A Possible Early Reference to Sibawaihi's Kitäb}
By Ramzi Baalbaki, Beirut
Tlie books of the grammarians' Akhbär mention AbO Ja'far al-Ru'äsi's
(d.? ) riwäyah that al-Khalll b. Alimad sent out somebody to him asking
for his book, so Ru'äsi sent it to him. Khalil read it, and then wrote his
own book (wcula'a kitäbahü)} Some of these books also report, on the
authority of Ibn Durustawaihi, Tha'lab's claim that Ru'äsi was the first
Kufan grammarian to have «Titten a book on grammar.^
The book by Ru'äsi (or Rawäsl; cp. Lisän, r's) is not named in the
sources of the above riwäyahs, except that Yäqüt and SuyOti, after
mentioning Ru'äsi's claim, say that the book in question is al-Faisal.^
This is possibly a guess on the part of the later writers, as the earlier
sources do not specify the title of Ru'äsi's book, although they mention
al-Faisal as one of his works.*
What is of greater interest is the book Ru'äsi is reported to have
claimed that Khalil wrote after having read his book. The sources
(except for Yaghmürl's Mukhtasar of Marzubäni's Muqtabas, see infra)
do not give any name for this alleged work by Khalil. If we, however,
examine the titles of the books attributed to Khalil, we can at least
limit the number of works which could have been possibly meant. Ibn
' Ibn al-Nadim: al-Fihrist. Cairo 1348, p. 96; cp. YaghmOri: Nür al-Qabas
al-Mukhtasar min al-Muqtabas. Ed. R. Sellheim. Wiesbaden, 1964, p. 279;
Ibn al-Anbäri: Nuzhat al-Alibbä' fl Tabaqät al-Udabä'. Ed.l. Sämabbä'I.
2nd ed. Baghdad 1970, p. 51; Yäqüt: Mu'jam al-Udabä'. Ed. A. F. Rifä'i.
Cairo 1936—8, XVIII, 22; Suyüti: Bughyat al-Wu'äh fl Tabaqät al-Lugha-
wiyyln wa'l-Nuhäh. Ed. M. A. IbrähIm. Cairo 1964—5, I, 82—3.
^Fihrist, p. 96, Nuzhah, p. 50, Mu'jam al-Udabä' XVIII, 22, ondBughyah
I, 82; cp. Täj al-'Arüs, r's.
" Mu'jam al-Udabä' XVIII, 122, Bughyah I, 83. In Zajjäji: Majälis al-
'Ulamä'. Ed. 'A. M. Härün. Kuwait 1962, p. 266, the book is referred to,
in another context, as al-Fasl, evidently a mistake for al-Faisal, whieh
appears in another location of the same work, p. 269.
* Bughyah I, 83. Other works attributed to Ru'äsi in the books of akhbär
include: K. al-Waqf wa'1-Ibtidä' al-Kablr, K. al-Waqf wa'l-Ibtidä' al-8aghlr,
K. Ma'äni al-Qur'än, and K. al-Ta§ghlr (see Fihrist, p. 96, Nuzhah, p. 51,
Mu'jam al-Udabä' XVIII, 125, and Buqhyah I, 83). Suyüti also mentions
K. al-Ifräd wa'l-Jam' (Bughyah I, 83), which Zubaidi mentions as al-Jam'
wa'1-Ifräd; cp. Tabaqät al-Nahwiyyln wa'l-Lughaunyyln. Ed. M. A.Ibrahim.
Cairo 1973, p. 126.
