moslem schisms and sects al-far; bain al-firak · pdf fileintroduction of islam ic sects in...
TRANSCRIPT
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ORIENTAL STUDIES
VOL . XV .
MOSLEMSCHISMSANDSECTS(Al-Far]; Bain al-Firak)
BEING THE
HlSTORY OFTHEVARIOUSPHILOSOPHIC SYSTEMS
DEVELOPED lN ISLAM
BY
abfi-Mangfir‘abd-al-Kfihir ibn -Téhir
al-Baghdadi (d . 1037)
PART I
TRANSLATED FROM THE ARABIC
BY
KATE CHAMBERS SEELY E,PH .D.
New finrkCOLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
1920
A11 r ig hts reserved
Copyright, 1920
By COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Printed from type , J anuary , 1920
NOTE
The translation of a work from one language into ah
other i s always a j ob more or less thankless . It i s difficult
to sati s fy the masters at each end of the line . This is the
case particularly when the languages are as distant philo
logica l ly one from the other as i s Engl i sh and Arabic . Thetranslator desi res to reach lucidi ty of statement ; at the
same time he wishes to reproduce hi s author’s words with
as felici tous preci sion as i s possible . Between these two
ideal s he may fai l to adjust himsel f w ith that nicety that
reveals the master hand .
It i s not for me to j udge in how far Mrs . Seelye has
steered clear of the rocks in her path ; yet I venture to say
that her translation gives a very fai r picture of the original .
The subj ect which was the theme of al-Baghdadi— the Con
formity or the non-Conformity of Mohammedan rel igiousand philosophic sectaries i s an abstruse one at best . But
it has i ts especial interest . The history of Mohammedan
thought, as the theories of the Greek metaphysicians are
embroidered on to the dogmas of Islam - i s of sufficient in
terest to the general student of the world ’s intellectual efi'
ort
to warrant the attempt to do for al-Baghdadi What has
already been done for the two other scholars o f his ag e,
Ibn Hazm and al- Sharastani and to render his work acces
sible to the student who cannot read him in his Arabic
orig inal .
In putting out thi s first part of al-Baghdadi’s Compen
dium,i t ought to be remembered that the text as published
in 19 10 by Muhammad Badr i s not in prime condition . It
NOTE
i s based upon one single manuscript ; and, even with the
corrections suggested by the master-hand of Ignaz Gold~
ziher, i t does not always inspi re in the reader a robust con
fidence.
In her Introduction,M rs . Seelye has endeavored to point
out the d ifference in the form o f presentation that di stin
guishes al—Baghdadi from Ibn Hazm and al- Sharastani . We
may not care to believe that our author has achieved a won
derful performance ; but he has, at least , given us some ih
teresting material . He was learned and a much- read man ;and though his po int of view is strictly conservative
,i t i s
one that has to be taken into account, i f we wi sh to under
stand the various influences that have moulded the great
Mohammedan world . I wish to join M rs. Seelye in ac
knowledging the assi stance she has received from both Dr .
Philip Hitti and Professor Talcott Williams in helping herover many a difficult problem .
RICH ARD C OTTR EIL.
COLUMBIA UN IVERSITY,MAY 31 , 19 19 .
vi
C ONTENTS
Chapter I . The Di visions of the Moslem C ommunity
Chapter I. Explanation of the Idea
Chapter II. The Division into Sects
Chapter I. The Sects of the Rawafid
Chapter II. The Sects O f the Kharij iyahChapter III. The Doctrines of the Erring Sects among the
Mu‘tazilite Kadar
‘
iyah
INTRODUCTION
OF ISLAM IC SECTS IN GENERAL
To the student who first looks into the tenets of th
Moslem religion,the simplici ty o f the creed accepted by all
who profess Islam,wou ld imply a remarkable unity in thi s
religion . He might at first be tempted to compare it, with
favorable results for Islam,to Christianity with its many
sects and denominations . Even,when
,a fter a l ittle fur
ther study,he found that there was one great schi sm in
Islam ,the one which divides the Shiites and the Sunnites ,
he could sti l l marvel at a rel igion o f but two sects . But
once face to face with the tradition,The Jews are divided
into 7 1 sects , and the C hristians are divided into 72 sects ,and my people will be di v i ded into 73 sects , his marvel ingwould cease
,and hi s first impulse would naturally be to
condemn a rel igion which j ustified its schi sms by a tradi
tion said to come down fro-m the prophets . The fact o f the.
matter i s,that instead o f the tradition being invented to
j us ti fy the sect,the sects have been invented to j usti fy the
tradition . In other words,
i
claiming that Mohammed had
said that Islam would be di v ided into 73 sects , many o f the
theologians of Islam felt i t incumbent upon them to bring
about the fulfilment o f thi s proph ecy, and there fore set to
work to make a more or less arbitrary di v i sion o f the re
lig ious system . We must not,however
,conclude from thi s
that all but the two sects,the Shi ites and the Sunnites , owe
thei r origins to the imaginings o f the theolog ians . Many
sects exist which represent important philosophical schools
MOS'LEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
and widely differing trends of thought . It i s when these
are subdivided, to bring up thei r number to 73 , that the
arbitrariness appears .
In his article entitled Le dénombremem des sectes M a
hometcmes,which appeared in the Revue de l
’
Histoire de la
Relig ion, vol. 26,Goldziher offers an explanation for the
origin o f this rather extraordinary saying attributed to
Mohammed . He tel ls how al lusions to thi s di v i s ion byEumpean authors are to be found as early as the sixteenth
century. Martinus Crucius in his Tuirco - Gmeciale libri octo,
Bale,1 587 , p . 66
,says : Superstitio M ohametana est in
LXXII principales sectas. divisa, quarum una sola in Para
disum dux est, reliquae vero in inferos .” Some traditions
give the number as; 72 instead of 73 . Ibn Maja ( d . 283 )gives 1 three versions of thi s saying o f the prophet : In one
it i s only the Jews who,with thei r 7 1 sects , are Opposed to
the future div i sion of Islam into 72 sects , the Christians noteven being mentioned ; in another
,in Opposition to the 73
sects of Islam ,the Jews are mentioned with 7 1 , and the
Christians with 72 sects , of which one shal l g o to heaven ,while the rest are condemned to hell ; in the thi rd version ,the 7 1 Jewish sects alone are opposed to Islam . Palgrave
suggested that the idea of the 72 sects came from the NewTestament account of Our Lord’s 72 di sciples . Goldziher
’s
suggestion is that this tradition i s an erroneous interpreta
tion of a word which orig inal ly meant something quite di fferent
, thi s wrong interpretation having changed the primitive form . In other words
, Shu‘ab
,
” branches, a termapplied very general ly to the various ramifications of an
idea, came to mean F i rkah ,” divi sion
,and thus sect . The
tradition which has become thus misinterpreted i s, accord
1 Abfi-‘Abdallah Muhammad ibn-Yazid ibn-Maj a al-Kazwini . Cf.
Brockelmann,Arabische Litteratm'
,vol. i, p . 163 . De Slane, ibn-Khalli
kan,Biog raphical Dictionary, vol. ii, p . 680.
INTRODUCTION
ing to Goldziher, the one quoted by the great traditional i st
Bukhari' 1
( 1 94 Fai th has 60 and some
branches,and modesty i s one branch of fai th (Le rec. des
trad . M ah” ed . Lud . Krehl,vol . i , p . 2 ) This same tradi
tion appears. a l ittle later,as follows : Faith has 70 and
more branches,of which the highest i s the belie f that there
i s no God but Allah , and of which the lowest i s the taking
out of the oath what i s to be rej ected ; and modesty i s abranch o f fai th” (Muslim ,
Sahib, ed . Cai ro 1 288 A. H . , vol.
i,p . 126 ) .
2 This use of the word branch gradual ly came to
have the meaning of branching off dividing ; and final ly
fifleah having been substituted for Shu‘ab,
” we have the
tradition of the 72 or 73 sects .‘Other rather interesting explanations of this arbitrary
divis ion are to be found in Steinschneider’s article in Z . D .
M . G ., vol . iv, p . 147 . Here the suggestion i s made that it
can be traced back to the Jewish tradition about Moses andthe 70 elders ; that Moses chose six elders from each tribe ,except Levi , which being a model tribe would not take
offense i f s lighted,and was therefore asked for only four
representatives,Moses himse l f constituting the seventy-first
elder. This number the Mohammedans must increase ; andthey therefore claim 73 sects . Another view i s that theorigin i s astronomical , while a third derives i t from the 70
languages o f the Tower of Babel ; and a fourth from the
72 letters in Allah’s name , a tradition drawn from the Jew
ish legend o f the 72 letters with which Yahweh will freethe chi ldren of Israel .D i sagreements over thi s had ith have not, however, been
l imited to the question of the number . One of the greatestpoints of difference was the question of how many of these
1 Ibid .
,vol. ii
,p . 594 .
2 One o f three g reat traditionalists of the n inth century . Cf. ibid . ,
vol. iv,p . 39 I .
MO'S‘LEM SCHISMS AND S-ECTS
sects would be saved . Some held (among them our author,Baghdadi ) that all would be damned except one. the ortho
dox Sunni te sect ; others held that all would be saved except
one ; while sti l l others , and among them leading men , denied
the tradition altogether . Of thi s group,one of the greatest
was Fakhr al-Din al—Razi the great preacher 1 ( d . In
his commentary on the Koran (Sumh 2 1,v . 93 ) he says :
The authenticity of thi s tradition has been attacked , and i t
has been observed that i f by the 72 sects are meant as manydivergencies of the fundamental dogmas o f religion ,
there
are not as many existing ; but i f , on the contrary,i t i s a
question of secondary teachings ( deri ved from these fundamental doctrines ) . there are more than twice as many .
Besides,some are to be found giving quite the Opposite o f
the text which is general ly admi tted : that all the sects will
go to paradise,one only to hell .” M afd tih azl- g haib [Keys
of the riwsterious wor ld ] , vol. vi,p . 1 93 . Some others
who disregard the tradition g o to the other extreme . Mak
rizi , for instance,claims that the Rafidiyah are di v ided
into 300 sects . Ibn—Hazm ho lds that many of these sectsarose as fo l lowers o f false prophets
,clever po l iticians and
mystics . As an example o f the cleverness of some of theleaders , he mentions abu-Mughith al-Husain al- IIallaj ,
3
who appeared to his compan ions as God, to the princes as a
Shiite, and to the people as a pious Sfifi . In thi s connection
it i s interesting to note how o ften the leader of a new sectis a mania or freed slave.
Shahrastani , Baghdadi , and ibn—Tahir , as orthodox Sun
nites cling to the had i th, and strive to whip the various sects
into l ine, cutting, inserting, and combining,ti l l they reach
1 C lement Huart,Littéra ture Ambe, p . 3 17 .
”Ibid . ,p . 355 .
3 Mystic who was executed in 92 1 ( ibid .,p .
INTRODUCT ION
the number o f 73 . Ibn -Hazm,on the other hand disre
gards the had’
i th altogether .
The various Arab writers who take up the matter of thesects within the Ummat al—Islam ”
( the commun i ty of
I slam ) natural ly differ in thei r manner of grouping the
sects . Of these writers the three whom we are go ing toconsider
,Baghdadi
,Shahrastani and ibn Hazm although
differing in detai l s,ag i ee more or less 1n the main div i sions .
Being orthodox Sunn ites themselves,they cannot disagree
about that sect . The unorthodox they divide as fo l lows :
Shahrastani groups them under the four main headings :
Kadariyah, Sifatiyah,Khawarij , and Shi ite . Ibn -Hazm :
Mu‘tazilah (much the same as the Kadar iyah ) , l
‘
vIurj i’
ah.
Kharij iyah and Shi ite . Baghdadi : Kadariyah,Kharij iyah ,
Murj i’
ah,Shiite . In the subdi v i s ion of the Shi ites
,which is
the next most impo rtant sect to the Sunnites,Shahrastani
gives the fo l lowing di v i s ions : Kaisaniyah,Zaidiyah
( 3 ) Imam iyah ( I ) , Ghulat ( Io ) , Isma’
i liyah ( 1 ) total
1 9 Ibn Hazm gi ves only two subdivi sions,the Zaidiyah
and the Imamiyah ( or Rafidiyah ) . Baghdadi : Zaidiyah pef’
Kaisaniyah Imamiyah total 20. The Ghu
lat he excludes entirely from the Ummat al Islam .
This gi ves a l ittle idea o f the differences. abounding o verthi s subj ect
,and the more or less arbitrary character of the
who le proceeding. A carefully tabulated li st o f Baghdadi ’sdi v i s ions wi ll be found at the end of thi s introduction .
As we have al ready noted , the reasons given for the
branching off of the numerous sects vary greatly. Some of
the sects are of political origin,others have real ly to do
with some of the‘fundamental bel iefs o f Islam , while sti l l
others are based merely on quibbling . An example of thegreatest po l itical div i sion i s to be found in the separationo f the Shiites
,which was due to the disagreement over
‘Ali .
The Shi ites claim that ‘Ali was martyred by Mu‘awiyah and
MOISLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
that his descendants. alone are to be regarded as legitimate
Imams . By some ‘Ali was even regarded as divine . We
read o f one sect whose leader having addressed ‘Ali as a
God,was put to death by the latter and his following perse
cuted . Till lately the opinion has been held that the attitude
taken by the Shi ites with regard to‘Ali was greatly influ
enced by Persian mystici sm ,and the Persian conception of
a ruler as more or less di v ine . This Opinion has,however ,
been questioned by Goldziher . The tendency to regard‘Ali as a God natural ly increased after his death . To the
orthodox Sunnite,clinging to the creed
,There i s no God
but Allah and Mohammed is the p rophet of Allah ,” such a
v iew i s little short of blasphemy . Once divided on thi s
po int,these two
,the Sunnite and the Shi ite
,developed
apart from each other, and include in the ramifications of
thei r numerous sects almost every conceivable view . The
main di v i sions of the Shiites have al ready been given ; the
Sunnites recognize no sects within the orthodox fo ld,but
are di v ided into the four great schoo l s,each of which recog
nizes the other . These are the Hanifite, the Mal ikite , theShafiite
, and the Hanbal ite.
With such an array Of sects as the above statements ihd icate
,we are led to wonder what were some o f the causes
for disagreement . The average student o f Islam is likelyto imagine that every Moslem must accept the Koran as
infal lible . After a glance at some of the Islamic works onsects , however , i t i s apparent that the on ly thing upon whichall Moslems. agree i s the creed : “ There i s no God but
Allah , and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah .
” Everything aside from this has
,at some time or other
,been
attacked by some scho lar or leader . I f these men limi ted
themselves to attacking or arguing over questions really
v ital to Islam , such as the necess ity for dai ly prayers,the
pi lgrimage , the gi v ing of alms, eta , a Mohammedan work
6
INTRODUCTION
on sects might prove most interesting reading. As a mat
.ter o f fact, these subj ects seem to occupy them far less
than thei r hai r- spli tting quibbles. over the question o f
whether Allah touches his throne or not,whether a man i s
a bel iever,an unbeliever or a heretic , whether an interrupted
prayer is acceptable, etc. These discussions strongly re
.semble in pettiness the scholastic debates of the mediaeval
C hristian Church,regarding the number of angel s able to
stand on a pin- point at one time,or the consequences at
tending a mouse ’s eating the consecrated host . The result
i s rather dull reading, and at times appears not only dull
but exceedingly chi ldish .
AL-BAGHDADI
Accounts of Baghdadi ’s l i fe are to be found in the fol
lowing works :
De Slane,Ibn—Khollikdn
, vol . 11, p . 149 .
Subki ,Ta.baIZeo3t al-Shdfi‘
iyalh,vol . i i i
,p . 238 .
Wii stenfeld,Die Shofiiten
,no . 345 Abhandlung. der
Ges . der Wiss . GOtting en , vol. 37, p . 345 .
Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arab . Lit , vol. i , p . 385 .
Friedlander, f . A. O . S . ,
vol. 28,p . 26 .
Goldziher,Vorlesmi g en uber den Islam,
p . 1 60 ; Z .
D . M . G ., vol. 65 , p . 349 .
Encyclopedia o f I slam,under Baghdadi .
Abfi Man sur ‘Abd al-Kahi r ibn—T'
ahir ibn-Muhammad
a l-Baghdadi ( d . was,according to ibn-al- Saléh,
the son of Tahi r ibn-Muhammad al—Baghdadi ( d .
Subki,who quotes ibn- al- Salah, however, is not sure of thi s
statement,he merely gives i t for what i t i s worth ( Subki ,
Tabakoit al vol . i i , p .
‘Abd al-Kahi r was a nati v e of Baghdad , but while sti l l
young went with hi s father to N isapur where he studied
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SECTS
numerous sciences . Subki,in hi s long account of him
( Tabaka’
t al vol. i i i , p . says he was versed
in 1 7 sciences . He became especial ly famous for his ski l l
in arithmetic,although theo logy attracted him mo st . He
was a pupil of abu- Ishak al- Isfara’
ini,whom he succeeded
after the latter’s death in 4 1 8 ( 1027 ) as teacher and leader .
The revo lt of the Turkomans , however, forced him t o leave
the town in 429 ( 1037 ) and take refuge in Is fara’in . But
the joy o f the natives. of this town at hav ing such an emi
nent scholar in thei r m idst was short- l i ved , for he diedthere that same year and was buried by the grave o f his
former teacher abu- Ishak .
Ibn—Khallikan tel ls. us that the haifie’
,
‘Abd - al—Ghaffar al
Paris,mentions him in the S iyak,
or continuation o f the
H i story of Nisapur , and says : He came to Nisapfir with
hi s father,and possessed great riches
,which he spent on
the learned ( in the law ) and on the Traditional i sts . He
never made his. information a source of profit . He com
posed treati ses on different sciences and surpassed his con
temporaries in every branch o f learning, seventeen of whichhe taught publicly .
”The longest account of him i s to be
found in Subki ’s Tabakat,where almost a page i s devoted
to a l i st o f hi s many v irtues and accomplishments . H is
generosity is especially noted ; and a rather amusing poemo f his
,on hi s po verty- stricken condition due to thi s gener
osity is quoted . Subki divided the fo llowers of the greatleader al—Ash‘ari (vol. i i , p . 2 5 ) into seven ranks , placingBaghdadi in the third rank . Fakhr al-Din al-Razi 1 al somentions him in his
“Al-Riyad al- Jll a
‘allakah
”
(H ang ingGardens ) .
According to Subki ’s account he was a vo luminous writer .
In fact , he devotes an entire hal f—page to a l i st of hi s writ
I Ibn—Khallik‘
an, ibid vol . 11,p . 65
8
INTRODUCTION
ings , which number n ineteen . And even in as long a l i st
as thi s he om its some which Baghdfadi himsel f mention s inhis Park . The fo l low ing are the most important :
Al—Fai’k bain dl—Firak ( the work under consideration ) .
Kitab al-M ila-l wa-’
l—N ihal (book on religions and re
lig ious sects ) .
Kit'ab [mad 7? M alZUl ’l llfl al—‘
Ibad'
( the laws regard
ing inheritance of the worshippers ) .
al—Tak inilalh fi’
l hisa'
b ( on mathematics ) .
To these may be added :
Kitab ail barbr
ala: ibn-H arb (against the Mu‘taz i lite
Ja‘far ibn-Harb ) .
The Raba t Allah,a dogmatic argument over Surah
75 , V. 2 3 .
In his work entitled M ilazl wa’
l-N iltal,now in the Con
stantinOple l ibrary,’Asir Effendi no . 5 5 5 , he treats in much
mo re detai l of some o f the sects on which he therefore
merely touches . in his Park.
The manuscript o f thi s work,number 2800 of the Berlin
library,i s described in Ahlwardt’s Verzeiehn iss der am
bisehen H andschriften, vol . i i,p . 68 1 . He repo rts the
manuscript as untidy,with loose quires and leaves
,and a
l ittle worm- eaten . Some o f the pages in the main part of
the book are missing, as wel l as the end o f the fi fth chapter
of the fifth part .
Abd al-Kahi r al-Baghdadi ’s work , Al- Fao'le bain al-Firak,
is based on the tradition we have already mentioned :
There shal l be 73 sects in Islam , o f which one only shallbe saved .
” Being thoroughly orthodox,he begins by stress
ing thi s last po int,tha t one sect alone shal l be saved . This
sect,the orthodox Sunnites
,he treats at the very end of
his book .
9
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SECTS
He di v ides hi s work into five parts
Part one deals with the tradition already mentioned .
Part two, in two chapters , gives a brief treatment of the
manner in which the community came to be divided into
72 sects, and a very brief statement of the v iews o f the mostimportant sects .
Part three takes up in eight chapters the Opinions o f the
unorthodox sects,and gives an explanation of the heresy
O f each .
Part four deals in seventeen short chapters with the sectsoriginating in Islam,
but not now found in it .
Part five takes up in five chapters the one orthodox sect .
The begi nning of hi s book , which gives a clear summaryo f the various sects
,short hi storical Sketches
,and a certain
amount o f traditional i nstances,i s quite acceptable reading .
When,however
,he comes to treat of the phi losophical quib
blings of many of the sects,he becomes rather hopelessly
invo lved . We cannot,however
,give Baghdadi all the
blame , for doubtless the apparent senselessness Of these
quibblings arose with the men whose views he is vainly
trying to gi ve us . Whatever the cause,there are undoubt
edly times when we are tempted to quote the Arab poet .who
, when asked to explain the meaning of some o f his
poetry,answered : When those verses were written
,two
persons. understood them,Allah and I ; now only one per
son understands them . Allah .
In conclusion,i t may be rather interesting to compare
the different attitudes and method s o f the three men whohave given us the fullest accounts of the 73 Mohammedansects . We do not include Shuhfur ibn-T
'
ahir,because his
work so closely resembles that of Baghdadi that it i s thoughtby some to be a résumé of the latter’s .
IO
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
tani,more scholarly
,his work more care fully arranged ,
fai rer,trying to be neutral
,but at times fai ling ; and Ibn
Hazm ,abso lutely neutra l and bound by no hampering tra
ditions.
Since Shahrastani and Baghdadi represent the more sim
ilar treatment , let us consider the two for a moment . The
first important thing to note i s that Shahrastani devotestwo- thirds of his. book to sects outside o f Islam . In the
first vo lume one part deals with the 73 sects o f Islam ,and
the second part with some o f the rel igions outside o f Islam .
The religions treated in the second part are those which
possess a Book , and those which have something resembling a revealed book . Under the former he takes up the
Jews and Christians,and under the latter the Magians and
the Thanawiyah,those who accept two principles . In the
second vo lume he treats o f the various phi losophies, the
Greek,the peripatetic , the H indu . Some space i s gi ven
to Buddhism , and many discussions are recounted between
Mos lem and other teachers and leaders . Baghdadi,on
the other hand , merely mentions these other rel igions in
passing, devoting practically the whole o f thi s work to
the sects within the Ummat al—Islam . It i s l ikely that he
treated these other religions in detai l in hi s M ilai wai l
N ihal,and natural ly avo ided repetition here . As we have
already seen,in the matter o f treatment
,Shahrastan
‘
i
merely gi ves the account of the various sects,and only once
in a while expresses hi s own Opin ion . Baghdadi,on the
contrary,cannot refrain from challenging and criti cizing
these heretical views,so that at times hi s history o f the
sects becomes a polemical discussion . He Opens the book
with a statement o f what he considers constitutes an orthodox Moslem , and although those outside of thi s pa le may
have some of the pri v i leges of the fai th ful , such as being
buried in a Moslem graveyard , praying in the mosque, sharI2
INTRODUCT ION
ing in the booties o f Jihad ; nevertheless , they may not haveprayers said over thei r bodies
,animals slaughtered by them
are unclean,and they may not marry an orthodox Moslem .
Having thus shown us clearly where he himsel f stands,he
does not hesitate to condemn the heretics -some with rather
amusing humor, some with rather biting sarcasm ,and
others by quick di smissal as not even worth discussing . In
fact,the note which runs through the whole part deal ing
with the orthodox is : Thank God we are not as they .
”
Unfortunately,Muhammad Badr o f Cairo
,who edited
thi s work , has let pass many errors,many o f which Go ld
ziher has corrected in an article in the 2 . D . M . G .,19 1 1 ,
vol. 65 . O thers we have corrected . Many o f the Koran
references are wrongly numbered, and some of the proper
names and sects. are incorrect . We should,however
,be
grate ful to him for making thi s work avai lable to us , evenin such an incomplete form . As will be seen
,there are
several places where the editor himsel f states that the manuscript was not clear, and in one or two cases there are who le
pages missing. A rather amusing error i s the one in the
table of contents on page 2 1,where it is stated that the
section will be divided into eight chapters . Six on ly are
then enumerated,but in the section eight headings are
given . Un fortunately, the manuscript being unavai lable at
thi s moment,we cannot say whether thi s was a slip of the
author or of the editor . It i s more l ikely to be the latter .
As to the poem on page 40,i t i s a long, uninteresting
one which has nothing to do with the subj ect in hand ex
cept at the beginning and the end ; in the translation , there
fore , we have given only the first and last verses .13
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
TABLE OF SECTS
I . Rafidiyah ( 20)Zaidiyah ( 3 )
1 . Jarudiyah
2 . Sulaimaniyah or Jaririyah
3 . Butriyah
B . Kaisaniyah ( 2 )1 . Fo l lowers Of ibn—al-H anafiyah2 . Muhammadiyah
C. Imamiyah ( I 5 )I . Kamiliyah
2 . Bakiriyah
3 . The Chulat
4 . Mubarrakiyah
5 . Kat‘iyah or Twelvers
6 . H ishamiyah
7 . Zarariyah
8 . Y finusiyah
9 . Shaiténiyah
10. Muhammadiyah
1 1 . Nawawi'
yah
1 2 . Shumaitiyah
1 3 . Mu‘ammariyah
14 . Isma‘i liyah
1 5 . Mfisawiyah
Starred sects are mentioned in the li st byapparently not considered important enough to treat .
II . Al-Khawarij ( 20)1 . The first Muhakkamah
2 . Azarikah
3 . Najadah
4 . Sifriyah
I4
INTRODUCTION
5 .
‘Ajaridah
’l< (mentions ten in heading,treats eight )
a . Khazimiyah
Ma‘lfimiyah
Majhuliyah
b . Shu‘aibiyah
c . The People Of Obedienced . Saltiyah
e . Akhnasiyah
f . Shaibaniyah
g . Ma‘badiyah
6 . Rashidiyah
7 . Mukarramiyah
a . Iamziyah
b . Shamrakiyah
c . Ibrahimiyah
d . Wakifiyah"<
e . IbadiyahHafsiyah
Harithiyah
Khalaf iyah and Tha‘alibah are not given in the li st but
are treated in the chapter.
The starred sects are not treated in the chapter .
III. Mu‘tazilites or Kadari
'
yah ( 20)1 . Wasi liyah
2 .
‘Amriyah
3 . Hudhailiyah
4 . Nazzamiyah
5 . Aswariyah
6 . Mu‘ammariyah
7 . Iskafiyah
8 . Ja‘fariyah
9 . Bishriyah
MOS-LEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
I O . Murdariyah
1 1 . H ishamiyah
1 2 . Thamamiyah
1 3 . Jahiziyah
14 . Hayitiyah
1 5 . H imériyah
I6 . Khaiyatiyah
1 7 . Fo l lowers o f Sal ih Kubbah
1 8 . Musaisiyah
1 9 . Shahhamiyah
20. Ka‘biyah
2 1 . Jubba’iyah
22 . Bahshamiyah
Starred sects not treated in chapter, although mentioned
in li st . 14 and 1 5 , although in l ist , are treated under the
Chulat,that i s
,those sects which started in Islam but are
too heretical to be included in the 73 .
