¹ Based on a personal communication from Dr. Amīn. I wish to note my appreciation to him and to other members of the Union of Arab Historians for their helpful comments on a draft of this paper presented at the Union in Baghdad.

² “Daw⊃ jadīd ⊂alā al-da⊂wa al-⊂abbāsiyya,” Majallat kulilyat al-ādab wa'l-⊂ulūm (Baghdad, 1957), pp. 64–82.Google Scholar

³ Akhbār al-dawla al-⊂abbāsiyya (Beirut, 1971), hereafter Akhbār; Dūrī's introduction to the text hereafter Dūrī, “Muqaddima.”Google Scholar

⁴ Omar, Farouq, The ⊂Abbāsid Caliphate (Baghdad, 1969), pp. 16–19;Google ScholarSharon, Moshe, “The Abbasid Da⊂wa Re-examined on the Basis of the Discovery of a New Source,” in Arabic and Islamic Studies, ed. Mansur, J. (Ramat Gan, 1973), pp. xxi–xli.Google Scholar

⁵ A photographic reproduction of this may be found in Dūrī's edition opposite p. 16. Since it is in an ornate style typical of late periods, and since some pages are missing from the beginning of the manuscript. I suspect that it is an addition to the original manuscript, and there is no way of knowing whether it was faithful to the true title. I have followed my reading of the plate rather than the reading given by Dūrī, , “Muqaddima,” p. 7.Google Scholar

⁶ Dūrī, , “Muqaddima,” pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

⁷ There is no colophon at the end of the manuscript, and some later writer appended a chronology of the limayyad and Abbasid caliphs down to al-Mutawakkil, “the caliph reigning in this our era,” c. 763/1361, in the period of the Mamlūk shadow caliphate. The title page, as noted above, is in a style typical of this same period.

⁸ Dūrī, “Muqaddima,” pp. 12–13, sets forth several arguments in support of this view.Google Scholar

⁹ Nubdha min kitāb al-ta⊃rīkh (Moscow, 1960);Google ScholarTa⊃rīkh al-khulafā (Moscow, 1967).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Introduction to Ta⊃rīkh al-khulafā, p. 16; the text in question comes from f. 53a.Google Scholar

¹¹ Some names that were cited in primary position in isnāds only once or twice do recur more often in secondary positions in other isnāds. These have been disregarded for the present purpose, as have the names of first person narrators within the text of a tradition.

¹² Akhbār, pp. 142, 145, 163, 164, 168, 229, 385, 387, 402.Google Scholar On Balādhurī, see Ibn, al-Nadīm, Fihrist, Flügel, G., ed. (Leipzig, 1871–1872), p. 113Google Scholar and Dodge, Bayard, trans. (New York, N.Y., 1970), pp. 247–248;Google ScholarKhalīl, b. Aybak al-Safadī, al-Wāfī bi'l-wafayāt (Das hiographische Lexicon), Dedering, S. and Ritter, H., eds. (Istanbul and Wiesbaden, 1931–), VIII, 239–41;Google ScholarIbn, Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa'l-nihāya (Cairo, 1351–1358 /1932–1939), XI, 65–66;Google ScholarYāqūt, , Irshād al-arīb, Margoliouth, D. S., ed., (London, 1923–1926), II, 127–132;Google Scholar other references and bibliography in Sezgin, Fuat, Geschichte des arabischen Schriftums, Vol. I (Leiden, 1967), pp. 320–321.Google Scholar

