رسالة د. كهلان الخروصي

… A careful comparison between the two parts shows that they are not of the same work; i.e.، the part which the copyist called part two of Futy~ al-Rab‚` has no relation to the previous part of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b. The reasons for this can be summarized as follows. First، the title given for each part is different from the other. Part one is named >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b while part two is Futy~ al-Rab‚`; and it is well known – within the Ib~‡‚ school at least – that there are various works ascribed to al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b، some of which were committed to writing by his students at early stages، especially his fat~w~ (legal opinions). Secondly and most importantly، the style and pattern of each part clearly indicate that they are not of the same work. The sanad (chain of transmitters) of each part is different from that of the other. Part one or >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b consists of traditions transmitted on the authority of ?um~m from J~bir b. Zayd or a similar chain، whereas part two or Futy~ al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b has no mention of transmitters: it is a ‘question-answer’ compilation، with only occasional statements about who was asking and who was responsible for the answers. Besides، the contents of the two parts seem inconsistent. >th~r al-Rab‚` is devoted to the opinions of J~bir b. Zayd without any headings whereas Futy~ al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b is devoted mostly to the legal opinions of al-Rab‚` in reply to questions put to him. The argument becomes more complicated when we look at f.