AL-MADĀʾINĪ AND THE NARRATIVES OF THE ʿABBĀSID DAWLA

Transcription

1 AL-MADĀʾINĪ AND THE NARRATIVES OF THE ʿABBĀSID DAWLA Ilkka Lindstedt University of Helsinki This is a study on the Arabic historical narratives of the ʿAbbāsid revolution and its aftermath that occurred in ce. Its main focus is a medieval work on these events, called the Kitāb al-dawla, composed by an Arabic Muslim collector and composer of historical narratives, Abū l-ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-madāʾinī (d. c.228/ ). The work is not extant, but its skeleton can be reconstructed on the basis of later quotations of it. Al-Madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla is an important source for the events of the the ʿAbbāsid revolution: since al-madāʾinī was not directly sponsored by the ʿAbbāsid dynasty, he was not constrained to be a spokesperson for the ruling house s propaganda needs. INTRODUCTION This is a study on the narratives of the ʿAbbāsid revolution and its aftermath that took place in / Its main focus is a medieval work on these events, called the Kitāb al-dawla, composed by an Arabic Muslim akhbārī, collector and composer of historical narratives, Abū l-ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-madāʾinī (d. c.228/ ). The work is not extant, but can be reconstructed, to some extent, on the basis of later quotations of it. A detailed discussion of the reconstruction forms Appendix I of this study. Appendix I should be read only by those who are really interested in the question of reconstructing lost works and how the later authors quoting the Kitāb al-dawla reworked the accounts. The reader who is more interested in general questions about the historiography of the ʿAbbāsid revolution can refer to it only when needed. I have previously published two articles that deal with al-madāʾinī and the ʿAbbāsid revolution and that supplement the current study (Lindstedt 2013; 2014). In the study at hand, my aim is to discuss and analyze the narratives of the ʿAbbāsid revolution in two lost works (by al-madāʾinī and al-haytham b. ʿAdī) that can be reconstructed. The narratives will be compared with each other and other surviving quotations. I will also probe the surviving works of the third fourth/ ninth tenth centuries and how they reused the older material. 1 The dates are given in this study in the hijrī (ah) and Common Era (ce) dates. Professor Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, Mehdy Shaddel, Kaj Öhrnberg, and the anonymous peer reviewers read an earlier manuscript of this study and commented on it. I am very grateful for their important comments and suggestions. Volume 5 (2017), pp DOI /store Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. ISSN:

2 66 My aim is to scrutinize what I call the early dawla literature and, especially, to answer the following questions: 2 When and to what end did the narratives originate? How were they transmitted? How did the later (fourth/tenth-century) authors and historians reuse and rework the material? At the end of this work, I will also say a few words on the modern scholarly study of the coming to power of the ʿAbbāsids. Reconstructing lost works: possibilities and pitfalls Most Arabic works of the first third/seventh ninth centuries are not extant. Arabic historiography emerges in the form of lecture notes and notebooks at the end of the first/seventh century, developing into true literature transmitted as monographs around 200/815 and later (Schoeler 2006; 2009). Middle Persian historical works seem to have been translated and adapted into Arabic in the second/eighth century as well (these early translations are not preserved). 3 Still, many historians and littérateurs of the first part of the third/ninth century, including al-madāʾinī, transmitted their works by lecturing and without giving a finalized form to them (Lindstedt 2013). This changes toward the end of the third/ninth century. What is more, the books of the Arabic historians grew longer. The works of these later historians are often extant: for example, al-balādhurī, al-ṭabarī, and Ibn Aʿtham, who are discussed at length in this study. What is notable is that the later historians often quoted the earlier monographs and incorporated material from them in their own works. The question that then arises is, can we access and even partly reconstruct the earlier works on the basis of later quotations of them? The answer is yes, with some noteworthy pitfalls, however. The most important and useful tool for reconstructing lost works and smaller narrative items is undoubtedly isnād-cum-matn analysis. The most notable developers and proponents of this method of late have been Gregor Schoeler and Harald Motzki. 4 They rely on the common link theory first promulgated by Joseph Schacht (1950) and further remodeled by G.H.A. Juynboll (1983). The isnād-cum-matn analysis has been a great leap forward in the study of Arabic traditions and narratives, allowing one to date and analyze their textual history with some precision. The method begins by analysing and comparing the asānīd (chains of transmitters) of a single ḥadīth [i.e. narrative unit] in as many variants as possible in order to discern common transmitters in the different chains, including the earliest one (the common link), who is assumed to be the person that distributed a particular tradition. Then, the textual variants (mutūn) of the ḥadīth are analysed. This means that the use of words and the structure of the text of each variant of a tradition is compared with others. This process helps determine whether the aḥādīth have a common source or have simply been copied from others. Because aḥādīth were mostly transmitted aurally (even if supported by written notes), meaning that small mistakes were easily made, the analysis assumes that even slight differences in the textual variants of a single ḥadīth indicate actual transmission from one person to another while identical texts should be treated as having been copied from others and their asānīd as having been forged. The results of the asānīd-analysis are then compared with the outcome of the comparison between the mutūn. If the latter support and confirm the former, it may be assumed 2 For the term dawla, literally turn, here mostly translated as revolution, see Lewis 1973: ; Sharon 1983: 19 27; Lassner 2000: For the occurrences of the word in this sense in the primary sources, see, e.g., al-balādhurī, Ansāb III: 66, 218. Only later does the word dawla receive the meaning dynasty, although sometimes, as in al-balādhurī (Ansāb III: 157), the meaning the new dynasty seems to be intended. 3 On the translation of Persian historiography into Arabic, see Hämeen-Anttila 2013; forthcoming. 4 On the study of the isnāds and the common link with this method, see, e.g., Motzki 2003; Schoeler 2011; for skeptical views, see, e.g., Berg 2003.

