Revisiting the ʿĪsawiyyah Hadith: Common Links, Anachronisms, and the Hierarchy of Evidence

Abstract:

This blog article revisits a topic covered in one of my previous blog articles: a hadith that appears to have been created in response to the ʿĪsawiyyah, a Jewish messianic movement that erupted in Isfahan during the middle of the 8th Century CE. The present article incorporates some Hadith material that was not covered in the original article and explores this material’s implications for the original article’s core conclusions: (1) that the material is anti-ʿĪsawī; (2) that an iteration of this material was formulated by the Syrian scholar al-ʾAwzāʿī (d. 151-157/768-774) and falsely attributed to earlier sources; and (3) that most other reports embodying this material are products of contamination. Although some modifications are in order, none of these core conclusions are affected by the new evidence, which also points towards a common source undergirding all of the anti-ʿĪsawī material: al-ʾAwzāʿī’s Basran teacher, Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr (d. 129-132/746-750).

Table of Contents:

• Part 1: The Hadith’s Historical Referent
• Part 2: False CLs and the Spread of Isnads
• Part 3: Contamination and the Hadith of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr
• Part 4: An ICMA of the Hadith of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr
• Part 5: The Year of Yaḥyá’s Death
• Part 6: The Implications of Yaḥyá as a Genuine CL
• Part 7: al-ʾAwzāʿī and Yaḥyá as Co-Creators
• Part 8: An Alternative Chronology of the ʿĪsawiyyah?
• Part 9: Some More Contaminated Hadiths
• Part 10: Harald Motzki and the Role of CLs
• Summary
• Addendum: Yaḥyá’s Reputation

In October of 2022, I published an article on my blog titled “‘Common Links’ as the Creators of Hadith: A Case Study of a Syrian Prophecy about the Antichrist”. The gist of this article was as follows: in some instances, the “common links” (henceforth, CLs) of hadiths probably created and falsely ascribed their hadiths; the famous Antichrist hadith of the Syrian CL al-ʾAwzāʿī (d. 151-157/768-774) is a probable example of this phenomenon; the hadith likely refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah, a Jewish messianic movement in Isfahan that likely arose 744 ff. CE and rebelled 754 ff. CE; there is also evidence that the ʿĪsawiyyah spread to al-ʾAwzāʿī’s own Syrian milieu; it thus seems probable that this hadith was formulated by al-ʾAwzāʿī in response to an event that occurred in his own lifetime, and that the hadith does not derive from his earlier, cited sources, who died before the event in question. Towards the end of my article, I also consider the possibility that al-ʾAwzāʿī borrowed the basic elements comprising his hadith from his Basran teacher Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr (d. 129-132/746-750), before concluding that it fits more snugly into—and more probably originated in—al-ʾAwzāʿī’s own context.

Several months after the publication of this blog article, in January of 2023, a Twitter user (@MusslimmMan) adduced additional transmissions from Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr, suggesting that Yaḥyá should be regarded as a genuine CL for a hadith about the Antichrist and the Jews of Isfahan.[1] The earliest recorded version of this hadith runs as follows:

Al-Ḥasan b. Mūsá related to us—he said: “Šaybān related to us, from Yaḥyá, from al-Ḥaḍramī b. Lāḥiq, from ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ, from ʿĀʾišah, the Mother of the Believers, who said: ‘The Prophet (ﷺ) entered upon me whilst I was crying, then he said: “Why are you crying?” Then I said: “O Messenger of God, you mentioned the Antichrist…” He said: “Do not cry, for if he emerges whilst I am still alive, I will protect all of you from him; and if I have died [by that point], then verily, your Lord is not one-eyed! And verily the Jews of Isfahan will go out with him, then he will travel until he alights in the vicinity of Madinah, which will have seven gates at that time—and upon each gate there will be two angels. Then the evil ones amongst its people will go out to [join] him, then he will depart until he comes to Lod. Then Jesus, the Son of Mary, will descend and slay him. Thereafter, Jesus will remain on Earth for forty years, or close to forty years, as a just ruler and a fair judge.”’”[2]

In response to this, I initially suggested that these hadiths (i.e., the “Jews of Isfahan” element contained therein) were plausibly contaminated by al-ʾAwzāʿī’s more famous hadith.[3] More recently, however, this suggestion was criticised in a thread by another Twitter user (@KerrDepression), along with various aspects of my original blog article. In particular, this thread argues: that a hadith containing the relevant material can be traced back to Yaḥyá via several different lines of transmission; that my alternative “contamination” explanation therefor is implausible; that Yaḥyá died prior to “the earliest possible date” for the hadith to have been created in response to the ʿĪsawiyyah; that it is “questionable” that the ʿĪsawiyyah spread to Syria during al-ʾAwzāʿī’s lifetime; and that all of this reinforces the fact that al-ʾAwzāʿī did not create his hadith in response to the ʿĪsawiyyah either.[4]

Ever since the question of Yaḥyá’s hadith was raised back in January of 2023, I have been meaning to incorporate it into my analysis of al-ʾAwzāʿī and his hadith. My initial plan was simply to update my original blog article, but since that article has now been specifically criticised, I thought it would be better to leave it up as it is (i.e., to preserve the original argumentation) and make a follow-up article instead. This will allow me not just to cover Yaḥyá’s hadith, but also to unpack a number of broader methodological problems inadvertently raised thereby, including: the problem of false CLs; anachronisms as a means of exposing false CLs; the evidentiary weight of CLs; and the hierarchy of evidence when evaluating the transmission and historical provenance of Hadith.

Part 1: The Hadith’s Historical Referent

To begin with, it is important to reiterate a fundamental point that was already articulated in my original blog article: al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith likely refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah, a messianic Jewish movement that erupted in Isfahan during the 8th Century CE under the leadership of ʾAbū ʿĪsá al-ʾIṣfahānī.[5] The original version of his hadith ran something like this:

ʾIsḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh {b. ʾabī Ṭalḥah related to me}, from ʾAnas b. Mālik, who said: “The Antichrist (al-dajjāl) will be followed by 70,000 of the Jews of Isfahan, wearing [Persian] garments (ʿalay-him al-ṭayālisah).”[6]

(In the course of his disseminating this hadith, al-ʾAwzāʿī appears to have further raised it all the way back to the Prophet.[7]) This is a good match for the ʿĪsawiyyah: ʾAbū ʿĪsá was—to any outsider, at least—a false messiah or antichrist,[8] which corresponds with the antichrist in the hadith; he was supported by a base of Persian Jews, which corresponds to the Jews wearing certain Persian garments (ṭayālisah) in the hadith; and he and his followers arose and rebelled in Isfahan,[9] which corresponds to the hadith’s specification of Isfahanian Jews. It seems extremely unlikely that such a specific correspondence would arise randomly, and it also seems extremely unlikely that the ʿĪsawiyyah could have been predicted decades prior to their emergence, especially by someone living in far-away Madinah. Consequently, it seems highly likely that this hadith was created—whether through an ex-nihilo fabrication or an ex-materia reworking—as some kind of negative reference to the ʿĪsawiyyah. Similar considerations apply to the hadith attributed to Yaḥyá, not to mention every other hadith containing the distinctive proposition that the Antichrist will be followed by, or will arise amongst, the Jews of Isfahan.

“Common Links” as the Creators of Hadith: A Case Study of a Syrian Prophecy about the Antichrist

The association of these hadiths with the ʿĪsawiyyah has been criticised in two ways. Firstly, it has been argued that one of these hadiths can be traced back to a CL who transmitted it and died prior to the ʿĪsawiyyah, from which it simply follows that the hadith was not created in response to them. Secondly, it has been argued that al-ʾAwzāʿī—who might have created his hadith after the death of ʾAbū ʿĪsá—would not have created a hadith referring to the ʿĪsawiyyah, since doing so would create problems or contradictions for his own viewpoint. Let us begin with the second criticism first, expressed in the recent Twitter thread as follows:

Also, the idea that followers who migrated after Abu Isa was killed motivated the forgery of this hadith contradicts the hadith being about the Isawiyyah. If Abu Isa was already dead, it would be clear he wasn’t the foretold Al-Dajjal who would be killed by Isa bin Maryam(As). There are also other signs of dajjal in the hadith tradition that one could dig up that don’t align with Abu Isa. If someone created the hadith intending to say “Abu Isa is the dajjal”, it would be tantamount to claiming the dajjal had already emerged. Odd.[10]

There are a number of problems here. Firstly, Israel Friedländer’s observation that some of the ʿĪsawiyyah likely migrated to the Levant after the death of their leader[11] (cited in my original blog article) in no way precludes the movement’s spreading to the Levant prior to his death as well. On the contrary, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that the ʿĪsawiyyah started to spread amongst the Jewish communities of the Levant already during their leader’s heyday (discussed below in Part 7). Secondly, even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that the ʿĪsawiyyah only spread to the Levant after the death of their leader, news of their rebellion must have been circulating contemporaneously in the Jewish-populated Levant (again, discussed below in Part 7), which still leaves a viable context for the hadith’s creation, or in other words: it is perfectly plausible that al-ʾAwzāʿī created and disseminated this hadith whilst ʾAbū ʿĪsá was still alive and rebelling, when the Levant would have been abuzz with word thereof. Thirdly, even if we suppose that al-ʾAwzāʿī only created and disseminated this hadith after ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s death, the theological inconsistency generated thereby (i.e., the contradiction between ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s death before the return of Jesus, on the one hand, and the popular Muslim belief that Jesus would slay the Antichrist, on the other) would only be such if he viewed the matter in a very specific way, which is not at all a given. For example:

• al-ʾAwzāʿī may have identified ʾAbū ʿĪsá as the Antichrist as a way to criticise or insult him and his movement (i.e., as a kind of emotional reaction), without considering—or even caring about—the potential ramifications of such an association.[12]
• al-ʾAwzāʿī may have identified ʾAbū ʿĪsá as the Antichrist merely as a way to criticise or insult him and his movement (i.e., as a rhetorical exaggeration), without intending to identify him as the literal Antichrist.
• al-ʾAwzāʿī may have envisaged ʾAbū ʿĪsá as a lesser antichrist or false prophet, rather than as the archnemesis of Jesus per se.[13]
• al-ʾAwzāʿī may have been inspired by the example of the ʿĪsawiyyah in his own speculations about the End Times, without intending thereby to identify ʾAbū ʿĪsá as the literal Antichrist.
• al-ʾAwzāʿī may have been motivated by the presence of the ʿĪsawiyyah in his region to repackage and propagate an existing anti-ʿĪsawī hadith or statement (i.e., one that was created prior to ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s death) that he himself did not regard as literally anti-ʿĪsawī, but which he was drawn to nevertheless given its resonance with his own milieu.
• al-ʾAwzāʿī may have been responding to the preaching of ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s followers after his death about his return as the Messiah,[14] inverting their prediction with one of his own: that their predicted Messiah was actually the Antichrist. In this respect, the prior death of the real ʾAbū ʿĪsá would be irrelevant, since the real referent here would be the ʾAbū ʿĪsá of subsequent ʿĪsawī eschatology.

And so on, so forth. Most of these kinds of mindsets and interpretations are not based on speculation, but can be found across apocalyptic, messianic, and polemical contexts, past and present: Muslim and Christian polemicists alike throw around the charge of “antichrist” as a way to criticise and condemn their enemies; early Christians persisted in identifying Jesus as the messiah, despite the many inconsistencies between him—for example, his inglorious death—and the hitherto reigning Jewish and Tanakhic conception of the Messiah; some early Muslims continued to believe—and to create and elaborate—predictions that a certain Ibn Ṣayyād was the Antichrist, long after he reportedly died in Madinah during the Battle of al-Ḥarrah (63/683);[15] some early Muslim scholars believed in the existence of lesser antichrists alongside the Antichrist;[16] and so on, so forth.[17]

This is not to say that we know exactly how al-ʾAwzāʿī interpreted the hadith that he created. Rather, the point that it is perfectly plausible that al-ʾAwzāʿī would have created such a hadith after ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s death despite of the problems posed thereby for a certain point of view, which means that the problems posed thereby for a certain point of view simply do not preclude such a creation. To put it another way: the evidence that this hadith was created in response to the ʿĪsawiyyah—the correspondence between its matn and this movement—is strong, and cannot be overcome merely by positing that al-ʾAwzāʿī only created the hadith after ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s death and then speculating that al-ʾAwzāʿī would have viewed matters in a specific, contradiction-generating way.

In sum: (1) the link between al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith and the ʿĪsawiyyah is strong, such that the latter likely refers to the former; (2) the Levant contemporaneous to the rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah in the East fits comfortably as the context of origin for this hadith, given that the Levant must have been abuzz with news of the rebellion, and given also the plausibility of the spread of the ʿĪsawiyyah already at this early stage; (3) the Levant after ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s death also serves as a viable context of origin for this hadith, for the same reasons; (4) al-ʾAwzāʿī’s creating the hadith during the rebellion and his creating the hadith in the aftermath of the rebellion thus work equally well; and (5) it remains plausible that al-ʾAwzāʿī would have created the hadith even after ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s death.

Part 2: False CLs and the Spread of Isnads

Let us now return to the other argument in favour of disassociating the relevant hadiths from the ʿĪsawiyyah: the appeal to a pre-ʿĪsawī CL. This argument assumes that, in establishing a hadith’s provenance, the existence of a putative CL in its isnads outweighs a close correlation between its matn and a specific historical event. Such an assumption is difficult to defend in light of the relevant scholarly dialectic—the last half-century of back-and-forth argumentation over the dating of hadiths according to CLs—summarised in chapter 1 of the unabridged version of my PhD dissertation. The problem here is straightforward: the genuineness of CLs is a heuristic or presumption, a general best explanation for the relevant isnad-matn correlations; the possibility of a false CL—the possibility that a putative CL emerged through a series of borrowings and reattributions—remains in any instance.[18] In other words, genuine CLs are not ironclad historical facts, but hypotheses or explanations for certain kinds of Hadith evidence, which can be overturned by stronger forms of counterevidence. To illustrate this point, consider the following hadith:

ʿUṯmān b. ʾabī Šaybah related to us: ‘Muʿāwiyah b. Hišām related to us: ‘ʿAlī b. Ṣāliḥ related to us, from Yazīd b. ʾabī Ziyād, from ʾIbrāhīm, from ʿAlqamah, from ʿAbd Allāh, who said: “When we were with the Messenger of God (ﷺ), some youngsters from the Banū Hāšim came by. When the Prophet (ﷺ) saw them, his eyes filled with tears and his colour changed. I said: ‘We still see in your face something that we dislike [seeing].’ Then he said: ‘Verily, we, the ʾAhl Bayt, [are those] for whom God has chosen the Hereafter over the mundane world. And verily, my ʾAhl Bayt will endure calamity, expulsion, and exile after me, until a people with black banners come from the East. Then they will ask for something good [i.e., the caliphate], but they will not be given it, so they will fight and attain victory. Then they will be given what they asked for [i.e., the caliphate], but they will not accept it [for themselves, instead] handing it over to a man from my ʾAhl Bayt. He will fill it [i.e., the caliphate] with justice, just as it was [previously] filled with injustice. Thus, whoever amongst you lives long enough to experience that, let him go to them [i.e., the Eastern forces], even if [it requires] crawling over snow!’”’”[19]

Most versions of this hadith converge in their isnads upon the key figure of Yazīd b. ʾabī Ziyād (Kufan; d. 137/754-755), citing ʾIbrāhīm al-Naḵaʿī (Kufan; d. 96/714), from ʿAlqamah b. Qays (Kufan; d. 62-65/681-685 or 72/691-692), from ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd (Hijazo-Kufan; d. 32-33/652-654), from the Prophet.[20] Alongside this, two versions of the hadith converge in their isnads upon a common Eastern-Kufan strand back to al-Ḥakam b. ʿUtaybah (Kufan; d. 114-115/732-734), from ʾIbrāhīm, from ʿAlqamah or al-ʾAswad b. Yazīd (d. 75/694-695), from Ibn Masʿūd, from the Prophet;[21] and another version likewise reaches back, with a Kufan strand, to al-Ḥakam, from ʾIbrāhīm, from both ʿAlqamah and ʿAbīdah b. ʿAmr (Kufan; d. 72/691-692), from Ibn Masʿūd, from the Prophet.[22] In short, ʾIbrāhīm appears as the CL of this hadith, whilst Yazīd and al-Ḥakam appear as PCLs.

There can be little doubt that ʾIbrāhīm is a false CL here: the hadith in question describes how the suffering of the Banū Hāšim will be brought to an end by forces from the East bearing black banners, who will then hand over power to the Banū Hāšim—an obvious post-facto reference to the Umayyad suppression of the Banū Hāšim, the revolution of the black-clad Hāšimiyyah from Khurasan, and the establishment—or at least immanent victory—of the Abbasid Dynasty.[23] (One version seems to go even further, adding an element ostensibly referring to the post-Abbasid rebel and caliphal contender al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah.[24]) Given that this hadith likely postdates the start of the Abbasid Revolution (c. 129-132/747-750), and given also that both ʾIbrāhīm (d. 96/714) and al-Ḥakam (d. 114-115/732-734) died decades prior this event, it follows that ʾIbrāhīm is a false CL, and al-Ḥakam a false PCL, in this instance. Instead, we can reasonably posit that Yazīd b. ʾabī Ziyād—a Hashimid client who lived through the revolution—was the hadith’s true CL and creator;[25] that a tradent operating after al-Ḥakam borrowed Yazīd’s hadith and cited a false, parallel isnad back via al-Ḥakam to Yazīd’s alleged source ʾIbrāhīm; and that another tradent borrowed from this version in turn, redacted it to make it more specifically pro-ʿAlid, and bypassed his source with another false, parallel isnad back to al-Ḥakam.[26] This kind of borrowing and reattribution was an infamous and common practice in early Hadith culture, which the Hadith critics called tadlīs or sariqah (depending on the severity of the reattribution), and which modern scholars call “the spread of isnads” or “diving”.[27] Clearly, false CLs are a real problem, and the easiest way to expose them is precisely in pseudo-prophetical cases like this, when the hadith’s original historical context is clear.[28]

This brings us neatly back to the assumption that the appearance of a pre-ʿĪsawī CL for this hadith would demonstrate that the hadith cannot be a reference to the ʿĪsawiyyah, which we may now invert: the hadith likely refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah, so if the putative CL predates the ʿĪsawiyyah, that strongly indicates that the CL in this case is a product of false ascription. Thus, in the case under consideration, we could posit that one of the post-Yaḥyá PCLs (e.g., Šaybān b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān) is the hadith’s true creator, and that the remaining co-transmissions from Yaḥyá (e.g., those recorded by ʾAbān, Ibn Ḥanbal, Ibn ʿAsākir, and ʿAbd al-Razzāq) actually derived from him. Such a scenario would be quite easy in this instance, given that all of Yaḥyá’s relevant students were Basrans, which is to say: they overlapped in time and space.

In short, in any given case of a clear match between a hadith with a putative CL and a specific historical event (i.e., in any given case of a hadith with content that is blatantly anachronistic in respect to the Prophet or some other cited source), one of three scenarios will obtain. Firstly, the putative CL postdates the event in question: in this scenario, the CL could be the hadith’s creator, but could just as easily be a transmitter (i.e., from an earlier creator) as well. Indeed, if the hadith better matches the time and place of a source cited by the CL, this points strongly to the CL’s being a transmitter. Secondly, the putative CL, in contrast to their cited sources, coincides with the event in question: in this scenario, the CL is the prime candidate for being the hadith’s creator, although the possibility of its being an unacknowledged borrowing from an anonymous contemporary creator cannot be ruled out. Thirdly, the putative CL predates the event in question: this would be strong evidence that the putative CL is false (i.e., a product of successive borrowings and false ascriptions).

Part 3: Contamination and the Hadith of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr

Of course, a false CL resulting from the spread of isnads is not the only option here: in such a situation, we might instead be dealing with a contaminated hadith network. This possibility was noted at the outset, but to explain more fully what such a scenario would involve, it is helpful to first summarise all of the versions or transmissions under consideration, and to consult a diagram thereof. To begin with, I was able to collate the following versions of Yaḥyá’s hadith:

ʾAbū Bakr b. ʾabī Šaybah (d. 235/849):

al-ʾAšyab—Šaybān—Yaḥyá—Ḥaḍramī—ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ—ʿĀʾišah:

Crying; Antichrist; protect; God is not one-eyed; Jews of Isfahan; Madinah; Lod; Jesus kills Antichrist; 40 years; justice.[29]

Ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855):

Sulaymān b. Dāwūd—Ḥarb b. Šaddād—Yaḥyá—Ḥaḍramī—ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ—ʿĀʾišah:

Crying; Antichrist; protect; God is not one-eyed; Jews of Isfahan; Madinah; Lod; Jesus kills Antichrist; 40 years; justice.[30]

ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad (d. 290/903):

Hudbah—ʾAbān—Yaḥyá—Ḥaḍramī—ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ—ʿĀʾišah:

Crying; Antichrist; protect; God is not one-eyed.[31]

Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354/965):

ʿImrān—ʿUṯmān b. ʾabī Šaybah—al-ʾAšyab—Šaybān—Yaḥyá—Ḥaḍramī—ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ—ʿĀʾišah:

Crying; Antichrist; protect; God is not one-eyed; Jews; Madinah; Lod; Jesus kills Antichrist; 40 years; justice.[32]

Ibn Mandah (d. 395/1005):

al-ʾAṣamm—al-Ṣāḡānī—Mūsá b. ʾIsmāʿīl—ʾAbān—Yaḥyá—Ḥaḍramī—ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ—ʿĀʾišah:

Crying; Antichrist; protect; God is not one-eyed.[33]

al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066):

ʿAlī b. ʾAḥmad—al-ʿAskarī—Jaʿfar—Ibn ʾabī ʾIyās—Šaybān—Yaḥyá—Ḥaḍramī—ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ—ʿĀʾišah:

Crying; Antichrist; protect; God is not one-eyed; Jews of Isfahan; Madinah; Lod; Jesus kills Antichrist; 40 years; justice.[34]

Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 519/1125):

al-Kirmānī—al-Ṭabasī—al-Ṣadafī—al-Ḥalīmī—ʾAbū al-Muwajjih—ʾAbān—Yaḥyá—Ḥaḍramī—ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ—ʿĀʾišah:

Crying; Antichrist; protect; God is not one-eyed; Jews of Isfahan; Madinah; town in Palestine; Jesus kills Antichrist; 40 years; justice.[35]

Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 519/1125):

Fāṭimah—Sibṭ Baḥruwayh—Ibn al-Muqriʾ—ʾAbū Yaʿlá—ʾAbū Ḵayṯamah—al-ʾAšyab—Šaybān—Yaḥyá—Ḥaḍramī—ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ—ʿĀʾišah:

Crying; Antichrist; protect; God is not one-eyed; Jews of Isfahan; Madinah; Lod; Jesus kills Antichrist; 40 years; justice.[36]

Alongside the foregoing, a short statement attributed to Yaḥyá relating to this topic is also recorded in two sources, both from ʿAbd al-Razzāq:

Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād (d. 228-229/842-844):

ʿAbd al-Razzāq—Maʿmar—Yaḥyá:

Majority of Jews of Isfahan follow Antichrist.[37]

al-Dabarī (d. 285-286/898-899):

ʿAbd al-Razzāq—Maʿmar—Yaḥyá:

Majority of Jews of Isfahan follow Antichrist.[38]

Taken altogether, these reports yield the following isnad-cum-matn diagram. To make the ensuing explanation easier, I have highlighted to “Jewish followers” element with the colour orange, and the “Isfahan” detail in particular with the colour aqua, whilst leaving all other elements and wordings in grey.

My original diagram

In my brief initial discussion of these hadiths on Twitter back in January of 2023, I pointed out that ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s report is not actually corroborated by the others, given that it is a different formulation, i.e., does not embody a distinctive redaction of the material in common with the others.[39] (Indeed, ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s simple formulation is closer to al-ʾAwzāʿī’s short hadith than the longer narrative otherwise attributed to Yaḥyá.) Thereafter, concerning the longer narrative, I argued that “most of the earliest recorded versions” (i.e., those recorded by ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad, Ibn Ḥibbān, and Ibn Mandah) “don’t have ‘Isafahan’, which is mostly in later SSs [i.e., “single strand” isnads]. This is consistent with a general contamination from the more famous hadith, as we saw elsewhere.”[40] When my interlocutor at the time countered that the Isfahan detail is still present in two of the earliest sources (i.e., Ibn ʾabī Šaybah and Ibn Ḥanbal),[41] I responded: “Sure, but we also have early ones that lack it, and most corroboration for Isfahan is later SSs. We could easily be dealing with contamnination [sic] here. As I pointed out in my article, there are other instances of this in other Antichrist hadiths were such details bled over.”[42]

To elaborate all of this a bit more clearly, the idea here is that, as al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith spread and became famous, it influenced or contaminated different versions of Yaḥyá’s hadith as well, which variously thereby acquired the “Isfahan” detail, resulting in the illusion of this detail’s belong to Yaḥyá’s original formulation. The scenario here is similar to that proposed by Michael Cook, in his famous response to Josef van Ess:

But suppose we envisage instead the following transmission history. Aʿmash put into circulation a version without ‘acts’, and Shuʿba took this over. In the generation after Aʿmash a version with ‘acts’ appeared in Kūfa, and thanks to its greater polemical utility, swept the board there; some Baṣrans transmitting the tradition from Shuʿba were also influenced by it. This accounts for the fact that the Baṣran version with ‘acts’ is transmitted from Shuʿba from Aʿmash, without our having to assume the authenticity of the ascription of the feature in question to either. The process is simple and plausible; it can be described as ‘contamination’, or as a minor case of spread, here affecting not a whole tradition but merely a particular feature of it. We cannot show that this is how it happened; but it is at least as plausible a hypothesis as that put forward by van Ess.

Van Ess is not unaware of the vulnerability of his argument to such a counter-hypothesis. But he prefers not to get involved with ‘imponderables’ and to keep clear of ‘speculation’. In the abstract, this is a splendid stance. But in the concrete, it is marred by an element of hypocrisy: why should the hypothesis, implicit in his method, that there was no such thing as contamination, be accounted any more ponderable or less speculative?[43]

This sort of thing is by no means mere speculation: for example, throughout ch. 2 of my study of the famous hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s marital age, I documented numerous likely instances of more famous and influential versions of the hadith contaminating or influencing more obscure or heterodox versions, not mention various instances of contamination or influencing from related hadiths. Likewise, as we shall see below, there are many likely instances of contamination that can be identified in other eschatological hadiths as well.

Thus, in this particular case, we could interpret: (1) the shorter version of the hadith, recorded by both ʿAbd Allāh and Ibn Mandah from the PCL ʾAbān, as Yaḥyá’s original formulation (i.e., from which the Antichrist’s travels, including the “Isfahan” detail, is absent); (2) Ibn ʿAsākir’s co-transmission from ʾAbān—which does not match ʿAbd Allāh and Ibn Mandah’s transmissions—as an error or dive deriving from a later version; (3) Ibn Ḥibbān’s version as embodying a secondary formulation by Yaḥyá, adding the Antichrist’s travels and even the element of his Jewish following, but not the “Isfahan” detail; and (4) the remaining versions, recorded Ibn Ḥanbal, Ibn ʾabī Šaybah, al-Bayhaqī, and Ibn ʿAsākir, as having been variously contaminated by the addition of the “Isfahan” detail—emanating from al-ʾAwzāʿī’s famous hadith—at some tertiary stage of development. Finally (5), ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s short ascription to Yaḥyá may also have been contaminated in this fashion (e.g., ʿAbd al-Razzāq himself may have inserted the “Isfahan” detail therein). In short, in this scenario, we have five separate instances of contamination to explain the presence of the “Jews of Isfahan” element across the different transmissions from Yaḥyá.

Alternatively, we might posit the foregoing scenario, but with the following alteration: rather than positing two separate instances of contamination in two lines of transmission emanating from the PCL al-ʾAšyab (respectively recorded by Ibn ʾabī Šaybah and Ibn ʿAsākir), we could instead posit that al-ʾAšyab himself was responsible for this addition. In other words, after transmitting a true version from Yaḥyá (containing only “the Jews”), al-ʾAšyab was influenced by al-ʾAwzāʿī’s spreading hadith and transmitted a second, contaminated version. In short, in this scenario, we have four separate instances of contamination to explain the presence of the “Jews of Isfahan” element across the different transmissions from Yaḥyá.

However, supposing that Ibn Ḥibbān’s “Jews” wording is actually just a slight abridgement—or generalisation—of a preceding “Jews of Isfahan” wording, we could instead posit the following scenario: (1) Yaḥyá only transmitted the short version of his hadith, which was preserved by the PCL ʾAbān, and thence by ʿAbd Allāh and Ibn Mandah; (2) Yaḥyá also transmitted this hadith to Šaybān, who was subsequently influenced by al-ʾAwzāʿī’s spreading hadith and added “the Jews of Isfahan” into a more elaborate version, which was thence inherited by Šaybān’s students; (3) thereafter, Yaḥyá’s student Ḥarb—or perhaps Ḥarb’s student al-Ṭayālisī—borrowed Šaybān’s contaminated hadith but suppressed Šaybān from the isnad; (4) meanwhile, Maʿmar or his student ʿAbd al-Razzāq was influenced by either al-ʾAwzāʿī’s spreading hadith or the contaminated version of Yaḥyá’s hadith and either created or updated an ascription to Yaḥyá; and (5) finally, someone between ʾAbān and Ibn ʿAsakār misattributed the contaminated version of Yaḥyá’s hadith via the former. (Of course, there are other variants of this hypothesis that could be formulated—for example, the roles of Šaybān and Ḥarb could be reversed, etc.) In short, in this scenario, we have two separate instances of contamination to explain the presence of the “Jews of Isfahan” element across the different transmissions from Yaḥyá, along with one instance of abridgement (to explain Ibn Ḥibbān’s version).

