Page 12 - 1..PRESENTATION (ENGLISH)
P. 12
12
42
Manjūr, al-ᶜAbdarī, ᶜAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī and al-Rawḍānī. The Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadīm has also
43
been consulted; this volume does not mention any work by an Andalusi author, not even Yaḥyā
b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī’s transmission of Mālik’s Muwaṭṭa’, indicating how peripheral the Islamic
West was deemed at the time. We owe an enormous debt to the scholars who have analyzed the
riwāya-s from the bibliographical dictionaries: on the one hand, their effort has allowed us to
identify individuals mentioned in the riwāya-s, thus saving us time and trouble; on the other
hand, it has helped us to complete existing references and judge the content of the works more
accurately so as to assign them to particular genres.
In the entries for Andalusi authors of fahāris whose works have been scrutinized, we do
not specify the works cited in their respective bibliographical collections (with the exception of
Ibn al-Barrāq and al-Lablī). What does this mean? To give an example: ᶜAbd al-Ḥaqq b. Ghālib
b. ᶜAṭiyya’s famous Fahrasa includes his transmission of Abū Tammām’s Ḥamāsa; in the
appropriate section (VII. Poesía) this work appears among those he transmitted, but by reference
to ᶜIyāḍ’s Ghunya and without reference to his own Fahrasa. However, those who search for
Andalusis who transmitted the work will find in the corresponding entries frequent references to
FIA (= Fahrasa of Ibn ᶜAṭiyya), and can therefore deduce that the work appears in Ibn ᶜAṭiyya’s
bibliographical collection. If no other source had recorded Ibn ᶜAṭiyya as a trasmitter of this
work, then there would be no reference to its transmission in the proper place in HATA. To make
up for this lack, HATA’s users should bear in mind that if a given individual composed a
Fahrasa, they should consult the latter to find out what works that individual knew.
Some fahrasa-s contain more information than what is recorded in HATA: about, for
example, particular transmitted ḥadīth-s, frequently cited in works like those of ᶜIyāḍ, al-ᶜAbdarī,
Ibn Rushayd and al-Tujībī. Therefore, anyone who wishes to enter deeply into the study of
ḥadīth should consult those works directly for data which complement those found in HATA.
Information contained in bibliographical collections is extremely rich and still largely
42 The work of ᶜAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī was consulted based on the study made by M. Ben Cheneb in 1907.
43 B. Dodge, “The Subjects and Titles of Books Written During the First Four Centuries of Islam,” Islamic Culture,
28/4 (1954), pp.525-40; Ibn an-Nadīm und die mittelalterliche arabische Literatur. Beiträge zum 1. Johann Wilhelm
Fück-kolloquium (Halle 1987) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996).
42
Manjūr, al-ᶜAbdarī, ᶜAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī and al-Rawḍānī. The Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadīm has also
43
been consulted; this volume does not mention any work by an Andalusi author, not even Yaḥyā
b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī’s transmission of Mālik’s Muwaṭṭa’, indicating how peripheral the Islamic
West was deemed at the time. We owe an enormous debt to the scholars who have analyzed the
riwāya-s from the bibliographical dictionaries: on the one hand, their effort has allowed us to
identify individuals mentioned in the riwāya-s, thus saving us time and trouble; on the other
hand, it has helped us to complete existing references and judge the content of the works more
accurately so as to assign them to particular genres.
In the entries for Andalusi authors of fahāris whose works have been scrutinized, we do
not specify the works cited in their respective bibliographical collections (with the exception of
Ibn al-Barrāq and al-Lablī). What does this mean? To give an example: ᶜAbd al-Ḥaqq b. Ghālib
b. ᶜAṭiyya’s famous Fahrasa includes his transmission of Abū Tammām’s Ḥamāsa; in the
appropriate section (VII. Poesía) this work appears among those he transmitted, but by reference
to ᶜIyāḍ’s Ghunya and without reference to his own Fahrasa. However, those who search for
Andalusis who transmitted the work will find in the corresponding entries frequent references to
FIA (= Fahrasa of Ibn ᶜAṭiyya), and can therefore deduce that the work appears in Ibn ᶜAṭiyya’s
bibliographical collection. If no other source had recorded Ibn ᶜAṭiyya as a trasmitter of this
work, then there would be no reference to its transmission in the proper place in HATA. To make
up for this lack, HATA’s users should bear in mind that if a given individual composed a
Fahrasa, they should consult the latter to find out what works that individual knew.
Some fahrasa-s contain more information than what is recorded in HATA: about, for
example, particular transmitted ḥadīth-s, frequently cited in works like those of ᶜIyāḍ, al-ᶜAbdarī,
Ibn Rushayd and al-Tujībī. Therefore, anyone who wishes to enter deeply into the study of
ḥadīth should consult those works directly for data which complement those found in HATA.
Information contained in bibliographical collections is extremely rich and still largely
42 The work of ᶜAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī was consulted based on the study made by M. Ben Cheneb in 1907.
43 B. Dodge, “The Subjects and Titles of Books Written During the First Four Centuries of Islam,” Islamic Culture,
28/4 (1954), pp.525-40; Ibn an-Nadīm und die mittelalterliche arabische Literatur. Beiträge zum 1. Johann Wilhelm
Fück-kolloquium (Halle 1987) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996).