3 67 that the ḥadīth in question is not a forged one but has a real history. The transmitter that all asānīd have in common can then be established as the person who distributed (the reconstructed kernel) of that particular ḥadīth. (Boekhoff-van der Voort, Versteegh & Wagemakers 2011: 10) With this method, Görke and Schoeler (Görke & Schoeler 2008; Schoeler 2011), for example, have studied the corpus of traditions of ʿUrwa b. al-zubayr (d. 93 or 94/ ) concerning the life of the Prophet Muḥammad. This (fluid) corpus of material was collected or composed at most sixty years after the death of the Prophet, which takes us some hundred years earlier in time than the standard extant sīra works by the second third/eighth ninth-century authors Ibn Isḥāq/Ibn Hishām, al-wāqidī, and others. It has to be noted that, because the quotations of al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla appear, it seems, only in three extant works (none of them mention the title of the work they derive their quotations from, however), my reconstruction cannot be properly called isnād-cum-matn analysis, which usually relies on, say, five or more strands of transmission. Because of this lack of independent witnesses to al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla narratives, there is uncertainty about their exact shape and wording. However, the isnād-cum-matn method can be used to ascertain that the main sources used in my reconstruction attempt, al-balādhurī, al-ṭabarī, and Ibn Aʿtham, were independent sources that had a common source (the common link, in the parlance of isnād-cum-matn analysis), namely, al-madāʾinī, since all three sources diverge in their quotations in a way that is suggested by what we know of the aural, lecture-based transmission environment and how this environment affected the transmutation of texts. The chains of transmission, asānīd, also seem to be authentic (although we cannot really ascertain this in terms of al-madāʾinī s own sources). However, it must be noted that quoting was often done rather freely in Arabic historiography that was transmitted in a purely written environment. It should be assumed that in the written environment the changes are different; for instance, long sections in an otherwise verbatim-quoted text have been removed or added in-between, and so on. Two scholars that have in the recent past discussed the problems in recovering lost Arabic texts are Lawrence Conrad (1993) and Ella Landau-Tasseron (2004). Conrad s review article concerns Gordon Newby s (1989) effort to recreate Ibn Isḥāq s lost Kitāb al-mubtadaʾ. Conrad (1993: ) takes Newby to task for not clearly setting out the methodological premises of his recreation effort and for not taking all the Arabic source material into consideration. It is not very clear how Newby ended up with the accounts as he presents them (only in English translation) and there is rather little evidence to support the idea that the text given by Newby could be identified with Ibn Isḥāq s Kitāb al-mubtadaʾ. Conrad (1993: 261) also notes that Ibn Isḥāq (similarly to al-madāʾinī, as will become clear) probably did not compose an authoritative, single version of his works but rather taught them in lectures and could, then, have modified the material in their course. Also, Ibn Isḥāq s student reworked the material: comparison of recensions made by these [Ibn Isḥāq s] students will lead the investigator back not to a stable archetype attributable to Ibn Isḥāq, but rather, and only, to a fluid corpus of notes and teaching materials either taught to students in different ways or given specific form by these students in different ways. Ella Landau-Tasseron s article discusses reconstructing lost Arabic works in more general terms. She considers many problems in such projects, including omissions of material of the original work by the later authors quoting the work, false ascriptions, and the metamorphoses of transmitted texts (Landau-Tasseron 2004: 47 57), ending the article with case studies of how earlier material has been quoted by later Arabic authors such as Ibn Ḥubaysh (Landau-

4 68 Tasseron 2004: 57 86). These critical and pertinent comments are taken into consideration in my effort to reconstruct al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla: some of its material was omitted by one or more later authors quoting it, 5 some problematic ascriptions can be detected, 6 and, in general, it is taken as axiomatic in this study that al-madāʾinī s students and later authors usually al-madāʾinī s students students reworked the material to the extent that we can only reconstruct the outline of al-madāʾinī s work but not, I believe, the original wording (which never existed in one single form, in any case). 7 AL-MADĀʾINĪ S LIFE AND THE ʿABBĀSIDS Birth and early education To understand al-madāʾinī s oeuvre and intellectual outlook, we have to turn to his biography. According to the biographical sources, his full name was Abū l-ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh b. Abī Sayf al-qurashī al-madāʾinī. 8 Of his family we know virtually nothing other than that they were mawlās freedmen of ʿAbd al-raḥmān b. Samura b. Ḥabīb al-qurashī (d. 50 or 51/ ) (Ibn ʿAdī, Kāmil V: 1855). 9 Since ʿAbd al-raḥmān b. Samura was an officer campaigning in the east, this seems to signify that one of al-madāʾinī s forefathers, maybe his great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather, was not of Arabian origin (Rotter 1974: 104), but probably a captured war prisoner of Iranian descent. Al-Madāʾinī s other nisba (a name denoting descent or origin), al-qurashī, is, of course, due to his family s mawlā status and relation to ʿAbd al-raḥmān b. Samura al-qurashī. However, this clientage relationship does not seem to have played any role in al-madāʾinī s life as far as I can tell. It might be interesting to note that, as far as I have been able to ascertain, nothing seems to be known of al-madāʾinī s father or grandfather. 10 Nor can his son al-ḥasan (if such a son existed or lived to maturity) be found in the sources. Al-Madāʾinī was born in al-baṣra. The year 135/ is given as his year of birth (al-marzubānī, Nūr al-qabas: 184), which, if credible, would place his childhood in the first years of the rule of the ʿAbbāsids, who ruled from Iraq, not Syria, as the Umayyads had done. Al-Madāʾinī received his education in al-baṣra and al-kūfa, 11 as the following list of his teachers shows (al-dhahabī, Taʾrīkh VI: 104): ʿAwāna b. al-ḥakam, died 147/ or later, Kūfan; Qurra b. Khālid, died 154/ or later, Baṣran; Ibn Abī Dhiʾb, died 159/ , Medinan; Mubārak b. Faḍāla, died 164/ or later, Baṣran; 12 Ḥammād b. Salama, died 167/ , Baṣran; Sallām b. Miskīn, died c.167/ , Baṣran; Juwayriya b. Asmāʾ, died 173/ , Baṣran; Shuʿba (b. ʿAyyāsh?), died 193/ , Kūfan. 5 E.g. Appendix I, no. 26. Of course, there might have been material in al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla that is lost for good, since it is possible that some accounts were not quoted by any later source. 6 E.g. al-balādhurī s sources in Appendix I, no For more in-depth discussion of these reworking processes, see Lindstedt 2013; 2015 as well as Appendix I of the present work. 8 For al-madāʾinī s biography and bibliography, see also Rotter 1974; Fahd 1975; Sezgin 1986; and especially Lindstedt , which this discussion is largely based on. 9 On ʿAbd al-raḥmān b. Samura, see Ibn Ḥajar, Iṣāba IV: Crone (2012: 87) claims that al-madāʾinī transmitted from his father in al-ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh III: 418), but this is incorrect. The ʿAlī b. Muḥammad appearing there is actually ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Sulaymān al-hāshimī, as can be seen in al-ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh III: 417). 11 Al-Madāʾinī s Kūfa connection was already noted by Sezgin (1986: 946). 12 In Ibn Ḥajar (Lisān XXVII: 190) al-madāʾinī is quoted on his opinion that Mubārak died in the year 166.