Of course, such explanations for the extant state of the hadith’s versions are ultimately less parsimonious than an explanation that accepts that the “Isfahan” detail belonged to the hadith’s original formulation (i.e., its urtext or ausgangstext), since this view would require only one instance of major abridgement (e.g., by the PCL ʾAbān, preserved by ʿAbd Allāh and Ibn Mandah) and one instance of minor abridgement (somewhere between the PCL al-ʾAšyab and Ibn Ḥibbān), rather than, for example, five instances of addition (as in the first scenario), or four instances of addition (as in the second scenario), or two instances of addition and a single instance of abridgement (as in the third scenario).

In this respect, the skepticism that has been expressed regarding my original suggestion that multiple versions of Yaḥyá’s hadith were contaminated is understandable, even if the skeptics in question do not explicitly appeal to parsimony, tending instead to merely list out the relevant data and assert contrary explanations therefor.[44] This by itself is obviously insufficient to overcome the alternative “contamination” explanation, which—as we have just seen—can explain the same data. What is lacking in the existing criticisms is argumentation, i.e., the reason why corroboration at multiple registers of transmission favours one view over the other, the reason why attestation by earlier source favours one view over the other, etc. Absent such argumentation, the existing criticisms simply assume the falsehood of the hypothesis that they are supposed to be refuting.

Moreover, even in light of parsimony, it cannot simply be assumed that the hadith in question actually originated with Yaḥyá. In other words, even if parsimony favours the assumption that the “Isfahan” detail was present in the original version of the hadith attributed to Yaḥyá, this has no bearing on Yaḥyá’s genuineness as a CL: the hypothetical ur-hadith in question could be something that was formulated and transmitted by Yaḥyá; or it could be something that was formulated and transmitted by one of his students, whence it spread to the others. Contrary to what is sometimes assumed,[45] the scenario of a false CL emerging through the spread of isnads is not more complicated than a scenario of genuine or transparent transmission. In both scenarios, in every instance of transmission, a tradent (e.g., Yaḥyá or one of his students) transmits to another tradent (e.g., another of Yaḥyá’s students), who in turn transmits to further tradents whilst citing a source (e.g., truthfully or misleadingly citing Yaḥyá).[46]

In short, even if we assume—in light of parsimony—that all extant versions of the hadith attributed to Yaḥyá ultimately derive from an ur-hadith that contained the “Isfahan” detail (and thus, that the detail’s absence from several versions is the product of abridgement or omission rather than addition), we are still left—at this point in the dialectic—without any good reason to accept that the ur-hadith in question it can be positively attributed to its putative source Yaḥyá.

This is not to say, however, that there is no reason to think that the hadith in question can be traced back to Yaḥyá. On the contrary, a proper ICMA can be mounted in favour of the hypothesis that (1) Yaḥyá actually disseminated this hadith and (2) included the “Jews of Isfahan” element therein. In what follows, I will render such an argument, before considering whether this really undermines my broader hypothesis that the relevant hadiths (both Yaḥyá’s and al-ʾAwzāʿī) postdate and refer to the ʿĪsawiyyah.

Part 4: An ICMA of the Hadith of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr

The Antichrist hadith associated with the putative CL Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr (Basro-Yamāmī; d. 129-132/746-750) is variously recorded in: the Musnad of Ibn Ḥanbal, citing a Basran strand via Ḥarb b. Šaddād al-Yaškurī (Basran; d. 161/777-778) back to the putative CL Yaḥyá; the Muṣannaf of Ibn ʾabī Šaybah, the Ṣaḥīḥ of Ibn Ḥibbān, and the Taʾrīḵ Dimašq of Ibn ʿAsākir, all ultimately reaching back to the putative PCL al-Ḥasan b. Mūsá al-ʾAšyab (Baghdadi; d. 209/824), from the putative PCL Šaybān b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Naḥwī (Basro-Baghdadi; d. 164/780-781), from the putative CL Yaḥyá; the Baʿṯ of al-Bayhaqī, citing a parallel Levantine strand back to Šaybān; and the Sunnah of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad (twice), the ʾĪmān of Ibn Mandah, and (again) the Taʾrīḵ Dimašq of Ibn ʿAsākir, all ultimately reaching back to the putative PCL ʾAbān b. Yazīd al-ʿAṭṭār (Basran; fl. late 8th C. CE), from the putative CL Yaḥyá. In all of these transmissions, it is reported that the putative CL Yaḥyá cited Ḥaḍramī b. Lāḥiq al-Tamīmī al-ʾAʿraj (Yamāmī; d. early 8th C. CE), from ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ Ḏakwān al-Sammān (Madinan; d. 101/719-720), from ʿĀʾišah bt. ʾabī Bakr (Madinan; d. 57-58/677-678), the hadith’s putative source.

Alongside this hadith, there is also a short statement regarding the Antichrist recorded in the Fitan of Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād (twice) and ʾIsḥāq b. ʾIbrāhīm al-Dabarī’s recension of ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s recension of the Jāmiʿ of Maʿmar, both citing the putative CL ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Hammām (Yemeni; d. 211/827), from Maʿmar b. Rāšid al-ʾAzdī (Basro-Yemeni; d. 152-154/769-771), from Yaḥyá, this time without citing any earlier sources.

To begin with, Ibn ʾabī Šaybah, Ibn Ḥibbān, and Ibn ʿAsākir’s transmissions from al-ʾAšyab, from Šaybān, along with al-Bayhaqī’s co-transmission from Šaybān, are more similar to each other than they are to all other versions of this hadith, or in other words: all of the transmissions from Šaybān constitute a distinctive sub-tradition within the overall tradition, sharing several rare and unique features.[47] Within this sub-tradition, the transmissions from al-ʾAšyab barely, but still noticeably, constitute a further sub-sub-tradition, sharing several additional features in common vis-à-vis al-Bayhaqī’s co-transmission from Šaybān.[48] All of this is consistent with both Šaybān and al-ʾAšyab’s being genuine PCLs, whose distinctive formulations or redactions of the hadith undergird (i.e., explain the rise of) the sub-tradition and sub-sub-tradition respectively associated with each.

Ibn Ḥibbān’s version has al-yahūd, in contrast to the yahūd ʾaṣbahān shared by Ibn ʾabī Šaybah and Ibn ʿAsākir’s co-transmissions from al-ʾAšyab, from Šaybān, and al-Bayhaqī’s co-transmission from Šaybān. The best explanation for this situation is that yahūd ʾaṣbahān was present in both Šaybān’s original redaction and al-ʾAšyab’s sub-redaction thereof, and that it was paraphrased or misremembered as al-yahūd at some point between al-ʾAšyab and Ibn Ḥibbān. It would be more complicated to inversely posit that al-yahūd was the original present in Šaybān and al-ʾAšyab’s redactions, since this would require two or more changes from al-yahūd to yahūd ʾaṣbahān—by Šaybān himself or a subsequent tradent, resulting in al-Bayhaqī’s version; and by al-ʾAšyab himself or two subsequent tradents, resulting in Ibn ʾabī Šaybah and Ibn ʿAsākir’s versions. In other words, parsimony favours the hypothesis that al-yahūd in Ibn Ḥibbān’s version represents a secondary distortion of the original yahūd ʾaṣbahān in al-ʾAšyab’s redaction. This is strengthened by the fact that yahūd ʾaṣbahān is present in the earliest source attesting al-ʾAšyab’s redaction (i.e., the Muṣannaf of Ibn ʾabī Šaybah), whereas al-yahūd is present in a later source (i.e., the Ṣaḥīḥ of Ibn Ḥibbān): all else being equal, the earlier attested version is to be preferred in the reconstruction of an urtext, since there was less time for material to be distorted in the course of the oral transmission leading up to the earlier source, in comparison to the later source. Or, to put it another way: the later the source, the more likely it is to be distorted, all else being equal.[49]

ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad and Ibn Mandah’s transmissions from ʾAbān are also far more similar to each other than they are to all other versions, sharing a number of unique features in common vis-à-vis all other versions.[50] Once again, a distinctive sub-tradition correlates with a PCL, which is consistent with ʾAbān’s being a genuine common source, whose particular redaction undergirds the sub-tradition in question. By contrast, Ibn ʿAsākir’s co-transmission from ʾAbān does not embody this distinctive sub-tradition, being instead markedly more similar to al-ʾAšyab’s distinctive sub-tradition.[51] This could be explained by positing that ʾAbān transmitted two different versions of the hadith: an earlier, unabridged version (preserved by Ibn ʿAsākir) that inherited the same features as al-ʾAšyab’s version; and a subsequent, abridged version (preserved by ʿAbd Allāh and Ibn Mandah) that deviated therefrom. However, it could equally be explained by positing that Ibn ʿAsākir’s co-transmission from ʾAbān was contaminated by or otherwise derived from al-ʾAšyab’s sub-tradition. Doubt thus surrounds Ibn ʿAsākir’s co-transmission from ʾAbān, which cannot be affirmed as actually deriving from him, in contrast to ʿAbd Allāh and Ibn Mandah’s versions.

All of this leaves us with the following: (1) Šaybān, a reconstructed PCL who directly cites Yaḥyá; (2) ʾAbān, another reconstructed PCL who also directly cites Yaḥyá; (3) Ibn Ḥanbal, citing a strand back to Yaḥyá; and (4) Ibn ʿAsākir, citing a strand via ʾAbān to Yaḥyá, which is suspect, but which may still preserve useful data. All of these reports are far more similar to each other than they are to all other related material (e.g., al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith) and thus constitute a distinctive overall tradition, which matches their citation of a common source. This is consistent with Yaḥyá’s being a genuine CL, whose particular formulation undergirds this tradition. There are of course various differences between these different versions, but by applying the same principles outlined above, the following urtext can reconstructed and reasonably attributed to Yaḥyá:

Al-Ḥaḍramī b. Lāḥiq {related to me}[52] that ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ related to him from ʿĀʾišah, who said: “The Messenger of God entered upon me whilst I was crying, then he said:[53] ‘Why are you crying?’ I said: ‘O Messenger of God,[54] you mentioned the Antichrist, so I cried.’[55] Then he[56] said: ‘Do not cry,[57] for if[58] he[59] emerges whilst I am still alive, I will protect all of you from him; and if I have died [by that point],[60] then verily, your Lord[61] is not one-eyed! And verily the Jews of Isfahan will go out with him,[62] and he will travel[63] until he alights in the vicinity of Madinah,[64] which will have seven gates at that time—and upon each gate[65] there will be two angels. Then the evil ones amongst its people[66] will go out to [join] him, {then he will depart}[67] {and travel}[68] until he comes to {a city in Palestine, to the Gate of} Lod.[69] Then Jesus,[70] will descend and slay him. Thereafter, Jesus will remain[71] on Earth for forty years, or close to forty years,[72] as a just ruler and a fair judge.’”

That the final elements—concerning the Antichrist’s travels, from Isfahan to Lod—can be traced back to Yaḥyá, despite their absence from the redaction attributable to the PCL ʾAbān, seems probable: they are part of the distinctive material that is associated with (i.e., co-attested from) Yaḥyá.

This in turn creates several possible explanations for ʾAbān’s version: (1) it was abridged by ʾAbān himself, who originally received a longer version, which does not otherwise survive via him; (2) it was abridged by ʾAbān himself, who originally received a longer version, which he also transmitted, and which survives via Ibn ʿAsākir (although cf. the oddity of the dissimilarity thereof to the other transmissions from ʾAbān, even in those places where the same elements are present); (3) it was abridged by Yaḥyá and thence preserved by ʾAbān, whilst Šaybān and Ibn Ḥanbal preserved the earlier, original, longer version from Yaḥyá; or (4) it was the original version articulated by Yaḥyá (thence preserved by ʾAbān), which Yaḥyá subsequently expanded into a longer version (thence preserved by Šaybān and Ibn Ḥanbal).

Finally, the reports recorded by Nuʿaym (twice) and al-Dabarī are far more similar to each other than they are to all related material (e.g., al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith and Yaḥyá’s hadith) and certainly constitute a distinctive tradition, which is consistent with their deriving from the underlying formulation of their commonly cited source, ʿAbd al-Razzāq, to whom the following urtext can be attributed:

Maʿmar {said}:[73] ‘Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr {reported to me},[74] relating something thereon (yarwī-hi)—he said: “The majority of those who follow the Antichrist will be the Jews of Isfahan.”’[75]

Some uncertainty surrounds ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s ascription, which does not directly corroborate, and is not directly corroborated by, the preceding hadith from Yaḥyá: although the content of the former overlaps with an element in the latter, they are different formulations, i.e., they do not embody a distinctive tradition attributable to a common source. On the contrary, ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s ascription is actually more similar to al-ʾAwzāʿī’s shorter hadith on this subject, although it differs in some respects therefrom as well. Thus, on purely ICMA grounds, ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s report cannot be identified as a genuine co-transmission from Yaḥyá with any degree of confidence.

For all that, it seems hard to imagine that ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s ascription to Yaḥyá of a statement predicting that the Jews of Isfahan will follow the Antichrist is merely coincidental with the fact that Yaḥyá disseminated a hadith predicting that the Jews of Isfahan will follow the Antichrist: either Yaḥyá spoke about the same subject in different ways (i.e., in both a statement and a hadith); the statement attributed to Yaḥyá was been contaminated by his hadith (e.g., to include the “Isfahan” detail), given their similar topics; or else Yaḥyá’s statement was somehow falsely created and attributed to him at some secondary stage (e.g., by Maʿmar or ʿAbd al-Razzāq) on the basis of his hadith.

The Criterion of Dissimilarity, in conjunction with our established background knowledge on ascriptional tendencies and authority preferences in Hadith in the late 8th and early 9th Centuries CE,[76] militates against the last of these possibilities: if indeed Maʿmar or ʿAbd al-Razzāq had fabricated a statement and attributed it to Yaḥyá, inspired by and building upon Yaḥyá’s hadith, then it is odd that they did not provide this fabrication with an isnad reaching all the way back to the Prophet. This suggests that the statement from Yaḥyá was not fabricated, although it does not rule out possibility of contamination (e.g., the secondary insertion of the “Isfahan” element from Yaḥyá’s related hadith, or even al-ʾAwzāʿī’s related hadith): absent co-transmissions of this particular formulation from Yaḥyá, its original form remains uncertain.[77]

Of course, none of the foregoing precludes a false CL scenario: as I noted in my PhD dissertation, the spread of isnads can in fact account for the same data as the ICMA (i.e., isnad-matn correlations, which the ICMA seeks to explain in terms of genuine and transparent transmission from a CL).[78] However, as I also noted in my dissertation, a genuine CL scenario generally seems preferable as an explanation for such data, given that it usually generates a general model of declining variation in transmission (from the CL, to the PCLs, to the extant sources) that broadly matches our established background knowledge regarding the inverse and proportional rise of systematic transmission, written transmission, and Hadith criticism.[79] Thus, all else being equal, I would conclude that Yaḥyá is a genuine CL in this instance.

In sum, a standard ICMA of the hadith attributed to Yaḥyá provides a pro-tanto justification not just for the general conclusion that the hadith originated with him, but also for the specific conclusion that the “Isfahan” element was present already in his original articulation thereof. More uncertainty surrounds ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s ascription via Maʿmar to Yaḥyá, which is uncorroborated; but if indeed Yaḥyá disseminated a hadith about the Jews of Isfahan, it is reasonable to suppose that the statement about the Jews of Isfahan recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq also originated with him. In other words, as long as all else remains equal, all of these conclusions are reasonable.

Part 5: The Year of Yaḥyá’s Death

Of course, as was again already intimated, all else may not be equal in this case: if indeed Yaḥyá died before the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah, this would be strong grounds for preferring a more skeptical explanation for the relevant hadith data: either different lines of transmission emanating from Yaḥyá were contaminated at a secondary stage by the “Isfahan” detail, or else Yaḥyá is a false CL whose putative hadith actually originated with one of his ʿĪsawiyyah-contemporaneous students and thence spread to the latter’s contemporaries, who bypassed the true source in favour of citing Yaḥyá directly. In short, if indeed it were the case that Yaḥyá predated the ʿĪsawiyyah, we would be justified in treating him like ʾIbrāhīm al-Naḵaʿī in the abovementioned case: whilst a straightforward ICMA explanation for the textual data would be that the putative CL is genuine, such an analysis (i.e., the general considerations of the ICMA) are overruled by a broader historical-critical analysis of the hadith’s flagrantly anachronistic content. As with ʾIbrāhīm, so too with Yaḥyá.

However, such an argument may be unnecessary in this case, for it turns out that Yaḥyá did not necessarily predate the ʿĪsawiyyah. As noted in my previous blog article, Sean Anthony has argued that the ʿĪsawiyyah arose during the reign of Marwān b. Muḥammad (c. 127-132/744-750)—when ʾAbū ʿĪsá started preaching and attracting followers—and rebelled during the reign of al-Manṣūr (c. 136-158/754-775).[80] As it happens, the era of the initial rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah—the reign of Marwān—overlaps with the end of Yaḥyá’s life, whose date of death is variously reported as 129/746-747, or 130ish/747-748ish, or 132/749-750.

The biographical authority Muḥammad b. ʾAḥmad al-Ḏahabī (Syrian; d. 748/1348) recorded the first and last of these years of death and stated, “the first is sounder”,[81] but failed to provide a reason for this opinion. Perhaps he held it due to his perception that the former was related by a mass of authorities,[82] but in actual fact, all of the reports on Yaḥyá’s year of death recorded across the biographical literature appear to boil down to the conflicting statements of only a few early authorities:

ʾAbū Nuʿaym al-Faḍl b. Dukayn (Kufan; d. 218-219/833-834):

“{Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr} died in the year 129.”[83]

ʿAlī b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Madīnī (Basran; d. 234/849):

“Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr; his teknonym was ʾAbū Naṣr; he died in the year 132, in al-Yamāmah.”[84]

Muḥammad b. ʾIsmāʿīl al-Buḵārī (Transoxanian; d. 256/870):

“ʿAlī [b. al-Madīnī] said: ‘He died a year after ʾAyyūb [al-Saḵtiyānī], in the year 132.’ And ʾAbū Nuʿaym said: ‘He died in the year 129.’”[85]

Muḥammad b. ʿĪsá al-Tirmiḏī (Transoxanian; d. 279/892):

“Muḥammad [al-Buḵārī] said: ‘Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr; his teknonym was ʾAbū Naṣr; and he died in the year 132.’”[86]

ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad (d. 290/903):

“I found [the following] in a book of my father’s, in his handwriting: ‘I reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr [Yamāmī; fl. turn of 8th C. CE?] that his father died in the year 129.’”[87]

ʾAbū al-Maymūn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Bajalī (Damascene; d. 347/958-959):

“ʾAbū Zurʿah [Damascene; d. 280-281/893-895] said: ‘And Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr died in the year 129.’ ʾAbū Zurʿah [also] related to us—he said: ‘I said to [Duḥaym] ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʾIbrāhīm [Damascene; d. 245/859]: “When did Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr die?” He said: “In the year 130, or close thereto.”’”[88]

ʾAḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Kalābāḏī (Transoxanian; d. 398/1008):

“Al-Buḵārī said: ‘ʾAbū Nuʿaym said: “He died in the year 129.”’ And ʿAmr b. ʿAlī [al-Fallās; Basran; d. 249/863-864] said the same thing. And ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī said: ‘He died in the year 132.’ And ʾAbū ʿĪsá [al-Tirmiḏī] said the same thing as ʿAlī.”[89]

Even some of these sources—for example, al-Fallās and al-Buḵārī—were presumably just repeating information from the earlier sources. In other words, al-Ḏahabī here may have been misled by a phantom consensus in the biographical literature—a common pitfall for scholars who rely upon the Islamic historical corpus, as Lawrence Conrad has noted:

There are also times when it seems that the rules of evidence that prevail everywhere else in historical studies are simply waived off when it comes to the study of early Islam. A report generated in a particular time and place, and then cited 30 times subsequently in other later texts, will be cited for all 30 attestations as if these are independent witnesses.[90]

Setting aside such appeals to the majority, then, is there any reason to prefer one report over the other? On the one hand, ʾAbū Nuʿaym is the earliest of those who recorded Yaḥyá’s year of death, which might give a slight edge to his report; but Ibn al-Madīnī and Duḥaym were not much later than he, so “earliness” does not mean much in this case. However, if ʿAbd Allāh’s report of his discovery of a note left by his father mentioning a transmission from Yaḥyá’s son ʿAbd Allāh is to be trusted, then the year 129 AH probably has the edge here: all else being equal, it seems reasonable to prioritise the statement of a family member on such an issue.

There is also a report cited by al-Ḏahabī[91] that conceivably militates against 132 AH in particular as Yaḥyá’s year of death, which may be another reason why al-Ḏahabī preferred 129 AH instead: according to Mūsá b. ʾIsmāʿīl (Basran; d. 223/838), “I heard Wuhayb {b. Ḵālid say}: ‘I heard ʾAyyūb {al-Saḵtiyānī} say: “There is no one like Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr who remains on {the face of} the Earth.”’”[92] This could be a reflection on Yaḥyá’s recent death by ʾAyyūb, who himself died in 131/749 or 132/750.[93] This would seem to contradict al-Buḵārī’s report from Ibn al-Madīnī that Yaḥyá “died a year after ʾAyyūb, in the year 132,”[94] and it would also seem to imply that Yaḥyá died prior to 131 or 132 AH. Of course, Mūsá’s hyperbolic ascription to ʾAyyūb could easily be a later fabrication designed to praise Yaḥyá or defend his somewhat questionable reputation[95] and thus counts for little;[96] and it could also be a statement about a living contemporary in any case, since it does not explicitly mention Yaḥyá’s death. By contrast, the following report—recorded by ʾAḥmad b. Muḥriz (Baghdadi; fl. mid-to-late 8th C. CE)—is far less suspect:

I heard Yaḥyá b. Maʿīn say: “Ibn ʿUlayyah said: ‘[News of] the death of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr came to us when we were with ʾAyyūb.’”

He said: “And ʾIsmāʿīl [b. ʿUlayyah] came to sit [and study] with ʾAyyūb two years before his death.”

I heard Yaḥyá b. Maʿīn say: “Ibn ʿUlayyah said: ‘ʾAyyūb died in the year 132. We set with him two years before his death. Ibn ʿAwn was two years older than ʾAyyūb, but Ibn ʿAwn died ten years after ʾAyyūb.’”[97]

Even this report does not actually contradict the report that Yaḥyá died in 132 AH, however. Rather, it only contradicts the report that Yaḥyá died after ʾAyyūb, which presumably incorporates the alternative death-date of 131 AH elsewhere reported for ʾAyyūb. In other words, it is entirely possible that Yaḥyá died in 132 AH (per Ibn al-Madīnī); that Yaḥyá died before ʾAyyūb (per Ibn ʿUlayyah); and that ʾAyyūb also died, at a later date, in 132 AH (per Ibn ʿUlayyah); all of these propositions are compatible. We are thus left without any strong evidence pointing in any particular direction, other than ʿAbd Allāh’s report.

This is a familiar situation with early Muslim authorities and tradents, whose biographical information (e.g., names, nicknames, affiliations, locations, dates of birth, dates of death, and reliability) often seem to have been derived not from independent memories of their lives and circumstances, but from the hadiths that they transmitted, or the isnads in which they are cited (e.g., how they are referred to therein; to whom they transmitted; from whom they transmitted; etc.).[98] Such biographical data should thus be taken with a grain of salt, or in this particular case: whilst it seems likely that Yaḥyá died at some point during the middle or end of the reign of Marwān, the exact year of his death remains uncertain, even if 129 AH probably has the edge here.

In sum: (1) Yaḥyá reportedly died in either 129, 130ish, or 132 AH; (2) al-Ḏahabī preferred 129 AH, but gave no argument to this effect, and plausibly held this view on the basis of dubious and equivocal evidence; (2) Mūsá b. ʾIsmāʿīl’s ascription to ʾAyyūb (that Yaḥyá was now unmatched on Earth) could imply that Yaḥyá died before ʾAyyūb (i.e., before 131 or 132 AH), but the scenario could also be set during Yaḥyá’s lifetime and is highly suspect in any case; and (4) Ibn Maʿīn’s report from Ibn ʿUlayyah, to the effect that Yaḥyá died before ʾAyyūb, is equivocal. In short, whilst all of the relevant sources agree that Yaḥyá died at some point during the middle or end of the reign of Marwān, the exact year of his death remains uncertain, though 129 AH seems more probable.

Part 6: The Implications of Yaḥyá as a Genuine CL

In light of the preceding, we can now return to the chronological question of whether Yaḥyá could have created this hadith in response to the ʿĪsawiyyah. In this regard, a statement from my original blog article remains relevant:

…the ʿĪsāwiyyah probably arose after 744 CE and rebelled after 754 CE. This creates a much later terminus a quo for our hadith—more likely 754 ff. CE than 744 ff. CE, since the rebellion of this messianic sect in Isfahan seems more likely to have attracted the polemical attention of Muslims in other regions than their mere appearance (i.e., alongside any other number of small religious movements and sects under the caliphate).

This remains true: the creation of a text hostile to ʿĪsawiyyah would be more expected from 754 ff. CE, the time of their greater notoriety (i.e., when they rebelled) onwards; as opposed to 744 ff. CE, when they were presumably lesser known (i.e., when they merely arose). However, this does not preclude the possibility of an earlier creation—on the contrary, 744 ff. CE, when the ʿĪsawiyyah appeared, is the earliest possible date for the creation of a reference thereto, whilst 754 ff. CE, when the ʿĪsawiyyah rebelled, is the more expected date for the creation of a reference thereto. In other words, strictly speaking, 744 ff. CEis the terminus a quo for the hadiths under consideration.

Thus, even if we accept—following the preceding ICMA—that Yaḥyá was a genuine CL, and thus the source, of a hadith describing how the Jews of Isfahan will follow the Antichrist, this does not necessarily contradict the hypothesis that this hadith refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah (i.e., along the lines that Yaḥyá died prior to the earliest possible point at which a hadith could be created about the ʿĪsawiyyah). On the contrary, the last few years of Yaḥyá’s life (127-129/744-746 at least, and 127-132/744-750 at most) overlapped with the era of the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah (c. 127-132/744-750), which means that it is possible that Yaḥyá lived to see the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah, which in turn means that it is possible that Yaḥyá still created his hadith in reaction to the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah. Thus, if indeed Yaḥyá was a genuine CL, this is still compatible with the hypothesis that his hadith—not to mention al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith—was created in response to the ʿĪsawiyyah.

Of course, there is uncertainty here: we do not know for sure the exact year in which Yaḥyá died, and we also do not know the exact year in which the ʿĪsawiyyah sprang up, which means that the possibility remains that the former occurred prior to the latter. However, the possibility that the latter occurred prior to the former also remains, which means that Yaḥyá’s being a genuine CL cannot be used to refute the hypothesis that the “Jews of Isfahan” hadiths were post-facto creations referring to the ʿĪsawiyyah. In other words, Yaḥyá’s being a genuine CL is still consistent with a post-facto creation hypothesis.

Thus, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that an ICMA-consistent CL is an ironclad historical fact, the link between the hadith’s content and the ʿĪsawiyyah also remains highly likely. In light of this, the most likely explanation for the relevant data would not be that the hadith does not refer to the ʿĪsawiyyah, but rather, that the CL Yaḥyá created the hadith at the very end of his life (i.e., in the final 2-5 years of his life), in response to the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah at that time. In other words, the hadith’s being a creation in reaction to the later rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah is certainly more expected than its being a creation in reaction merely to their earlier rise; but the latter in turn is more expected than the complete coincidence that a hadith would just so happen to correspond to the ʿĪsawiyyah, not to mention a hadith that is associated with a CL who just so happens to have lived unto the era of the ʿĪsawiyyah.

Yaḥyá’s candidacy as the creator of this hadith is only strengthened by his Basran provenance—for, as it happens, the city of Basrah in Iraq was closely linked to Isfahan, in several ways: Basrah was located in the neighbouring region to Isfahan; Isfahan was conquered in the first place by a Basran army, at least according to some reports; and, from the time of Isfahan’s conquest unto the Umayyad period (i.e., unto Yaḥyá’s lifetime), the city “came under the jurisdiction of the governors of Baṣra and ʿIrāḳ, who usually appointed the governors of Iṣfahān.”[99] Likewise, Basran scholars seem to predominate in the transmission of Hadith to Isfahan throughout the city’s history, which reinforces the close ties between Basrah and Isfahan in particular.[100] It is thus completely plausible that word of the rise of a Jewish messianic movement in Isfahan reached the Basrans in general and the elderly Yaḥyá in particular, who was thereby inspired—amidst the apocalyptic fervour of the final years of the Umayyad Dynasty—to incorporate something about this into a hadith about the Antichrist.

