The judge ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad informed us: the learned jurist Abū Bakr al-Dāmghānī narrated to us: al-Ṭaḥāwī informed us: I heard Bakkār ibn Qutayba say: A man appeared in a lawsuit before ʿĪsā ibn Abān, who was serving as our judge in Basra. He ordered that the man be struck on the back of his neck, and this was done. The man claimed he had lost his sight and went to al-Muʿtaṣim to complain against him. Al-Muʿtaṣim asked, “To whom in Basra would you like us to write for you?” He replied, “To ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿĀʾisha al-Taymī.” He ordered a letter to him to investigate between the man and ʿĪsā. Upon returning, the man delivered it to Ibn ʿĀʾisha, who sent to inform ʿĪsā. ʿĪsā promised to attend the great mosque for the investigation. Ibn ʿĀʾisha arrived first and sat by a column. Then ʿĪsā came; I was with him that day, along with his officers and companions. Because of the crowd, he could not enter through any of the mosque’s doors, so he entered, and we with him, by the way the callers to prayer used on Fridays. ʿĪsā went to the judicial column where he, and judges before him, sat to judge, and sat there. Ibn ʿĀʾisha expected him to come over. When Ibn ʿĀʾisha had informed him of the letter, ʿĪsā had replied that he would attend only after the governor and the postal official were present. Both came. After a long wait, Ibn ʿĀʾisha sent to ʿĪsā: “The man”—meaning the litigant—“has arrived, and we are waiting for you.” ʿĪsā sent back: “I have not been dismissed from office; the office remains mine as before. The column where I am is the column known as the place where judges sit. If any of the judges’ duties has been entrusted to you, your seat should be there.” When Ibn ʿĀʾisha heard this, he realized he had erred, but was too proud to rise from where he sat and go to ʿĪsā’s place. I saw him inching along, keeping himself hidden from us, until he reached the place where ʿĪsā sat. The litigant presented his claim before them all. Ibn ʿĀʾisha asked ʿĪsā, “What do you say about what this man has mentioned?” ʿĪsā replied, “I will not say a word unless the governor’s scribe, the postal official’s scribe, and my scribe write it down.” Then ʿĪsā gave his statement, they all recorded it, and the letter was sent. The outcome was nothing like what Ibn ʿĀʾisha or the litigant had anticipated; the affair turned out as ʿĪsā wished. I mentioned this to the judge Abū Khāzim. He knew of it, affirmed Bakkār’s entire account, and also told me: A physician in Basra, whose judgment was relied upon and whose account was not suspected, told me he was at Ibn ʿĀʾisha’s house after the dispatch of his letter concerning this affair. He said, “While I was in its courtyard, I saw a sheet and picked it up. It contained a copy of what Ibn ʿĀʾisha had prepared and written to al-Muʿtaṣim. I found many additions to it that had not occurred between him and ʿĪsā.” Returning to Bakkār’s account: Afterward, some Hāshimīs sued Ibn ʿĀʾisha concerning income he took from their endowment. His mother was one of them, and he took it through her, since the endowment was for them, their children, and their children’s children. They said, “You are a man of Banū Taym. You have no right to take from our endowment, which is for us and our children, for we are of Banū Hāshim.” They sued him before ʿĪsā ibn Abān. ʿĪsā asked him for his grounds for taking what he did from their endowment. He said, “I take through my mother. The founder is the ancestor to whom they trace themselves through their fathers, and he is my maternal ancestor; I trace myself to him through her, as they do through their fathers.” ʿĪsā said, “I do not see a right for you in this. It is for the founder’s descendants who trace themselves to him through their fathers, not their mothers.” Ibn ʿĀʾisha said, “I have been receiving it under several judges,” naming Ismāʿīl ibn Ḥammād, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī, and Yaḥyā ibn Aktham. ʿĪsā said, “If any of the judges you named actually ruled to that effect, and you have documentary evidence of one of their judgments, I shall enforce it for you and count you among the beneficiaries. If you do not, their officers merely exceeded their authority by paying you what they did from its income. Were they sued before me over that, I would make them liable for it.” He excluded him from the endowment and restored it to the Hāshimīs alone; this became a cause of his poverty. Bakkār said: Our companions, Hilāl and others, said that in giving this judgment ʿĪsā had departed from his companions’ position, for they regarded daughters’ children in this matter like sons’ children. They said he was driven to it by what Ibn ʿĀʾisha had done in the story we began with. This was mentioned to ʿĪsā, who said, “I have not departed from our companions’ position. The position on which I judged is Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan’s.” Bakkār said: Neither we, Hilāl, nor those jurists who objected knew this to be Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan’s position. I mentioned it to Abū Khāzim, who knew it and said, “They have achieved nothing. ʿĪsā has transmitted this truthfully from Muḥammad. It is in his large Book of International Law: when a person from an enemy territory is granted safe-conduct for himself, his children, and his children’s children, his daughters’ children are not included.” I returned to the Book of International Law and found it as Abū Khāzim had said. Al-Ṭaḥāwī said: Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Baṣrī al-Sājī, one of the prominent Basrans who came to us and an accomplished specialist in inheritance shares, told me: After his affair with ʿĪsā, Ibn ʿĀʾisha went to the court and stayed there for some time. There the Baghdadis heard from him what they heard. Then he returned to Basra. Abū Khāzim said: When Ibn ʿĀʾisha wanted to return to Basra, Ibn Abī Duʾād asked him at their farewell, “Is there any need, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that we can fulfill?” He replied, “Yes: appointment to the judgeship of Basra.” Ibn Abī Duʾād replied, “By God, there is no way to dismiss Abū Mūsā, but ask for something else.” He asked for nothing.