5 69 This list demonstrates that al-madāʾinī s studies should probably be dated to the 140s 160s/760s 780s. Indeed, al-madāʾinī is quoted as saying that he was in al-baṣra in the year 153/ (al-jāḥiẓ, Bayān II: 93). While the list of names above is very ḥadīthdominated, other teachers and informants can be found by analyzing the isnāds, the chains of transmission, found in al-madāʾinī s works, such as the Kitāb al-dawla, which is the object of this study. 13 These persons were akhbārīs or adībs, often associated with the Umayyad or ʿAbbāsid courts (Lindstedt : 238). At some point in his life, al-madāʾinī spent some time in al-madāʾin (the ancient Ctesiphon), from which he got his nisba (al-ābī, Nathr al-durr VI: 339; Ibn Ḥamdūn, Tadhkira III: 84). Of his activities there we know nothing, however. It is also possible that al-madāʾinī might have visited Damascus as well as Mecca on a pilgrimage, but this must remain open for now since only a few reports hinting at this have survived (Lindstedt : ). Although al-madāʾinī is known as an authority on Khurāsān and the eastern Islamic world, perhaps surprisingly we have no evidence of him visiting areas to the north or east of Iraq. Muʿtazilism In al-kūfa, al-madāʾinī also studied Muʿtazilī kalām, a rationalistic branch of theology. He is mentioned among the students (or servants? ghilmān) of a shadowy figure called Maʿmar ibn/abū al-ashʿath (there is some confusion about his name; Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: 100; van Ess : II, 37 38). Van Ess ( : II, 37) places Maʿmar in al-baṣra, but since al-madāʾinī is mentioned as a Kūfan Muʿtazilite (al-qādī ʿAbd al-jabbār, Faḍl al-iʿtizāl: 344; Ibn al-murtaḍā, Ṭabaqāt: 54, 140), we should probably place Maʿmar ibn/abū al-ashʿath there, too. Maʿmar is missing from the biographical lexica, but he is mentioned by al-jāḥiẓ in two of his works in a way that links him with the Muʿtazila (al-jāḥiẓ, Bayān I: 91 92; Ḥayawān II: 140; III: 357, 530). Al-Jāḥiẓ (Ḥayawān II: 140) calls him a philosopher among the mutakallimūn, theologians. As an anecdote it is mentioned that Maʿmar disapproved of eating bāqilāʾ beans and his students, al-madāʾinī amongst them, followed suit (Al-Jāḥiẓ, Ḥayawān III: 357). 14 Al-Madāʾinī s Muʿtazilī studies are an intriguing detail, but his Muʿtazilism does not appear to have affected his career much. Theological subjects are all but lacking in his bibliography (Lindstedt : 236). 15 However, later in his life, after he had relocated to Baghdād, al-madāʾinī visited Caliph al-maʾmūn (reigned from Baghdād / ) a couple of times. One could speculate that al-madāʾinī s knowledge of Muʿtazilī theology facilitated his relationship to al-maʾmūn, who sponsored Muʿtazilī thinkers, although, it must be noted, al-madāʾinī was never more than a minor guest at al-maʾmūn s court. 16 Al-Mawṣilī and al-madāʾinī At some point in his life, al-madāʾinī moved to Baghdād, the capital of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate. While an exact date cannot be given for al-madāʾinī s move, it must be noted that, toward the end of the second/eighth century, many other scholars also moved from al-baṣra and al-kūfa to 13 See Appendix II for al-madāʾinī s sources in his Kitāb al-dawla. 14 For more on the bean taboo, see van Ess : II, For a full bibliography of titles attributed to al-madāʾinī, see Lindstedt : On al-maʾmūn s relationship with Muʿtazilism, the exact details of which are still debated, see van Ess : III,

6 70 Baghdād (Cohen 1970: 44). In Baghdād, al-madāʾinī found a friend and patron in Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-mawṣilī (b. c.150/ in Rayy or Marw, d. 235/ in Baghdād), whom he often used to visit. 17 Later, al-madāʾinī supposedly died in his house (Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: 101). Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-mawṣilī was a famous poet-cum-singer as well as boon companion of the caliphs. What is more, Isḥāq transmitted literary and, to a lesser extent, historical khabars. It is difficult to pinpoint with much accuracy when al-mawṣilī and al-madāʾinī became acquainted. They seem to have been of similar age, with al-mawṣilī outliving al-madāʾinī by some years. It was probably through al-mawṣilī that al-madāʾinī gained access to al-maʾmūn s court: al-mawṣilī is said to have been befriended by the ʿAbbāsid caliphs from Hārūn al-rashīd to al-mutawakkil (al-marzubānī, Nūr al-qabas: 318). Al-Madāʾinī s relationship with Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-mawṣilī, who is portrayed as al-madāʾinī s Maecenas, is underlined in a narrative (al-khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh XII: 55). 18 Al-Madāʾinī s income was secured in Baghdād, and he was able to teach and compose a bulky oeuvre of over two hundred titles (Lindstedt : ). Yāqūt (Irshād VI: 221) quotes Aḥmad b. al-ḥārith al-kharrāz (d / ), also al-madāʾinī s student, as saying: The authorities [in history] are: Abū Mikhnaf as to Iraq and its conquest and history [ ]; al-madāʾinī as to Khurāsān, India and Persia; al-wāqidī as to al-ḥijāz and traditions [on the life and campaigns of the Prophet? al-siyar]. And they have all contributed to the conquest of Syria. Al-Madāʾinī s role as an esteemed authority on the history of the Eastern Islamic world, especially Khurāsān, is a notion that recurs in the sources, which is especially interesting since it appears that he never visited Khurāsān. His futūḥ accounts were much valued by later historians, who quoted them extensively (Robinson 2003: 28). He did not write on the Western Islamic world. Even in the case of Egypt, his material is not quoted by many historians (for instance, Ibn ʿAbd al-ḥakam or al-kindī). 19 Furthermore, his khabars on the life of the Prophet Muḥammad were all but neglected, surviving almost solely in Ibn Saʿd (Ṭabaqāt I/1: ; I/2: 30 85) and al-balādhurī (Ansāb I: index, s.v. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh). The sixth/twelfth-century author Ibn Razīn gives a rare example of al-madāʾinī s narratives of pre-islamic lore, namely, on Alexander (Ādāb al-mulūk: , via al-madāʾinī s student al-ḥārith ibn Abī Usāma). 20 In al-maʾmūn s court It was probably through Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-mawṣilī that al-madāʾinī gained access to the court of the ʿAbbāsid caliphs. Al-Madāʾinī s relations with the court can be seen from the fact that he mentions Caliph al-manṣūr (al-balādhurī, Ansāb VII, ed. Damascus: 55) and Ḥasan b. Rashīd 17 On Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-mawṣilī, see al-masʿūdī, Murūj IV: 53, ; Abū l-faraj, Aghānī V: ; al-marzubānī, Nūr al-qabas: ; Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: ; al-khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh VI: ; al- Samʿānī, Ansāb V: ; Ibn al-jawzī, Muntaẓam VI: ; Yāqūt, Irshād II: ; Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt I: ; al-dhahabī, Siyar XI: ; al-khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh VI: ; al-ṣafadī, Wāfī VIII: ; Ibn Ḥajar, Lisān II: 38 40; al-sakhāwī, Iʿlān: 428, 502; GAS I: 371; Fück 1978; Werkmeister 1983: ; Leder 1991: 44 45; Fleischhammer 2004: 89 91, For a different version of the story with a different isnād, see Abū l-faraj, Aghānī V: See, however, al-ʿaskarī (Awāʾil: ); Ibn Taghrī Birdī (al-nujūm al-zāhira I: 201, 347) which suggest that al-madāʾinī did write something on the conquest of Egypt. Al-Madāʾinī s bibliography corroborates this (Kitāb Futūḥ Miṣr, Lindstedt : 256). 20 The editor of the Ādāb al-mulūk notes that he has not seen the narrative in any other source. I thank Prof. Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila for this reference.