A Possible Early Reference to Sibawaihi's Kitäba 115
al-Nadim mentions, in addition to K. al-'Ain, the following books by
Khalil: K. al-Nagham, K. al-'Arüd, K. al-Shawdhid, K. al-Naqt wa'l-
Shakl, K. Fd'it al-'Ain, K. al-Iqd'. Other works cited elsewhere include
K. al-Mu'ammd,^ al-Jumal,^ and a book on 'awdmil.'' To judge by the
titles of these works, only K. al-ShawdJiid, al-Jumal, and the work on
'awdmil could have been of a grammatical nature. One even doubts the
authenticity of the attribution of works on sliawdhid and 'awdmil to
Khalil, as these are much more appropriate to fourth century gram¬
marians than to a grammarian as early as Khalil. Moreover, it is most
unlikely that any of these works is actually meant, as they are not
famous enough to be referred to as "kitäb", rather than by the actual
name of the work.* One would have expected the phrase "wada'a
kitäbahü" to refer to a work of great importance and fame, if not to the
most important work of Khalil. K. al-'Ain, which is definitely the most
important work attributed to Khalil, does not answer the problem either,
as it is of a lexicographical, rather than grammatical nature. Further¬
more, the very attribution of this work to Khalil is doubtful.* One can
therefore dismiss Marzubäni's claim, as reported by YaghmOri,"' that
Khalil's book referred to in this riwäyah is K. al-'Ain, especially that
no other source confirms this claim. It is also obvious that one cannot
suppose that the title of the work meant is lost to us, because if this work
were so important as the riwäyah shows, one would have expected later
sources to refer to it.
Perhaps a better interpretation of the riwäyah concerning Khahl's
book is that this book is none but Sibawaihi's Kitäb. A closer look
at the riwäyah as it appears in the earliest source available to us, al-
Fihrist,^^ may support this line of interpretation. The text runs as follows :
vl^r^j Jli -oliTi^jj *JI cJ^ Jjl^l 'J^ Lf-'j-'^' J^"-»
' Zubaidi: Tabaqät, p. 51.
« Bughyah I, 560.
' Ibn Khallikän: Wafayät al- A'yän wa-Anbä' Abnä' al-Zamän. Ed. I.
'Abbäs. Beirut 1968—72, II, 246; cp. Qifti: hibäh al-Ruwäh 'alä Anbäh
al-Nuliäh. Ed. M. A. Ibbähim. Cairo 1950—73, I, 346, where this book is
said to be manhül.
' Cp. the titles which Bbockelmann mentions in his Oeschichte der arabi¬
schen Litteratur. 1. 2. Suppl. 1—3. Leiden 1937—49, I, 98; Supp. I, 159,
which again are most unlikely to have been referred to as "kitäb".
' See Fihrist, pp. 64ff. ; cp. Ibn Jinni: al-KltasäHs. Ed. M. 'A. Najjar.
Cairo 1952—6, III, 288; Qifti: Inbäh I, 343; Mu'jam al-Udabä' XVII, 46;
Wafayät al- A'yän II, 246; Suyüti: Bughyah I, 559, and al-Muzhir fl 'Ulüm
al-Lughah wa-Anwä'iliä. Ed. M. A. JÄD al-Mawlä et al. Cairo n.d., I, 76—91.
1» Nür al-Qabas, p. 279.
" P. 96; cp. the text in Mu'jam al-Udabä' XVIII, 122, and in Bughyah I,
82—3.
116 Ramzi Baalbaki
The first part of the text is Ru'äsi's -Ij J\ tj—b^' Jl —» — i.^^^^-
claim, while the second part (introduced by qäla) is a comment by
Farrä'. This makes it at least possible that "Kitäb Sibawaihi" in Far- rä''s comment is an interpretation of Ru'äsi's usage of "icitäbahü" in the first part of the text.
Far from suggesting that Khalil, rather than Sibawaihi is the author
of the Kitäb, the infiuence of Khalil on Sibawaihi cannot be minimized,
and it is this influence which has facilitated the mention by Ru'äsi of
Khalil's name instead of Sibawaihi's. One can bring forward here the
report that "forty-two scholars worked together to compose Sibawaihi's
Kitäb, one of whom was Sibawaihi himself, while the usül and the
masä'il are from Khalil."^^ Although there are points of weakness in
this report (i.e. it is attributed to a Kufan, Tha'lab, who might have
tried to underrate the contribution of Sibawailii; it also refers to usül
and masä'il, which is a projection of later terms on to a second century
work), it is important at least in the sense that it includes the claim of
some that Khalil was one of the "authors" of the Kitäb. This sheds hght on
"kitäbahü" in Ru'äsi's statement, strengthenhig the possibility that the
Kitäb is meant. Furthermore, if we adopt this line of interpretation, we
will not have to suppose that Ru'äsi did not name Khalil's book, and
then try to justify that. In fact, "kitäbahü" itself could be read "Kitä¬
bahü", with a capital, which would make a clear enough reference to
Sibawaihi's Kitäb.
