The Successors 95 Whereas ‘Amra built her reputation on transmission primarily from ‘A’isha, ‘Urwa assiduously collected hadith from a range of male and female Companions and was recognized for his superior abilities. If ‘Amra, a leading female hadith transmitter, suffered in this way in alZuhri’s estimation, other women with lesser reputations must have fared even worse. Al-Zuhri’s view can be further contextualized in terms of his conversation with al-Hudhall, cited at the beginning of this chapter, wherein he equates masculinity with the assiduous pursuit of hadith. AlZuhri’s reported opinion of ‘Amra, paired with his comments to alHudhali, further supports the view that increasingly stringent demands help account for the decline of women’s role in this domain. Furthermore, this gender association, which is strikingly discordant with the atmosphere that prevailed just a few decades earlier during the lifetimes of ‘A’isha and Umm Salama, is first recorded from al-Zuhrl. This allows us to locate with more confidence shifting attitudes toward women’s hadith participation in the late first and early second century, the period spanning al-Zuhri’s lifetime. Al-Zuhri was not alone with respect to his standards. The trend of professionalization is widely attested throughout the second and third centuries. The opinion of many scholars is reflected in Ibn Sirin’s view that “this knowledge [i.e., reports concerning the Prophet] is religion, so investigate whomever you relate from.”91 A few second-century scholars who are identified with exacting standards in the study and critical evaluation of hadith are ‘Amir b. Sharahll al-Sha‘b! (d. 103/721), 9 Muhammad b. Sirin (d. 110/729), Abu Bakr b. Muhammad b. Hazm (d. 120/738), 92 ‘Amr b. Dinar (d. 126/743), 93 al-Awza‘I (d. 157/774), and Sufyan alThawrl (d. 161/778). In the third century, luminaries such as Yahya b. 89 The articulation of these standards was a precursor to the more formalized discipline of isnad criticism (i.e., al-jarh wa ’l-ta ‘ dil ). The works of al-RamahurmuzI ( al-Muhaddith alFasil) and al-Khatlb al-Baghdadl [al-Kifaya fi ‘Ilm al-Riwaya ) testify to developments in this field. Both contain detailed descriptions of the qualifications of narrators and the requirements they had to meet in order for their transmissions to be acceptable. 90 Ibn Sa‘d, al-Tabaqat , 7 (part 1):141. 91 Ibn Sa‘d, al-Tabaqat , 6:171-78; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhlb, 5:60-63. 92 al-Dhahabl, Siyar, 5:313-14. 93 Ibn Sa‘d, al-Tabaqat, 5:353-54; and Ibn Hajar, Tahdhlb, 8:25-26. 94 Ibn Sa‘d, al-Tabaqat, 7 (part 2):1 85; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhlb, 6:215-18. 95 Ibn Sa‘d, al-Tabaqat, 6:257-60; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhlb, 4:101-4. See Siddlqi, Hadith Literature, 6-7, and Subhl al-Salih, ‘Ulum al-Hadlth wa-Mustalahuhu, 41-49, for the view that these scholars were engaged in the project of regulating the use of hadith. Scholars of the history of early Islam have not reached a consensus about the nature of