7 71 al-jūzjānī, the ḥājib of Caliph al-mahdī (al-balādhurī, Ansāb III: 82), in his isnāds as sources of information. Although al-madāʾinī had some contacts with the ʿAbbāsid court, he seems to have been rather free of any need to compose or transmit apologetic accounts. Al-Madāʾinī s visit to al-maʾmūn is quoted on the authority of al-madāʾinī himself: Al-Maʾmūn ordered Aḥmad b. Yūsuf [the caliph s secretary] to bring me in. I entered and al-maʾmūn mentioned ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib peace be upon him. I recounted al-maʾmūn traditions about ʿAlī. When al-maʾmūn mentioned the cursing of ʿAlī by the Umayyads, I said: Abū Salama al-muthannā b. ʿAbdallāh, the brother of Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallāh al-anṣārī, has told me: a man has said to me: I was in Syria. I did not hear of anyone named ʿAlī, Ḥasan or Ḥusayn. Instead, I heard Muʿāwiya, Yazīd and al-walīd. Once, I walked past a man sitting in front of the door of his house. I was thirsty so I asked him for something to drink. He said: O Ḥasan, bring him something to drink! I asked him: You call him Ḥasan? He answered: Yes, by God, I have named my sons Ḥasan, Ḥusayn and Jaʿfar. The people of Syria, may God curse them, call their children with the names of the caliphs of God, but all the time someone is cursing and reproaching his children [which is tantamount to cursing the caliphs]. I, on the other hand, have named my children after the enemies of God, so when I curse my children, I curse the enemies of God. He continued: I said in my mind: I considered you to be the most righteous of the people of Syria, but even in Hell there is no one worse than you! Al-Maʾmūn said: God has certainly sent against them [i.e. the Shīʿa] 21 those who curse those who are alive and those who are dead and curse those of the Shīʿa who are in the loins of the men and in the wombs of women [i.e. who are yet to be born]. (al-marzubānī, Mukhtār: ; cf. Yāqūt, Irshād V: 311; Ibn Abī l-ḥadīd, Sharḥ VII: ) Although we do not have to believe that the narrative transmits the words of the meeting verbatim, the story is interesting as it shows the pro-shīʿa sentiment at the court of the time. 22 It appears certain that al-madāʾinī died in Baghdād, but we do not know when exactly. Al-Ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh III: 1330), our earliest source on this matter, records al-madāʾinī s death year as being 228/ Al-Masʿūdī s (d. 345/956) Murūj (V: 44 45) gives two different years for the death of al-madāʾinī: 228/ , already given by al-ṭabarī, and 233/ Al-Rabaʿī (d. 379/ ) gives the rather precise date Dhū l-qaʿda 224/September October 839 for al-madāʾinī s death (al-rabaʿī, Taʾrīkh Mawlad al-ʿulamāʾ wa-wafayātihim II: 495). In Ibn al-nadīm s Fihrist (I: ), two years are given: 215/ and 225/ Al-Madāʾinī is said to have been 93 when he died (Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: 102). This piece of information could support somewhat the date of death in al-ṭabarī (ah 228), supposing that the date of birth (ah 135) and his age when he died (93) are at all reliable. It may be noted that the year 215 appears in any case to be too early for his death, one reason being that in the Fihrist it is stated that al-madāʾinī composed a work called Kitāb Akhbār al-khulafāʾ al-kabīr, which included the history of the caliphate from Abū Bakr up to al-muʿtaṣim (r. 218/ /842). However, the last khabars which I have found attributed to al-madāʾinī in the sources deal with al-amīn and al-maʾmūn s civil war ( / ) (al-ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh III: ). All in all, I would argue that the most reliable dates for al-madāʾinī s death seem to be the one furnished by al-ṭabarī (because he is the earliest authority to give a date): 228/ and 21 The end of the passage in the facsimile edition of al-marzubānī (Mukhtār: 411) is garbled, so I translate here the text found in Yāqūt. Note that al-marzubānī (Mukhtār: 411) also recounts another literary meeting between al-madāʾinī and al-maʾmūn. 22 Cf. Margoliouth 1930: on this story. 23 Rotter (1974: 104) deems this date to be the most accurate.

