ADDENDA

P. 8: The earliest reference to Medina as the “true home of the sunna” of which I know occurs in a non-legal work, the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh of Ibn Hishām (d. 218), p. 1014 (ed. Wüstenfeld), in a tradition which Ibn Hishām attributes to the work of his predecessor Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150 or 151) as edited by Ziyād b. ʿAbdallāh Bakkāʾī (d. 183). The attribution to Ibn Isḥāq ought not to be accepted without reserve, and Caetani has already pointed out the difference in style between the tradition in question, which in any case is not authentic, and the fragment of a genuine quotation from Ibn Isḥāq, concerning the same events, which precedes it immediately in the text of Ibn Hishām (Annali, ii/1, year 11, § 36). The context shows that sunna in the passage in question has a meaning sensibly different from sunna as understood in the ancient schools of law, let alone the 'sunna of the Prophet.' The parallel tradition in Ṭabarī (d. 310), Annales, i, 1820, the isnād of which bypasses Ibn Isḥāq, represents a re-formulation in the light of the then prevailing ideas. Even if the tradition should have originated in the first half of the second century A.H. (because the lowest common transmitter in the two versions is Zuhrī), the time-lag before the concept of Medina as being the “true home of the sunna of the Prophet” entered legal discussion is significant.

P. 29, n. 4: Even Ibn Taimīya (d. 728) uses the argument that the Companions of the Prophet would have known best the intentions of their master (see, for example, G. Hourani, in Studia Islamica, xxi (1964), 36); this represents a return to the position of the ancient schools from that of the traditionists, and shows how deeply ingrained that idea was.

P. 37: Criticism of traditions on material grounds. It was said of Abū Muṣʿab al-Anṣārī: “If he were a Companion that (particular) tradition would be sound because its isnād going back to him is sound; now the authorities on ḥadīth have judged that this text is unsound; therefore we must conclude that he is not a Companion.” (Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Lisān al-Mīzān, Hyderabad 1331, vi, No. 1143.)

P. 58: On the whole of this and of the following chapter, cf. R. Brunschvig, “Polémiques médiévales autour du rite de Mālik,” Al-Andalus, xv (1950), 377–435.

P. 67, n. 3: On the question of minting fees, see further Qurṭubī (d. 671), al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, on Koran ii, 275 (Cairo 1933 ff., iii, 351 f.); ʿAlī b. Yūsuf al-Ḥakīm (wrote 749–59), Regimen de la Casa de la Moneda, ed. H. Monés, Madrid 1960, 100.