Imam Sadiq(as) University Quran and Hadith Studies‎ 2008-3211 19 2 2026 03 21 Dating the Report on the Chronological Order of Qurʾānic Revelation Attributed to ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī Dating the Report on the Chronological Order of Qurʾānic Revelation Attributed to ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī 43 72 78161 10.30497/qhs.2026.248646.4186 FA Saeedeh Jannesari PhD in Quran and Hadith Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran 0009-0007-5288-3262 Amir Ahmadnezhad Associate Professor, Department of Quran and Hadith Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran 0000-0001-7152-2656 MohammadAli Mahdavi Rad Associate Professor, Department of Quran and Hadith Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran 0000-0002-1374-715X Journal Article 2025 08 05 Although not attributed to any of the Companions of the Prophet, the list of the chronological order of Qurʾānic revelation attributed jointly to ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī has achieved considerable prominence in the Islamic scholarly tradition. This list, transmitted as a single report attributed to both Successors (tābiʿūn), has been preserved through a solitary chain of transmission in which Ḥusayn b. Wāqid al-Marwazī plays a pivotal role. In terms of its frequency of citation in works produced during the first ten centuries of Islam, the report of ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan ranks second only to the list attributed to ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurāsānī, and in some works it constitutes the sole source for the chronological order of revelation. This study investigates the authenticity of the list attributed to ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan and seeks to determine the historical context of its transmission. Drawing upon early sources, the study collects all extant reports concerning the chronological order of revelation and, after accounting for intentional and unintentional textual variations across different manuscript traditions, compares the report of ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan with parallel narrations. Employing both classical and contemporary methods of ḥadīth criticism, it evaluates the report's authenticity and historical development. The findings reveal substantial grounds for questioning the attribution of the extant version of the chronological list to these two Successors. An analysis of the isnād network and the role of common links, particularly in light of Ḥusayn b. Wāqid's scholarly engagement with the chronology of revelation and the doctrine of naskh (abrogation), suggests that he was the principal compiler of this list. While the general framework of chronological lists of revelation appears to have existed at least since the time of ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurāsānī in the early Islamic period, the earliest dissemination of the distinctive version attributed to ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan took place in Marw during the mid-second/eighth century. Accordingly, its attribution to these two authorities appears to have served primarily as a means of enhancing its scholarly authority rather than reflecting its actual provenance. Although not attributed to any of the Companions of the Prophet, the list of the chronological order of Qurʾānic revelation attributed jointly to ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī has achieved considerable prominence in the Islamic scholarly tradition. This list, transmitted as a single report attributed to both Successors (tābiʿūn), has been preserved through a solitary chain of transmission in which Ḥusayn b. Wāqid al-Marwazī plays a pivotal role. In terms of its frequency of citation in works produced during the first ten centuries of Islam, the report of ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan ranks second only to the list attributed to ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurāsānī, and in some works it constitutes the sole source for the chronological order of revelation. This study investigates the authenticity of the list attributed to ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan and seeks to determine the historical context of its transmission. Drawing upon early sources, the study collects all extant reports concerning the chronological order of revelation and, after accounting for intentional and unintentional textual variations across different manuscript traditions, compares the report of ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan with parallel narrations. Employing both classical and contemporary methods of ḥadīth criticism, it evaluates the report's authenticity and historical development. The findings reveal substantial grounds for questioning the attribution of the extant version of the chronological list to these two Successors. An analysis of the isnād network and the role of common links, particularly in light of Ḥusayn b. Wāqid's scholarly engagement with the chronology of revelation and the doctrine of naskh (abrogation), suggests that he was the principal compiler of this list. While the general framework of chronological lists of revelation appears to have existed at least since the time of ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurāsānī in the early Islamic period, the earliest dissemination of the distinctive version attributed to ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan took place in Marw during the mid-second/eighth century. Accordingly, its attribution to these two authorities appears to have served primarily as a means of enhancing its scholarly authority rather than reflecting its actual provenance.

https://qhs.isu.ac.ir/article_78161_657fcf1e73240f74adb5407c66d3d5b2.pdf