8 72 that given by al-rabaʿī (because his date is exact, also containing a month): Dhū l-qaʿda 224/ September October 839, but preferring one over the other is more or less arbitrary. It can be said that al-madāʾinī was one of the most important early akhbārīs in compiling and arranging historical accounts (Rotter 1974: 105). Although he visited the ʿAbbāsid caliph al-maʾmūn and perhaps also knew some other figures of the dynasty, he was not, it appears, directly sponsored by the ruling dynasty, in contrast to al-haytham b. ʿAdī, for instance. 24 Lassner (1986: 55) notes that al-haytham b. ʿAdī was a scholar with strong credentials as an apologist for the ʿAbbāsid house and a frequent visitor to the court of the Caliph al-manṣūr. This is of importance for the arguments of this study. Al-Madāʾinī seems to have been a more or less independent scholar, whose work on the origins of the ʿAbbāsid dynasty was not an apologetic account. Of course, al-madāʾinī had his own ideological tendencies (Lindstedt 2014: ), but these were not always identical to those of the ruling dynasty. In fact, it will be seen below that al-haytham b. ʿAdī s Kitāb al-dawla seems to have been much more ideologically motivated than al-madāʾinī s work with the same title, although al-madāʾinī quoted some material from al-haytham and probably received the idea and model of such a work on the beginnings of the ʿAbbāsids from him. For al-madāʾinī, the ʿAbbāsids attempt to legitimize their rule through a genealogical link to the family of the Prophet was only a minor theme, for example. AL-MADĀʾINĪ S KITĀB AL-DAWLA Introduction to the work A tentative reconstruction, as well as comparative discussion, of al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla is the main aim of this study. The work can be reconstructed to some extent because it was quoted by three later, and independent, authors of the third fourth/ninth tenth centuries: al-balādhurī, al-ṭabarī, and Ibn Aʿtham al-kūfī. Other authors, such as the anonymous author of the Akhbār al-ʿabbās and Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, could also have had al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla at hand, but this seems to be difficult to prove. Certainly, one of the pitfalls in my tentative reconstuction is the fact that none of the authors quoting narratives from what I take to be the Kitāb al-dawla ever actually mention al-madāʾinī s work s title explicitly. The problem with these kinds of reconstruction attempts is that we cannot retrieve the exact, original wording of the work. There are two reasons for this. First of all, al-madāʾinī in all probability never composed an authoritative version of the text, instead disseminating the work in a dynamic, lecture-based environment; and second, the later authors quoting the work reworked the material according to their own tastes (Landau-Tasseron 2004; Schoeler 2006; Lindstedt 2015). Nonetheless, because the work was quoted, as I argue below, by three separate authors, we can get a fairly accurate image of it. If, one day, a manuscript of al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla should miraculously resurface in some part of the world, there is a possibility that it would be somewhat unlike my reconstruction of it for the reasons just mentioned. Be that as it may, I believe that the historiographical survey and investigation of the Kitāb al-dawla presented here will help us understand the historical-literary sources of the ʿAbbāsid revolution, and perhaps even the revolution itself. I am not the first scholar to discuss the work. In his very useful article on al-madāʾinī, Rotter (1974: ) discussed, among other things, al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla and tried a brief 24 On whom, see Pellat 1971; Leder 1991.

9 73 reconstruction. His study is a very good, albeit preliminary, attempt. The greatest shortcoming in Rotter s approach is that he based his investigation solely on al-ṭabarī and did not realize that the most important source is actually Ibn Aʿtham. Rotter (1974: ) notes that in Ibn al-nadīm s Fihrist, Kitāb al-dawla is classified under the rubric kutubuhu fī l-futūḥ, al-madāʾinī s books on the conquests, and asserts that the work should be understood in the context of his other titles in this vein, such as the Kitāb Futūḥ Khurāsān. While this is an intriguing remark, one should note that the section of al-madāʾinī s books on the conquests also includes other miscellaneous material that is not directly connected with the futūḥ narratives, such as works on the different governors of Khurāsān (Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: 103). However, as will be seen below when discussing Ibn Aʿtham s Kitāb al-futūḥ, Rotter was certainly not the first one to think in this way. Rather, the idea that the dawla narratives (whether al-madāʾinī s or other authors ) could be reproduced in the context of the conquests was already present in the works of medieval Arabic authors. Rotter goes on to propose the passages that he thinks belong to al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla. He suggests that the work encompassed accounts concerning the coming to power of the ʿAbbāsids, starting from the earliest appearance of the ʿAbbāsid propagandists around the year 100/ until the death of Abū Muslim in Shaʿbān 137/February 755. That is a good approximation, although it will be argued that the work probably did not include many accounts of the earliest ʿAbbāsid propagandists. Or, at least, we have no definite way of proving this. I agree, on the other hand, with Rotter on the ending of the work. As has been noted, Rotter (1974: 129) based his reconstruction only on al-ṭabarī, listing those khabars (reports) that could fit the subject of the work and that are attributed to al-madāʾinī. There are some deficiencies in this approach. First, it glosses over those passages in al-ṭabarī that actually stem from al-madāʾinī but are quoted anonymously or, for instance, with a chain of transmission dhukira, it has been mentioned. Furthermore, al-ṭabarī could have used many different works for information on that era. For the ʿAbbāsid revolution, he could have derived material from the following works of al-madāʾinī: for instance, Kitāb al-dawla; Kitāb Akhbār al-khulafāʾ al-kabīr; Kitāb ʿAbdallāh b. Muʿāwiya; Kitāb Wilāyat Asad b. ʿAbdallāh al-qasrī; Kitāb Maqtal Yazīd b. ʿUmar b. Hubayra; Kitāb Wilāyat Naṣr b. Sayyār; Kitāb al-khawārij; Kitāb al-ʿabbās b. ʿAbd al-muṭṭalib; Kitāb ʿAbdallāh b. al-ʿabbās; Kitāb ʿAlī b. ʿAbdallāh b. al-ʿabbās; Kitāb Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbdallāh b. al-ʿabbās; Kitāb Akhbār al-saffāḥ. 25 This problem can be somewhat resolved, as will be done in this study, by comparing al-ṭabarī s al-madāʾinī quotations with other authors, especially Ibn Aʿtham, who did not have access, it seems, to works by al-madāʾinī other than his Kitāb al-dawla. Rotter (1974: ) also ponders the provenance of the al-madāʾinī quotations in al-ṭabarī. It appears that he is right in assuming that the whole of the work reached al-ṭabarī in the recension of Aḥmad b. Abī Khaythama Zuhayr (d. 279/892), one of al-madāʾinī s significant direct students. 26 How do I proceed with the Kitāb al-dawla in this study? Discussing and reconstructing it is problematic, as would be the case with all of al-madāʾinī s kitābs, since he cannot be considered to have authored books with definitely fixed forms (Lindstedt 2013: 50 53). We must proceed cautiously with the contents even the title of the work. I will begin by discussing the information given in the sources (Ibn al-nadīm, Yāqūt, and an anonymous list of books) 25 For the complete bibliography of al-madāʾinī, with references, see Lindstedt On him, see Lindstedt 2013: 51, n. 57.