As for Farrä' 's saying that al-Küfi in the Kitäb refers to Ru'äsi, one
cannot be sure that any of the four references Sibawaihi makes to the
Kufans in his work^' — three of which are about Qur'änic readings —
12 Fihrist, p. 76. For other statements stressing the influence of Khalil on Sibawaihi as is attested in the Kitäb, see Siräf i : Kitäb Akhbär al-Nahwiyyln
al-Basriyyln. Ed. F. Krenkow. Paris/Beirut 1936, p. 40; Suyüti: Bughyah
I, 558, and al-Iqtiräh fl 'Ilm Usui al-Nahw. Hyderabad 1892, p. 101.
" I, 397, 430; II, 393, 426. Note al.so that some of the readings Sibawaihi describes as qablh or da'lf are Kufan readings. Cp., for example, the reading
of 45:21 which Sibawaihi describes as lughah radl'ah (I, 233), and whieh is
the reading of two of the three authorized readers, Hamzah and Kisä'i; see
Abü Hayyän: al-Tafslr al-Kablr al-Musammä bi'l-Bahr al-Muhif. Cairo 1328,
VIII, 47. Another example is the reading of 2:117 which Sibawaihi says is
da'lf (I, 423), and which is the reading of Kisä'i (and Ibn 'Amir); see Ibn
al-Jazari: al-Nashr fl 'l-Qirä'ät al-'Ashr. Ed. 'A. M. Dabbä'. Cairo n.d., II,
220. Of relevance here is the fact that Kisä'i himself is reported to have
related (rawä) certain readings of Ru'äsi, see Ibn al-J&zari: Ohäyat al-Nihäyah
fl Tabaqät al-Qurrä'. Ed. G. Bebgstbaessbb. Cairo 1932—3, II, 117; cp. I,
536. See also R. Baalbaki: Arab Orammatical Controversies and the Extant
Sourees of the Second and Third Centuries A.H. In: Studia Arabica et Is¬
lamica: Festschrift for Ihsän 'Abbäs. Ed. W. AL-QÄpi. Beirut 1980, pp. 2—4.
JL
A Possible Early Reference to Sibawaihi's Kitäb T 117
is a reference to Ru'äsi. On the other hand, however, the possibility of
such a reference cannot be ruled out, especially because Ru'äsi is said
to have had certain readings of his own.'* Daif makes the wrong in¬
ference when he says that because Sibawaihi mentions al-Küfiyyün and
ahi al-Küfah, and not al-Küfi, Ru'äsi could not have been meant by
Sibawailii." Daif seems to take Farrä"s comment in our riwäyah in a
strictly literal sense, while Farrä', in using al-Küfi, evidentlj' did not
mean to distinguish between this expression and expressions such as
al-Küfiyyün or ahi al-Küfah, notably because "al-Küfi" is a generic
noun. Moreover, could not al-Küfiyyün and ahl-al-Küfah, as used by
Sibawaihi, refer to Ru'äsi and his students" or those who support his
readings?
The riwäyah we are dealing with should be examined from other
angles, one of which is the relation between Ru'äsi and Khalil. This
relation seems to be established, rather than invented, as both men had
two teachers in common; namely, Abü 'Amr b. al-'Alä'^' and 'Isä
b. 'Umar.!' Another angle is the existence of al-Faisal, if it is meant in
Ru'äsi's riwäyah : Yäqüt actually reports that this book was still studied
(yurwä) in his days.'' Moreover, this riwäyah can be supported by
external evidence: Mubarrad reports the claim of some that Ru'äsi
wrote a book on grammar, and went to Basra to show it to its scholars,
but was neglected or he did not dare expose his work when he realized
how much the Basran scholars knew about grammar.^* If the details of
!•* Ohäyat al-Nihäyah II, 116: wa-lahü 'khtiyar"" fi 'l-qirä'ah yurwä 'anhu;
cp. Bughyah I, 83.