¹³ Akhbār, pp. 58, 62, 93, 108, 109, 113, 115, 128, 132.Google Scholar He is also cited twice as an intermediary source: p. 133, ⊂Alī al-Mughīra from Hishām al-Kalbī; p.387, Ahmad b. Yahyā from Abū Mas⊂ūd al-Kūfī from Ibn al-Kalbī. He is generally recognized as a leading member of a Shi⊂ite/Kūfan school of historiography, and was well known for his association with Abū Mikhnaf, ⊂Awāna b. al-Ḥakam, and al-Haytham b. ⊂Adī. It should be noted that Ṭabarī's account of the advance of Qaḥṭaba b. Shabīb and the Abbasid army from Khurasan to Iraq, which he generally attributes to Ibn al-Kalbī, is similar to that in the Akhbār but much more condensed and disjointed. The best account of his work is Ibn, al-Nadīm, Fiḥrist (Dodge, trans.), pp. 206–213;Google Scholar see also al-Khaṭīb, al-Baghdādī, Ta⊃rīkh Baghdād (Cairo, 1349 /1931), XIV, 45–46;Google ScholarIbn, Khallikān, Biographical Dictionary, DeSlane, W., trans. (London, 1843–1871), III, 608:Google ScholarSezgin, , Geschichte, I, 268–271.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Akhbār, pp. 21–24, 159.Google Scholar The number of citations is somewhat misleading, since all but one deal with the death of al-⊂Abbās in the first few pages of the work. On Wāqidī, see Ibn, al-Nadīm, Fihrisi (Dodge, trans.), pp. 213–216;Google ScholarṢafadī, , Wāfī, IV, 238–240;Google ScholarIbn, Kathīr, Bidāya, X, 261;Google Scholar other references in Sezgin, , Geschichte, I, 294–297.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Akhbār, pp. 29, 31, 94, 98, 124.Google Scholar He is frequently cited in Ibn, al-Kalbī, Kitāb al-aṣnām, Zeki, A., ed. (Cairo, 1343 /1924).Google Scholar See also Khaṭīb, , Baghdād, VII, 398;Google ScholarQifṭī, , Inbāh al-ruwāh, (Cairo, 1950–1955), I, 318–319, notes that he was often called “b. ⊂Alī” as well as “b. ⊂Ulayl.”Google Scholar

¹⁶ Akhbār, pp. 162, 169, 171, 230, 385, 386.Google Scholar See Ibn, Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-rahdhīh (Haydarabad, 1325 – 1327; reprint Beirut, 1968), VII, 460–461;Google ScholarYāqūt, Irshād, VI:48;Google ScholarIbn, al-Nadīm, Fihrist (Dodge, trans.), pp. 246–247;Google ScholarKhaṢīb, , Baghdad, XI, 208–210;Google ScholarSezgin, , Geschichte, I, 345–346. He is cited extensively in Tabani and also in such diverse works as Iṣfahānī's Maqātil al-ṭālibiyin and Yāqūt's Mu⊂jam al-buldān.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Akhbār, pp. 25, 121, 132, 133.Google Scholar The likelihood that the name is that of the well-known Shi⊂ite traditionalist is enhanced by the fact that he is often cited as relating information from ⊂Amr b. Dīnār (d. 126/743). On Sufyān al-Hilālī, see Khaṭīb, , Baghdād, IX, 174–184;Google ScholarIbn, Ḥajar, Tahdhīb, IV, 117–122;Google ScholarIbn, al-Nadīm, Fihrist (Dodge, trans.), pp. 443–444, 547;Google ScholarMuḥsin, al-Amīn al-⊂Amilī, A⊂yān al-shī⊂a (Damascus and Beirut, 1353 /1935–1382 /1963), XXXV, 151–154;Google ScholarIbn, Khallikān, Dictionary, I, 578–581;Google ScholarIbn, Ḥibbān al-Bustī, Kitāb mashāhīr ⊂ulamā⊃ al-amṣār, Fleischhammer, M., ed. (Cairo, 1379 /1959), pp. 149–150;Google ScholarSezgin, , Geschichte, I, 96. He surely lived too early for the author of the AkhbJr to have known him; he could be cited frequently to give the work a greater air of authority and respectability.Google Scholar

¹⁸ All these references (traditions about Muḥammad and ⊂Abd Allah b. al-⊂Abbās) are found on one page (Akhbār, p. 27). He is thus a minor source in any case. Yet he must have been a relatively early traditionalist, and it is strange that his name is not recorded in the usual bio-bibliographical sources.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Akhbār, pp. 120, 235, 236.Google Scholar See Ibn, al-Nadīm, Fihrist (Dodge, trans.), p. 242;Google ScholarKhaṭīb, , Baghdād, XIII, 112–114;Google ScholarSezgin, , Gesehichte, I, 271–272. His influence on the Akhbār is actually less significant than the number of citations might suggest.Google Scholar

²⁰ Akhbār, pp. 167, 168, 383; p. 131 cites him on the authority of Muḥammad b. Yūsuf. Both of these have also been cited by Ṭabarī and would appear to have been extremely important sources of privileged information about the affairs of the Abbasid family, yet virtually nothing is known about either of them.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., pp. 379, 382, 384. He typically relates on the authority of his father from a shaykh who was a friend of the Imām Ibrāhīm. If, however, he is the same individual mentioned in an isnād (p. 169), he may have lived in late Umayyad times and was known to the author of the Akhbār through Abū Zayd ⊂Umar b. Shabba.