IV . Murj i’
ah ( 5 )1 . Y unusiyah
2 . Ghasséniyah
3 . Thaubaniyah
4 . Tfimaniyah
5 . Marisiyah
V . Naj jariyah ( 2 )1 . Barghiithiyah
2 . Za‘faraniyah
Mustadrikah
Jahmiyah
Bakriyah
Darariyah
Karramiyah 3 )I . Hakakiyah
2 . T'
ara‘ikiyah
16
INTRODUCT ION
3 . Ishakiyah
Total seventy- three .
LIST OF SECTS OUTSIDE OF TH E PALE OF ISLAM
Sabahiyah
Gha lat
Mughiriyah
Bayaniyah
H arbiyah
MansuriyahJanabiyah
Ghurabiyah
Mufauwadah
Dhimmiyah
i ( o f the Rafidiyah )CH AM BERS SEELY E .
Halfiliyah
Ashab al- Ib-abah
Ashab al-Tanasukh
Hayitiyah ( of the Kadariyah )H imariyah
Yazidiyah ( of the Khawari j )Maimfiniyah
Batiniyah
MO SLEM tSC‘HISMS AND SECTS
The answer to your request I have included in thi s book,the contents o f which I have divided into five parts
,to wit :
A chapter in explanation o f the tradition transmitted to
us concerning the di v i sion o f the Moslem community into
73 sects .
A chapter dealing with the shame that attaches to each
one o f the sects belonging to the erring heresies .
A chapter on the sects that are akin to Islam,but do not
belong to i t .
A chapter on the sav ing sect the confirmation of i ts
sacredness and a statement concerning the beauty o f i ts
fai th .
These are the chapters o f the book : in each one Of whichwe shal l mention the conclusions that are necessary . So
may i t please Allah .
PART I
AN EXPLANATION OF THE WELL-KN OWN TRADITION SIN REGARD TO TH E DIVISION S OF THE (M OSLEM )
COM M UN ITY
TH E tradition has come down to us through the fol lowing chain o f authoriti es : ab - Sahl Bi shr ibn -Ahmad ibn
Bashshar al- Isfara’
ini,
‘Abdal lah ibn-Naj iyah, VVahb ibn
Bakiyyah,Khalid ibn-
‘Abdal lah,Muhammad ibn -
‘Amr, abfi
Salmah , abu-Hurairah that the last said the prophet ofAllah— peace be unto him 1 ’
—said : The Jews are di v idedinto 7 1 sects , and the Christians are di v ided into 72 sects ,and my people wi l l be divided into 73 sects And
we are to ld by aha-Muhammad ‘Abdalléh ibn—
‘Ali ibn
Ziyad al- Sumaidhi,who 1s con sidered of interest and
authoritati ve,that he heard through the fo l lowing chain o f
authorities : Ahmad ibn—al-Hasan ibn—‘Abd al- Jabbér , al
Hai tham ibn-Kharijah,Isma‘i l ibn -
‘Abbas,
‘Abd - al-Rahman
ibn - Ziyad ibn-An‘am ,
‘Abdal lah ibn—Yazid,
‘Abdal lah ibn‘Amr
,that the prophet of Allah said : Veri ly there wi l l
happen to my people what happened to the Band Isra’il .
The Band Isra’i l are di v ided into 72 religious bod i es , andmy peop le wi ll be divided into 73 rel igious bodies , exceed
ing them by one . All of them are destined to hell fire ex 5
cept one . They said : O,prophet of Allah
,which is the
one rel igious body that wi l l escape the fire P” He said ’
1 The expression o f blessing and peace always follows the name of
the Prophet, as well as that O f the leading C ompanions and sheik-hs,and the words ‘
mighty and power ful ’ the name O f Allah. A fter the
first time we will not repeat these devout expressions.
21
MOSLEM SCHIISMS AND SECTS
That to which I belong, and my compan ions , The Kédi
abu-Muhammad‘Abdal lah ibn-
‘Umar, the Mal ikite, says“We have i t from my father
,who had i t from his father,
that Walid ibn-Maslamah sai d that al-Anza‘i said that we
are told by Katadah, who had i t from Anas , who had i t
from the Prophet : Lo, the Band Isra’
i l are divided into
7 1 sects , and 10 my people wi l l be divided into 72 sects , all
of them destined to hell fire except one, and these are the
true believers . ’ ‘Abd al-Kahir says that there are many
[ snails ( chains of traditions ) for the tradition deal ing withthe division of the community . A number o f the followingCompanions have handed it down as coming from the
Prophet : Anas ibn—Mal ik , abu—Hurairah,
abu- l-Dardé,Jabir
, abu—Sa‘id al-Khidri , Ubai ibn-Ka‘b,
‘Abdalléh ibn
‘Amr ibn- al-‘As
,abfi- Imamah
,Wathilah ibn- al—Aska‘ and
others . It i s also handed down that the pious cal iphs men
tioned that the community would be divided after them ,that
one sect only would save itsel f , and that the rest of them
would be given to error in thi s world, and to destruction in
the next . Moreover,i t i s reported of the Prophet that he
condemned the Kadarites,cal l ing them the Magians of thi s
people . It i s also reported that he condemned the Murj iites
together with the Kadarites . To thi s i s added the report
that he condemned the heretics,i . e. the Khari j i tes . While
i t i s handed down from the leading C ompanions that he
condemned the Kadarites and the Murj iites and the heret
ical Kharij i tes . ‘Ali
,Allah have mercy on him ,
mentions
these sects in his Khutbah ( sermon ) which is known as the
Zahra’ ; in it he declared himsel f not responsible for the
people of Adimawat.
1 Every man of intel ligence among
the authors of the treati ses ascribed to ( text not clear )has known that the Prophet in speaking of the divisions that
1 We have been unable to find any explanation for this word.
22
EXPLANATIO N OF TRADITION S
were to be condemned and the members of which were des
tined for hell-fire,did not mean the variou s legal schools ,
who, though they disagreed as. to the derivative Institutes
o f law, agreed concerning the fundamental s of rel igion .
Now the Mohammedans held two Opinions as regards the
deductions drawn from the fundamental principles o f rightand wrong. The first looks with approva l upon all those
who promoted the Science of derivative Institutes . For i t,all the legal schoo ls are right . The second approves
,in con
nection with each derivati ve Institute, one of the parties
contending about i t and disapproves all the others— without
,however
, attributing error to the one who goes astrayin the matter. And veri ly the Prophet , i n mentioning thesects condemned
,had in mind only those holders of erring
opinions who differ from the one sect which will be saved ,in such matters as ethics and the unity ( o f God ) , promises
and threats ( regarding future li fe ) , predestination and free
will,the determination of good and evi l
,right guidance and
error, the wi ll and wish of God,prophetic vi sion and
7understanding
,the attributes of Allah
,hi s names and
qual i ties , any question concern ing what is ordered and
what is permitted, [ signs for] prophecy and i ts condi
tions,and simi lar questions in which the Sunnites and the
(Moslem ) community from among the fo l lowers of analogical deduction and tradition agree upon the fundamen
tal s , and in which they are opposed by the holders of erring
Opinions,namely the Kadariyah,
the Khawérij , the Rawafid,
the Naj jariyah,the Jahmiyah, the Mujassimah,
the Mus
habbihah,and those who follow them 1
among the erringsects . And
,veri ly
,tho se who differ in regard to ethics and
the unity ( of God ) , the worship of graves. and of ancestors ,are agreed in regard to such matters as celestial vision,
1 Not clear in the orig inal.
23
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND S‘ECTS
di v ine attributes , what i s ordained and what i s permitted
But in regard to the conditions o f true prophecy and the
Imamship,some of them accuse each other o f unbelie f . So
that the tradition handed down in regard to the breaking-up
o f the communi ty into 73 sects must be understood to refer
to differences such as these— not to those on which the lead
ing j uri sts differed in the matter o f Institutes drawn from
the fundamental principles o f right and wrong . I s i t not
that in those things in which they differ as regards Insti
tutes,i t i s not at all a question Of unbel ief or of error ? I
shal l mention in the fo l lowing chapter the various sects towhich the tradition refers concerning the subdividing of theIslami c world
,so it please Allah .
24
PART I i
TH IS part treats o f the manner in which thi s. community
has been di v ided into 73 . It al so contains an explanation
o f the sects which are collected under the general name of
the Millat al—Is lam . There are two chapters in this part :
one deals with the eXplanatiO-n o f the idea underlying the
different sects included under the general name of Millatal—Islam ; the second concerns the explanation of how the
community has become div ided,and the enumeration of i ts
73 sects . I shal l mention in each one of these chapters whati s necessa iy ,
so i t please Allah .
25
MOSLEM SCHISM S AND SECTS
Opin ion,together with the Op inion of al-Ka‘bi in hi s expla
nations of the name o f Islam,i s re futed by the saying of
the‘Isawiah among the Jews of I spahan . For veri ly they
accept the prophetic character of our prophet Muhammad ,and the truth of all his teachings . But they claim that he
was sent to the Arabs,not to the Banu Israel . They say
also that Muhammad i s the prophet o f Allah . Nevertheless,
they are not numbered among the sects o f Islam . And some
o f the Shéirikaniyah2among the Jews relate concerning
their leader known as. Sharikan that he said : “ Indeed
Muhammad was a prophet o f Allah to the Arabs,and to
the rest of mankind,with the exception of the Jews .
”And
al so that he said : The Koran is true and the Adhan [the
announcement of prayer] , the Ikamah,
‘
the performance ofthe five prayers
,the fast o f Ramadan
, and the pi lgrimage
o f the Ka‘bah,all these are truths
,but they are prescribed
for the Moslems,not for the Jews .
” O'ften some o f the
Shérikaniyah have kept some o f these Observances . They
have pro fessed the two parts o f the creed : There is no
God but Allah,and Muhammad i s the prophet of Al lah .
”
They have also asserted that hi s religi on i s. true . Yet,in
Spite o f thi s,they are not of the Ummat al- Islam
,because
of thei r pro fession that the law o f Islam has no binding
force upon them . And as regards the saying of one who
uses the expression Ummat ul- Isli m as a term to be applied
to all who see the necessity of turn ing in prayer to the
Ka‘bah situated in Mecca,i t must be remembered that some
of the legal i sts o f al—H ijéiz have favored this view ,but the
theoretical reasoners (auha’
b ail- rafi ) rejected it , accordingto what Aba Hani
'
fah reports, to the effect that he who be
lieves in turning to the Ka‘bah in prayer,even i f he is in
doubt as to its location,is in the right . But the traditional
1 Poznanski in Renae ales Etudes Iuives,LX : 3 1 1 .
28
EXPLANAT ION O F THE IDEA
ists (agrha-b all-Had i th ) do not ho ld the belief that he isorthodox who doubts the location o f the Ka‘bah , j ust asthey do not accept one who doubts the necessity of turningto the Ka‘bah in prayer .
The true v iew,according to us
,i s that the Ummat al
Islam comp-rises those who pro fess the v iew that the worldi s created
,the un i ty of i ts maker
,his preexistence
,his attri
butes,his equity
,his wisdom . the denial o f hi s anthropo
morphic character,the prophetic character of Muhammad .
and his un i versal Aposto late , the acknowledgment o f the con - a
stant val idity of hi s law ,that all that he enjoined was truth ,
that the Koran is the sou rce o f all legal regulations,and
that the Ka‘bah is the direction in which all prayers should
be turned . Everyone who pro fesses all thi s and does notfo l low a heresy that might lead him to unbel ief
,he i s an
orthodox Sunnite,bel iev ing in the un i ty o f Allah . I f
,to
the accepted bel iefs which we have mentioned he adds a
hateful heresy,his. case must be con sidered . And i f he in
cl ine to the heresy o f the Batiniyah ,or the Bayaniyah,
or the
Mughirah,or the Khattabiyah ,
who bel ieve in the divinecharacter o f all the Imams
,or o f some o f them at least
,or
i f he fo l lows the schoo ls which bel ieve in the incarnation o f
God,or one o f the schoo l s o f the people bel ieving in the
transmigration of sou l s,or the school o f the Maimfiniyah
o f the Khawarij who al low marriage with one’s daughter
’
s
daughter or one’s son ’s daughter,or fo l low the school o f the
Yazidiyah from amon g the Ibadiyah with thei r teachingthat the law o f Islam will be abrogated at the end of time ,or i f he permits as law ful what the text o f the Koran forbids
,or forbids that which the text o f the Ko ran al lows as
law ful,and which does not admit of differing interpretation ,
such an one does not belong to the Ummat al- Islam ,nor
should he be esteemed . But i f hi s heresy i s like the heresyo f the Mu
‘tazilites
,or the Khawarij , or the Réfidah of the
29
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
Imam iyah,or the Zaidiyah heresies, or of the heresy of the
Naj jariyah, or the Jahmiyah, or the Darériyah,or the Mu
jassimah,then he would be of the Ummat al—Islam in some
respects , namely : he would be entitled to be buried in the
graveyard of the Moslems , and to have a share in the tributeand booty which i s procured by the true believers in warwith the idolators provided he fights wi th the true beli evers .
Nor should he be prevented from praying in the mosques.
But he i s not of the Ummat in other respects , namely thatno prayer should be al lowed over his dead body, nor behindhim ( to the grave ) ; moreover any animal slaughtered by
him i s not lawful food , nor may he marry an orthodox
Moslem woman . It i s also not lawful for an orthod ox man
to marry one of their women i f she partake of thei r belie f .‘Ali ibn abi-Télib said to the Khawarij There are three
things binding upon us,that we should not start fighting
with you, that we should not forbid you the mosques ofAllah so that you may mention the name of Allah in them ,
and that we should not hinder you from sharing the booty
as. long as your al legiance i s with us . Moreover,Allah
knows best .30
CHAPTER I I
TH E DIVISION IN TO SECTS
Contains an explanation of the manner in which the
Ummat differed,tog ether with an enumeration of the num
ber of its 73 sects .
At the death of the prophet,the Moslems followed one
path in the fundamental principles. of religion and its de
duced corollari es,except in the case of those who agreed in
public but in private were hypocrites . The first disagreement came when the people disagreed over the death of theprophet . Some among them asserted that he had not died,and that Allah had only wished to rai se him to himself as
he had rai sed ‘Isé ibn-Maryam to himsel f . This difference
ceased, and all were agreed upon his. death,when abfi-Bakr
al- Siddik brought to them the words of Allah to his
Prophet : Veri ly thou shalt die, and they shal l die .
”He
sai d to them : Whoever worshipped Muhammad , veri ly
Muhammad is dead ; whoever worshipped the Lord O f Mu
hammad , lo veri ly he is l iving and dieth not . Then theydiffered over the Prophet’s place of burial , the people of
Mecca wishing the body to be taken to M ecca because thatwas his birthplace , the place of his cal ling, the place to
which he turned in prayer,the place o f hi s family, and
there i s the grave of hi s ancestor Ishmael ; while the peopleo f al—Madinah wished him to be buried in that city because
that was the home of hi s fl ight and the home of hi s H elpers.
O thers desi red the body to be taken to the Holy Land
and be buried in Jerusalem by the grave of his ancestor,Abraham the beloved . This difference , however, ceased
when abu-Bakr al~Siddik related to them on the authority3 1
MOSLEM SCHLSMS AND SECTS
o f the Prophet : Veri ly the prophets are buried where
they die .
” They therefore buried him in hi s chamber inal-Madinah . After thi s they differed over the Imamate.
The H elpers (Ansar ) agreed to acknow ledge Sa‘d ibn
‘
Ubadah al-Khazraj i . But the Kur'ai sh said : The Im'
a
mate must not be,save among the Kurai sh . Then the
Ansars agreed with the Kurai sh because of the saying o f
the Prophet relating to them :“The Imams are o f the
Kura ish . But thi s point o f difference has lasted ti ll thi sday,
for the Darar or the Khawérij held that the Imamcould come from others than the Kuraish . The next differ
ence arose o ver the affai r o f Fadak ,1and o ver the inheri
tance Of property left by prophets . The deci sion o f Abri
Bakr settled this. matter by the tradition coming from the
prophet , Veri ly the prophets do not bequeath anything .
”
They then diff ered o ver the v iew as to what cancel s the ob
l igation o f alms . But they final ly agreed to the j udgment
of Abi'
I—Bakr concerning the duty of thei r warfare . A fterthi s they busied themsel ves making war upon Tulaihah 2
when he declared himsel f a prophet and rebelled , unti l hewas dri ven to Syria . In the days o f ‘Umar he returned to
Islam and was present with Sa‘d ibn Abi -W’
akkas at the
battle o f al-Radi siyah,and a fter that at the battle Of Naha
wand , where he was killed as a martyr . A fter this theymade war on Musailamah
,the fal se prophet
,unti l Allah
put an end to his affai r and to the affair o f Sajah the falseprophetess
, and also to the affai r of al—Aswad ibn-Zai d al‘Anasi . This o ver
,they turned to the ki lling of the rest of
the apostates,unti l Allah ended that affai r . After thi s they
made war on the Greeks and Persians . And Allah granted
them v ictory . During all thi s time they were agreed upon
1 Jew ish villag e conquered by Muhammad .
2 Ibn~Haj ar , B iog raphical D ictionary ofPersons who knewM ohammed,
vol. ii, p . 596 .
32
THE DIVISION INTO SSECTS
such questions as ethics, the unity O f God,promises and
threats, and other fundamental principles of rel igion . Theyd iffered only over the appli cation of the F ikh [ religiouscanon] , in the cases such as inheritance of the grandfather
with brothers, and s i sters with fathers and mothers or with
the father alone ; over questions concerning j ustice, consan
g uinity and partnership returns,and whether si sters can be
residuary legatees o f the father and the mother, or the
father with hi s daughter,or the daughter o f a son . They
a l so differed as. to the line o f relationship and the question
o f what i s forbidden, and such simi lar question s
,differ
ences which do not lead to doctrinal error or immoral acts .
They were in thi s concord in the days o f Abu Bakr and‘Umar and during six years o f the cal iphate of ‘
Uthmén .
After thi s they differed over ‘Uthmén for certain things
which he did , for which some blamed him ,thi s blame cul
minating in hi s punishment by death . And after hi s murderthey differed over hi s assassins and those who abandoned
him,a divergence o f Opinion that has lasted unti l thi s day.
Their next point o f difference was over the affai r of ‘Ali andthe Followers of the Camel
,over the affai r of Mu‘awiyah
and the people of Siffin,over the j udgment of the two
j udges,ab -Mfisé
’
t al and‘Amr ibn- al-
‘Asi ; these
differences also have endured down to our time . In the
time of the later Companions there arose the divergent
v i ews o f the Kadariyah as to predestina tion and free wi l l ,from the views of Ma
‘bad al- Juhani and of Ghailan al
Dimashki and of Ja‘d ibn-D i rham . Among the later Com
panions who differed from them was‘Abdal lah ibn-
‘Umar,Jabi r ibn-
‘Abdal lah and abu-Hurairah,and ibn-
‘Abbas,and
Anas ibn-Mal ik and‘Abdal lah ibn-abi -Aufi and
‘Ukbah
ibn-
‘Amir al- Juhani and thei r contemporaries . These en
j oined their successors not to greet the Hadariyah,nor to
pray over their bod ies,and not to visi t thei r sick . After
33
MOSLEM SCHIS‘MS ANID SECTS
thi s the Khawarij differed over some things among them
selves,and they separated into as many as twenty divi sions
,
each of them condemning the rest as unbelievers . Then it
came to pass in the days of al -Hasan al- Basri that Wasi l
ibn—‘Ata al—Ghazzal seceded over the matter o f predestina
tion, and also in regard to a middle position between two
extremes,and
‘Amr ibn—‘Ubaid ibn-Bab went Over to him
with hi s heresy . Al—Hasan drove them both from hi s im
mediate community,and they separated from the rest
,tak
ing thei r place beyond the columns of the mosque of al
Basrah . They and thei r fo llowers were cal led Mu‘tazilah
because of their turning from the words of the Ummah intheir assertions that a transgressor can be of the Ummat al
Islam and yet neither a believer nor an unbeliever .
Now as to the Rawafid ( or Shia ) : The Sabbabiyah2
among them started thei r heresy in the time of ‘Ali . One
of them sai d to ‘Ali
,Tho-u art a God,
”and
‘Ali destroyed
some of them by fire,and banished ibn- Saba to Sabat al
Mada’in . This. sect i s not one of the divisions of the Ummat
al- Islam,because it call s ‘
Ali a g od . Then the Rawéfid,after the time o f ‘
Ali separated into four classes,the Zaid
iyah,the Imémiyah,
the Kaiséniyah and the Ghulét. These
in turn further subdivided,each sect condemn ing the rest .
All of the subdivi sions of the Ghulat are outside of the pale
o f Is lam . But the subdivisions of the Zaidiyah and of the
Imémiyah are sti l l considered among the sects of the Um
mah . The Naj jériyah in the neighborhood of al-Rai sep
arated a fter the time o f al- Za‘farani into sects which con
1 Shahrastani incorrectly has Wafzil.
1 Saba’
iyah— became Sabbabiyah ( denouncers ) because of their attitude
toward ‘Ali . Ibn-Saba was said to be a J ew,
“outwardly con fessing
Islam in order to beg uile its adherents .
”Ibn-Hazm
,Kitab al-M ilal
'
wa’
l-N ihal, tr . in part by I. Friedlander , J . A. O . S .,vol. xxviii, p , 37.
Treated more fully by Shahrastani , Haarbriicker,vol. i, p . 200.
34
MOSLEM SCHIISIMS ANID SECTS
al- Shumaitiyah, al-‘Ammériyah, al
- Ismi‘iliyah, al
-Mubarakiyah
,al—Musawiyah, al
-Kita‘iyah,
the Ithna ‘Asahriyah ( the
Twelvers ) , al-H ishamiyah, the followers of H i sham ibn- al
Hakam,or of H ishém ibn- Sal im al—Jawaliki , al-Zarariyah ,
followers of Zararah ibn—A‘yun,al- Y finusiyah followers of
Y finus al-Kummi, al—Shaitaniyah followers of Shai tan al
Tar, al-Kémiliyah followers of abfi-Kam i l, who was the
most severe in condemn ing ‘Ali and the rest of the Com
panions . These are the twenty sects Springing from theRawéfid ; o f these , three are Zaidiyah and two Kaiséniyah,
with fifteen sects of the Imamiyah .
The Ghulat among them,however
,who hold to the divine
character of the Iméms and sanction those things forbidden
o f the Canon law and reject its Obligatory character,as for
example the Bayéniyah,the Mug hiriyah,
the Janahiyah, the
Mansuriyah,the Khattabiyah
,the Halfiliyah , and those who
ho ld similar views , are not of the sects o f Islam although
they claim adherence to i t . These we shal l mention in a
separate part following this one .
Now when differences arose among the Khawérij they
Split up into the twenty following sects : The first Muhak
kimah,the Azarika h
,the Najadét, the Sifriyah,
the ‘Aja
ridah , the latter splitting up into numerous sects , namely
the Khéz imiyah,the Shu‘aibiyah,
the M a‘lumiyah ,
the Majhfiliyah,
the Ma‘badiyah ,
the Rashidiyah,the Mukarram
iyah,the Hamziyah , the Ibrahimiyah , the Wakifah, and the
Abadiyah who in turn split into the Haf siyah , the Hari thiyah
,the Yazidiyah , and the Fo l lowers of Obedience which
i s not intended for Allah ; of these the Yazidiyah are the
followers o f ibn-Yazid ibn-Unai s, and are not o f the sects
of Islam because they say that the law of Islam will become annulled at the end o f time by a prophet sent from
Persia . The same i s the case of the ‘Ajaridah, of whom
there i s a sect cal led the M aimuniyah,which was not of the
36
THE DIVISION INT-O SECTS
sects O f Is lam because it sanctioned the marriage with
daughters of daughters and with daughters of sons j ust asthe Magians sanction it . We will mention the Yazidiyahand the Maimuniyah among those who are derived fromI slam
,but are not of i t
,nor of its sects .
The Kadariyah,the departers from truth
,Split up into
twenty sects,each one condemning the rest . These are
thei r names : the Wasi liyah , the‘Amriyah
,the Hudhailiyah,
the Nig émiyah, the Amwariyah,the ‘Umariyah , the Thu
mamiyah, the Jahiziyah, the Hayitiyah,the Himariyah,
the
Khaiyéttiyah,
1 the Sahémiyah,the fo l lowers of Salih Kub
bah,the Mfiwaisiyah, the Ka
‘biyah,the Jubba’iyah , the
Bahshamiyah,who were founded by abii—Héshim ibn- al
Jubba’
i . These are the twenty- two sects ; two of them do
not belong to the sects of Islam , i . e. the Hayitiyah and the
H imariyah . We shal l mention them among the sects whi chare derived from Islam but do not belong to it .
Three classes are to be di stinguished among the Mur
j i’
ah : one of these classes believes in disobedience in mat
ters of fai th and in predestination , according to the beli e f
of the Kadariyah. They are there fore counted among the
Kadariyah and the Murj i’
ah like abt'
i - Shimr al-Murj i’
,
Muhammad ibn- Shabib al-Basri and al-Khal idi . The sec
ond of these classes believes in disobedience in matters of
fai th , but are incl ined toward the Vi ew of Jahm as to deeds
and works . These are all Jahmiyah and Murj i’
ah. The
third class accepted the view in regard to di sobedience , but
did not accept the doctrine of predestination . It formed
five sects : the Y finusiyah,the Ghasséniyah, the Thaubfin
iyah,the Taumaniyah, and the Marisiyah . The Najjér
iyah comprise to—day in the city of al-Rai more than ten
sects, although they are original ly no more than three sects :
1 Haarbrucker’
s Shahrasténi , vol. i, p . 79 .
37
MOSLEM SCHIlSlMS AND SECTS
the Burghuniyah, the Za‘faraniyah,
and the Mustadrikah.
The Bakriyah and the Dirariyah each form one sect . Theydo not have numerous followings . The Jahmiyah al so
form one sect . The Karémiyah in Khurz'
tsan form three
sects, the Hakakiyah,the Taraikiyah, and the Ishékiyah .
These three sects,however
,do not condemn each other .
=We therefore regard them all as a s ingle sect . All these
tha t we have mentioned make up the seventy- two sects ; of
them twenty are Rawéfid, twenty Khawarij , twenty Kadariyah and ten Murj i
’
ah ; three o f them are Naj jariyah ,including the Bakriyah and the Dirz
’
i riyah,the Jahmiyah
and the Karramiyah ; and these are the 72 sects . The 73d
sect,the orthodox , i s composed of the two classes of the
theori sts and the traditional i sts,except those who deal
l ightly with tradition . The legal i sts of these two groups
and the Koran readers,traditional i sts
,and the phi losophers
among the followers of tradition, all are united in the one
Opinion as to the unity of the creator and hi s attributes , his
j ustice and his wisdom,hi s names and his qual ities ; also in
regard to prophecy and Imamate,and the doctrines of retri
bution . and the rest o f the fundamental s Of rel igion . They
differ only over that which i s permitted and that which i s
forbidden in the deductions fro-m the fundamental doctrines .In the things in which they differ there is nothing that can
cause them to err,or lead them astray. They form the
[great ] body of those who will be saved . They are united
by the firm belie f in the unity of the creator and in hi seternity
,the eternity of his unending attributes , the poss i
bility o f having visions o f H im,without fal ling into the
error of anthropomorphism or atheism, and in acknowledg
ing the books of Allah and hi s prophets,the authority of the
law of Islam,the permitting of that which the Koran per
mits and the forbidding of that which the Koran forbids ,as well as the holding o f those traditions of the prOplIets o f
38
THE DIVISION INTO SECTS
Allah which are trustworthy,the bel ief in the last day and
the resurrection,the questioning of the two angels in the
g rave , and the belie f in the pool (ml-ham!) and the balance .
