^{page 245 note 1} The references throughout are to the British Museum MS of the complete text of al-Wāqidī's Kitāb al-maghāzī which I have prepared for publication. The following system of abbreviation has been used : (A.M.) = Abū Ma‘shar / (A.U.) = Abū ‘Uinar / (B.) = al-Balādhurī / (Bay.) = al-Bayhaqī / (Bkh.) = al-Bukhārī / (I.A.) = Ibn ‘Ā'idh / (I.H.) = Ibn Hishām where his own comments have been interpolated within the text which he received from al-Bakkā'ī / (I.I.B.) = al-Bakkā'ī's recension of Ibn Isḥāq contained in Ibn Hishām's Sīra / (I.I.Bk.) = Ibn Bukayr's recension of Ibn Isḥāq as quoted in other works. Unfortunately, the incomplete Fez MS does not include the section on the maghāzī / (I.S.) = Ibn Sa‘d—because of his position as al-Wāqidī's amanuensis and his indebtedness to him for most of his material, specific mention of him is made only when his chronology differs from that of al-Wāqidī / (I.S.N.) = Ibn Sayyid al-Nās giving an opinion not expressedly derived from an earlier source / (K.) = Ibn Kathīr giving an opinion not expressedly derived from an earlier source / (M.A.) = Mālik b. Anas / (M.U.) = Mūsā b. ‘Uqba / (Suh.) = al-Suhaylī / (Ṭab.) = al-Ṭabarī giving an opinion not expressedly derived from an earlier source / (Um.) = al-Umawī / (U.Z.) = ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr quoted other than as a link in the isnād of a later authority / (Z.) = al-Zuhrī quoted other than as a link in the isnād of a later authority. It will be seen from the foregoing list of abbreviations that an attempt has been made to differentiate between the various recensions of Ibn-Isḥāq and Ibn Hishā's own comments.

^{page 246 note 1} The term ghazwa and its plural maghāzī are used generically to cover all the raids made. No such distinction in made between and sariya as is found, for example, in al-Zurqānī (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunāya, Cairo, 1907–1910, I, 467).Google Scholar Some events are included which are not raids in the strict sense of the term.

^{page 246 note 2} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 6b.

^{page 246 note 3} Dates in rectangular brackets are those not explicitly stated, but which it is possible to deduce from the text itself. No date is given by Ibn Isḥāq for Ḥamza's raid ; it is stated, however, that the Prophet despatched the raiding party during his stay in Medina after returning from Waddān. The duration of this stay, according to Ibn Isḥāq, was the remainder of Ṣafar and the early part of Rabī‘al-Awwal. (Hishäm, Ibn, al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, Cairo, 1936, II, 241,Google Scholar 245.) In Ibn Ḥazm, in a passage which echoes the wording of Ibn Hishām, we find his stay extended to the beginning of Rabī‘ No source for this is explicitly stated. (Jawāmi‘al-sīra, Cairo, 1952, 100.Google Scholar)

^{page 246 note 4} al-Qasṭallāni, quoting al-Madā'inī. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 470.Google Scholar)

^{page 246 note 5} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 7a.

^{page 246 note 6} According to Ibn Isḥāq, the raid was despatched before that of Ḥamza, but like the latter after the Prophet's return from Waddān. See note 3 above.

^{page 246 note 7} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 472.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 8} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 7a.

^{page 246 note 9} Ibn Kathīr, quoting Ibn Isḥāq without mentioning his chain of authority, states that the Prophet sent Sa'd b. Abī Waqqāṡ to on his return to Medina after Badr al-Ūla, i.e. in Rajab, or Sha'bān. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, Cairo, 1932, III, 248.Google Scholar) In Ibn Hishām the raid is mentioned before Badr al-Ūlā. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 251.) Such mutually contradictory data is by no means infrequent when dealing with Ibn Isḥāq.

^{page 246 note 10} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 251.

^{page 246 note 11} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 7b.

^{page 246 note 12} Entitled in Hishām, Ibn‘Waddan’ and put first in the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 241.Google Scholar)

^{page 246 note 13} Annales, Lugd. Bat., 1881–2,I,1270.

^{page 246 note 14} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 248.

^{page 246 note 15} Sharḥ ‘alāl-Mawaāib al-ladunīya, I, 474.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 16} Since the Prophet is said to have remained only a few nights in Medina after his return from al-‘Ushayra, this must be dated according to Ibn Isḥāq's chronology, in 2. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 249, 251.)

^{page 246 note 17} Annales, I,1273.

^{page 246 note 18} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 249.

^{page 247 note 1} I B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 7b.

^{page 247 note 2} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 252.

^{page 247 note 3} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, III, 250,Google Scholar 256.

^{page 247 note 4} Ḥanbal, Ibn, al-Musnad, Cairo, 1949–1950, III, 70.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 5} Quoted by al-Zurqānī without specifying his source. (Sharḥ, ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 478.Google Scholar)

^{page 247 note 6} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 5a.

^{page 247 note 7} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 263.

^{page 247 note 8} Mūsā b. ‘Uqba (from al-Zuhrī) is said to have dated the battle of Badr two months after the killing of ‘Amr b. al-Ḥaḍramī, i.e. two months after (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, III, 256.Google Scholar)

^{page 247 note 9} Annales, I,1282.