There is only one problem with all of this: it is widely reported in the biographical literature that Yaḥyá moved from Basrah to the central Arabian region of al-Yamāmah, where he spent the later part of his life. Thus, it is variously reported of Yaḥyá: that “he was from amongst the People of Basrah, then he moved (taḥawwala) to al-Yamāmah”;[101] that “he was a perfume-seller (ʿaṭṭār) in al-Yamāmah”;[102] that “he died in the year 132, in al-Yamāmah”;[103] that “al-ʾAwzāʿī heard from Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr in al-Yamāmah”;[104] that he was “the one who used to live (yaskunu) in al-Yamāmah”;[105] that “he used to live (kāna yaskunu) in al-Yamāmah, and he was Basran in origin”;[106] that he was “a Basran [who] departed (ḵaraja) to al-Yamāmah, after which he continued to transmit Hadith; al-ʾAwzāʿī heard from him in Basrah and in al-Yamāmah”;[107] that he was “the jurist of the People of al-Yamāmah”;[108] that “he was Basran, then he moved (taḥawwala) to al-Yamāmah”;[109] that he was “a Basran [who] relocated (intaqala) to al-Yamāmah”;[110] that “he was Basran, then he relocated (intaqala) to al-Yamāmah”;[111] that he was “from the People of Basrah; he settled (sakana) in al-Yamāmah… and he died in the year 129 in al-Yamāmah”;[112] and so on, so forth. There is even a report in which Yaḥyá himself identifies as Yamāmī during a visit to Makkah, recorded by Ḍamrah b. Rabīʿah (Levantine; d. 202/818):

Bašīr b. Ṣāliḥ said: “Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr asked ʿAṭāʾ [b. ʾabī Rabāḥ] a question, then he [i.e., ʿAṭāʾ] said: ‘Where do you live?’ He said: ‘Al-Yamāmah.’ He said: ‘What is your [opinion] about Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr?’ Yaḥyá said: ‘Thereafter, I did move myself for some time [i.e., due to shock]!’”[113]

In short, it seems certain that, whilst Yaḥyá originated in Basrah, he spent the end of his life in al-Yamāmah. Given that Yaḥyá only transmitted his Antichrist hadith to his Basran students, this might be taken to suggest that Yaḥyá transmitted this hadith prior to his migration from Basrah to al-Yamāmah, which presumably occurred prior to the reign of Marwān and the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah.[114]

This problem is easily solved by an internal feature of the hadith itself, however: whilst it is true that Yaḥyá only appears to have transmitted his hadith to Basrans, he cited a Yamāmī source—Ḥaḍramī b. Lāḥiq—therefor.[115] This is by no means an isolated case: for example, Maʿmar, another of Yaḥyá’s Basran students,[116] also seems to have transmitted a hadith from Yaḥyá that the latter sourced from his Yamāmī predecessor Ḍamḍam b. Jaws al-Hiffānī;[117] and Šaybān, yet another of Yaḥyá’s Basran students, likewise seems to have transmitted a hadith from Yaḥyá, from Ḍamḍam.[118] Given that Yaḥyá presumably began to cite Yamāmī sources after he moved to al-Yamāmah,[119] all of this strongly suggests either that Yaḥyá would return to his native Basrah at times (where he would cite Yamāmī sources), and/or that his Basran students—including the famously itinerant Maʿmar—would make the trek down to al-Yamāmah to visit him (where he would cite local sources to them).[120] Additionally, some Basrans may have corresponded with their famous expatriate in al-Yamāmah by means of letters, as indeed seems to be attested in one case.[121] Either way, Yaḥyá likely retained close links with Basrah and his Basran students, which not only helps to explain how he was able to transmit the Antichrist hadith to some of his Basran students after he had moved to al-Yamāmah, but also provides a plausible means by which news of the ʿĪsawiyyah could have reached Yaḥyá in the first place. It is quite easy to imagine Yaḥyá hearing the news of a Jewish messianic movement arising in Isfahan from some Basran students and then informing these students of something he heard from a Yamāmī source relating thereto, which is to say: the creation of this hadith by Yaḥyá in these circumstances remains plausible.

We are thus left with the following set of facts: the hadith associated with the CL Yaḥyá likely refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah; the CL Yaḥyá lived unto the era—the reign of Marwān—in which the ʿĪsawiyyah arose; and the CL Yaḥyá also hailed from a city with close links to the city in which the ʿĪsawiyyah arose. It is difficult to imagine that all of this is a coincidence, so how is it to be explained? If indeed Yaḥyá was a genuine CL, the most likely explanation would be that Yaḥyá heard of the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah and created the hadith—whether ex-nihilo or ex-materia—in reference to their movement. Needless to say, Yaḥyá’s ascription of this hadith to a pre-ʿĪsawī source is almost certainly false: in its extant form at least, the hadith is very unlikely to predate the reign of Marwān, if Anthony’s chronology of the ʿĪsawiyyah is to be trusted.

In sum: (1) Yaḥyá’s hadith likely refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah; (2) the end of Yaḥyá’s life (i.e., somewhere between the middle and end of Marwān’s reign) coincides with the time-period in which the ʿĪsawiyyah arose (i.e., during the reign of Marwān); (3) Yaḥyá hailed from Basrah, a city with close links to Isfahan (i.e., the base of the ʿĪsawiyyah), and retained close connections to Basrah even after he moved to central Arabia; and (4) Yaḥyá’s hadith is specifically transmitted by Basrans. The simplest explanation that would actually account for all of this converging evidence would be that Yaḥyá, towards the end of his life, upon learning of the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah in Isfahan, created this hadith and disseminated it to some Basran students. To argue otherwise is simply to ignore or disregard the unlikely convergence of all of these factors.

Part 7: al-ʾAwzāʿī and Yaḥyá as Co-Creators

If indeed Yaḥyá created his ʿĪsawiyyah-referencing Antichrist hadith during the reign of Marwān (c. 127-132/744-750), how would this impact the hypothesis in my original article that al-ʾAwzāʿī created his own ʿĪsawiyyah-referencing Antichrist hadith? Most of the original considerations remain unchanged: al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith clearly refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah; the ʿĪsawiyyah arose (c. 127-132/744-750) and rebelled (c. 136-158/754-775) during al-ʾAwzāʿī’s own lifetime (b. 88/706-707 or 93/711-712; d. 151/768, or 156/772-773, or 157/773-774); the more likely catalyst for the creation of such a hadith would have been the rebellion, which probably precludes the hadith’s deriving from any of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s cited sources; and there is evidence that the ʿĪsawiyyah spread to al-ʾAwzāʿī’s native Syria. The simplest explanation for all of this data would be that al-ʾAwzāʿī created his own hadith about the ʿĪsawiyyah and falsely ascribed it to an earlier source.

Of course, the chronological possibility remains that al-ʾAwzāʿī’s cited sources could have created the hadith as well: in one version of his hadith, he reportedly cited Ḥassān b. ʿAṭiyyah (Damascene; d. c. 130/747-748); in another version, he reportedly cited Rabīʿah b. ʾabī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (Madinan; d. 136/753-754); and in yet another version, which can be positively traced back to al-ʾAwzāʿī, he cited ʾIsḥāq b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾabī Ṭalḥah (Madinan; d. 132/749-750 or 134/751-752). Thus, as in the preceding case of Yaḥyá, all of these putative sources lived unto the era of the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah (c. 127-132/744-750) and could thus be responsible for this hadith instead, which is to say: it is possible that al-ʾAwzāʿī was simply the transmitter of a recent false creation, rather than the creator per se.

Unlike in Yaḥyá’s case, however, there is no special factor (i.e., an earlier CL) that pushes us to prefer the mere rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah over their rebellion as the catalyst for the hadith’s creation, or in other words: all else being equal, the rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah remains the more probable trigger behind al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith. This immediately removes Ḥassān, ʾIsḥāq, and Rabīʿah[122] as probable candidates for the hadith’s creator, leaving only al-ʾAwzāʿī. Moreover, in the case of Rabīʿah and ʾIsḥāq—both of whom were Madinan—in particular, there is a further reason to remove them from consideration: it seems far more likely that someone living in the Levant—a region with a substantial Jewish population that was linked to the Jewish communities of Persia[123]—would have heard of and cared about the ʿĪsawiyyah, versus someone living in out-of-the-way Madinah.

Indeed, we have evidence for the spread of the ʿĪsawiyyah to the Levant: according to the later Karaite Jewish writer ʾAbū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī (fl. early 10th C. CE), in his coverage of ʾAbū ʿĪsá, “[there is] a group of his followers [still living] in Damascus, known as the ʿĪsūniyyah [sic].”[124] It is completely reasonable to suppose that the presence of the ʿĪsawiyyah in the Levant dates back to the movement’s initial rise in the mid-to-late 8th Century CE—after all, the Levant was home to large Jewish communities who were linked to the Persian Jewish communities in which the ʿĪsawiyyah erupted, as noted already. In other words, whilst there is no direct evidence of an ʿĪsawī presence in al-ʾAwzāʿī’s homeland during his lifetime, the evidence is still consistent with such a hypothesis, which is also expected in light of the interconnectedness of the relevant Jewish communities during this general time-period, not to mention the importance of the Holy Land for such messianic movements. To dismiss all of this as “speculation”[125] is simply to ignore the various considerations and indications in favour of a reasonable conclusion: that the ʿĪsawiyyah were probably already spreading to Jewish communities in the Levant during the movement’s heyday, which coincided with al-ʾAwzāʿī’s lifetime. As such, al-ʾAwzāʿī’s ʿĪsawiyyah-referencing hadith fits far better with—and is much more likely to be the product of—the Levantine religious milieu of the mid-to-late 8th Century CE, as opposed to that of early Madinah. We thus have another strong reason to prefer al-ʾAwzāʿī as the hadith’s creator, versus some earlier Madinan source.

It thus seems probable that both al-ʾAwzāʿī and Yaḥyá falsely ascribed their extant hadiths to their respective sources—sources who lived prior to the rise and/or rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah, and/or who hailed from regions that are less fitting as contexts of origin for the material. In this sense, al-ʾAwzāʿī and Yaḥyá are the most likely candidates for the creators of their hadiths.[126] However, two important questions remain. Firstly: did al-ʾAwzāʿī and Yaḥyá create the matns of their respective hadiths ex-nihilo (i.e., from scratch) or ex-materia (i.e., repackaging existing Hadith material)? Secondly: what is the textual relationship between the matns of these two hadiths?

In answer to the first question (in a similar vein to my original blog article), it seems plausible, if not probable, that both Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī drew upon and reworked existing eschatological material to fashion their respective matns: the updating of prophecies to address new events is ubiquitous across the history of eschatology, as is the reuse and adaption of topoi in the creation of texts.[127] This sort of thing has also been widely observed across the Hadith corpus,[128] and can be readily observed in eschatological Hadith in particular.[129] There are signs of a similar process at play with Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths in particular:

• The statement, “verily, God / your Lord / my Lord is not one-eyed” (ʾinna allāh / rabba-kum / rabbī laysa bi-ʾaʿwar), in relation to the Antichrist, present in Yaḥyá’s hadith, can be found in numerous other hadiths from multiple regions, including from Basrah.[130]
• The proposition that the Antichrist will not be able enter Madinah, present in Yaḥyá’s hadith, can be found in another hadith with a Basran isnad.[131]
• The proposition that Jesus will remain on Earth for forty years after slaying the Antichrist, present in Yaḥyá’s hadith, can be found in other hadiths with Basran isnads.[132]
• The proposition that the Antichrist will be followed by 70,000 Muslims wearing Persian garments (ʿalay-him al-sījān), which is similar in content to al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith, can be found in another hadith with a Basran isnad.[133]
• The proposition that the Antichrist will be followed by 70,000 people wearing Persian garments (ʿalay-him al-sījān), most of whom will be Jews and women, which is similar in content to al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith, can be found in another hadith with a Basran isnad.[134]
• The proposition that the Antichrist will be followed by 80,000 people from Ḵūz and Kirmān wearing Persian garments (al-ṭayālisah), which is broadly similar to the content of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith, can be found in another hadith with an Iraqo-Madinan isnad.[135]

Of course, each of these related hadiths has to be subjected to its own ICMA before the probable relationships therebetween can be established with confidence, and some of them are plausibly inspired or influenced Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths instead; but it is at least highly plausible that both Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī draw upon existing elements in early Islamic eschatological discourse—associated above all with Basrah—to fashion their own ʿĪsawiyyah-referencing Antichrist hadiths.

The dense Basran association with this material tentatively suggests that al-ʾAwzāʿī was influenced by material flowing therefrom, including plausibly Yaḥyá’s hadith, or perhaps something similar to the short statement attributed to Yaḥyá by ʿAbd al-Razzāq, which is actually closer to al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith. In light of the fact that al-ʾAwzāʿī only seems to have studied with Yaḥyá prior to the rise and rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah (i.e., prior to the reign of Marwān), a direct transmission between the two is precluded in this instance; but it is still plausible that he encountered a variant of Yaḥyá’s material that travelled out of Basrah and into his own Syrian environment, along with other Basran “Antichrist” material. Ultimately, however, the exact provenance of the material that al-ʾAwzāʿī incorporated into his own ʿĪsawiyyah-referencing hadith—which he falsely ascribed to a Madinan predecessor of his—cannot be known with certainty.

In sum: (1) al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith clearly refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah; (2) the ʿĪsawiyyah arose and rebelled during al-ʾAwzāʿī’s own lifetime; (3) the more likely catalyst for the creation of such a hadith would have been the rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah; (4) al-ʾAwzāʿī lived at the same time as the ʿĪsawī rebellion and in a region that was likely buzzing with news thereof, if not a region infiltrated by the ʿĪsawiyyah themselves, making al-ʾAwzāʿī an ideal candidate for being the hadith’s creator; (5) al-ʾAwzāʿī’s cited sources lived unexpectedly early, or in a less expected location, to create such a hadith; (6) al-ʾAwzāʿī is thus the most likely candidate for being the hadith’s creator. Furthermore: (7) both Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī plausibly reworked existing eschatological material—associated above all with the former’s native Basrah—to produce their ʿĪsawiyyah-referencing hadiths; and (8) al-ʾAwzāʿī plausibly reworked a version of Yaḥyá’s ʿĪsawiyyah-referencing material to produce his own ʿĪsawiyyah-referencing hadith.

Part 8: An Alternative Chronology of the ʿĪsawiyyah?

The preceding analysis has assumed the correctness of the chronology of the rise and rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah recorded by Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Šahrastānī (d. 548/1153),[136] which has been variously defended not just by Sean Anthony,[137] but also by Israel Friedländer,[138] Steven Wasserstrom,[139] and Halil İbrahim Bulut.[140] There is however an alternative chronology, recorded in al-Qirqisānī’s account of ʾAbū ʿĪsá: “he made his appearance during the days of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān, and it has been mentioned that he sought to rebel against the government.”[141] In other words, according to al-Qirqisānī’s report, ʾAbū ʿĪsá arose and rebelled during the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (c. 65-86/685-705), in the late 1st Century AH / at the turn of the 8th Century CE.[142] This chronology was accepted by Shelomo Goitein[143] and other older scholars,[144] although it is now clearly the minority position in modern scholarship.

However, let us suppose, for the sake argument, not just that ICMA-consistent CLs are ironclad historical facts (i.e., that Yaḥyá’s hadith can certainly be traced back to him), but also, that it is in some way chronologically, geographically, or logistically impossible for Yaḥyá to have learned of the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah, incorporated a reference thereto in an eschatological hadith, and disseminated this hadith to some of his Basran students. In such a scenario, we would still be left with the uncanny resemblance between Yaḥyá’s hadith (describing how the Antichrist will be followed by the Jews of Isfahan) and the historical event of a Jewish “false messiah” attracting a large Jewish following in Isfahan: the connection between the hadith and the event is clearly strong, and cannot be dissolved or waved away merely because of a contradiction between the hadith’s source and al-Šahrastānī’s chronology of the ʿĪsawiyyah. On the contrary, if the CL is ironclad (as we are assuming for the sake of argument), and if the hadith’s reference to the ʿĪsawiyyah is also strong (as indeed it is), then an obvious solution would be to abandon al-Šahrastānī’s chronology in favour of al-Qirqisānī’s chronology.

Such a move was already pre-empted and disparaged in the Twitter thread mentioned at the outset, in which it is stated: “Maybe Sean Anthony’s dating will conveniently be abandoned in order to preserve the al-Awza’i accusation?”[145] Convenient or not, we must follow the argument to where it leads. If the CL is ironclad and the hadith’s referent is clear, then the best way to explain the evidence would not be to dismiss a strong consideration (i.e., the hadith’s connection to the ʿĪsawiyyah), but rather, to jettison a less certain consideration—namely, the circumstantial arguments in favour of al-Šahrastānī’s chronology over al-Qirqisānī’s. This is not at all to suggest that such arguments are not strong in and of themselves, nor that they are not generally probative. It is simply a question of the relative strengths of the considerations in any given instance—and, in this instance, if the matn’s connection to the ʿĪsawiyyah is strong, and if the CL is also strong, and if the CL’s incompatibility with al-Šahrastānī’s chronology is certain, we would simply have a reason to reject the arguments in favour of al-Šahrastānī’s chronology.

If we thus assume, for the sake of argument, that the ʿĪsawiyyah actually arose and rebelled during the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik, how would this impact my hypothesis that al-ʾAwzāʿī and now also Yaḥyá created their respective hadiths? Most of the chronological reasons for excluding Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s cited sources as viable candidates for being the creators of these hadiths would cease to apply, but the geographical considerations would remain: all else being equal, it seems more expected that a Basran like Yaḥyá, rather than a Yamāmī like Lāḥiq or a Madinan like Ḏakwān, would know about and be interested in a Jewish messianic rebellion in Isfahan; and, likewise, it seems more expected that a Syrian like al-ʾAwzāʿī, rather than a Madinan like Rabīʿah or ʾIsḥāq, would know about and be interested in a Jewish messianic rebellion in Isfahan. Once again, Basrah and Syria are more viable contexts of origin for these hadiths, in contrast to Madinah.

However, according to one transmission from al-ʾAwzāʿī, the latter cited the Damascene Ḥassān as his direct source; and in all versions, al-ʾAwzāʿī’s ultimate cited source was ʾAnas b. Mālik (d. 91-93/709-712), a Madinan who spent time in Basrah and outlived ʿAbd al-Malik. In other words, on the view that the ʿĪsawiyyah arose and rebelled under ʿAbd al-Malik, the case for al-ʾAwzāʿī as the hadith’s creator would be much more equivocal, with Ḥassān and even ʾAnas being viable candidates as well. (A similar point was made in my original blog article.) Additionally, the penultimate source cited in Yaḥyá’s hadith, Ḏakwān, also outlived ʿAbd al-Malik and reportedly used to export olive oil and clarified butter to—and thus presumably frequented—Kufah[146] (i.e., not far from Basrah), which might also cast some uncertainty on Yaḥyá’s candidacy in this case.

For all that, there is a consideration in favour of al-ʾAwzāʿī as the creator of his hadith in particular: the fact that Yaḥyá, one of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s major teachers, also transmitted an eschatological hadith that refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah. In other words, it is probably not a coincidence that both Yaḥyá and one his students transmitted hadiths about the ʿĪsawiyyah: a simple explanation for this fact would be that the former influenced the latter. Moreover, in contrast to scenario produced by al-Šahrastānī’s chronology (in which Yaḥyá’s material inferably reached al-ʾAwzāʿī after the latter’s death), the scenario produced by al-Qirqisānī’s chronology allows for some kind of direct transmission from Yaḥyá to al-ʾAwzāʿī in this instance. We can even posit a development from one hadith to the other: whereas Yaḥyá’s hadith merely incorporates a reference to the ʿĪsawiyyah within a broader eschatological drama, al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith is entirely focused on them. In other words, rather than merely transmitting his teacher’s hadith, al-ʾAwzāʿī plausibly took an element therefrom and expanded it into its own hadith with its own isnad. The reason for this may lie in the aforementioned spread of the ʿĪsawiyyah amongst the Jewish communities of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s own Syrian environment, motivating the creation of a more dedicated or focused reference thereto. Either way, the dissemination of a hadith addressing the same specific contemporaneous event by al-ʾAwzāʿī’s own teacher increases the probability (i.e., can be easily explained by positing) that al-ʾAwzāʿī created his own hadith in relation thereto. Thus, even on al-Qirqisānī’s chronology, we have a reason to suspect that al-ʾAwzāʿī created his hadith in particular.

In sum: (1) if Yaḥyá’s CL status is assumed to be ironclad, and his hadith likely refers to the ʿĪsawiyyah, but the hadith could only have been created prior to the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah on al-Šahrastānī’s chronology, this could simply indicate that al-Qirqisānī’s earlier chronology of their rise and rebellion is preferable instead; (2) if al-Qirqisānī’s chronology is adopted, the range of plausible candidates for the creators behind both Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths expands beyond just Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī; however, (3) the fact that Yaḥyá was one of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s major teachers, and that both of them just so happen to have disseminated hadiths referencing the same contemporaneous event, can be easily explained by positing that al-ʾAwzāʿī derived his own hadith from that of his master.

Part 9: Some More Contaminated Hadiths

Alongside all of the hadiths considered thus far, there are several more I have come across that contain combinations of elements that seem particularly close to those constituting al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith (and in some cases Yaḥyá’s as well), which requires an explanation:

Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād (Marwazī; d. 228-229/842-844):

ʿAlī b. ʿĀṣim (Wāsiṭī; d. 201/816)—Yaḥyá ʾAbū Zakariyyāʾ (?)—Qatādah b. Diʿāmah (Basran; d. 117-118/735-736)—Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab (Madinan; d. 93-95/711-714)—ʾAbū Bakr (Madinan; d. 22/634):

“The Antichrist will emerge from Marw, from its Jewish quarter (min al-yahūdiyyati-hā).”[147]

ʿAbd al-Wāriṯ b. ʾIbrāhīm al-ʿAskarī (ʾAhwāzī; fl. early 10th C. CE):

Sayf b. Miskīn (Basran; fl. 9th C. CE)—ʾAbū al-ʾAšhab Jaʿfar (Basran; d. 162/778-779 or 165/782)—al-Šaʿbī (Kufan; d. 103-110/721-729)—Fāṭimah bt. Qays (Madinan; d. pre-60/680):

At the end of this lengthy eschatological hadith about the Antichrist, the following is cited from the Prophet:

“He will depart from a city called Isfahan, [specifically] from one of its villages called Rustaqubāḏ. He will depart when 70,000 [people], wearing [Persian] garments (ʿalay-him al-sījān), depart under his leadership.”[148]

al-Ṭabarānī (Palestinian; d. 360/971):

Muḥammad al-Jawharī (ʾAhwāzī)—Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Naḥwī (ʾAhwāzī)—ʾAbū Hammām Muḥammad b. al-Zibriqān (ʾAhwāzī)—Yūnus b. ʿUbayd (Basran; d. 139-140/756-758)—Ḥasan b. Yasār (d. 110/728)—ʿImrān b. Ḥuṣayn (Madino-Basran; d. 52/672)—the Prophet:

“The Antichrist will emerge from Isfahan.”[149]

al-Ḥasan b. Rašīq (Egyptian; d. 370/980-981):

ʿAlī b. Saʿīd (Rāzī-Egyptian; d. 313/925-926)—ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Yaḥyá (Madino-Rāzī)—Sulaymān b. Bilāl (Madinan; d. 172/788-789 or 177/793-794)—Muḥammad b. ʿUqbah (Madinan)—ʿUqbah (Madinan)—ʾAbū Hurayrah (Madinan; d. 57-59/676-679)—the Prophet:

“The Antichrist will emerge upon a moon-white donkey, between whose ears is [the distance of] 70 spans. 70,000 Jews will accompany him, wearing green [Persian] garments (ʿalay-him al-ṭayālisah), until they alight upon the hill of ʾAbū al-Ḥamrāʾ.”[150]

al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (Eastern; d. 405/1014):

al-ʾAṣamm (Eastern; d. 346/957-958)—Muḥammad b. Sinān al-Fazzāz (Basran; d. 271/884)—ʿUmar b. Yūnus (Yamāmī; d. post-200/815-816)—Jahḍam b. ʿAbd Allāh (Eastern/Yamāmī; fl. late 8th C. CE)—ʿAbd al-ʾAʿlá b. ʿĀmir (Kufan; fl. mid-8th C. CE)—Muṭarrif b. ʿAbd Allāh (Basran; d. 86/705)—ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar (Madinan; d. 73-74/691-693):

In the middle of this eschatological hadith, the following is cited by Ḥuḏayfah from the Prophet:

“The Antichrist will emerge from the Jewish quarter of Isfahan (min yahūdiyyat ʾaṣbahān). His right eye will be excised, and the other will [look] as if it is [the] Morningstar. He will [be able to] split apart the Sun, and he will [be able to] grab birds from the air. He will have three cries, which the people of the East and the people of the West will [be able to] hear, and [he will have] two mountains with him, a mountain of smoke and fire, and a mountain of trees and rivers, and he will say: ‘This [one] is Paradise, and this [other one] is the Hellfire.’”[151]

al-Dānī (Andalusian; d. 444/1053):

ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr al-Maktab (?)—ʿAttāb b. Hārūn (?)—al-Faḍl b. ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Faḍl (?)—Muḥammad b. al-Faḍl al-Hamdānī (?)—ʾAbū Nuʿaym Muḥammad b. Yaḥyá (Ṭūsī)—ʾIbrāhīm b. Mūsá al-Farrāʾ (Rāzī; d. c. 230/844-845)—Zayd b. al-Ḥubāb (Ḵurāsānī-Kufan; d. 203/818-819)—ʿĪsá b. al-ʾAšʿaṯ (Iraqi? fl. 8th C. CE)—Juwaybir (Kufan; fl. turn of 8th C. CE)—al-Nazzāl b. Sabrah (Kufan; fl. mid-7th C. CE):

In the middle of this lengthy eschatological hadith about Ibn Ṣayyād the Antichrist, the following is stated by ʿAlī:

“He will emerge from the Jewish quarter of Isfahan, [mounted] upon a docked donkey. [The distance] between the ears of his donkey will be 40 cubits, [and the distance] between one of his hooves to the other will be a journey of four nights. The earth will be traversed quickly by him, one watering hole after another. He will [be able to] grab the sky with his hand. In front of him will be a mountain of smoke, and behind him will be another mountain.”[152]

al-Dānī (Andalusian; d. 444/1053):

ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr al-Maktab (?)—ʿAttāb b. Hārūn (?)—al-Faḍl b. ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Faḍl (?)—ʿAbd al-Ṣamad b. Muḥammad al-Hamdānī (?)—ʾAḥmad b. Sinān al-Qalānisī (?)—ʾAbū ʾAḥmad ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Ḵazzāz (Raqqī)—Maslamah b. Ṯābit (Wāsiṭī)—ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī (Basran; d. 198/814)—Sufyān al-Ṯawrī (Kufan; d. 161/777-778)—Qays b. Muslim (Kufan; d. 120/737-738)—Ribʿī b. Ḥirāš (Kufan; d. 100-104/718-723)—Ḥuḏayfah b. al-Yamān (Hijazo-Iraqi; d. 36/656-657):

In the middle of this lengthy eschatological hadith about the Antichrist, the following is cited from the Prophet:

“Then [news] that the Antichrist has emerged from the Jewish quarter of Isfahan (min yahūdiyyat ʾaṣbahān) will reach you. One of his eyes will be bloodshot, and the other [will appear] as if it is ill-made. He will [be able to] grab birds from the air. He will have three cries, which the people of the East and the people of the West will [be able to] hear. He will ride a docked donkey, between whose ears will be [a distance of] 40 cubits. 70,000 [people] will be overshadowed by its ears. 70,000 Jews will follow him, wearing crowns (ʿalay-him al-tījān).[153]

Ibn ʿAsākir (Syrian; d. 571/1176):

ʾAbū Ḡālib ʾAḥmad & ʾAbū al-Qāsim al-Samarqandī—ʾAbū al-Ḥusayn b. al-Naqqūr (Baghdadi)—al-Daqqāq (Baghdadi; d. 390/1000)—Ibn al-Muhtadī bi-Allāh (Baghdadi; d. 323/935)—Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (Syrian)—ʾIsmāʿīl b. ʿAyyāš (Syrian; d. 181-182/797-799)—al-Walīd b. ʿAbbād (Basran?)—Baḥr b. Kanīz al-Saqā (Basran; d. 160/776-777)—Ḵālid b. Maymūn (Ḵurāsānī-Basran?)—ʿAṭāʾ b. ʾabī Rabāḥ (Meccan; d. 114-117/732-735)—ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar (Madinan; d. 73-74/691-693)—the Prophet:

“The one-eyed deceiver will emerge from the Jewish quarter of Isfahan (min yahūdiyyat ʾaṣbahān). One of his eyes will be [ill] made, and the other will [will appear] as if it is a bloodshot planet [that] has been roasted in the sun. He will [be able to] grab birds from the air. He will have three cries, which the people of the East and the West will [be able to] hear. He will have a donkey, between whose ears will be a distance of 40 cubits. He will walk on each of them every seven days. Two mountains will travel with him: one of them will have trees, fruits, and water on it, and one of them will have smoke and fire on it. He will say: ‘This [one] is Paradise, and this [one] is the Hellfire!’”[154]

In my original blog article, I suggested that such hadiths were contaminated by al-ʾAwzāʿī’s famous hadith, thereby accounting for the similarities therebetween. This conclusion remains completely reasonable: all of these other reports are isolated transmissions that were only recorded long after al-ʾAwzāʿī disseminated his famous hadith, which is consistent with the latter’s having contaminated or otherwise influenced the former. (Similar considerations now apply to Yaḥyá’s hadith, which may also have contaminated some of these other hadiths.) Again, it should be noted that this sort of thing happens all the time in eschatological contexts, in which old prophecies are reworked or recycled to make new prophecies.[155]

Indeed, in contrast to the preceding case of Yaḥyá’s hadith (discussed in Parts 3-4, above), contamination is eminently plausible, or outrightly likely, in these cases:

1. Nuʿaym’s transmission from ʾAbū Bakr is not only relatively late and isolated, but actually contradicted by multiple co-transmissions from the hadith’s putative CL (Qatādah), in which the relevant detail—the Jewish quarter of Marw—is absent.[156] This is consistent with the first-mentioned version’s having been contaminated. As it happens, one of its transmitters, ʿAlī b. ʿĀṣim, was judged by al-Nasāʾī to be “abandoned in Hadith” (matrūk al-ḥadīṯ).[157]
2. ʿAbd al-Wāriṯ’s transmission from Fāṭimah bt. Qays is not only late and isolated, but actually contradicted by multiple co-transmissions from the hadith’s putative CL (al-Šaʿbī), in which the relevant elements—Isfahan, 70,000, Persian garments—are absent.[158] This is consistent with the first-mentioned version’s having been contaminated. As it happens, al-Ṭabarānī described ʿAbd al-Wāriṯ’s hadith as ‘isolated’,[159] which is to say, suspect.[160]
3. al-Ṭabarānī’s transmission from the Prophet is not only late and isolated, but also seems suspiciously similar to a more general statement—about “the East” or “Khurasan” instead of “Isfahan”—that appears in other, earlier-attested hadiths.[161] This is consistent with the first-mentioned version’s having been contaminated or updated and given a new isnad. As it happens, al-Ṭabarānī described this hadith as ‘isolated’,[162] i.e., suspect.
4. al-Ḥasan b. Rašīq’s transmission from the Prophet is not only late and isolated, but also seemingly contradicted by a co-transmission from the hadith’s putative CL (Sulaymān b. Bilāl), in which the relevant elements—70,000, Jews, Persian garments—are absent.[163] The absence of multiple co-transmissions makes this case less definitive, but it is still more specific evidence that is consistent with contamination. As it happens, al-Maqdisī declared that this hadith is munkar (i.e., objectionable or rejected).[164]
5. al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī’s transmission from Ibn ʿUmar is not only a late SS, but the relevant section (from Ḥuḏayfah, from the Prophet) is also contradicted by an iteration of the same tradition that is recorded much earlier by Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād from a different isnad back to Ibn ʿUmar, in which the relevant detail—the Jewish quarter of Isfahan—is absent.[165] This is consistent with al-Ḥākim’s version’s having been contaminated. As it happens, al-Ḏahabī dismissed this hadith as munkar,[166] explicitly rejecting al-Ḥākim’s earlier judgement that it is “sound [in terms of its] isnad” (ṣaḥīḥ al-ʾisnād).[167]
6. al-Dānī’s report about ʿAlī is not only late and isolated, but also contradicted by an iteration of the same tradition about ʿAlī that is recorded much earlier by Ibn al-Munādī from a different isnad, in which the relevant detail—the Jewish quarter of Isfahan—is absent.[168] This is consistent with al-Dānī’s version’s having been contaminated. As it happens, ʾAbū Ḥātim declared that one of this hadith’s transmitters, ʿĪsá b. al-ʾAšʿaṯ, was “an unknown teacher” (šayḵ majhūl);[169] another transmitter, Juwaybir, was widely criticised as “weak” (ḍaʿīf) and “abandoned” (matrūk);[170] and al-Muttaqī al-Hindī problematised another hadith with a near-identical initial isnad—from Zayd b. al-Ḥubāb, from ʿĪsá b. al-ʾAšʿaṯ, from Juwaybir, from al-Ḍaḥḥāk, from al-Nazzāl, from ʿAlī—on such grounds.[171]
7. al-Dānī’s transmission from Ḥuḏayfah is not only late and isolated, but also an iteration of the same hadith recorded by al-Ḥākim and Ibn ʿAsākir and thus equally a product of contamination.[172] In contrast to these other versions, however, al-Dānī’s also contains the distinctive elements of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith, which is consistent with al-Dānī’s version’s having been subject to a further, compounding contamination. As it happens, one of this hadith’s transmitters, ʿAbd al-Ṣamad b. Muḥammad, was judged by al-Dāraquṭnī to be “weak” (laysa bi-al-qawiyy).[173]
8. Ibn ʿAsākir’s transmission from Ibn ʿUmar is not only a late SS, but also an iteration of the same hadith recorded by al-Ḥākim and al-Dānī and thus equally a product of contamination.[174] As it happens, Ibn ʿAdī specifically problematised ʾIsmāʿīl b. ʿAyyāš’s isolated transmissions from al-Walīd b. ʿAbbād, who was “unsound in Hadith” (laysa bi-mustaqīm al-ḥadīṯ) and “unknown” (laysa bi-maʿrūf);[175] whilst al-Nasāʾī condemned another tradent cited in this hadith’s isnad, Baḥr, as “abandoned in Hadith” (matrūk al-ḥadīṯ).[176]

In every one of these cases, an earlier-attested co-transmission or alternative version of the hadith without the distinctive elements of Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths can be found,[177] which is exactly what it would look like if the hadiths in question were contaminated by Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths. Even the mediaeval Sunnī Hadith critics criticised all of these hadiths or the transmitters thereof, or in other words: no matter the direction from which we approach these hadiths, they seem dubious, at least insofar as the present issue is concerned.

