʿUqba b. ʿĀmir 76 ʿUqba b. Nāfiʿ 74–75, 77, 79, 83–84, 86, 92 Usāma b. Zayd 36, 98, 100, 102 ʿUtba b. Abī Sufyān 74–75 ʿUtba b. Suhayl 68 ʿUthmān (I) b. ʿAffān 40, 42, 73 ʿUthmān b. Muḥammad b. Abī Sufyān 81, 83 ʿUthmān b. al-Walīd b. Yazīd 112 Waddān 71 Wahb b. ʿUmayr al-Jumaḥī 70 Wāqidī al-, Muḥammad b. ʿUmar 2–3, 60 Walīd (I), al-, b. ʿAbd al-Malik 93, 94, 96–98

Index of Names and Places

Walīd, al-, b. Rifāʿa 54, 103 Walīd, al-, b. ʿUtba 80–83 Walīd (II), al-, b. Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik 111–112 Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Bukayr, see Ibn Bukayr Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb 3, 8 Yaḥyā b. Ḥakīm b. Ṣafwān al-Jumaḥī 63 Yarmūk, al- 40, 67 Yazīd (II) b. ʿAbd al-Malik 101–102 Yazīd b. Abī Muslim 101

127

Yazīd b. Abī Yazīd 102 Yazīd (I) b. Muʿāwiya 82–85 Yazīd b. al-Muhallab 98 Yazīd b. Shajara, see Ibn Shajara Yazīd b. Sulaymān 115–116 Yemen 88 Zab river 87, 91, 115 Zayd b. ʿAlī 107 Ziyād b. Ḥunāṭa 92 Zuhayr b. Qays 86, 92 Zuhrī, al-, Ibn Shihāb 43, 49, 55–56, 61, 93