Judaism and the Hadiths

Judaism and the Ḥadīths Alan Verskin Most studies of early Muslim-Jewish interactions have made scant use of ḥadīth collections, instead using sīra, maghāzī, historical and exegetical literature as source material (Rubin 1999: 4). Ḥadīths have been utilized, but usually only those embedded in the latter genres. This chapter focuses on the works of scholars who have made extensive use of ḥadīth collections in their studies of Muslim-Jewish relations. Jewish Influence on the Ḥadīth Scholars have explored two main avenues by which early Muslims became aware of Jewish thought: through discussions with Jews and through Jewish converts to Islam. Nabia Abbot and Michael Lecker have pointed to evidence that there was substantial intellectual exchange between Muḥammad and his companions on the one hand, and the Jews on the other. Ḥadīths state, for example, that Muḥammad, ʿUmar and Abū Bakr visited the Jewish study house (bayt al-midrās) in Medina (Abbott 1967: 8-9; Lecker 1997: 259-273 and Schöller 1998: 210-11). Knowledge of Judaism may have also conceivably been gleaned from contacts with the Jewish population of South Arabian kingdom of Ḥimyar (Robin 2015 and Lecker 1995. Cf. Beeston 1984). Second, scholars have shown how Muslims became aware of Jewish thought through Jewish converts to Islam. There have been several significant studies of Jewish, or allegedly Jewish, converts to Islam who became ḥadīth transmitters and who were known to have transmitted Jewish material: Kaʿb al-Aḥbār (Wolfensohn 1933 and Reeves 2014), Wahb Ibn Munabbih (Abbott 1977 and Khoury 1972), ʿAbdallāh ibn Sallām (Wasserstrom 1995: 175-78) and ʿAbdallāh Ibn Saba’ (Friedlander 1909-10 and Anthony 2012). Oral Law in Judaism and Islam While all scholars, both religious and academic, agree that some Jewish traditions are referenced in the ḥadīth, they differ regarding the extent and nature of Jewish influence. As early as the 17th Century, some Western scholars posited direct and substantial influence. The English churchman and orientalist, Humphrey Prideaux, argued that the very concept of ḥadīth was strategically formed by Muḥammad in conscious imitation of rabbinic oral law (Prideaux 1697: 68. Cf. d’Herbelot 1697: 416). Although based on little more than the collective “othering” of non-Christian religions, the theory became a popular one, even finding its way into the work of the French philosopher Charles Montesequieu (Montesquieu 2002: 203). In 1918, Joseph Horovitz articulated a scholarly basis for the theory that “the relation between ḥadīth and Qurʾān is similar to that between Jewish oral and written traditions” (Horovitz 1908: 39). Key to his argument was the claim that the Islamic idea of a chain of authority (isnād) was taken from rabbinic sources. Although Ignaz Goldziher originally called the analogy between ḥadīth and Jewish oral law “misleading” and “false,” he later came to accept it, but argued that it was not because Judaism had influenced Islam, but because of the influence of Roman law on both Judaism and Islam, respectively (Goldziher 1968: 2: 194 and Goldziher 1907. Cf. Cook 1997: 509). Gotthold Weil, while acknowledging some superficial parallels between ḥadīth and Jewish oral law, outlined several important differences. First, he argued that the Islamic oral tradition was diffuse and democratic – anyone was free to pass on a tradition, no special authority was needed. The importance arrogated to individual transmission was reflected in the concern to preserve the historical identity of particular transmitters. Further, even the ḥadīth collections themselves were the works of individual authors. In contrast, the development of Jewish oral law was governed largely by institutions which produced anonymous collections. Second, Islamic oral tradition exists explicitly outside of revelation – mostly consisting of reports about the Prophet’s sayings or activities when he was not receiving revelation. In contrast, Jewish oral traditions attained their authority through their connection to the written revelation. In principle, therefore, Jewish traditions were not connected to a particular period or person (Weil 1938 and 1939). In the late 20th century, two scholars, Gregor Schoeler and Michael Cook, elaborated on Horovitz’s arguments. Schoeler wrote a detailed article comparing Jewish and Islamic oral law. Although taking Horovitz’s work as his point of departure, Schoeler did not regard Jewish oral law as having influenced Islamic oral law, preferring to see them as independent parallel developments (Schoeler 2004 Cf. Fishman 2010). In comparing the Islamic and Jewish oral traditions, he considered both the prohibitions against their commitment to writing and their redactions. He concluded that both traditions were almost immediately reduced to writing, although both continued to uphold orality as an ideal. In contrast to Schoeler, Cook endorsed Horovitz’s claim of influence, arguing that the very idea of oral tradition was one which Islam had borrowed from Judaism (Cook 1997: 508). Cook claimed that rabbinic chains of authority were the only known parallels to the isnād. He noted that although Rabbinic isnāds were less elaborate than the Islamic isnāds of the classical period, earlier Islamic isnāds resembled them more closely, abounding in traditions that did not emanate from Muḥammad and/or did not have a continuous chain of transmission (Cook 1997: 511). Cook further argued that the resistance among some early Islamic authorities to the writing down of tradition was conceived in conscious opposition to Jewish authorities who permitted the writing down of oral law. The Jews, these authorities argued, were led astray by creating sacred books alongside their own scripture, some citing the Mishnah (mathnāh) as a case in point (Cook 1997: 502-3). For a modern parallel, consider the views of the Pakistani scholar, Ghulam Ahmed Parwez, who rejected ḥadīth on the grounds that it was, “in fact, an imitation of the Jewish doctrine of the oral revelation of the Mishna” (Brown 1996: 55). On the basis of such passages, Cook argued that “a self-conscious oral Tradition was being brought into being by the Muslim traditionists