^{page 247 note 10} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 42b.

^{page 247 note 11} Mentioned at the end of the section on the and not fixed in any specific chronological position. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 285.)

^{page 247 note 12} Mentioned by al-Zurqānī with the prefatory ‘put by some’. (Sharḥ, ‘alā’l-Mawāhib alladunīya, I, 546.Google Scholar)

^{page 247 note 13} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 43a.

^{page 247 note 14} Referred to at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 284). It is clear that Ibn Ishaq regarded it as being before the killing of ‘Asma' bint Marwān, for he says : ‘…when Abu ‘Afak was killed she (i.e. ‘Asmā’) acted the munāfiqa’. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 285.)

^{page 247 note 15} Ibn Isḥāq is also said to have put the event after Uḥud, but al-Zurqānī suggests that this date was wrongly ascribed to him. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 550.Google Scholar)

^{page 247 note 16} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 43b.

^{page 247 note 17} No specific dating of the event is found in Ibn Isḥāq. We find, however, three statements attributed to him. (a) That the Banū Qaynuqā‘incident was between Badr and UḤud. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 51.) (b) That it took place after Uhud. (Sharḥ, ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 551.Google Scholar) (c) That it was between al-Sawīq and the raid on Banū Sulaym. (Annales, I, 1362.)

^{page 247 note 18} Quoting an unspecified source. (Annales, I, 1363.)

^{page 247 note 19} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 9.

^{page 247 note 20} Ḥajar, Ibn, Fatḥ al-bārī, Cairo, 1939, VII, 263.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 21} According to al-Qasāallānī, quoting ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 551.Google Scholar)

^{page 247 note 22} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 44b.

^{page 247 note 23} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 47. al-Zurqānī quotes Ibn Isḥāq giving the date as śafar 3 and suggests that the variant may be from a recension other than that-of al-Bakkā'ī. (Sharḥ ‘alā-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 553.Google Scholar)

^{page 248 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 45a.

^{page 248 note 2} According to Ibn Isḥāq, on his return from Badr, the Prophet remained in Medina seven nights only before setting out for al-Kudr, staying at the latter the remainder of Shawwāl. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 46.)

^{page 248 note 3} According to al-Zurqānī, Ibn Hishām dated this raid in al-Muḥarram. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 548.Google Scholar)

^{page 248 note 4} In Ibn Hishām the incident is put immediately before Uḥud. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 54.) This would accord with the statement ascribed elsewhere to Ibn Isḥāq ‘…and al-Aws had killed Ka'b b. al-Ashraf before Uḥud ’. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 286.)

^{page 248 note 5} al-Jāmi‘al-saḥīḥ, Cairo, 1930, v, 208.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 6} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 47a.

^{page 248 note 7} In a statement of Ibn Hishām not expressly attributed to Ibn Isḥāq, we find that the Prophet is said to have remained in Medina (on his return from al-Sawīq) ‘the rest of or thereabouts’, and then raided Najd, i.e. Amarr. In a further statement, this time specifically ascribed to Ibn Isḥāq, we are told that ‘he remained in Najd the whole of Ṣafar, or thereabouts’. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 49.)

^{page 248 note 8} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 47b.

^{page 248 note 9} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 50.

^{page 248 note 10} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 47b. Ibn Kathīr, quoting al-Wāqidī, gives Jumādā'l-Ūlā as the month. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 5.) This is, I believe, a misquotation—all MSS of the Kitāb have as does Ibn Sa‘d. (Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, Leiden, 1909, II, ii, 24.Google Scholar)

^{page 248 note 11} No date is found in Ibn Hishām, but Ibn Kathīr, quoting Ibn Bukayr's recension of Ibn Ishāq, mentions it as being six months after Badr. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 4.)

^{page 248 note 12} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 48a.

^{page 248 note 13} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 106.

^{page 248 note 14} al-Nās, Ibn Sayyid, ‘Uyūn al-athar, Cairo, 1937, II, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 15} Both al-Zurqānī and Ibn Kathīr mention that Mālik dated the battle in Shawwāl. (Sharh ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunāya, II, 24;Google Scholaral-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 9.Google Scholar)

^{page 248 note 16} al-Zurqānī refers to but refutes those who put it in the year 4. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 23.Google Scholar)

^{page 248 note 17} Ibn Kathīr quoting Ya'qūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 94.)

^{page 248 note 18} Annales, 1383.

^{page 248 note 19} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 9.

^{page 249 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 78a.

^{page 249 note 2} The summons to pursue the Meccans was issued on the morning after Uḥud. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 107.)

^{page 249 note 3} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 48.

^{page 249 note 4} ‘Uyūn al-athar, II, 2.

^{page 249 note 5} B.M. Or. 1617,fol. 79b.

^{page 249 note 6} Mentioned in a list of raids. (al-Sirat al-nabawiya, IV, 260.) Ibn Kathir and Ibn Sayyid al-Nās have al-Muḥarram, following al-Wāqidḥ.

^{page 249 note 7} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 81a.

^{page 249 note 8} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 193.

^{page 249 note 9} Ibn Kathīr states that it occurred in the month of Safar and that Makḥūl was presenting an unusual version in putting it after (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 71.)

^{page 249 note 10} al-Zurqānī, referring to an anonymous source. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 88.Google Scholar)

^{page 249 note 11} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 82b.