10 74 that mention the Kitāb al-dawla explicitly by name. I will then examine other Kitāb al-dawlas ascribed to early authors. After this, I will present the sources and methodology for the investigation of al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla. The Kitāb al-dawla is referred to in only three sources that I am aware of. In Ibn al-nadīm s Fihrist, it is catalogued under al-madāʾinī s conquest works. Yāqūt (Irshād V: 315), who copies Ibn al-nadīm but also has some independent information, does not list it there but mentions another, very similar title, namely, Kitāb al-dawla al-ʿabbāsiyya, under the rubric kutubuhu fī l-aḥdāth, his [al-madāʾinī s] books on the historical events, and says: It is a large book, comprising many parts. It is not mentioned by Ibn al-nadīm. I have got it in the handwriting of (bi-khaṭṭ) [al-ḥasan b. al-ḥusayn] al-sukkarī who had read it to al-ḥārith b. Usāma [i.e. transmitted it from al-ḥārith b. Usāma by means of reading the transmitted text back to him in order to check its validity]. 27 Following Rotter, it seems plausible enough to suppose that the said al-ḥārith b. Usāma is al-madāʾinī s student al-ḥārith b. Abī Usāma (d. 282/ ) and that the omission of the word abī is due to a copyist s error. Rotter (1974: 130) proposes, on the basis of Yāqūt, that the existence of such a work is to a large extent due to al-ḥārith, who compiled it from al-madāʾinī s material. He also suggests that the Kitāb al-dawla and the Kitāb al-dawla al-ʿabbāsiyya were different works. It is indeed interesting that Yāqūt states that the Kitāb al-dawla al-ʿabbāsiyya is not mentioned by Ibn al-nadīm and that he locates it under a different rubric. This leads one to strongly consider the possibility of the existence of two different works with almost identical titles. However, here Yāqūt is mistaken because, it seems, in his copy of Ibn al-nadīm s Fihrist, the title Kitāb al-dawla was simply missing. 28 The anonymous al-muntakhab mimmā fī Khazāʾin al-kutub bi-ḥalab, written in 694/1295, knows the work with the title al-dawla al-ʿabbāsiyya, too (al-muntakhab, no. 368). This is probably because the word dawla, when used alone, had lost its connection with the ʿAbbāsid revolution and begun to mean only dynasty in a more general sense. In any case, we have to live with the possibility of different versions, perhaps with different titles, composed by al-madāʾinī or his students and transmitted by different routes. Indeed, al-madāʾinī could have modified the work during his lifetime. Below it will be seen that Ibn Aʿtham and al-ṭabarī, our main sources for al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla quotations, had at hand different recensions or versions of the work. However, supposing that there were two totally different works, one called the Kitāb al-dawla and the other, the Kitāb al-dawla al-ʿabbāsiyya, seems incorrect, although it is not impossible. It is unfortunate that, as far as I have been able to ascertain, Yāqūt did not use al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla as a source when compiling his Muʿjam al-buldān, although he certainly had access to the work. In general, he quotes al-madāʾinī very rarely in his Muʿjam al-buldān. 27 Yāqūt (Muʿjam al-buldān V: 25) mentions that he also had another work of al-madāʾinī in the khaṭṭ of al- Ḥasan b. al-ḥusayn al-sukkarī, namely, Kitāb Akhbār Zufar b. al-ḥārith. 28 As can be seen from comparing Yāqūt (Irshād V: 315, ll ) with Ibn al-nadīm (Fihrist I: 103, l. 12).

11 75 Other authors Kitāb al-dawlas in the second third/eighth ninth centuries Other authors, too, are credited with composing Kitāb al-dawlas which, given the dates of the authors, in all likelihood dealt with the same events of the ʿAbbāsid revolution and not with some later dynasty. Among these authors, in roughly chronological order, are the following: Al-Haytham b. ʿAdī (d. c.205/ ), whose Kitāb al-dawla (Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: 99; GAS I: 272; Nagel 1972: 9 69), perhaps the first of a kind, will be discussed at more length below. Al-Ḥasan b. Maymūn al-naṣrī or al-baṣrī, who is an unknown author (Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: 108). Al-Rāwandī, who is hard to identify. He is not to be equated with the mulḥid Ibn al-rāwandī, as Flügel does in the index of his edition of the Fihrist. 29 This al-rāwandī could be connected with the group Rāwandiyya, who deemed Caliph al-manṣūr to be divine (al-balādhurī, Ansāb III: 235; al-ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh III: 129; see also Daniel 1979: , who refers to it as one of the Abū Muslim sects ). Ibn al-nadīm (Fihrist I: 108) calls al-rāwandī s Kitāb al-dawla excellent (jawwada fīhi) and says it is approximately 2,000 folios long, noting that he has seen a part of the work. Later, Ibn al-nadīm (Fihrist I: 108, 204) recounts that this al-rāwandī was a neighbor of the jurist Muḥammad b. al-ḥasan al-shaybānī (d. 189/ ) at Bāb al-shām on Darb Abū Ḥanīfa, Baghdād. Al-Rāwandī s students, called here the Rāwandiyya and abnāʾ al-dawla, used to disturb al-shaybānī s teaching sessions by yelling, which made al-shaybānī change the place where he and his students convened. The appearance of the term abnāʾ al-dawla is interesting, but it is hard to say whether it is used here in the same meaning as it is used during the war between al-amīn and al-maʾmūn (see Crone 1998: 4 and, for a different view, Turner 2004: 10 11, following Ayalon 1994: 33). Also, it could be too hasty to equate al-rāwandī s followers with the al-rāwandiyya sect. In any case, this al-rāwandī seems to be an early composer of a Kitāb al-dawla of sorts. Could he be equated with ʿAbdallāh al-rāwandī, who participated in the ʿAbbāsid revolution but whose later destiny is unclear? (Agha 2003: 338). However, this would make al-rāwandī a very early figure indeed. Abū Ṣāliḥ Sulaymān/Salmawayh b. Ṣāliḥ al-laythī al-naḥwī al-kutubī (d. before 210/ ), who was a mawlā of Banū Layth and a transmitter of historical accounts and genealogies (Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: 107). Yāqūt credits him with a Kitāb Futūḥ Khurāsān, adding wa-huwa kitāb al-dawla, and it is a book on the dawla. 30 Note here, too, an interesting connection between the futūḥ especially of Khurāsān and the dawla. The conquest of and beyond Khurāsān and the ʿAbbāsid revolution were, then, often seen as continuous events (Sharon 1983: 51 71). Al-Mizzī (Tahdhīb XI: 453) calls what is probably the same work Waqāʾiʿ Khurāsān, The Battles of Khurāsān. Al-Masʿūdī quotes a short passage from the work, calling it Kitābuhu fī al-dawla al-ʿabbāsiyya wa-umarāʾ Khurāsān, his book on the ʿAbbāsid Revolution and the Governors of Khurāsān (Al-Masʿūdī, Tanbīh: 65). 29 For an overview on Ibn al-rāwandī, see Lindstedt 2011: Yāqūt has two different entries for Sulaymān and Salmawayh, Irshād III (ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās): 1384 and 1389 (the entry is missing from ed. Margoliouth), but Ibn Abī Ḥātim (Jarḥ IV: ); al-dhahabī (Siyar IX: ); al-dhahabī (Taʾrīkh V: 401); and al-mizzī (Tahdhīb XI: ) indicate that they were one and the same person.