within an already literate society. This was a more peculiar, not to say perverse, cultural project, and… its adoption makes historical sense only as a residue of Rabbinic Judaism” (Cook 1997: 520-21). Although Cook argued that the closest parallels to ḥadīth occur in Rabbinic literature, he nonetheless highlighted several major dissimilarities. Although chains of transmission are attested within Rabbinic Judaism, the Islamic concern for completeness is absent. In principle, the rabbis considered the oral law to have been received by Moses, but it was rare that they traced traditions back to him. Finally, Cook noted that there was no rabbinic parallel to the Islamic ḥadīth collections, Jewish traditions being dispersed across legal and other kinds of works. These differences, he argued, do not preclude rabbinic sources from having influenced the formation of the ḥadīth, but they do mean that the ḥadīth must also have undergone substantial independent development (Cook 1999: 483). Other writers have seen similarities between ḥadīth and Jewish oral law as being more all-encompassing. John Wansbrough, for example, saw sunna as the equivalent of Mishnah, and therefore as yet another example of Islam’s cultural borrowing (Wansbrough 1977: 57 Cf. 68-70 and 182-83). Similarly, Aisha Musa has written that the idea of dual revelation is central to both Judaism and Islam, adding that the Talmud and Midrash “serve much the same function” as the ḥadīth (Musa 2007: 165). Jewish Content in Ḥadīths Some Jewish traditions appearing in ḥadīths were internally acknowledged as being of Jewish origin. These came to be called “Isrāʾīlīyāt” (Wasserstrom 1995, 173 and Adang 1996), although the term does not seem to have been used before the 4th/10th centuries (Goldziher 1902 and Tottoli 1999). Such ḥadīths largely concern the Israelites (banū Isrāʾīl), in contradistinction to Jewish contemporaries of Muslims (al-yahūd). Meir Kister wrote an important article on the ḥadīth that granted permission to narrate traditions about the sons of Israel: Ḥaddithū ʿan banī isrāʾīla wa-lā ḥaraja. Although, as Kister noted, the verse can be translated and understood in a number of different ways, the most widespread translation is, “Relate stories about the sons of Israel, for there is no objection in that.” Kister argued that this ḥadīth opened Islam to allowing Muslim authors to narrate traditions pertaining to Jewish lore and religion in general. He also noted several ḥadīths that discouraged consulting Jewish authorities and writings (Kister 1972). Gordon Newby saw ḥadīths that discouraged the consultation of Jewish authorities as evidence of the return of the Muslim community to its core values after a period of pursuing external validation (Newby 1980). Jonathan Berkey criticized Newby’s view as essentialist, preferring to see these ḥadīths as evidence of a long term process of Muslims gradually asserting a distinctive identity (Berkey 2003: 116). Although, in the classical Islamic period, there was a tendency to reject the authenticity of Isrāʾīlīyāt, they nonetheless had an impact in several genres of Islamic literature. Franz Rosenthal and Tarif Khalidi have discussed how Isrāʾīlīyāt ḥadīths made their way into works of history and “tales of the prophets” (qiṣāṣ al-anbiyāʾ) (Rosenthal 1968 and Khalidi 1994). Goitein discussed the use of Isrāʾīlīyāt ḥadīths by mystical ascetics, particularly in Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣbahānī’s (d. 430/1038) influential work, the Ḥilyat al-awliyāʾ (Goitein 1934-35). The first half of the twentieth century saw a flurry of articles on Jewish material embedded in ḥadīths. Goldziher dealt with the ḥadīth permitting Muslims to relate stories about the Israelites. He also discussed Jewish parallels to ḥadīths on visiting the sick (Goldziher 1902). Jakob Barth suggested Jewish sources for several ḥadīths contained within Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Barth 1903). Etienne Hahn discussed ḥadīths on cosmology and their relationship to Midrashic sources (Hahn 1937). Samuel Rosenblatt focused on ḥadīths on biblical figures and their relationship to Midrashic sources (Rosenblatt 1945). A. S. Yahuda, while focusing mainly on the Qurʾān, discussed unusual terms in ḥadīths that he claimed reflected translations from Hebrew (Yahuda 1948: 305-308). The most extensive treatment of the relationship between Judaism and the ḥadīths, however, is in Levi Jacober’s dissertation, a commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī which was written according to the model of Herman Strack and Paul Billerbeck’s Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, a work which provided rabbinic literary parallels to New Testament passages (Jacober 1935 and Strack and Billerbeck 1926). Like Strack, Jacober provided parallels, but with little of his own commentary. It is a loss to the field that Jacober’s work is almost entirely unknown, although W. Taylor has published, with acknowledgment, some of Jacober’s conclusions (Taylor 1943). Jacober was cautious in positing Jewish influence on ḥadīths, indicating that it was important to allow for parallel development, especially given what he termed the common “Semitic spirit” of Judaism and Islam. For this reason, Jacober entitled his work, “The Traditions of al-Bukhārī and their Aggadic Parallels,” rather than “the Traditions of al-Bukhārī and their Aggadic Sources.” He suggested the following model for understanding cases where influence did indeed occur: Traditions dealing with the pre-Islamic past and apocalyptic traditions dealing with the Islamic future were more likely to borrow Jewish content. Traditions that dealt with the Jewish present, that is, Jewish practices and customs, however, were more likely to treat the Jewish tradition as cultural antipodes (Jacober 1935). In 1937, Georges Vajda, who did not know of Jacober’s study, wrote, “Juifs et musulmans selon le ḥadīth.” The article, which is still the most widely quoted reference on Judaism and the ḥadīth, provided a broad survey of the subject. Vajda divided ḥadīths concerning Judaism into three broad categories (1) Islamic attitudes to Jewish customs, (2) Jewish treatment of Muḥammad