1
He who holds the above-mentioned doctrines,not mixing
w i th hi s beli e fs any of the heresies. of the Khawarij , and
the Raficliyah and the Kadar’
iyah and the rest of the un
orthodox ; such a one belongs to those who are to be saved ;may Allah preserve him in hi s bel i e f . The maj ority of the
Mohammedans are of thi s character,the greater number of
whom are of the followers of Mal ik and Shafi‘i,and abu
Hanifah and al-Auza‘i and al-Thauri and the Ahl al- Zahi r .
This then explains what we desired to explain in thi s part .
In the part which fol lows we shal l mention the divi sion s of
the Opinion of each sect of the heretical sects which we have
mentioned,so i t please Allah.
1 Sarah 108,1-3 ; Sarah 42, 6 ; 21, 47.
39
PART III
AN explanation of the various Opinions of the heretical
sects and a detai led explanation of the heresies of each sect.
This chapter contains eight sections,of which the following
are the titles
I . An explanation of the opinions of the sects of the
Rafidah.
An explanation of the opinions. of the sects of the
Khawarij .
An explanation of the Opinions of the sects of the
Mu‘tazilah and the Kadariyah.
An explanation of the opinions of the sects of the
Dirariyah, Bakriyah and Jahmiyah .
V . An explanation of the opinions of the sect o f the
Karamiyah .
An explanation of the Opinions of the anthropornOr
phists, found among the numerous sects which we
have mentioned .
1
In each of these chapters we shal l mention what it is
necessary to note,so it please Allah .
1 Two left out IV. Murj i’
ah and V . Naj jariyah.
41
MOSLEM SCH IlSiMS AND SECTS
that the Prophet was the one who designated al-Hasan as
Imam after ‘Ali
,and al-Husain after al-Hasan . After this
the Jarudiyah split over the question of the expected Imam .
One of their sects re frained fro-m speci fying any definite
Imam,holding that everyone among the chi ldren of al
Hasan and al-Husain who unsheathes hi s sword and
summons to hi s fai th,he is the Imam .
” Others awai tedMuhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn- al-Hasan ibn-‘Ali ibn- abi
r
I‘alib. They would not bel i eve that he had been slain
,or
that he had died , but claimed that he was the expected
Mahdi who would come to reign over the world . Thi s
group j oined with the Muhammadiyah from the Imamiyahin looking for Muhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn- al-Hasan ibn‘Ali as the expected Imam . Others awai ted Muhammadibn- al-Kasim ,
the master of Talakan ,1and did not bel i eve
in his death . Still others looked for Muhammad ibn-
‘Umar,
the one who appeared in al-Ku fah,refusing to believe that
he was slain or had died . This i s the doctrine of the
Jarudiyah . Their own heresy i s proven by the fact thatthey declared the Compan ions of the Prophet of Allah to
be heretics.
2 . Concerning the Sulaimaniyah2or the Jaririyah from
among them .
These followed Sulaiman ibn—Jarir al-Zaidi , who said
that the Imamate was a matter of conference and could be
confirmed by an agreement between two of the best men inIslam . He went so far as to claim as lawful the Imamate
of a person even when possibly excelled by the other. He,
however,sanctioned the Imamate of abu-Bakr and ‘Umar,
although he claimed that Islam forsook the right path whenit invested them [with the cal iphate] , because
‘Ali was
Shahrastani,Haarbrucker
’
s translation, vol. i, p . 1 79 .
”Long er account in ibid . ,vol. i, p . 180.
44
THE SECTS O F THE RAWAFID
more eligible to the Imamate than they. The sin of their
recog nition , however, did not, according to him ,constitute
heresy or apostacy . Sulaiman ibn- Jarir declared unortho
dox those who reproved him , while the orthodox in turn
cal led Sulaiman ibn- j ari'
r unorthodox because he consid
ered ‘Uthman unorthodox . Allah have mercy on him .
3 . Concerning the Butriyah .
These fo l lowed two men,
1 one of whom was al-Hasan
ibn- $alih ibn-Hai,and the other Kathir al—Munauwa, who
is cal led al-Abtar . They agreed with Sulaiman ibn- Jarir ofthi s group
,differing from him on ly in that they did not
commit themselves about ‘Uthman,neither attacking his
faults nor prai s ing his virtues . O f the followers of Sulaiman ibn-Jarir
,this sect is the best thought of by the ortho
dox . Muslim ibn - al—Haj jaj 2 has cited the tradition of al
Hasan ibn- Sal ih ibn-Hai in his co l lection cal led wl-Sa-hih.
Muhammad ibn- Isma‘i l al- Bukhari'
,
3although not citing
him in his ail-Sahib ,does say in hi s work entitled a:l- Ta
’
rikh
al-Kabt‘
r that al-Hasan ibn~$alih ibn-Hai al-Kurfi was the
pupi l o f Sammak ibn—Harb and died in the year 167 . He
was from the border- l ine o f Hamadhan and his surname
was abu-
‘Abdal lah .
‘Abd- al-Kahir says : These Butriyah and Sulaimaniyah
from among the Zaidiyah,all of them cal led the Jarudiyah ,
of the Zaidiyah,unorthodox , because they affirmed the
heresy of abu- Bakr and ‘Umar. The Jarudiyah affirmed theSulaimaniyah and Butriyah heretics because they le ft uncon
demned the heresy of aha-Bakr and ‘Umar . Our sheikh ,abfi- l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari ,
4 in one o f his treati ses tel ls o f a
section of the Zaidiyah cal led the Y a‘kfibiyah, followers of
1 Shahrasténi makes these two sects.
9 De Slane,Ibn-Khallikan, vol. iii, p . 348.
3 Ibid .,vol. ii, p . 594.
4 Ibid .,vol. 11, p . 227 .
45
MOS-LEM SCH I-SIMS AND SECTS
a man called Y a‘kfib
,and states that they had accepted abu
Bakr and ‘Umar,but they did not reject those who rej ected
the cal iphate of the two latter . ‘Abd- al-Kahi r says that three
of the sects of the Zaidiyah that we have mentioned agreedon the view that those who commit maj or sins within Islam
would be forever in hel l fire . In regard to thi s they re
semble the Khawarij,who give no hope o f Allah’s grace to
pri soners of sin even though they be believers,whereas none
but the unbelievers need real ly despai r of the spirit 1 of
Allah . These three sects and their followers are cal ledZaidiyah because of thei r acceptance of the Imamate of
Zaid ibn-
‘Ali ibn- al-Hasan ibn-
‘Ali
’
ibn- abi—Talib , in his
time and the Imamate of his. son,Yahya ibn- Zaid , after
him . Zaid ibn-
‘Ali
'
was recognized as Imam by fi fteen
thousand men of the people of al—Ku fah who went withhim against the governor of al- ‘Irak
,Yusuf ibn-
‘Umar alThakafi , governor Over the two
‘Irak s under H i sham ibn‘Abd—al-Mal ik . And when the war between him and
Yusuf ibn-
‘Umar al—Thakafi had lasted some time , theysaid unto him : We will help thee against thine enemies
after thou hast told us thy views regarding aha-Ba kr and‘Umar who were unj ust to thine ancestor ‘Ali ibn—abi-Tal ib .
Zaid said : I say naught against them except good ,and I
have never heard my father say anything except good of
them,and I have set out against the Banu Umaiyah only
because they fought against my ancestor al-Husain and
attacked al-Madinah on the day of al-Harrah . They then
demolished the Bei t Allah with bal l i sta and fire . Where
upon they deserted him [Zai d ] , who sai d to them :“ Do
you desert me al so ?” And from this day on they were
called the Rafidah [Deserters ] . There then remained
with him Nasr ibn-Harimah al-‘Ansi and Mu‘awiyah ibn
1 The Arabic word used, denotes wind which bring s relief .46
THE SECTS OF THE RAWAFID
I shak ibn-Yazid ibn-Harithah with about two hundred men,
and they fought the army of Y usuf ibn-
‘Umar al-Thakafl
unti l they were all ki lled , including Zaid . He was after
wards exhumed,crucified , and burned . H is son Yahya ibn
Zai d fled to Khurasan, and rebel led in the district of Juza
jan against Nasr ibn- Bashshar,the governor of Khurasan ,
who sent against him Muslim ibn-Ahwaz al-Mazini with
three thousand men, and they ki lled Yahya ibn-Zaid . H is
shrine in Jazajan is. famous . ‘Abd- al-Kahir says that theRawafid o f al-Ku fah are remarkable for perfidy and stinginess
, so that a proverb has become current in regard to
these qual ities among them and the saying has grown up :More stingy than a Kufite and more perfidious.
” Three
instances of thei r perfidy have become widely known . F i rst,
after the s laying of "Ali
,they recognized al-Hasan his . son,
but when he went to fight against Mu‘awiyah , they seizedhim by treachery in Sabat al-Mada’in and Sanan al-J a
‘fi ,one of their number
,pierced his side and threw him
from his horse ; and thi s. was one o f the reasons for
the peace made with Mu‘awiyah
.The second instance of
their perfidy was that they wrote to al-Husain ibn-‘Ali
'
and
invited him to come to al-Kufa so that they should help
him against Yazid ibn-Mu‘awiyah . He allowed himsel f to
be deceived by them, and accepted thei r invitation
,but
when he reached Karbela’,they seized him
'
by treacheryand made common cause with ‘
Ubaidallah ibn-Ziyad so that
al—Husain was kil led in Karbila’
,together with many of
hi s family . Their thi rd perfidy was against Yazid ibn-
‘Ali
ibn- al-Husain ibn-
‘Ali
'
ibn- abi—Talib,for after going out
with him against Yusuf ibn-‘Umar they broke thei r word
to him [Yazid ] , which resulted in his being killed , and
there be fel l what be fell .
4 . Concerning the Kaisaniyah from among the Rawafid.
These are the fol lowers of al-Mukhtar ibn-abi -‘Ubaid
47
iMOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
al -Thakafi 1 who undertook to avenge the death of al
Husa in ibn-
‘Ali ibn- abi-Tal ib . He ki l led most of those who
had killed al—Husain at Karbila’
. He was al-Mukhtar,but
he was called Kai san . It i s reported that he took his opin
ions from a freedman who belonged to ‘Ali whose name
was Kai san .
2 The Kaisaniyah Spl it up into sects , to whichtwo Opinions are common ; one of them is the Imamate ofMuhammad ibn- al-Hanafiyah, whom al-Mukhtar ibn- abi‘Ubaid was accustomed to champion . The second [upon
which they agreed ] was that Allah might have had a be
ginning . Because o f thi s heresy everyone who does not
accept this doctrine about Allah,accuses them of being un
o rthodox . These Kaisaniyah split over the Imamate of
Muhammad ibn- al—Hanafi'
yah . Some of them claimed that
he became Imam after hi s father ‘Ali ibn- abi -Tal ib , prov
ing thi s by the fact that ‘Ali
,at the battle of the Camels,
gave over the banner to him,
1and said : “ [Carrying this ,
attack ] as thy father would attack, then thou wilt be prai sed .
There i s no good in war which does not rage .
” O thersheld that the Imamate after ‘
Ali went to his son al-Hasan ,then to al-Husain
,after al-Hasan , and then passed over to
Muhammad ibn- al-Hanaf iyah after hi s brother al-Husain ,by the last wil l of hi s brother al-Husain , at the time when
he fled from al-Madi’
nah to Mecca,when his al legiance was
sought for Yazid ibn—Mu’awiyah . This resulted in the
splitting off of those who hold to the Imamate of Muham
mad ibn- al-Hanafiyah . Some o f those who are cal led al
Karibiyah are followers of abu-Karib al-B arir and claim
that Muhammad ibn- al-Hanafiyah is l iving and did not die ,that he is in Mt . Radwa , and near him is a fount o f water
A . O .
'S .,vol. xxix
,p . 33 . Shahrastani g ives two sects,
Kaiséniyah and Mukhtariyah . This sect is sometimes even classed
under the Imamiyah . Cf. Ibn -Hazm’
s division .
2 Ibn-Khallikan,De Slane
,vol. ii, p . 5 77 .
48
THE SECTS O F THE RAWAFID
and a fount of honey,from which he derives hi s sustenance ,
while at his right,a l ion ,
and at hi s le ft a panther guard
him from his. enemies unti l the time of his appearance .
‘
He is the expected Mahdi . The rest o f the Kaisaniyah be
l i eve in the death of Muhammad ibn- al-Hanafiyah but disagree about the Imam who should succeed him . There were
some of them who claimed that the Imamate a fter him re
verted to the son o f his brother,‘Al
'
i ibn- al—Husain Zain
al-‘Abidin
,while others hold that after him it should revert
to abu-Hashim ‘Abdal lah ibn-Muhammad ibn-al-Hanafiyah,
so these spli t over the Imam to succeed abu—Hashim . Some
trans fer the Imamate to abii -Muhammad ibn-
‘Ali ibn
‘Abdal lah ibn-
‘Abbas ibn-‘Abd- al-Muttalib
,because abu
Hashim wi lled it to him . This latter is the view of the
Rawandiyah . Others claimed the Imamate after abu
Hashim went to Bayan ibn- Sim‘an
, and they hold that the
spirit o f Allah was. in abfi-Hashim,and passed over from
him to Bayan . While some claimed that thi s spiri t passed
from aha-Hashim to ‘Abdal lah ibn-
‘Amr ibn-Harb . Thi s
sect claims the divine character of the latter . As to the
Bayaniyah and the Harbiyah,both of them belonging to the
Ghulat sects,we shal l mention them in the section in which
we mention the sects of the Ghulat. Kuthaiyir , the poet ,was o f the school o f the Kaisaniyah who hold that Mu
hammad ibn—al-Hanafiyah i s al ive, and do not believe in his
death . He says in his poem :2
Indeed,the Imams o f the Kuraish, the masters o f truth , are four alike.
‘Ali and his three sons, they are the sires about whom there is
naught hid .
One sire is the sire of faith and piety, and the other sire Karbela
reft from sig ht.
1 On the part o f animals in Messianic ideals see Friedlander, I. A .
O . S.,vol. xxix, p . 37 if .
2 Kitdb al—Ag hdni 8, 32 . Mas‘
udi,Les Prairies d
’
Or, vol. v , p . 182 .
Ibn-Kutaibah ed . De Goeie, p . 329 .
3 Mas'i di g ives it H idden from all sig ht.
49
MOSLEM IS'CHISIMS AND SECTS
And a third does not taste death until he leads the horsemen, thebanner preceding ,
He disappeared and was not seen among them for a season, hidden
in Radwa, near him are honey and water .
” 1
Abd- al-Kahir answers these verses with the words
The masters o f truth are four, but as to the second of the two, his
fame has preceded him,
And Farfik, o f the world,appeared as Imam ,
following him Dhfi'l
Nfinain who met his death .
‘Ali appeared after them as Imam,
in the order in which I have
g iven them.
The decree came from. above, and hateful are they whom we mention
as accursed.
To the fire of hell have they been releg ated, and the sectaries are a
peop le like unto the Christians,
Confused ones,for their con fusion there is no healing .
And Kuthaiyir also sai d about sectari es :2
I am free to g o to Allah, and free from connection with ibn Am i ,
and free from the relig ion o f the Khawarij .And free from ‘
Umar and Abfi-Bakr,at the time when he was declared
emir of the faithful.
These verses we have answered with the following :“Thou art indeed free
, but from Allah , through the hatred of the
people, through whom Allah has kept alive the faithful.And hatred o f thine harms not ibn-Arwa
, the hatred of piety is therelig ion o f the unbelievers.
Aha-Bakr,I rejoice in him as Imam
, despite all the ang er o f the :
Rawafid .
‘Umar, the Fari
‘
ik o f the world , is rightly called the emir of the
faithful.”
[Saiyid says3
]Say to al Wasy : I would g ive my life for thee, thou hast stayed in
this mount a long time,They persecute in the community those of us who follow thee, and.
who proclaim thee caliph and Imam .
1 De Slane,Ibn-Khallikan
,vol. II, p . 577.
2 Ibn-Kutaibah,ibid . ,
p. 3 16. Ibn Arwa : Uthman .
3 Has‘fidi, Les Prairies d
’
Or,vol. v
,p . 182 .
50
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SECTS
told that al-Mukhtar ibn- abi-‘Ubaid was one of those who
had rebelled with Muslim ibn-
‘Aki l . He had then disappeared ,
and when,having been ordered to return
,he came
to ibn-Ziyad,the latter threw a club which was in hi s hand
and cut hi s eye . He then impri soned him . Some of the
people,however
,plead with him in favor of al—Mukhtar, so
that he brought him out o f pri son and said to him : I give
thee three days , and 10 during that time thou shalt g o away
from al-Kufah,el se I wi ll behead thee .
”Al—Mukhtar then
fled from al-Kufah to Mecca,where he swore al legiance to
‘Abdal lah ibn- al—Zubai r,1 remaining with him unti l ibn- al
Zubai r fought the army of Yazid ibn—Mu‘awiyah , whichwas under the command of al-Husain ibn-Numair al- Sukuti .
Al—Mukhtar di stinguished himsel f in these wars against thepeople of Syria . Then Yazid ibn-Mu‘awiyah died
, and the
Syrian army returned to Syria while the command Of al
H i jaz . al—Yaman,al—
‘Irak and Persia remained with ibn- al
Zubai r . Al-Mukhtar hav1ng suffered evi l treatment fromibn—al-Zubai r
,fled to al—Kufah . The governor of thi s city
was at that time ‘Abdal lah ibn—Yazid al-Ansari ,2 under
‘Abdallah ibn- al-Zubai r . When he [al-Mukhtar] entered
al-Kufah he sent his messengers to the sectaries of al
Kufah and i ts districts up to al-Mada’in demanding their
al legiance to him and promising them that he was coming
to claim their revenge for al-Husain ibn-
‘Ali . He invited
them to recognize Muhammad ibn- al-Hanafiyah , claim ingthat al—Hanafiyah had chosen him as cal iph
,and that i t was
he [al-Hanafiyah ] who had commanded them to obey him
[al-Mukhtar] . It was at this time that ibn - al-Zubai r re
moved ‘Abdal lah ibn -Yazid al-Ansari from the governor
ship o f al-Kfifah and put in hi s place ‘Abdal lah ibn-Muti‘
al-‘Adawi . The number o f those who recognized al—Mukh
1 Ibid., vol. iii, p . 6 10 et seq .
”bid , vol. iv, pp . 58, 66, 69 , 81 .
THE [SECTS O F THE RAWAFID
tar1and gathered around him amounted to seventeen thou
sand . Among them was‘Ubaidallah ibn—al-H i rr
,who en
tered into al legiance with him . There was no braver than
al-H i rr in hi s day. Ibrahim ibn-Mal ik al-Ashtar al so
j omed 2al-Mukhtar . Among the secretaries of al-Kufah
there was not a finer one than he, nor one who had
more followers . Al-Mukhtar set out with these men
against the governor of al-Kufah,
‘Abdal lah ibn-Muti‘, who
on that day was at the head O f twenty thousand .
3 The
stri fe between them lasted for sev eral days . At the end Ofthi s time the Zaidiyah were de feated and fled
, and al-Mukh
tar made himsel f governor o ver al-Kufah and its surround
ings . He al so killed all those in al-Kufah who had foughtagainst al-Husain ibn-
‘Ali
'
at Karbila’
. Then he delivered
the khutbah before the people and said : Praise be to
Allah who promised his friend victory and his enemy harm ,
and definitely put both o f them in thi s condition , a final d is
position o f them and a decisi ve settlement . 0 men,we
have heard the invitation o f the preacher and we have
recei ved the View o f the preacher how many tyrants,male
and female, and how many murderers do we recal l ?” 4
Bring hither the servants of Allah to swear al legiance to
the pro-per leader and to fight the enemy
,and lo, I am the
leader of those who mourn,and the investigator of the
murder o f the son of the daughter of the seal of the
prophets . ” He then descended from hi s pulpit and sent a
message by the head of hi s body—guard to the house of‘Umar ibn—Sa‘d 5 to cut off his head . H e then cut off the
1Wellhausen,Relig i
'
o’
s-Politischen Oppositionsparteien im Alien Islam,
pp . 28 et seq .
2 Tabari , Chronique ed . Zotenberg , vol. iv,pp . 81 et seq .
3 Ibid . , vol. iv,pp . 81 et seq.
‘Ibid. , vol. 11, p . 632 .
5 l bid .,vol. iv,
p . 75 et seq .
53
MOSLEM «SICHIS‘MnS AND SECTS
head o f his son Ja‘far ibn-
‘Umar who was the son of thesi ster of al—Mukhtar
, and he said : That i s for the head o f
al—Husain ; and this i s for the head o f the son o f al-Husainthe great .” A fter thi s he sent Ibrahim ibn-Mal ik al-Ashtar
with six thousand men for the battle against ‘Ubaidallah
ibn—Ziyad, who was at that time in al—Mausi l with eighty
thousand o f the Syrian army, over whom‘Abd- al-Malik ibn
l‘d arwan1 had placed him as governor . When the two
armies met at the gate of al-Mausi l,the Syrian army was
put to fl ight and seventy thousand o f them were ki lled on
the field o f battle,including ‘
Ubaidallah ibn—Ziyad and al
Husain ibn—Numair al- Sukuti . Ibrahim ibn- al-Ashtar sent
their heads to al—Mukhtar,who
,when he had succeeded in
becoming governor o f al-Kufah , al- Jaz irah and of al—Mahin
[Persia] as far as the border of Armenia,claimed that he
was a ladkin,who wrote rhymed prose like the rhymed prose
of the Whites . It i s also said that he claimed an inspira
tion had come to him ; and a specimen of his rhymed prose
i s as follows : By him who has sent down the Koran ; and
revealed the Book ; and given the laws for rel igion ; and
who disapproves of di sobedience ; I wil l ki ll al-Nu‘at 2 of
al~Azd and‘Uman
,and of Madhhij and Hamadhan
,and of
Nahd and Khaulan, and o f Bakr and o f Hazzan,and of
Thu‘al and o f Nabhan, and of‘Abs and of Dhubyan ,
and
of Kai s and of‘Ailan .
” Then he said : By the All—hearing
one,the Knowing
,the Mighty
,the Lo fty
,the Powerful
,the
Wise,the Merci ful
,the Compass ionate
,verily I will crush
completely the leaders of the Bani Tahim [TamimThen the news of al-Mukhtar reached ibn—al-Hanafiyah
and he was a fraid o f a religious stri fe,and desired to g o
against al- ‘Irak so that those who bel ieved in his Imamate
should gather around him . Al-Mukhtar,hearing thi s
, was
1 Halal , vol. iv, p . 75 et seq.
I. Goldziher, Abhandlung en zur Arabischen Philolog ie, p .65 .
S4
THE SECTS ‘OF THE RAWAFID
a fraid o f his arrival in al- ‘Irak, for fear he would rob him
of his leaders and governors . So he said to hi s army : I
swear al legiance to the Mahdi , but the Mahdi has a sign,e. g .
,that he shal l be struck by a blow of a sword
, and the
sword shal l not cut hi s skin ; such a man i s the Mahdi .
”
This speech of his was. reported to ibn- al-Hanafiyah, and
he remained in Mecca fearing that al-Mukhtar might ki llhim i f he went to al-Kufah . Then the Sabbabiyah of the
Chulat of the Rafidah tricked al-Mukhtar,and said to him :
Thou art the ultimate authority of thi s ag e.
” 1 And they
persuaded him to claim that he was a prophet . Thi s he did ,asserting among his intimates that a revelation had comedown to him
,whereupon he said in rhymed prose : By
the hurrying of the clouds , and by the heavy punishment ,and by the swi ft reckoning
,and by the rich giver
,and by
the powerful conqueror,v eri ly I shal l open the grave of
ibn- Shihab,the betrayer
,the liar
,the unbeli eving sinner .
Again,by the Lord of the two worlds
, and by the Lord of
the fai th ful land , veri ly I wi l l ki l l the hateful poet , the rails
[ raid s-metre] poet of the heretics , and the friends of the
heretics,and the supporters of the unrighteous
,and the
brothers of satans,who gathered together for worthless
obj ects,and forged tales against me . Hai l to those of
prai seworthy character ; and of good deeds and of ready
thought,and fortunate soul .” After thi s he preached and
said in his khutbah : Prai se be unto Allah , who has made
me a knowing one, and has enlightened my heart . By Allah ,veri ly I wi l l burn the dwell ing places in thi s region . And
verily I wil l Open the graves there . And veri ly I wi l l save
some of them . And Allah i s sufficient as a leader and
helper .
” Then he swore and said : By the ' Lord of the
sacred enclosure,and by the sacred house , and by the hon
1 De Slane, Ibn-Khallikan ,vol. i
,p . 229 ; 11, p . 12 .
5 5
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SECTS
ored corner of the Ka‘bah ,and by the esteemed mosque ,
and by the possessor of the pen ; veri ly a standard wi ll be
rai sed for me from here to Adam ,
1and then to the borders
of Dhi Salam .
” Then he said : Veri ly,by the lord of
heaven,fire shal l be sent down from heaven ; and veri ly i t
3 ,will burn the house of Asma These words reached Asma’
ibn-Kharijah and he said : Abfi- Ishak has attacked me in
rhymed prose and now he will burn my house . So he fled
from his house,and al-Mukhtar sent someone to burn hi s
house during the night,pretending to those around him
that fire from heaven was sent down to burn it . It was after
thi s that the people of al—Ku fah went out against al-Mukhtar for posing as a kahia
zThe Sabbabiyah gathered
around him,together with the slaves of the people of al
Kufah,because he had promised to gi v e them the possessions
of thei r masters . And he fought with them against those
who had gon e out against him,conquering them and kil l ing
most o f them ; the rest he took pri soner, and among thesewas a man cal led Surakah ibn-Mirdas al-Bariki ; he was
brought to al-Mukhtar, and fearing that the latter wouldorder his death
,he said to those who imprisoned him and
brought him to al-Mukhtar Y e are not the ones who
have taken us prisoners,nor are ye the ones that have de
feated us. with your force ; on the contrary, i t i s the angelswho have de feated us
,the angels whom we saw on mottled
horses above your so ldiers . Al-Mukhtar admired his
words, and freed him ,
whereupon he went to Mus‘ab ibn
al- Zubai r in al- Basrah,and from there he wrote these verses
to al-Mukhtar : 3
1Wide valley in al-Hi j az . Cf. Muller, al-Hamadani : Geog raphic! der
Arabischen H albz’
nsel, p . 171 .
9 Abfi'l-Mahasin
, vol. i, p . 198, ed. Juynboll.
3 Variants in Kitzib al-Ag ham’
, vol . vii , p . 32 . Cf. Dinawari , Kitdb al
Akhba‘
r al- Tiwd l,p . 309 . Pub. by Vladimir Giurg ass.
56
THE SECTS (OF THE JRA'VVAFID
LO , tell abi- Ishak that I have seen silent the mottled black [horses]I show my eyes what neither o f them sees, and what they both believe
to be an invention .
I denounce your revelation,and take a vow to fight you until death.
In what we have here recounted i s to be found the reason
o f al-Mukhtar’s posing as a kahin, and claiming a revelationfor himsel f . As to the reason for hi s words claiming thatAllah may have had a beginning
,the following incident ex
plains it . When Ibrahim ibn- al-Ashtar heard that al-M ukh
tar was posing as a kdhin and claim ing insp-iration for him
sel f,he ceased hi s help and governed tue territory of Meso
potamia for himsel f . When Mus‘ab ibn- al-Zubai r learned
that Ibrahim ibn- al—Ashtar had deserted al-Mukhtar,he
longed to subdue al-Mukhtar . In this,he was j o ined by
‘Ubaidallah ibn—al-H i rr al- Ju
‘afi and Muhammad ibn—al
Ash‘ath al-Kindi
,
1as. well as most of the leaders o f al
Ku fah,who were i rritated against al-Mukhtar for having
seized thei r po ssessions and slaves ; the latter inciting Mus‘ab
to covet the seizure of al-Kufah by force . Mus‘ab set forth
from al- Basrah with seven thousand men o f hi s own,in ad
dition to those leaders of al-Kufah who had made common
cause with him . As commander over the van of his army
he set al—M uhal lah ibn- abu- Sufrah 2 with his following ofthe Azd . The command of the caval ry he gave to ‘Ubai
dal lah ibn—Ma‘mar 3 al-Taimi . Over the Tamimite cavalry
he placed al-Ahnaf ibn-Kai s . 4 When news of them reached
al-Mukhtar,he sent out hi s commander Ahmad ibn- Shumait
to fight Mus‘ab with three thousand picked soldiers , telling
them that the victory would be thei rs . He claimed that a
revelation had come to him concerning thi s . The two
1Tabari , ibi
'
d ., vol. v , p . 97 .