12 76 Ibrāhīm b. al-ʿabbās al-ṣūlī (d. 243/ ), who wrote a work called Kitāb al-dawla al-kabīr, The Great Book of the Dawla (Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: 122). Muḥammad b. al-haytham b. Shabāba al-khurāsānī, an unknown author (al-masʿūdī, Murūj I: 13). Sezgin places his death in 250/864, without giving sources (GAS I: 316). Ibn al-naṭṭāḥ, Muḥammad b. Ṣāliḥ b. Mihrān al-baṣrī (d. 252/ ) is also credited with a Kitāb al-dawla (Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: 107; GAS I: 317; Omar 1971). He was al-madāʾinī and Ḥasan b. Maymūn s student (Yāqūt, Irshād III: 221), so his Kitāb al-dawla could be modeled on theirs. The anonymous Akhbār al-ʿabbās has sometimes, but erroneously, been identified with Ibn al-naṭṭāḥ s Kitāb al-dawla. This does not hold up to scrutiny and the surviving quotations from Ibn al-naṭṭāḥ show that Ibn al-naṭṭāḥ and the anonymous author of the Akhbār al-ʿabbās had different foci (Daniel 1982: 423). It seems that Ibn al-naṭṭāḥ s work dealt with the revolution and continued at least until the founding of Baghdād by al-manṣūr (al-ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh III: 276). The Akhbār al-ʿabbās, on the other hand, appears to have concentrated more on the pre-revolution phase (although this is somewhat unclear, since the unique manuscript of the work ends unexpectedly). Whereas al-haytham and al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawlas ended c.137/755 (see below), Ibn al-naṭṭāḥ s work with a similar title continued to narrate later events of the reign of al-manṣūr, continuing at least until 145/ It could also be noted that in al-ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh III: ), Ghamr b. Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-malik s ghulām is depicted as possessing a Kitāb al-dawla which prophesies the duration of al-mahdī s reign. It is unclear whether the eschatological figure al-mahdī or one of the ʿAbbāsid caliphs is meant. The early ʿAbbāsid caliphs were often depicted as playing an eschatological role, so there is no clear demarcation in any case. Curiously, it is said in the Fihrist that it was Ibn al-naṭṭāḥ who composed the first Kitāb al-dawla (Ibn al-nadīm, Fihrist I: ). This seems to be incorrect later Ibn al-nadīm says that Ibn al-naṭṭāḥ transmitted from al-ḥasan b. Maymūn, who is already credited with a Kitāb al-dawla, as are other earlier authors, like al-haytham b. ʿAdī and al-madāʾinī (see above). Of the Kitāb al-dawlas, al-haytham b. ʿAdī s seems to have been especially popular and is quoted, with the title, in several sources (al-dāraquṭnī, al-muʾtalif wa-l-mukhtalif II: 830; Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrīkh LXXIV: 113; Ibn al-ʿadīm, Bughya: 9, 3928), although it was criticized by al-jāḥiẓ (as noted by Nagel 1972: 28 29). It might have been the earliest Kitāb al-dawla composed (Nagel 1972: 9). It can be seen from the above-mentioned list of authors that the early third/ninth century was a time when interest in the history of the dawla really began, although it is impossible in most cases to date the works with precision. This interest in the history of the dawla continued first in monographs that were compiled or composed by different authors. These monographs, as discussed below, were later incorporated into the longer works of authors such as Ibn Aʿtham al-kūfī and al-ṭabarī. The whole process is something that Fred Donner (1998: 112) has termed historicizing legitimation, that is, legitimation by means of narratives about the past. First the early authors wanted to find out what had happened during the coming to power of the ʿAbbāsids; this they did, for example, by collecting narratives from different sources, including