and Muslims, and (3) Muslim treatment of Jews (Vajda 1937). While many studies of biblical history in Islamic sources exist, Uri Rubin’s Between Bible and Qurʾān: The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self Image is the only major study that extensively uses ḥadīth collections as its main source material (Rubin 1999). Rubin divided ḥadīths on Jews into three categories. (1) Traditions concerning the virtuous Israelites. These Israelites shared a history with both contemporary Jews and Muslims and were said to have come to Arabia in the distant past and to have visited the sacred sites of Mecca. These Israelites acknowledged the Prophetic authority of Muḥammad and even allied themselves with Muslims in a messianic maneuver to retrieve the Holy Land from the Byzantines. Rubin did not think that these traditions were evidence of actual alliances between Muslims and Jews, but instead saw them as part of a polemical strategy to legitimate the conquest of Jerusalem and environs. (2) Traditions concerning “sinful Israelites.” These, Rubin argued, were characterized as disobedient disciples of Moses and were contrasted with the obedient Muslims. Central in these ḥadīths was the event of the (Golden) calf. Rubin interpreted such references as reflecting polemics arguing that the Jews had forfeited their chosen status as a result of their sins. (3) Traditions drawing close parallels between the Israelites and the Muslims. These include, for example, ḥadīths foretelling that the Islamic community would experience fragmentation and sectarianism, just as the Jewish community had. Rubin said that his study was a “literary” one and that he would not attempt historical reconstructions. Nonetheless, the study does contain chronologies of traditions. These are not dated based upon isnād but upon “external considerations” that “make sense” (Rubin 1999: 238). This has led Devin Stewart to criticize Rubin for selecting traditions simply on the basis that they fit his chronology. Stewart also challenged Rubin’s claim that traditions about the Israelites were the product of Muslims who sought to consciously define themselves against Jews. Rather, Stewart argued, these traditions are indicative of Muslims making use of biblical sources in order to interpret their current condition (Stewart 2003). Other notable contributions to ḥadīths on the Israelites include Roberto Tottoli’s short but useful overview of biblical materials in the ḥadīth (Tottoli 2002: 110-16). Haim Schwarzbaum powerfully argued that the field of ḥadīth studies, and those ḥadīths dealing with Israelites in particular, could benefit from methodologies drawn from folklore studies. He provided an extensive bibliography of works useful for this endeavor (Schwarzbaum 1982: 29-38). Schwarzbaum died before completing his planned monograph on the subject, but wrote an article on ḥadīths concerning Moses that provides a glimpse of his methodology (Schwarzbaum 1979). Menahem Kister discussed ḥadīths concerning a discussion between Adam and Moses, its relationship with Midrashic literature and, in particular, with a poem in Jewish Aramaic from Byzantine Palestine (Kister 2007: 137-143). Many scholars since Jacober have noted substantial parallels between Jewish sources and ḥadīths dealing with messianic and apocalyptic times, some also mentioning that the Jewish convert to Islam, Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, was frequently connected with these traditions (Madelung 1986). Uri Rubin has written most comprehensively on the subject, noting that Shīʿī apocalyptic sources have a stronger tendency to turn to Jewish sources than Sunnī ones (Rubin 1999). David Halperin dealt with the legend of the dajjāl (Antichrist) and its Jewish connections (Halperin 1976). Alfred Morabia, however, has suggested several substantial revisions to Halperin’s thesis that minimize the Jewish influence that he postulated (Morabia 1979). Izhak Hasson and Ofer Livne-Kafri have both discussed apocalyptic ḥadīth that focus on Jerusalem (Hasson 1996 and Livne-Kafri 2001 and 2006). Much of the literature on the subject has been surveyed by Alexandra Cuffel, who also noted the difficulties of establishing Jewish origins for Islamic traditions (Cuffel 2016). Many scholars have dealt with ḥadīths concerning the principle of differentiating the practices of Muslims from non-Muslims, particularly Jews (mukhālafa). Goldziher was the first to devote a substantial study to the issue, focusing on such Islamic customs as fasting, hair dying, coitus interruptus and menstruation (Goldziher 1851 and 1894). Building on Goldziher’s work, Kister produced a broad and detailed survey of these and other such customs (Kister 1989). Most recently, Mazuz, in a series of studies, has dealt with mukhālafa as it applies to the laws of menstruation. He showed that while Muslims clearly drew upon Jewish thought in conceptualizing their ideas on menstruation, they ultimately rejected implementing Jewish laws (Mazuz 2012, 2013a, 2013b). Mazuz intriguingly suggests using instances of acknowledged mukhālafa for the purpose of reconstructing the religious and social customs of Medinan Jews (Mazuz 2014: 25 ff.). Another form of Muslim differentiation from Jews, first noted by Vajda, was the phenomenon of ḥadīths that deliberately obscure their Jewish origin. Thus Jewish practices which Islam proscribes are occasionally portrayed in ḥadīths as pagan practices. Among these Vajda noted the prohibition of public mourning of the dead, regulations concerning menstruation, and the observance of the holiday of ʿĀshūrāʾ (Vajda 1937: 78 and 69-75). The latter, to which Vajda devoted an article, was connected in some ḥadīths with a Jewish holiday, but in others with a pre-Islamic Arabian one (Vajda 1938. Cf. Wansbrough 1977: 183). Sometimes opposition to Judaism was not simply for the purpose of differentiation but for the purpose of establishing Islam as a moderate religion in contrast to the severity of Jewish law. Shelomo Goitein expressed this idea in his article, “The Stern Religion,” and it was expanded on by Kister (Goitein 1949 and Kister 1982). Ze’ev Maghen’s book, After Hardship Cometh Ease, explored the issue in