Ibid .,vol. iv,
p . 97.
3 ] blah,vol. iii, pp . 5 13 , 563 .
‘Ibid .,vol . iii, p . 449 et seq .
57
MOSLEM IS‘CHIStMS AND SECTS
armies met at al-Mada’in,and the fol lowers of al—Mukhtar
were put to fl ight,and their emir, ibn- Shumait, was killed ,
tog ether with most of al-Mukhtar’s leaders . And the rem
nant returned to al-Mukhtar and said to him : Why dids-t
thou promise us victory over our enemies ?” And he saidIndeed
,Allah has promised this to me , but he suddenly
changed his mind .
”He went on to prove thi s regarding
Allah with the words o f the Koran : What he pleaseth
will God abrogate or confirm .
” 1 And this i s how the
Kaisaniyah came to believe that Allah may have had a be
ginn ing .
Al-Mukhtar then took upon himsel f the ki ll ing of Mus‘ab
ibn al-Zubai r in al-Madhar 2 in the region of al-Ku fah . And
in thi s engagement Muhammad ibn- al-Ash‘ath al-Kindi was
kil led . Al-Mukhtar said : H is death pleases me because
he i s the on ly one remaining of those who kil led al—Husain ,and now I am not afraid of death .
” A fter thi s al—Mukhtarand hi s al l ies were put to fl ight
,and they fled to the resi
dence of the Imam in al-Ku fah,and fortified themselves in
it wi th four hundred followers . And Mus‘ab besieged them
three days unti l thei r food gave out,and on the fourth day
they made a sal ly, seeking death , and were slaughtered , and
al—Mukhtar was ki lled with them . Two brothers cal led
Tar-ii and Tari f ki lled him ; they were the sons of
‘Abdal lah
ibn—Dajajah of the Banu Hanifah . A‘sha Hamdan 3 says
about them :
I have prophesied, and the prophets have g ained renown,
Through the evil thing s that happened in al-Madhar,
And I am naturally not pleased with the destruction of my peopleEven i f it happened
,for they were in an evil strait.
But I rejoice over that which abn- Ishak suffers, through mortificationand shame.
”
Surah , 13 , v . 39 .
1 Y akfit, vol. iv,p . 468.
i Kitdb al-Ag hani, vol. v , pp . 146 - 161 .
58
MOSLEM SCHISlVLS AND SECTS
Allah imprisoned him there,and hid him from the eyes of
men, as a punishment for the sins which they attributed to
him,unti l he i s bidden to come forth . And he i s the ex
pected Mahdi .
5 . Concerning the Imamiyah of the Rafidah .
These are the Imamiyah who divided off from the Zaidiyah , the Kaisaniyah, and the Ghulat into fifteen sects : 1
the Kamiliyah,the Muhammadiyah
,the Bakiriyah,
the
Nawisiyah, the Shamitiyah,the ‘Amariyah
,the Isma‘i liyah ,
the Mubarakiyah,the Mfisawiyah,
the Kati‘iyah,the Twelv
ers ( Ithna‘Ashariyah ) , the H ishamiyah,
the Zarariyah ,
the Y finusiyah, and the Shaitaniyah .
a . Concerning the Kamiliyah from among them
These are the fo l lowers o f a man from the Rafidah whowas known as abi
'
i -Kamil .2 He claimed that the Compau
ions were unorthodox because they forsook their allegianceto ‘Ali
, and he condemned‘Ali for ceasing to fight them
,as
he was bound to fight the people of Siffin . Bashshar ibn
Burd,
3 the blind poet,belonged to thi s school . The report
is that someone sai d to him : What i s thy Opinion regarding the Companions ?” And he replied that they were un
orthodox . He was then asked : And what i s thy Opinion
of‘Ali And he quoted the words of the poet : 4
What is the evil of the three caliphs O Umm ‘Umar
Ag ainst thy friend who does not accompany us ?”
1 Ibn-Hazm is vag ue as to divisions.
‘Shahrastani g ives the ‘Imamiyah
alone ; under the Bakiriyah ,and Ja‘far iyah
,he g ives the Nawisiyah,
Aftahiyah,Shamitiyah, M fisawiyah ,
Isma‘i liyah and Twelvers.
2 Shahrastani , ibid ., vol. i, p . 201 .
3 Brockelmann,Arabische Literatur , vol i , p . 73 . Von Kramer, Ka ltur
g eschichtliche S treifzilg e, pp . 37 et seq . Goldziher,Muhammedanisclze
S tadien, p . 162 . Ibn-Kutaibah, Kita‘
b al-Shi‘r,ed . Cairo ,
p . I! .
4 Ks'
tab al-Ag ham‘
,vol. iii, pp . 19 -72 ; vol. vi, pp . 47- 52 .
60
THE S ECTS lOF THE RAWAFID
It i s also reported that to thi s sin o f condemning the Com
panions and ‘Ali among them ,
Bashshar added two other
sins : one the belie f that the dead would return to the world
before the day of resurrection , as the parti sans of the Re
turn 1 hold among the Rafidah , and the other,that Satan
i s right in preferring fire to earth . As a proof of thi s they
gave the views o f Bashshar in one of hi s poems :
The earth is dark and fire is lig ht,And fire has been worshipped since it existed .
To this Safwan al-Ansari replied in the fol lowing poem :
Thou didst think that fire was the finest thing as to its orig in,
And upon the earth it is lig hted by means o f stone and fire- stick,And wonder ful th ing s were formed in its innermost parts which can
not be counted in line or in number .
And in the very depths o f the seas there are useful thing s.
Y ou blame the moons, even thoug h you are deformed,and nearest
among the creations o f Allah , to the g enus ape.
”
Hammad 2 ‘Ajrad satarized Bashshar and said :
O,thou who art viler than an ape, even when the ape is blind.
It i s repo rted,however
,that Bashshar was untroubled by
the sati re in thi s verse, and merely replied :
“Let him see me and’ describe me
,
O nly may I not see and describe him.
‘Abd al-Kahir says : “ I declare these Kami liyah unortho
dox for two reasons . Fi rst because they condemn all of
the Companions without specification,and secondly because
they preferred fire to earth . Some of the disgraceful here
sies of Bashshar ibn-Burd we have mentioned ; and we feel
that Allah has done to him what he deserves , for he sati r
1 Raj‘ah z return as same person . Tandsukh : return as a different
being .
2 Ibu-Kutaibah ed. De Goej e, p . 490.
61
MOSLEM S'CHIS'MS AND SECT S
ized the Mahdi , who there fore commanded him to bethrown into the Tigris
,which is a di sgrace to him in this
world and to his followers, a pain ful punishment in the
next .
b . C oncerning the Muhammadiyah .
1
These expect Muhammad ibn—‘Abdallah ibn- al—Hasan ibn
al-Husain ibn-‘Ali ibn—abi—Talib ; nor do they believe that
he was murdered , nor that he died ; they claim that he is in
Mt . Haj i r,in the district of Naj d , unti l he shal l be com~
manded to return . In the error o f hi s anthrOpomorphistic
ideas al-Mughirah ibn- Sa‘id al—‘Ij li
2 said to his compau
ions : Veri ly the expected Mahdi i s Muhammad ibn—‘Ah
dal lah ibn- al-Hasan ibn-al-Husain ibn As the proof
of thi s he claimed that hi s. name was the same as that of
Muhammad the Prophet of Allah ; and hi s father’s name
was‘Abdal lah like the name of the father of the Prophet of
Allah . And in a had'
ith dating from the time of the Prophet ,he quotes these words about the Mahdi : 2 H is name wi l l
correspond to my name,and his father
’s name to the name
of my father.” And when Muhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn
al-Hasan ibn-al-Husain ibn—‘Ali began hi s preaching in al
Madinah , he made himsel f master of Mecca and al-Madi
nah,while hi s brother 4 Ibrahim ibn-
‘Abdal lah made himsel f
governor of al-Basrah and thei r third brother Idri s ibn‘Abdallah took possession of several of the districts of the
Maghrib .
‘s That was in the time o f the cal iph abu- Ja‘far
al—Mansur, who sent‘Isa ibn-Mfisa with a large army
A. O . S.
,vol. xxix , p . 30. Not to be confused with the Muham
madiyah who believe in the divinity o f Muhammad the Prophet.2 Shahrastani , ibid .,
vol. i, pp . 203 , 2 18.
3 Friedlander, J . A . O . S.
,vol. xxix
,pp . 43 et seq.
‘Tabari , ibid .
, vol. iv, p . 326.
”blah, vol. iv,p . 458 .
62
THE SECTS OF THE RAWAFID
against Muhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn- al-Hasan ibn-al
Husain . They fought and kil led Muhammad in a battle at
al-Madinah . He then sent ‘Isa ibn—Musa to make war on
Ibrahim ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn- al-Hasan ibn-al-Husain ibn-‘Ali .
They killed Ibrahim at the gate of H imrm,sixteen para
sangs from al-Ku fah . It was in thi s sedition that Idris ibn‘Abdal lah ibn—al-Hasan ibn- al-Husain died in al-Maghrib .
They say he was poi soned there . The father of these threebrothers ,
‘Abdal lah ibn- al—Hasan ibn- al-Husain , died in the
jai l of al~Mansfir . H is tomb is in al—Kadisiyah and i s wel l
known and frequented by pilgrims . When Muhammad
ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn- al-Hasan ibn- al-Husain was kil led in al
Madinah,the Mughiriyah divided into two sects , one of
which acknowledged his death and denounced al-Mughirah
ibn-Sa‘id al—‘Ij li . Thi s sect said : Indeed
,he lied when he
said that Muhammad ibn—‘Abdal lah ibn—al-Hasan ibn-al
Husain was the Mahdi who should rule the earth , for he has
been ki lled and does not rule the earth .
” The other sect
persi sted in its adherence to al-Mughirah ibn- Sa‘id al~‘Ij li .
saying : Indeed,he is right in saying that the Mahdi i s
Muhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah ; veri ly he was not ki lled , but has
merely disappeared from the sight of men,and i s on Mt .
Haj i r in the region of Naj d,remaining there unti l he i s
commanded to return . He will return and rule the earth,
and al legi ance will be paid him in Mecca between the corner
of the Ka‘bah and the M ax/1mm .
1 At that time,seventeen
men wi ll be brought to li fe,each one of whom will be g iven
one of the letters from the name of the most Holy, and they
wil l put the armies to fl ight .” These claim that the one
whom the army of‘Isa ibn-Mfisa ki lled in al—Madinah was
not Muhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn- al-Hasan . Thi s sect is
cal led al-Muhammadiyah,because they look for the coming
l Halting place for prayer .
63
MOSLEM S'CHISMlS AND SECTS
o f Muhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn- al-Hasan . Jabir ibn-Yazidal—Ja‘afi belonged to thi s sect . He was wont to speak of
the return of the dead to thi s world before the resurrection .
On thi s subj ect, a poet of thi s sect has said in one of hi spoems :
Up to the day in which men return
To their world before their day of reckoning .
Those who hold our views say to thi s sect : I f you assert
that he who was kil led in al-Madinah was other than Mu
hammad ibn—‘Abdal lah ibn—al-Hasan,and you assert that
the one killed there was Satan transformed into man
in the person o f Muhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn-al-Hasan ,then believe also that those killed at Karbila
’ were other
than al-Husain and his companions,that they were only
devi ls hav ing put on the form o f men in the person o f al
Husain and his companion s ; then look for al-Husain as ye
look for Muhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah ibn- al-Hasan,or then
look for ‘Ali as the Sabbabiyah among you look for him .
They claim that he i s among the clouds , and that the one
whom ‘Abd- al—Rahman ibn-Mulj im ki lled was Satan trans
fo rmed into a man in the person of ‘Ali .
” This shows there
i s no difference between them and him . May Allah be
prai sed for this .
c . Concerning the Bakiriyah among them .
This people trans fer the Imamate from ‘Ali ibn—abi
Talib,through hi s chi ldren to Muhammad ibn-
‘Ali
, the one
who was known as al-Bakir . They say :“Verily,
‘Ali
designated his son al-Hasan for the Imamate ; al-Hasan
designated his brother al-Husain ; al—Husain designated hisson
‘Ali ibn-al—Husain Zain-al- ‘Abidin and Zain- al-
‘Abidin
cal led to the Imamate Muhammad ibn- ‘Ali known as al
Bakir ; they claim that he i s the expected Mahdi , concern64
THE S ECTS OF THE RAWAFID
ing whom i t i s related that the prophet said to Jabir ibn‘Abdal lah al-Ansari 1 Veri ly, thou wilt see him and
greet him from me . Jabir was the last of the Companions to die in al-Madinah . It happened that he was blind
at the end of his li fe,and was wont to go around in al
Madinah exclaiming,O Baki r, O Bakir, when shal l I
meet thee ?” On a certain day he passed through one of
the streets of al~Madinah [page wanting in the
original Ja‘far designated his son Isma‘i l to the
Imamate after him ; when Isma‘i l died during the l i fe of
his father,we learned that he had designated his son merely
to guide the people to choose as Imam his son Muhammad
ibn- Isma‘i l . It i s to thi s view that the Isma‘i liyah of the
Batiniyah inclined . We will mention them later among thesects of the Ghulat.
d . Concerning the sect of the Mfisawiyah from among
them .
These are the ones who trans ferred the Imamate to
Ja‘far . 2 Then they claimed that the Imam after Ja‘far
was hi s son Mfisa ibn- Ja‘far,and they claimed that Mfisa
ibn-Ja‘far 2 was al ive , and not dead,and that he was the
expected Mahdi . They said that he went into the house of
al-Rashid and has not come fo rth from it ; [adding] we aresure o f his Imamate ; but we have doubts of hi s death and
we would not decide on i t without proof . And it was
said to thi s sect which was cal led the Mfisawiyah : I f you
doubt his being al ive and his death , then doubt hi s Imam
ate,and do not assert definitely that he i s in existence and
that he is the expected Mahdi ; all the more so s ince youknow that the burial- place o f Mfisa ibn- Ja‘far i s wel l known
Ibn-Haj ar, Biog raphical Dictionary, vol. i , p . 432 .
De Slane ,Ibn-Khallikan,
vol. i, p . 300.
3 Ibid .,vol. iii, p . 463 .
65
MOSLEM {SCH ISlMS AND SECTS
in the western part of Baghdad , and is vi sited . And thi s .
sect is cal led the Musawiyah because it looks for Musa ibn
] a‘far ; and i t i s al so cal led the M amtiirah because Y finus
ibn-
‘Abd- al—Rahman al-Kummi was among the al—Kati‘iyah,
in a debate with a member of the sect he said the following :Y ou are of les s account in my eyes than the Mamturah
dogs [dogs rained upon] .
e . Concerning the Mubarakiyah .
They desi red the Imamate to g o to the son o f Muham
mad ibn—Isma‘i l ibn - j a‘far 1
as the Batiniyah claim ; but the
genealogists say in their books that Muhammad ibn - Isma‘i l
ibn- Ja‘far died and left no offspring .
f . Concern ing the branch cal led the al-Kati‘iyah from
among them .
These trans ferred the Imamate from Ja‘far al—Sadik to
his son Mfisa. and bel ieve in the death o f Musa,and claim
that the Imam who succeeded him was the grandson of
Muhammad ibn—al—Hasan,who was a grandson of
‘Ali ibn
M ii sa al—Rida. They were al so cal led Twel vers,
2 because
of thei r assertion that thi s expected Mahdi would be“
the
twel fth in l ine from ‘Ali ibn - abi—Tal ib . And they differed
over the ag e of this. twel fth Imam at the death o f his father .
Some sai d that he was four years old,and some that he
was eight years old . They also differed over his right torule at that time ; some claiming that even then he was
really Imam,knowing all that an Imam should know,
obe
dience to him being obligatory ; while others claimed that
although under ag e, he was theoreti cal ly Imam ,for no
other could be Imam,deci sions meanwhile being in the
hands of the learned men o f the school unti l hi s coming of
1 Friedlander , J . A . O . S .
,vol. xxviii
,pp . 58-69 . The Seveners be
lieved him to be the last Imam.
2 ] bid ,vol. xxix, p . 17 1 , cf. Ithna
‘ashariyah.
66
.MOS~LEM SCHISM-S AND SECTS
Some report of H i sham that he described the obj ect whichhe worshipped as seven spans [measured ] by his own span ,as i f he had measured him according to human measure~
ment , since in the majority of cases man i s seven spans by
his own span .
Abil -al—Hudhai l in one o f his books says that he metH i sham ibn—al-Hakam in Mecca near the mount o f abfi
Kubais1and asked him which of the two was greater, the
being he worshipped or thi s mountain . He answered,
pointing to i t : The mountain towers above him,the ex
alted, i . e . veri ly the mountain i s greater than he .
” 2
Ibn-al-Rawandi relates in one of his books about H i sham
that he sa id : There i s a l ikeness between Allah and bod i es
that can be felt in some way ; i f thi s were not so ,they would
not point to H im .
”
Al-Jahiz , in one of his books,says about H i sham : that he
said that Allah knows what i s under the earth only by meanso f the rays that come from him and penetrate to the depths
o f the earth . And they said,unless his rays touched what
was behind the moving bod i es , he would not have seen what
i s behind it,nor would he have known about i t . Aba-
‘Isa
al-Warrak said in hi s book that some of H isham’
s compan
ions answered him that Allah touches his throne,but is not
separate from it ; nor i s the throne separate from him . It
i s al so reported that H i sham,in addition to his error con
cerning the Tauhid [unity] , erred concern ing the attributes
o f Allah . He changed the Opinion that Allah does not cease
knowing things,claiming that he knows things. after not
having known them ,through knowledge
,and that knowl
edge i s one of his attributes , not identical with him ,nor is
i t anything other than he, nor i s i t a part of him . He said ,
1 The highest in the rang e around Mecca. De Goej e, Bibliotheca
Geog raphorum Arabicorum,vol. vii, p . 3 14.
2 Friedl'
ander, ibid . , vol. xxix , p . 27.
68
THE SECTS O F THE RAWAFID
moreover, that hi s knowledge cannot be said to be eternal ,nor created , for it i s an attribute, and according to him an
attribute cannot be pr edicated . About the power of Allah,and hi s hearing
,and his seeing, and his li fe , and hi s wi ll,
he said , veri ly they are not eternal nor created, because an
attribute cannot be predicated . And he said in regard to
them that they are he and no other . H e also said that Allah ,
had he never ceased knowing things that are knowable,the
latter would be eternal,because one cannot be a knower
without an object al ready existing to be known,as i f H i sham
had impugned the possibi li ty of knowing the non- existent .
H i sham said,moreover
,that i f Allah was the knower of
that which hi s servants did for him be fore thei r deedsactual ly occurred , the free will of hi s servants would not be
possible,nor could they impose duties upon themselves . In
regard to the Koran , he was wont to say that it was nei ther
creator nor created . It could,nevertheless
,not be said that
i twas not created,because such a statement would be an
attribute and ,according to him
,an attribute cannot be
predicated . As to the deeds o f Allah’s servants,the tradi
tions about them,according to him
,are divergent . One
tradition says they were created of Allah,another that they
are ideas, and neither things nor bodies , for according to
H i sham a thing can only be a body . Regarding the prOph
ets, H i sham considered it lawful to say that they were dis
obedient,although the Imams he considered sinless . In
connection with this he claimed that the prophet dis-obeyed
his Lord in taking ransom from the pri soners of Badr, but
Allah forgav e him . Applied to this are the words of Allah
May Allah forgive thee that which thou hast done earlyby thy fault and that in which thou didst delay .
” 1 Thus
he distinguished between prophet and Imam ,since to the
1 Surah 48, v . 2 .
59
MO SLEM {SrC‘
H ISiMJS AND {SECTS
Prophet when he disobeyed there came a revelation cal lingattention to his sins
,whi le to the Imam no such revelation
came ; he must therefore be free from disobedience . As
regards the Imamate,H i sham belonged to the schoo l of the
Imamiyah,although the rest o f the Imamiyah condemned
him because he thought the Prophet capable of disobedience .
Furthermore,he denied that any o f the parts of a bodv
were limited , and i t was fro-m him that al-Nazaam 1 took the
doctrine that what could be no further di v ided was nonexistent . Zurkan
2 says o f him in his treati se that he held
that i t was possible for one body to pass into another,j ust
as al~Naaaam held that two thin bodies could be in the same
place [at the same time ] . Zurkan reports further that he
said M an consists of two things, a body and a. soul . The
body is dead , the soul , however, i s sentient and intel ligent ,and acts on the outside world . It i s a l ight like the bodiesin the universe that gi ve l ight . As regards earthquake ,H i sham said : The earth i s made up of different elementseach closely attached to the other . Thus when one of these
elements becomes weak the other becomes stronger,and an
earthquake takes place ; i f the element further increases inweakness
,there i s an eclipse .
”Zurkan al so reported of
him that he considered it possible for someone who was nota prophet to walk on water
,although he did say that mir
acles could not be performed by one who was not a prophet .Concerning H i sham ibn~ Salim al—Jawaliki : This Jawa
liki while belonging in hi s heresies to the school of theImarniyah went to the extreme as regards the doctrine o f
corporeal ity and anthropomorphi sm . He claimed that the
object which he worshipped was in the image of man,but
was not flesh and blood,being a diffused white l ight . He
claimed al so that he possesses five senses,l ike the senses of
1 Fri-edlander, ibid .
,vol. xxix
,p . 58.
2 According to punctuation in Dhahabi , a! M ushtabih,p . 240.
70
THE {SECTS O F THE RAWAFID
man,and has hands and feet and eyes and ears and nose
and mouth , and he hears by a different means from that bywhich he sees
, and the rest of the senses being different in
the same way. He goes on to say that the upper hal f ofthi s being i s hollow and the lower i s solid .
Abu -
‘fsa al-
‘Warrak 1 reports that he claims that hi s ob
j ect o f worship had black hai r, i t being a black light , but ther est o f the person i s white light .
Our Sheikh abfi’
l-Hasan al-’Ash‘ari reports in his. treat
ise that H i sham ibn- Sal im held the same views as H i sham
ibn- al-Hakam as regards the wi ll of Allah . They maintain
that his wi ll i s an act, a mental image which i s not Allah
nor anyone besides him . Thus i f Allah wishes anything,he moves
,and that which he wishes i s . In thi s abu-Mal ik
al-Hadrami agrees , as wel l as‘Ali ibn-Maitham ,
who were
o f the sheikhs o f the Rafidiyah,i . e .
,that the wi ll of Allah
is a separate act ; but they hold further that the wi l l ofAllah i s outside o f him .
It i s also said of al-Jawaliki that he said that the acts of
the servants of Allah are substances,for there i s nothing in
the world but substances . He thus granted that the servants
o f Allah could create substances . A similar view is re
ported o f Shai tan al—Tak .
h . Concerning the Zarariyah 2 from among them .
These are the followers. of ‘Ali Zararah ibn-A
‘yan , who
belonged to the sect al-Kahdiyah,those who bel i eved in the
Imamate o f‘Abdal lah ibn- Ja‘far . From this sect he went
over to that of the Mfisawiyah . T he heresy which is laid at
hi s door i s that Allah did not l ive , nor have power, nor hear,nor see
,nor know
,nor wish
,unti l he created for himsel f l i fe ,
and power, and knowledge , and will , and hearing, and see
1 Mentioned in Fihrist, p . 338.
2 Not included by Ibn -Hazm.
7 1
MOSLEM S'CH ISMS AND SECTS
ing. It was after he had created these attributes for himsel f that he became living
,powerful
,wise
,wishing
,hearing
and seeing . The Basrah Kadariyah in ferred frcm thi s formo f heresy the finiteness of Allah ’s wi ll and of Allah’s word .
It was from this principle that the Karamiyah in ferred thei rdoctrine that the word of Allah and his wil l and hi s appet
ceptions were finite .
i . Concerning the Y finusiyah1 from among them .
They are the followers o f Yunus ibn-
‘Abd- al—Rahman al
Kummi .
2 Although of the Imamiyah,he belonged to the
schoo l of the Katf‘iyah,who firmly maintained that Musa
ibn- Ja‘far had died . And it was he who gave to those who
would not commi t themselves to a decision on the death ofMfisa the name of Mamturah dogs . Yunus
,however
,ex
ceeded the l imits o f anthropomorphism . He claimed that
Allah i s borne by the bearers o f his throne , though he is
stronger than they ; j ust as the legs of the throne bear the
throne,although the throne is stronger than they. As a
proof of the fact that Allah is borne,he quoted : “ And on
that day eight wil l bear the throne of your lord above
them .
” 3 Whereas the people of our doctrine maintain that
thi s verse proves that the throne i s. borne,and not the lord .
j . Concerning the Shaitaniyah from among them .
These are the followers o f Muhammad ibn- al-Nu‘man al
Rafidi , cal led Shai tan al—Tak4 up to hi s son Mfisa. This
sect maintains that Musa died , and they look for a successor
1 Not to be con fused with the Y finusiyah of the Murj i’
ah . Not a sect
in Ibn-Hazm, J . A . O . S . ,
vol. xxix , p . 50.
2 Fihrist, p . 220.
3 Surah 69 , v . I7 .
4 Ibn-Hazm calls him the son o f Ja‘far , J . A . O . S ., vol. xxix, p . 59 ;
Shahrastani calls the sect Nu‘maniyah ( cf. Z . D . M . G.,61
, 75 , n .
Mentioned in Fihrist, p . 308, also as abt‘
i -Ja‘far .
72
THE SECTS OF THE RAWAFID
for him and agree with H i sham ibn- Sal im al- Jawaliki in the
Vi ew that the deeds. of the servants of Allah are substances ;and that a servant o f Allah can real ly produce a substance .
They also agree with H i sham ibn- al-Hakam in the claim
that Allah knows all things only a fter having determinedthem , and willed them , and that he does not know the things
be fore determ ining them .
‘Abd al -Kahir says that we have mentioned the sects of
the Rafidah among the Zaidiyah and the Kaisaniyah and
the Imamiyah . Today the Kaisaniyah are undi stinguishable
,having mingled with the Zaidiyah and the Imamiyah
among the Zaidiyah . When quarrels arose among theImamiyah,
some causing the others to err,one of the Imam
iyah poets sati rized the Zaidiyah as fo l lows :
O ye useless Zaidiyah, your Imam is an un fortunate one, and cast off .
0 ye vultures o f the air ,1g o to Hell, ye have dived down and broug ht
up stones ag ainst us.
”
A poet of the Zaidiyah answered him as follows :
Our Imam is set up and stands uprig ht, not like the one who has to
be soug ht by sifting .
Any Imam who is not seen publicly,he is not worth unto us a
mustard seed .
‘Abd al-Kahir says we have answered these two sects as
regards thei r verses as fo l lows :
0, ye worthless Rafidah,
your claims are worthless throughout.
Your Imam— if he is hidden in darkness, try to reach the hidden one
by means of a lig ht
Or if he is covered. up by your rancors, then bring forth by meanso f a sieve the one who is covered up .
But the true Imam ,according to us, is revealed by the “Sunnah or
Koran verse .
And in them is a sufficiency for him who is rightly led . These two
suffice us as a revelation.
”
1 The bird is used for hurtful companions. Goldziher, Z . D . M . G.,
lxv, 358.