²² In addition to those indicated in preceding notes, the author twice cites Ḥasan b. Abī Sa⊂īd (an authority often used by Ṭabarī for detailed information about Abbasid affairs taken from sources close to the court and government officials); ⊂Abd Allah b. ⊂Umayr (almost certainly the mawlā of Ibn ⊂Abbās); ⊂Alī b. ⊂īsā b. Mūsā, etc.

²³ Dūrī, , “Muqaddima,” p. 14.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., pp. 15–19.

²⁵ In the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2d ed.), s.v. “Ibn al-Naṭṭāh”; reprinted in his ⊂Abbāsiyyāt, (Baghdad, 1976), pp. 15–16. Omar gives full bibliographical references in the article.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist (Dodge, , trans.), pp. 236–237 says that he quoted al-Ḥasan b. Maymūn and Ibrāhīm b. Zadān al-Baṣrī. Neither is mentioned anywhere in the Akhbār.Google Scholar

²⁷ Sharon, , “Abbasid Da⊂wa,” pp. xxxix (19)–xli (21).Google Scholar

²⁸ Ḥasan, Qummī, Kitāb-i tārīkh-i Qumm, Ṭihrāī, J., ed. (Tehran, 1353 /1934), p. 145 The two other references are found on pp. 236–237.Google Scholar

²⁹ Aside from its repetition in Ta⊃rīkh al-khulafā⊃ (and the chance that the ninth/fifteenth century Persian translator may have added to the original text), this information was preserved by Nawbakhtī, , Firaq al-shī⊂a, Ritter, H., ed. (Istanbul, 1931). p. 43,Google Scholar and Sa⊂d, al-Qummī, Kitāb al-maqālār wa'l-firaq, Mashkūr, M., ed. (Tehran, 1963), p. 65. Since both of these authors are very early, the tradition must have been widely known; certainly Sharon's argument that it could have come only from the Akhbār is weakened if not completely invalidated.Google Scholar

³⁰ Abū, Ja⊂far al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, al-⊂Ulūm, M. āl Baḥr, ed. (Najaf, 1380 /1960). p. 55 (no. 93).Google Scholar There is a garbled reference to the same work in Ibn, al-Nadīm, Fihrist (Dodge, trans.), p. 305.Google Scholar

³¹ A convenient list of lost sources on Abbasid history may be found in Omar, , ⊂Abbāsid Caliphate, pp. 13–15Google Scholar (based on Ibn al-Nadīm). Other important lists include Mas⊂ūdī, , Murūj al-dhahab, Pellat, C., ed., (Beirut, 1965–1974), I, 12–16Google Scholar (a description of the sources for his work); and the citations in Ḥajjī, Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn, Ṣerefettin, Yaltkaya and Bilge, Rifat, eds., Vol. I (Istanbul, 1971), pp. 26, 283, 293 and Vol. II, p. 1841.Google Scholar

³² On ⊂Abd Allah, see Mas⊂ūdī, , Murūj, I, 16;Google Scholar on Abū'l-Faḍl, see Ibn, al-Nadīm, Fihrist (Dodge, trans.), p. 237Google Scholar (Flügel, , p. 107). The former work is otherwise unattested; there are fragments from the latter in Jahshiyārī, al-Ṣābī, and Ṭabarī but they bear no relation to the Akhbār.Google Scholar

³³ See Ibn, al-Nadīm, Fihrist (Dodge, trans.), p. 237.Google Scholar This name is garbled in the manuscript used by Flügel; it is tempting to think that it should be read as Abū Sa⊂īd Ḥasan b. al-Ḥusayn, a very well known scholar (d. 295/888), on whom see Khaṭīb, , Baghdad, VII, 296;Google Scholar⊂āmilī, , A⊂yān, XXI, 212–217;Google ScholarIbn, Khallikān, Dictionary, IV, 300. He is known to have related from ⊂Umar b. Shabba and others used by the author of the Akhbār.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Ibn, al-Nadīm, Fihrist (Dodge, trans.), pp. 109–111;Google ScholarIbn, Khallikān, Dictionary, III, 50–51;Google ScholarṢafadī, , Wāfī, III, 199;Google ScholarKhaṭīh, , Baghdād, 111:113;Google ScholarḤajjī, Khalīfa, Kashf, II, 1841;Google ScholarSam⊂ānī, , Kitāb al-ansāb, Margoliouth, D., ed. (London, 1912), ff. 599b–600a.Google Scholar