detail, incorporating extensive material from the ḥadīth. He showed that Muslims often depicted Judaism as a religion of excessive stringency, and used this image of Judaism both in order to portray Islam as a religion of ease (dīn al-yusr) and to illustrate the legal concept of leniency (rukhsa). He argued that Muslims frequently seemed to possess knowledge of both biblical and post-biblical Jewish sources (Maghen 2006). There have been several studies of the relationship between Jewish law and ḥadīths. Gideon Libson has provided a useful general bibliography of sources dealing with the interplay between Jewish and Islamic laws, many of which discuss ḥadīths. He has also cogently discussed the methodological difficulties in making such comparisons (Libson 2003). Mazuz has provided an overview of the laws and customs of Medinan Jews on the basis of ḥadīths (Mazuz 2014: 25-68). There has been much scholarship on the potential influence of Jewish sources on the early Islamic ritual law recounted in the ḥadīth (Mazuz 2012). Early scholarship tended to see Judaism as having a decisive influence on Islamic ritual purity law (Wensinck 1914 and 1982). This has been criticized by Ze’ev Maghen, who considered the influence, in most cases, to have been minimal (Maghen 1997 and 1999). Vajda was pioneering in arguing for Jewish influence on Muslim fast days (Vajda 1938. Cf. Burton 1984 and Hawting 1994). The literature on Jewish influence on Muslim fasts, largely generated by Vajda’s article, has been reviewed by Jacob Gertner (Gertner 1989). Eugen Mittwoch has examined ḥadīths on prayer that he says indicate considerable Jewish influence (Mittwoch 1913). The degree of influence that he posited, however, has been criticized as extreme (Friedlander 1914) and the issue remains largely uninvestigated. Michael Cook has dealt with Islamic dietary law, discussing how it emerged in part to differentiate Muslims from Jews. He suggested that some, although not all, features of Islamic dietary law were the result of borrowings from Jewish law. Cook regarded the prohibition of eating cheese manufactured by unbelievers as typical of such influence (Cook 1986 and 1984. Cf. Freidenreich 2011a: 169 ff.). While much has been written about the early Islamic laws that regulated non-Muslims in general and Jews in particular, little has been written regarding the appearance of such material in ḥadīth literature (Levy-Rubin 2011). Yohanan Friedmann used some ḥadīths as source material in his study of Muslim relations with non-Muslims. He discussed how early Islamic thinkers conceptualized Islam in comparison to other religions, how unbelievers were classified, and the laws developed to regulate interactions with them (Friedmann 2003). There is much potential for further studies of ḥadīth on these issues. Little has been written about the image of Jews and Judaism in ḥadīths. Most discussions of the subject reference Vajda’s, aforementioned, 1937 work where he remarked that Jews were usually portrayed in “somber colors,” that is, they were regarded as disloyal, cunning and treacherous. Vajda thought that Jews were portrayed in this way because of the nature of their theological error. Although convinced by clear evidence in their scriptures that Muḥammad was a true prophet, they nonetheless refused to accept Islam due to envy, jealousy and religious particularism. This manifested itself in their falsification of their own sacred books and the fact that they did not apply their own laws (Burton 1990: 129-34). They harassed Muḥammad with their questions, and occasionally resorted to sorcery and attempted assassination to impede him. (Vajda 1937: 124-25). Goldziher and Hawting have written on ḥadīths dealing with Jewish monotheism. They both noted that Jews, unlike Christians, were seldom accused of “associationism” (shirk), but were accused of anthropomorphism (tajsīm) (Hawting 2006: 84 ff. and Goldziher 1887). ʿAbdallāh b. Nāṣir al-Shaqārī’s al-Yahūd fī al-sunna al-muṭahhara, despite its occasionally invective tone, contains a useful and comprehensive selection of ḥadīth for scholars interested in studying the image of Jews and Judaism (al-Shaqārī 1996). The two volume work is comprised largely of quotations of ḥadīth on such topics as biblical figures, Jewish interactions with Muḥammad and the early Muslims, descriptions of Jewish character traits, laws regulating Muslim interactions with Jews, divine punishments meted out to Jews, and the role of the Jews in apocalyptic times including their relationship with the Antichrist. The author, a scholar at Imām Muḥammad Ibn Saʿūd Islamic University in Medina, does not engage with Western scholarship (al-Shaqārī 1996). Most scholarship on Judaism and the ḥadīth has dealt with Sunnī sources, the following are some exceptions. Vajda wrote an article to deal with Judaism in Shīʿī ḥadīth collections that complements his aforementioned article on Judaism and the ḥadīth. The article discussed the impact of post-biblical, Jewish sources on Isrāʾīlīyāt found in the Uṣūl al-Kāfī of Muḥammad al-Kulaynī (d. 328/939) (Vajda 1981). Meir Bar-Asher wrote on Shīʿī conceptions of Jewish impurity (Bar-Asher 1994). Etan Kohlberg discussed the possible influence of Jewish traditions on Shīʿī ḥadīths concerning the antediluvian world (Kohlberg 1980). Rubin’s survey of biblical materials in the ḥadīth contains substantial references to Shīʿī works (Rubin 1999). In another study, Rubin discussed how biblical and Jewish material was used to build Shīʿī concepts of authority and legitimacy (Rubin 1979). Livne-Kafri has discussed Shīʿī apocalyptic traditions concerning Jerusalem (Livne-Kafri 2001). Freidenreich discussed Shīʿī ḥadīth on whether Muslims can eat the food of non-Muslims, among whom the Jews feature prominently (Freidenreich 2011b). Wasserstrom has noted the close connections between Jewish and Shīʿī thought, with some reference to ḥadīth (Wasserstrom 1995). Vera Moreen has written about early modern Shīʿī use of ḥadīths on the Jews (Moreen 1990). These initial studies suggest much potential for future research. Few scholars have used ḥadīth for the purpose of the historical reconstruction of the lives of the Jews of Medina. This