73
CHAPTER I I
TH E SECTS OF TH E KHARIJ IY AH
As we have mentioned be fore,the Khawarij form twenty
sects,
land the fo l lowing are thei r names : The F i rst
Muhakkimah,the Azarikah
,the Najadat, the Sifriyahf
‘ the‘Ajaridah (who are themselves divided into sects
,one of
which is the Khazimiyah ) , the Shu‘
aibiyah ,the Ma
‘lumiyah,
the Majhuliyah,the Ashab Ta‘ah ( those who do pious
deeds with no intention to please God ) , the Saltiyah ,the
Akhnasiyah,the Shaib
’
iyah,the Shaibaniyah, the Mu
‘bad
iyah,the Rashidiyah , the Makrumiyah ,
the Khamr'
iyah,the
Shamrakhiyah,the Ibrahimiyah , the Wakifah
,and the
Ibadi’
yah .
3 The Ibadiyah are divided into various sects , themaj ority forming the two main sects of the Hafsiyah and
the Hadithiyah . As regards the Yazidiyah 4 of the Ibadiyah
1 According to Shahrastani , the Khawari j are divided into six sects.
Cf. Haarbriicker’
s translation ,vol. i
,p . 129 .
There seems to be some doubt about the pointing o f this word .
Shahrastani does not point it at all. Haarbriicker transcribes it as
$ifriyah . Friedlan‘der ( J . A . O . S . , vo l. xxix ) g ives it as $ufriyah ,
while Muhammad Badr has in one place Sifriyah and in the other
Sufriyah . We are inclined to think the latter correct, since it occurs
o ftener .
3Wellhausen : Relig ic’
is-politischen Oppositionsparteien im A[ten Islam,
Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Gottinl
g en, vol. v,
4 Shahrastani includes the Yazidiyah among the orthodox sects. Cf.
Haarbriicker’
s translation,vol. i
,p . 1 53 .
74
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SECTS
or threat given in the Koran,the person committing such
a sin cannot be designated only by an appellation men
tioned in the Koran,such as adulterer
,thie f
,and the like .
The Najadat, on the contrary, hold that the one of their
number who commits a major sin i s excluded from Allah’s
grace , but i s not necessari ly a heretic in faith . This shows
al-Ka‘bi ’s error in saying that all of the Khawarij agree in
declaring the authors of maj or sins heretics , whether theybelong to the Kharij i te body or another . The on ly correct
v i ew in regard to the beli efs held in common by all the
Khawarij is that which our sheikh abu- l-Hasan claims ,namely : the condemning of ‘
Ali'
and‘Uthman
,the Follow
ers of the Carmel, the two judg es , and all those who justifiedthe deci sion of the two judg es , or the deci sion of one of
them,or accepted thei r arbitration . We wil l now take up
all‘
these divisions in detai l , please God .
I . Coucerm'
ug the first M uhalekimoh : The Khawarijwere either Muhakkimah or Shurz
’
ih .
1Scholars differ in
regard to the first person who became a Shurah . Some sayi t was ‘Urwah ibn-Hudair ,
2 the brother of Maradis al-Kha
rij i and others that the first to secede was Yazid ibn-‘Asim
al-Muhadh'
i ;3 while others hold that a man of the Rabi‘ah
of the Banu Y ashkur who was with ‘Ali
'
at $iffin,when he
saw that the two parties had agreed upon the two judg es ,mounted hi s horse and attacked the followers o f Mu
‘awiyah
,
killing one of their men,fo l lowing this with an attack on
the fol lowers of‘Ali
, kil ling one of thei r men . He then
cried at the top of his voice : Verily have I given up alle
g iance to‘Ali and Mu‘awiyah , and am therefore not bound
1 Mentioned in Shahrastani , H aarbrucker,vol. i, p . 2 1 , l . e. heretics.
On the term,see Lane, S . V . and Z . D . M . G .
,lxi
,p . 432 .
2 Tabari , Chronique ed . Zotenberg ,vol. iii
,p
,683 .
3 Shahrastani , ibid .,vol. i, p . 130, calls him Yazid ibn
‘Asim al
Muhfirib‘
i .
76
THE SECTS OF THE KHARIJTYAH
by their deci sion . It was while fighting the followers of‘Ali that he was killed by some men from Hamadhan. As
for the Khawarij , who then numbered twelve thousand ,after the return of
‘Ali
'
from Siff’
in to al-Ku fah , they brokeup camp and went to Harura . This i s why the Khawarijare cal led Harfiriyah. Their leaders at the time were ‘
Ab
dal lah ibn-Kauwa and Shibt ibn-Rab‘i . ‘Ali came against
them and plead with them,and his arguments prevai led so
that ibn- al-Kauwa put himsel f under ‘Ali ’s protection with
ten horsemen whi le the rest o f them went to al-Nahrawan ,and made two men commanders over them :
‘Abdal lah ibn
Wahab al-Rasibi ,1and Hurkfis ibn- Zuhai r al-Bajali al
‘Urani'
known as dhu- l-Thudaiah .
2 On their way throughNahrawan they discovered a man who was fleeing fromthem and having surrounded him
,they said ,
“Who art
thou ?” He answered I am ‘Abdal lah ibn-Hubab ibn-al’
Aratt. Tell us , said they, a tradition which thou
didst hear from thy father and which he heard from theprophet of Allah . He said , I have heard my father saythat the prophet of Allah said , There wi ll be a civi l war
during which he who sits wil l be better than he who stands ,and he who stands than he who walks , and he who walks
better than he who runs,and whoever i s able to be ki lled ,
let him not be a slayer. ’ Then a man of the Khawarij ,cal led Masma‘ ibn-Kadali , fel l upon him with hi s sword
and ki lled him , and his blood flowed in a streak over the
water of the river to the other side . They then entered his
house which was in the vi llage , before the gate of whi ch
1Wellhausen,ibid . ,
p . 17 et seq . Shahrastani , ibid . , vol. i, p . 130.
”Ibid . ,p . 130. For further account see Tabari -Zotenberg ,
vol. iii,
p . 683 .
3 Wellhausen : Dos Arabische Reich und seiu S turz,p . 54. Brunnow :
Die C lzaridschiteu,p . 20.
77
M -OS'LBM lS'CH ISrM'S A'ND SECTS
they had ki lled him,and put hi s chi ld to death , as well as
hi s slav e ( concubine ) , the mother o f hi s chi ld . They then
encamped in Nahrawan . When news of them reached ‘Ali
he started against them with forty thousand of his fol lowers
,accompanied by ‘
Adi ibn-Hatim al-Ta’
i,
1 who sai d :
When people fall back and slink away, we come with banners o f truth
fluttering like eag les,
Ag ainst the worst o f S chismatics, who have g athered tog ether to mak e
war on the God of men ,the Lord o f the East,
Ag ainst the erring and the blind and the forsakers o f true g uidance,
a ll o f whom rej ect his word, and are unrighteous ,
And among us is‘Ali
,of excellent virtue
,who leads us ag ainst them
openly w ith shining swords.
On arriving,‘Ali sent word to them saying
,Hand over
the slayer o f‘Abdal lah ibn—Hubbab . The answer came
back,Lo
, all of us. ki lled him ,and veri ly i f we had won
the victory over thee,we should have killed thee .
” Where
upon ‘Ali
'
attacked them with his army,and they appeared
be fore him en masse. But be fore fighting he said to them ,
What makes you seek revenge from me They ah
swered,We seek revenge from thee
,first of all
,because
we fought for thee in the Battle of the Camel,and when the
Followers of the Carmel were put to fl ight tho-u didst permit
us [to keep] what we had won [ in the way] of booty fromtheir soldiers
,but thou didst forbid our taking possession
of thei r women and thei r chi ldren . Why didst thou permit
us thei r good s and exclude thei r women and chi ldren ?” ‘Ali
answered : I al lowed their possessions to be seized only in
exchange for what they had robbed from the treasury in
al-Basrah before I came to them . But as to the women and
the chi ldren . they were not fighting us. And there fore theregulations o f Islam
,made within the territory of Islam ,
2
l Tabari , ibid .,vol. iii
,p . 1 7 1 et seq .
,245 326 , 342 ,
653 et seq .,658, 675 .
2 Dar al- Islam .
78
THE StECTlS OF THE KHARIJIYAH
should be applied to them . None of them had apostatized
from Islam,and i t i s not permitted to make slaves o f those
who are not unbel ievers . Moreo ver, i f I had al lowed you
to take the women , which one of you would have taken‘A
’i shah as his share ?” The people being shamefullysi lenced by this
,sai d to him,
“ Secondly,we seek revenge
from thee for not using the Commander of the Faithful inconnection with thy name, in the correSpo
-ndence between
thee and Mu‘awiyah , when the latter disputed with thee in
regard to such power. ” He answered , I followed the ex
ample o f the prophet of Allah on the day of al-Hudaibiyah,
when Suhai l ibn—‘Amr said to him,Had I known that thou
art the pro-phet of Allah ,I would not have disputed with
thee,but write down thy name and the name of thy
father " 1 Accordingly the Prophet wrote , It i s thi s upon
which we,Muhammad ibn—
‘Abdal lah and Suhai l ibn-‘Amr,
have ag reed .
’ The prophet o f Allah told me that the same
would happen to me,in connection with them ; so my ex
perience with the sons is the same as that of the prophet of
Allah with the fathers .
” They then went on to say to‘Ali ,
Why didst tho-u say to the two judg es , I f I am wo rthyof the cal i phate, then confirm me in it for i f thou showest
doubt concerning thy cal iphate,then others ( than thou )
will have even more right to be in doubt concerning thee .
’
To this ‘Ali replied : On that occasion I desi red only j us
tice to Mu‘awiyah , for i f I had sa id to the two judg es .
‘C hoose me for cal iph ,
’ Mu‘awiyah would not have been
sati sfied . Veri ly the prophet of Allah chal lenged the Christians of Naj ran to invoke the curse of God on the lyingfaction
,saying, Come
,let us. summon our sons and your
sons,our wives and your wives
,and ourselves and your
selves . Then we will invoke and lay the mal i son of Allah
1 Tabari , ibid .,vol. iii, p . 89 .
79
MOSLEM S'CH'
ISIM'S AND SECTS
they had kil led him,and put hi s chi ld to death , as well as
hi s slave ( concubine ) , the mother of his chi ld . They then
encamped in Nahrawan . When news of them reached ‘Ali
he started against them with forty thousand of his followers
,accompanied by ‘
Adi ibn-Hatim al who said :
When people fall back and slink away, we come with banners o f truth
fluttering like eag les,
Ag ainst the worst o f S chismatics, who have g athered tog ether to make
war on the God o f men,the Lord o f the East,
Ag ainst the erring an d the blind and the forsakers o f true g uidance,
a ll of whom rej ect his word, and are unrighteous.
And among us is‘Ali
,o f excellent virtue
,who leads us ag ainst them
Openly with shining swords.
On arriving,‘Ali sent word to them saying
,Hand over
the s layer o f‘Abdal lah ibn-Hubbab . The answer came
back,Lo
, all of us. killed him ,and veri ly i f we had won
the victory over thee,we should have killed thee .
” Where
upon ‘Ali attacked them with his army, and they appeared
before him en masse. But be fore fighting he said to them ,
What makes you seek revenge from me P” They an
swered,We seek revenge from thee
,first of all
,because
we fought for thee in the Battle of the Camel,and when the
Followers of the Camel were put to flight thou didst permit
us [to keep] what we had won [ in the way] of booty fromtheir so ldiers
,but thou didst forbid our taking possession
of thei r women and thei r chi ldren . Why didst thou permit
us their good s and exclude thei r women and chi ldren P” ‘Ali
answered : I al lowed thei r po ssession s to be seized only in
exchange for what they had robbed from the treasury in
al- Basr'ah be for e I came to them . But as to the women and
the children . they were not fighting us . And therefore the
regulations of Islam,made within the territory of Islamf
"
l Tabari,ibid .
,vol. iii
,p . 17 1 et seq .
,245, 326 , 342 ,
653 et seq .
,658, 675 .
2 Dar al- Islam .
78
THE SlFJC’
IlS OF THE KHARIJIYAH
shou ld be applied to them . None o f them had apostatized
from Islam,and i t i s not permitted to make slav es o f those
who are not unbel i evers . Moreover, i f I had al lowed you
to take the women , which one of you would have taken‘A
’i shah as his share P” The people being shamefullysi lenced by this
,sai d to him ,
“ Secondly,we seek revenge
from thee for not using the Commander of the Faithful inconnection with thy name, in the correspondence between
thee and Mu‘awiyah , when the latter di sputed with thee in
regard to such power .” He answered,I followed the ex
ample o f the prophet of Allah on the day of al—Hudaibiyah,
when Suhai l ibn—‘Amr said to him,Had I known that thou
art the prophet o f Allah , I would not have disputed with
thee,but write down thy name and the name of thy
father " 1 Accordingly the Prophet wrote,It i s this upon
which we,Muhammad ibn—
‘Abdal lah and Suhai l ibn-‘Amr
,
have ag reed .
’ The prophet of Allah to ld me that the same
would happen to me,in connection with them ; so my ex
perience with the sons i s. the same as that of the prophet of
Allah with the fathers .
” They then went on to say to‘Ali
,
Why didst thou say to the two judg es ,‘ I f I am worthy
o f the ca l i phate , then confirm me in it P’
for i f thou showest
doubt concerning thy cal iphate,then others ( than thou )
will have ev en more right to be in doubt concerning thee .
To this ‘Ali replied : On that occasion I desi red on ly j us
tice to Mu‘awiyah , for i f I had sa id to the two judg es ,
‘C hoose me for cal iph ,
’ Mu‘awiyah would not have been
sati sfied . Veri ly the prophet of Allah challenged the Christians of Naj ran to invoke the curse of God on the lying
faction,saying
,Come
,let us summon our sons and your
sons,our wives and your wives
,and ourselves and your
selves . Then we will invoke and lay the mal i son of Allah
1 T'
abar i , ibid .,vol. iii, p . 89 .
79
MOSLEM SCHISlMS AND SECTS
on those who lie . ’ ( Surah 3 , v . In doing this he
showed j ustice to them even at his own expense, for i f hehad said, I curse and ask the curse of Allah upon you
,
’ theChristians would not have been sati sfied . It i s for thi s
reason that I,in turn
, was j ust with Mu‘awiyah . Nor do I
understand the treachery of ‘Amr ibn-al They then
said , Why didst thou entrust the arbitration to the two
judg es when the right was on thy side P” And he sa id , I
found that the Prophet of Allah had once entrusted to Sa‘d
ibn-Mu‘adh the arbitration of the case of the banu
Ifiuraiaah,1although had he wished he need not have done
it . In like manner I chose a j udge , but the j udge of the
Prophet j udged j ustly,whereas my j udge was cheated
which led to evi l results . Have you any complaints beside
thi s P” The people were si lent . Most of them said,By
Allah he speaketh the truth .
” And they said,We re
pent . So ou that day eight thousand put themselves under
his control while four thousand withdrew to take part in
the fight against him headed by ‘Abdallah ibn-Wahb al
Rasibi and Hurkus ibn-Zuhai r al-Bajali . Then‘Ali sa id to
those who had put themselves under his control , With
draw from me for thi s one day.
” And he fought the
Khawar ij with those who had come with him from al
Ku fah . He commanded hi s followers to fight them,say
ing,By him in whose hand i s my soul not ten of us wi ll
be ki lled,and not ten of them will escape .
”As a matter of
fact , nine of the fo l lowers of‘Ali were ki lled on that day.
These were Duwaibiyah ibn-Wabrah al-Bajali , Sa‘d ibn
Mujal id al- Saiba‘i ,‘Abdal lah ibn -Hammad al-Juhairi ,
Rukanah ibn-Wa’i l al-Arj i , al-Faiyad ibn-Khalil al-Azdi ,
Kaisfim ibn- Salamah al- Juhan'
i,
‘Utbah ibn-
‘Ubaid al
Khaulani,Jami " ibn- Jusham al-Kindi
, and Habib ibn
Ibn-H isham,p . 674. Tabari
,ibid .
,vol. iii, p . 70.
80
MOSLEM SCHIStMlS A-ND SECTS
Khawarij who were of the same view as the F i rst Muhakkimah . Among them was
’
Ashras ibn-
‘Auf,who arose
against him in al-Anbar, Ghalafah al-Taimi , of Taim‘Adi ,
arose against him in Masidhan ;1al-Ashhab ibn—Bishr al
‘Urani,in Harjaraya ;
2 Sa‘d ibn-Kufl in al-Mada’in ,
3and
abfj -Maryam al- Sa‘di in Sawad al-Ku fah .
‘Ali sent an
army with a leader against each one of these Khawarijunti l all were killed . It was in that same year, in the month
of Ramadan,in the thirty- eighth year of the H i j ra
,that
‘Ali was ki lled .
When the rule passed over to Mu‘awiyah,there rebe l led
against him and hi s followers down to the time of the
Azarikah,all who held the same views as the F i rst Muhak
kimah . Among these was ‘Abdal lah ibn-Jausha al—Ta’
i ,
who arose against Mu‘awiyah in al-Nukhailah,in Sawad
al-Kufah . Mu‘awiyah sent men from al-Ku fah againsthim
, and ki lled these Khawarij . Next there arose againsthim [Mu
‘awiyah ] Hautharah ibn-Wada‘ al-
’Asadi . He
was among those who sought the protection of ‘Ali at the
battle of al-Nahrawan , in the forty-first year . Then Far
wah ibn-Naufal al and al-Mustaurid ibn-‘Alkamah
al-Tamimi rose against al-Mughirah ibn- Shu‘bah,
5 who
was then the governor of al-Kufah under Mu‘awiyah . Both
o f these were ki lled in fighting him . Mu‘adh ibn-Jarir next
ro se against al—Mughirah and was killed in the battle . ThenZiyad ibn-Kharrash al-
‘Ij li arose against Ziyad ibn-Abihi,
1 De Goej e g ivesM asabadhan ,B ibliotheca Ge0g raphorum Arabicorum,
vol. vi, p ,20 ; vol. vii, p . 25 . See also Yakut, vol. iii, p . 393 . As the:
former is a well-known place, we conclude that in the text it should
be Masabadhan .
2 Ibid .,vol. vi
,p . 7 ; one o f the provinces of the territory watered by '
the Euphrates and Duj ail, west o f the Tig ris.
3 1bid ., vol. vi, 5 .
1 Tabari , ibid .,vol. iii, p . 690 ; vol. iv, p . 6.
5 1bid ., vol. iv, p . 6.
n
02
THE SIECTIS OF TlI‘IE KHARIJIYAH
and was kil led during the fight . Kuraib ibn -Murrah withZa haf ibn-Rahar al-Ta
’
i arose against ‘Ubaid-Allah ibn
Ziyad . These two put to the sword everyone they met onthei r way, without distinction . I‘bn-Ziyad sent ‘Ubad ibn
al-Husain al-Hai ti against them with an army which de
feated them . These are the Khawarij who stood by the
Fi rst Muhakkimah before the time o f the stri fe of theAzarikah
,and Allah knows best .
2 . Concerning the Aearileahf These are the followers
of Nafi‘ ibn- al-Azrak al-Hanafi,surnamed abu-Rashid .
The Khawarij never had a sect which surpassed this in
number, nor one that exceeded it in power . In creed theyagreed on many points
, among which were the following :
the assertion that the Opponents of thi s sect,within the
Moslem community,were polythei sts . The Fi rst Muhak
kimah had sai d that such Opponents were unbelievers , but
not polythei sts . Secondly,this sect asserted that those fol
lowers who abstained from fighting with them, although
agreeing in other respects , were polythei sts . The F irst
Muhakkimah did not condemn such abstainers , i f theyagreed with them in other respects . The third point on
which this sect agreed was that when a soldier appears ,claiming that he is one of the sect
,the truth of his claim
should be proved by bringing to him a captive from the
opposing side whom he be commanded to kil l . I f he ki llsthi s captive , hi s claim that he is one of the sect i s confirmed ; i f he refuses to ki ll the captive , he should be con
sidered a hypocrite and a heretic, and should be put to
death . Fourthly,thi s sect permits the ki ll ing of thei r
opponents’ wives,as well as the kil l ing of their chi ldren .
1 Dinawari , al-Akhbar al- Tiwal,p . 278. Tabari— De Goeje, vol. 11,
p . 581 .
3 Shahrastani , ibid ., vol. i, p . 133 et seq . Tabari— Zoten-berg , vol. iv,
p . 76.
83
MOSLEM S-CHISlM-S AND SECTS
Moreover, they claim that the chi ldren of those who
oppose them are polytheists and will therefore be in hell
fire forever . What they differ about i s the question as
to who was the first to put forward the doctrine which i speculiar to the Azarikah
,namely
,the declaring the Abstain
ers from war,as unorthodox . They al so di sagree as re
gards the or iginator O f the trial O f a so ldier claiming to be
of thei r army . Some Of them claim that the first to originate these v i ews was ‘Abd-Rabbihi al-Kabir [the elder] ,
1
while others say i t was‘Abd-Rabbihi al—Saghir [ the
younger] , and sti l l others that the first was one o f theirmen called ‘Abdal lah ibn—al—Wadin . Nafi
‘ ibn—al-Azrak
differed fro-m ibn—al-VVadin and asked him to change hi s
heretical view ,but when ibn—al-Wadin died
,Nafi
‘and his
fo l lowers adopted hi s v iew,saying
,He was in the right .
”
Nafi‘ did not consider that he had been unorthodox when he
differed from ibn—al-Wadin , but he declared that person
unorthodox who disagreed after he himsel f had seen thel ight . Nor did he separate himsel f from the F i rst Muhak
kimah in their refusing to condemn the Abstainers as un
orthodox . He said,
“ In regard to thi s point , we are in
ferior to them [ the Muhakkimah] . He there fore condemned as unorthodox those who
, after thi s , Opposed himin the matter o f condemning the Abstainers as unorthodox .
Nafi‘and his followers claimed that the home of their
opponents,within the Moslem community
,was the home
of unbelie f and that i t is permissible in thi s home to ki ll
chi ldren and women . The Azarikah,however, rej ected the
stoning of the adulterer,while considering it permissible to
deny a trust, the paying of which had been commanded by
Allah ; the explanation they gave being, I f our Opponentsare polythei sts
,then we do not need to give back a deposit
1 Author of al-‘Ikd al-Farz'd .
84
THE SnECTxS OF Til-IE KHARIJIYAH
made by them . Nor do they apply the legal puni shment
to him who brings a false charge o f adultery against a piousman,
although they do in the case of a man who accuses
pious women . They also cut Off the hand of a thief ,whether the amount stolen be big or little , thus ignor ing the
law in regard to the minimum amount of the stolen good s . 1
The community has condemned them for thi s innovation ,which they introduced in connection with an unbelie f inwhich the F i rst Muhakkimah shared . In thi s way one
heresy led to another, j ust as anger incites anger . Unbe
lievers are doomed to great tor ture .
A fter the Azarikah had agreed on the innovations which
we have mentioned they paid al legiance to Nafi‘ ibn-al
Azrak,who was cal led the Commander of the Faithful.
They were j oined by the Khawarij of ‘Uman and al-Yamanthei r number amounting to more than twenty thousand .
They took pos sess ion o f al-Ahwaz 2and what i s beyond it
o f the land of Persia and Kirman,co l lecting its land- tax .
The go vernor of al- Basrah at that time was ‘Abdal lah ibn
al—Ia rith al—Khuza‘i 3 under ‘Abdal lah ibn—al- Zubai r.‘Ab
dal lah ibn—al-Harith despatched an army with Muslim ibn‘Abs ibn—Kuraiz ibn-Habib ibn-
‘Abd Shams to fight the
Azarikah . The two parties met in Diilab al-Ahwaz . In
thi s battle Muslim ibn-
‘Abs. was ki lled , together with most
of hi s followers . A fter thi s there came against them fromal—Basrah ‘Uthman ibn-
‘Ubaidallah ibn-Ma
‘mar al-Tamimi
with two thousand horsemen,whom the Azarikah put to
fl ight . Then there came against them Harithah ibn-Badr
al—Padani at the head O f three thousand from the army of
1 According to law, the seizing of anything under this minimum
amount is not considered a theft ; therefore it is not punishable.
2 Meynard , Dictionnaire de la P erse, p . 57 . Northwestern provinceof Persia.
3 For an account of this g overnor and the successive battles, cf.
Tabari , ibid .,vol. iv,
p . 76 et seq . Briinnow ,ibid . ,
p . 42 et seq .
, 52 et seq.
85
MOSLEM SCHIS‘MtS AND SECTS
al-Basrah , but the Azarikah put them also to fl ight . ‘Ab
dallah ibn- al-Zubair then wrote fro-m Mecca to al-Muhal
lab ibn - abi- Su frah,who was at that time in Khurasan
,com
manding him to fight the Azarikah, and making him com
mander of thi s affai r . SO al-Muhallab returned to al
Basrah and chose from its army ten thousand men , and hispeople of the tribe of al-Azd j oined him
,making a total of
twenty thousand men . This army proceeded to fight the
Azarikah and drove them fro-m Diilab al-Ahwaz to al
Ahwaz . It was in this fl ight that Nafi‘ ibn—al-Azrak died .
After his death the Azarikah paid allegiance to ‘Ubai
dal lah ibn-Ma’
mi’
in al-Tamimi . Al-Muhallab then fought
them in al-Ahwaz ,on which occasion ‘
Ubaidallah ibn
Ma’mun was ki lled , as well as his brother ‘Uthman ibn
Ma’mun
,together with three hundred o f the strongest of
the Azarikah . Those who remained were driven to ’
Idhaj ,1
where they paid al legiance to Katari ibn- al- Fuja’
ah , to
whom they gave the title o f the Commander of the Faithful.A fter thi s
,al-Muhallab fought them in battles in which each
party won alternate victories , at the end of which the
Azarikah were driven to Sabur,
2 in the land of Persia, whichthey made the land of their fl ight . Al-Muhallab
,his sons
and his followers , kept up the fight for nineteen years . Part
of this. period was in the days o f ‘Abdal lah ibn-al—Zubai r .
and the rest in the time Of the cal iph ‘Abd- al-Mal ik ibn
Marwan,during the g o
-vernorship of al-Haj jaj over al‘Irak .
3 The latter confirmed al—Muhallab in his position as
leader of the army against the Azarikah . This war between
1 ’
Idhaj is a town in al~AhWaz . See De Goej e, Bibliotheca Ge0g ra
tharam Arabieorum,index
, s. v. ; Y akfit, Geog raphisches Wo'
rterbuch,
vol. i, p . 416 s. v .
2 Meynard,ibid .
,p . 293 . O ne of the principal districts o f Fars, not
far from Shiraz.
3Tabari , ibid . , vol. iv, p . 1 17 et seq.
86
THE SECTrS OF THE KHARIJIYAH
al—Muhallab and the Azarikah kept on raging for years in
different forms between Persia and al-Ahwaz,unti l a differ
ence arose among the Azarikah which resulted in ‘Abd
Rabbihi the elder for saking the Katari and going to a val ley
in j iraft Kirmin1 with seven thousand men .
‘Abd-Rabbihi 66
the younger left him and with four thousand men went to
a nother di strict o f Kirman,Katari remaining with about
ten thousand men in the land of Persia . There al-Muhallab
fought with him,and drove him to the land O f Kirman ,
where he pursued and fought him,driving him from there
to al —Rai .2 He then attacked and ki l led ‘Abd-Rabbihi the
elder,while he sent hi s son Yazid ibn—al-Muhallab with his
followers against ‘Abd-Rabbihi the younger . At the same
time al-Haj jaj sent Sufyan ibn- al-Abrad al-Kalb'
i with a
great army against Katari after he had departed from al
Rai to Tabaristan,where they ki lled him and sent hi s head
to al-Haj jaj .