^{page 249 note 12} No specific date is found in Ibn Isḥāq, but there are some pointers which help to fix the event according to his chronology. Ibn Hishām quotes al-Bakkā'ī's recension to the effect that the incident took place after Uḥud. (al-Jāmī al-nabawīya, III, 178.) We find the same account derived from Ibn Isḥāq in (al-Jāmī‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 229.) It is dated in Ibn Hishām in the year 3 and put after Uḥud and before Bi'r Ma‘ūna. Since, according to Ibn Isḥāq's chronology, the former was in Shawwāl 3 and the latter in Ṣafar 4, then he must, ipso facto, have placed the raid to al-Rajī‘in or 3 or al-Muḥarram 4.

^{page 249 note 13} Annales, I, 1431.

^{page 249 note 14} Ibn Kathīr, al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Sayyid al-Nās all follow the sequence found in Ibn Hishām, i.e. al-Rajī‘before Bi'r Ma‘ūna.

^{page 249 note 15} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 84b.

^{page 249 note 16} Not dated specifically in Ibn Hishām's version based upon al–Bakkā'ī's recension, but dealt with after Bi'r Ma‘ūna. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 199.) According to Ibn Sayyid al-Nās, Ibn Isḥāq put it five months after Uḥud in Rabī‘al-Awwal. (‘Uyūn al-athar, II, 48.) In al-Qasṭallānī we find a different dating ascribed to Ibn Isḥāq—Ṣafar 4. (Irshād al-sārī, Cairo, 1908, III, 46.Google Scholar)

^{page 249 note 17} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 200.

^{page 249 note 18} Kitāb al-rawḍ al-unuf, Cairo, 1914, IV, 176.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 19} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 74.

^{page 249 note 20} al-Bayhaqī, referring to an anonymous source. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 74.)

^{page 249 note 21} Jawāmi‘al-sīra, 181.

^{page 249 note 22} al-Samhūdī, , Wafā' al-wafā', Cairo, 1908, I, 212.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 23} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 204.

^{page 250 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 89b.

^{page 250 note 2} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 220.

^{page 250 note 3} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 89.

^{page 250 note 4} al-Ḥalabī, referring to an anonymous source. (al-Sīrat al-ḥalabīya, Cairo, 1875, II, 360.Google Scholar)

^{page 250 note 5} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 91a. Ramaḍān 6 is also mentioned as an alternative on fol. 92a.

^{page 250 note 6} Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 66.

^{page 250 note 7} The incident must be put after according to Ibn Isḥāq's chronology, since he mentions him as being one of those responsible for instigating the attack on Medina. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 286.) The reference to having asked permission to kill him immediately after suggests a possible dating in 5 or al-Muḥarram 6, according to Ibn Isḥāq.

^{page 250 note 8} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 210.

^{page 250 note 9} Annales, I, 1375.

^{page 250 note 10} An account of ‘Abdallah b. ‘Atīk mentioned by al-Qasṭallānī. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 198.Google Scholar)

^{page 250 note 11} al-Zurqānī, quoting an anonymous source. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 198.Google Scholar)

^{page 250 note 12} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 92a.

^{page 250 note 13} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 214. According to al-Qasṭallānī quoting Ibn Isḥāq, the latter put the event at the end of Rabī‘ and the beginning of Jumādā'l-Ūlā of the year 4. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 104.Google Scholar)

^{page 250 note 14} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 245.

^{page 250 note 15} Sharḥ ‘alā’l–Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 104.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 16} Fatḥ al-bārī, VII, 335.

^{page 250 note 17} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 99b. Ibn Kathīr, quoting al-Wāqidī, gives the date as Rabī‘ (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 92.) This is probably a misquotation rather than a variant reading, for all MSS of the have Rabī‘al-Awwal, as does al-Ṭabarī quoting al-Wāqidī (Annales, I, 1462), and also Ibn Sa‘d (Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 44). The mistake probably arises from the fact that his return is put by al-Wāqidī in Rabī‘ (fol. 99b).

^{page 250 note 18} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 224.

^{page 250 note 19} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 99b.

^{page 250 note 20} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 302.

^{page 251 note 1} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 115.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 2} According to al-Zurqānī quoting Mūsā b. ‘Uqba (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 1l5Google Scholar). states that Mūsā b. ‘Uqba dated the event in the year 4, but Ibn Ḥajar suggests that has misquoted Mūsā at this point. (Fatḥ al-bārī, VII, 345.)

^{page 251 note 3} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 249.

^{page 251 note 4} Fatḥ al-bārī, VII, 345.

^{page 251 note 5} ‘Uyūn al-athar, II, 91.

^{page 251 note 6} al-Diyārbakrī, , , Cairo, 1302, II, 91.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 7} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 102a.

^{page 251 note 8} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 224.

^{page 251 note 9} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 93.

^{page 251 note 10} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya IV, 94.

^{page 251 note 11} Ibn Kathr, quoting Ya‘qūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 94.)

^{page 251 note 12} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 114b.

^{page 251 note 13} Not dated specifically by Ibn Isḥāq, but the raid on Banū Liḥyān is put by him in Jumādā'l-Ūla, 6 ‘six months after Qurayຓa’. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 292.) Ibn Kathīr also quotes Ibn Isḥāq giving the date of the extermination of Banū Qurayຓa as and 5. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 149.)