The judge ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad informed us: the learned jurist Abū Bakr al-Dāmghānī narrated to us: al-Ṭaḥāwī informed us: I heard Bakkār ibn Qutayba say: A man appeared in a lawsuit before ʿĪsā ibn Abān, who was serving as our judge in Basra. He ordered that the man be struck on the back of his neck, and this was done. The man claimed he had lost his sight and went to al-Muʿtaṣim to complain against him. Al-Muʿtaṣim asked, “To whom in Basra would you like us to write for you?” He replied, “To ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿĀʾisha al-Taymī.” He ordered a letter to him to investigate between the man and ʿĪsā. Upon returning, the man delivered it to Ibn ʿĀʾisha, who sent to inform ʿĪsā. ʿĪsā promised to attend the great mosque for the investigation. Ibn ʿĀʾisha arrived first and sat by a column. Then ʿĪsā came; I was with him that day, along with his officers and companions. Because of the crowd, he could not enter through any of the mosque’s doors, so he entered, and we with him, by the way the callers to prayer used on Fridays. ʿĪsā went to the judicial column where he, and judges before him, sat to judge, and sat there. Ibn ʿĀʾisha expected him to come over. When Ibn ʿĀʾisha had informed him of the letter, ʿĪsā had replied that he would attend only after the governor and the postal official were present. Both came. After a long wait, Ibn ʿĀʾisha sent to ʿĪsā: “The man”—meaning the litigant—“has arrived, and we are waiting for you.” ʿĪsā sent back: “I have not been dismissed from office; the office remains mine as before. The column where I am is the column known as the place where judges sit. If any of the judges’ duties has been entrusted to you, your seat should be there.” When Ibn ʿĀʾisha heard this, he realized he had erred, but was too proud to rise from where he sat and go to ʿĪsā’s place. I saw him inching past several columns, until he reached the place where ʿĪsā sat. The governor and the postal official were with ʿĪsā where he sat. The claimant presented his claim before them all. Ibn ʿĀʾisha asked ʿĪsā, “What do you say about what this man has mentioned?” ʿĪsā replied, “I will not say a word unless the governor’s scribe, the postal official’s scribe, and my scribe write it down.” Then ʿĪsā gave his statement, they all recorded it, and the letter was sent. The outcome was nothing like what Ibn ʿĀʾisha or the litigant had anticipated; the affair turned out as ʿĪsā wished. I mentioned this to the judge Abū Khāzim. He knew of it, affirmed Bakkār’s entire account, and also told me: A physician in Basra, whose judgment was relied upon and whose account was not suspected, told me he was at Ibn ʿĀʾisha’s house after the dispatch of his letter concerning this affair. He said, “While I was in its courtyard, I saw a sheet and picked it up. It contained a copy of what Ibn ʿĀʾisha had prepared and written to al-Muʿtaṣim. I found many additions to it that had not occurred between him and ʿĪsā.” Returning to Bakkār’s account: Afterward, some Hāshimīs sued Ibn ʿĀʾisha concerning income he took from their endowment. His mother was one of them, and he took it through her, since the endowment was for them, their children, and their children’s children. They said, “You are a man of Banū Taym. You have no right to take from our endowment, which is for us and our children, for we are of Banū Hāshim.” They sued him before ʿĪsā ibn Abān. ʿĪsā asked him for his grounds for taking what he did from their endowment. He said, “I take through my mother. The founder is the ancestor to whom they trace themselves through their fathers, and he is my maternal ancestor; I trace myself to him through her, as they do through their fathers.” ʿĪsā said, “I do not see a right for you in this. It is for the founder’s descendants who trace themselves to him through their fathers, not their mothers.” Ibn ʿĀʾisha said, “I have been receiving it under several judges,” naming Ismāʿīl ibn Ḥammād, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī, and Yaḥyā ibn Aktham. ʿĪsā said, “If any of the judges you named actually ruled to that effect, and you have documentary evidence of one of their judgments, I shall enforce it for you and count you among the beneficiaries. If you do not, their officers merely exceeded their authority by paying you what they did from its income. Were they sued before me over that, I would make them liable for it.” He excluded him from the endowment and restored it to the Hāshimīs alone; this became a cause of his poverty. Bakkār said: Our companions, Hilāl and others, said that in giving this judgment ʿĪsā had departed from his companions’ position, for they regarded daughters’ children in this matter like sons’ children on an equal basis. They said he was driven to it by what Ibn ʿĀʾisha had done in the story we began with. This was mentioned to ʿĪsā, who said, “I have not departed from our companions’ position. The position on which I judged is Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan’s.” Bakkār said: Neither we, Hilāl, nor those jurists who objected knew this to be Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan’s position. I mentioned it to Abū Khāzim, who knew it and said, “They have achieved nothing. ʿĪsā has transmitted this truthfully from Muḥammad. It is in his large Book of International Law: when a person from an enemy territory is granted safe-conduct for himself, his children, and his children’s children, his daughters’ children are not included.” I returned to the Book of International Law and found it as Abū Khāzim had said. Al-Ṭaḥāwī said: Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Baṣrī al-Sājī, one of the prominent Basrans who came to us and an accomplished specialist in inheritance shares, told me: After his affair with ʿĪsā, Ibn ʿĀʾisha went to the court and stayed there for some time. There the Baghdadis heard from him what they heard. Then he returned to Basra. Abū Khāzim said: When Ibn ʿĀʾisha wanted to return to Basra, Ibn Abī Duʾād asked him at their farewell, “Is there any need, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, that we can fulfill?” He replied, “Yes: appointment to the judgeship of Basra.” Ibn Abī Duʾād replied, “By God, there is no way to dismiss Abū Mūsā, but ask for something else.” He asked for nothing.