‘Ubaidah ibn-H i lal al- Y ashkuri had forsaken
Katari and gone to Kamis . SO Sufyan ibn- al-Abrad fol
lowed and besieged him in the fortress o f Kumis unti l hesucceeded in ki ll ing him and hi s followers . Allah thus
cleared the earth of the Azarikah— prai se Allah for that !
3 . Concerning the Najadd t. These were the followers
Of Najdah ibn—‘Amir al-Hanaf
’
i .3 The cause of hi s leader
ship and authority was that when Nafi‘ ibn- al-Azrak de
clared unor thodox those who abstained from fighting,though they agreed with him in belie f , he cal led them polytheists
,and sanctioned the ki ll ing O f the chi ldren o f hi s
Opponents and thei r women . Abfi -Kudail,4 ‘Atiyah al
1 Meynard, ibid .,p . 185 , town in Kirman .
2 De Goej e, ibid . ,vol. vi, pp . 20 and 22
, town in Persia.
3 For Naj dah and the other leaders of th is sect see Shahrastani ,
ibid . ,vol. i, p . 136 . Briinnow ,
ibid .,p . 46 et seq. Tabari , ibid .
, vol.
IV,p . 102 .
‘Probably a mistake for abfi-Padaik , he being the other g reat
schismatic in this sect. Shahrastani , vol. i , p . 136.
87
MOSLEM SCH ISl S AND SECTS
Hanafi , Rashid al-Tawi l , Miklas and’Aiyub al—Azrak for
sook Nafi‘ with all their followers,departing for al-Yama
mah, where Naj dah recei ved them with an army Of those
Khawari j who desired to follow the army of Nafi‘. Theyto ld them of Nafi"
s latest theor i es and sent them back to
al—Yamamah, where they swor e al legiance to Naj dah ibn‘Amir . These men condemn ed as unbelievers those whohad in turn condemned the Abstainers as unbelievers . They
also condemned whoe ver admitted the Imamate o f Nafi‘
,
making Najdah the Imam . About him,however
,they soon
diff ered, complaining of various things . These disagree
ments led to thei r di v i sion into three sects . One of thesesects wen twith ‘Atiyah ibn - al-Aswad al-Hanafi to Sij i stan , 1
where the Khawarij of Sij istan j o ined them ; and i t i s be
cause o f this that the Khawari j o f Sij istan are called ‘Ata
wiyah . The second sect j o ined abu—Kudail [Fudaik] in
battle against Naj dah . They are the ones who ki lled Najdah . The third sect broke with Naj dah in regard to his
theories but accepted his Imamate . Among the deeds of
Naj dah for which his followers blamed him was the fact
that he sent an army to attack by mainland and one to attack
by sea,and to the one which he sent by land he assigned
higher sti pends than to the one which he sent by sea . They
complained,moreover
,that he had sent an army to attack
the city o f the Prophet of Allah and had seized there a
daughter of ‘Uthman ibn—‘Affan .
‘Abd- al-Malik having
written to him about her,he had bought her back from the
one in whose possess ion she was,and had given her back to
‘Abd- al-Mal ik ibn—Marwan . They therefore sai d to him ,
Veri ly thou hast returned to our enemies a maiden who
belongs to us . They further complained because he pardoned those who comm i tted faults in misdi rected zeal, ex
1 De Goej e : ibid .,vol. vi, p . 35 .
88
MO SLEM SCH IS lMS AND SECTS
punish them for thei r sins in some place other than hell-fire,and then have them enter paradise . Moreover
,he claimed
that anyone disagreeing with his rel igious views would
enter hell-fire .
Another of his errors was that he annulled the punish
ment [hadd ] for drinking wine . He also sai d , Whoever
commits a minor sin or tel ls a smal l lie, and persi sts in it ,he is a polythei st ; while he who commits adultery and
steals,and takes a drink without making a habit of i t , he is
a Moslem,
” provided such a man agreed with him [Najdah]in the principles Of his fai th . When he had originated these
innovations , and had forgi ven hi s fo llowers because theyhad acted in ignorance , most of his followers asked him to
renounce hi s innovations,saying
,Go into the mosque and
repent o f your innovations.
” This he did, and i t resulted
in having some regret hi s repentance,and j oin those who
had sided with him and said to him ,Thou art the Imam ,
and to thee belongs the right to explain the law,and i t would
not be seemly for us to ask thee to renounce anything .
There fore repent for having repented and let them recant
who made thee recant ; i f not we wi ll desert thee .
” And
he did so . H is fo l lowers,therefore
,were divided concern
ing him,the maj ority deposing him and saying
,Choose
us an Imam .
”SO he chose abu-Fudaik ; Rashid al—Tawi l
was hand in glove with abu-F’
udaik . And when abu-Fudaik
became governor of al- Y amarnah,he learned that the fol
lowers of Naj dah , on returning from fighting the infidels,
would reinstate Naj dah as head . Najdah’
s slave , however ,sought to ki ll him
,so he hid himsel f in the dwelling of one
of his followers,looking for the return of his so ldiers whom
he had sent to the seacoast O f Syria and the districts o f al
Yaman . Meanwhi le a proclamation was given by abu
Fudaik : Whoev er shows us the way to Naj dah , he shal l
be rewarded with ten thousand dirhems . And the slave90
THE SECTS OF THE KHARIJ i Y AH
who brings us to him,he shal l be free . Thereupon a mai d
of those with whom Najdah was hiding pointed out the wayto him
, and abu-Fudaik sent Rashid al-Tawi l to him withan army . They surprised him,
and brought his head to
abu-Fudaik . After Naj dah was ki lled,the Najadat were
divided into three sects . One sect condemned him and
went over to abu-Fudaik . This sect included Rashid al
Tawi l , abu-Baihas, and abu- l—Shamrakh,and their fo l low
ers. Another sect pardoned him for what he had done .these being the present Najadat ; while the third sect de
parted from al-Yamamah , and settled near al-Basrah ,where
they doubted the story of the innovations of Naj dah,and
were undecided concerning him,saying
,We do not know
whether he made these innovation s or not, and we will not
desert him without sure knowledge .
”Abfi -Fudaik l ived
after the death of Naj dah unti l ‘Abd- al-Mal ik ibn—Marwan
sent Ya‘mur ibn- ‘Ubaidallah ibn-Ma‘mar al-Taimi against
him with an army. They ki lled abu-Fudaik and sent hi s
head to ‘Abd- al-Mal ik ibn-Marwan . This ends the story of
the Najadat .
4 . Concerning the Sufrtyah. These are the followers o f
Ziyad ibn-al-Asfar. 1 Their views are in the main like those
o f the Azarikah,namely
,that those who commit sins are
polythei sts ; except that the Sufriyah do not sanction the
ki lling of the women and the chi ldren of those who differin beli e f from them ,
while the Azarikah do sanction it . Onedivi sion of the Sufriyah claims that when a deed for which
there i s definite punishment i s committed,the author of that
deed should be cal led only by the name connected with thenature of the deed , e. g . adulterer
,thie f
,calumniator or in
tentional murderer . He i s not an unbeliever or a poly
theist . In all sins, however, for which there i s no defin ite
1 Shahrastani, ibid . ,vol. i, p . 1 54 .
(“I
MO SLEM S'CH IS]MS AND SECTS
punishment, such as the omitting of the prayer or of thefast
,such deeds being heretical , thei r authors are unbe
lievers
(Manuscript i s not clear at thi s point . )The third sect of the Sufriyah asserted the same thing as
the Baihasiyah,i . e. that the sinner should not be j udged as
an unbeliever unti l he has been brought before the governor
and punished .
Thus the Sufriyah were divided into three sects . One sectwhich claimed
,as did the Azarikah
,that the authors of any
sin were all polythei sts . The second claimed that the title
o f unbeliever should be given to the author of deeds which
deserved no definite punishment,punishable s ins being a
departing from bel i e f , but not an entrance into unbel ief .
The third claimed that the title o f unbel i ever should begi ven to the authors of all s ins which were punished by the
governor . These three sects o f the Sufriyah differ from
the Azarikah as regards chi ldren and women,as has been
explained above .
All the Sufriyah consider themselves to be under the
patronage o f‘Abdal lah ibn-Wahb al—Rasibi , and Hurkus
ibn- Zuhai r and thei r followers from among the Fi rst Mu
hakkimah . They claim,moreover
,that after the death of
the men already mentioned,they are under the Imamate of
abu—Bilal Mirdas al—Kharij i, and after him of ‘Imran ibn
H ittan al- Sadwisi . As to abu-Bilal Mirdas ,1 in the days of
Yazid ibn-Mu‘awiyah,he rose in al-Basrah against ‘Ubai ~
dal lah ibn-Ziyad .
‘Ubaidallah ibn-Ziyad sent against him
Zur‘ah ibn-Muslim al with two thousand cavalry .
As it happened , Zur‘ah sympathized with the views of the
Khawarij, and when both sides stood in battle array, Zur
‘ah
said to abu-Bilal,You are on the side of truth , but we
1Tabari -De Goej e, vol. 11,pp . 186
, 390. Brunnow , ibid .
,p . 35 .
92
MOSLEM SCH ISsMS AND ISECTlS
O blow from a penitent, who, in giving it, only desired to bring downfavor from the possessor o f the Throne,
I will mention him now , and I will consider him the richest of crea
tures before Allah, when it comes to the final weighing o f
deeds.
‘Abd- al-Kahir says he answered that poem with the following verse
O blow from an unbeliever who did not profit by it, except by the factthat it makes him burn in hell fire.
Verily I curse him for his relig ion and I curse also anyone who hopesfor him at any time
, forgi veness and pardon .
This ibn-Mulj im is the worst of men , he is the lightest in the scales
of the Lord o f men .
”
5 . Concerning the‘
Aja/ridah of the Khawc‘
trij . All of
them are the followers of ‘Abd- al-Karim ibn-
‘Aj rad ,
1 who
was a follower of ‘Atiyah ibn- al-Aswad al—Hana fi . The‘Ajaridah were divided into ten sects which agreed on theview that a chi ld i s to be cal led to Islam when it has attained
maturity, having been le ft in freedom be fore thi s unti l it i scal led to Islam ,
or speaks of i t itsel f . Another matter in
which they differed from the Azarikah i s that the latter
considered it permissible to seize the possessions of their Op
ponents under all conditions . The‘Ajaridah , on the other
hand , do not consider i t lawful to seize the possessions of the
opponent as booty unti l after ki ll ing the owner. All the‘Ajaridah agreed on this at first
,but later sects divided Off
from them , of whom we will speak below .
6 . Concerning the Khaeimtyah.
2 These include most of
the ‘Ajaridah of Sij istan . This sect agrees with the Sun
nites as regards predestination, freedom of choice and will .
In other words,they hold that there is no creator but Allah .
1 Shahrastani , ibid .,vol. i, p . 143 .
”Ibid . Charimiyah— ci . footnote, vol. i, p . 146.
94
THE SECTS OF THE KHARIJIYAH
and nothing i s done unless Allah desires it . Moreover,they
hold that freedom of choice comes with the deed . As a te
sult,they condemn as unbelievers the Maimfiniyah who, in
regard to predestination and freedom of choice, agree with
the view Of the Kadariyah,who have strayed from the
truth . Furthermor e,the Khazimiyah differed from the rest
of the Khawarij over the question of friendship and
hatred . They said,Veri ly both of these are predicates of
Allah .
” They hold that Allah loves a man for whatever
fai th he exhibits,even i f he has been an unbeliever for
most of hi s l i fe . But , on the other hand , i f a man be
comes an unbeliever at the end of hi s l i fe, Allah keeps alooffrom him
,even though he has been a believer all the rest of
hi s l i fe . They also claim that Allah does not cease lovinghis friends or hating hi s enemies ; agreeing with the Sun
nites concerning the perfection o f man,except that these
differed fro-m the Khazimiyah in this,holding that ‘
Ali,
Talhah,al-Zubai r and ‘Uthman were in Paradise
,because
they were of those who took the Oath of Alleg iance, about
whom Allah said ,“Allah has had mercy upon the fai thful
10 they made an oath of allegiance to thee under the tree.
( Surah 48, v . And they said unto them,since the
mercy of Allah i s vi sited upon one who God knows will die
in faith, i t must follow that those who took the oath under
the tree should be among those to who-m mercy is shown .
‘Ali and Talhah and al-Zubai r were among them ,
but ‘Uth
man was a pri soner on that day, and the prophet promised
al legiance to them ,putting hi s Own hand in the place of
‘Uthman
’
s . By thi s means. i s proven the fals ity of those
who con sider these four to be unbelievers .”
7 . Concerning the Shu‘aibtya-h. In thei r views about pre
destination ,freedom of choice , and will they agree with the
view of the Khazimiyah . Any possible account of the95
Mos-LEM scmsMs AND sECTs
Shu‘
aibiyah appears first when their leader,Shu‘aib
,
1 di ffered with a man o f the Khawarij whose name was Mai
mun . Their cause of difference was that Shu‘aib owed
Maimun money,over which they had a law suit
, and Shu‘aib
said to him, I wi l l pay thee, i f Allah desires .” Maimun
answered , Allah has already desired it this minute .
”So
Shu‘aib replied,I f he has real ly desired it, I can have
done nothing but paid it . And Maimun said,Allah has
commanded thee to do thi s,and he commands on ly what
he desires,while that which he does not desire he does
not command .
” It was after thi s that the ‘Ajaridah were
divided,some of them fo l lowing Shu‘aib and the rest
Maimun .
Regarding this po int they wrote to ‘Abd- al-Karim ibn‘
Aj rad who was then imprisoned by the Sultan , and in an
swer to them he wrote,we say that what Allah desires
happens, and what he does not desire does not happen , and
we do not impute evi l to Allah . Thi s answer arrived afterthe death o f ibn-
‘Aj rad . Maimun claimed that ‘
Ajrad had
decided according to his [Maimun’
s] Opinion because he
sa id,We do not impute evi l to Allah . Shu‘aib
,however,
said , No,he agreed with me because he said
,we hold the
opinion that what Allah desires happens,and what he does
not desire does not happen .
”The Khazimiyah , and most
o f the ‘Ajaridah,
sympathized with Shu‘aib,while the Ham
ziyah and the Kadariyah sympathized with Maimun .
The Maimuniyah then added to thei r unbelie fs in regardto predestination a kind o f Magianism . They permitted
marriage with granddaughters on both sides ; and they be
lieved i t was a divine command to fight a tyrannical ruler,and whoever was satisfied with hi s rule. As to anyone who
refused their view,they do not believe in ki lling him except
1 Ibid .
,vol. i, p . 146.
96
MOSLEM rS‘CHIS‘MJS A-ND SECTS
of the Imamate for someone in its own group, who goes
out with the sword against hi s enemies ; they did not, however, excommunicate those among them who were Abstainers .
As to the M ajhfi liyah, thei r views are l ike those of the
Ma‘lumiyah except that they ho ld that he who recognizes
Allah by some o f hi s names ( i f not all) real ly knows him ,
and in thi s matter they condemned the Ma‘lumiyah as unbe
lievers .
10. Concerning the Saltiyahf These take thei r name
from Salt ibn—‘Uthman, who i s also cal led ibn- abi - al-Salt .
He belonged to the ‘Ajaridah,
except that he said : When
a man agrees with us and becomes a Moslem,we accept
him,but not his. chi ldren
,for they are not real Moslems
unti l they are of ag e, when they are invited into Islam and
accept it .
Side by side with thi s sect was another sect , the ninth sect
o f the ‘Ajaridah,
who claimed that neither the chi ldren o f
believers nor the chi ldren of po lythei sts were friends or foe sunti l they had attained maturity
,when they were inv i ted to
Islam and recei ved or refused it .
1 1 . Concerning the H amatyah. These are the fo l lowersof Hamzah ibn-Akrak ( see above ) who laid waste Sij istan,
Khurasan,Mukran
,
2 Kuhistan,
3an
'
d Karman,
and de
feated thei r big armies . He at first belonged to the‘Aja
ridah Of the Khazimiyah,but came to differ from them over
predestination and freedom Of choice,agreeing in these
matters with the Kadariyah . The Khazimiyah,there fore ,
condemned him as unbeliev ing in thi s. respect . Moreover, heclaimed that the chi ldren o f polythei sts are condemned to
1 Not g iven by Shahrastani . M . Horten,Die Philosoph/lschen Systeme
der speculativen Theo log en im Islam,p
,62 .
2 De Goeje, ibid .
,vol. vi, p . 242 , country next to Karman .
3 Ibid .,p . 49 .
98
THE SECTS OF THE KHARIJIYAH
hell , for which view the Kadariyah condemned him as an
unbeli ever . He then made a covenant with the Abstainers
among the Khawarij , in conso-nance with his v iews on theabjuration of whoever does not agree with him on the sub
j cet of fighting those within the sects of thi s religion who
disagree with his view ,cal ling them polytheists . Wherever
he fought and defeated some enemy he commanded their
possessions to be burned and thei r animals slaughtered,and
at the same time ki lled the prisoners taken from those who
di sagreed with him . H is appearance was. in the days OfHarun al-Rashid , in the year 1 79 . H is upri sing lasted unti l
the early part of the cal iphate of al-Ma’
miin . When he
took possess ion of some prov inces,he instal led as hi s Kadi
over them abu-Ya hya Yusuf ibn- Bashshar, as leader of his
army a man by the name Of J iwaih ibn-Ma‘bad
, and as
leader o f his bodyguard ‘Amr ibn- Sa‘id . Many O f the poets
o f the Khawarl j j oined him ,such as. Talhah ibn—Fahd ,
abu- l—Julandi and others . He started hosti li ties against the
Baihasiyah o f the Khawarij , most of whom he ki lled , so
that i t was after this that he was cal led the Commander ofthe Faithful. The poet Talhah ibn-Fahd sa id about thi s :
The Commander of the Faithful is on. the rig ht way and under the
best o f g uidance,
What a marvelous commander , surpassing the other commanders justas the shining moon surpasses the small star .
”
It was after thi s that Hamzah made a raid against the
Khazimiyah among the Khawarij in a part of the country
known as Faljard,1 kill ing great numbers. of them . Then
he himsel f went to H irat,
2 whose people prevented him from
entering it,but he fought those outside of the city and put
them to the sword . Then ‘Amr ibn-Yazid al-Azdi,who at
1 Ibid . ,vols. iii- iv,
index .
1 Ibid ., vol. vi, p . 18
,province o f Khurasan .
99
MOS-LEM (SCHISnMxS AND SECTS
thi s time was governor of H irat, came against him with anarmy . The battle between them lasted for months . A great
many from the land O f Hirat were ki lled,including the
Schismatics,the followers of Haisam al—Shari . 1 The mis
sionaries of Hamzah urged the peop le to join in his error .
Hamzah then attacked Karukh in the vicinity O f H irat.
burning the possession s o f the people and laying waste thei r
trees . After this he fought ‘Amr ibn-Yazid al-Azdi in the
neighborhood of Bushanj ( or t ) ,2 in a battle in which
‘Amr was killed .
‘Ali ibn-
‘Isa ibn-Hadiyan
,who was then
governor o f Khurasan , now took part in the war against
Hamzah , who was forced to flee from him into the land Of
Sij istan after he had ki lled sixty men of his leaders,not
to mention hi s fo l lowers . When he reached Sij istz‘
tn,the
people of Zaranj 3 prevented his entering their town,so he
slaughtered some o f them with the sword in the wastes near
the town . H e then disguised himsel f from them ( the peopleof Zaranj ) by putting his followers into black , which gavethem the appearance o f being the followers o f the Sultan .
‘1
They were warned of thi s,however
,and succeeded in pre
venting his entrance into their city . He there fore laid waste
the palms in thei r forests and ki lled those passing throughthei r wastes . He then went in the direction o f the river
Sha‘bah and there ki lled most O f the Khalafiyah from
among the Khawarij , cutting down thei r trees , burning
their possessions,and dri v ing away their leader cal led
Mas‘ud ibn-Kai s , who in hi s fl ight fel l into the river he was
crossing . H is fo l lowers are in doubt about hi s death , and
sti l l look for his appearance . Hamzah thereupon returned
1 Shahrastani,ibid .
,vol. i, p . 1 19 .
1 De Goeie, ibid.,vol. vi, p . 18, province o f Khurasan .
5 Ibid .
,vol. vi, p . 50,
town in Sij istan .
4 The‘Abbaside party wore black . Banning ,
Muhammed ibn al
Hanafija,p . 72 . M e
'
lang es de la Faculté O rientale, vol. v , p . 439 .
100
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
the events of which the people of Nisabur boasted , prai seAllah for this .
1 2 . Concerning the Tha‘
aliba-h. These are the followers
o f Tha‘labah ibn-Mashkan .
1 The Tha‘al ibah claim his
Imamate as a successor to ‘Abd- al-Karim ibn-
‘Aj rad . It i s
claimed that ‘Abd—al—Karim ibn-‘Aj rad was Imém unti l
Tha‘labah differed from him over the judgment of chi l
dren . When the two differed over thi s ibn-‘Aj rad was con
demned and Tha‘labah became Imam . The reason for their
d ifference was. that a man o f the‘Ajaridah asked Tha‘labah
for hi s daughter’s hand,whereupon Tha‘labah said to him :
Show her dowry .
”The suitor then sent a woman to the
mother O f the daughter to ask her i f the daughter was ofag e, for i f she was of ag e and had embraced Islam , according
to the stipulations which the ‘Ajaridah require, i t did not
matter what her dowry was. Her mother said : Whether
she be of ag e or not , since her guardian is. a Moslem ,she
i s one .
’ ‘Abd- al-Karim ibn-‘Aj rad was notified of thi s
,as
well as Tha‘labah ibn-Mashkan .
‘Abd- al-Karim preferred
to maintain the independence Of chi ldren be fore maturity,while Tha‘labah said : We remain their guardians whetherthey be young or mature unti l they make clear to us that
they are going to turn away from the truth .
” When thevdiffered over thi s
,each one of them threw off the respon
sibility of the sin of the other, and their respective followers
were div ided into two sects . The sects o f the ‘Ajaridah we
have already mentioned . The Tha‘al ibah subdivided into
six sects . One of them held to the Imamate of Tha‘labahand accepted no other Imam after him
,unmoved by the fact
that there arose among them different Opinions held by the’
Akhnasiyah and the Ma‘badiyah .
1 Shahrastan1, ibid ., vo l. i
,p . 147 g ives Tha‘labah ibn-
‘Amir instead
o f ibn -Mashkan .
THE ‘S-ECTS OF TH E KHARIJIYAH
1 3 . Concerning the M a‘
badiyah. The second sect wasthe Ma
‘badiyah , who claimed that the Imam succeeding the
Tha‘al ibah was one o f thei r people by the name of Ma‘bad .
1
This man disagreed with all of the Tha‘al ibah over the
question Of taking alms from,and giving alms to slaves .
He condemned as unbelievers those who did not accept thi s
v i ew,while the rest o f the Tha‘al ibah condemned him as
unbel ieving because he held thi s view .
14 . Concerning the Ahhnas‘
iyah. The third sect was the
Akhnasiyah,followers of one of their people who was
known as al-Akhnas. At the beginning of hi s career he
agreed with the views of the Tha‘al ibah concerning the
g uardianship O f chi ldren . But later he withdrew from them .
saying : We must oppose all those l i v ing in a land where
di ssembling is sanctioned .
2 Only when the faith of the'
man in question is known to us should we definitely ac cept“
h im. And likewise only when his heresy i s definitely known
to us should we rid ourselves of him .
”He forbade murder
and theft in secret, and al so claimed that none of the people
o f the K iblah should begin a fight without being special ly
cal led for it,unless the enemy is pe rsonal ly known . In thi s
v i ew he had many fol lowers . Indeed he was rej ected by therest of the Tha‘éi libah
,but he in turn rej ected them .
I 5 . Concerning the Shaiban'
tyah. The fourth sect of the
Tha‘alibah i s the Shaibaniyah ,fol lowers O f Shaiban ibn
Salamah al-Kharij i , who separated from the rest in the
days o f abu-Musl im,the founder of the dynasty of the
banu-al He helped abu-Muslim in hi s wars against‘
his enemies,and in addition held the doctrine of the l ikeness
of Allah to his creatures . The rest O f the Tha‘al ibah , to
g ether with the Sunnites , condemned hi s view as anthropo
1 Ibid ,p . 148.
2 See note 1,p . 1 10.
103
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SECTS
morphic . In addition all of the Khawarij condemned him
for upholding abu-Muslim . Those of the Tha‘al ibah who
condemned him were called the Ziyadiyah, the followers ofZiyad ibn-
‘Abd-al-Rahman .
1 The Shaibaniyah claim that
Shalban repented of his sins,while the Ziyadiyah said that
among hi s sins was that of do ing violence to the worship
pers of Allah , a crime for whi ch repentance could not atone.However
,he went on ai ding abfi-Muslim in fighting the
Tha‘alibah , j ust as he had aided him in fighting the banfi’
Umaiyah .
1 6 . Concerning the Rashid‘
iyah. The fifth sect of the
Tha‘alibah is cal led Rashidiyah after a man by the name ofRashid . Its peculiar belie f is that land which is watered by
springs and flowing rivers should pay hal f the tithe , the
complete tithe being paid on land watered by rain only .
Ziyad ibn- ‘Abd- al-Rahman differed from them,saying that
land watered by springs and flowing rivers should al so payful l ti the .
1 7 . Concerning the M ukarram‘
i'
yah. The sixth divi sionof the Tha‘al ibah i s called the Mukarramiyah ,
followers of
abu-Mukarramf’ They claim that he who neglects prayer i san unbeliever, not because Of the fact o f hi s neglect of prayer,but because o f his ignorance of Allah . They claimed
,more
over, that all sinners were ignorant of Al lah , and that ignor
ance constitutes unbelie f . They also held to the doctrine
that Allah ’s enmity and friendship depend on a man’s rel ig
ious attitude at death . Such are the sects of the Tha‘al ibahand thei r views.
18 . Concerning the Ibadiyah and their sects . The Ibadiyab ,
although divided over many things,agreed in ac
knowledg ing the Imamate o f‘Abdal lah ibn- Ibad .
3 An
1 Ibid .,p . 149 .
1 ind ,p . 1 53 .
‘Ibid .,p . 1 5 1 .
104
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SECTS
Accordingly,the man who knew Allah, but later came to
disbel ieve in other matters,such as his Prophet, paradise ,
hel l,forbidden deeds
,ki lling onesel f
, or the permi ssion of
adultery and the rest of the forbidden sins , that man i s anunbeliever
,but is nevertheless free from polytheism . He,
on the other hand , who is ignorant of Allah , and denies
him,i s a polythei st . Their explanation of the case of
‘Uthman ibn-
‘Affan was similar to that of al-Rafidah inregard to abfi-Bakr and ‘Umar. They also claim that ‘
Ali
was the one to whom Allah re ferred when he revealed thefollowing : “A man there i s who surpriseth thee by his dis
course concerning this present l i fe . He taketh God to wit
ness what i s in his heart ; yet i s he the most zealous in
opposing thee ( Surah 2,v . 200) while
‘Abd -al-Rahmanibn—Mulj im was the one to whom Allah re ferred when he
said,
“ A man too there i s who sell s his very sel f out ofdesire to please God .
”
( Surah 2,v . In addition to
all thi s they went on to say that belie f in the books and the
prophets i s connected with bel ief in the unity of Allah .
And any man disagreeing with thi s was a polytheist . Thi s
last view is contradictory to their first view that the difference between po lytheism and unbelie f l ies in the knowledgeo f Al lah alone , and that he who knew Allah i s free from
polythei sm even i f he rej ects the rest of the belie fs , i . e. the
Prophet,paradise and hell . Their views thus became con
tradictory in thi s matter .
