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.

The Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays, a collection of sayings attributed to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, was supposedly collected by the (otherwise unknown) Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilālī (d. 76/678); the work is generally recognized as an important source for early Shīʿī thought. There has been much debate, both within the Shīʿī tradition and outside of it, over when its contents reached their current form and how representative they were of Shīʿī views in the early centuries of Islam. Here, I take one passage from the Kitāb Sulaym and set it against the development of early Muslim hermeneutics in an attempt to establish a tentative dating for this passage. The result is a dating between late eighth century ce (second century ah) and the early ninth century ce (early third century ah), roughly contemporary with, and perhaps postdating the revolutionary hermeneutic work of Muḥammad b. Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820). This conclusion tallies, to some extent, with an analysis of the report's various isnāds.

Kitāb Sulaym is possibly the earliest Shīʿī work in existence and analysis of its constituent reports could shed light on aspects of early Shīʿī thought and doctrine. This paper examines one of its reports on the subject of ikhtilāf in Prophetic ḥadīth between the Shīʿa and their opponents, and the related subjects of the status of the Companions of the Prophet and the Prophet's transmission of his knowledge to ʿAlī. It suggests dates and contexts for the composition of the report and the updating it seems to have undergone. It shows that the report reflects moderate Imāmī attitudes and doctrines similar to those attested for other leading pre-ghayba Imāmīs.

While for the sixth/twelfth century onwards there is no lack of data allowing the recovery of the sacred geography of al-Andalus, such data are scarce for the earlier period. This article surveys the available information for Umayyad al-Andalus and how it relates to the different strata of the population, analysing it within the context of the Islamicization.

Muʿtazilite exegetical tradition has been defined primarily by reference to the theological dimensions of the tafsīr works authored by the Muʿtazila. This article is an attempt to go beyond this focus by exploring the significance of an exegete's affiliation to the tradition that is implicit in his selection of interpretations and his references to authorities. Focusing on the tafsīr of the tenth-century Muʿtazilite scholar ʿAlī ibn ʿĪsā al-Rummānī, the article analyses al-Rummānī's references to his three Muʿtazilite predecessors: Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī, Abū l-Qāsim al-Balkhī and Ibn al-Ikhshīd. The content of these references indicates that, for al-Rummānī, the authority of these Muʿtazilite scholars extended beyond their views on the theological implications of the Quranic verses. The context suggests that the scholars were part of a distinct exegetical tradition that allowed for certain differences of opinion.

Over a period of some forty years, 380/990–421/1030, the Fatimids in Egypt exchanged embassies with their Zirid viceroys in Ifrīqiya after these had been recognized as a hereditary dynasty, and to a lesser extent with their Kalbid deputies in Sicily. Sijillāt or official letters of the Fatimid chancery, accompanied by sumptuous presents, invested the Zirids with their authority and favoured them with important announcements, while the Zirids replied in kind. The embassies were ostentatiously welcomed by the Zirids as proof of their legitimacy, while serving to maintain the connection with Cairo on which the Fatimids were similarly dependent for the sake of their imperial standing in the world. The importance of that connection to both dynasties was shown in the 440s/1050s, when it was broken by the Zirids and restored by a Fatimid intervention, celebrated in a fresh series of sijillāt. With their emphasis on the style as much as the substance of the messages, the exchanges are excellent illustrations of mediaeval diplomatic correspondence as described by John Wansbrough in Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean.

Epistles of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, the founder of the Wahhābī movement in eighteenth-century Najd, are preserved in profusion in Wahhābī sources. One of them is a short epistle, clearly intended for a lay audience, that sets out basic Wahhābī dogma in terms of four principles (qawāʿid). This epistle is preserved by Wahhābī sources in several different versions; none of them are dated, making it hard to establish how the text evolved over time. The present study is based on two dated external witnesses to the text of the epistle. One is taken from an unpublished Baṣran refutation of 1745, and is translated here. The other is found in a Yemeni chronicle under the events of the year 1212/1797f. Thanks to these two fixed points, it is possible to construct a plausible account of the evolution of the text over the intervening decades. From this it is clear that while written transmission played a significant part in the evolution of the text, some of the more dramatic changes are the result of oral intervention. Moreover the role of orality is confirmed by evidence suggesting the extensive use of the epistle in oral settings, an illustration of the strong concern of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb to spread his message among the laity.