The subject of the present paper is a prophetic tradition found in some compendia of eschatological aḥādīth which has received considerable scholarly attention since Wilferd Madelung dedicated an article to it in 1981. Whereas Madelung shares the opinion of earlier scholars that only some of the incidents “prophesied” by this tradition are historical, this study aims to show that it is a wholly ex post facto composition which, in its various strata, remarkably captures episodes from the Zubayrid war of propaganda against their rivals as well as their later attempts to redeem the memory of their lost cause as a just one. The discussion closes by producing a highly singular Syrian tradition most certainly put into circulation with the intent of countering these Zubayrid propaganda efforts.

The article reopens the dossier of the sources, parallels and rewritings of 1 Cor 2.9, a saying that Paul attributes to a written source, when other sources put it into Jesus' mouth (e.g. GosThom 17). The state of research shows that the hypothesis of an oral source is generally preferred but an accurate study of 1 Clem 34.8, a parallel too often neglected, supports the presence of a written source that existed before 1 Cor 2.9. GosJud 47.10–13 will help to understand the attribution of the saying to Jesus. Finally, the article takes into account the well-known parallel in Islamic tradition, a ḥadīth qudsī.

From quite early on, the Shīʿa endeavoured to provide both historical and rational arguments for their central claim that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661), the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Muḥammad (d. 11/632), was not only his legitimate successor but also the person best qualified to lead the umma. In particular, there are several statements attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad which are used as evidence of the special position of ʿAlī and his family. One of these is a report known in the Muslim tradition as the ḥadīth manzilat Hārūn (ḥadīth of the position of Aaron). According to this report, cited by such eminent authorities on ḥadīth as Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj (d. 261/875), al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892) and Ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855), Muḥammad said to ʿAlī: “Are you not content to be with respect to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that after me there shall be no other Prophet?” The ḥadīth alludes to the parallels and similarities between the status of Muḥammad and ʿAlī and their close relationship, and that of Moses and Aaron in the Jewish tradition. The article examines the significance of this report for the formulation of the doctrine of the special status of ʿAlī in Shīʿī Islam through its use and interpretation in the Muslim literary and historical tradition.

Happiness is a universal concept and experience that cuts across cultures and religions. Nonetheless, the particular manifestations and descriptions of happiness are culturally informed and contextualized. This essay explores the concepts of happiness and the pursuit of happiness in Islamic thought, arguing that the pursuit of happiness is envisaged differently in Islamic thought. Rather than the more transient forms of happiness celebrated in modern, secularized or hedonistic cultures, the pursuit of happiness in Islamic thought is concerned above all with the attainment of enduring happiness.

The relationship between the traditional biographical material on Muḥammad (maghāzī- or sīra-material) and the narrations of his words and deeds (ḥadīth-material) has long been debated in Islamic studies. While some scholars have argued that the biographical material is fundamentally ḥadīth material arranged chronologically, others have argued the opposite: that ḥadīth material originally consists of narrative reports about the life of Muḥammad which were later deprived of their historical context to produce normative texts. This article argues that both views are untenable and that maghāzī and ḥadīth emerged as separate fields; each influenced the other but they preserved their distinctive features. While traditions that originated and were shaped in one field were sometimes transferred to the other, the transfer of traditions from one field to the other apparently did not as a rule involve any deliberate changes to the text.