³⁵ In Omar, ⊂Abbāsid Caliphate; Sharon, “Abbasid Da⊂wa,”; Daniel, E., The Political and Social History of Khurasan Under Abbasid Rule (Minneapolis, Minn., and Chicago, Ill., 1979).Google ScholarCahen, Claude, “Points de vue sur la ‘Revolution abbaside’,” Revue Historique, 230 (1963), 295–335;Google Scholar and Nagel, Tilman, Uniersuchungen zur Enistehung des abbasidischen Kalfase (Bonn, 1972),Google Scholar did not use the Akhbār but were able to utilize material from it indirectly through the recension in Ta⊃rīkh al-khulafā⊃, as published by Gryaznevich.Shaban, M., The Abbasid Revolution (Cambridge, 1970), failed to recognize the importance of this new source and consequently his work is now less important than these others.Google Scholar

³⁶ I hope to deal with these at greater length in either a forthcoming article or as part of an introduction to a translation of the Akhbār.

³⁷ There are many passages in other works which parallel those in the Akhbār; Duri has noted many in Ibn Abī'l-Ḥadīd, Mubarrad, Dhahabī, and other works. It is most likely, however, that these were not taken from the Akhbār–Omar has remarked on the fact that there seem to be no direct references to it–but rather from the same sources in which the author of the Akhbār found them. What is truly unique about the Akhbār, therefore, is not the originality of its material but the genius of the way in which it was selected and constructed.

³⁸ Folios 78b-187a of the manuscript; pp. 173–379 of the printed text.

³⁹ For example: p. 263. “⊂Umar b. Shabīb alleged, ‘I said to Aba Salama’”; p. 257, p. 264.

⁴⁰ I believe that all or most of Akhbār, pp. 253–379,Google Scholar comes from this source; cf. Ta⊃rīkh al-khulafā⊃, f. 259a. Ṭabarī, , Ta⊃rīkh al-rusul wa'l-mulūk, DeGoeje, M., ed., (Leiden, 1879–1890),Google Scholar hereafter Ṭabarī, cites Abū'l-Khaṭṭāb as a source dealing with the da⊂wa three times: II, 1953, 1967, 1984. Some of his anonymous passages also match this narrative (cf. Ṭabarī, III, 44, and Akhbār, pp. 395–396;Google Scholar Ṭabarī, III, 33, and Akhbār, p. 410). Ṭabarī also cites Abū'l-KhaṬṬāb for material not found in the Akhbār: III, 532 has him relating an interesting story about al-Qāsim b. Mujāshi⊂ (a prominent figure in the da⊂wa); III, 485 gives a story about al-Mahdī, and III, 619 one about Ja⊂far b. Yaḥyā; II, 1816. 1849 use him for information about events in Khurasan just before the da⊂wa. There are two other passages in Ṭabarī which cite an Abū'l-Khaṭṭāb Ḥamza b. ⊂Alī (relating from Abū Mikhnaf and Sayf b. ⊂Umar), but as these deal with events in the very early Islamic period this may be a different authority (1, 2018, 2199.) Several traditionalists, a famous poet, and the founder of an extremist Shi⊂ite sect all used this kunyā but none of them can be identified with this individual.Google Scholar

⁴¹ In fact, Ṭabanī twice gives the isnad as Abū Zayd from Aḥmad b. Mu⊂āwiya from Abū'l-Khaṭṭāb (II, 1816, 1849.) As discussed above, Abū Zayd (⊂Umar b. Shabba) was also used as an authority for material in the Akhbār and is frequently cited by Ṭabarī. If both ṭabarī and the author of the Akhbār actually knew Abū'l-Khaṭṭāb's work through ⊂Umar b. Shabba, one would have to conclude that Ṭabarī severely distorted his source. I prefer to believe that the author of the Akhbār, unlike Ṭabarī, had access to the original narrative.