20. Concerning the H ci rith’iyah. These are the followerso f Harith ibn-Mazid al- Ibadi .
1 It was they who agreed
with the Mu‘tazilah in regard to fate . They claimed also
that abi li ty precedes any deed , a view for which the rest ofthe Ibadiyah condemned them
,because it was contrary to
the views of the Sunnites to the effect that Allah creates the
1 Ibid .,p . 153 .
106
THE SECTS OF TH E KHARIJIYAH
deeds of hi s servants,and that abi li ty comes only in con
j unction with the deed . The Harithiyah claimed that theonly Imams they had had since the first Muhakkimah were‘Abdal lah ibn- Inbadi and that after him came Harith ibn
Mazid al- Ib‘
adi .
2 1 . Concerning the Ashab Tdr‘
ah who do pious deeds
without the intention of pleas ing Allah. This sect claims
that i t i s true that there exist many acts of obedience [ v i rtues ] that are not meant to please Allah . Abu—al-Hudhai l
( see below ) and hi s fol lowers among the Kadariyah al so
asserted thi s ; but our followers said that this i s true only
in one case,that i s , during the first intuition of man . When
a man i s guided 1 by such intuition,he is obedient to Allah
in his deed , even though he had not intended to draw near
to Allah by performing it,because it is. impossible for him
to draw near to Allah before he real ly knows him . But
when he has once learned to know Allah , then , after thi s
knowledge, any obedience on hi s part to Allah i s not ac
counted to him as righteousness,unless he intended thereby
to draw near to Allah . All the Ibadiyah,however
,claim
that the houses of thei r opponents among the people of
Meccah are places where the unity of Allah i s proclaimed ,with the exception of the camp of the sultan , for his is the
abode of a tyrant . Over hypocri sy they differed in threeways , one sect saying that hypocri sy is not included either inpolythei sm or in fai th . As thei r reason they gave the words
of Allah on hypocrites : “Wavering between the one and the
other,belonging neither to these nor to those .
”
( $urah 4 ,
v. Another sect said : “All hypocrisy is polythei sm ,
because it i s opposed to unity . The third sect said : We
do not separate the word hypocrisy from its proper usage ,nor do we cal l any people hypocrites , except those whom
Read istadall and not istadhall.
107
MOSLEM S CH ISMS AND SECTS
Allah has called hypocrites . Those of themwho said thatthe hypocrite i s not a po lythei st , claimed that those who
were hypocrites in the time of the prophet o f Allah were
unitarians , and at the same time major sinners ; thus being
unbelievers,even though they did not come within the
category of po lytheists..‘Abd- al-Kahir states : A fter all we have related about
them, (we see that ) the peculiarity of their views sets them
apart fro-m the rest . Among these peculiarities are those
held by the party which claims that there was no proof for
mankind of the unity of Allah and hi s di v ine and other
attributes,except through in formation
, or that which takes
its place along the l ine of s igns and suggestions .” An
other party said that the law and the commands of Islam
are binding on whomever enters the rel igion o f Islam ,
whether or not he has heard or known them . The rest ofthis sect say a man does not sin in doing something about
which he knows nothing,except when the pro-of [of its sin
fulness ] has been gi v en him . Stil l others say i t i s possible
for Allah to send to his creatures a prophet with no signto prove his veracity . Others
,however
,contend that who
ever attains the knowledge that Allah has forbidden wine ,or that he has caused the Kiblah to be changed
,must be
certain whether the one who informs him o f thi s i s a be
l i ever or an unbe li ever. Moreover,i t i s incumbent upon
him to know thi s through information ,1although he need
not necessari ly know that thi s has come to him through in
formation . The view of sti l l others is that g oing on footto prayer, or riding or traveling to the Haj j or any of themeans which help to fulfil that which i s required , are of noaccount . What i s incumbent is the doing of the deed , re
g ardless of the means used in its attainment . All part ies
1 For definition o f information in this sense see Lane on khabar as
contrasted with Hadi th.
108
MOSLEM S CH ISMS AND SECTS
slave to an unbeliever And Ibrahim said to him : Allah
has permitted such a sale , and the followers o f our sect who
passed before us have also always permitted it .” Maimun
left the sect,but the rest were uncertain about it
,so they
wrote to thei r ‘Ulamas,who answered that such a sale was
permissible,and that Maimun should be brought to repent
ance , as well as those who were in doubt concerning the
action of Ibrahim . The result of all thi s was that three
sects arose , the Ibrahimiyah, the M aimfiniyah, and the
Wakifah . Owing to the question of the legal ity of thi ssale
,Ibrahim gathered quite a following, who came to be
known as the Dahhakiyah. This group permitted the mar
riag e of a Moslem woman to an unbeliever in a country
where dissembling is sanctioned .
1 But in the case of those
who are in a country where their own sect is in the ascend
ance,this i s not permitted . Some were uncertain over
this question,saying about the wi fe : “ I f she dies we will
not say prayers over her, nor will we accept her.
inheritance ,because we do not know what her legal condition is.
”
After the Ibrahimi’
yah,there arose a party cal led the
Baihasiyah ,followers of abfi-Baihas Haisam ibn-fAmir .
2
These say that Maimi’
in was an unbeliever,because he for
bade the sale o f a woman in a region where dissembling i ssanctioned
, and which is inhabited by the unbelievers o f our
people . The Wakifah were heretics because they did not
recognize M aimun’
s heresy and Ibrahim’s orthodoxy .
Ibrahim ,on the other hand
,was. a heretic because he did
not disclaim the Wakifah . They said : The reason for
this is because uncertainty exists only in connection with
bodies ; the uncertainty with regard to a j udgment can occuronly where no one agrees with it
,for i f one Moslem agrees
with it, he who i s present cannot help knowing him who
1 Goldziher,Dos Prinzip der takij j a im Islam
,Z . D . M . G . , vol. lx, p . 2 13 .
2 Shahrastani , ibid .
, vol. i, p . 139 ; vol. ii, p . 405 .
1 10
THE SECTS O:F TH E KHARIJIYAH
knows the truth and acts on i t,and him who knows the un
truth and acts on it .” Then the Baihasiyah said :“We do
not cal l him who commits a sin a heretic unti l he i s brought
to the g overnor and puni shed , so that befor e he i s broughtto the governor
,we cal l him nei ther a believer nor a here
tic . Some o f the Baihasiyah said :“When the Imam be
comes an unbel iever, his fo l lowers al so become unbeliev
ers .
” Others said : “All drinks are original ly permi ssible .
H e,therefore
,who drinks. i s forgiven everything which he
doe s when dr unk,such as neglecting prayer and scorning
Allah . He can neither be punished nor con sidered a heretic
as long as he i s drunk .
” Sti l l others o f the Baihasiyah,
cal led the ‘Aufiyah,
said : Drunkenness i s heresy i f during drunkenness prayer is. neglected
,or a simi lar offense i s
committed .
” The ‘Aufiyah di v ided off from the Baihasiyahand separated into two sects . One sect said : We repu
diate those who desert us after having left home and j oinedus
,fighting in our ranks .” The other sect said : No
,we
would keep such an one,because he would then be return
ing to a state that was legal for him before he came to us .”
Both sects say that i f the Imam is heretical , his followers ,whether present or absent , are also heretical . Besides the
Ibadiyah,the Baihasiyah formed the subsects which we
have mentioned in the Kitab al—M ilal wa’
l-N ihal. This ,there fore
,i s all we have to say o f them in this book .
2 1 . Concerning the Shabibi‘
yah. They are known as al
Shabibiyah because they owe their origin to Shabib ibn
Yazid al- Shaibani , known as abu- l-Sahara. They were
also known as the Sal ihiyah after Sal ih ibn-Mishrah al
Kharij i . Shabib ibn-Yazid , the Kharij ite , was one of thecompanions of Sal ih , and after him he took over the com
mand of his army . The reason for this was that Sal ih ibn
Mishrah al—Tamimi differed from the Azarikah by claim
ing that he was one of the $ i friyah , while others said that heI I I
MOSLEM S CH ISMS AND SECTS
had been nei ther a Si fri nor one of the Azarikah . In the
days when Bishr ibn-Marwan was governor of al- Irakunder his brother ‘Abd- al-Mal ik ibn—Marwan
,Sal ih rebelled
against him . Bishr sent al-Harith ibn-
‘Umai r to fight him .
Al-Mawayini says that Sal ih rebelled against al-Haj jajlbn—Y asUI,
1and that i t was al—Haj jaj who sent al-Hari th
ibn-‘Umai r to fight him
,and that the battle between the
two came to a head before the gate of Fort Halfila . Salih ,having been de feated and wounded , took to fl ight
,and
being near to death he sa id to his companions : I name
Shabib my successor over you . I know there are among
you some who are more learned than he , but he i s a brave
man in the opinion of your enemies,and feared by them .
He among you who i s learned , let him help him with hi s
knowledge. Therefore,as soon as he died
,his followers
paid al legiance to Shabib,unti l he came to differ with Sal ih
about a certain thing, i . e. he and some of his fo l lowers
countenanced the Imamate of one o f thei r women,when
she took a prominent place in thei r affai rs,and led them out
against thei r opponents . They claimed,moreover
,that
Ghazalah,the mother of Shabib
,held the Imamate after
the murder of Shabib,unti l she was killed . This they
proved by the fact that when Shabib entered al-Ku fah,he
made his mother mount the pulpit of al-Ku fah,in order to
preach . The historians report that at the beginning of theseaffa irs
,Shabib went to Syria and came to Rah ibn-Zinba‘ 2
and said to him :“Ask the Amir of the Fai th ful to assign a
stipend for me, as one on the honor- roll for I have a large
fo l lowing among the banu- Shaiban .
” So Rah ibn- Zinba‘
asked this of‘A'bd- al-Mal ik ibn—Marwan . But the latter
replied : I do not know this. man, and I fear that he i s a
1Tabari , ibid .
,vo l. iv,
pp . 7, 1 14 et seq.
2Tabari -De Goeje ,
vol. ii , pp . 424, 460, 461 .
1 12
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SECTS
unti l he had gathered hi s troops around him in the morn
ing. In the meantime,Shabib led his companions in prayer
in the mosque, and at the morn ing prayer he read the Surah
of the Cow ( Surah and the Surah of the Family of‘Imran ( Surah It was j ust at that point that al—Haj jaj
came upon him with four thousand of hi s arm y, and the
two parties fought in the market place of al-Ku fah , unti lthe companions of Shabib were ki lled , and Shabib forced to
flee to al—Anbar, with those who remained with him . Al
Haj jaj sent an army in pursuit,and drove Shabib out of
al—Anbar ,1L into al-Ahwaz . Al-Haj jaj sent Sufain ibn-al
Abrad al—Kalbi with three thousand men in pursuit of Sha
bib . Sufain encamped on the banks of al-Dujai l [LittleTigri s ] , whi le Shabib went to the bridge of Dujai l to crossover to him . Sufain,
however,commanded hi s followers
to cut down the ropes of the bridge . The bridge,there fore ,
gave way and Shabib fel l into the water with hi s horse .
This happened while he was repeating Surah 6,v . 96
This is predestined (by Allah ) , the mighty, the knowing.
”
The fol lowers of Shabib on the other side of al-Dujai l thenpaid allegiance to Ghazalah
,the mother of Shabib . But
Sufain ibn-Abri d mended the bridge and crossed wi th hi s
army into the district of the Khawari j,ki ll ing most of them ,
including Ghazalah , the mother of Shabib,and his wi fe
Jah izah,2and taking prisoner the rest of the fol lowers of
Shabib . He also commanded the divers to bring the body
o f Shabib out of the water, and he took his head and sent it
with the pri soners to al-Haj jaj . When the pri soners were
brought be fore al-Haj jaj , he commanded that a certain man
of them should be kil led . That man had sai d to him ?
1 De Goej e, ibid .,vol. vi, p . 8.
2 ‘Abd al-Kahir gi ves two reading s. J ahi’
zah and J ahziyah.
1 14
THE SECTS OF THE KHARIJ iY AH
Hear from me the two verses with which I wil l end
work .
” Whereupon he began reciting
I will take refug e with Allah from ‘Amr and his followers,
And from ‘Ali and the Companions o f Sitf in
And from Mu‘awiyah ,
the tyrant, and his followers ;Bless not, 0 Allah,
the accursed peop le !
Not only this man’s death , but the death o f many others
was commanded . The rest were set free .
Says ‘Abd- al-Kahir to the Shab'
ibiyah of the KhawarijIt might be said , you discountenanced the departure o f the
Mother of the Faith ful,
‘A
’i shah,to al—Basrah with her
army, of which each member was forbidden [ in marriage ] ,because in the Koran she i s the mother of all the faith ful ;and you claimed that she became a heretic because of this ;and you applied to her the words of Allah : ‘And abide sti l l
in your houses . ’ ( Surah 33 , v . Why don ’t you apply
thi s verse al so to Ghazalah , the mother of Shabib, and so
charge her, and the Kharij i te women also, with heresy, who
went to fight the armies of al-Haj jaj ? Now,i f you con
sider thei r action permissible,because their husbands , chi l
dren or brothers were with them,then you should take
into account that with ‘A’i shah there were her brother ‘Abd
al-Rahman,and her nephew ‘Abdal lah ibn—al-Zubai r, each
one of whom was forbidden to her [ in marriage ] . Besides ,all Moslems. are her chi ldren , and there fore all are forbidden
to her . I f,then
,some of you accept the Imamate of Ghaza
lah, so that her Imamate seems proper, why do you not
consider ‘A
’
ishah’
s act permissible ?” Prai se be to Allah
for guarding us from heresy .
1 15
CHAPTER I II
TH E DOCTRIN ES or THE ERRING SECTS AM ONG THEMU‘TAZILITE KADARIY AH
WE have already mentioned the fact that the Mu‘tazilah
were di v ided into twenty sects,each one condemning the
other as unorthodox . These twenty sects are : The Wasi li'
yah,the ‘Amriyah , the Hudhailiyah,
the Nazzamiyah,the
Aswariyah,the Mu
‘
ammariyah,the Iskaf
'
iyah ,the Ja‘far
iyah,the Bishriyah
,the Murdariyah,
1 the H ishamiyah,the
Tamam iyah,the Jahiziyah, the Hayitiyah,
the Himariyah,
the Khaiyatiyah,and the followers of Sal ih Kubbah
,the
Muwaisiyah ,the Shahhamiyah , the Ka
‘biyah , the Jubabiyah,
and the Bahshamiyah,who are named after abu-Hashim
ibn- al- Jubba’l . This makes a total of twenty- two sects,two
sects belonging to the heretical groups of the Ghulat. Those
we will mention in the chapter deal ing with the sects of theGhulat
, they being the Hayitiyah and the H imariyah. Theother twenty are pure Kadariyah,
all agreeing in certain
heretical doctrines,e. g . the common denial that Allah has
eternal qual ities ; the affirmation that Allah has neither
knowledge, nor power,nor l i fe
,nor hearing, nor seeing,
nor any eternal attribute ; together with thei r view that
Allah never had a name or an attribute . They claim ,fur
thermore, that it i s impossible for Allah to see with his
eyes . They say that he himsel f does not see,nor does
anyone see him . They differ,however
,over the question as
1 Shahrasténi , ibid ., g ives Mazdd
‘
r iyah, but Mnrddr iyah is correct .
Cf. Goldziher’
s article in Z . D . M . G . , vol. lxv, p . 363 .
1 16
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SECTS
ing to all the Mu‘tazilah,
the attribute o f Allah does notbelong to Allah alone . Al- Jubba
’
i and his son abu-Hashim 1
have sai d : “ All creative power i s a thing unlike other
things .” They therefore do not l imit thi s. prai se to thei
lord alone . Secondly,he is mistaken in his report that all
the Mu‘tazilah agree that Allah is the creator of bodies and
o f accidents , for i t i s known that the most determined of
the Mu‘tazilah exclude all accidents . Mu‘ammar
,among
them,claims that Allah created none o f the accidents ; that
derived accidents have no creator . How,then
,can his
claim be true that the Mu‘tazilah agree that Allah is the
creator of bod ies and of accidents,since some of them
ignore the existence of accidents , others assert thei r exi st
ence,claiming, however, that Allah did not create any o f
them,while others hold that derived accidents
,which arise
later [after creation ] , are accidents which have no creator .
Al-Ka‘bi , with the rest of the Mu‘tazilah
,says that Allah
did not create the deeds of hi s worshipers . According tothose believing in accidents
,such
'
deeds are accidents . Al
Ka‘bi ’s mistake in thi s matter,with regard to his compan
ions , for example , that the Mu‘tazilah were agreed over the
v iew that Allah created what he created from nothing,i s
there fore an accident . How could they have been agreed
about thi s ? Al—Ka‘bi and the rest of the Mu‘tazilah
,with
the exception of al- Sal ihi ,2 claim that all occurrences were
things before their occurrence . The Basri men among them
claim that substances and accidents were substances and
accidents and things in their state of non- existence . The
correct conclusion in this matter i s that Allah creates one
thing from another ; the view that he creates. a thing fromnothing being true on ly according to the principle of the
Sifatiyah, our co - bel i evers,who deny the existence of uh
1 Cf. below under Bahshamiyah.
2Horten , ibid .,p . 305 .
1 18
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE KADARIY AH
real things . As to the claim that the Mu‘tazilah agree that
the faith ful perform their acts as Allah has preordained
them, this i s a mistake on his [al part,beecause
Mu‘ammar,1who was one of them
,claimed that power i s
the act of a substance that i s powerful, and not an act of
Allah . The Asamm, among them ,
however,deny the sub
stance o f power because they deny all accidents . In the
same way his claim that the Mu‘tazilah agree that Allah
does not forg i ve maj or sinners who have repented , i s anerror on his part con cerning them
,for three of their sheikhs
who agreed with theWakifiyah as to the puni shments which
threatened major sinners,Muhammad ibn - Shabib al-Basri ,
a l- Salihi,and al-Khal idi considered it sometimes permis
s ible for Allah to forgi ve such sins,even without repent
ance . In regard to what we have mentioned about the
Mu‘tazilah
, al—Ka‘bi has made a mistake . The Mu
‘tazilah
agree in the matters we referred to. As. to the matters over
which they differ among themselves,those we shal l men
tion in the section . on their sects,please Allah .
1 . Concerning the W'
a'
siliyah from among them. These
are the fo l lowers of Wasi l ibn-
‘Ata al—Ghazza,
2 the head
of the Mu‘tazilah
,and thei r leader in their heresy a fter
Ma‘bad al- Juhani and Ghailan al-Dimashki .
3 Wasi l was
one o f those who paid frequent vi si ts to al-Hasan al—Basri 4
at the time of the rebellion of the Azarikah . At that time
the people were divided into sects over the question of sin
ners within the religion of Islam .
‘One sect claimed thatall who commit sin
,maj or or minor
,are po lythei sts . This
1 Cf. below under Mu‘ammariyah.
2 Horten,ibid .
,p . 125 . Sha hrastani
,ibid .
,vol. i, p . 44. Ibn -Khallikan,
.ibid .,vol . iii, p . 642 .
3 Leaders o f less important sects, preceding the definite split by the
Mu‘tazilah .
4 Horten,ibid . ,
p . 120. Ibn-Khallikan,ibid .
, vol. i, p . 370.
1 19
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SiECT'S
was the view of the Azarikah among the Khawarij , who
claimed that chi ldren of po lytheists were po lythei sts . They
there fore sanctioned the ki lling of the chi ldren of those whodiffered from them
,as. well as the ki l l ing of their women ,
whether they belonged to the religion of I slam or not .
The Sifriyah among the Khawarij regarded sinners as
unbel ievers and po lytheists , agreeing with the Azarikah in
thi s,although they disagreed with them over the ki ll ing of
the chi ldren .
The Najadat among the Khawarij held that a sinner
upon who se condemnation the community had agreed , i s an
unbel iever and a po lythei st , but that the sinner over whom
the community has differed shou ld be j udged according to
the decision of the canon i sts in thi s matter . Furthermore .
they forgave the sinner so long as he did not know that thesin i s forbidden
,being in ignorance of thi s fact , unti l the
testimony is brought against him with respect to it .
The Ibadiyah o f the Khawarij claimed that the sinner
who commits a sin against which he has been warned , knowing of the existence of Allah and what has been revealed
from him,i s an unbeliever in that he does not recognize the
blessings o f Allah : but his heresy is not the same as that ofthe polythei st . Som e of the people of thi s ag e went so far
as to claim that those who comm ited maj or sins in thi s commun i ty were atheists
,which is worse than being unbelievers
who publicly profess their unbel ief .
The learned followers of that ag e held with the rest ofthe communi ty
,that he within the community who commits
a major sin i s a beli ever owing to hi s knowledge of the
prophets and the books revealed by Allah ; and al so becauseof his knowledge of the fact that all that comes from Allahis truth . H e commits a major sin
,however
,even though his
error does not deprive him of the attributes of believer andIslam . To thi s fi fth view conform the companions ( of theProphet ) in the early community and thei r followers .
120
MOSLEM S CH ISMS AND SIECTS
them . For this reason,Ishak ibn- Suwaid al-
‘Adawi 1 as
serted that Wasi l and ‘Amr ibn-
‘Ubaid belonged to the
Khawarij , because they [ the Khawarij ] agreed regarding
the punishment of sinners . Al-‘Adawi said in one of hi s
poems :
I am free of the Khawar i j , nor am I one o f them,
[Free] from al- Ghazzal among them,and ibn-Bab
An d from a peop le who,when they mention
‘Ali,
Return the salute to the clouds.
Then Wasi l developed three more heresies in which he
disagreed with hi s predecessors . One of these differences
was owing to the fact that he found the people of his ag e
differing about ‘Ali and his followers and Talhah and al
Zubai r,and
‘A
’i shah and the rest of the Followers of theCamel. The Khawarij claimed that Talhah and al- Zubai r,and
‘A
’i shah and their fo l lowers in the Battle of the Camel
proved their di sbel ief in ‘Ali by the very fact that they
fought him . Moreover,they claimed that ‘
Ali was in the
right when he fought the'
Followers of the Camel,and the
followers of Mu‘awiyah at Siffin,but erred when it came
to the matter of the arbitration (by the two j udges ) . The
orthodox,however
,hold that both sides in the Battle of the
Camel were true Moslems . They say that‘Ali was on the
right side when he fought the others,and that the Followers
of the Camel were rebellious , and sinned in fighting ‘Ali
'
.
Thei r sin,however
,cannot be cal led heresy, nor transg res
sion,for this would render thei r testimony void
,whereas ,
as a matter o f fact , j udgm ent i s possible on the testimonyof two j ust witnesses from ei ther side . Wasil differed from
both of these sects over this matter,claiming that one of the
two sides must have been unj ust,though not of i tsel f ; and
that the unjust side could not be ascertained . The otherscontend that the unjust o f the two sides might have been
‘J . A . O .
'S .,vol. xxix , p . 43 . ! uoted in Mas
‘adi , vol. 11, p . 142 .
122
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE KADARIY AH
‘Ali and his followers
,i . e. al-Hasan
, al-Husain
,ibn-
‘Abbas,
‘Ammar ibn-Yasir,abu-Aiyub al-Ansari and the rest who
were with ‘Ali at the Battle of the Camel. Wasi l , however,
contends that the unj ust of the two sides were ‘A’i shah ,
Talhah,al-Zubai r, and the rest of the Followers of the
Camel. To prove thi s he said : I f ‘Ali and Talhah
,or
‘Ali and al- Zubai r, or a man of the followers of ‘
Ali and a
man o f the Followers of the Camel,should testi fy before
me over a handful of parsley,I should not decide by the
testimony of either of them ,because of my know ledge of
the fact that one of them is unj ust , although not of himsel f .
Likewise I would not decide on the testimony of two who
were cursing each other,because of my knowledge of the
fact that one of them was unjust,although not of himsel f .
But i f two men of one of the sides testified,hi s testimony
would be accepted . And many are the tears shed by the
eyes of the outspoken Rafidah over thi s sin ful seceding ofthe Sheikh al-Mu
‘tazilah on the question of the just cause
of ‘Ali and his fo l lowers , and the view o f Wasi l about the
whole matter . As we have said in one of our poems :
A view which is not connected w ith Wasil 1 -!May Allah split up
their unity by this.
”
And i f Allah pleases , we wil l give the end of thi s poem later .
2 . Concerning the‘Amrtyarh among them . These are the
followers of ‘Amr ibn—‘Ubaid ibn—Bab ,
2the freed -man o f
the banu-Tamim . H is grandfather was one of the captives
of Kabul . The innovations and heresies in religion never
appeared except from the chi ldren of captives , as is men
tioned in repor ts . The things in which ‘Amr agreed with
Wasi l were the fol lowing : Predestination , the heresy of
Play on word wasil which mean s connector .
Shahrastani , ibid .,vol. i , p . 47. Horten
,ibid .
,pp . 1 50- 153 .
123
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SECTS
Kadar, the wrong view about having an interm ediate rank
for certain errors, and the rejection of the testimony of two
men,one of whom came from the Followers of the Camel
and the other from the followers of ‘Ali . To these heresies
‘Amr added the follow ing : that both the sides fighting in
the Battle of the Camel were wrong. Therefore,while
Wasi l rej ected the testimony of two men,one of whom
was from the Followers of the Camel, and the other from
the followers of ‘Ali,but accepted the testimony of two men
from the same side ;‘Amr claimed that such a testimony
was to be rej ected even i f the witnesses. came from the sameside
,because he considered both sides to be wrong . After
Wasi l and ‘Amr,the Kadariyah differed over the same
point . Al-Nazzam [see below ] , Mu‘ammar and al- Jahi z
1
agreed with Wasi l about the sides at the Battle of the
Camel. But Haushab and Hashim al-Aukas said that the
leaders of the sect are safe,but the followers are condemned
to hell .
The Sunnites and the orthodox held that‘Ali and hi s fol
lowers were in the right in the Battle of the Camel, claim
ing,furthermore
,that al- Zubai r repented on that day and
re frained fro-m fighting. When he reached the Wadi alSiba‘
,
‘Amr ibn-Harmfiz,
2 taking him by surpri se,killed
him .
‘Ali gave the murderer the good news that he was
going to hell . Talhah was on the po int of returning, when
Marwan ibn- al-Hakam,who was among the Followers of
the Camel,shot an arrow at him and ki lled him .
3 It was‘A
’i shah who undertook the reconci liation between the two
parti es . The bana-Azd and the banu-Dabbah , however, hadthe upper hand over her , so that she fai led . Whoever cal ls
1 J . A . O . S .,vol. xxix, p . 56. Brockelmann
,loc. cit. , vol. i, p . 1 52 .
2Cf. Tabari , Zotenberg ,vol. iii, p . 660.
3 Ibid . J . A . O . S.,vol. xxix , p . 66 .
124
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
ary, nor would he be able to form anything, nor to annihi
late anything ; and this when people are supposedly sane !
H is views on thi s subj ect are worse than those of the man
who bel i eved that paradise and hell would cease , as did
Jahm . Jahm,however
,although believing that paradise
and hel l could cease,contended
,nevertheless
,that after
they had ceased,Allah would be able to create thei r like .
Thi s abfi-al-Hudhai l denied , maintaining that after thecessation of his preordination
,hi s God had no abi lity to do
anything. Among the Mu‘tazilah
, al—Mirdad attacked abu
al-Hudhai l,saying : “ According to thi s
,i t would follow
that i f the friend of Allah in paradise happened to be offer
ing a cup to someone in one hand , and a precious gi ft in the
other,when the time o f perpetual sti l lness fell upon all he
would forever hav e to remain in the position o f a man
being crucified .
Abu- al-Husain al-Khaiyéit1 offered the following two
pleas as an apology for abu- al-Hudhai l . He claimed first
that abu- al-Hudhai l meant that when the preordination of
Allah had ceased,he wou ld gather together all enjoyment
for the people of paradise and they would then remain thusin perpetual rest . Secondly
,he claimed that abu- al-Hudhail
had maintained these views for the sak e o f arguing withhis opponents over thei r investigations of his answers .
