IV. Bi. XXX. NATIVE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE SUDAN 143
XXII The first tradition is well authenticated: el Bokhari {el Sahih, Part II, p. 193) gives it as follows:
j^*JI J15 Jl5....,j>p....j>c....>.)>*)t jLjC l;jj^e». J-jjto-rfl ^jj ^U Ljj^».
^l^jJI j-fj>3l (^j'>»- Ob L^j'^'*- i^'^' J^ O'--
("Malik ibn Isma'il told me that 'Abd el 'Aziz. . .told him on the authority of. . .who had been told by. . .that the Prophet. . .said ' Every prophet has a helper, and my helper is Zubayr el 'Awwam.'") The second tradition I have not traced and it may, or may not, be genuine : the Arabic is as follows :
(/iV. ". . .as far Kuraysh," — Kuraysh being the Prophet's own tribe).
xxiii-xxiv These paragraphs are practically identical with BA, cxxiii, cxxiv: cp. also BA, lvii (note).
XXV This pedigree is very faulty as Zubayr is given as descended from the wrong son of Kusai (BA, lvii is correct, see Wiistenfeld, T). From
Kusai to 'Adnan is given correctly except that Ka'ab and Murra are trans-
posed. See note to para. xxx.
xxvi No pedigree of any weight ever made 'Adnan son of Ishmael and grandson of Abraham.
For the tree from Abraham ("Ibrahim") upwards to Noah see D i, LXVI, etc. "Tarikh" (Terah) was son of Nahur (Nahor) and the insertion of "Farikh" seems to be due to some dim recollection of "Faris son of Tirash son of Mashiir," the Persian ancestor mentioned in D i, lxv.
The text also gives "Fahur" for "Nahur," "Ashra'a" for "Sharugh," '"Amir" for "'Abir," and "Fakhshadh" for " Arfakhshadh."
"Ra'u" is another and legitimate form of " Ar'u" (D i, LXix). Between Shem and Adam the text is equally at fault: the father of
Noah was Akhnukh or "Idris" (Enoch) and not "Shith"; "Barda" (S^jj) should be Ltid (5^) and "Mihayil" should be Mahalail: cp. Mas'udi, Chap, ill (ed. B. de M. vol. i, pp. 68-73).
xxvii The transposition of Ka'ab and Murra (see para, xxv) is here corrected: otherwise the pedigree is the same in paras, xxv and xxvii.
From Muhammad ibn el Hag to Dhubian the direct stem only is given
in this paragraph : the other six sons of Ma'in are added to the tree from para, xxx — the note to which see.
xxviii Cp. BA, cxxxv. XXIX The copyist has apparently got into difficulties here as this para-
graph is the same as para, xxvi, the very errors being exactly repeated,
as far as "Adam."
XXX From the occurrence again of a formal invocation we may suppose that a copyist added this paragraph from some other source than that of
the rest of the nisba. By a shp "Kaligab" is written for "Kalingab." As a matter of fact there is little doubt but that Hegazi ibn Ma'in, the founder of Arbagi, was one of the HupuR and had no connection with the
GuHAYNA group whatever (see Part III, Chap. 13).