⁴² Wellhausen, J., The Arab Kingdom and Its Fall, Weir, Margaret, trans. (reprint Beirut, 1963), pp. 522–528.Google Scholar

⁴³ For example Madā⊃inī (Ṭabarī, II, 1501) takes pains to depict a conflict between the pro-⊂Alid Ghālib and the Abbasid du⊂āt but this is glossed over in Akhbār, p. 204. He also discusses the relation with Abū Hāshim as little as possible, as if it were an acute embarrassment. This was obviously a question of great importance for the Muslim historians, with those at one end of the spectrum attempting to depict the Abbasids as enemies of the ⊂Alids and friends of the Umayyads and those at the other extreme portraying them as avengers of the ⊂Alids and destroyers of the Umayyads, with many variations in between. This can be seen, for example, in such problems as the controversy about Abū Muslim: Was he the murderer of ūAbd Allah b. Mu⊂āwiya or the champion of Yaḥya b. Zayd? Was he (or Abū Salama) in league with the ⊂Alids or conspiring against them? It will take much additional study to resolve such historiographical problems.

⁴⁴ Omar, , ⊂Abbāsid Caliphate, pp. 59–64, has made a useful start in this regard; Sharon, “Abbasid Da⊂wa,” is less satisfactory.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Akhbār, pp. 66–67 (Heraclius' riddles); for example, see also pp. 42–50 (especially p. 46), 62, 69–73, 78, 85–88. One is generally led to agree with Mu⊂āwiya's lament (p. 62), “Oh, Ibn ⊂Abbās! You have indeed been given a sharp tongue!”Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Akhbār, p. 52. Important discussions of the imamate and the caliphate may also be found on pp. 33, 74–77, 45–52, 62.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Akhbār, p. 92 (he suspects lbn Zubayr of wanting to be a secular ruler, qaysariyya kisrawiyya).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Akhbār, p. 99Google Scholar (the story continues to p. 109). Cf. the account of this in Madā⊃inī and Abū Mikhnaf (Ṭabarī, II, 693) which says that Ibn al-Ḥanafiyya “and members of his family” were imprisoned without making mention of Ibn ⊂Abbās. Madā⊃inī's version is also preserved in Ibn, Sa⊂d, Ṭabaqāt, (Leiden, 1905), V, 73–74,Google Scholar where no mention is made of Ibn ⊂Abbās being imprisoned but he is stated to have helped Ibn al-Ḥanafiyya; it would thus appear that Ṭabarī (or his source) is guilty of altering the text. Ibn A⊂tham al-Kūfī, a conspicuously proc-⊂Alid source, does not mention Ibn ⊂Abbās in his account of this incident: see Kitāb al-futūh, (Haydarabad, 1968–1975), VI, 125–136;Google Scholar another Shi⊂ite author, Abū'I-Faraj, al-Iṣfahānī, Kitāb al-aghānī, (Bulaq, 1284 – 1285 /1867–1868), VIII, 32,Google Scholar concedes only that Ibn ⊂Abbās “may have opposed” Ibn al-Zubayr. In the very sunnī and probably pro-Umayyad accounts of Khalīfa, b. Khayyāṭ, Ta⊃rīkh, Zakkar, S., ed., Vol. I (Damascus, 1967), p. 330,Google Scholar and Ibn, ⊂Abd Rabbih, al-⊂Iqd al-farīd, Aḥmad, Amīn, ed., et al. , (Cairo, 1940–1953), IV413,Google Scholar there is no indication of Ibn ⊂Abbās' participation or arrest in this affair. However, al-Ya⊂qūbī, , Ta⊂rīkh, Houtsma, T., ed., Vol. II (Leiden, 1883), p. 311, confirms that lbn ⊂Abbās and Ibn al-Ḥanafiyya were imprisoned; perhaps this work, often considered to be Shi⊂te, could better be described as Hāshimī.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Akhbār, p. 125.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For example, ibid., pp. 37, 44, 48. 55.

⁵¹ Ibid., see especially pp. 62–63.

⁵² Ibid., pp. 43, 44, 78.

⁵³ B. Lewis, in Encyclopaedia of Islam (2d edition), s.v. “⊂Abbāsids,” “Hashimiyya”; Sharon, , “Abbasid Da⊂wa,” pp. xxvi(6)–xxviii(8).Google Scholar On the other hand, this reappraisal of the development of Shi⊂ism would generally be compatible with that outlined by Hodgson, Marshall, “How Did the Early Shica become Sectarian,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 75 (1955), 1–13, in so far as it confirms a steadily narrowing definition of the meaning of ahl al-bayt and that the advent of the Abbasids in many ways represented “the most effective of all Shi⊂ite efforts.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ Gryaznevich, , introduction to Ta⊂rīkh al-khulafā, p. 53.Google Scholar