^{page 251 note 14} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 123a. Ibn Sa'd does not follow al-Wāqidyī at this point and has al-Muḥarram 4. (Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 35.Google Scholar)

^{page 251 note 15} Mentioned at the end of the section on the and not fixed in a n y specific chronological position. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 267.)

^{page 251 note 16} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 140.

^{page 251 note 17} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 123b.

^{page 251 note 18} Mentioned in a list of raids. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 260.)

^{page 251 note 19} ‘Uyūn; al-athar, II, 79.

^{page 251 note 20} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 149.

^{page 251 note 21} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 123b. On fol. 124a we find al-Muharram 6 mentioned (see below, p . 276). Ibn Sa‘d has Rabī' al-Awwal. (Kitāb al-ḥabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 56.Google Scholar)

^{page 251 note 22} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 292. According to Ibn Ḥajar, Ibn Isḥāq also dated the event in Sha ‘bān 6. (Fatḥ al-bārī, VII, 370.) This is also mentioned by al-Samhūdī. (Wafā' al-wafā', I,221.)

^{page 252 note 1} al-Zurqānī, quoting an anonymous source. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 176.) Ibn ḥazm favours the year 5. (Jawāmi ‘al-sīra, 200.)

^{page 252 note 2} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 81.

^{page 252 note 3} Annales, I,1500.

^{page 252 note 4} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 124a. Ibn Sa‘d has Rabī‘al-Awwal (Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 58Google Scholar) and al-Zurqānī states that both Ibn Sa‘d and al-Wāqidī dated it Rabī‘al-Awwal. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-laduīya, II, 178.Google Scholar)

^{page 252 note 5} No precise date is specified in al-Bakkāā'ī's recension of Ibn Isḥāq, but we are told that the Prophet remained in Medina a few nights only after the raid on Banū Liḥyān. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 293.)

^{page 252 note 6} According to Ibn Ḥajar, Ibn Isḥāq dated the event in Sha‘bān 6. (Fatḥ al-bārī, VII, 370.) This would conflict with the date which can be deduced from the text contained in Ibn Hishām's Sīra (see n. 5 above). al-Zurqānī suggests that the reading Sha ‘bān may come from Ibn Bukayr's recension. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 178.)

^{page 252 note 7} al-Ṭabarī mentions an account derived from Salama b. al-Akwa‘which puts the raid after the Prophet's return from Mecca, in the year of al-Ḥudaybīya. (Annales, I, 1502.) Since the consensus of opinion puts al-Ḥudaybīya in 6 (see below, p. 254), this would date the raid in 6 or al-Muḥarram 7.

^{page 252 note 8} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 272.

^{page 252 note 9} So given in the preliminary synopsis which is a characteristic feature of al-Wāqidī's (B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 2b). This same date (Rabī‘) is found in al-Ṭabarī, quoting al-Wāqidī. (Annales, I, 1554.) Fol. 127a of the main MS of the has subsequently Rabī‘al-Awwal. At first sight this would appear to be an error in transcription, yet we find the same reading (Rabī‘al-Awwal) in Ibn Sa‘d. (Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 61.Google Scholar)

^{page 252 note 10} Mentioned in a list of raids at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 260.)

^{page 252 note 11} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 127a.

^{page 252 note 12} Annales, I,1554.

^{page 252 note 13} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 127b.

^{page 252 note 14} Mentioned in a list of raids. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 257.)

^{page 252 note 15} ‘Uyūn al-athar, II, 105.

^{page 252 note 16} Given in this sequence in the introductory synopsis (B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 2b). In the text al-‘Iṡ follows immediately upon

^{page 252 note 17} Mentioned in a list of raids. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 260.)

^{page 253 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 127b.

^{page 253 note 2} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 312.

^{page 253 note 3} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 188.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 4} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 128a.

^{page 253 note 5} Brief mention at the end of the section dealing with the raid to (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 265.)

^{page 253 note 6} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 128a.

^{page 253 note 7} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 260 seq.

^{page 253 note 8} al-Zurqānī, referring to Ibn al-Qayyim. (SharḤ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 191.)

^{page 253 note 9} This is the sequence given in the introductory synopsis to the (B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 2b). Likewise in Ibn Sa‘d (Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 64Google Scholar). In the text of al-Wāqidī the raid to Dūmat al-Jandal follows immediately on that to Ḥismā.

^{page 253 note 10} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 265 seq.

^{page 253 note 11} ‘Uyūn al-athar, II, 107.

^{page 253 note 12} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 129a.

^{page 253 note 13} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 279 seq. Ibn Sayyid al-Nās refers to Ibn Isḥāq without specifying the recension and mentions another raid to Dūmat al-Jandal under Abū ‘Ubayda. (‘Uyūn al-athar, II, 109.)

^{page 253 note 14} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 129b.

^{page 253 note 15} Mentioned in a list of raids at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 260.)

^{page 253 note 16} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 130a.

^{page 253 note 17} Mentioned at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 265.)

^{page 253 note 18} The name occurs in various forms, e.g. Usayr b. Rizām, al-Yusayr b. Rāzim, Usayr b. Zīrim, etc. I have followed the version found in the main MS of al-Wāqidī's and elsewhere.