is likely because of the general problem of determining the geographic and historical origins of discrete ḥadīths. Scholars know much less about the Arabian Jews of the early Islamic period than about the Muslims themselves. These Jewish communities left few, and arguably no, writings and were largely unknown to the major Jewish population centers of the period. Their history, therefore, must be told almost exclusively through the reports of Muslim observers, many of which are embedded in works of religious polemic. Scholars are divided regarding whether it is possible to use these sources to construct a reliable history of these Jews. Patricia Crone, for example, writes that early Islamic sources “must… have invented something, possibly everything, about the position of the Jews” (Crone 1987: 218. Cf. Wansbrough 1977: 50-51). Others, like Moshe Gil, consider the traditions regarding Muḥammad’s relations with the Jews as “trustworthy” on “essential points” (Gil 1987: 66). Several histories of the Jews of Arabia have been written. That of Michael Lecker is by far the most comprehensive and contains a good bibliography with references to his many articles on the subject (Lecker 2014). The works of Mazuz and Newby are useful for those who do not read Hebrew (Mazuz 2014 and Newby 1988). Despite significant scholarship on the Jews of Medina, it is unknown what kind of Judaism they practiced. Most scholars consider the Jews of Arabia to have been non-Rabbinic. Goitein argued that the Jews were of a Karaite-like persuasion (Goitein 1949. Cf. Mazuz 2014: 106). Rabin said that they were a sect of anti-Rabbinic Jews, possibly connected with the Qumran sect (Rabin 1957). Other scholars considered these Jews to have been members of a Judeo-Christian sect (Stroumsa 2015). The Impact of the Ḥadīth on Medieval Jews. Scholars have noted that medieval Jewish writers exhibited familiarity with ḥadīths, occasionally even quoting them in their works (Lazarus-Yafeh 1981: 82). Some scholars have further suggested that the medieval science of ḥadīth had a deep impact on Jewish understandings of oral law. Gerson Cohen argued that, as a result of the importance of isnāds to ḥadīth studies, there were several attempts by medieval Jews to demonstrate the authenticity of rabbinic tradition by constructing its chains of transmission. As examples, Cohen pointed to the influential Geonic work, Seder Tannaim wa-Amoraim (circa Ninth Century) and Sherira Gaon (d. 1006)’s Epistle. He argued that the Islamic science of parsing ḥadīth “is apparent in almost every line” of Ibn Daʾūd’s 11th-century work, Sefer Ha-Qabbalah (Book of Tradition) (Cohen 1967. Cf. Fishman 2012). David Sklare discussed how, in the Geonic period, Jewish writers drew upon terms associated with the study of ḥadīth in order to establish the rabbis as reliable transmitters of oral law. Sklare suggested that there were structural similarities between early Geonic collections of law, for example the Sheʾiltot of Aḥa (d. 752), and collections of ḥadīth. He proposed that Samuel Ben Ḥofni (d. 1034)’s Introduction to the Mishnah and Talmud was modeled on the genre of ʿilm al-ḥadīth (science of the ḥadīth) (Sklare 1996: 159 ff., 51 and 55). Yehudah Stampfer noted that David b. Saadia (circa 11th Century) explicitly referred to the Mishnah as “ḥadīth” and regarded the Talmud as an interpretative elaboration of it by the sages (Stampfer 2008). There is much scope for future study of Jewish use of the medieval sciences of the ḥadīth. It is important, therefore, to note a false cognate in Arabic and Judeo-Arabic. The term isnād in Judeo-Arabic usually designates a proof text (a translation of the Talmudic term asmakhta), not a chain of transmission (Blau 2006: s. v. isnād). According to Meira Polliack, Islamic understandings of ḥadīth had a profound impact on Karaite Jewish theology which needed to respond both to the claims of Islam and of Rabbinic Judaism (Cf. Schmidtke and Madelung 2006 and Pines 1976). Islam presented a persuasive model of understanding scripture as an inimitable, unmediated oral revelation, quickly put down in writing with minimal editing. Against this model, Judaism’s more diffuse scripture that had undergone a complex and protracted editing process was difficult to defend. Reluctant under such circumstances to have the Bible judged by the Islamic standards set for the Qurʾān, Karaite theologians instead cast the Bible as work that paralleled the ḥadīth. They thus conceived of the Bible as a series of traditions that preserved oral revelations transmitted to a variety of prophets that had then been put into writing by one or more compilers. To describe this, the Karaites used a term drawn from ḥadīth studies: tadwīn al-ḥadīth (Polliack 2015. Cf. Ben-Shammai 2010). Contemporary Islamic Writings on Jews and the Ḥadīth Many works have been written in the contemporary Arab world on representations of Jews in ḥadīth literature. Gautier Juynboll discussed contemporary Islamic attitudes to the Isrāʾīlīyāt within the ḥadīth, focusing mainly on the views of writers published at the turn of the century in Rashīd Riḍā’s magazine, al-Manār. Riḍā and his students were generally skeptical of the reliability of ḥadīth transmitters of Jewish origin. One of these students, Maḥmūd Abū Rayya, wrote an article impugning the foremost among these Jewish converts entitled “Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, the First Zionist” (Kaʿb al-Aḥbār huwa al-ṣahyūnī al-awwal) (Juynboll 1969: 121-138). Riḍā did, however, publish the dissenting views of scholars who continued to trust Kaʿb. Ronald Nettler took Juynboll’s work further by showing how these views of Riḍā and his circle related to salafī thought on Zionism and the purification of Islam. He also noted the view of Muḥammad al-Dhahabī who, although propounding a concept of archetypal Jewish antipathy to Islam, did not reject all of the Isrāʾīlīyāt (al-Dhahabī 1971 and Nettler 1998). Suha Taji-Farouki discussed Muḥammad Sayyid al-Ṭanṭāwī’s The Children of Israel in the Qurʾān and the Tradition (Banū Isrāʾīl fī al-Qurʾān waʾl-sunna). Al-Ṭanṭāwī was to become shaykh al-Azhar and chief Muftī of Egypt. The work, which began as a doctoral