1^ Sh. T)aif: al-Madäris al-Naiiwiyyah. Cairo 1968. pp. 153—4.
1' Some of his students aro mentioned in GJmyat al-Nihäyah II, 117; these,
of course, include the authorized Kufan reader, Kisä'i (see above, n. 13),
whose famous dispute with Sibawaihi is recorded in the Mas'alah Zunbü-
riyyah.
" For Ru'äsi cp. Ghäyat al-Nihäyah II, 116; and for Khalil cp. Nuzhah,
p. 45, and Ibn al-'Imäd al-Hanbali: Shadharät al-Dhahab ft Akhbär man
dhahab. Cairo 1350, I, 277. Note also that in four out of the six references to
Ru'äsi which Farrä''s Ma'äni al-Qur'än. Ed. NajätI et al. Cairo 1955—72
contains, Ru'äsi is reported to have enquired from Abü 'Amr b. al-'Alä*
about the meaning of a Qur'änic word (II, 289, 357), or the use of a particle in a verse (II, 371), or the reading ofa verse (III, 61). The two other mentions
contain praise for Ru'äsi, who is said to be virtuous (I, 9), reliable and
trustworthy (III, 292).
1* For Ru'äsi cp. Zubaidi: Tabaqät, p. 125; and for Khalil cp. Wafayät
al- A'yän III, 386, and Siräf i: Akhbär, p. 31.
1» Mu'jam al-Udabä' XVIII, 125.
2» Id., p. 123; op. Bughyah I, 83.
118 Ramzi Baalbaki, A Possible Early Reference to Sibawaihi's KitäbJ
this report and the possible prejudice of Mubarrad,'^ a prominent.
Basran, against Ru'äsi are put aside, this report actually supports out
riwäyah, because it has a basic common element with it: it tells us ofv
Ru'äsi's book from the point of view of its relatedness to Ru'äsi's Basrai^
contemporaries, the most distinguished of whom can only be Khalil aricj
Sibawaihi.
If our line of interpretation is sound, Ru'äsi's riwäyah can be eon^
sidered one of the earliest known references to the Kitäb. Admittedly
this result cannot be proven to be correct beyond doubt, although it;
offers a possible interpretation of Ru'äsi's riwäyah, based on examinino,
it against the other material (book-titles, other riwäyahs, etc.) in th«^
sources.
21 For example, Mubarrad denies that Ru'äsi was known in Basra: ni^
'urifa al-Ru'äsl hi'l-Basrah (perhaps: never came to Basra?), while Farrg.»
asserts that Ru'äsi went to Basra on two occasions. Similarly, MubarracJ
seems to doubt the authenticity of the riwäyah mentioning Ru'äsi's book
thus questioning the very existence of this book, while Tha'lab stresses it^
importance, at least for the Kufans; cp. Mu'jam al-Udabä' XVIII, 122—3
It is possible, one may add, that the attribution to Ru'äsi of a considerably
influence on his Basran contemporaries is the work of the later Kufans wHq
wanted to exaggerate the contribution of their predecessors. This may btj
felt in a statement attributed to a Basran, Abü Hätim al-Sijistäni (d. 255) v
"There was in Kufa a grammarian called Abü Ja'far al-Ru'äsi, whosy
knowledge is neglected and who is nothing much . . . and the Kufans glorify
him, and claim that much of their knowledge and readings is derived fror^
him;" cp. Abü al-fayyib al-Lughawi: Marätib al-Nahwiyyln. Ed. M. A,
Ibbähim. Cairo 1955, p. 24; and Suyüti: Muzhir II, 400. However, Abtj
Hätim himself is not very partial, as is evident in his unfair comparison
between the Basrans and the Kufans; see Marätib, pp. 27, 90.