^{page 253 note 19} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 130b. According to al-Wāqidī there were two raids by ‘Abdallah b. Rawāḥa, the first a reconnaissance and the second against Usayr b. Rāzim.

^{page 253 note 20} Mentioned at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 266.)

^{page 253 note 21} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 266. The account is derived from Mūsā b. ‘Uqba, but no specific dating is ascribed to him.

^{page 253 note 22} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 131a.

^{page 253 note 23} In Ibn Hishām the event is not dated or put in any chronological sequence (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 290). The reference to the prisoners having been brought to the Prophet on his return from Qarad suggests that the raid against Banū ‘Urayna can be dated Jumādā'l-Ūlā or since Qarad and are one and the same and a reconstruction of Ibn Isḥāq's chronology points to Jumādā'l-Ūlā 6 as the date of the latter. (See above, p. 252, n. 5.)

^{page 253 note 24} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ V, 271.

^{page 254 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 131b.

^{page 254 note 2} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 321.

^{page 254 note 3} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 164.

^{page 254 note 4} Annales, I, 1528.

^{page 254 note 5} This is an unusual dating of the event as Ibn Kathīr points out, for the Prophet is said to have made three ‘umar, all in (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 164.)

^{page 254 note 6} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 145a. In the introductory synopsis (fol. 4a) we find Jumādā'l-Ūlā 7 given as the date of This occurs also in Ibn Sa‘d. (Kitāb ai-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 77.Google Scholar)

^{page 254 note 7} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 342.

^{page 254 note 8} Fatḥ al-bārī, II, 373.

^{page 254 note 9} Ibn Kathīr states that according to Mūsā b. ‘Uqba, ‘… when the Messenger of God returned from al-Ḥudaybīya he remained 20 nights or thereabouts, then he set out for Mūsā was of the opinion that the conquest of was in the year 6’. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 181.)

^{page 254 note 10} An interval of 10 nights after al-Ḥudaybīya is ascribed to Ibn (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 261.Google Scholar)

^{page 254 note 11} According to al-Qasṭallānī. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 261.)

^{page 254 note 12} Annales, I, 1575.

^{page 254 note 13} Futūḥ al-buldān, Cairo, 1932, 36.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 14} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 164b.

^{page 254 note 15} Mentioned in a list of raids. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 257.)

^{page 254 note 16} al-Qasṭallānī lists five raids between and ‘Umrat al-Qaḍīya—Turba, Najd, Fadak, al-Mayfa‘a, and al-Jināb. Although he does not mention him, the sequence and dates are those of al-Wāqidī. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II,Google Scholar 298 seq.)

^{page 254 note 17} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 220.

^{page 254 note 18} Mentioned in a list of raids. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 260.)

^{page 254 note 19} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 165b.

^{page 254 note 20} The only reference I can find to Ibn Isḥāq having mentioned it is the passage in al-Zurqānī's commentary, ‘… and amongst the causes of it as stated in one of the versions on the authority of Ibn Isḥāq’. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 300.) There can be no question of confusion with the raid made by b. ‘Abdallah against Banū Murra (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 271), for al-Wāqidī states explicitly that the raid to al-Mayfa'a was directed against Banū ‘Abd b. Tha'laba.

^{page 254 note 21} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 166a.

^{page 254 note 22} This is probably the raid to the vicinity of which is mentioned in Ibn Hishām without additional details. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 260.)

^{page 255 note 1} More commonly ‘Umrat al-Qaḍā’. (Kitāb al-rawḍ al-unuf, II, 254.)

^{page 255 note 2} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 167b.

^{page 255 note 3} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 12.

^{page 255 note 4} Mūsā b. ‘Uqba, from al-Zuhrī. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 229.)

^{page 255 note 5} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 291.

^{page 255 note 6} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 168b. al-Ṭabarī, quoting al-Wāqidī, puts it in (Annales, I, 1597.)

^{page 255 note 7} Mentioned in a list of raids at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 260.)

^{page 255 note 8} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 170b.

^{page 255 note 9} Mentioned at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 257.)

^{page 255 note 10} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 171a.

^{page 255 note 11} Mentioned in a list of raids at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 269.)

^{page 255 note 12} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 171b.

^{page 255 note 13} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 15.

^{page 255 note 14} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 321.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 15} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 294.

^{page 255 note 16} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 174b.

^{page 255 note 17} Mentioned at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 272.) According to al-Zurqānī, Ibn Isḥāq put it before Mu'ta. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 332.Google Scholar) The same statement is found in Ibn Ḥajar (Fatḥ al-bārī, VIII, 60). It is possible tha t reference is intended to a recension other than that of al-Bakkā'ī.

^{page 255 note 18} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 273.

^{page 255 note 19} Annales, I,1604.

^{page 255 note 20} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 329. According to a footnote on the same page, the year 8 is specified in some MSS of

^{page 255 note 21} al-Qasṭallānī, referring to the al-ta'rikh of Ibn Abī (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 332.Google Scholar)

^{page 255 note 22} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 175b.

^{page 255 note 23} Mentioned at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 281.)

^{page 255 note 24} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 336.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 25} al-Jami' al-sahih, V, 330.

^{page 256 note 1} Fatḥ al-bārī, VII, 63.

^{page 256 note 2} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 176b.