However, in some of these cases, the influence of Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths was probably not direct, occurring instead via an intermediary contaminated or influenced hadith. For example, consider the following hadith from the CL Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Raqqāšī (Basran; d. 219/834), from Jaʿfar b. Sulaymān (Basran; d. 178/794-795), from Šubayl b. ʿAzrah (Basran), from Ḥassān b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (Basran), from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (Basran?):

Jaʿfar b. Sulaymān al-Ḍubaʿī related to us, from Šubayl b. Ḡazrwah al-Ḍubaʿī, from Ḥassān b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḍubaʿī, from his father, who said: “When we conquered Isfahan, [the distance] between our army encampment and the Jewish quarter (al-yahūdiyyah) was one farsaḵ. We used to get provisions from the Jewish quarter, so I came to it one day and lo! The Jews were playing [musical instruments] and dancing. So, I said to a friend of mine [amongst them]: ‘What is [going on] with you all? [Are] you all intending to withdraw the hand of submission [that you previously extended to us]?’ He said: ‘No! On the contrary, [we are celebrating the fact that] our king, the one with whose assistance we will conquer the Arabs, will enter [the city tomorrow] morning!’ I said: ‘Your king, the one with whose assistance you will conquer the Arabs?!’ He said: ‘Yes!’ Then I said to my friend: ‘I will stay the night with you,’ [although] I was afraid of being separated from the army. I settled down on the roof of his house and eventually I prayed the morning [prayer]. Then, when the sun rose, dust came from the direction of our army encampment, and lo! I [found myself in the presence of] a man sitting on a dais, over whom there was a dome [made] of basil. And lo! The Jews were around him, dancing and playing [musical instruments] and beating [drums]. And lo! It was Ibn Ṣāʾid! Then he entered the city, and he has not been seen since then.”[178]

In this narrative, which can be securely dated as far back as the extant CL Muḥammad al-Raqqāšī, but which may trace back at least as early as Jaʿfar b. Sulaymān,[179] seems to embody and synthesise two different streams of early Islamic eschatological tradition: the ʿĪsawiyyah-inspired tradition that the Antichrist will be followed by the Jews of Isfahan; and the tradition that Ibn Ṣāʾid or Ibn Ṣayyād—an obscure and semi-legendary Madinan prophet or diviner from the life of Muḥammad—is the Antichrist.[180] In other words, the Basran narrative just cited serves to explain how Ibn Ṣayyād of Madinah, the future Antichrist, ended up in Isfahan, thereby reconciling two discrepant streams of eschatological tradition.[181]

This Basran narratives associates Ibn Ṣayyād (i.e., the Antichrist) with the Yahūdiyyah or Jewish quarter of Isfahan (rather than just “the Jews of Isfahan” more generally), and it is this specific post-Yaḥyá idea that we found in some of the contaminated hadiths discussed above. Indeed, when all of the relevant plausible CLs and late-recorded SSs are collated, a clear overarching development or evolution in the material emerges:

1. There was an eschatological tradition circulating in Madinah and Iraq, embodied in hadiths that seem to have been transmitted by Ibn Šihāb al-Zuhrī (Madino-Syrian; d. 123-125/740-743),[182] Saʿd b. ʾIbrāhīm (Madinan; d. 125-127/742-745),[183] and others,[184] predicting or implying that Ibn Ṣayyād may be or will be the Antichrist. (The origin of this tradition is beyond the scope of the present article.)
2. There was an eschatological tradition circulating in Iraq, as early as al-Šaʿbī (Kufan; d. 103-110/721-729), to the effect that the Antichrist was tied up on an island near Arabia and guarded by a being called al-Jassāsah. (The origin of this tradition is also beyond the scope of the present article.)
3. There was an eschatological tradition circulating in Basrah, embodied in hadiths that seem to have been transmitted by both Qatādah (Basran; d. 117-118/735-736) and ʾAbū al-Tayyāḥ (Basran; d. 128-130/745-748), predicting that the Antichrist would emerge from Khurasan.[185] (The origin of this tradition is also beyond the scope of the present article.)
4. There was an eschatological tradition circulating in Basrah, which arguably originated with Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr (d. 129-132/746-750) and his hadith, and which also spread to al-ʾAwzāʿī (d. 151-157/768-774) in Syria, predicting that the Antichrist would be followed by the Jews of Isfahan. This tradition was likely inspired by the ʿĪsawiyyah.
5. There was an eschatological tradition circulating widely in early Muslim society, embodied in the hadith of Sulaymān b. Bilāl (Madinan; d. 172/788-789 or 177/793-794) and others, predicting that the Antichrist would ride on a gigantic donkey. (The origin of this tradition is also beyond the scope of the present article.)
6. There was an eschatological tradition associated with Ibn ʿUmar circulating in the Levant, embodied by a hadith recorded by Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād (Marwazī; d. 228-229/842-844), according to which the Antichrist has unusual eyes, two mountains that function as a pseudo-Heaven and a pseudo-Hell, and the ability to reach up into the sky.
7. The “Ibn Ṣayyād” tradition and the “Jews of Isfahan” tradition subsequently merged in Basrah, resulting in the hadith of Jaʿfar b. Sulaymān (Basran; d. 178/794-795) or Muḥammad al-Raqqāšī (Basran; d. 219/834), associating Ibn Ṣayyād (i.e., the Antichrist) with the Jewish quarter of Isfahan in particular.
8. Jaʿfar’s hadith contaminated a transmission of Qatādah’s hadith, resulting in a version of the latter that specified the Jewish quarter of Marw. This contamination occurred at some point prior to its preservation by Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād (Marwazī; d. 228-229/842-844).
9. al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith contaminated one of the transmissions of al-Šaʿbī’s hadith about al-Jassāsah, resulting in a version of the latter that specified that the Antichrist would emerge in Isfahan with a following of 70,000 people wearing Persian garments. This contamination occurred at some point prior to its preservation by ʿAbd al-Wāriṯ b. ʾIbrāhīm al-ʿAskarī (ʾAhwāzī; fl. early 10th C. CE), who cited a Basran isnad back to al-Šaʿbī. This contamination plausibly occurred in either ʾAhwāz or Basrah.
10.  The tradition embodied by Qatādah’s hadith, or possibly just a version of Qatādah’s hadith, again fused with the Basran “Isfahan” tradition, resulting in a new hadith—with a new ʾAhwāzī-Basran isnad—predicting that the Antichrist will emerge from Isfahan. This fusion and creation occurred at some point prior to the hadith’s preservation by al-Ṭabarānī (Palestinian; d. 360/971), probably in ʾAhwāz.
11.  al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith contaminated a transmission of Sulaymān b. Bilāl’s hadith, resulting in a version of the latter specifying that the Antichrist will be followed by 70,000 Jews wearing Persian garments. This contamination occurred at some point prior to the hadith’s preservation by al-Ḥasan b. Rašīq (Egyptian; d. 370/980-981), citing a Egypto-Rāzī isnad back to Sulaymān, which suggests that this occurred in either Egypt or Rayy.
12.  The tradition of the Antichrist’s unusual eyes, etc., associated with Ibn ʿUmar, was contaminated by both the “giant donkey” tradition and the “Jewish quarter of Isfahan” tradition, resulting in a synthetic tradition embodied in a report later recorded by Ibn ʿAsākir (Syrian; d. 571/1176). This synthesis probably occurred in Basrah or Syria, given the Basro-Syrian SS cited by Ibn ʿAsākir.
13.  The tradition later embodied by Ibn ʿAsākir’s report was subsequently incorporated into a larger set of predictions associated with Ḥuḏayfah, embodied in a (slightly abridged) hadith recorded by al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (Eastern; d. 405/1014). This probably occurred in Basrah or al-Yamāmah, given the Basro-Yamāmī SS cited by al-Ḥākim.
14.  The Ḥuḏayfah-associated tradition embodied by al-Ḥākim was further contaminated by al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith or one of its offshoots, resulting in an even more developed tradition containing the element of “70,000 Jews wearing crowns”, a version of which was recorded—within a broader report collating numerous prophecies—by al-Dānī (Andalusian; d. 444/1053). This further development again probably occurred in Iraq or Syria, given the Syro-Iraqi SS cited by al-Dānī.
15.  A number of different eschatological traditions, including the “gigantic donkey” tradition, were synthesised to create another new hadith about Ibn Ṣayyād the Antichrist, at some point prior to its preservation by Ibn al-Munādī (Baghdadi; d. 336/947), citing a Baghdado-Kufan isnad. This hadith was subsequently contaminated by the “Jewish quarter of Isfahan” tradition and given a new Eastern-Kufan isnad, which must have occurred prior to its preservation by al-Dānī.

In other words, when the relevant plausible CLs,[186] and the extant sources recording the relevant SSs, are lined upon in more or less chronological order, they neatly reveal what looks exactly like an overarching process of development in the eschatological material under consideration, as initially discrete lines of tradition mingled and fused along the way. This is completely expected: as noted already, the recycling and reworking of material was ubiquitous in the domain of eschatology. Of course, regardless of whether this specific reconstruction is accepted, the fact remains that all of the relevant hadiths are consistent with having been contaminated—directly or indirectly—by Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths.

In sum: (1) the hadiths closest to Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths are all late, isolated transmissions, which is already consistent with their being products of contamination—directly or indirectly—by Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s earlier-attested and more famous hadiths; (2) there are co-transmissions or alternative versions of all of these hadiths that lack the elements similar to Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths, which is further evidence of contamination; and (3) it is even possible to sort all of the relevant “Isfahan” material into a coherent process ofdevelopment, beginning with Yaḥyá’s hadith and culminating in the extant contaminated hadiths. In other words, this is exactly what it would look like if Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s influential hadiths contaminated several related eschatological hadiths.

Part 10: Harald Motzki and the Role of CLs

The Twitter thread mentioned at the outset ends with a final, general criticism of the notion that CLs created their hadiths, which is also worth considering before we bring the present article to a close:

I think it is clear at this point calling Al-Awza’i the forger of this hadith is pretty unjustified. But there is something else I would like to touch on. The general notion a common link is always a forger and the isnad from them to the prophet (saw) is fiction. I will just leave Harald Motzki’s pushback against Schacht and Juynboll over this sentiment. From his “Analysing Muslim Traditions” p.50-53.[187]

The reference herein is to a section of the English translation of Harald Motzki’s article “Quo vadis Ḥadīṯ-Forschung?”, in which Motzki criticised various aspects of Gautier Juynboll’s approach to Hadith, including the latter’s conception of CLs: whereas Juynboll argued that CLs were very likely the creators of their hadiths, Motzki instead argued that they can be seen as merely the first systematic collectors and disseminators of their hadiths.

All of this is irrelevant to my original blog article, not to mention the present blog article: nowhere have I argued that “a common link is always a forger”. This is clearly wrong—after all, there are many cases in which CLs appear elsewhere as PCLs (e.g., Ibn Šihāb al-Zuhrī), which implies that, much of the time, CLs were indeed transmitters.[188] Moreover, I am on record specifically agreeing with Motzki’s criticisms of Juynboll’s universal or axiomatic rejection of “single-strand” (SS) isnads,[189] which was the basis of Juynboll’s conception of CLs.[190] It is true that I argue elsewhere that skepticism is warranted regarding the putative transmissions of CLs (i.e., pre-CL SS isnads),[191] but Motzki himself ultimately adopted a similar stance: “In order to decide whether a common link may be a transmitter or collector we need evidence. If there is no positive evidence available, we should refrain from making a judgment.”^[192] This should not be conflated with Juynboll’s position that “a common link is always a forger”, which both Motzki and I reject.[193] Instead, the argument in my original blog article and the present blog article is that, in some cases, CLs can be identified as the plausible or probable creators of given hadiths.[194] It seems unlikely that Motzki would have rejected such a modest proposal, especially in light of his following statement:

The fact that there can be several common links at different stages of the process of transmission and that numerous common links are known as collectors or compilers of works which, among other things, contained traditional material—for example al-Zuhrī, Ibn Jurayj, Ibn ʿUyayna—at least permits the additional possibility of explaining the common link phenomenon as a result of the activities of these people as collectors and the spread of their compilations by systematic teaching. That is, their material would generally be earlier and might come from the sources named. This does not preclude the possibility that they also occasionally produced forgeries or were taken in by them.[195]

Likewise, consider the following statement of Motzki’s from the very section of the English translation of “Quo vadis Ḥadīṯ-Forschung?” that was adduced against the notion of CLs as creators of their hadiths:

But the single strand means simply that the common link in the dissemination of the ḥadīth mentioned only one path of transmission. Other paths which the same matn might have taken have “died out” because they were not passed on by one of these first early collectors. In some instances, later compilers or the pupils of these early collectors sought further strands of transmission of a particular tradition that may have survived in oral tradition or with minor collectors. Where they were successful, one or more strands “dive” below the common link in the isnād bundle. This interpretation still allows us to postulate early collectors [i.e., CLs] who mixed in traditions of their own with the genuine ones, adding fictitious asānīd, or later collectors who dived below the common link, again with fictitious asānīd.[196]

Regardless, the evidence that both al-Awzāʿī and Yaḥyá created their respective hadiths is strong, and cannot be dismissed merely by appealing to some general supposition that CLs were merely the first systematic collectors and disseminators of hadiths.

It is also worth noting that two different issues have been conflated in the aforementioned criticism from Twitter: “The general notion [1] a common link is always a forger and [2] the isnad from them to the prophet (saw) is fiction.”[197] The second point is even more baffling in this context. In contrast to his more sanguine approach to CLs, Motzki certainly never argued—here or elsewhere—that pre-CL isnads reaching all the way back to the Prophet are always or even generally reliable.[198] Even if he had, however, it would change nothing in this context: once again, the evidence that both al-Awzāʿī and Yaḥyá created their respective hadiths is strong, and cannot be dismissed merely by appealing to some general supposition that pre-CL isnads are reliable all the way back to the Prophet.

Of course, it may be that the criticism under consideration was not directed against my research, but instead at anyone (i.e., other than me) who adheres to “the general notion a common link is always a forger”. If so, no harm done: the criticism applies to others, with no bearing on my research.

In sum: (1) in my original blog article and in the present blog article, I have argued not that CLs are axiomatically the creators of their Hadiths, but rather, that CLs can be identified as the creators of their hadiths in some cases; (2) Motzki’s criticisms of Juynboll’s axiom that CLs are the creators of their hadiths are thus irrelevant; (3) Motzki himself was actually open to the possibility that CLs were the creators of their hadiths in some cases; and (4) Motzki’s general suppositions about CLs would not in any case overcome the specific evidence that al-Awzāʿī and Yaḥyá were the creators of their respective hadiths.

Summary

We have covered quite a lot of ground in our revaluation of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s “Antichrist” hadith, now taking into account a related hadith attributed to his teacher Yaḥyá and all of the attendant evidence and historical considerations. In the final analysis, however, nothing has changed: al-ʾAwzāʿī remains the most likely candidate for being the creator of his hadith. To summarise the key facts from the foregoing:

• The ʿĪsawiyyah were a Jewish messianic movement that arose (probably c. 127-132/744-750) and rebelled (probably c. 136-158/754-775) in Isfahan under the leadership of a messianic figure named ʾAbū ʿĪsá.
• This corresponds closely to the content of the eschatological hadiths associated with the CLs al-ʾAwzāʿī and Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr, according to which the Prophet predicted that the Jews of Isfahan would follow the Antichrist.
• The end of Yaḥyá’s life (d. 129-132/746-750) overlapped with the era of the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah (c. 127-132/744-750), whilst the end of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s life (d. 151-157/768-774) overlapped with both the era of their rise and the era of their rebellion (c. 136-158/754-775).
• Yaḥyá’s native Basrah was closely connected to Isfahan, and Yaḥyá in turn remained closely connected to Basrah even after he moved to al-Yamāmah, continuing to transmit to his Basran students.
• al-ʾAwzāʿī’s native Syria—which contained large Jewish communities linked to those in Isfahan—was likely buzzing with news of the ʿĪsawiyyah during their rise and especially their rebellion, and the ʿĪsawiyyah were probably spreading to these Jewish communities already during al-ʾAwzāʿī’s own lifetime.
• Yaḥyá’s putative sources for his eschatological hadith are chronologically impossible, not to mention geographically less expected than he to be hadith’s creator.
• al-ʾAwzāʿī’s putative direct sources for his eschatological hadith are geographically and/or chronologically less likely than he to be the hadith’s creator; and his penultimate and ultimate cited sources for the hadith are chronologically impossible.
• Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī both seemingly disseminated hadiths about the ʿĪsawiyyah, and Yaḥyá was one of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s major teachers, which is probably not a coincidence.
• The reworking and recycling of existing prophetic material to make new prophecies was extremely common in eschatological contexts across history; and, as it happens, there are various overlaps between the elements and wordings in Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s eschatological hadiths and other eschatological hadiths, associated above all with Basrah.
• The remaining eschatological hadiths that contain some of the distinctive elements from al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith are all isolated transmissions recorded in later sources that are contradicted by co-transmissions or parallel versions of the same hadiths that lack said elements.

The best explanation for all of this—what actually explains all of this, whilst also aligning wherever possible to established background knowledge, parsimony, etc.—is that (1) Yaḥyá learned of the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah towards the end of his life (c. 127-132/744-750) and incorporated a reference to them—alongside other, existing eschatological elements—into a new eschatological hadith that he transmitted to some Basran students; that (2) al-ʾAwzāʿī was subsequently motivated by the spread of the ʿĪsawiyyah into his native Syrian milieu (c. 136-158/754-775) to distil the relevant material from Yaḥyá’s hadith—now circulating beyond Yaḥyá’s Basran students—into a shorter and more dedicated reference to the ʿĪsawiyyah, whilst also incorporating other, existing eschatological elements; and that (3) the remaining hadiths that closely correspond to Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths are products of later contamination by Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths, which spread widely.

If a new piece of evidence or consideration emerges that definitively precludes Yaḥyá’s being the creator of his hadith (e.g., definitive proof that he died before the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah), the best explanation at that point—the explanation that would still account as much as possible for all of the relevant evidence, whilst also aligning with our established background knowledge about the frequency of tadlīs, contamination, etc., in early Hadith—would be either (1a) that Yaḥyá disseminated a version of his hadith without any mention of Isfahan, which was only added thereto by multiple later tradents under the common, contaminating influence of al-ʾAwzāʿī’s famous hadith; or (1b) that Yaḥyá’s hadith was created by one his Basran students—living at the time of the rise and rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah—and then borrowed by others, whence it ultimately reached and influenced al-ʾAwzāʿī. In other words, if it turns out that there is not actually a match between Yaḥyá and the ʿĪsawiyyah (e.g., that the former was not operating at the same time as the latter), such a match remains with his PCL-students, to whom all of the relevant considerations still apply.

However, if it is established not only that Yaḥyá could not have created his hadith in reaction to the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah c. 127-132/744-750, but also, that his being a genuine CL is somehow unquestionable, it would be reasonable at that point—in light of the close match between his hadith and the ʿĪsawiyyah—to reject the dominant chronology of the emergence of the ʿĪsawiyyah from al-Šahrastānī in favour of the earlier chronology from al-Qirqisānī: this would have the advantage of still explaining the match between the hadith and the ʿĪsawiyyah, on the one hand; and the match between the ʿĪsawiyyah and the lifetimes and contexts of Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī, on the other. However, on this revised chronology, the arguments in favour of Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī as the most likely candidates for being the creators of their respective hadiths—as opposed to some of their putative sources—would be weaker.

The worst explanations by far would be those that simply ignore or dismiss the close match between the relevant hadiths and the ʿĪsawiyyah; not to mention the compounding match of the dense association of these hadiths with key figures (Yaḥyá, his Basran students, al-ʾAwzāʿī) who just so happen to have lived around the time of the rise and rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah; not to mention the further compounding match of the locations of these figures (Basrah and Syria), being regions that would have been especially connected to, or aware of, the rise and rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah in Isfahan. This is Mount Impassible for those seeking to resist the foregoing conclusions, whose alternative explanations inevitably bottom out at an unconvincing appeal to serial coincidences.[199]

Naturally, there will be those who persist in rejecting the obvious conclusion that these hadiths were created in reference to the ʿĪsawiyyah. However, as will now be clear to anyone who has followed along with the preceding dialectic, the number of paths open to such critics has been considerably reduced. For example, in light of all that has been covered herein, the following lines of argumentation are no longer viable:

• Appealing to the equivocalness of this or that piece of evidence—or offering an alternative interpretation of this or that piece of evidence—will not suffice to refute my explanation, which better explains all of the evidence overall.
• Appealing to some alternative overall explanation for the evidence will not suffice if the explanation in question defies established background knowledge, violates parsimony unnecessarily, requires the supposition of numerous coincidences (i.e., does not really explain the evidence), etc.
• Appealing to the earlier year of death reported for Yaḥyá (i.e., 129 AH) will not suffice to preclude his having created his hadith in response to the ʿĪsawiyyah, since even this earlier date is compatible with his having lived to see the rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah, which is part of the best overall explanation for all of the converging evidence.
• Appealing to the mere fact that Yaḥyá preceded al-ʾAwzāʿī will not suffice to preclude the latter’s having created his hadith, since this is still compatible with an ex-materia creation by al-ʾAwzāʿī, i.e., the sort of thing that I argued for all along.
• Appealing to Maʿmar’s putative transmission from Yaḥyá will not suffice to preclude Yaḥyá’s having created his hadith c. 129-132/747-750, since ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s ascription thereby is uncorroborated, and since Maʿmar clearly acquired material from Yaḥyá from after the latter moved to al-Yamāmah in any case.
• Appealing to a handful of other hadiths containing the distinctive elements found in al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith will not suffice to preclude al-ʾAwzāʿī’s responsibility for originally combining these elements, since the other hadiths in question are all late, isolated, contradicted by co-transmissions of the same hadiths, etc., which is to say: all of them are consistent with having been contaminated by al-ʾAwzāʿī’s famous hadith (and/or Yaḥyá’s hadith).
• Appealing to some element of uncertainty in the overall explanation (for example, the role of an anonymous transmitter) will not suffice to refute said explanation, when the explanation in question is far stronger overall compared to the alternatives, and especially when the uncertain element in question is completely plausible and conforms to established background knowledge, etc.[200]
• Appealing to the fact that ʾAbū ʿĪsá technically did regard himself as the messiah per se—being instead a prophet and the forerunner to the messiah—will not suffice to disassociate Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths from the ʿĪsawiyyah, since the relevant factor in this regard is the popular and outsider perceptions of ʾAbū ʿĪsá, who was widely assumed—by his enemies and his own followers alike—to be a messianic claimant.
• Appealing to the absolute improbability of an occurrence (e.g., the small window of time for Yaḥyá to have created his hadith) will not suffice to refute said occurrence, if said occurrence is still relatively more probable than the coincidental convergence of texts, events, and aptly located people.
• Appealing to the possibility that Yaḥyá might have encountered Yamāmī sources like Ḥaḍramī already during his early travels (e.g., to Madinah) and cited them when he returned home to Basrah, prior to his moving to al-Yamāmah, will not suffice to preclude his having continued to cite Yamāmī sources to his Basran students after he moved to al-Yamāmah, which is not only consistent with the evidence, but also, the more probable explanation for the evidence.[201]

In the end, an ex-eventu creation explanation for the evidence seems unavoidable; and, as things currently stand, it seems most probable that al-ʾAwzāʿī and also Yaḥyá created their respective hadiths in the middle of the 8th Century CE, in response to the rise and/or rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah in Isfahan.

Addendum: Yaḥyá’s Reputation

In my original blog article, I noted the contrast between al-ʾAwzāʿī’s sterling reputation in traditional Sunnī Hadith scholarship, on the one hand, and the historical and contextual evidence pointing to his being the creator of a hadith, on the other. In what follows, I will also summarise the reputation of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr in the relevant literature, although the contrast in this case—between Yaḥyá’s reputation and the evidence that he created a hadith—is not as stark: as it turns out, Yaḥyá’s reputation was somewhat mixed or varied.