The material in the sources, furthermore, becomes contradictory when we
learn that the authors attribute to Kisä'i, Ru'äsi's student, the accusation that Ru'äsi had made errors (Zajjäji: Majälis al-'Ulamä', p. 270), and to Farrä'
another student of Ru'äsi's, tho saying that he discarded the knowledge he
had from Ru'äsi to become Kisä'i's student (id., pp. 269—70). Due to this
contradiction, one cannot agree with the view of BLACirfeRB that Ru'äsi is
"the founder of the school of Küfa" (In: EI^s.v. "Abü 'Amr Zabbäii b. al.
'Alä'"), or with Fleisch's contention that Ru'äsi is the "fondateür" of the
"Etudes grammaticales de Küfa;" cp. Esquisse d'un historique de la grammaire
arabe. In: Arabica 4 (1957), p. 8; cp. also A. AmIn: Dulm al-Isläm. Cairo
1935, II, 285. These views lack the necessary critical judgement that should be exercised in dealing with ancient riwäyahs.
Al-Mas'üdi and the Geography of India*
By M. S. Khän, Calcutta
It seems to be a paradox that the 4th/10tli century was a period of
pohtical chaos as well as remarkable cultural progress in the history of
Islam.' Although the decline of the Abbasid dynasty began already
after the reign of al-Muqtadh- (295—320/908—932) the political power
of the Caliph sank to its lowest ebb in 334/945 when Mu'izz al-Dawlah,
the Buwayhid^ (d. 356/966) entered Baghdad and occupied it.
In so far as the intellectual efflorescence is concerned it has been
characterised as a century in which the renaissance of Islam took place*
like the renaissance of Europe. Iraq and Persia attained a high level of
culture in literature, philosophy and secular sciences as is evident from
the names of scholars and scientists who gathered at the court of 'Adud
ad-Dawlah* (d. 372/963).
Several important Arab geographers flourished who wrote many
oiiginal and informative books on regional, descriptive, astronomical
and mathematical geography. In fact, it was in this century that the
Classical School of Arab geography reached the highest development.
Similarly, the Arab cartography culminated in what is called "The Map
of Islam". Many Arab travellers reached the far corners of the world
and described such areas which were not well known before. Al-Mas'üdi
belongs to this 4th/10th Century, the golden age of Arab geography.*
* I have to thank Professors S. P. Chatterjee, Emeritus Professor of
Geography, Calcutta University and S. Maqbul Ahmad, Director, Centre
of VVest Asian Studies, Aligarh Muslim University who have read this paper
and offered valuable suggestions.
1 Täha Husain, Introduction to the Rasä'il Ikhwan as-Safä' 3. quoted by
Sayybd Hosein Nasb: Introduction to the Cosmological Doctrines. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Pr. 1964, pp. 312 at p. 12.
2 On the "Buwayhids" see Claude Cahbn in: EI^ I, 1350—1357. V.
Minobsky, "Daylam" in: EI^, II, 189—194; Mafizulläh Kabib: The
Buwayhid Dynasty of Baghdäd. Calcutta 1964, pp. 248; Hebibebt Busse:
Clwlif undOroßkönig. Die Buyiden im Iraq. Beirut 1969, pp. 610; M. S. Khan:
Studies in Miskawayli's Contemporary History. Ann Arbor, Mich. : Univer¬
sity Microfilms 1980, p. 293.
' Adam Mez: The Renais.mnce of Islam. Eng. trausl. by S. Khuda
Bakhsh and D. S. Mabgoliouth. London 1937, pp. 538.
* See Mafizulläh KabIb, op. cit. Chapter X, pp. 168—185.
^ I. U. Kbachkovski: Istoria Arabskoi Geograficheskoi Literatury. Ar.
transi. by Saläh al-Din 'Uthmän Häshim. Cairo 1961, I, p. 177.