^{page 256 note 3} Not mentioned by him under this title, but it would seem from the subject matter that the account of the raid of Ibn Abī Ḥadrad to refers to the same incident. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 278.)

^{page 256 note 4} al-Zurqānī, quoting an anonymous source. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 339.Google Scholar)

^{page 256 note 5} Ibn Ḥajar, quoting an anonymous source. (Fatḥ al-bārī, VIII, 46.)

^{page 256 note 6} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 321.

^{page 256 note 7} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 223.

^{page 256 note 8} According to al-Wāqidī, Abū Qatāda was the leader of the expedition; Ibn Isḥāq has Ibn Abī Ḥadrad. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 275.)

^{page 256 note 9} This raid is listed separately in the introductory synopsis to the (B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 4a). In the text it is dealt with as part of the account of the conquest of Mecca (fol. 180b).

^{page 256 note 10} Mentioned at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 275.) The prefatory remark ‘… and the raid of Ibn Abī Hadrad and his companions to Iḍam was before the Conquest’, can probably be ascribed to Ibn Hishām.

^{page 256 note 11} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 177a.

^{page 256 note 12} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 80. The date is so given in all the sources ; it is the precise day of departure and arrival and not the month which is the subject of conjecture among the commentators.(See al-Zurqānī, Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 357.)

^{page 256 note 13} So dated in the introductory synopsis (B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 4a). No date is given in the narrative itself, but the Prophet is said to have sent out b. al-Walīd during the period he remained at Mecca subsequent to its conquest (fol. 197b).

^{page 256 note 14} It would probably be Shawwāl according to Ibn Isḥāq's chronology, for the conquest of Mecca is given as 10 nights before the end of Ramaḍān (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 88) and the attack on Banū is said to follow closely upon the conquest; ‘… when the Messenger of God conquered Mecca he sent out b. al-Walīd as a summoner (to Islam) and not to fight’. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 71.)

^{page 256 note 15} Ibn Ḥajar gives Shawwāl as ‘the consensus of opinion amongst the authorities on the ’. (Fatḥ al-bārī, VII, 46.)

^{page 256 note 16} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 200b.

^{page 256 note 17} In Ibn Hishām, Ḥunayn follows upon the conquest of Mecca. Since the conquest is said by Ibn Isḥāq to have taken place 10 nights before the end of Ramadan and the Prophet to have remained in Mecca 15 nights after its conquest (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 80), then Ḥunayn may be presumed to have been in Shawwāl according to Ibn Isḥāq's chronology.

^{page 257 note 1} al-Bidaya wa'l-nihaya, IV, 332. al-Ṭabarī also quotes ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr to the effect that the Prophet remained in Mecca two weeks before moving against Banū Hawāzin. (Annales, 1,1654.)

^{page 257 note 2} al-Jami' al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 299.

^{page 257 note 3} According to the introductory synopsis (B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 4b). In the narrative itself the Prophet is said to have headed for al-Ṭā'if after Ḥunayn (fol. 208a).

^{page 257 note 4} According to Ibn Isḥāq also, the Prophet is said to have gone to al-Ṭā'if ‘when he had finished at Ḥunayn’. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 121.)

^{page 257 note 5} From al-Zuhrī. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, iv, 345.)

^{page 257 note 6} Ibn Ḥajar, quoting an anonymous source. (Fatḥ al-bārī, VIII, 35.)

^{page 257 note 7} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 215b.

^{page 257 note 8} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, iv, 143.

^{page 257 note 9} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 219a.

^{page 257 note 10} Mentioned at the end of the section on the . (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, iv, 269.)

^{page 257 note 11} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 220b.

^{page 257 note 12} al-Zurqānī, quoting an anonymous source. (Sharh. ‘alā'l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, III, 269.)

^{page 257 note 13} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 221a.

^{page 257 note 14} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 221a.

^{page 257 note 15} Mentioned at the end of the section on the . (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 289.)

^{page 257 note 16} al-Jāmi' al-ṡaḥiḥ, v, 322.

^{page 257 note 17} al-Qasṭallānī, quoting al-Ḥākim [al-Nīsābūrā[. (Sharḥ. ‘alā'l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, III, 58.)

^{page 257 note 18} It is presumably the same raid as that mentioned in Ibn Hishām as being the cause of the flight of ‘Adī b. Ḥātim to Syria. (al-Sārat al-nabawāya, iv, 225.) This is also referred to in al-Wāqidī, but there the similarity ends, for no mention is made in Ibn Hishām of the expedition being under the leadership of ‘Alī or of the destruction of al-Fuls being its object. The passage as it occurs in Ibn Hishām has no specific mention of Ibn Isḥāq as being the source of the narrative. The reference to the event in al-Ṭabarī (Annales, I, 1706) must, I think, emanate from al-Wāqidī.

^{page 257 note 19} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 222b.

^{page 257 note 20} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, rv, 159.

^{page 257 note 21} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, III, 73.

^{page 257 note 22} al-Jāmi' al-ṡaḥīḥ, vi, 17.

^{page 257 note 23} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 230b.

^{page 257 note 24} There is no specific dating of the event, but in Ibn Hishām we find it dealt with as part of the account of Tabīk. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 169 seq.)

^{page 258 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 241a.