13 77 eyewitnesses. 31 Later historians did not leave it at that but inserted these narratives on the dawla into the grand narrative of the Muslim community. As it happens, one monograph that deals with the dawla is extant, although its focus is different, dealing with the whole history of the ʿAbbāsid family until their coming to power. 32 This is the so-called Akhbār al-ʿabbās, an anonymous work that is later than the works of al-haytham b. ʿAdī and al-madāʾinī (Daniel 1982). It is also bulkier than the earlier works. The Akhbār al-ʿabbās, it seems, draws on the earlier third/ninth-century historical works on the revolution, but its writer also had some unique sources, the identification of which is difficult. Its central theme is the daʿwa propaganda phase that preceded the dawla revolution (Daniel 1982: ; for the daʿwa, see Daniel 1979: 29 45), but its dawla narrative is broadly similar to those of al-haytham b. ʿAdī and al-madāʾinī and it will thus be discussed in this study as part of what I call the dawla literature. As Elton Daniel (1982: ) has noted: The part dealing with the events from Abū Muslim s arrival in Khurasan to the advent of Abū l- ʿAbbās al-saffāḥ is almost a book within a book which stands out clearly from the rest in both style and presentation. Unlike the preceding and following portions of the text, which are composed of short, juxtaposed stories and anecdotes, this long section is in the form of a virtually continuous narrative, with few digressions. [ ] This strongly suggests that for this, historically the most important section of the book, the author incorporated extensive portions of a preexisting text (or texts) into his work. However, as I suggest below, the author did not have direct access to al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla. 33 The Akhbār al-ʿabbās is a very pro-ʿabbāsid work and has even been termed a sort of authoritative, official, interpretation of the history of the ʿAbbāsids (Daniel 1982: 425). There are also other transmitters of dawla narratives who are not credited with a book of their own in the biobibliographical sources. The most important, but rather shadowy, figure of these is Abū l-khaṭṭāb (lived at least until al-mahdī s caliphate). 34 The accounts that he transmitted can be retrieved from al-ṭabarī and the Akhbār al-ʿabbās, but probably neither author knew Abū l-khaṭṭāb s material directly and there is no reason to conclude that Abū l-khaṭṭāb composed a book about the subject. In any case, Daniel considers Abū l-khaṭṭāb to be an early and well-informed source. 35 It could briefly be mentioned that the much later Ḥājjī Khalīfa does not know a single work with the title Kitāb al-dawla. It thus seems that they soon became dispensable as independent works, since most of their material was included in later, ampler chronicles. Their popularity seems to have waned already in the fourth/tenth century, although, as has been seen, the seventh/ thirteenth-century Yāqūt, for example, still had access to the works of the genre. 31 See Appendix II of this work for the sources of al-madāʾinī. See, e.g., Al-Balādhurī, Ansāb III: ; Appendix I, no. 30, for a story where al-manṣūr himself is the narrator. Especially in this case the eyewitness narration seems to be a mere literary device with no basis in fact. 32 As Mehdy Shaddel noted to me, perhaps we should also count the anonymous works Taʾrīkh al-khulafāʾ and Dhikr as such. 33 Daniel (1982: 426) suggests that the author of the Akhbār al-ʿabbās might have drawn directly on another authority, Abū l-khaṭṭāb. This is possible. The author probably received al-madāʾinī material through al-balādhurī. Some of Abū l-khaṭṭāb s accounts might also have been similar to al-madāʾinī s. 34 On him, see Daniel 1982: and notes Agha (2003: 349 and index) seems to identify him with al-haytham b. Muʿāwiya al-ʿakkī, who was an ʿAbbāsid propagandist and who took part in the revolution. Although al-haytham b. Muʿāwiya al-ʿakkī bore this kunya, the identification is far from certain. 35 See the previous footnote.

14 78 Al-Haytham b. ʿAdī s Kitāb al-dawla Al-Haytham b. ʿAdī s Kitāb al-dawla has been reconstructed in a study by Tilman Nagel (1972: 9 69). His investigation is based on the observation that Ibn ʿAbd Rabbihi s (d. 328/940) al-ʿiqd al-farīd (IV: ) quotes the main bulk of the work, although abridging, it seems, al-haytham b. ʿAdī s original text. Al-ʿIqd al-farīd, then, proffers the outline to which other works, such as al-ṭabarī, quoting al-haytham b. ʿAdī, can be compared. Nagel s starting point is very similar to mine. In my study of al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla, however, Ibn Aʿtham is the one providing the basic narrative arc. Based on Nagel s reconstruction, it can be conjectured that al-haytham b. ʿAdī s Kitāb al-dawla was somewhat shorter than al-madāʾinī s. Nonetheless, it offered a model for later writers of dawla narratives. 36 It included the following items (Nagel 1972: 13 25): Abū Hāshim b. Muḥammad b. al-ḥanafiyya gives the waṣiyya will to Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbdallāh b. al-ʿabbās: the rule belongs to the ʿAbbāsids, and Abū l-ʿabbās will be the first ʿAbbāsid caliph. The origins of Abū Muslim are discussed. The ʿAbbāsid dāʿīs propagandists are sent. Abū Muslim s toils in Khurāsān. The armed dawla begins. Ibrāhīm al-imām is killed while imprisoned. The ʿAbbāsid army marches to Iraq. Abu l-ʿabbās is given the bayʿa pledge of allegiance as a caliph. Abu l-ʿabbās murders Abū Salama and Abū l-jaʿfar al-manṣūr murders Abū Muslim. 37 As will be seen below, al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla included basically the same themes, although it apparently did not dwell so much on the theme the ʿAbbāsids as part of the Prophet s lineage through Abū Hāshim. To be sure, al-madāʾinī agreed with this notion, but it did not dominate his dawla narrative. On the other hand, his work seems to have been bulkier and his narrative on the armed revolution and its aftermath was more detailed than al-haytham b. ʿAdī s. In the latter s narrative, the concept of dawla has almost eschatological undertones. In al-haytham s story, the dawla is not only to be understood as a change in dynasty, but also as the beginning of a new, eschatological era, according to Nagel (1972: 9 12). For al-haytham, the most significant thing was the inception of the movement and the revolution, not its aftermath. From Abū l-jaʿfar al-manṣūr s reign, al-haytham b. ʿAdī seems to mention only one event, the killing of Abū Muslim. This is in contrast with al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla, which continues to the first years of al-manṣūr s caliphate. Al-Haytham b. ʿAdī s dawla narrative reads more like an apologetic and pro-ʿabbāsid narrative than al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla. This is probably because al-haytham had close contacts with the ʿAbbāsid court of his day. 36 Indeed, al-haytham b. ʿAdī functions as a source in al-madāʾinī s Kitāb al-dawla (see Appendix I, nos. 33, 34). Hence, one can claim with some justification that al-madāʾinī had access to al-haytham b. ʿAdī s Kitāb al- Dawla. Perhaps al-madāʾinī participated in al-haytham b. ʿAdī s lectures or received the material in the form of notebooks. 37 Mehdy Shaddel (pers. comm.) has conveyed to me that Nagel was not aware of some evidence on al-haytham b. ʿAdī s Kitāb al-dawla, which could then have been larger than previously supposed. For example, Ibn al-ʿadīm (Bughya: ) includes a long narrative from al-haytham b. ʿAdī s Kitāb al-dawla on Abū Muḥammad Ziyād ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd al-sufyānī s rebellion. See also Shaddel (2017). The work might also have included a report on ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAlī contesting al-manṣūr s succession, as quoted in ps.-ibn Qutayba (al-imāma: ).