and al-Bukhārī, as well as in al-Ṭabarī’s History, where he cites the ḥadīth both from Ibn Isḥāq and according to a second, independent line of transmission from al-Zuhrī.91 Finally, al-Zuhrī is credited with teaching the story of Muhammad and the toothpick by Ibn Saʿd, although ʿAbd al-Razzāq records only Muhammad’s final words from this scene, “with the most Exalted Companion!,” an exclamation that Ibn Saʿd and the ninth-century al-Zuhrī papyrus instead link with the tradition of Muhammad’s choice.92
The same sources also agree in assigning to al-Zuhrī the story of ʿUmar’s refusal to accept Muhammad’s death and his correction by Abū Bakr, who persuaded ʿUmar and the others that Muhammad had indeed died through the recitation of a Qurʾānic verse that no one had ever heard before. Versions almost identical to Ibn Isḥāq’s account appear in ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Ibn Saʿd, and al-Bukhārī.93 A shorter version, which relates only ʿUmar’s protests, absent any rebuttal from either Abū Bakr or the Qurʾān, is transmitted from al-Zuhrī through different channels by Ibn Abī Shayba and Ibn Saʿd, as well as by ʿAbd al-Razzāq.94 Likewise, ʿUmar’s initial apology for his actions in the wake of the saqīfa meetings is also ascribed to al-Zuhrī by ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Ibn Saʿd, while al-Balādhurī credits al-Zuhrī with ʿUmar’s second explanation, allegedly given while he was caliph.95 Presumably, some version of this story, at the very least in its shortened form, and ʿUmar’s subsequent apologies belonged to al-Zuhrī’s teaching. The nature of the story itself suggests a particularly early origin: it seems improbable that Muslims of the early second century or later would have invented such a strange tale, involving ʿUmar’s violent denials of Muhammad’s death. ʿUmar’s mistaken rant casts this “rightly guided” caliph in a rather unfavorable light, and it does not fit with the tendencies of the early Islamic historical tradition. Accordingly, this tradition’s preservation is a likely token of its early formation: its transmission by al-Zuhrī despite its awkwardness is most likely a consequence of the story’s well-established status in the community’s historical memory already by his time. As much is equally if not more true of Abū Bakr’s Qurʾānic correction, particularly in light of the crowd’s alleged ignorance concerning the recited passage. It is hard to imagine the invention of a tradition that so pointedly raises the question of the Qurʾān’s integrity during the mid-eighth century.
There is, however, another account of ʿUmar’s denial ascribed to Ibn ʿAbbās that appears to be even older than the al-Zuhrī version, a report that, although absent from Ibn Isḥāq’s Maghāzī, is witnessed by ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Ibn Saʿd, and al-Balādhurī.96 According to this tradition, it was al-ʿAbbās, rather than Abū Bakr, who opposed ʿUmar’s ravings, countering them not with a Qurʾānic proof-text but instead with the observation that Muhammad’s body had begun to stink. As Wilferd Madelung has argued, the chronology of Muhammad’s burial in relation to the saqīfa meeting in this account favors the antiquity of the al-ʿAbbās version.97 Moreover, failure to make recourse to the Qurʾān also strongly suggests its priority: it is difficult to account for the subsequent invention of a tradition that so inelegantly argues for Muhammad’s mortality on the basis of his pungent corpse if Abū Bakr’s Qurʾānic riposte was already in circulation. Al-ʿAbbās’s complaints of Muhammad’s stench are in fact seemingly belied by a widely circulated tradition from Ibn Isḥāq’s collection that underscores the exceptional nature of Muhammad’s body in death as well as life: such a body presumably would not stink so offensively immediately after dying.98 Indeed, the sweet fragrance of Muhammad’s incorruptible body after death is a frequent theme of the ḥadīth that seems to have developed over the course of the eighth century through influence from the Christian hagiographical tradition.99 Moreover, the earliest Christian accounts of Muhammad’s death and burial also note that his corpse began to stink when his followers did not bury him soon after his death: accordingly it would appear that these narratives show an awareness of the early Islamic tradition regarding ʿUmar and al-ʿAbbās, as well as the reported delay in burying Muhammad’s festering body.100 Consequently, a tradition indicating the initial denial of Muhammad’s death by at least some within the earliest Islamic community not only can be traced back to al-Zuhrī’s teaching, but there is evidence of an even older version of the story that ultimately seems to have required the invention of a Qurʾānic rebuttal to silence the protests of ʿUmar—and presumably others as well. These reports of a controversy surrounding the reality of Muhammad’s death reflect perhaps the earliest extant Islamic traditions about the end of Muhammad’s life, and as we will see in the following chapter, they appear to be intimately linked with the imminent eschatological expectations of Muhammad and his earliest followers.
ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Ibn Saʿd also ascribe to al-Zuhrī a tradition that Muhammad sought to write something down just before his death, a report that Ibn Isḥāq has possibly suppressed.101 As Muhammad’s illness grew worse, he asked for something to write on, in order to leave behind a document that would prevent his followers from going astray. ʿUmar opposed the request, suggesting that Muhammad’s illness was clouding his judgment and that the existence of the Qurʾān obviated the need for any additional document to guide the community. Others, however, began to argue that Muhammad should be given something to write with. When the ensuing noise and confusion eventually began to disturb Muhammad, he dismissed the throng and ultimately failed to produce a document. While it is certainly possible that al-Zuhrī taught something of this nature, the absence of any ascription to al-Zuhrī independent of Maʿmar suggests that possibly the latter is its author. Nevertheless, in light of the controversies surrounding the issue of writing in earliest Islam, as noted above, as well as the politically volatile nature of the tradition with regard to issues of succession to Muhammad, it is certainly conceivable that Ibn Isḥāq may have chosen to omit the story from his collection.
As for the washing of Muhammad’s corpse and his burial, Ibn Isḥāq’s account of these events largely departs from al-Zuhrī’s authority, ascribing its dozen or so reports mainly to other traditionists. Other early collections, such as al-Wāqidī’s Maghāzī, Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ, al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ, Muslim’s Ṣaḥīḥ, and Abū Dāʾūd’s Sunan, show little interest in the details of Muhammad’s burial, and al-Ṭabarī’s History merely reproduces Ibn Isḥāq’s rather meager assemblage of funeral traditions, which appears to be the earliest such compilation. The reticence of these early sources on this topic suggests that perhaps Muhammad’s burial did not arouse the interests of his earliest biographers until a relatively later date, and Ibn Isḥāq’s shift away from al-Zuhrī at this point seems to signal that the latter did not concern himself particularly with this subject. One wonders if perhaps this early silence is somehow related to the tradition from the East Syrian Baḥīrā legend that Muhammad’s followers knew nothing about his grave.102 Nevertheless, the eventual proliferation of traditions about Muhammad’s funeral can be witnessed especially in Ibn Saʿd’s Ṭabaqāt, as well as to a lesser extent by ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Ibn Abī Shayba, and al-Balādhurī.103 Although Ibn Saʿd ascribes a significant number of funeral traditions to al-Zuhrī, the absence of any parallel transmissions from either earlier or contemporary collections makes it extremely difficult to judge the accuracy of these attributions. It may well be that as traditions about Muhammad’s burial began to develop, they were attracted to al-Zuhrī’s name and assigned to him largely on the basis of his reputation as an authority on Muhammad’s biography.
Of the burial traditions gathered by Ibn Isḥāq, only a single report is given on al-Zuhrī’s authority, a notice that after Muhammad’s corpse had been washed, it was wrapped in three garments, “two of Ṣuḥār make, and a striped mantle wrapped one over the other.”104 Ibn Saʿd, ʿAbd al-Razzāq, and al-Balādhurī report a similar tradition on al-Zuhrī’s authority, indicating that Muhammad was buried in three pieces of cloth, two white and one striped.105 The early ninth-century papyrus also ascribes to al-Zuhrī a tradition that Muhammad was buried in a striped woolen garment, adding further credence to the possibility that Ibn Isḥāq inherited such information from him.106 Nevertheless, the early Islamic traditions about Muhammad’s