^{page 258 note 2} According to Ibn Isḥāq, ‘the Messenger of God remained [in Medina] the remainder of Ramaḍān and Shawwāl and ; then he sent forth Abū Bakr as Amīr of the Ḥajj in the year 9’. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, iv, 188.)

^{page 258 note 3} Mentioned by al-Qasṭallānī and attributed to Ibn Sa'd. (Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, III, 105.) This must be an error, for Ibn Sa'd states unequivocably that it was in . (Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 121.)

^{page 258 note 4} So given in the introductory synopsis to the Kitāb al- (B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 4a) and also in Ibn Sa'd. (Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 122.) The text of al-Wāqidī, however, follows the pilgrimage of Abū Bakr with ‘All’s raid to Yemen.

^{page 258 note 5} This is the same raid as that referred to in al-Wāqidī in spite of the fact that the latter mentions Banū ‘Abd al-Madān as its object and not Banū'l-Ḥārith b. Ka'b as in Ibn Isḥāq (al-Sirat al-nabawīya, IV, 239). According to al-Suhaylī, ‘the name of ‘Abd al-Madān was ‘Amr b. al-Dubbān and al-Dubbān's name was Yazīd b. Qaṭan b. Ziyād b. al-Ḥārith b. Mālik b. Rabī'a b. Ka'b b. al-Ḥarith b. Ka'b al-Ḥārithi'. (Kitāb al-rawḍ al-unuf, II, 347.)

^{page 258 note 6} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 242a.

^{page 258 note 7} Mentioned at the end of the section on the (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 290.) The very short reference is from Ibn Hishām, from Abū ‘Amr al-Madanī. This is presumably that raid to Yemen, returning from which ‘Alī met the Prophet in Mecca during the Farewell Pilgrimage. (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 249.)

^{page 258 note 8} Annales, I, 1731.

^{page 258 note 9} al-Jīmi'al-ṡaḥīḥ, v, 325.

^{page 258 note 10} B.M. Or. 1617,fol.244a.

^{page 258 note 11} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, rv, 248. Ibn Isḥāq, like al-Wāqidī, puts the date of the departure for Mecca as five nights before the end of , as does Mūsā b. ‘Uqba. (al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, V, 111.)

^{page 258 note 12} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 252a.

^{page 258 note 13} Both Ibn Isḥāq (al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, iv, 253) and al-Wāqidī (B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 250a) state that the expedition was mustered in Ṣafar. al-Ṭabarī puts the beginning of the preparations a little earlier, in al-Muḥarram (Annales, I, 1794). The departure was delayed by the death of the Prophet.

^{page 259 note 1} I refer later to the question of the validity of this information contained only in al-Wāqidī.

^{page 259 note 2} Annali dell'Islam, Milano, 1905, I, 466.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 3} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 241.

^{page 259 note 4} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 7b ; al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 241.

^{page 260 note 1} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, III, 245.

^{page 260 note 2} ‘Uyūn al-athar, I, 225.

^{page 260 note 3} See Caetani, Annali, I, 519.

^{page 260 note 4} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 42b.

^{page 260 note 5} See above, p. 247, n. 17.

^{page 261 note 1} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 46 seq.

^{page 261 note 2} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 50.

^{page 261 note 2} Shark ‘alā'l-Mawahib al-ladunīya, I, 553. For a survey of the various riwāyas of Ibn Ishāq, see Guillaume, A., The life of Muhammad, London, O.U.P., 1955, Introd. p. XXX.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 4} Annales, I, 1356.

^{page 261 note 5} Annales, I,1362.

^{page 261 note 6} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 47.

^{page 261 note 7} Annales, I, 1366.

^{page 261 note 8} Kitāb al-tabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 20.

^{page 262 note 1} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, III, 344.

^{page 262 note 2} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 46.

^{page 262 note 3} Sharh ‘alā'l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 548.

^{page 262 note 4} Annales, I, 1363.

^{page 262 note 5} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 46.

^{page 262 note 6} Shark‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, I, 548.

^{page 262 note 7} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 50.

^{page 262 note 8} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 59.

^{page 263 note 1} al-Jāmi' al-sabīh, V, 208.

^{page 263 note 2} Sharh ‘alā'l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 9.

^{page 263 note 3} Annales, I, 1368.

^{page 263 note 4} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 46a.

^{page 263 note 5} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 47a.

^{page 263 note 6} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 49.

^{page 263 note 7} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 47a.

^{page 263 note 8} Kitāb al-tabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 21, 24.

^{page 264 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 47a.

^{page 264 note 2} Sūra V, 11.

^{page 264 note 3} Jāmi' al-bayān, Cairo, 1328, VI, 92 seq.

^{page 264 note 4} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 216.

^{page 264 note 5} al-Jāmi' al-sahrīh, V, 249.

^{page 264 note 6} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 50.

^{page 265 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 47b.

^{page 265 note 2} Wākidy's history of Muhammad's campaigns, Calcutta, 1855.

^{page 265 note 3} Rasūl Allah, Cairo, 1948.

^{page 265 note 4} Add. 20737, fol. 50a.

^{page 265 note 5} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 48a.

^{page 265 note 6} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 4.

^{page 265 note 7} See above, p. 262 f.

^{page 265 note 8} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 79b.

^{page 266 note 1} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 260.

