This applies not only to the Kitāb al-Maghāzī but also to Maʿmar’s al-Jāmiʿ and, to a lesser extent ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Tafsīr, or Qurʾan commentary, the bulk of which derives from Maʿmar.
See Cook, “The Opponents of the Writing of Tradition”; Kister, “Notes on the Transmission of Ḥadīth”; and Schoeler, Oral and Written, 111–41 et passim on this issue.
Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb, 10:220. Indeed, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, Maʿmar’s contemporary, courted controversy by merely integrating the books of others into his Kitāb al-Maghāzī rather than only including materials from scholars under whom he directly studied. See Schoeler, Biography, 26.
Ibn Abī Khaythamah, Tārikh, 1:324; cf. Cook, “The Opponents of the Writing of Tradition,” 469–70 for further material on Maʿmar’s ambivalent attitude toward written materials.
Günther, “New Results”; cf. the systematic attempt of A. Elad to apply Günther’s concept of “literary composition” to early Islamic historiography in Syria in his article “The Beginning of Historical Writing,” 121 ff.
The first of these is a papyrus fragment held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, erroneously attributed to Maʿmar ibn Rāshid by Nabia Abbott (Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, 1:65–79), and subsequently correctly identified by M. J. Kister as from the work of the Egyptian scholar and judge (qāḍī) Ibn Lahīʿah (d. 175/790). See Kister, “Notes on the Papyrus Text.” A second papyrus, likely dating to the early third/ninth century, is attributed to Wahb ibn Munabbih (d. ca. 101–2/719–20); on which, see Khoury, Wahb b. Munabbih.
Horovitz, Earliest Biographies, 80–89. Indeed, Nabia Abbot identified a papyrus fragment from Ibn Isḥāq’s Tārīkh al-khulafāʾ. See Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, 1:80–99. Her comments on the text ought to be supplemented by those of Kister, “Notes on an Account of the Shura.”
For traditions ascribed to al-Zuhrī on the ʿAqabah meetings, see Bayhaqī, Dalāʾil, 2:421–23, 454; none of these are Maʿmar traditions, but rather come from Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah. For traditions from Maʿmar on the topic, which however are not related on the authority of al-Zuhrī, see ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, 1:129 (ad Q Nisāʾ 4:103); idem, Muṣannaf, 6: 4, 6–7. For other narrations attributed to al-Zuhrī more generally but not related by Maʿmar, see ʿAwwājī, Marwīyāt al-Zuhrī. Most events listed by ʿAwwājī that Maʿmar does not relate in a narration from al-Zuhrī notably derive either from Ibn Isḥāq or Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah.
Maher Jarrar (Die Prophetenbiographie, 29) believed ʿAbd al-Razzāq to have included only a portion of Maʿmar’s maghāzī corpus from Zuhrī, but the evidence he adduces for this assertion is wanting. Of the examples he cites (ibid., 54 n. 158), at least two of them actually do appear in the Kitāb al-Maghāzī, despite his claims to the contrary (Abū Nuʿaym, Dalāʾil, 2:504–5 is 5.1 of this volume; Dhahabī, Tārīkh, 6:20–21 is 1.10); and two other traditions appear in ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Tafsīr (Abū Nuʿaym, Dalāʾil, 1:224 = ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, 1:169; Dhahabī, Tārīkh, 1:610 = ʿAbd al-Razzāq Tafsīr, 1:288–89). The other examples he cites are minor, short traditions that are certainly related to “maghāzī” concerns, but are not centerpieces of the maghāzī tradition; see Abū Nuʿaym, Dalāʾil, 1:272 (how the Hāshim clan came to reside in the piedmont of Abū Ṭālib); Dhahabī, Tārīkh, 1:575 (Gabriel announces ʿUmar’s conversion), 594 (on Medina’s female diviner Faṭīmah), 642 (on the prayers as revealed in Mecca). More substantial omissions from Maʿmar ibn Rāshid’s maghāzī materials, especially traditions on the reigns of the first four caliphs, can be found throughout Ansāb al-ashrāf of al-Balādhurī (d. 279/892). The scholar al-Wāqidī and his scribe Ibn Saʿd are a potential source, too, for further maghāzī traditions from Maʿmar; however, Wāqidī is known to play fast and loose with his source material, making the prospect of recovering Maʿmar’s authentic material from him slim.
rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_d75980bd-e021-59ba-aead-01bd71cb97bb">37