To begin with, Yaḥyá was recognised as one of the most prolific Hadith transmitters in the early period, appearing with greater frequency in isnads than most of his contemporaries. Yaḥyá was thus categorised—alongside five of his famous peers—as an “axis” (madār) of Hadith, in a famous statement by the Basran Hadith critic Ibn al-Madīnī (d. 234/849):

I examined [the Hadith corpus], and lo! The isnad revolves (yadūru) around six [people]: of the People of Madinah, Ibn Šihāb [al-Zuhrī]… and of the People of Makkah, ʿAmr b. Dīnār… and of the People of Basrah, Qatādah b. Diʿāmah al-Sadūsī… and Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr… and of the People of Kufah, ʾAbū ʾIsḥāq [al-Sabīʿī]… and Sulaymān b. Mihrān [al-ʾAʿmaš]…[202]

Yaḥyá was not just prolific, but also deemed to be reliable by some leading Hadith critics: according to al-ʿIjlī (Kufan; d. 261/874-875), he was “reliable (ṯiqah)” and “good in Hadith (ḥasan al-ḥadīṯ)”;[203] according to ʾAbū Ḥātim (Rāzī; d. 277/890), he was “a leading scholar (ʾimām) [who] only transmitted from reliable [tradents] (lā yuḥaddiṯu ʾillā ʿan ṯiqah)”;[204] and according to al-Ḏahabī (Syrian; d. 748/1348), he was “a leading scholar (al-ʾimām); a great memoriser [of Hadith] (al-ḥāfiẓ); one of the luminaries (ʾaḥad al-ʾaʿlām).”[205] Likewise, according ʾAbū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī (275/889), the student of ʾAḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ḥanbal (Baghdadi; d. 241/855):

I heard ʾAḥmad say: “Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr was reliable (ṯiqah), trustworthy (maʾmūn).” And I heard ʾAḥmad mention [him] another time, then he said: “Excellent (baḵ baḵ)! [He was] extremely judicious in selecting Hadith (naqiyy al-ḥadīṯ jidd^an).” And he began to praise him profusely. ʾAḥmad [also] said: “We almost never discovered anything [problematic] in his Hadith (lā nakādu najidu fī ḥadīṯi-hi šayʾ^an)!”[206]

Yaḥyá was also compared favourably to other leading Hadith transmitters—above all, Ibn Šihāb al-Zuhrī (Madino-Syrian; d. 123-125/740-743). Thus, according to Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah (Kufo-Meccan; d. 198/814), the eminent Basran Hadith scholar ʾAyyūb al-Saḵtiyānī (d. 131-132/748-750) stated: “I know of no one after al-Zuhrī who was more knowledgeable regarding the Hadith of the People of Madinah than Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr.”[207] Meanwhile, Ibn Ḥanbal reportedly stated:

{Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr} was the most precise of the people (ʾaṯbat min al-nās); only he, along with al-Zuhrī and Yaḥyá b. Saʿīd, are counted [as such]; and whenever al-Zuhrī contradicts him, the [correct] statement is the statement of Yaḥyá {b. ʾabī Kaṯīr}.[208]

Similarly, it is reported that Šuʿbah b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 160/777) “used to prioritise (yuqaddimu) Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr over al-Zuhrī,”[209] and that he also stated: “The Hadith of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr are better (ʾaḥsan) than the Hadith of al-Zuhrī.”[210]

However, according to some authorities, Yaḥyá transmitted some “loose” (mursal) hadiths, which is to say: he transmitted some hadiths without specifying exactly from whom he had received them, thereby leaving a gap in the isnad. For example, according to Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim (Rāzī; d. 327/938): “He transmitted from ʾAnas [b. Mālik] loosely (mursal^an) [i.e., without citing intermediary sources]. He witnessed ʾAnas praying in the Sacred Mosque, but he did not hear [any hadiths directly] from him.”[211] Such hadiths were judged harshly by some early Hadith critics—for example, Ibn al-Madīnī (Basran; d. 234/849) reportedly declared: “The loose hadiths (mursalāt) of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr are like wind (šibh al-rīḥ) [i.e., worthless].”[212] Alternatively, it was Ibn al-Madīnī’s teacher, Yaḥyá b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān (Basran; d. 198/813), who stated: “The loose transmissions (mursalāt) of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr are like wind (šibh al-rīḥ) [i.e., worthless].”[213] Alternatively, according to Ibn ʾabī Ḵayṯamah (Baghdadi; d. 279/892):

ʿAlī [b. al-Madīnī] claimed that he asked Yaḥyá [b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān] about the hadith of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr, from Sawwār al-Kūfī, from Ibn Masʿūd, regarding coitus interruptus. He said: “[It is] nothing (lā šayʾ) [i.e., worthless].” And Yaḥyá [also] said: “The loose hadiths (mursalāt) of Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr are nothing (lā šayʾ) [i.e., worthless].”[214]

There is even an anecdote about Yaḥyá’s mursalāt that was transmitted by ʿAbd al-Ṣamad b. ʿAbd al-Wāriṯ (Basran; d. 206-207/821-823), from his father (Basran; d. 180/796), from Yaḥyá’s student Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim (Basran; d. c. 150/767). According to the version of this anecdote recorded by ʾAbū Bakr b. ʾabī al-ʾAswad (Basran; d. 223/838):

ʿAbd al-Ṣamad b. ʿAbd al-Wāriṯ reported to us, from his father, from Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim, who said: “We said to Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr: ‘These loose reports (al-mursalāt): from whom [did you get] them?’ He said: ‘Do you believe that a man took some ink and a page {and then} wrote falsehoods about/from the Messenger of God?!’ I said: ‘Henceforth, whenever [an improperly-sourced hadith] like this comes along, inform us!’ He said: ‘Whenever I say, “It was related to me (balaḡa-nī)…”, then verily, [the hadith is question is] from a book.’”[215]

Another version of this anecdote was recorded by al-ʿUqaylī (Meccan; d. 322/933-934), from Yaḥyá b. ʿUṯmān b. Ṣāliḥ (Egyptian; d. 288/901), from Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād (Marwazī; d. 228-229/842-844), from ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, as follows:

Yaḥyá related to us—he said: “Nuʿaym related to us: ‘ʿAbd al-Ṣamad related to us, from his father, from Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim, who said: “We said to Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr: ‘Verily, you relate [hadiths] to us from people whom you never met, and from whom you did not hear [anything]!’ He said: ‘You believe that a book was created with paper and an inkwell, and then falsehoods were written therein?!’ Then I said: ‘[Regardless,] do not do that!’”’”[216]

According to both versions of this scenario, Yaḥyá was confronted by some of his students about his transmission of some hadiths from undisclosed sources; according to one version, the students demanded that he identify the sources in question; according to both versions, Yaḥyá reacted defensively, assuming that he—or else his unnamed source—was suspected of having fabricated such hadiths; according to both versions, the students demanded a change in Yaḥyá’s practice of citing some hadiths without properly disclosing their sources; and, according to one version, Yaḥyá clarified the transmissional terminology (balaḡa-nī) that would indicate the instances in which he was failing to cite his sources.

The foregoing leaves unspecified the reason for Yaḥyá’s omission of his sources, but some Hadith critics seem to have regarded it as intentional, criticising it as a form of “deception” (tadlīs). Thus, according to al-ʿUqaylī, “he was mentioned for [having engaged in] deception (ḏukira bi-al-tadlīs)”;[217] according to ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Nasāʾī (Ḵurāsānī; d. 303/915), he was one of “those who engaged in deception” (al-mudallisīn)”;[218] and according to ʿAlī b. ʿUmar al-Dāraquṭnī (Baghdadi; d. 385/995), he was “well known for [engaging in] deception (maʿrūf bi-al-tadlīs)”[219] and “would engage in deception frequently (yudallisu kaṯīr^an).”[220] In particular, Yaḥyá was believed by some Hadith critics to have intentionally omitted or suppressed intermediary sources between himself and the Companions of the Prophet—thus, according to Muḥammad b. Ḥibbān al-Bustī (Ḵurāsānī; d. 354/965):

He used to engage in deception (kāna yudallisu). Every time he transmitted from ʾAnas, he engaged in deceptive transmission from him (dallasa ʿan-hu). He did not hear anything [directly] from ʾAnas, nor from any Companion.[221]

Likewise:

There is no soundness (lā yaṣiḥḥu) to his [apparent] hearing [of hadiths] from ʾAnas b. Mālik, nor anyone else from amongst the Companions: all of these are deceptively-transmitted reports (tilka kullu-hā ʾaḵbār mudallasah).[222]

The extent of Yaḥyá’s deceptive practices is illustrated in an anecdote from his student Hammām b. Yaḥyá (Basran; d. 163-164/779-781), which is recorded in several versions. According to one version, recorded by al-ʿUqaylī:

Yaḥyá b. ʿUṯmān related to us: “Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād related to us: ‘Ibn al-Mubārak related to us, from Hammām, who said: “It was like Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr would relate a hadith in the morning, then, in the evening, he would invert it [and make it seem as if he received it] from us.”’”[223]

According to another version, also recorded by al-ʿUqaylī:

Muḥammad b. ʾIsmāʿīl related to us: “Al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī related to us: ‘Yazīd b. Hārūn related to us: “Hammām related to us—he said: ‘I did not see [anyone whose] face was stiffer [i.e., with a more inscrutable poker face] (ʾaṣlab wajh^an) than Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr: we would relate a hadith to him in the morning, then the evening would roll around, then he would relate it [back] to us!’”’”[224]

Finally, another version—this time without explicit mention of Hammām—is recorded in ʾAbū al-ʿAbbās Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb al-ʾAṣamm (Ḵurāsānī; d. 346/957-958)’s recension of al-ʿAbbās b. Muḥammad al-Dūrī (Baghdadi; d. 271/884)’s recension of the Taʾrīḵ of Yaḥyá b. Maʿīn (Baghdadi; d. 233/848), as follows:

I heard al-ʿAbbās [al-Dūrī] say: “One of the scholars of Hadith said: ‘I have never seen a man like Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr: we would relate a hadith to him in the morning, and he would relate it back to us in the evening! I.e., he would engage in deception (yudallisu).’”[225]

Of course, such an anecdote should be taken with a grain of salt: the assertion that Yaḥyá would steal his students’ hadiths and then transmit these hadiths back to said students on the very same day need not be taken literally. However, setting aside such hyperbolic language and rhetorical flourishes, the Criterion of Dissimilarity—in light of Yaḥyá’s influence and status—favours the historicity of the gist preserved in common by these reports: according to one of Yaḥyá’s students, Yaḥyá would take hadiths from his own students and then pass them off as his own, thereby omitting said students from the isnad—one of the worst kinds of tadlīs.

Of course, Yaḥyá was not—as far as I am aware—accused of “fabricating” hadiths (waḍʿ or kaḏib), or in other words: a gap still remains between his reputation, on the one hand, and the historical and contextual evidence that he created a hadith, on the other. Still, it is of interest that Yaḥyá reportedly received material from his students and then transmitted it back to them; that he omitted his direct sources for some hadiths; that all of this was deemed to be a product of “deception” (tadlīs); and that he was thus included in al-ʿUqaylī’s “Book of Weak Tradents” (Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ). The gap between Yaḥyá’s reputation and the historical and contextual evidence is thus far smaller than in al-ʾAwzāʿī’s case, although it remains, nonetheless.

To reconcile this gap, we might infer that Yaḥyá merely interpolated or tampered with an existing hadith that he really did otherwise receive—in one form or another—from his cited source, inserting therein a reference to the ʿĪsawiyyah: such an “addition” (ziyādah) or “insertion” (ʾidrāj) would constitute a lesser act of dishonesty in the eyes of the later Hadith critics, without necessarily rising to the level of waḍʿ or kaḏib. Alternatively, we might simply infer that the later Hadith critics underestimated or downplayed Yaḥyá’s dishonesty or unreliability—indeed, the last-mentioned process may lie behind ʾAbū Ḥātim’s previously mentioned insistence that Yaḥyá only transmitted from reliable tradents, since this would serve to alleviate the seriousness of his failure to properly cite his sources.[226]

Of course, if we trust the anecdotes and judgements of the Hadith critics outlined above, there is another way to reconcile all of this: an anonymous Basran contemporary created or interpolated this hadith and transmitted it to Yaḥyá, who then omitted this source and passed it off as his own hadith (i.e., in an act of ʾirsāl or tadlīs). However, the fact that Yaḥyá was probably based in al-Yamāmah at this point, and that he cited a Yamāmī source for this hadith, complicates matters: if Yaḥyá had simply borrowed this hadith from a visiting Basran (e.g., one of his students), this would entail that his student had cited one of Yaḥyá’s Yamāmī sources independently of Yaḥyá himself, which seems odd. This would only make sense if the scenario was one of “prompting” (talqīn), wherein a Basran student somehow convinced Yaḥyá to a transmit a hadith on the authority of one of Yaḥyá’s masters that Yaḥyá himself had not actually transmitted therefrom. Given how complicated all of this is becoming, it would probably be easier to just cut through the Gordian Knot and posit that Yaḥyá himself was responsible for this hadith, despite the fact that he was not viewed as a “fabricator” (kaḏḏāb) by the later Hadith critics.

Finally, it is worth noting that, even for the Hadith critics, eschatological hadiths—not to mention non-doctrinal hadiths more broadly—were regarded as generally less reliable, or as subject to lower standards or lesser scrutiny. For example, al-Ḵaṭīb al-Baḡdādī recorded the following frank statement from Ibn Ḥanbal:

Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Qaṭṭān al-Naysābūrī related to us verbally: “Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Ḥāfiẓ reported to us—he said: ‘I heard ʾAbū Zakariyyāʾ Yaḥyá b. Muḥammad al-ʿAnbarī say: “I heard ʾAbū al-ʿAbbās ʾAḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sijzī say: ‘I heard al-Nawfalī—meaning ʾAbū ʿAbd Allāh—say: “I heard ʾAḥmad b. Ḥanbal say: ‘When we transmit [reports] from the Prophet (ﷺ) about what is permissible (al-ḥalāl), what is forbidden (al-ḥarām), precedents (al-sunan), and legal rulings (al-ʾaḥkām), we are stringent (tašaddadnā) regarding isnads; but when we transmit [reports] from the Prophet (ﷺ) about the merits of good deeds (faḍāʾil al-ʾaʿmāl), or that which neither establishes nor abolishes a legal ruling (ḥukm), we are lax (tasāhalnā) towards isnads.’”’”’”[227]

Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah stated the following, again citing Ibn Ḥanbal:

As for hadiths [regarding] the cause of revelation (ʾaḥādīṯ sabab al-nuzūl), most of them are mursal [i.e., discontinuous in their isnads], not musnad [i.e., continuous or unbroken in their isnads]. In this regard, Imam ʾAḥmad b. Ḥanbal said: “Three [bodies] of knowledge have no isnad (ṯalāṯ ʿulūm lā ʾisnāda la-hā)…” And in [another] wording: “[Three bodies of knowledge] have no [proper] source (laysa la-hā ʾaṣl): Quranic exegesis (al-tafsīr); Prophetical biography (al-maḡāzī); and [End Times] tribulations (al-malāḥim).” Meaning: that the hadiths thereon are mursal.[228]

Perhaps it is not surprising then that even a respected tradent like Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr—or, for that matter, al-ʾAwzāʿī—would create or seriously interpolate a hadith in a domain such as eschatology: it would seem that the later Hadith critics were more forgiving—or simply did not look very closely—in such domains. In the end, then, there might not be much of a gap—between Yaḥyá’s reputation and the evidence that he created a hadith—at all.

Similar considerations may apply to the formal judgments of the Hadith critics regarding Yaḥyá’s hadith. For example, the very fact of the hadith’s inclusion by Ibn Ḥibbān in his Kitāb al-Musnad al-Ṣaḥīḥ implies that he judged it to be “sound” (ṣaḥīḥ), whilst the following judgement was given by Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. ʾabī Bakr al-Hayṯamī (Egyptian; d. 807/1404-1405): “ʾAḥmad [b. Ḥanbal] transmitted it; and its tradents are [all established] transmitters of sound [hadiths in the canon] (rijāl al-ṣaḥīḥ), other than al-Ḥaḍramī b. Lāḥiq, but he was [still] reliable (ṯiqah).”[229] In light of the results of the historical-critical analysis undertaken throughout the present article, it would seem that, in this case at least, the early Sunnī system of Hadith criticism was ineffective: whether due to its lax application in domains such as eschatology; or due to an underlying problem with the system itself; or due to a combination of both.

Postscript:

One of the Twitter users mentioned in the foregoing (@KerrDepression) has posted another thread criticising the present article (here), but the criticisms in question are (1) already pre-empted herein and/or (2) completely unconvincing:

• Firstly (here and ff.), KD doubles down on their denial of the obvious connection between Yaḥyá’s hadith, on the grounds that the hadith is not solely dedicated to the ʿĪsawiyyah, but instead integrates them into an existing eschatological framework. As was already noted repeatedly in the foregoing, the reworking and adaption of older eschatological material is commonplace in eschatological Hadith and similar contexts, so it comes as no surprise that Yaḥyá integrated his own ʿĪsawiyyah-related formulation into an existing network of motifs that appear in other eschatological hadiths. Needless to say, this does nothing to dispel the convergences and matches that I outlined above.
  
  

• Secondly (here), KD suggests that Yaḥyá would have used a shorter isnad for a fabrication. This might make sense if Yaḥyá (1) created the hadith ex-nihilo (rather than reworking and expanding an existing transmission) and (2) was obsessively concerned with isnad shortness (like the later Hadith critics); but there is no reason to adopt either assumption here.
  
  

• PPS: For some examples of major distortions and reworkings of existing transmissions (i.e., leaving in place an original isnad), see my PhD dissertation [unabridged], e.g., pp. 341-343, 253-254, 200, 256-257. Other examples can also be found in the anthology of contaminated hadiths discussed above; and in the “Black Banners” material discussed at variously points herein, which I will explore in more detail in future work.
• PPS: There are plenty of hadiths that even the Hadith critics accepted as “fabricated” (mawḍūʿ) that do not use the shortest available isnads, including the pro-Hashimid hadith discussed above, and some of the famous anti-Baghdad hadiths discussed in Juynboll, Muslim tradition, pp. 207 ff. This suggests not that such hadiths are actually authentic, but that the desire for shortness, though it undoubtedly existed in some form already in the early period (as I myself have argued elsewhere), was not yet systematic or universal. Either way, false hadiths can, and in many cases do, have uneconomical isnads, so the presence of an uneconomical cannot be adduced to disprove a hadith’s falsity.
• PPS: KD (here) points out that, on my scenario, al-ʾAwzāʿī gave his hadith a shorter isnad (i.e., al-ʾAwzāʿī—ʾIsḥāq—ʾAnas—Prophet) than Yaḥyá’s (i.e., Yaḥyá—Ḥaḍramī—ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ—ʿĀʾišah—Prophet), which is allegedly inconsistent with my skepticism of KD’s prior assumption that Yaḥyá was obsessed with isnad shortness. This of course proves nothing: it might well be that al-ʾAwzāʿī was more interested in isnad shortness, since the pressure for shorter isnads evidently increased over time and al-ʾAwzāʿī belonged to a later generation; or it might well be that al-ʾAwzāʿī simply wanted a new isnad for his new hadith and happened to cite one that was slightly shorter than Yaḥyá’s. Either way, this is a weak objection. A more interesting objection would be one that acknowledges that al-ʾAwzāʿī initially cited a non-Prophetical isnad for his hadith (i.e., al-ʾAwzāʿī—ʾIsḥāq—ʾAnas) and then raised it back to the Prophet (i.e., al-ʾAwzāʿī—ʾIsḥāq—ʾAnas—Prophet) in subsequent iterations, since this would mean that al-ʾAwzāʿī initially replaced Yaḥyá’s superior (Prophetical) isnad with his own inferior (Companion) isnad. However, once again, a solution is already given my article, in Part 7: al-ʾAwzāʿī may have been influenced by Yaḥyá’s opinion (a version of which was recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq), given the much closer similarity in wording between al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith and said opinion. In this scenario, al-ʾAwzāʿī would effectively be adapting and giving an isnad to a statement (i.e., without an isnad) rather than a hadith, which would eliminate the puzzle of his replacing a superior isnad with an inferior isnad.
  
  
  
• Thirdly (here and ff.), KD doubles down on their assertion that the creation of an anti-ʿĪsawī hadith would not have made sense in context (e.g., for both Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī), because the historical ʾAbū ʿĪsá was not reportedly one-eyed, etc. Such assertions are already effectively countered in Part 1, e.g., the example of Ibn Ṣayyād, who was reportedly not one-eyed either, but who was depicted as the Antichrist in various false stories nonetheless. Moreover, there is no reason to think that Yaḥyá or anyone else would have known what ʾAbū ʿĪsá actually looked like, so the absence of surviving reports of ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s eyes, etc., cannot be taken seriously as a counterargument.
  
  

• PPS: Pace KD (here), Ibn Ṣayyād’s being one-eyed appears to be a secondary development in the relevant material (being absent from much of it, and even being explicitly contradicted in some reports), as argued by Halperin (cited in n. 180), or in other words: it still looks like someone who was not actually one-eyed was identified as the Antichrist. Additionally, as I again noted already, Muslims continued to create and elaborate stories depicting him as the Antichrist long after his reported death in Madinah (again, see Halperin et al., not to mention the examples cited above in Part 9), which is yet another case in which someone who in many reports does not seem to strictly match expected Antichrist criteria was nevertheless identified as the Antichrist. More broadly, KD (e.g., here) misses the basic point: we undeniably have cases of people who seemingly did not conform to expected Antichrist criteria, but who were nevertheless called the Antichrist. Whether Yaḥyá et al. rationalised ʾAbū ʿĪsá in a similar way to some later scholars regarding Ibn Ṣayyād (e.g., that he had not yet assumed full Antichrist form), or in some other way, or never really thought it through, is a moot point. Additionally, given that Yaḥyá would have been responding to the initial rise of the ʿĪsawiyyah, it cannot be asserted (contra here) that Yaḥyá would have believed that ʾAbū ʿĪsá the Antichrist had fully come into his power; on the contrary, he had not yet rebelled, so it is entirely possible for Yaḥyá to have adopted a similar rationalisation to the one adopted for Ibn Ṣayyād (i.e., that he was the Antichrist in the making). Once again, the same basic error discussed above in Part 1 emerges: you cannot block the best explanation (post-facto creation) for the strongest evidence (the remarkable match of hadith-content, key tradents, time, and place) merely by speculating some specific incompatible mindset or interpretation (e.g., on Yaḥyá’s part).
• PPS: In fact, I presume that the overwhelming majority of those who have been identified or referred to as the Antichrist across history, in both Christian and Muslim contexts, have not been literally one-eyed or have not otherwise strictly matched expected Antichrist criteria. This includes ʾAbū Yazīd the Kharijite (so-called by the Fatimids);[230] the Mongols in general (so-called by a Saljuq poet);[231] Timur Leng in particular (so-called by Ibn ʿArabšāh);[232] the British colonial government in Sudan in general (so-called by the Mahdists);[233] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (so-called by a local Indian opponent);[234] Ataturk (suspected of such by some Nurcu);[235] and so on. (At least Moshe Dayan, suspected of such by Maryam Jameelah,[236] was famously one-eyed…) There is no escaping this basic point: people can be, and repeatedly have been, called the Antichrist without strictly matching expected Antichrist criteria, so finding a way in which someone did not strictly match expected Antichrist criteria does not preclude their having been identified as the Antichrist. (The same point can be made with the endless succession of putative Mahdis across Islamic history.)
• PPS: To this can be added other cases of historical figures who were integrated into eschatological scenarios and depicted in ways that do not strictly match their historical properties (e.g., being depicted as a beast). For some examples from Jewish and Christian history, see here and here. Once again, we find that the creators of eschatological material were not constrained by the more mundane realities of their subjects or sources of inspiration, or to put it another way: it would be silly to deny that the relevant historical figures were the intended referents in such eschatological material on the grounds that they were not actual beasts, etc.
• PPS: The foregoing is strengthened by the fact that, across the Hadith corpus, there are numerous contradictory reports about the Antichrist (e.g., see Cook, Studies). Some of these were probably created in ignorance of each other, but there was presumably also considerable disregard for existing traditions, or in other words: once again, it seems like people often did not feel constrained by existing eschatological traditions, adapting them for new purposes and contexts when it suited them.
  
  

• Fourthly (here and ff.), KD again appeals to coincidence, disregarding the convergences and matches outlined above.
  
  

• Fifthly (here), KD asserts that, if material was created against the ʿĪsawiyyah, there should have been similar creations against other figures. This is highly questionable: there is no reason to think that the motive to create such material was equally strong at all times and in all places; and there are presumably personal circumstances involved in any given case that complicate such outcomes, which we have no access to. In short, there is no reason to think that the false creation of material was always systematic or programmatic. Moreover, it could easily be the case that material initially directed against earlier figures was eclipsed by material directed against similar, more recent figures. Either way, none of this suffices to dispel the remarkable match in hadith-content, CLs, time, and place, outlined above.
  
  

• PPS: There are going to be many cases in which one thing inspires a false prophecy that survives, but a similar thing in a similar context does not. (For example, the tyrannical Umayyad governor al-Ḥajjāj al-Ṯaqafī is clearly singled out in multiple prophecy hadiths, whereas most other tyrannical governors are not.) It would be silly to deny the former due to the latter’s absence.
  
  

• Sixthly (here), KD suggests that Hadith are much more reliable than the historical sources reporting on the ʿĪsawiyyah, since the latter involve anonymous sources, preservation in later sources, etc. There are a number of problems here: (1) Hadith were subject to a much more intensive regime of falsifying pressures than other historical sources, as myself and others have repeatedly noted; (2) the basic facts of ʾAbū ʿĪsá and the ʿĪsawiyyah, not to mention the movement’s continuous existence into later centuries, are attested by both Islamic and Jewish historical sources in multiple languages and regions (cited by Anthony, Wasserstrom, and others), such that “there is no question that they existed as a far-flung, discrete Jewish sect for at least three centuries, perhaps for four or five” (Wasserstrom, Between Muslim and Jew, p. 89); (3) the origins of the ʿĪsawiyyah in the activities of ʾAbū ʿĪsá at some point in the Umayyad period—either in the middle or at the very end—is also co-attested by sources (al-Qirqisānī and al-Šahrastānī) that seem to be otherwise independent (e.g., disagreeing on whether ʾAbū ʿĪsá operated in the middle or at the very end of the Umayyad period and into the Abbasid period); and (4) their specific date of emergence is certainly open to debate (e.g., in contrast to the date of the Hashimid Revolution), but as was noted already, Anthony, Wasserstrom, and others have adduced corroborating contextual evidence for al-Šahrastānī’s dating (i.e., corroborating the origins of the ʿĪsawiyyah in the politico-religious foment and tendencies of the middle of the 8th Century CE). Of course, regardless of whether one accepts the mid-Umayyad report or the late-Umayyad report, the basic implications—for the falsity of the relevant hadiths—remains: this was the whole point of Part 8.
  
  

• PPS: Cook, Studies, p. 116 (which I cited in n. 13) cites various sources with examples and descriptions of classical Muslim scholars (e.g., Ibn Kaṯīr) who affirmed the position Ibn Ṣayyād was merely a lesser antichrist or one of the many antichrists and not the Antichrist proper. As I already pointed out in n. 13, this proves that it is possible for someone to interpret or understand a figure referred to in a hadith as “the Antichrist” as merely “an antichrist” or “one of the antichrists”, which in turn means that it is possible that al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith did not intend to the Antichrist proper. KD (here ff.) counterargues that the Antichrist proper was the intended reference in the relevant Ibn Ṣayyād hadiths, which certainly seems reasonable to me, but entirely misses the original point: some Muslims have reinterpreted statements about al-dajjāl as actually referring to “a lesser antichrist” or “one of the many antichrists”, ergo, it is possible for someone to refer to a lesser antichrist as al-dajjāl. I fully agree that the cases I am citing from Cook are later reinterpretations, as I noted indicated in n. 13; but the possibility generated thereby remains, nonetheless. Nothing KD has said removes this possibility, which is also generated by early reports about the existence of multiple antichrists (al-dajjūlūn), again mentioned in n. 13. Of course, I agree with KD that this interpretation certainly does not apply in the case of Yaḥyá’s hadith, which is unequivocally about the Antichrist proper: it was in reference to al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadith that this possibility was raised, in Part 1. Moreover, even in al-ʾAwzāʿī’s case, I agree—and again already indicated n. 13—that this is one of the less likely options; but again, it remains a possibility and is thus worth mentioning as such.

PPPS:

• Another user (@Tahir_X_) has added to the foregoing with his own critical thread (here). This thread operates within a historical-critical framework for the sake of argument, which I appreciate; but the criticisms remain unconvincing, nonetheless. To begin with, T (here and ff.) asserts that I have merely stipulated (i.e., without any real basis) a connection between the hadiths under consideration and the ʿĪsawiyyah. In this respect, T simply disregards the strong match, outlined across my article, between (1) a false messianic figure (2) with a large Jewish following (3) in Isfahan (4) at the same time as the relevant CLs (5) who were also from regions especially connected to Isfahan or its Jewish communities and (6) transmitted hadiths describing the Antichrist as being followed by the Jews of Isfahan.
• Beyond this, T (here and ff.) argues that, because the ʿĪsawiyyah rebelled against the Abbasid-controlled caliphal state, a hadith created against the ʿĪsawiyyah would thus be pro-Abbasid; and because al-ʾAwzāʿī was pro-Umayyad or at least Umayyad-sympathetic, or in a pro-Umayyad region more broadly, he would not have created such a pro-Abbasid hadith. Immediately, this line of argumentation suffers from the kind of problem already discussed above in Part 1: it attempts to overturn strong evidence (the close match in contents, date, location, and tradents) with unnecessary speculation about the mindset of the hadith’s putative creator, who could actually have approached the issue in a number of ways. For example, whilst the hadith is undoubtedly anti-ʿĪsawī in the sense that it assumes them to be a phenomenon relatable to the Antichrist, the hadith could simply be a vehicle for al-ʾAwzāʿī’s own End Times speculations, inspired by the ʿĪsawiyyah rather than directed against them per se. Once again, this possibility was already discussed in Part 1, above.
• Even setting that aside, the assertion that an anti-ʿĪsawī hadith would thereby be pro-Abbasid makes little sense in historical context. Firstly, many early Muslims could—and famously did—criticise rebellions and uprisings in general without supporting the incumbent dynasty, which immediately proves that criticism of a specific rebellion or uprising (whether expressed in hadith form or otherwise) does not necessarily imply support for the given incumbent dynasty. Secondly, and more importantly, it was common for early Muslims to dislike the incumbent dynasty and also condemn the uprisings and rebellions of (in their eyes) heterodox or heretical Islamic movements. It would be nonsensical to insist, for example, that anti-Kharijite hadiths in an Umayyad context were necessarily pro-Umayyad: it is well known that many early Muslims were vehemently anti-Kharijite and also anti-Umayyad. A-fortiori, it seems mostly unlikely that criticisms of a Jewish rebellion led by a “false prophet” or “false messiah” could be construed as support for the Abbasids per se: such a movement was a military and ideological threat not merely to the Abbasid Dynasty ruling the caliphate, but to the underlying Muslim order. In this context, T’s assumption that criticism of the ʿĪsāwiyyah = support for the Abbasids is the equivalent of assuming that criticism of the Crusaders = support for the Fatimids, etc. Clearly, there were many who condemned both. In short, there is no good reason to assume that an anti-ʿĪsawī hadith = a pro-Abbasid hadith, which means that this entire line of argumentation collapses. (This is not to say that support for groups was not expressed through criticism of their enemies (this of course did happen), but in the context of early Islamic history, this is by no means a given.)
• Finally, T argues (here and ff.) that it is odd that such a pro-Abbasid hadith was created in pro-Umayyad Syria, rather than in the Abbasid heartlands of Iraq and the Persianate East. Immediately, this ignores the fact that I have specifically argued in the present article (e.g., in Part 9) that some anti-ʿĪsawī hadiths were created in Iraq (especially by Basrans, due to their close connections with Isfahan); and that this material was taken up and integrated into other hadiths by their transmitters, including Persians and Easterners. Of course, as we have just seen, T’s assumption that the anti-ʿĪsawī hadiths are pro-Abbasid is improbable and can be set aside accordingly. However, a more interesting question could be derived here: if indeed hadiths were created in Basrah and Syria in response to the ʿĪsawiyyah, why were such hadiths not created closer to ground zero, in Persia or the Persianate East? In fact, we may have such a hadith (i.e., “The Antichrist will emerge from Isfahan”): although I argued in Part 9 that this hadith was created in Persia under the influence of the spreading Basran and Syrian anti-ʿĪsawī material, it could also be argued—given the lesser similarity of its wording with the Basran and Syrian material, compared to the other cases of contamination—that this hadith actually represents a local Persian reaction to the rise of ʾAbū ʿĪsá in Isfahan (i.e., independently of the Basran and Syrian material). Even without this possible example, the absence of autonomous Persian and Eastern reaction-hadiths to the ʿĪsawiyyah (i.e., independently of Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī’s hadiths) is not really surprising: it is well known that the overwhelming majority of surviving hadiths ultimately derive from Iraq, Hijaz, and Syria; and that most influential transmitters of Hadith up until around 800 CE were Iraqis, Hijazis, and Syrians. This means that there is a major survival bias in the material, or in other words: independent Persian hadiths are far less likely to have survived. Certainly, none of this is sufficient to overcome the considerations already enumerated.