dissertation, was widely circulated (Skovgaard-Petersen 1997: 253-54). Taji-Farouki analyzed al-Ṭanṭāwī’s method of culling statements from the Qurʾān and ḥadīth in order to establish Jewish character traits and then applying them to the challenges of Zionism (Taji-Farouki 1998 and al-Ṭanṭāwī 1987). A similar approach was taken by Muḥammad Adīb Ṣāliḥ, a former editor of the Muslim Brotherhood journal Ḥaḍārat al-Islām, and a Syrian authority on ḥadīth (Ṣāliḥ 1993). William Brinner noted that discussions of ḥadīth transmitters of Jewish origin as well as of Isrāʾīlīyāt played an important role in the thought of ʿĀʾisha ʿAbd al-Raḥman (pen name: Bint al-Shāṭiʾ). The latter used these materials as evidence of a “Jewish” goal of subverting Islam that extended from the days of the Prophet to the present (Brinner 1983). To this it should be added, as discussed above, that the most detailed Arabic-language survey of ḥadīth on Jews is ʿAbdallāh b. Nāṣir al-Shaqārī’s al-Yahūd fī al-sunna al-muṭahhara. Tottoli and David Cook have written about how prominently Jews figure in the ḥadīths quoted in modern Islamic apocalyptic literature, especially in discussions of the Antichrist (dajjāl) (Tottoli 2002 and Cook 2005). Some popular Islamic works in English have also dealt with Jews in the ḥadīth. In The Jew is Not My Enemy, the Pakistani-Canadian author Tarek Fatah contrasted the portrayal of Jews in the Qurʾān with that of the ḥadīth – the former was tolerant of Jews, the latter was anti-Jewish. The author urged Muslims to give precedence to the teachings of the Qurʾān (Fatah 2010. Cf. Mohammed 2004). Finally, it should be noted that Kanan Makiya, a prominent British-Iraqi intellectual, wrote a fictional account of Kaʿb al-Aḥbār’s life in English. Makiya used Kaʿb’s life to argue that, in early Islam, there was a fluidity of religious identity and a spirit of openness that allowed Judaism and Islam to mutually influence one another (Makiya 2001). To conclude, there is much vital work for scholars to do on Judaism in the ḥadīth as the field is very much in its infancy. Jews and Jewish thought are referenced quite frequently in ḥadīth collections and achieving a better knowledge of how they function in these texts as the foils of Muslims and Islam would be of benefit to ḥadīth studies as a whole. Further, given the numerous quotations of ḥadīths about Jews in contemporary Islamic texts, additional study of the issue would also be of relevance to scholars of the modern period. Bibliography Abbott, N. (1967). Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri II: Qurʾānic Commentary and Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Abbott, N. (1977). “Wahb b. Munabbih: A Review Article.” Journal of Near Eastern studies 36, 103-12. Adang, C. (1996). Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. New York: Brill. Anthony, S. (2012). The Caliph and the Heretic: Ibn Sabaʿ and the Origins of Shiʿism. Leiden: Brill. Bar-Asher, M. (1994). “On Judaism and the Jews in the Early Shiʿa Religious Literature” (in Hebrew). Peʿamim 61, 16-36. Barth, J. (1903). “Midraschische Elemente in der muslimischen Tradition.” In A. Freimann, Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburstage a. Berliner’s. Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann, 33-40. Beeston, A. F. L. (1984). “Judaism and Christianity in Pre-Islamic Yemen.” In J. Chelhod, Le peuple yéménite et ses racines. Paris: G. P. Maisonneuve et Larose, 271-78. Ben Shammai, H. (2010). “On Mudawwin, the Redactor of the Hebrew Bible in Judaeo-Arabic Bible Exegesis.” In J. Hacker et al., From Sages to Savants: Studies Presented to Avraham Grossman. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 73-110. Berkey, J. (2003). The Formation of Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blau, J. (2006). A Dictionary of Medieval Judaeo-Arabic Texts. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language. Brinner, W. (1983). “An Egyptian Anti-Orientalist.” In G. Warburg et al. Islam, Nationalism, and Radicalism in Egypt and the Sudan. New York: Praeger, 228-49. Brown, D. (1996). Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burton, J. (1984). “Notes Towards a Fresh Perspective on the Islamic Sunna.” Bulletin: British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 11, 3-17. _______ (1990). The Sources of Islamic Law: Islamic Theories of Abrogation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Calder, N. (1988). “From Midrash to Scripture: The Sacrifice of Abraham in Early Islamic Tradition.” Le Muséon 101, 375-402. Cohen, G and Abraham Ibn Daud. (1967). A Critical Edition with a Translation and Notes of the Book of Tradition. Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society. Cook, D. (2005). Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Cook, M. (1986). “Early Islamic Dietary Law.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7, 218-77. _______ (1999). “Ḥadīth.” In G. Bowersock et al. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 482-484. _______ (1984). “Magian Cheese: An Archaic Problem in Islamic Law.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 47, 449-67. _______ (1997). “The Opponents of the Writing of Tradition in Early Islam.” Arabica 44, 437-530. Crone, P. (1987). The Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. _______ (1987). Roman, Provincial, and Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cuffel, A. “Jewish Tribes and Women in the Genesis and Battle of the Dajjāl: Nuʿayim ibn Hammād.” In Peoples of the Apocalypse. Berlin: De Gruyter, 129-146. al-Dhahabī, M. Ḥ. (1971). al-Isrāʾ īlīyāt fī al-tafsīr waʾl-ḥadīth. Cairo: Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmīya. Fatah, T. (2010). The Jew is Not My Enemy. Toronto: McLelland & Stewart. Fishman, T. (2012). “Claims about the Mishna in the ‘Epistle’ of Sherira Gaon: Islamic Theology and Jewish History.” In D. Freidenreich et al. Beyond Religious Borders. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 65-77. _______(2010). “Guarding Oral Transmission: Within and Between Cultures.” Oral Tradition 25, n.p. Freidenreich, D. (2011a). Foreigners and Their Food: Constructing Otherness in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law. Berkeley: University of California Press. _______ (2011b). “The Implications of Unbelief: Tracing the Emergence of Distinctively Shiʿi Notions Regarding the Food and Impurity of Non-Muslims.” Islamic Law and Society 18, 53-84. Friedlander, I. (1909-10). “ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sabaʾ der Begründer der Šīʿa, und sein jüdischer Ursprung.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 23, 296-327 and 24, 1-47 Friedlander, I. (1914). “Mittwoch’s Islamic Liturgy and Cult.” Jewish Quarterly Review 4, 641-649. Friedmann, Y. (2003). Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gil, M. (1987). “The Medinan Opposition to the Prophet.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 10, 65-96. Goitein, S. D. (1934-35). “Isra’iliyat” (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 6, 89-101 and 510-522. _______. (1949). “The Stern Religion” (in Hebrew). In Y. Baer et al. Sefer Dinaburg. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 151-64. Goldziher, I. (1902). “Mélanges judéo-arabes.” Revue des Études Juives 44, 63-66 _______ (1887). “Le monothéisme dans la vie religieuse des musulmans.” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, 16, 157-165. _______ (1968). Muslim Studies, tr. C. Barber and S. Stern. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. _______ (1907). “The Principles of Law in Islam.” In H. Williams, The Historians’ History of the World. New York: Encyclopedia Britannica Company, 294-304. _______ (1851). “Über jüdische Sitten und Gebräuche aus muhammedanischen Schriften.” Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft des Judentums 7, 302-15. _______ (1894). “Usages Juifs d’après la littérature religieuse des Musulmans, Revue des Études Juives 28, 75-94. Hahn, E. (1937). “Ḥadīth cosmogonique et Aggada.” Revue des Études Juives 101, 53-72. Halperin, D. (1976). “The Ibn Sayyād Traditions and the Legend of al-Dajjāl.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 213-25 Hasson, I. (1996). “The Muslim View of Jerusalem: The Qurʾān and Ḥadīth.” In J. Prawer et al. The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period. New York: New York University Press, 349-85. Hawting, G. R. (2006). The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _______ (1994). “The Tawwābūn, atonement and ʿĀshūrāʾ.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 17, 161-181. d’Herbelot, B (1697). Bibliothèque orientale. Paris: Compagnie des Libraires. Horovitz, J. (1908). “Alter und Ursprung des Isnād.” Der Islam 8, 39-47. Jacober, L. (1935). The Traditions of al-Bukhārī and their Aggadic Parallels. Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Toronto. Juynboll, G. The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature: Discussions in Modern Egypt. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Khalidi, T. (1994). “History and Hadith.” In T. Khalidi, Arabic Historical Thought in the Classical Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17-82. Khoury, R. G. (1972) Wahb ibn Munabbih. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kister, Meir J. (1982). “Concessions and Conduct: A Study in Early Ḥadīth.” In G. Juynboll, Studies in the First Century of Islamic Society. Carbondale: South Illinois University Press, 89-107. _______ (1989). “‘Do Not Assimilate Yourselves…’ Lā tashabbahū.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 12, 321-71. _______ (1972). “Ḥaddithū ʿan banī isrāʾīla wa-lā ḥaraja: A Study of an Early Tradition.” Israel Oriental Studies 2, 215-239. Kister, Menahem (2007). “Jewish Aramaic Poems from Byzantine Palestine and their Setting” (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 76: 105-84. Kohlberg, E. (1980). “Some Shīʿī Views of the Antediluvian World.” Studia Islamica 52, 41-66. Lazarus-Yafeh, H. (1981). Some Religious Aspects of Islam. Leiden: Brill. Lecker, M. (1995). “The Conversion of Ḥimyar to Judaism and the Jewish Banū Hadl of Medina.” Die Welt des Orients 26, 129-136. _______ (2014). Muḥammad and the Jews (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute. _______ (1997). “Zayd b. Thābit, ‘A Jew with Two Sidelocks’: Judaism and Literacy in Pre-Islamic Medina (Yathrib).” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 56, 259-73. Levy-Rubin, M. (2011). Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Libson, G. (2003). Jewish and Islamic Law: A Comparative Study of Custom During the Geonic Period. Cambridge: Harvard Law School. Livne-Kafri, O. (2001). “The Early Šīʿa and Jerusalem.” Arabica 48, 112-120. _______ (2006). “Jerusalem in Early Islam: The Eschatological Aspect.” Arabica 53, 382-403. Madelung, W. (1986). “Apocalyptic Prophecies in Ḥimṣ in the Umayyad Age.” Journal of Semitic Studies 31, 141-85. Madelung, W. and S. Schmidtke. (2006). Rational Theology in Interfaith Communication: Abūʾl-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī's Muʿtazilī Theology among the Karaites in the Fatimid Age. Leiden: Brill. Maghen, Z. (2006). After Hardship Cometh Ease: The Jews as Backdrop for Muslim Moderation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. _______ (1997). Al-Taharah Shatir al-Iman: An Inquiry into the Historical Evolution of the Islamic System of Ritual Purity. Ph.D. Dissertation: Columbia University. _______ (1999). “Close Encounters: Some Preliminary Observations on the Transmission of Impurity in Early Sunni Jurisprudence,” Islamic Law and Society 6, 348-92 Makiya, K. The Rock: A Tale of Seventh-Century Jerusalem. New York: Random House, 2001. Mazuz, H. (2012). “Menstruation and Differentiation: How Muslims Differentiated Themselves from Jews regarding the Laws of Menstruation.” Der Islam 87, 204-223. _______ (2013a). “Midrashic Influence on Islamic Folklore: The Case of Menstruation.” Studia Islamica 108, 189-201. _______ (2013b). “The Relationship between Islam and Judaism: A Neglected Aspect.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 16, 28-40. _______ (2014). The Religious and Spiritual Life of the Jews of Medina. Leiden: Brill. Mittwoch, E. (1913). Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des islamischen Gebets und Kultus. Berlin: G. Reimer. Mohammed, K. (2004). “Produce Your Proof: Muslim Exegesis, the Hadith, and the Jews.” Judaism 53, 3-11. Montesquieu, C. (2002). Spicilège. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation. Morabia, A. (1979). “L’Antéchrist (ad-dağğāl) s’est-il manifesté du vivant de l’envoyé d’Allāh.” Journal Asiatique 267, 81-99. Moreen, V. (1990). “Salmān-i Fārisī and the Jews: An Anti-Jewish Shīʿī Ḥadīth from the Seventeenth Century?” Irano-Judaica 2, 144-157. Musa, A. (2007). “Al-Shāfiʿī, the Ḥadīth, and the Concept of the Duality of Revelation.” Islamic Studies 46, 163-197. Nettler, R. (1998). “Early Islam, Modern Islam and Judaism: The Isra’iliyyat in Modern Islamic Thought.” Muslim-Jewish Encounters, 4, 1-14. Newby, G. (1988). A History of the Jews of Arabia. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. _______ (1980). “Tafsir Israʾiliyat: The Development of Qur’an Commentary in Early Islam in its Relationship to Judaeo-Christian Traditions of Scriptural Commentary.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 47, 685-97. Pines, S. (1976). “Some Traits of Christian Theological Writing in Relation to Muslim Kalām and to Jewish Thought.” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 5 (1976): 104-125. Polliack, M. (2015). “The Karaite Inversion of ‘Written’ and ‘Oral’ Torah in Relation to the Islamic Arch-Models of Qur’an and Hadith.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 22, 243-302. Prideaux, H. (1697). The True Nature of Imposture Fully Display’d in the Life of Mahomet. London. Rabin, C. (1957). “Islam and the Qumran Sect.” In C. Rabin, Qumran Studies. London: Oxford University Press, 112-30. Reeves, J. (2014). “Jewish Apocalyptic Lore in Early Islam: Reconsidering Kaʿb al-Aḥbār.” In J. Ashton, Revealed Wisdom. Leiden: Brill, 200-216. Robin, C. (2015). Le Judaïsme de l’Arabie Antique: Actes du Colloque de Jérusalem. Turnhout: Brepols. Rosenblatt, S (1945). “Rabbinic Legends in Hadith.” Moslem World 35, 237-52. Rosenthal, F. (1968). A History of Muslim Historiography. Leiden: Brill. _______ (1962). “The Influence of the Biblical Tradition on Muslim Historiography.” In B. Lewis et al. Historians of the Middle East. London: Oxford University Press, 35-45. Rubin, U. (1999). Between Bible and Qurʾān: The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self Image. Princeton: Darwin Press. _______ (1979). “Prophets and Progenitors in the Early Shīʿa Tradition.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 1, 41-65. Ṣāliḥ, M. (1993). al-Yahūd fī al-Qurʾān waʾl-Sunna: “Baʿd min khalāʾiqihim. Riyadh: Dār al-Hudá. Schoeler, G. (2004). “Oral Torah and Ḥadīth: Transmission, Prohibition of Writing, Redaction.” In Ḥadīth: Origins and Development. London: Ashgate, 67-108. Schöller, M. (1998). Exegetisches Denken und Prophetenbiographie: Eine quellenkritische Analyse der Sīra-Überlieferung zu Muḥammads Konflikt mit den Juden. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schwarzbaum, H. (1982). Biblical and Extra-Biblical Legends in Islamic Folk-Literature. Walldorf-Hessen: Orientkunde. _______ (1979). “Moses Audacious Controversy with the Lord, Fresh Light on Aa-Th Type 774 K” (in Hebrew). Yedaʿ ʿAm 19, 51-54. al-Shaqārī, A. (1996). al-Yahūd fī al-sunna al-muṭahhara. Al-Riyāḍ: Dār Ṭayba liʾl-Nashr waʾl-Tawzīʾ. Sklare, D. (1996). Samuel Ben Ḥofni Gaon and His Cultural World. Leiden: Brill. Skovgaard-Petersen, J. (1997). Defining Islam for the Egyptian State: Muftis and Fatwas of the Dār Al-Iftā. Leiden: Brill. Stampfer, Y. (2008). “Jewish Law in 11th-Century Spain: The Kitāb al-Ḥāwī of R. David b. Saadya” (in Hebrew). Shenaton Ha-Mishpat Ha-Ivri 25, 217-236. Stewart, D. (2003). “Review.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 35, 638-40. Strack, H. and P. Billerbeck. (1926). Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Munchen: C. H. Beck. Stroumsa, G. (2015). “Jewish Christianity and Islamic Origins.” In B. Sadeghi, Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts. Leiden: Brill, 72-96. Taji-Farouki, S. (1998). “A Contemporary Construction of the Jews in the Qurʾan: A Review of Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi’s Banu Isra’il Fi Al-Qur’an Wa Al-Sunna and ‘Afif ‘Abd al-Fattah Tabbara’s Al-Yahud Fi Al-Qur’an.” Muslim-Jewish Encounters 4, 15-37. al-Ṭanṭāwī, M. S. (1987). Banū Isrāʾīl fī al-Qurʾān waʾl-sunna. Cairo: al-Zahrāʾ liʾl-ʿIlām al-ʿArabī. Taylor, W. R. (1943). “Al-Bukhārī.” The Muslim World 33, 191-202. Tottoli, R. (2002). Biblical Prophets in the Qurʾān and Muslim Literature. Richmond: Curzon, 110-116. _______ (2002). “‘Ḥadīts’ and Traditions in Some Recent Books Upon the Dağğāl (Antichrist).” Oriente Moderno 21, 55-75. _______(1999). “Origin and Use of the Term Isrāʾīliyyāt in Muslim Literature.” Arabica 46, 193-210. Vajda, G. (1981). “De quelques emprunts d’origine juive dans le ḥadīth shiʿite.” In S. Morag et al., Studies in Judaism and Islam Presented to Shelomo Dov Goitein. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 45-53. _______ (1938). “Jeûne musulman et jeûne juif.” Hebrew Union College Annual 12-13, 367-85. _______ (1937). “Juifs et musulmans selon le ḥadīth.” Journal asiatique 229, 57-127. Wansbrough, J. (1977). Qur’anic Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wasserstrom, S. (1995). Between Muslim and Jew: The Problem of Symbiosis Under Early Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Weil, G. (1938). “Oral Tradition in Judaism and in Islam” (in Hebrew). In Magnes Anniversary Book. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 132-42 _______ (1939) “Die Stellung der mündlichen Tradition im Judentum und im Islam.” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 83, 239-60. Wensinck, A. (1914). “Die Entstehung der muslimischen Reinheitsgesetzgebung.” Der Islam 5, 62-80. _______, A. (1982) Muḥammad and the Jews of Medina. Berlin: Adijok. Wolfensohn, I. (1933). Kaʿb al-Aḥbār und seine Stellung im Ḥadīt und in der islamischen Legendenliteratur. Gelnhausen: F. W. Kalbfleisch. Arabic Translation: Isrāʾīl Abū Dhuʾayb. (1976). Kaʿb al-Aḥbār. Jerusalem: Maṭbaʿat al-sharq al-Taʿawunīya. Yahuda, A. S. (1948). “A Contribution to Qurʾān and Ḥadīth Interpretation.” In S. Löwinger et al. Ignace Goldziher Memorial Volume. Budapest.