^{page 266 note 2} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 61.

^{page 266 note 3} See above, p. 263 seq.

^{page 266 note 4} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 80b.

^{page 266 note 5} The following are mentioned in the first version—Abū Sabra b. Abī Ruhm, ‘Abdallah b. Suhayl b. ‘Amr, ‘Abdallah b. al-'Āmirī, Mu'attib b. al-Fadl b. Hamrā‘al-, Arqam b. Abī'l-Arqam, Abū Ubayda b. al-Jarrāh, Suhayl b. Baydā', Usayd b. Hudayr, ‘Abbād b. Bishr, Abū Nā'ila, Abū ‘Abū,Abs Qatāda b. al-Nu'mān, Nasr b. al-Hārith al-Zafarī, Abū Qatāda, Abū ‘Ayyāsh al-Zuraqī, ‘Abdallah b. Zayd, b. Yasāf.

^{page 267 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 80b.

^{page 267 note 2} See above, p. 249, n. 12.

^{page 267 note 3} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 178.

^{page 267 note 4} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 193.

^{page 267 note 5} al-Jāmi‘al-sahīh, v, 232.

^{page 267 note 6} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 81b.

^{page 268 note 1} Muhammed in Medina, Berlin, 1882, Introd., 16.

^{page 268 note 2} See above, p. 251.

^{page 268 note 3} Kitāb al-tabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 35.

^{page 268 note 4} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 200.

^{page 268 note 5} See below, p. 270.

^{page 268 note 6} See above, p. 249, n. 16.

^{page 268 note 7} aal-Jāmi' al-sahī, v, 204.

^{page 268 note 8} al-Sirat al-nabawīya, III, 199 ; B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 85a.

^{page 269 note 1} Muhammed in Medina, Introd., 16.

^{page 269 note 2} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 89b.

^{page 269 note 3} Sharh ‘alā'l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 112.

^{page 269 note 4} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 90a.

^{page 269 note 5} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 89.

^{page 269 note 6} Annali,I, 591, 1.

^{page 269 note 7} Annales, I, 1375.

^{page 269 note 8} al-Jāmi' al-ṡaḥīḥ, v, 210.

^{page 270 note 1} See above, p. 250, n. 7.

^{page 270 note 2} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 92a.

^{page 270 note 3} See above, p. 268.

^{page 271 note 1} See Annales, I, 1455; al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 83 seq; Kitāb al-rawḍ al-unuf, II, 182 seq; Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 104 seq; I, 521.

^{page 271 note 2} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 104.

^{page 271 note 3} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 224.

^{page 271 note 4} See above, p. 268.

^{page 271 note 5} See above, p. 259.

^{page 272 note 1} Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 44.

^{page 272 note 2} See above, p. 251, n. 2.

^{page 272 note 3} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 115.

^{page 273 note 1} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥīḥ, V, 254.

^{page 273 note 2} Fatḥ al-bārī, VII, 345.

^{page 273 note 3} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 313.

^{page 273 note 4} al-Sīrat.al-nabawīya, III, 292.

^{page 273 note 5} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 302.

^{page 273 note 6} al-Jāmi‘al-ṡaḥiḥ, V, 235.

^{page 274 note 1} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 94.

^{page 274 note 2} Faiḥ al-bārī, VII, 315.

^{page 274 note 3} See above, p. 269.

^{page 274 note 4} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 220.

^{page 274 note 5} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 102a.

^{page 274 note 6} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 233.

^{page 274 note 7} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 244.

^{page 274 note 8} See above, pp. 268, 270.

^{page 275 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 123b.

^{page 275 note 2} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 123a.

^{page 275 note 3} Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, II, ii, 56.

^{page 275 note 4} See above, p. 252.

^{page 275 note 5} See above, p. 248.

^{page 275 note 6} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 131a.

^{page 275 note 7} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya, IV, 220.

^{page 275 note 8} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 184.

^{page 275 note 9} B.M. Or.1617, fol. 164b.

^{page 275 note 10} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, IV, 271.

^{page 275 note 11} I See above, p. 254, n. 20.

^{page 275 note 12} ‘Uyün al-athar, II, 105.

^{page 276 note 1} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 123b.

^{page 276 note 2} Ibn Isḥāq does not mention Abü Bakr and has ‘two horsemen’. (al-Sīrat al-ndbawīya, III, 293.)

^{page 276 note 3} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 124a.

^{page 276 note 4} See above, p. 249.

^{page 276 note 5} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 88b.

^{page 276 note 6} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 292.

^{page 276 note 7} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 178.

^{page 277 note 1} See above, p. 252.

^{page 277 note 2} ‘When the Messenger of God returned from news reached him of the Quraysh caravan coming from Syria and he despatched Zayd b. Ḥāritha’. (B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 127b.)

^{page 277 note 3} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, III, 178.

^{page 277 note 4} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, II, 312.

^{page 278 note 1} al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya,IV, 273.

^{page 278 note 2} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 130b.

^{page 278 note 3} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 2b.

^{page 278 note 4} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 4a.

^{page 278 note 5} B.M. Or. 1617, fol. 145a.

^{page 278 note 6} Sharḥ ‘alā’l-Mawāhib al-ladunīya, II, 261.

^{page 278 note 7} al-Sīrat al-nabawīya, III, 342.