At the end of the day, there is no denying the remarkable match outlined in the foregoing: Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī both reportedly transmitted hadiths about how the Antichrist will be followed by the Jews of Isfahan; Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī both reportedly lived at a time (whether mid-Umayyad or late-Umayyad) when a false messianic figure led a Jewish mass-movement in Isfahan; and Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī both lived in environments that were particularly linked to Isfahan. By far the best and simplest explanation for this convergence of evidence is that Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī created their respective hadiths in response to the ʿĪsawiyyah.

PS = 14th/Nov/2024

PPS = 16th/Nov/2024
PPPS = 21st/Nov/2024

* * *

I owe special thanks to Sean Anthony, Hythem Sidky, Saqib Hussain, Elon Harvey, Sadeq Ansari, Yet Another Student, Chonkshonk, Brethren of Purity, and Nighteye, for their feedback on a various aspects of this research.

I also owe thanks to Mehrab, Anthony Wagner, Nuha, al-Baraa El-Hag, CJ Canton, H. M., Marijn van Putten, abcshake, Inquisitive Mind, A.R., Y., and A.O., for their generous support over on Patreon; and to N. and J.C., for their generous support via PayPal.

Anyone else wishing to financially support this blog can do so over on my Patreon (here) or via my PayPal (here).

---

[1] https://x.com/MusslimmMan/status/1618644781575602177

[2] ʾAbū Bakr b. ʾabī Šaybah (ed. Saʿd b. Nāṣir al-Šaṯrī), al-Muṣannaf, vol. 21 (Riyadh, KSA: Dār Kunūz ʾIšbīlyā, 2015), pp. 324-325.

[3] https://x.com/IslamicOrigins/status/1618798841121366017

[4] https://x.com/KerrDepression/status/1784459719890923725

[5] For more on ʾAbū ʿĪsá and the ʿĪsawiyyah, see Israel Friedländer, “Jewish-Arabic Studies” [Part 1], The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1910), pp. 183-215; id., “Jewish-Arabic Studies” [Part 2], The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1912), pp. 481-516; id., “Jewish-Arabic Studies” [Part 3], The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1912), pp. 235-300; Shelomo D. Goitein, Jews and Arabs: Their Contacts Through the Ages (New York, USA: Schocken Books, Inc., 1955), pp. 168-170; Shlomo Pines, “al-ʿĪsāwiyya”, in Emeri J. van Donzel, Bernard Lewis, Charles Pellat, & Clifford E. Bosworth (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume 4: Iran-Kha (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 1978), p. 96; Steven M. Wasserstrom, “The ʿĪsāwiyya Revisited”, Studia Islamica, No. 75 (1992), pp. 57-80; id., Between Muslim and Jew: The Problem of Symbiosis Under Early Islam (Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press, 1995), ch. 2; Yoram Erder, “The Doctrine of Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī and Its Sources”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, Vol. 20 (1996), pp. 162-199; Harris Lenowitz, The Jewish Messiahs: From the Galilee to Crown Heights (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 71-76; Halil İbrahim Bulut, “Îseviyye (İslâm Dünyasında Ortaya Çıkan İlk Yahudi Mezhebi)”, Ekev Akademi Dergisi, Vol. 8, No. 18 (2004), pp. 297-318; Yoram Erder, “Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī”, in Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, & Devin J. Stewart (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2009), online edition; Sean W. Anthony, “Who was the Shepherd of Damascus? The Enigma of Jewish and Messianist Responses to the Islamic Conquests in Marwānid Syria and Mesopotamia”, in Paul M. Cobb (ed.), The Lineaments of Islam: Studies in Honor of Fred McGraw Donner (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2012), pp. 21-59.

[6] For all of the various versions of this hadith, and the references therefor, see my original blog article.

[7] Again, see my original blog article.

[8] The fact that ʾAbū ʿĪsá seems not to have regarded himself as the Messiah, but rather, as a prophet and as the forerunner to the Messiah, is irrelevant in this respect. What matters here is not what he actually said or believed, but how he was popularly perceived, and in this respect, it seems that many assumed or believed that he was a messianic claimant. E.g., Friedländer, “Jewish-Arabic Studies” [III], p. 268: “Abū ʿĪṣa, in this the sources unanimously agree, considered himself merely the precursor, or the Dāʿī of the Messiah, which fact however did not prevent his followers from regarding him as the Messiah himself. When he died, a split was inevitable.” Likewise, see Erder, “The Doctrine of Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī”, p. 184: “The unclear distinction between Abū ʿĪsā as the precursor to the Messiah and as the actual Messiah during his lifetime, in addition to him being declared the Messiah on his death, led both Haddassī and Maimonides to claim that Abū ʿĪsā did indeed proclaim himself to be the Messiah during his lifetime.”

Of interest also is the following from Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī (ed. Clément Huart), Kitāb al-Badʾ wa-al-Taʾrīḵ, vol. 4 (Paris, France: Ernest Leroux, 1907), p. 35, immediately following a description of ʾAbū ʿĪsá: “The Jews of Isfahan claim that the Antichrist will be from amongst them, and [that] he will emerge from their region.” This is repeated in ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī (ed. Ḵalīl al-Manṣūr), Kitāb al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-al-Iʿtibār bi-Ḏikr al-Ḵiṭaṭ wa-al-ʾÂṯār, vol. 4 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1998), p. 386: “The Jews of Isfahan claim that he was the Antichrist, and that he will emerge [again?] from their region.” Wasserstrom, “The ʿĪsāwiyya Revisited”, p. 69, and Erder, “The Doctrine of Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī”, p. 184, n. 117, ostensibly accepted this report as face value, which seemingly indicates that even some local Jews viewed ʾAbū ʿĪsá as a false messiah. Of course, this reported belief is suspiciously similar to the content of the hadiths under consideration, such that there is a good chance that this account of local Jewish attitudes really reflects Muslim attitudes, or at the very least has been coloured (i.e., contaminated or interpolated) by Muslim beliefs and expectations.

[9] Wasserstrom, “The ʿĪsāwiyya Revisited”, p. 79, states that, “from hometown of Nisibis, Abu ʿĪsā took his movement to Iṣfahān.” However, no other source that I have seen thus far seems to mention that the movement started in ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s hometown of Nisibis: instead, they state that ʾAbū ʿĪsá was Isfahanian and then recount his preaching and rebellion, which gives the impression that all of this began in—and flowed forth from—Isfahan. Indeed, even Wasserstrom’s own cited source, al-Ḵwārizmī (cited in ibid., p. 59, n. 8) does not actually state what Wasserstrom states. Cf. Muḥammad b. ʾAḥmad al-Ḵwārizmī (ed. Muḥammad Kamāl al-Dīn al-ʾAdhamī), Mafātīḥ al-ʿUlūm (printed by ʿUṯmān Ḵalīl in Egypt, 1930), p. 24: “The ʿĪsawiyyah trace their origin to [ʾAbū] ʿĪsá al-ʾIṣfahānī. He claimed prophethood amongst the Jews of ʾIṣfahān. He was [originally] from Niṣībīn.” In contrast to Wasserstrom, Erder, “The Doctrine of Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī”, p. 167, gets it right: “The biographical details on Abū ʿĪsā reveal that although he was called Iṣfahānī, and the Muslim sources refer to his sect as Iṣfahāniyya, alongside ʿĪsāwiyya, it seems that he was born in Nisibis. This implies that his appellation derived from Iṣfahān, the place in the western Iranian highlands where he founded his movement.”

[10] https://x.com/KerrDepression/status/1784459764782465503

[11] Friedländer, “Jewish-Arabic Studies” [III], p. 269, n. 331: “It is natural to assume that, when Abū ʿĪsa had been defeated and killed, his adherents, at least some of them, fled to Syria. That there were relations between Syria and Persia is shown by such names of Persian-Jewish sectarians as Baʿlbekki and Ramlī.”

[12] However, cf. Steven C. Judd, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Amr al-Awza’i (Oxford, UK: Oneworld Academic, 2019), ch. 4, who argues that al-ʾAwzāʿī was consistent in his theological thinking, which lessens the probability of this possible explanation compared to others.

[13] Of course, the use of the definite article here might militate against such an interpretation; but it remains a possibility none the less. Indeed, see David Cook, Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic (Princeton, USA: The Darwin Press, Inc., 2002), p. 116, concerning the tendency of many Muslim scholars to interpret Ibn Ṣayyād—who is discussed more below—as an antichrist rather than the Antichrist, despite his being called al-dajjāl—with a definite article—in the relevant hadiths. Of course, the relevant scholars were operating later than al-ʾAwzāʿī, but it does show that such an interpretation is possible in a Hadith context. In fact, the notion of multiple antichrists is clearly early, as attested by the widespread hadith of “the close to thirty lying antichrists (al-dajjūlūn al-kaḏḏābūn qarīb min ṯalāṯīn)” who will precede the Hour, attributed to ʾAbū Hurayrah. See Baššār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, al-Sayyid ʾAbū al-Maʿāṭī Muḥammad al-Nūrī, ʾAḥmad ʿAbd al-Razzāq ʿĪd, ʾAyman ʾIbrāhīm al-Zāmilī, & Maḥmūd Muḥammad Ḵalīl, al-Musnad al-Jāmiʿ, vol. 18 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Jīl, 1993), pp. 393 ff., 414-416.

[14] E.g., Erder, “The Doctrine of Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī”, p. 184.

[15] For more on Ibn Ṣayyād, see below.

[16] Again, see Cook, above.

[17] See also al-Maqrīzī, cited above, for the possibility that ʾAbū ʿĪsá himself continued to be regarded as the Antichrist long after his death.

[18] See Joshua J. Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age: A Study in the Evolution of Early Islamic Historical Memory”, PhD dissertation (University of Oxford, 2023) [unabridged version], esp. pp. 126 ff.

[19] Muḥammad b. Yazīd b. Mājah (ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī), Sunan Ibn Mājah, vol. 2 (Cairo, Egypt: Dār ʾIḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah, n. d.), p. 1366.

[20] Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād (ed. Samīr b. ʾAmīn al-Zuhayrī), Kitāb al-Fitan, vol. 1 (Cairo, Egypt: Maktabat al-Tawḥīd, 1991), pp. 310-311; ʾAbū Bakr b. ʾabī Šaybah (ed. ʿĀdil b. Yūsuf al-ʿAzāzī), Musnad Ibn ʾabī Šaybah, vol. 1 (Riyadh, KSA: Dār al-Waṭan, 1997), pp. 209-210; id., Muṣannaf, XXI, pp. 351-352; ʾAḥmad b. ʿAmr al-Bazzār (ed. ʿĀdil b. Saʿd), al-Baḥr al-Zaḵār al-Maʿrūf bi-Musnad al-Bazzār, vol. 4 (Madinah, KSA: Maktabat al-ʿUlūm wa-al-Ḥikam, 2003), pp. 354-355; Ibn Mājah, Sunan, II, p. 1366; al-Hayṯam b. Kulayb al-Šāšī (ed. Maḥfūẓ al-Raḥmān Zayn Allāh), al-Musnad, vol. 1 (Madinah, KSA: Maktabat al-ʿUlūm wa-al-Ḥikam, 1994), pp. 347, 362; Muḥammad b. ʿAmr al-ʿUqaylī (ed. Māzin b. Muḥammad al-Sarsāwī), Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ, vol. 6 (Cairo, Egypt: Dār Majd al-Islām, 2008), pp. 324-325; Sulaymān b. ʾAḥmad al-Ṭabarānī (ed. Ṭāriq b. ʿIwaḍ Allāh b. Muḥammad & ʿAbd al-Muḥsin b. ʾIbrāhīm al-Ḥusaynī), al-Muʿjam al-ʾAwsaṭ, vol. 6 (Cairo, Egypt: Dār al-Ḥaramayn, 1995), pp. 29-30; ʿUṯmān b. Saʿīd al-Dānī (ed. Riḍāʾ Allāh b. Muḥammad ʾIdrīs al-Mubārakbūrī), al-Sunan al-Wāridah fī al-Fitan wa-Ḡawāʾili-hā wa-Sāʿah wa-ʾAšrāṭi-hā, vol. 5 (Riyadh, KSA: Dār al-ʿĀṣimah, 1416 AH), pp. 1031-1032.

[21] ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAdī al-Qaṭṭān (ed. Māzin b. Muḥammad al-Sarsāwī), al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl, vol. 7 (Riyadh, KSA: Maktabat al-Rušd, 2013), pp. 25-26; Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-Zaḵār, IV, p. 310.

[22] Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī (ed. Muṣṭafá ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā), al-Mustadrak ʿalá al-Ṣaḥīḥayn, vol. 4 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2002), p. 511.

[23] See also Hayrettin Yücesoy, Messianic Beliefs and Imperial Politics in Medieval Islam: The ʿAbbāsid Caliphate in the Early Ninth Century (Columbia, USA: The University of South Carolina Press, 2009), p. 44, and Josef van Ess (trans. Gwendolin Goldbloom), Theology and Society in the Second and Third Centuries of the Hijra: A History of Religious Thought in Early Islam, vol. 2 (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2017), pp. 533, 712. The latter’s suggestion that the hadith was created as pre-emptive propaganda immediately before the revolution (i.e., as part of the general efforts of the Hāšimiyyah leading up to their bid for power) is certainly possible, but requires either: a coincidence, i.e., that the creator correctly guessed that (1) there would be a pro-Hāšimī revolution (2) based in the East (3) donning black (4) that would succeed and (5) give over power to members of the Banū Hāšim; or insider knowledge of the revolutionary plan, which seems implausible for an unimportant Hāšimī mawlá living in Kufah. The easiest explanation is plain old post-facto creation (i.e., during or soon after the revolution), more along the lines suggested by Yücesoy.

[24] I.e., the version recorded by al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, in which the Prophet is made to say: “Then they will hand it [i.e., the caliphate] over to a man from my ʾAhl Bayt, whose forename will coincide with my forename [i.e., Muḥammad], and whose father’s name [will coincide with] my father’s name [i.e., ʿAbd Allāh], then he will rule over the Earth.”

[25] See Van Ess, cited above.

[26] As it happens, the early Sunnī Hadith critics concurred with the conclusion that ʾIbrāhīm did not transmit this hadith, e.g., ʿUqaylī, Ḍuʿafāʾ, VI, pp. 324-325.

[27] For more thereon, see Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], ch. 1.

[28] In other words, the approach here follows Michael A. Cook, “Eschatology and the Dating of Traditions”, Princeton Papers in Near Eastern Studies, vol. 1 (1992), pp. 23-47, whilst also taking into account the criticisms in Andreas Görke, “Eschatology, History, and the Common Link: A Study in Methodology”, in Herbert Berg (ed.), Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2003), pp. 179-208. See also Pavel Pavlovitch, The Formation of the Islamic Understanding of Kalāla in the Second Century AH (718–816 CE): Between Scripture and Canon (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2015), pp. 43-46.

[29] Ibn ʾabī Šaybah, Muṣannaf, XXI, pp. 324-325.

[30] ʾAḥmad b. Ḥanbal (ed. Šuʿayb al-ʾArnaʾūṭ et al.), Musnad al-ʾImām ʾAḥmad bn Ḥanbal, vol. 41 (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, n. d.), pp. 15-16.

[31] ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad (ed. Muḥammad b. Saʿīd al-Qaḥṭānī), al-Sunnah, vol. 2 (al-Dammām, KSA: Dār Ibn Qayyim, 1986), pp. 444, 498.

[32] Muḥammad b. Ḥibbān al-Bustī (ed. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ), al-Iḥsān fī Taqrīb Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, vol. 15 (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1991), pp. 234-235.

[33] Muḥammad b. Mandah (ed. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Faqīhī), Kitāb al-ʾĪmān, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1985), p. 950.

[34] ʾAḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Bayhaqī (ed. ʾAbū ʿĀṣim al-Šawāmī al-ʾAṯarī), Kitāb al-Baʿṯ wa-al-Nušūr (Maktabat Dār al-Ḥijāz, 1436 AH), pp. 180-181.

[35] ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAsākir (ed. ʿUmar b. Ḡaramah al-ʿAmrawī), Taʾrīḵ Madīnat Dimašq, vol. 47 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Fikr, 1995), p. 498.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Nuʿaym, Fitan, II, pp. 546-547, 552.

[38] ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Hammām [& ʾIsḥāq b. ʾIbrāhīm al-Dabarī], al-Muṣannaf, vol. 10, 2nd ed. (Cairo, Egypt: Dār al-Taʾṣīl, 2016), p. 406.

[39] https://x.com/IslamicOrigins/status/1618797744331829248

[40] https://twitter.com/IslamicOrigins/status/1618798841121366017

[41] https://x.com/MusslimmMan/status/1618863623669153793

[42] https://x.com/IslamicOrigins/status/1618871479894155265

[43] Michael A. Cook, Early Muslim Dogma: A Source-critical Study (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 112.

[44] E.g., https://x.com/KerrDepression/status/1784459734105416014 and ff.

[45] Pace Jens J. Scheiner, “Isnād–cum–matn Analysis and Kalāla: Some Critical Reflections”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 139, No. 2 (2019), p. 484.

[46] See also Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], pp. 90-91.

[47] Namely: (1) the particular wording ʿan ʾabī ṣāliḥ; (2) the particular wording ʿan ʿāʾišah qālat; (3) the absence of fa-bakaytu; (4) the presence of fa-yanṭaliqu; (5) the particular wording ḥattá yaʾtiya ludd (i.e., without mentioning filasṭīn); and (6) the particular wording yanzilu ʿīsá (i)bn maryam (i.e., including (i)bn maryam).

[48] Namely: ʾAš. = fa-qāla, Bayh. = fa-qāla lī; ʾAš. = ḏakarta, Bayh. = ʾinna-ka ḏakarta; ʾAš. = rabba-kum, Bayh. = rabbī; ʾAš. = yanzila, Bayh. = yaʾtiya; ʾAš. = yalbaṯu ʿīsá, Bayh. = yalbaṯu ʿīsá bn maryam.

[49] For a similar point (“priority of occurrence”), see Pavlovitch, Formation, pp. 39-40.

[50] Namely: (1) ʾanna al-ḥaḍramiyy bn lāḥiq ḥaddaṯa-hu ʾanna ʾabā ṣāliḥ… ḥaddaṯa-hu ʿāʾišah (i.e., that particular wording); (2) the absence of yā rasūl allāh; (3) the presence of fa-ʾinna-hu; and (4) the absence of the final “Isfahan”, “Madinah”, “Lod”, and “Jesus” elements.

[51] Thus, Ibn ʿAsākir’s transmission (1) has ʿan al-ḥaḍramiyy bn lāḥiq instead of ʾanna al-ḥaḍramiyy bn lāḥiq ḥaddaṯa-hu; (2) has ʿan ʾabī ṣāliḥ instead of ʾanna ʾabā ṣāliḥ… ḥaddaṯa-hu; (3) omits fa-bakaytu; (4) has fa-ʾin instead of fa-ʾinna-hu ʾin; and includes—rather than omits—the final “Isfahan”, “Madinah”, “Lod”, and “Jesus” elements. Moreover, in these final elements, Ibn ʿAsākir’s transmission shares with al-ʾAšyab’s version in particular (i.e., against all other versions) yanzila rather than yaʾtiya and yalbaṯu rather than yamkuṯu. By contrast, Ibn ʿAsākir’s transmission is only more similar to Ibn Ḥanbal’s transmission (i.e., against al-ʾAšyab and Šaybān’s versions) in two respects: both have filasṭīn, absent in al-ʾAšyab and Šaybān’s versions; and both omit (i)bn maryam, present in al-ʾAšyab and Šaybān’s versions.

[52] Based on Ibn Ḥanbal, the only version that preserves a first-person perspective from Yaḥyá.

[53] Šaybān, ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, add. lī.

[54] Šaybān, Ibn Ḥanbal; cf. ʾAbān, omitted.

[55] ʾAbān, Ibn Ḥanbal; cf. Šaybān, omitted.

[56] Šaybān, ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, add. rasūl allāh.

[57] Šaybān, ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, omitted.

[58] Šaybān, Ibn Ḥanbal; cf. ʾAbān, fa-ʾinna-hu ʾin.

[59] Šaybān, ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, al-dajjāl.

[60] Šaybān, ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, wa-ʾin yaḵruj baʿdī.

[61] Cf. ʿAbd Allāh and Bayhaqī, rabbī.

[62] Šaybān, ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, ʾinna-hu yaḵruju fī yahūdiyyat ʾaṣbahān (probably contaminated by the hadith of Muḥammad al-Raqqāšī or Jaʿfar b. Sulaymān, discussed below).

[63] Šaybān, Ibn ʿAsākir—ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, omitted.

[64] Šaybān, Ibn ʿAsākir—ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, ḥattá yaʾtiya al-madīnah fa-yanzila nāḥiyata-hā.

[65] Šaybān, Ibn ʿAsākir—ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, naqb min-hā.

[66] Šaybān, Ibn Ḥanbal (ʾahli-hā); cf. Ibn ʿAsākir—ʾAbān, al-nās.

[67] Isolated to Šaybān.

[68] Isolated to Ibn ʿAsākir—ʾAbān.

[69] Šaybān: ḥattá yaʾtiya ludd. Ibn Ḥanbal: ḥattá al-šām madīnah bi-filasṭīn bi-bāb ludd or ḥattá yaʾtiya filasṭīn bāb ludd. Ibn ʿAsākir—ʾAbān: ḥattá yaʾtiya madīnah bi-filasṭīn.

[70] Ibn Ḥanbal, Ibn ʿAsākir—ʾAbān; cf. Šaybān, add. (i)bn maryam.

[71] Šaybān: ṯumma yalbaṯu ʿīsá. Ibn Ḥanbal: ṯumma yamkuṯu ʿīsá. Ibn ʿAsākir—ʾAbān: wa-yalbaṯu.

[72] Šaybān, Ibn ʿAsākir—ʾAbān; cf. Ibn Ḥanbal, all omitted.

[73] Only Nuʿaym records a first-person perspective from ʿAbd al-Razzāq.

[74] Again, per Nuʿaym.

[75] See Nuʿaym and al-Dabarī, cited above.

[76] See Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], pp. 27-30.

[77] A blanket appeal to Harald Motzki, Die Anfänge der islamischen Jurisprudenz: ihre Entwicklung in Mekka bis zur Mitte des 2./8. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, Germany: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner, 1991), to establish the reliability of ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s transmissions from Maʿmar, will not suffice here: cf. Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], pp. 40-43. In this regard, the following statement—in relation to another of ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s isolated transmissions—is also of interest: Muḥammad b. ʿĪsá al-Tirmiḏī (ed. Ṣubḥī al-Sāmarrāʾī, al-Sayyid ʾAbū al-Maʿāṭī Muḥammad al-Nūrī, & Maḥmūd Muḥammad Ḵalīl al-Ṣaʿīdī), ʿIlal al-Tirmiḏiyy al-Kabīr (Beirut, Lebanon: ʿAlam al-Kutub, 1989), p. 199, citing al-Buḵārī: “I do not know of anyone who transmitted this hadith from Maʿmar other than ʿAbd al-Razzāq, and ʿAbd al-Razzāq would err (yahimu) in some of what he transmitted.”

[78] Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], pp. 115 ff.

[79] Ibid., pp. 126 ff.

[80] Anthony, “Who was the Shepherd of Damascus?”, pp. 45 ff., 54, arguing in favour of the chronology recorded in Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Šahrastānī (ed. William Cureton), Kitāb al-Milal wa-al-Niḥal / Book of Religious and Philosophical Sects (Piscataway, USA: Georgias Press, 2002), p. 168.

[81] Muḥammad b. ʾAḥmad al-Ḏahabī (ed. Šuʿayb al-ʾArnaʾūṭ et al.), Siyar ʾAʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 6, 2nd ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1982), p. 28.

[82] Ibid.: “A group [of scholars] (jamāʿah) related that he died in the year 129, and some of them [also] related that he remained [alive] until the year 132. The first is sounder.”

[83] Muḥammad b. Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrá, vol. 5 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār Ṣādir, n. d.), p. 555; Muḥammad b. ʾIsmāʿīl al-Buḵārī (ed. Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ b. Muḥammad al-Dabbāsī), al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, vol. 10 (Riyadh, KSA: al-Nāšir al-Mutamayyiz, 2019), p. 288.

[84] ʿAlī b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Madīnī (ed. Muḥammad b. Muṣṭafá al-ʾAʿẓamī), al-ʿIlal, 2nd ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: al-Maktab al-ʾIslāmiyy, 1980), p. 37.

[85] Buḵārī, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, X, p. 288.

[86] Tirmiḏī, ʿIlal, p. 387.

[87] ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad b. Ḥanbal (ed. Waṣī Allāh b. Muḥammad ʿAbbās), Kitāb al-ʿIlal wa-Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, vol. 3 (Riyadh, KSA: Dār al-Ḵāniyy, 2001), pp. 322, 446.

[88] ʾAbū Zurʿah ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAmr al-Dimašqī [& ʾAbū al-Maymūn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Bajalī] (ed. Šakr Allāh Niʿmat Allāh al-Qawjānī), Taʾrīḵ ʾAbī Zurʿah al-Dimašqiyy (Damascus, Syria: Majmaʿ al-Luḡah al-ʿArabiyyah, 1980), p. 253.

[89] ʾAḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Kalābāḏī (ed. ʿAbd Allāh al-Layṯī), Rijāl Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāriyy, vol. 2 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Maʿrifah, 1987), p. 804.

[90] Lawrence I. Conrad, “Qurʾānic Studies: A Historian’s Perspective”, in Manfred S. Kropp (ed.), Results of Contemporary Research on the Qurʾān: The Question of a Historico-Critical Text of the Qurʾān (Beirut, Lebanon / Würzburg, Germany: Orient-Institut Beirut / Ergon Verlag, 2007), p. 15. For a related point, see Reuven Firestone, “MICHAEL LECKER, Muslims, Jews and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina”, Medieval Encounters, Vol. 3, Issue 3 (1997), p. 312.

[91] Ḏahabī, Siyar, VI, p. 28

[92] Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, V, p. 555; Buḵārī, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, X, p. 288; ʾAḥmad b. ʾabī Ḵayṯamah Zuhayr b. Ḥarb (ed. Ṣalāḥ b. Fatḥī Halal), al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr al-Maʿrūf bi-Taʾrīḵ Ibn ʾabī Ḵayṯamah, vol. 1 (Cairo, Egypt: al-Fārūq al-Ḥadīṯiyyah, 2004), p. 339.

[93] E.g., Muḥammad b. Ḥibbān al-Bustī (ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Muʿīd Ḵān), Kitāb al-Ṯiqāt, vol. 6 (Hyderabad, India: Osmania Oriental Publications Bureau, 1980), p. 53.

[94] Buḵārī, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, X, p. 288.

[95] See the appendix.

[96] For more on the questionable character of reports about early Hadith scholars, see for example Eerik Dickinson, The Development of Early Sunnite Ḥadīth Criticism: The Taqdima of Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (240/854-327/938) (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2001), ch. 5, esp. pp. 78-79, and Lawrence I. Conrad, “Seven and the Tasbīʿ: On the Implications of Numerical Symbolism for the Study of Medieval Islamic History”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 31, No. 1 (1988), pp. 62-73.

[97] ʾAḥmad b. Muḥammad b. al-Qāsim b. Muḥriz (ed. Muḥammad Muṭīʿ al-Ḥāfiẓ & Ḡazwah Budayr), Maʿrifat al-Rijāl ʿan Yaḥyá bn Maʿīn, vol. 2 (Damascus, Syria: Majmaʿ al-Luḡah al-ʿArabiyyah, 1985), p. 147.

[98] See variously Joseph F. Schacht, “On Mūsā b. ʿUqba’s Kitāb al-Maghāzī”, Acta Orientalia, Vol. 21 (1953), p. 299 (master-student relationships); Franz Rosenthal, A History of Muslim Historiography, 2nd revised ed. (Leiden, the Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1968), p. 14, n. 2 (dates of death) [albeit without mentioning isnads]; Herbert Berg, The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period (Richmond, UK: Curzon Press, 2000), p. 26 (general); Dickinson, Development, pp. 82 ff. (reliability), 96-101 (conditional appraisals), 104 (sectarian affiliation), 108 ff. (direct transmission), 116 (on dates of death), 124-125 (conditional appraisals); Christopher Melchert, “Bukhārī and Early Hadith Criticism”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 121, No. 1 (2001), p. 12 (dates of death; conditional appraisals; reliability); Harald Motzki, “The Question of the Authenticity of Muslim Traditions Reconsidered: A review article”, in Herbert Berg (ed.), Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2003), p. 245 (master-student relationships); Melchert, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications, 2006), pp. 51-54 (reliability; dates of birth and death); id., “Encyclopedia of Canonical Ḥadīth. By G.H.A. Juynboll”, Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2008), p. 409 (dates of death); Pavlovitch, Formation, pp. 41-42 (areas of legal expertise); Christopher Melchert, “The Theory and Practice of Hadith Criticism in the Mid-Ninth Century”, in Petra M. Sijpesteijn & Camilla Adang (eds.), Islam at 250: Studies in Memory of G.H.A. Juynboll (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2020), pp. 75-76 (dates of birth and death; reliability).

[99] Ann K. S. Lambton, “Iṣfahān: 1. History”, in Emeri J. van Donzel, Bernard Lewis, Charles Pellat, & Clifford E. Bosworth (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume 4: Iran-Kha (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 1978), p. 99.

[100] For example, throughout ʾAbū al-Šayḵ ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-ʾAṣbahānī (ed. ʿAbd al-Ḡafūr ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Ḥusayn al-Balūšī), Ṭabaqāt al-Muḥaddiṯīn bi-ʾAṣbahān wa-al-Wāridīn ʿalay-hā, 4 vols. (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1992), when it comes to the geographical origins listed for scholars who visited Isfahan, the overwhelming majority are “Basran” (13 instances: II, pp. 48, 51, 176, 196, 356, 399, 417; III, pp. 159, 252, 258, 386, 529; IV, p. 7); followed by “Kufan” (9 instances: II, pp. 28, 71, 81, 133, 246, 295, 336, 338; III, p. 350); followed by both “Meccan” (3 instances: II, p. 172; III, p. 457) and “Madinan” (2 instances: II, p. 76; III, pp. 484). (By contrast, there are no “Syrian” scholars listed in this way.)

Likewise, when the masters of an Isfahani muḥaddiṯ—or else a muḥaddiṯ who transmitted in Isfahan—are referred to by a collective regional affiliation, the majority thereof are references to “Basrans” (21 instances: II, pp. 375, 399; III, pp. 64, 159, 176, 232, 252, 257, 264, 302, 315, 316, 326, 340, 349, 356, 392, 418, 436, 463, 521); followed by “Kufans” (3 instances: III, pp. 64, 176, 567) and “Syrians” (3 instances: III, pp. 64, 567, 608); followed by “Meccans” (2 instances: III, pp. 316, 439). For more on the Syrians, see also III, p. 194 (“he wrote [down Hadith] from the People of Syria, Egypt, and Iraq”); IV, p. 23 (“[he had] the Hadith of Syria and Iraq and Isfahan”); and IV, p. 96 (“he had the Hadith of Syria and Egypt”). By contrast, the only collective reference to Madinan masters occurs in III, p. 621 (“he heard many hadiths in Makkah, and Madinah, and Basrah, and Isfahan”).

Of course, once Baghdad was founded by the Abbasids and grew into the foremost centre of Islamic learning, Baghdadi scholars came to predominate in terms of the listed origins of scholars (14 instances: II, pp. 186, 200, 360; III, pp. 50, 150, 159 twice, 176 twice, 221, 265, 292, 322; IV, p. 88), though not in terms of the collective references to teachers (8 instances: III, pp. 221, 317, 544, 567; IV, pp. 29, 75, 202, 254).

[101] Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, V, p. 555.

[102] E.g., cf. Yaḥyá b. Maʿīn [& al-ʿAbbās b. Muḥammad al-Dūrī] (ed. ʾAḥmad Muḥammad Nūr Sayf), Yaḥyá bn Maʿīn wa-Kitābu-hu al-Taʾrīḵ, vol. 4 (Makkah, KSA: Markaz al-Baḥṯ al-ʿIlmiyy wa-ʾIḥyāʾ al-Turāṯ al-ʾIslāmiyy, 1979), pp. 175, 478.

[103] Ibn al-Madīnī, ʿIlal, p. 37.

[104] ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad, ʿIlal, I, p. 306.

[105] Buḵārī, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, IV, p. 539.

[106] Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī (ed. ʿAbd al-Ḡaffār Sulaymān al-Bundārī & al-Saʿīd b. Basyūnī Zaḡlūl), al-Munfaridāt wa-al-Wuḥdān (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1988), p. 158.

[107] ʾAbū Dāwūd Sulaymān b. al-ʾAšʿaṯ al-Sijistānī (ed. Muḥammad ʿAlī Qāsim al-ʿUmarī), Suʾālāt ʾAbī ʿUbayd al-ʾÂjurriyy ʾAbā Dāwūd al-Sijistāniyy fī al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl (Madinah, KSA: ʿImādat al-Baḥṯ al-ʿIlmiyy bi-al-Jāmiʿah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, 1983), p. 364.

[108] Ibn ʾabī Ḵayṯamah, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, II, p. 104.

[109] Ibid., p. 105.

[110] Muḥammad b. ʾAḥmad al-Muqaddamī (ed. Muḥammad b. ʾIbrāhīm al-Luḥaydān), al-Taʾrīḵ wa-ʾAsmāʾ al-Muḥaddiṯīn wa-Kunā-hum (Karachi, Pakistan: Dār al-Kitāb wa-al-Sunnah, 1994), p. 164.

[111] ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʾabī Ḥātim, Kitāb al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl, vol. 9 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār ʾIḥyāʾ al-Turāṯ al-ʿArabiyy, 1953), p. 141.

[112] Ibn Ḥibbān, Ṯiqāt, VII, pp. 591-592.

[113] ʾAbū Zurʿah al-Dimašqī, Taʾrīḵ, p. 448; Ibn Maʿīn [& Dūrī], Taʾrīḵ, IV, p. 350; Ibn ʾabī Ḵayṯamah, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, I, p. 339; ʾAḥmad b. Marwān al-Dīnawarī (ed. Mašhūr b. Ḥasan ʾÂl Salmān), al-Mujālasah wa-Jawāhir al-ʿIlm, vol. 6 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 1998), p. 344. Here prioritising Ibn Maʿīn’s mursal transmission over ʾAbū Zurʿah’s muttaṣil transmission in the reconstruction of Ḍamrah’s urtext.

[114] E.g., Judd, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Amr al-Awza’i, p. 8.

[115] E.g., Ibn Maʿīn [& Dūrī], Taʾrīḵ, IV, p. 335; Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, III, p. 302; Muḥammad b. Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī (ed. Šādī b. Muḥammad b. Sālim ʾÂl Nuʿmān), al-Kamāl fī ʾAsmāʾ al-Rijāl, vol. 4 (Kuwait: al-Hayʾah al-ʿĀmmah, 2016), p. 237; Yūsuf b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Mizzī (ed. Baššār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf), Tahḏīb al-Kamāl fī ʾAsmāʾ al-Rijāl, vol. 6 (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1992), p. 553. Cf. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʾabī Ḥātim (ed. Saʿd b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥumayyid, Ḵālid b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Juraysī, et al.), Kitāb al-ʿIlal, vol. 2 (Riyadh, KSA: Maṭābiʿ al-Ḥumayḍiyy, 2006), p. 567: “My father [i.e., ʾAbū Ḥātim] said: ‘Al-Ḥaḍramī b. Lāhiq was a man of the People of Madinah.’” However, the overwhelming majority of sources identify Ḥaḍramī as Yamāmī, not Madinan; Ḥaḍramī was a member of the Banū Tamīm, who famously predominated near al-Yamāmah; and he was specifically remembered as having transmitted to Yamāmī and Basran students. Of course, Ḥaḍramī is depicted as having transmitted from some Madinan sources (Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, al-Qāsim b. Muḥammad, and Muḥammad b. ʾUbayy); but he is also depicted as having transmitted from Damascene sources (Zayd b. Salām and Muḡīṯ b. Sumayy), a Madino-Kufan source (ʾAbū Ṣāliḥ Ḏakwān), and a Basran source (ʾAbū al-Sawwār al-ʿAdawī), so this does not count for much. See also Buḵārī, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, III, p. 517, citing a report from ʿIkrimah b. ʿAmmār, another Yamāmī, to the effect that he and Ḥaḍramī travelled to Makkah together. Finally, see Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, III, p. 302: “I heard my father say: ‘Ḥaḍramī al-Yamāmī and Ḥaḍramī b. Lāḥiq are one [and the same person], in my opinion.’”

[116] E.g., ʾAbū Dāwūd Sulaymān b. al-ʾAšʿaṯ al-Sijistānī (ed. Ziyād Muḥammad Manṣūr), Suʾālāt ʾAbī Dāwūd li-l-ʾImām ʾAḥmad bn Ḥanbal fī Jarḥ al-Ruwāh wa-Taʿdīli-him (Madinah, KSA: Maktabat al-ʿUlūm wa-al-Ḥikam, 1994), p. 241: “ʾAḥmad [b. Ḥanbal] said: ‘He [i.e., Maʿmar] heard from al-Zuhrī in al-Ruṣāfah.’ [Someone] said: ‘Where did he hear from Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr?’ He said: ‘In Basrah.’”

[117] E.g., Maʿrūf et al., al-Musnad al-Jāmiʿ, XVI, pp. 579-580 (citing various transmissions from Maʿmar, ʿAlī b. Muʿāwiyah, and Hišām al-Dastawāʾī, all from Yaḥyá, from Ḍamḍam). Of course, an ICMA would be required to confirm these isnads.

[118] E.g., ibid., XVI, p. 843 (citing various transmissions from Šaybān, from Yaḥyá, from Ḍamḍam; and from ʿAlī b. Muʿāwiyah, from Yaḥyá, from Ḍamḍam; and from ʿIkrimah b. ʿAmmār, from Ḍamḍam). Again, an ICMA would be required to confirm these isnads.

[119] E.g., Maqdisī, Kamāl, VI, p. 21: “Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr and ʿIkrimah b. ʿAmmār, two Yamāmīs, transmitted from him [i.e., Ḍamḍam].” Here emending al-yamāniyyān to al-yamāmiyyān.

[120] In the case of Maʿmar in particular, see also Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Sulamī (ed. Saʿd b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥumayyid, Ḵālid b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Juraysī, et al.), Suʾālāt al-Sulamiyy li-l-Dāraquṭniyy (n. p., 1427 AH), p. 313: “Amongst the People of Basrah, he heard from Ṯābit and ʾAyyūb al-Saḵtiyānī; and amongst the People of al-Yamāmah, from Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr.” Maʿmar was famously itinerant, travelling to Syro-Mesopotamia and the Hijaz before eventually settling in Yemen; see Harald Motzki (trans. Barbara Paoli & Vivien Reid), “The Jurisprudence of Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī: A Source-Critical Study”, in Harald Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions: Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2010), p. 10; Sean W. Anthony, “Introduction”, in Maʿmar b. Rāšid (trans. & ed. Sean W. Anthony), The Expeditions: An Early Biography of Muḥammad (New York, USA: New York University Press, 2014), pp. xviii-xxiv; Harald Motzki, “ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī”, in Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, & Everett Rowson (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2018), online edition. It has also been suggested that Maʿmar periodically returned to his native Basrah, e.g., by Motzki, “The Jurisprudence of Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī”, p. 10; Gregor Schoeler, “The relationship of literacy and memory in the second/eighth century”, Archaeopress: Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, Vol. 40 (2010), p. 124, col. 2; and Ṭaha ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Saʿd, “al-Ruwwād min Kuttāb al-Sīrah”, in ʿAbd al-Malik b. Hisam (ed. Ṭaha ʿAbd al-Raʾūf Saʿd), al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 1 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Jīl, n. d.), p. 35. However, on this point, cf. Sean W. Anthony, “Maʿmar b. Rāshid”, in Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, & Devin J. Stewart (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2009), online edition.

[121] E.g., Ibn Saʿd, Ṭabaqāt, V, p. 555: “And ʾIsmāʿīl b. ʿUlayyah said: ‘I witnessed ʾAyyūb [al-Saḵtiyānī] write to Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr.’”

[122] At first glance, there seems to be a possible window of time for Rabīʿah to create this hadith: Rabīʿah died in 136 AH; al-Manṣūr’s reign began in 136 AH; the ʿĪsawiyyah rebelled during al-Manṣūr’s reign, according to Anthony’s research; therefore, it is possible that Rabīʿah witnessed the rebellion, created the hadith, and passed it on to al-ʾAwzāʿī (presumably whilst the latter visited him in Madinah), at the very end of his life. However, al-Manṣūr’s reign actually began on the 13^th of Ḏū al-Ḥijjah (i.e., at the very end of 136 AH), leaving only an 18-day window of time—between the beginning of al-Manṣūr’s reign / the earliest possible point for the rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah, on the one hand, and the latest possible point for Rabīʿah to have died, on the other—for all of this to have occurred. It seems unlikely—all else being equal—that Rabīʿah’s life coincided with the rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah and with al-ʾAwzāʿī’s presence in Madinah. Moreover, if Patricia Crone, The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 36, is correct in her suggestion that ʾAbū ʿĪsá and his followers joined the broader rebellion of Sunbāḏ in Persia following the murder of ʾAbū Muslim in 137/755, this would seem to imply that the rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah only began after Rabīʿah had died. Finally, Rabīʿah is only cited by al-ʾAwzāʿī according to one version of his hadith (i.e., in one line of transmission from al-ʾAwzāʿī), which raises the possibility that Rabīʿah was not actually cited by al-ʾAwzāʿī at all, being instead drafted into the isnad by a later tradent, whether by accident or on purpose.

[123] E.g., Friedländer, “Jewish-Arabic Studies” [III], pp. 268-269, incl. n. 331. This linkage is reinforced by the influence of the Shephard of Damascus and his movement upon the Isfahan-based ʿĪsawiyyah, discussed in Anthony, “Who was the Shepherd of Damascus?”, passim, with a similar conclusion—about the linkages between the Levantine and Persian Jewish communities—given at p. 42.

[124] ʾAbū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī (ed. Leon Nemoy), Kitāb al-ʾAnwār wa-al-Marāqib, vol. 1 (New York, USA: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939), p. 12. See also Wasserstrom, “The ʿĪsāwiyya Revisited”, p. 79, for potential evidence of an ʿĪsawī presence in Palestine as well, not to mention various attestations—from across Islamic history—of their presence in Persia, Mesopotamia, and Andalusia.

[125] https://x.com/KerrDepression/status/1784459762375004398

[126] Of course, the possibility remains that al-ʾAwzāʿī and Yaḥyá borrowed their respective hadiths—and their respective false ascriptions—from suppressed or unacknowledged creators; but parsimony favours the supposition that the CLs themselves are the creators. See my original blog article for a discussion of this.

[127] This is nicely summarised in Zaroui Pogossian, “Eschatology and anti-Jewish polemic: Examples from the Armenian tradition”, in Helen Van Noorden, Hilary Marlow, & Karla Pollmann (eds.), Eschatology in Antiquity: Forms and Functions (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2021), p. 516.

[128] E.g., Joseph F. Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. 156; Albrecht Noth & Lawrence I. Conrad, The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-critical Study, 2nd ed. (Princeton, USA: The Darwin Press, Inc., 1994); Albrecht Noth, “Iṣfahān-Nihāwand: Eine quellenkritische Studie zur frühislamischen Historiographie”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 118, No. 2 (1968), pp. 274-296 [= id. (trans. Gwendolin Goldbloom), “Iṣfahān-Nihāwand: A Source-Critical Study of Early Islamic Historiography”, in Fred M. Donner (ed.), The Expansion of the Early Islamic State (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2008), pp. 241-262]; id., Quellenkritische Studien zu Themen, Formen und Tendenzen frühislamischer Geschichtsuberlieferung (Bonn, Germany: Selbstverlag des Orientalischen Seminars der Universität Bonn, 1973); Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1980), ch. 1; Michael A. Cook, Muhammad (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 66-67; Lawrence I. Conrad, “Abraha and Muḥammad: Some Observations Apropos of Chronology and Literary ‘topoi’ in the Early Arabic Historical Tradition”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1987), pp. 225-240; Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press, 1987), ch. 9; Conrad, “Seven and the Tasbīʿ”; Albrecht Noth, “Futūḥ-History and Futūḥ-Historiography: The Muslim Conquest of Damascus”, al-Qanṭara, Vol. 10, Issue 2 (1989), pp. 453-462; Lawrence I. Conrad, “The Conquest of Arwād: A Source-Critical Study in the Historiography of the Early Medieval Near East”, in Averil Cameron & Lawrence I. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I: Problems in the Literary Source Material (Princeton, USA: The Darwin Press, Inc., 1992), pp. 317-401; Chase F. Robinson, “The Conquest of Khūzistān: A Historiographical Reassessment”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 67, No. 1 (2004), pp. 14-39; Robert G. Hoyland, “History, fiction and authorship in the first centuries of Islam”, in Julia Bray (ed.), Writing and Representation in Medieval Islam: Muslim horizons (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2006), pp. 31-32; Ehsan Roohi, “Between History and Ancestral Lore: A Literary Approach to the Sīra’s Narratives of Political Assassinations”, Der Islam, Vol. 98, Issue 2 (2021), pp. 425-472; id., “A Form-Critical Analysis of the al-Rajīʿ and Biʾr Maʿūna Stories: Tribal, Ideological, and Legal Incentives behind the Transmission of the Prophet’s Biography”, al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā, Vol. 30 (2022), pp. 267-338; id., “Muḥammad’s Disruptive Measures Against the Meccan Trade: A Historiographical Reassessment”, Der Islam, Vol. 100, Issue 1 (2023), pp. 40-80; Joshua J. Little, “‘Where did you learn to write Arabic?’: A Critical Analysis of Some Hadiths on the Origins and Spread of the Arabic Script”, Journal of Islamic Studies, Vol. 35, Issue 2 (2024), pp. 145-178.

[129] To take an obvious and uncontroversial example, the “black banners” topos was integrated into numerous hadiths that even the Hadith critics criticised or rejected, e.g., ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad, ʿIlal, II, p. 325; ʿUqaylī, Ḍuʿafāʾ, VI, pp. 324-325; ʾAbū al-Qāsim al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Ḥannāʾī (ed. Ḵālid Rizq Muḥammad Jabr), Fawāʾid ʾAbī al-Qāsim al-Ḥannāʾiyy, vol. 1 (Riyadh, KSA: ʾAḍwāʾ al-Salaf, 2007), p. 394; ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Ḵaṭīb al-Baḡdādī (ed. Baššār ʿAwwad Maʿrūf), Taʾrīḵ Madīnat al-Salām, vol. 4 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Ḡarb al-ʾIslāmiyy, 2001), p. 204; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAlī al-Jawzī (ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Muḥammad ʿUṯmān), Kitāb al-Mawḍūʿāt, vol. 2 (Madinah, KSA: al-Maktabah al-Salafiyyah, 1966), pp. 38-39; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʾabī Bakr al-Suyūṭī (ed. Ṣalāḥ b. Muḥammad b. ʿUwayḍah), al-Laʾâliʾ al-Maṣnūʿah fī al-ʾAḥādīṯ al-Mawḍūʿah, vol. 1 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1996), p. 4001.

[130] E.g., Maʿrūf et al., al-Musnad al-Jāmiʿ, III, pp. 29-30 (from the putative Basran CL Ḥammād b. Salamah, citing Basran sources).

[131] E.g., ibid., XX, p. 344 (from the putative Basran CL Ibn ʾabī ʿAdī, citing a Basran source).

[132] E.g., ibid., XVIII, pp. 434-435 (from the putative Basran CL Qatādah, citing a Basran source).

[133] ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, X, p. 406; Nuʿaym, Fitan, II, p. 551 (from the putative Yemeni CL ʿAbd al-Razzāq, citing a Basran SS).

[134] Ibn ʾabī Šaybah, Muṣannaf, XXI, pp. 327-329; Sulaymān b. ʾAḥmad al-Ṭabarānī (ed. Ḥamdī ʿAbd al-Majīd al-Salafī), al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, vol. 9 (Cairo, Egypt: Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah, n. d.), pp. 51-52; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrīḵ, II, pp. 226-227 (from the putative Basran CL Ḥammād b. Salamah, citing a Basran source).

[135] Ibn ʾabī Šaybah, Muṣannaf, XXI, p. 339; Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-Zaḵār, XV, p. 183; ʾAbū Yaʿlá ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Mawṣilī (ed. Ḥusayn Salīm ʾAsad), Musnad ʾAbī Yaʿlá, vol. 10 (Damascus, Syria: Dār al-Maʾmūn li-l-Turāṯ, 1989), pp. 380-381 (from the putative Madino-Iraqi CL Ibn ʾIsḥāq, citing a Madinan source).

[136] Šahrastānī, Milal, p. 168.

[137] Anthony, “Who was the Shepherd of Damascus?”.

[138] Friedländer, “Jewish-Arabic Studies” [I], pp. 203-206.

[139] Wasserstrom, “The ʿĪsāwiyya Revisited”, pp. 58-60.

[140] Bulut, “Îseviyye”, esp. p. 123, incl. n. 5.

[141] Qirqisānī, ʾAnwār, I, p. 12.

[142] Al-Qirqisānī’s chronology also differs in al-Šahrastānī’s in other respects. For example, according to the latter’s account of ʾAbū ʿĪsá (loc. cit.): “He was [a rebel] in the time of al-Manṣūr, although he began his preaching during the time of the last of the kings of the Banū ʾUmayyah, Marwān b. Muḥammad, the Ass, whereupon many men from amongst the Jews followed him (fa-ittabaʿa-hu bašar kaṯīr min al-yahūd).” This gives the impression that ʾAbū ʿĪsá rapidly acquired a large following already during the reign of Marwān, when he started preaching—the operative assumption in the foregoing, per the prioritisation of al-Šahrastānī’s chronology up to this point. However, according to Friedländer, “Jewish-Arabic Studies” [I], p. 206, n. 88, al-Qirqisānī reported that “in the beginning of his career only a few persons followed him in affirming his prophecy.” However, Friedländer interprets this as meaning that only a subset of ʾAbū ʿĪsá’s followers affirmed his religious message, rather than that ʾAbū ʿĪsá did not attract many followers. If so, then there is no contradiction in this regard.

[143] Goitein, Jews and Arabs, p. 169.

[144] Summarised in Wasserstrom, “The ʿĪsāwiyya Revisited”, pp. 58-59, and Erder, “The Doctrine of Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī”, p. 167, n. 21.

[145] https://x.com/KerrDepression/status/1784459755806691778

[146] Ḏahabī, Siyar, V, p. 37.

[147] Nuʿaym, Fitan, II, pp. 530-531.

[148] Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, II, pp. 54-56; ibid., XXIV, pp. 386-388; id., al-Muʿjam al-ʾAwsaṭ, V, pp. 124-126. For an abridged co-transmission, see Mujjāʿah b. al-Zubayr (ed. ʿĀmir Ḥasan Ṣabrī), Min Ḥadīṯ ʾAbī ʿUbaydah Mujjāʿah bn al-Zubayr (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Bašāʾir al-ʾIslāmiyyah, 2003), p. 67.

[149] Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, XVII, pp. 154-155; id., al-Muʿjam al-ʾAwsaṭ, VII, p. 172.

[150] Al-Ḥasan b. Rašīq al-ʿAskarī (ed. Jāsim b. Muḥammad b. Ḥamūd al-Zāmil al-Fajī), Juzʾ al-Ḥasan bn Rašīq al-ʿAskariyy (Kuwait: Dār Ḡirās, 2005), p. 46.

[151] Ḥākim, Mustadrak, IV, pp. 573-574. Here emending tašuqqu to yašuqqu, which makes more sense contextually and conforms to Nuʿaym’s earlier version (cited below).

[152] Dānī, al-Sunan al-Wāridah, VI, pp. 1196-1198.

[153] Ibid., V, pp. 1089-1109.

[154] Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrīḵ, XXXVIII, p. 10.

[155] Again, see Pogossian, cited above.

[156] Nuʿaym, Fitan, II, pp. 531, 533 (with a variant isnad); Ibn ʾabī Šaybah, Muṣannaf, XXI, p. 339.

[157] ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAlī al-Jawzī (ed. Ḵalīl al-Mays), al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah fī al-ʾAḥādīṯ al-Wāhiyah, vol. 1 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1984), pp. 261-262: “[Concerning] ʿAlī b. ʿĀṣim, Yazīd b. Hārūn said: ‘We continuously discovered falsehood in him (mā zilnā naʿrifu-hu bi-al-kaḏib).’ ʾAḥmad [b. Ḥanbal] had a low opinion of him (kāna ʾaḥmad yusīʾu al-raʾy fī-hi). Yaḥyá [b. Maʿīn] said: ‘He is worthless (laysa bi-šayʾ).’ Al-Nasāʾī said: ‘[He is] abandoned in Hadith (matrūk al-ḥadīṯ).’”

[158] E.g., Maʿrūf et al., al-Musnad al-Jāmiʿ, XX, pp. 466 ff.

[159] Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-ʾAwsaṭ, V, p. 126: “No one transmitted this hadith from ʾAbū al-ʾAšhab other than Sayf b. Miskīn; [and] ʾAbū ʿUbaydah [ʿAbd al-Wāriṯ also] transmitted it in isolation (tafarrada bi-hi).”

[160] E.g., Melchert, Ahmad, p. 54: “This is usually a sign that something is wrong.”

[161] See esp. Qatādah’s hadith, cited above, which runs: “The Antichrist will emerge from {the East, from a land called} Khurasan.” For a more elaborate version of this hadith from the putative CL ʾAbū al-Tayyāḥ, with a different isnad, see Ibn ʾabī Šaybah, Muṣannaf, XXI, p. 339; Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, I, pp. 190, 209-210; ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd b. Ḥumayd (ed. Ṣubḥī al-Badrī al-Sāmarrāʾī, & Maḥmūd Muḥammad Ḵalīl al-Ṣaʿīdī), al-Muntaḵab min Musnad ʿAbd bn Ḥumayd (Cairo, Egypt: Maktabat al-Sunnah, 1988), p. 30; Ibn Mājah, Sunan, II, p. 1353; Muḥammad b. ʿĪsá al-Tirmiḏī (ed. ʾIbrāhīm ʿAṭwah ʿIyaḍ), al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. 4 (Cairo, Egypt: Muṣṭafá al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1962), p. 509; Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-Zaḵār, I, pp. 112-114, 198-199; Ḥākim, Mustadrak, IV, pp. 572-573; ʿAbd al-Bāqī b. Qāniʿ (ed. Ṣalāḥ b. Sālim al-Muṣrātī), Maʿrifat al-Ṣaḥābah, vol. 2 (Madinah, KSA: Maktabat al-Ḡurabāʾ al-ʾAṯariyyah, 1418 AH), p. 61; ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Marwazī (ed. Šuʿayb al-ʾArnaʾūṭ), Musnad ʾAbī Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (Beirut, Lebanon: al-Maktab al-Islāmiyy, 1986), pp. 99-101; ʾAbū Yaʿlá, Musnad, I, pp. 38-39; Sulaymān b. ʾAḥmad al-Ṭabarānī (ed. Ḥamdī ʿAbd al-Majīd al-Salafī), Musnad al-Šāmiyyīn, vol. 2 (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1989), pp. 251-252; Ḥamzah b. Yūsuf al-Sahmī (ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Mūʿid Ḵān et al.), Taʾrīḵ Jurjān (Beirut, Lebanon: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1987), p. 359; Dānī, al-Sunan al-Wāridah, IV, pp. 1155-1156; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrīḵ, XXXVII, p. 294.

[162] Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-ʾAwsaṭ, VII, p. 172: “No one transmitted this hadith from Yūnus other than ʾAbū Hammām; [and Muḥammad] b. Manṣūr al-ʾAhwāzī [also] transmitted it in isolation (tafarrada bi-hi).”

[163] Buḵārī, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, I, pp. 538-539.

[164] ʿAbd al-Ḡanī b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Maqdisī, ʾAḵbār al-Dajjāl (Ṭānṭā, Egypt: Dār al-Ṣaḥābah li-l-Turāṯ, 1993), p. 51: “ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz [b. Yaḥyá]: they [i.e., the scholars] declared him to be weak (ḍaʿʿafū-hu); and the hadith is rejected (munkar).”

[165] Nuʿaym, Fitan, II, pp. 526-527, and esp. 547: “The Antichrist (al-dajjāl): one of his eyes will be blind (ʾiḥdá ʿaynay-hi maṭmūsah), and the other will be bloodshot (wa-al-ʾuḵrá mamzūjah bi-al-dam), as if it is the Morningstar (ka-ʾanna-hā al-zuhrah). Two mountains will travel with him (wa-yasīru maʿa jabalān): a mountain [made] of rivers and fruits (jabal min ʾanhār wa-ṯimār), and a mountain [made] of smoke and fire (wa-jabal duḵān wa-nār). He will [be able to] split apart the sun, just as one parts hair (yašuqqu al-šams ka-mā yašuqqu al-šaʿrah); and he will [be able to] grab birds in the sky (wa-yatanāwalu al-ṭayr fī al-hawāʾ).”

[166] Cited in ʿUmar b. al-Mulaqqin (ed. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥamd al-Ḥaydān & Saʿd b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ʾÂl Ḥumayyad), Muḵtaṣar Istidrāk al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Ḏahabiyy ʿalá Mustadrak ʾAbī ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥākim, vol. 7 (Riyadh, KSA: Dār al-ʿĀṣimah, 1411 AH), p. 3435: “He [i.e., al-Ḥākim] said: ‘Sound (ṣaḥīḥ).’ I say: on the contrary, [it is] rejected (munkar): in it [is cited] ʿAbd al-ʾAʿlá b. ʿĀmir, whom ʾAḥmad [b. Ḥanbal] deemed to be weak (ḍaʿʿafa-hu); and Jahḍam b. ʿAbd Allāh, who is reliable (ṯiqah); and Muḥammad b. Sinān, whom ʾAbū Dāwūd deemed to be a liar (kaḏḏaba-hu).”

[167] Ḥākim, Mustadrak, IV, p. 574: “This is a hadith [that is] sound of isnad (ṣaḥīḥ al-ʾisnād), although the two of them [i.e., al-Buḵārī and Muslim] did not cite it.”

[168] ʾAḥmad b. Jaʿfar b. al-Munādī (ed. ʿAbd al-Karīm al-ʿUqaylī), Kitāb al-Malāḥim (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Sīrah, 1418 AH), pp. 300-303: ʾinna al-dajjāl ṭūlu-hu ʾarbaʿūn ḏirāʿ^an bi-al-ḏirāʿ al-ʾawwal taḥta-hu ḥimār ʾaqmar ṭūl kull ʾuḏun min ʾuḏunay-hi ṯalāṯūn ḏirāʿ^an mā bayna ḥāfir ḥimāri-hi ʾilá al-ḥāfir al-ʾâḵar masīrat yawm wa-laylah tuṭwá la-hu al-ʾarḍ manhal^an manhal^an yatanāwalu al-suḥāb wa-yasbiqu al-šams ʾilá maḡribi-hā yaḵūḍu al-baḥr ʾilá kaʿbay-hi ʾamāma-hu jabal duḵān wa-ḵalfa-hu jabal ʾaḵḍar yunādī bi-ṣawṭ la-hu yasmaʿu bi-hi mā bayna al-ḵāfiqayn. Compare with Dānī: yaḵruju min yahūdiyyat ʾaṣbahān ʿalá ḥimār ʾabtar mā bayna ʾuḏunay ḥimāri-hi ʾarbaʿūn ḏirāʿ^an mā bayna ḥāfiri-hi ʾilá al-ḥāfir al-ʾâḵar masīrat ʾarbaʿ layālⁱⁿ tuṭwá la-hu al-ʾarḍ manhal^an manhal^an yatanāwalu al-samāʾ bi-yadi-hi ʾamāma-hu jabal min duḵān wa-ḵalfa-hu jabal ʾâḵar. It cannot be argued that Ibn al-Munādī’s version is merely abridged in this respect: the relevant section of the hadith is present, just with different wordings. Moreover, the Antichrist’s Jewish followers are still mentioned, but later on, without any reference to Isfahan.

[169] Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, VI, p. 272.

[170] Mizzī, Tahḏīb al-Kamāl, V, pp. 167-172.

[171] ʿAlī b. Ḥusām al-Muttaqī al-Hindī (ed. Bakrī Ḥayyānī & Ṣafwah al-Saqā), Kanz al-ʿUmmāl, vol. 10 (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1985), pp. 86-87: “ʿĪsá b. al-ʾAšʿaṯ: he [i.e., al-Ḏahabī] said [of him] in al-Muḡnī [fī al-Ḍuʿafāʾ]: ‘[He is] unknown (majhūl).’ And [of] Juwaybir: ‘[He is] abandoned (matrūk).’”

[172] Ḥākim, Mustadrak, IV, p. 574: yaḵruju al-dajjāl min yahūdiyyat ʾaṣbahān ʿaynu-hu al-yumná mamsūḥah wa-al-ʾuḵrá ka-ʾanna-hā zuhrah tašuqqu al-šams šaqq^an wa-yatanāwalu al-ṭayr min al-jaww la-hu ṯalāṯ ṣīḥāt yasmaʿu-hunna ʾahl al-mašriq wa-ʾahl al-maḡrib wa-maʿa-hu jabalān jabal min duḵān wa-nār wa-jabal min šajar wa-ʾanhār wa-yaqūlu hāḏihi al-jannah wa-hāḏihi al-nār.

Dānī, al-Sunan al-Wāridah, V, pp. 1104-1105: fa-yabluḡu-kum ʾanna al-dajjāl qad ḵaraja min yahūdiyyat ʾaṣbahān ʾiḥdá ʿaynay-hi mamzūjah bi-al-dam wa-al-ʾuḵrá ka-ʾanna-hā lam tuḵlaq yatanāwalu al-ṭayr min al-hawāʾ la-hu ṯalāṯ ṣīḥāt yasmaʿu-hunna ʾahl al-mašriq wa-ʾahl al-maḡrib yarkabu ḥimār^an ʾabtar bayna ʾuḏunay-hi ʾarbaʿūn ḏirāʿ^an yastaẓillu taḥta sabʿūn ʾalf^an yatbaʿu-hu sabʿūn ʾalf^an min al-yahūd ʿalay-him al-tījān.

Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrīḵ, XXXVIII, p. 10: yaḵruju al-ʾaʿwar al-dajjāl min yahūdiyyat ʾaṣbahān ṯumma yaḵluqu la-hu ʿayn wa-al-ʾuḵrá ka-ʾanna-hā kawkab mamzūjah min dam tušawá fī al-šams šayy^an yatanāwalu al-ṭayr min al-jaww la-hu ṯalāṯ ṣīḥāt yasmaʿu-hunna ʾahl al-mašriq wa-al-maḡrib la-hu ḥimār mā bayna ʿarḍ ʾuḏunay-hi ʾarbaʿūn ḏirāʿ^an yaṭaʾu kull min-hā fī kull sabʿat ʾayyām yasīru maʿa-hu jabalān ʾaḥadu-humā fī-hi ʾašjār wa-ṯimār wa-māʾ wa-ʾaḥadu-humā fī-hi duḵān wa-nār yaqūlu hāḏihi al-jannah wa-hāḏihi al-nār.

[173] Cited in ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, (ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ ʾAbū Ḡuddah), Lisān al-Mīzān, vol. 5 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Bašāʾir al-ʾIslāmiyyah, 2002), p. 188.

[174] See above.

[175] Ibn ʿAdī, Kāmil, X, pp. 284-286.

[176] ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Nasāʾī (ed. Būrān al-Ḍannāwī & Kamāl Yūsuf Ḥūt), Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-al-Matrūkīn (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Kutub al-Ṯaqāfiyyah, 1985), p. 24.

[177] Of course, by itself, earlier attestation is not definitive: it is certainly possible for a more archaic report to only be preserved in a later source relative to a secondary report. In this case, however, earliness and absence of detail converge, or in other words: the versions that lack specifying details—which already makes them seem more primitive in that respect—also happen to be earlier attested.

[178] Ibn al-Munādī, Malāḥim, p. 222; ʾAbū al-Šayḵ, Ṭabaqāt, I, pp. 320-321; ʾAbū Nuʿaym ʾAḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-ʾAṣbahānī (ed. Sayyid Kasrawī Ḥasan), Kitāb Taʾrīḵ ʾAṣbahān Ḏikr ʾAḵbār ʾAṣbahān, vol. 1 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1990), pp. 43, 340; ibid., II, pp. 69-70.

[179] ʾAbū Nuʿaym, op. cit., I, p. 43, mentions that ʿAbd al-Salām b. Muṭahhar b. Ḥusām (Basran; d. 224/838-839) transmitted “something similar” from Jaʿfar, which weakly points to the latter as the real CL. (If the matn of this version was preserved and co-embodied the same, underlying, distinctive tradition, the evidence would be strong rather than weak.)

[180] See variously David J. Halperin, “The Ibn Ṣayyād Traditions and the Legend of al-Dajjāl”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 96, No. 2 (1976), pp. 213-225; Cook, Studies, pp. 110-117; Wim Raven, “Ibn Ṣayyād as an Islamic ‘Antichrist’: A Reappraisal of the Texts”, in in Wolfram Brandes & Felicitas Schmieder (eds.), Endzeiten: Eschatologie in den monotheistischen Weltreligionen (Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), pp. 261-291. Additionally, see Anthony, “Who was the Shepherd of Damascus?”, p. 25, n. 15, discussing the specific report under consideration.

[181] Of course, this in turn created a further contradiction with the reports of Ibn Ṣayyād’s death in Madinah, as noted in ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-Bārī bi-Šarḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Buḵāriyy, vol. 13 (Cairo, Egypt: al-Maktabah al-Salafiyyah, n. d.), p. 328.

[182] E.g., Maʿrūf et al., al-Musnad al-Jāmiʿ, X, pp. 812 ff.

[183] E.g., ibid., IV, p. 427. Co-transmissions from Saʿd are recorded in other sources.

[184] See also the anthology in Raven, “Ibn Ṣayyād”, pp. 273 ff., identifying several Madinan, Kufan, and Basran CLs, amongst others.

[185] See the references given previously.

[186] By contrast, there are also four implausible CLs in the material: (1) Ibn al-Munādī and al-Dānī’s hadiths both reach back, via lengthy Kufan SSs, to ʿAlī b. ʾabī Ṭālib (Madino-Kufan; d. 40/656); (2) Qatādah and ʾAbū al-Tayyāḥ’s hadiths both reach back, via different SSs, to ʾAbū Bakr b. ʾabī Quḥāfah (Madinan; d. 13/634); (3) Nuʿaym, al-Ḥākim, and Ibn ʿAsākir’s hadiths all reach back, via Syrian and Iraqi SSs, to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar (Madinan; d. 73-74/691-693); and al-Ḥākim and al-Dānī’s hadiths both reach back, via Iraqi SSs, to Ḥuḏayfah b. al-Yamān (Hijazo-Iraqi; d. 36/656-657).

Immediately, the established chronology of the isnad—which arose during the second fitnah and only became generalised over the ensuing decades—precludes ʾAbū Bakr, Ḥuḏayfah, and ʿAlī’s being genuine CLs, and even calls into question Ibn ʿUmar’s being a genuine CL. The relevant SSs—which purport to reach back into the pre-isnad era—are thus highly suspect, and the chances of an unacknowledged borrowing—rather than co-descent from the putative common source—are greatly increased. For more on this, see Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], pp. 141 ff., and id., “Where did you learn to write Arabic?”, pp. 166-167.

There are also more specific problems with each of these putative CLs. In the first case, ʿAlī can be dismissed as a non-CL without much consideration, on purely source-critical grounds: these two reports embody the same post-ʿAlī narrative framing expressed in the third person, e.g., ḵaṭaba-nā ʿaliyy bn ʾabī ṭālib… fa-ḥamida allāh wa-ʾaṯná ʿalay-hi ṯumma qāla… fa-qāma ʾilay-hi al-ʾaṣbaḡ bn nubātah fa-qāla… etc. This entails—as in the famous case of the synoptic gospels—that these reports are not independent eyewitness accounts or memories of the same event, but instead, variants of an urtext. Or, to put it another way: these are not independent co-transmissions from ʿAlī, but instead, co-transmissions of a single report about ʿAlī. In short, ʿAlī is not even putatively a CL. For more on this kind of thing, see Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], pp. 105, 120 ff.

In the second case, ʾAbū Bakr’s being a genuine CL is undermined by further (1) isnad-geographical, (2) historical-critical, and (3) tradition-critical considerations. Firstly: ʾAbū Bakr was the ruler of the proto-Islamic polity after Muḥammad and lived in Madinah, yet this putative prophecy of his was only preserved via Basran tradents. This would be odd if the hadith originated with ʾAbū Bakr in Madinah (not to mention if it was truly transmitted by the likes of Ibn al-Musayyab), but it would make perfect sense if the hadith actually originated later on in Basrah—hence, the otherwise unexpected Basran bottleneck in the isnads. Secondly: ʾAbū Bakr was a resident of the Hijaz and the ruler of a polity whose borders did not extend beyond the Arabian Peninsula until after his death, making it unlikely that Khurasan was on his radar. To put it another way, a prophecy about the Antichrist’s emerging from Khurasan fits awkwardly in ʾAbū Bakr’s historical context, but comfortably into the milieu of post-conquest Basrah, a city with close links to the Persianate East. Even the creators of these hadiths were aware of the implausibility of ʾAbū Bakr’s knowing of Khurasan, which explains why they depicted him as speaking uncertainly about “a land called Khurasan”. For them, this only served to highlight the miraculous nature of the prophecy, with ʾAbū Bakr’s having access to information that even he himself did not understand; but for us, this only serves to reinforce the anachronistic and implausible nature of the hadith’s ascription. Thirdly and finally: whereas Qatādah’s hadith is simple and only reaches back to ʾAbū Bakr (i.e., it is mawqūf), ʾAbū al-Tayyāḥ’s hadith, which is attested later than Qatādah’s, is more elaborate and reaches all the way back to the Prophet (i.e., it is marfūʿ). This is exactly what it would look like if ʾAbū al-Tayyāḥ borrowed Qatādah’s hadith, improved it, and gave it an independent isnad back to ʾAbū Bakr, i.e., the sort of thing described in Schacht, Origins, pp. 171-172; Gautier H. A. Juynboll, Encyclopedia of Canonical Ḥadīth (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2007), p. xxvii, col. 1; and Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], p. 125.

In the third case, Ḥuḏayfah’s being a genuine CL is further undermined by the simultaneous association of the relevant material (the Antichrist’s eye, his reaching into the sky, his two mountains, etc.) with Ibn ʿUmar, including without Ḥuḏayfah and in a simpler form. This is what it would look like if material initially associated with Ibn ʿUmar and then, at a secondary stage, further associated with Ḥuḏayfah. This also comes across in the composite nature of the two hadiths attributed to Ḥuḏayfah, which are lengthy sequences of prophecies that exist independently elsewhere: this is what it would look like if Ḥuḏayfah served as a popular framing device (above all in early Iraq) for collecting and combining prophecies. For another example of Ḥuḏayfah’s being drafted to frame a false prophecy (again by later Iraqis, to judge by the isnad), see Ḵaṭīb, Taʾrīḵ, I, p. 338. See also Ignáz Goldziher (trans. Andras Hamori & Ruth Hamori), Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law (Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 140, n. 76, who noted that “we encounter Ḥudhayfa as the authority for many eschatological and apocalyptic Hadith.”

In the fourth case, Ibn ʿUmar’s being a genuine CL is further undermined by the failure of any Hijazi CLs or Hijazi collections to transmit this hadith from him: the version recorded by Nuʿaym reaches back to Ibn ʿUmar via a Syrian SS, whilst al-Ḥākim and Ibn ʿAsākir’s versions reach back to him via mixed SSs populated by Iraqi tradents. To make matters worse, the latter two other versions are noticeably more elaborate and more alike compared to the Nuʿaym’s version, and these two are also more similar to al-Dānī’s version—which does not cite Ibn ʿUmar at all, whilst still retaining Ḥuḏayfah—than they are to Nuʿaym’s version, or in other words: al-Ḥākim, al-Dānī, and Ibn ʿAsākir constitute a distinctive cluster or sub-tradition. This is consistent with their sharing a more recent, secondary common source or urtext vis-à-vis Nuʿaym’s version, yet this secondary source is not disclosed by the relevant SSs. This is in turn consistent with al-Ḥākim, al-Dānī, and Ibn ʿAsākir’s versions’ being alternative or parallel reworkings of the same hadith, each having received a different, false isnad along the way, whilst still retaining the initial figures of Ibn ʿUmar and/or Ḥuḏayfah. In light of all of this, Ibn ʿUmar’s status as a genuine CL is extremely dubious.

[187] https://x.com/KerrDepression/status/1784459771703132620

[188] E.g., Gregor Schoeler, “Mūsā b. ʿUqbas Maghāzī”, in Harald Motzki (ed.), The Biography of Muhammad: The Issue of the Sources (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2000), p. 94.

[189] Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], pp. 66, 112, 130.

[190] See ibid., pp. 56-61, for a summary of Juynboll’s approach.

[191] Ibid., pp. 133 ff.; id., “Where did you learn to write Arabic?”, pp. 164-168.

[192] Harald Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis: A Debate”, in Harald Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions: Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2010), p. 240.

[193] Again, to reiterate: the position that the CL could be the creator of a hadith, and that their ability to cite earlier sources—and the sources of their sources—was impeded by the preceding informal nature of transmission, and that skepticism is thus warranted regarding pre-CL SS isnads in general, is not the same as the position that CLs are axiomatically, automatically, or even mostly the creators of their hadiths.

[194] See for example the following statement from my original blog article: “Apropos this debate, Juynboll has argued that, in some cases, the content of hadiths can be correlated with the particular interests or historical contexts of their CLs, which makes it likely that the CLs in question created—or recreated—the hadiths in question.” Emphasis added here.

[195] Harald Motzki (trans. Marion H. Katz), The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence: Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2002), p. 25. (Emphasis mine.)

[196] Id. (trans. Frank Griffel & Paul Hardy), “Whither Ḥadīth Studies?”, in Harald Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions: Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2010), pp. 52-53. In context, “early collectors” refers back to Motzki’s interpretation of the CLs as such, specified earlier in the same paragraph (i.e., “the common link… these first early collectors… these early collectors…”).

[197] https://x.com/KerrDepression/status/1784459771703132620

[198] Firstly, Motzki was agnostic about our ability to verify the overwhelming majority of transmissions all the way back to the Prophet. For example, see Harald Motzki, “Islamic Law: Transmission and Authenticity of the Reports from the Prophet”, in Stanley N. Katz (ed.), The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, Volume 3: Evidence—Labor and Employment Law (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 333, col. 1: “By this approach [i.e., ICMA] several hadiths of the Prophet could be traced back to the first Islamic century. It could also be shown that one of the few hadiths assumed by Muslim scholars to be recurrent (mutawātir) is only “well known” (mashhūr), going back to one companion alone, and has not been transmitted literally. The early date of the hadiths in question does not mean, however, that they actually report a saying or action of the Prophet himself. This remains an open question that so far cannot be answered by Western scholarly methods.” (Emphasis mine.) For a similar point, see Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis”, pp. 234-235. Even in a rare instance in which he believed that he had identified an authentic transmission from the Prophet, Motzki reiterated his general agnosticism, in Harald Motzki (trans. Sonja Adrianovska & Vivien Reid), “The Prophet and the Debtors: A Ḥadīth Analysis under Scrutiny”, in Harald Motzki, Analysing Muslim Traditions: Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2010), p. 176: “one cannot generally get this far with the source-critical methods presently available.”

Secondly, Motzki was explicitly skeptical of a large swathe of Prophetical Hadith, e.g., legal hadiths from the Prophet ascribed via Ibn ʿAbbās, as in Harald Motzki, Reconstruction of a Source of Ibn Isḥāq’s Life of the Prophet and Early Qurʾān Exegesis: A Study of Early Ibn ʿAbbās Traditions (Piscataway, USA: Gorgias Press, 2017), pp. 2-3, in which he notes that his own studies confer “justification” for “the doubt in respect of the authenticity of the Ibn ʿAbbās traditions of the Prophet.”

Thirdly, Motzki came to accept the consensus of critical scholarship that the use of isnads only arose in the second fitnah and became systematic and generalised later still; see Motzki, Origins, p. 241; id., “Whither Ḥadīth Studies?”, p. 50; id., “The Prophet and the Debtors”, p. 137; and esp. id., Reconstruction, p. 73. This would entail a general skepticism regarding isnads reaching back before this point, as discussed in Little, “The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age” [unabridged version], pp. 133 ff., and id., “Where did you learn to write Arabic?”, pp. 164-168. On this note, see also Harald Motzki, “Dating Muslim Traditions: A Survey”, Arabica, Vol. 52, Issue 2 (2005), pp. 235-236: “It seems, therefore, more appropriate to keep the premise that, generally speaking, the isnād system served the expectations of the traditionist. Otherwise, we would expect that they would have quickly abandoned it. Until we have proof to the contrary, we must, therefore, presume that isnāds are, in principle, reliable, except, perhaps, around the time when the system came into being.” (Emphasis mine.) See also Motzki, “The Origins of Muslim Exegesis”, p. 272, in which Motzki, though more sanguine than some of his predecessors, still characterised “the first three quarters of the first/seventh century” as “the phase of the anonymous and unknown living exegetical tradition”.

[199] A more interesting alternative explanation would be that the correlation between these hadiths and key figures contemporaneous to the ʿĪsawiyyah can be explained on the view that these hadiths authentically derive from the Prophet by positing that they attracted attention, and attained widespread transmission, precisely due to their resemblance to the ʿĪsawiyyah. In other words, on this view, the Prophet genuinely predicted that the Jews of Isfahan would follow the Antichrist en mass; his prediction was henceforth transmitted in relative obscurity; then, at the time of Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī, the rise and rebellion of the ʿĪsawiyyah made these hitherto-obscure hadiths suddenly appealing, resulting in their widespread transmission and preservation—branching out from both Yaḥyá and al-ʾAwzāʿī—thereafter. However, even a more sophisticated view like this requires (i.e., fails to explain) a major coincidence: that the Prophet predicted that the Jews of Isfahan would follow the Antichrist, and that, more than a century later, the Jews of Isfahan just so happen to have followed a false messianic leader. Moreover, the very notion that Muḥammad, operating in the Arabian hinterland, whose Quranic pronouncements exhibit little interest in precise historical predictions and Persian geography, would make predictions about Jews in Isfahan, seems most unlikely. Indeed, it is highly questionable whether he would even know of the presence of Jews in Isfahan in the first place. Inevitably, such a view must resort to an appeal to supernatural knowledge and genuine prophecy, i.e., the least probable hypothesis of all. For more on this, see my original blog article.

[200] For example, my hypothesis leaves unspecified the exact identity of the person(s) from whom al-ʾAwzāʿī took his various elements, and assumes that he was able to access these elements from Basran sources or sources coming out of Basrah—a completely reasonable supposition, given that such material was increasingly spreading far and wide, out of places like Basrah and into other regions, during the mid-to-late 8th Century CE. This is completely normal in historical hypotheses—for example: we can infer that some of Paul’s epistles are pseudepigraphic without knowing the identity of the real author; we can infer that pseudo-Sebeos and the later Islamic tradition preserve co-memories of the same events without knowing the identities of the former’s ultimate sources; we can infer that the authors of the gospels of Luke and Matthew derived material from the Gospel of Mark without knowing the identities of said authors, nor the scribes who copied the respective texts; etc.

[201] In other words, the most likely point at which Yaḥyá disseminated any given Yamāmī-sourced hadith would obviously be the period of his life that he spent in al-Yamāmah.

[202] Ibn al-Madīnī, ʿIlal, pp. 36 ff.; Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, I, pp. 17, 24, 59-60, 129, 187, 220, 234-235, 252-253, 264-265; ibid., VIII, p. 256; Ḵaṭīb, Taʾrīḵ, XII, p. 144; ibid., XVI, p. 176. For some other versions of this statement, see ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Ḵaṭīb al-Baḡdādī (ed. Maḥmūd al-Ṭaḥḥān), al-Jāmiʿ li-ʾAḵlāq al-Rāwī wa-ʾÂdāb al-Sāmiʿ, vol. 2 (Riyadh, KSA: Maktabat al-Maʿārif, 1983), p. 294; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrīḵ, LIX, p. 401; Yūsuf b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Barr (ed. ʾAbū al-ʾAšbāl al-Zuhayrī), Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm wa-Faḍli-hi, vol. 2 (Dammam, KSA: Dār Ibn al-Jawziyy, 1994), p. 1131.

[203] ʾAḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿIjlī (ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Qalʿajī), Taʾrīḵ al-Ṯiqāt (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1984), p. 475.

[204] Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, IX, p. 142.

[205] Ḏahabī, Siyar, VI, p. 27.

[206] Sijistānī, Suʾālāt, pp. 324-325.

[207] Tirmiḏī, al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, V, p. 748; Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, IX, p. 141.

[208] ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad, ʿIlal, II, p. 494; Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, IX, p. 142.

[209] Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, I, p. 157; ibid., IX, pp. 142-143.

[210] Ibn ʾabī Ḵayṯamah, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, I, pp. 339; Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, I, p. 156; Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, al-Muntaḵab min Ḏayl al-Muḏayyal (Beirut, Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-ʾAʿlamiyy li-l-Maṭbūʿāt, n. d.), p. 133.

[211] Ibn ʾabī Ḥātim, Jarḥ, IX, p. 141.

[212] Muqaddamī, Taʾrīḵ, p. 201.

[213] ʿUqaylī, Ḍuʿafāʾ, VI, p. 399.

[214] Ibn ʾabī Ḵayṯamah, al-Taʾrīḵ al-Kabīr, I, p. 342.

[215] ʿUqaylī, Ḍuʿafāʾ, VI, p. 399; ʾAbū al-Qāsim ʿAbd Allāh b. ʾAḥmad al-Kaʿbī al-Balḵī (ed. al-Ḥusaynī b. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm), Qabūl al-ʾAḵbār wa-Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, vol. 1 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2000), p. 286.

[216] ʿUqaylī, Ḍuʿafāʾ, VI, p. 400.

[217] Ibid., p. 398.

[218] ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Nasāʾī (ed. Ḥātim b. ʿĀrif al-ʿAwnī), Tasmiyat Mašāyiḵ al-Nasāʾiyy allaḏīna samiʿa min-hum wa-maʿa-hu ḏikr al-mudallisīn (Makkah, KSA: Dār ʿĀlam al-Fawāʾid, 1423 AH), pp. 121-124: “An account of those who engaged in deception (ḏikr al-mudallisīn): [1] al-Ḥasan [b. Yasār], and [2] Qatādah [b. Diʿāmah], and [3] Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl, and [4] Yaḥyá b. ʾabī Kaṯīr, and [5] [Sulaymān] al-Taymī, and [6] Yūnus b. ʿUbayd, and [7] [Saʿīd] b. ʾabī ʿArūbah, and [8] Hušaym [b. Bašīr], and [9] ʾAbū ʾIsḥāq al-Sabīʿī, and [10] ʾIsmāʿīl b. ʾabī Ḵālid, and [11] al-Ḥakam [b. ʿUtaybah], and [12] al-Ḥajjāj b. ʾArṭāh, and [13] Muḡīrah [b. Miqsam], and [14] [Sufyān] al-Ṯawrī, and [15] ʾAbū al-Zubayr al-Makkī, and [16] [ʿAbd Allāh] b. ʾabī Najīḥ, and [17] [ʿAbd al-Malik] b. Jurayj, and [18] [Sufyān] b. ʿUyaynah.”

[219] ʿAlī b. ʿUmar al-Dāraquṭnī (ed. Maḥfūẓ al-Raḥmān Zayd Allāh al-Salafī), al-ʿIlal al-Wāridah fī al-ʾAḥādīṯ al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 11 (Riyadh, KSA: Dār Ṭaybah, 1985), p. 124.

[220] ʿAlī b. ʿUmar al-Dāraquṭnī (ed. Muqbil b. Hādī al-Wādiʿī), al-ʾIlzāmāt wa-al-Tatabbuʿ, 3rd ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1985), p. 126.

[221] Ibn Ḥibbān, Ṯiqāt, VII, p. 592.

[222] Id. (ed. Majdī b. Manṣūr b. Sayyid al-Šūrá), Mašāhīr ʿUlamāʾ al-ʾAmṣār (Beirut, Lebanon: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1995), p. 224.

[223] ʿUqaylī, Ḍuʿafāʾ, VI, pp. 398-399.

[224] Ibid., p. 399.

[225] Yaḥyá b. Maʿīn [& al-ʿAbbās b. Muḥammad al-Dūrī] (ed. ʾAḥmad Muḥammad Nūr Sayf), Yaḥyá bn Maʿīn wa-Kitābu-hu al-Taʾrīḵ, vol. 4 (Makkah, KSA: Markaz al-Baḥṯ al-ʿIlmiyy wa-ʾIḥyāʾ al-Turāṯ al-ʾIslāmiyy, 1979), p. 207.

[226] Of relevance here is ʾAḥmad b. Taymiyyah (ed. Muḥammad Rašād Sālim), Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah fī Nqḍ Kalām al-Šīʿah wa-al-Qadariyyah, vol. 7 (Riyadh, KSA: Jāmiʿat al-ʾImām Muḥammad bn Saʿūd al-ʾIslāmiyyah, 1986), p. 435: “[The issue of] loose reports (al-marāsīl) has divided the scholars between [those who advocate] their acceptance and [those who advocate] their rejection. The soundest of the opinions [thereon] is that there are acceptable [reports] amongst them, and rejected [reports] amongst them, and [reports upon which judgement is] suspended amongst them. Thus, whoever is known, from his [reliable] status, to have only omitted reliable sources (lā yursilu ʾillā ʿan ṯiqah), a loose report of his is accepted; and whoever is known to have omitted both reliable and unreliable sources (yursilu ʿan al-ṯiqah wa-ḡayr ṯiqah), when his omission is a transmission from one whose status is unknown, then this [is a report upon which judgement] is suspended. And any [report] from amongst the loose reports that contradicts [a report] that was transmitted by reliable tradents, [such a loose report] is rejected.”

[227] ʾAḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Ḵaṭīb al-Baḡdādī (ed. ʾIbrāhīm b. Muṣṭafá al-Damyāṭī), al-Kifāyah fī Maʿrifat ʾUṣūl ʿIlm al-Riwāyah, vol. 1 (Cairo, Egypt: Dār al-Hudá, 2003), p. 399. For a similar report from Ibn Mahdī, see Ḥākim, Mustadrak, I, p. 666; id. (ed. Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Munʿim ʾAḥmad), al-Madḵal ʾilá Kitāb al-ʾIklīl (Alexandria, Egypt: Dār al-Daʿwah, 1983), p. 29; Ḵaṭīb, Jāmiʿ, II, p. 91.

[228] Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, p. 435.

[229] Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. ʾabī Bakr al-Hayṯamī (ed. Ḥusām al-Dīn al-Qudsī), Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid wa-Manbaʿ al-Fawāʾid, vol. 7 (Cairo, Egypt: Maktabat al-Qudsiyy, 1994), p. 338.

[230] Michael Brett, The Fatimids and Egypt (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2019), pp. 4, 142.

[231] Andrew C. S. Peacock, Islam, Literature and Society in Mongol Anatolia (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2019), pp. 236-237.

[232] Peter Jackson, From Genghis Khan to Tamerlane: The Reawakening of Mongol Asia (New Haven, USA: Yale University Press, 2023), p. 37.

[233] Heather J. Sharkey, “Jihads and Crusades in Sudan from 1881 to the Present”, in Sohail H. Hashmi (ed.), Just Wars, Holy Wars, and Jihads: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Encounters and Exchanges (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 271.

[234] Basharat Ahmad (trans. Hamid Rahman), The Great Reformer: Biography of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, vol. 1 (Dublin, USA: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam (Lahore) USA Inc., 2007), p. 175.

[235] Mücahit Bilici, “Turkish Messiahs, Mahdis, and “False” prophets”, duvaR (27^th/Jan/2020): https://www.duvarenglish.com/columns/2020/01/27/turkish-messiahs-mahdis-and-false-prophets

[236] Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 139-140.