This first plea of aba- al-Husain,in de fence of aba- al-Hu
dhai l is,however
,false fro-m two po ints o f view . Fi rst
,he
held that two Opposite enjoyments can unite in one place atone time
, a condition which i s as impossible as the un ion of
pleasure and pain in one place . Secondly, i f thi s plea were
true,i t would necessari ly follow that the condition o f the
people of paradise after Allah’s preordination had ceased
would be better than thei r condition when Allah was omni
potent . As regards his claim that aba- al-Hudhai l taught the
1 Shahrastani , ibid .
, vol. i, p . 79 .
126
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE KA'D'ARIY AH
cessation of Allah ’s preordination only in order to encour
ag e argument,it i s re futed by the fact that aba- al-Hudhai l
wrote down and pointed out thi s fact in hi s book cal led ,Proofs of our Assertions . Besides
,in hi s book known as
The Book of the M oulds, he gives a chapter on the refutation of the Dahriyah , in which he states their views aboutbel i evers as fol lows : “ I f it i s possible to hav e a motion
a fter every motion,and so on to the end ; and an occur
rence after every occurrence , to the end ; then i s not thev i ew right which contends that there i s no motion unpre
ceded by a motion ,nor an occurrence unpreceded by an
occurrence ?” He compromised between the two,however,
saying : “ Just as an occurrence must have a beg inning
which i s not preceded by another occurrence,so there must
be an occurrence at the end which i s not fol lowed by an
occurrence .
” It is for thi s reason that he asserted that
Allah’s abi li ty to preordain ceased . The rest of the theo
log ians of Islam ,however
,di stinguished between the pre
ceding occurrence and the following occurrence by charac
teristic distinctions which escaped abu- al-Hudhai l . It was,there fore
,because of his ignorance of thi s that he held his
v i ew on the cessation of Allah’s preordination . These evi
dent di stinction s we have mentioned in the chapter entitled .
Evidences on the fact that the world is created ,”a chap
ter which i s to be found in our books treating of thi s
subj ect .
The second o f abu- al-Hudhail’
s heresies i s hi s view tha t
the people of the next world are forced to remain as theyare ; the people of paradise being forced to eat and drink
and intermarry,whi le the people of hell are forced to [ stick
to] thei r views . In the other world , no creature will be
al lowed to perform a deed , or acquire an Opinion . Allah is
the creator of their views and thei r actions , and all else that
is ascribed to them . The Kadariyah then blamed Jahm be
127
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
cause of his Vi ew that the servants of Allah in this worldare forced to do what they do of themselves , thus opposingour sect in its view that Allah i s the creator of that which
hi s servants acquire . They say to our sect : I f he (Allah )i s the creator o f the Oppression of men,
then he must be anoppressor, and i f he is the creator of the lies Of men , thenhe must be a l iar.” They might as well say to abu-al-Hud
hai l : I f y ou say that Allah ,in the next world
,creates the
fal sehood put in the mouth o f the people of hell as they
say : By Allah , our Lord , we were not po lythei sts ( Surah
6,v . then he must be a l iar, according to the view that
the l iar is the one who creates. the lie .
” But thi s conclusion
against us does not hold good,because we do not hold that
the oppresso-rs are the ones who created the Oppression and
the liar the lie . On the contrary,we ho ld that the oppressor
i s the one from whom Oppression proceeds,and the liar the
one from whom the li e proceeds,not the one who creates
them . Al-Kha'
iyat offered as a plea for this innovation of
abu—al-Hudhai l the following : “ The next world is a placeof rewards and not a place of responsibi lity ; therefore i fthe people of the other world were the performers of their
acts , they would be responsible for them,and their reward
and puni shment would be in another world .
” To thi s view
o f al-Khaiyat i t can be answered : Do you agree with , orrej ect, this view of aba- al-Hudhai l ? I f you agree , then yousay about it the same thing that he says
,which
,as a matter
o f fact differs from what you say. But i f you rej ect it,then
there i s no mean ing to your apology for a thing which you
yoursel f condemn .
” We,however
, say to abfi-al-Hudhai l :
Why do you say that the condition of the people of the
other world i s such as to render them unable to perform
deeds,and then say tha t they are commanded to thank
Allah for thei r enj oyment,but not commanded to pray, nor
to give alms,nor to fast . nor are they to cease from disobe
128
MOSLEM SCHIS-MS AND SECTS
commands , he must be doing everything which Allah forbids, and in the same manner anyone who has neglected allobedience must be committing all sins . I f thi s were the ca se
a Dahri would be a Jew, a Christian, a Magian , or an adher
ent of some other unbel ie f . I f the Magian,however
,rej ects
all hi s unbel ie fs except his Magian i sm ,he wou ld sti l l be dis
obeying by his M ag ianism,which we know was forbidden
him,but he would be obeying Allah in the rej ection o f the
rest of his unbelie fs,because Allah had commanded that
they be rej ected . Verily I say to him ,that the commands of
Allah and hi s prohibitions are not what you think them to
be,for there i s. not a qual ity of obedience without a qual ity
in Opposition to it and to each other ; there are no qual ities
of bel ief which do not have some qual i ties opposed to themand at the same time to each other . This i s s imilar to the
matter o f standing up and sitting down , bending down and
lying down . A man may not be s itting,but he would not
then necessari ly be do ing all i ts oppos i tes ; he would not be
sitting,howev er
,i f he were do ing one of i ts Opposites . In
l ike manner,a man i s outside of the realm of obedience to
Allah by following one l ine that i s Opposed to all the l ines
o f obedience, because that kind of unbelie f is Opposed to
another kind of unbelie f,j ust as i t is opposed to the rest of
the l ines of di sobedience . Al l thi s i s sel f - evident, although
abu- al-Hudhai l was ignorant of i t .The fourth o f hi s heresies i s hi s view that Allah i s not
on ly Allah himsel f,but hi s knowledge is himsel f , and his
power i s al so himsel f . From this v i ew he must concludethat Allah i s knowledge and power . But i f he i s knowledge
and power,i t i s not possible that he shou ld be knowing and
powerful ; because knowledge cannot be knowing, and powercannot be powerful . He would be forced to draw the sameconclusion i f he said that the knowledge of Allah is Allah ,
and hi s power i s Allah . This amounts to saying that his130
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZI'L'AH AND THE KADARIY AH
knowledge i s his power . And i f Allah ’s know ledge i s hi s
power, abu—al-Hudhai l must conclude that all that i s knownto him is. performed by his power ; the Being of Allah , therefore
,would be something performed by his power
,because
i t is known by him . This i s a form o f unbel ief, and what
leads to i t i s l ike it .
H is fifth heresy was his divi sion of the words o f Allahinto that which needs an obj ect and that which doe s notneed an obj ect . 1 He claims that the creative word of Allah
to things, Be , is not uttered to an obj ect . The rest of
his words, however, had a beginning in some corporeal substance . Yet all his words
, according to abu- al—Hudhai l,are
accidents . Furthermore,he claimed that hi s creative word
to things,Be , i s of the same kind as the word of man,
Be .
”He thus differentiated between two accidents which
were o f one kind,the difference [between them ] being that
one needs an obj ect,while the other i s able to do without an
object . As to his v i ew of the existence o f a decree of Allah
without an obj ect,in this View the Basrah Mu
‘tazilah share ,
adding to i t that thi s word [of Allah ] i s the same as a de
cree o f ours. which needs an obj ect . Consequently,accord
ing to him , one o f the speakers would be no better than the
other . Abfi—al—Hudhai l has no right to assert that the per
son saying the word i s better in what he says than any other,because he had maintained that
,in the other world , Allah
creates the words o f the people of paradi se and the wordsof the people of hell
,but he is no t the one who speaks their
words . Moreover, his theory o f the exi stence of a word
without an obj ect has led him to hold it correct to have
1M ahall is literally space. In this case it means the place O f orig in,
therefore author or subj ect. Cf. Mac-donald, Muslim Theolog y, J uris
prudence and C onstitutional Theory, under mahal.
2 Horten,ibid .
,p . 265 . This sentence is ambig uous in the Arabic.
Horten translates it very freely . It probably means that where there
is no subj ect there can be no difference.
13 1
MOSLEM S CHIS'MS AND SECTS
words without a speaker,which is an impossibi l ity ; what
leads to i t i s l ike it .
H is sixth heresy i s hi s view that evidence along the lineof reports [of individual s ] concerning matters whi ch are
not present to the senses,such as the miracles of the proph
ets,or concerning other matters
,cannot be accepted unless
there are twenty witnesses,one or more of whom is from
the people of paradise (Moslems ) . Nor would he neces
sarily accept as evidence the information of unbelievers and
impious,even i f their number should amount to the number
required,for their agreement on a fal sehood i s inconceiv
able (mutawatir ) ,2 unless one of them is a man of paradise
He claimed , moreover, that information coming from lessthan four persons i s not to be accepted . Information
,how
ever,coming from any number over four up to twenty may
be accepted , or may not. The attainment of knowledge ,however, from this information is certain i f one o f the
twenty i s a man of paradi se . This fact about the twentywitnesses he proved by the word of Allah : Twenty o f
you who persevere will conquer two hundred idolaters ”
( Surah 8 , v . To fight these two hundred idolaters ,however
,was not legal unless the twenty were evidence
against them . Accordingly the in formation of one person
must be sufficient for proof ( that a thing i s legal ) , becausein this case one person had to fight ten unbel ievers
,and the
fact that he was perm itted to do thi s was a sign one was
enough as evidence against them .
‘Abd- al-Kahir says :
what abu- al-Hudhai l meant by his statement that twenty
were necessary for establishing evidence,i f one of them
was a person from paradise , i s intended for the abolition of
the use of the information in the legal canons ; because he
1 The mutawd’
tir is the report of a peop le numerically indefinite, whoseag reement upon a lie is inconceivable, in view o f their larg e number .
Cf. Aghnides, M ohammedan Theor ies of Finance, p . 40.
132
MOSLEM SCHIS'MS AND SECTS
H is eighth heresy was as fol lows : When he discovered
that men differed over the question as to whether knowledge
is natural or acquired,he rej ected both of these views, as
well as the view that what i s known through the senses and
through intuition i s natural knowledge , while what i s known
through induction i s acquired knowledge . He then set up
for himsel f a view that differed from all those o f his prede
cessors. saying that know ledge i s of two kinds , the one
i s compulsory knowledge,such as the knowledge of Allah .
and knowledge o f the ev idence leading to a know ledge of
him ; the second is elective and acquired,such as knowledge
o f an event gained through the sense,or through syllogisms .
From this he drew his view of the belated character ofknowledge
,in which he differed from the rest of the be
lievers . According to thi s view,he sai d that the chi ld in the
second stage of his knowledge of himsel f does not have tobring all his knowledge o f uni ty and j ustice together with
out a break,but he must bring with the knowledge of the
un i ty and j ustice o f Allah the knowledge of all that Allah
has commanded him to do . The result i s that i f he does notf ulfil the requirement o f thi s second stage of hi s knowledge
o f himsel f and happens to die in the third stage,he dies an
infidel and an enemy to Allah,worthy of eternal fire . As
to the knowledge with regard to information which can be
known only through hearing,such knowledge should be
attained by the chi ld in the second stage of hearing, which
constitutes. a good excuse for him . Bishr ibn-Mu‘tamar,1
however,said that i t was in. the third stage that the chi ld
must show his mental knowledge,when in the third stage
o f his knowledge o f himsel f,because the second stage i s a
stage of speculation and of thought,so that i f he does. not
fulfil thi s in the third stage,and happens to die in the fourth
1 Horten,ibid .
,p . 161 . Shahrastani , ibid .
,vol. i, p . 65 .
134
T HE S ECTS OF THE MU‘TAZ‘IL'AH AND THE KADARIY AH
stage, he will then be an enemy of Allah , worthy of eterna l
fire . Thus there are a few fatali sts (Kadarites ) who denied the view of the Azarikah that the chi ldren of their 0pponents were condemned to hell, and deni ed also the view
o f those who held that the chi ldren of unbelievers are con
demmed to hel l ; these same men claimed that the chi ldren
of bel i evers who died in the third or fourth stage of their
knowledge of themselves,were condemned to eternal fire ,
although they had committed no unblief .
H is ninth heresy lay in the fact that he contended that iti s possible for a body having parts to have its motion con
fined to certain o f i ts parts . In the case o f co lor,he held
that this was not possible . The rest of the phi losophers
said that i t i s on ly the part in which motion arises that i s
the thing moving, and that the motion does not apply to the
combination o f all parts , j ust as the part which i s black , i s
the black part ; blackness not extending to the combination
of all the parts . I f,however
, the combination of all the
parts moves,there i s motion in every part
,j ust as i f the
whole i s black,every part i s black .
H is tenth heresy i s hi s Vi ew that the part o f a body which
cannot be divided,cannot have a color of i tsel f , when it i s
alone,nor can i t be seen when there is. no color in it . Thi s
forces the conclusion that i f Allah created the part by itsel f ,he could not see i t . Prai se be to Allah who has preserved
the Sunnites from the heresies which we have given in thi s
c hapter on abu-al-Hudhai l .
4 . Concerning the Naeeamtyah . These are the fo l lowers
of abn- Ishak Ibrahim ibn- Saiyar, cal led al-Nazzam .
1The
Mu‘tazilah try to deceive the common people when they
assert that he was cal led al-Nazzam because he compo sed
A . O . S . , vol. xxix , p . 58. Hor ten, ibid . , p . 189 . Shahrastiini ,
.ibid. ,vol. i, p . 53 . Macdonald, ibid .
,pp . 140,
141 , 1 52 .
135
MOSLEM S iCH IS-MS AND SECTS
prose and well—measured poetry . As a matter o f fact,he
composed only beads in the market of al-Basrah, and i t wasbecause of this that he was called al-Nazzam .
1 During hisyouth he mingled with the sect of the Dual i sts and the
Sophists who assert that all proofs are equal .He later fel l in with the heretic phi losophers , after whichhe associated with H i sham ibn-al—Hakam al-Rafidi . From
H i sham and the heretic philosophers he took the Vi ew on
the non- existence of the atom that is indivisible . From thi s
he drew his view of the leap which no one be fore hadthought o f. From the dual i sts he took his view that he
who performs justice can neither Oppress nor li e . He fur
ther took from H i sham ibn- al-Hakam that colors , taste ,smell and sound are bodies . It was from this heresy thathe drew the conclusion that bodies penetrate each other in
the same space . He agreed ,2 moreover
,with the dual i sts ,
with the innovators among philosophers,and with the quas i
heathen in Islam . He also admired the view of the Brah
mans who disbel ieved in prophecies . He did not,however,
venture to profess thi s view ,fearing the sword . Further
more,he denied the miraculous nature of the Koran as re
gards its composition, and he also denied the miracles which
are reported of our Prophet— for example ,“the splitting of
the moon ; that stones in hi s hand had prai sed Allah ; that
water had sprung forth between his fingers — so that deny
ing the miracles of our Prophet he almost came to deny his
prophecy . Mor eover,he found the fulfilment of the regula
tions o f Islamic law unbearable . He did not, however, dareto profess its abolition , although he denied evidences leadingto i t . It was on this ground that he denied the evidenceo f the agreement of the community and the evidence ofanalogy ,
” in developing the derivative institutes of the
Nazzam means a composer.
2 Text uncertain,wadalin ? Horten , ibid .
,p . 170.
136
MOSLEM S-CHIS'MS AND SECTS
of him by the Sunnites and the orthodox , Allah alone can
count them . Our sheikh abfi- l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari wrote
three books on the heresies of al-Nazzam . Al-Kalanisi1
also wrote books and dissertations against him . TheKadi abu- Bakr Muhammad ibn- ab
'
i- al- Taiyib al—Ash‘ari
wrote a big book on some of the fundamental doctrines ofal-Nazzam . He has po inted out his errors in the book on
the heresies o f the expositors . In this book of ours we
shall mention the most famous of al-Nazzam’
s heresies .
F i rst of all we will take up his theory that Allah has not
the power to do to hi s worshippers that which i s not to
their good . Nor does he consider Allah capable o f taking
away a jot from the enjoyment of the people of paradise ,because thei r enjoyment i s their j ust share
,and the lessen
ing of thi s share would therefore be inj ustice . Nor can
Allah increase the torment of those in hel l a jot, nor take
a jot away from it . He also claims that Allah has not
the power to remove anyone from paradise,or to throw
into hell anyone who does not belong to the people of hell .
According to thi s view,he said that i f a chi ld stood at
the edge of hell,Allah would have no power to throw him
in, but the chi ld could throw himsel f in , and the Zabaniyah2
can throw him in . To this he added that Al lah could not
blind a person who has sight , nor give a disease to a healthyone
,nor impoveri sh a rich person
,i f he knows that sight
and health and wealth are for thei r good . In the same
way he cannot enrich a poor person,nor heal a s ick one ,
i f he knows that di sease and s ickness and poverty are for
their good . To this he then added the Vi ew that Allahcould not create a snake or a scorpion , or a body of
1 An opponent o f al-Ash‘ari who died in 870.
‘Horten, ibid . , p . 375 .
2 Certain ang els, the tormentors o f the damned in hell ; so—called
because of their thrusting the people o f the fire thereinto . The ang els
mentioned in the Koran Surah 66, v . 6 .
138
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE KADARIY A-H
any kind, i f he knows that the creation o f something else
would be better than their creation . The Basriyah among
the Mu‘tazilah condemned thi s view and said that he who
has power over j ustice must have power over inj ustice,and
he who has power over truth must have power over false
hood ,though he may no-t commit Oppression , nor l i e, be
cause of the hideous nature of these acts or because he real
izes hi s abi li ty to do without them,because abi lity to do a
thing necessitates also the abi li ty to do the opposite . Now ,
i f al—Nazzam held that Allah had no power over injusticeand falsehood
,he would be forced to say that he had no
power over truth and j ustice either. Such a Vi ew as the
latter i s heresy,bringing in its train other heresies as bad .
They al so say that there i s no difference between al-Naz
zam’s view that Allah had no power to hinder nor to cause
to act,and the view claiming that he is forced to perform
deeds without his own choice . This al so i s a heresy, bring
ing in its train other heresies as bad . One o f the remark
able acts of al-Nazzam in thi s connection i s that he wrote
a book on Dual i sm and in i t expressed hi s surpri se at the
view '
o f the Manicheans, that l ight orders its different kinds
which are to be found in darkness to do good , althoughdarkness can do only evi l and can predicate naught but evi l
deeds . Al-Nazzam expressed his surpri se that the Dualistsblame darkness for doing evi l when they claim that it has nopower to do good
,but can do evi l only . One might say to
him,
“ I f,according to you,
Allah is to be prai sed for per
forming j ustice and truth,and has not the power to per
form injustice and fal sehood ,why then do you deny the
view o f the Dual i sts in blaming darkness for doing evil ,even though it can do nothing else ?”
H is second heresy was hi s view that man i s a soul , which
in the form of a rarified body enters the compact body.
This was in addition to his other view that thi s soul is life139
MOSLEM SCH IS-MS AND SECTS
in un ion with the body. He claimed further that in thebody it became a compact union , and there fore one sub
stance without difference or opposition . From thi s view
results the heresy that it i s not man who can be seen,but
the body in which he is. This would force the conclusionthat the Companions did not see the Prophet of Allah , butsaw only the mould in which the Prophet was. According
to thi s no one sees hi s father and his mother, but only their
moulds. Furthermore,i f he says of man that he is not an
external body,but only a soul within a body
,he must then
say the same of the ass, that he too i s not his body and i s
only a soul in his body,and that he i s the l i fe in union
with the body . This would be true also of the horse
and the rest of the four- footed animals, and all the birds
and repti les and the rest o f an imal kind . It would apply
also to angels and j inn , man and devi ls . It would , there
fore,fol low that no one ever sees an ass or a horse or a
bird , or any kind of animal . Furthermore,the Prophet did
not see an angel,nor do the angel s see each other . In fact ,
anyone looking must see only the moulds of the things whichwe have enumerated . Sti l l further
,when he says that the
sou l in the body is the man,and that i t i s the doer rather
than the body which i s its mould,he must then conclude
that i t is the soul which i s the adulterer or the thie f or the
murderer. Accordingly,i f the body is lashed , or the hand
cut off, the amputated member is not a fter all the real thie f ,nor the body lashed the real adulterer thi s i s sufficient ;for Allah has said : The whore and the whore-monger
scourge each one of them with an hundred stripes
( Surah 24, v . And he has al so said : “As to the thief ,whether man or woman
,cut ye off their hands in recom
pense for their doings ” ( Surah 5 , v . Thi s is sufficient
proo f from the Koran of hi s error.H is thi rd heresy was his view that the soul which is ma n.
140
MOSLEM S CH ISM S AND SECTS
and the light li v ing body is. unable to become a heavy deadbody .
In his fifth heresy he contended that all animal s were o f
one species,because they all agree in having the same per
ceptive powers . Thus. he claimed that when acts agree, i t i s
a proo f that what caused them are in agreement . He claimed
also that two different things would not come from one and
the same species ; j ust as fire doe s not give out both heat and
cold,nor snow gi ve out both heat and cold . This in truth
i s the view of the Dual i sts,that light does good and not
harm,and darkness does ev i l and no good comes from it '
because one author cannot perform two different acts,j ust
as heat and co ld do not both come forth from fire,nor from
snow . The strange thing i s that he compiled a book againstthe Dua li sts in which he pointed out to them the impossi
bility o f mingling light and darknes s i f they belong to di fferent species and actions and had movements in different
directions . In spite of thi s Vi ew ,he claimed that light and
heavy bodies ( soul and body ) , though different in species
and in the direction of thei r motion,penetrate each other in
the same space . But the penetration which he assert s i s
worse than mingling,which the Dual i sts hold
,and which
he disputed .
H is sixth heresy is his View that i t i s the nature o f fire to
surmount everything . I f,therefore
,i t i s released from the
filth that holds it in thi s world,i t ri ses unti l i t goes beyond
heaven and the Throne,unl ess some other o f its speci es
unites with it,in which case i t does not ri se . O f the soul
he said the same thing,that when it i s separated from the
body,i t ri ses
,and a change takes place in it. Thi s i s similar
to the view of the Dual i sts that the parts of light whichmingle with the parts of darkness
,when they separate from
the latter, ri se to the world of l ight,and when the light be
comes permanent above the heavens,the soul s unite with it .
142
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZ I-LAH AND THE KADARIY A‘H
He is,there fore
, a Dual i st . I f he affirms the exi stence offire above the atmosphere
,with which the ri sing fires in the
atmosphere combine,he i s one of the Natural i sts
,who claim
that air in ri sing,is at a distance from the earth o f sixteen
mi les,above which i s fire which reaches the sphere o f the
moon,and with which the ris ing flames of fire un ite . Al
Nazzam is therefore either a Dual i st or a Natural i st,con
cealing himsel f among the mass of the Moslems .
H is seventh heresy i s hi s view that the actions of animals
are all of one species,and are composed of motion and
quiescence . ! uiescence, according to him ,is limited motion .
Moreover,he con s iders knowledge and will motion , and
hence accidentals . All accidental s , according to him ,are o f
one species — all motion . As to color,taste
,sound
,and
senses,these
,according to him
,are different permeating
material things . The result of thi s view of his,that the acts
of animal s are of one species , i s necessari ly that bel ie f i sl ike unbelie f and knowledge l ike ignorance
, and love like
hatred . Furthermor e,i t follows that the acts of the prophet
toward believers are l ike the acts of Satan toward unbeliev~
ers, and that the invitation of the prophet to the people to
j oin the religion of Allah is l ike the invitation o f Satan: to
g o astray . In some of the books he has gone so far as to savthat all these acts are of one species
,differing only in their
name,because of the differences of thei r order
,they being
o f one species because they are all acts of an imals. Accord
ing to him,one animal cannot perform two different acts , j ust
as fire can not make cold and hot . According to this , al-Naz
zam cannot get angry with anyone who scolds or courses him ,
because the sentiment of the author who said , May Allah
curse al-Nazzam,
”according to al-Nazzam
,i s j ust the same
as i f he had sa id , May Allah bless al-Nazzam.
”Further
more, a chi ld born of adultery i s the same as a legal chi ld .
I f he himsel f i s sati sfied with such a doctrine he i s worthyo f i t
,and of the views that necessari ly follow .
143
MOSLEM S CHIS-MS AND SECTS
H is eighth heresy i s the view that color, taste , smell ,sound and sense are bodies
,and that many bodies can per
meate one and the same space . He refuses the view ofH i sham ibn- al-Hakam that knowledge and will and motion
are bodies,saying that i f these three were obj ects they
could not unite in one thing,nor in one body . And yet he
ho lds that co lor,taste and sound are bodies permeating each
other in the same space ; in answering his opponent he con
futes himsel f . He who maintains that bodies permeate
each other in the same space must admit the possibi l ity of a
camel passing through the eye of a needle !
H is ninth heresy i s hi s view concerning sound . He claims
that there are not two men on the earth who have heard
the same sound,except in the sense that i t ( the sound ) i s
of the same species of sounds,j ust as two men eat one
species o f food,even i f that which one of them eats i s not
what the other eats . This view developed from his claim
that a sound i s heard only as i t follows into the spiri t on
the path of hearing . It i s not possible,however
,to flow
from the same obj ect into two different organs of hearing .
He compared thi s with water which is sprinkled on a crowd
o f people , each one being sprinkled with different water .
According to thi s assumption it must necessari ly follow that
no one has heard the same word from Allah,nor from his
prophet,because what each one o f all the hearers hears i s a
part of the sound o f the word of the speaker . The word asa whole may perhaps consist of two letters , so that according to him one of them is not the word . I f he then claims
that the sound i s not a word nor is it heard except when it
consi sts of severa l letters,i t fo l lows that a group of people
cannot hear j ust one letter, for one letter cannot divide itsel f
into several letters according to the number of hearers'
H is tenth heresy i s his view concerning the divisibi l ity of
every particle ad infinitum . This idea implies the absurd144
MOSLEM SCHIS‘MS AND SECTS
tha t place to a thi rd place or a tenth without necessar ilytraversing the places which separate the first and the tenth ,nor by being annihilated in the first to be resuscitated in the
tenth . I f al-Nazzam i s j ust,we will refer thi s case to him
to declare i ts fal lacy, although we believe that after the
( famous ) arbitration of abu-Musa al-‘Ash‘ari and
‘Amr '
ibn—al-Asi any arbitration i s nonsense .
H is twel fth heresy was so horrible that the heavens werealmost rent asunder by it . It i s the view that no informa
tion about Allah,or hi s prophet
,or hi s worshippers
,can be
accepted as true. Furthermor e,that bod i es and colors can
not be known simply by information about them . What
drove him to thi s accursed view was his other belie f that
there are two kinds of known things,that which i s percep
tible and that which i s not perceptible . The perceptible are
bod ie s about which knowledge can be acquired only thr ough
the senses . According to him,the senses can perceive only
that which i s body ; color, taste , smell and sound being, according to him
,bodies . It i s because of this that they are
:
reached by the senses . As to the imperceptible,i t also i s of
two kinds,the eternal and the accidental . They way to know
the two i s not through information,but only through syllo
gism and intuition , and there fore neither through the sensesnor information . He was asked in this connection how he :
knew that Muhammad, as well as the rest of the prophets
and the kings,were on the earth
,since nothing can be known
through information . H is answer was that those who actual ly saw the prophet, in the act of seeing him took from him
'
a particle which they divided among themselves,and united
with thei r sou l s . When later they reported hi s existence to
their descendants,some of thi s particle le ft them and j oined
the souls of the descendants . The descendants , there fore ,know the prophet because a particle from the prophet has
j oined with their sou l . This. continues as each report i s146
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE K’ADIARIY AlH
passed on to the succeeding generation down to our own
time . The obj ection made to thi s was that Jews,Christians
,
Magians and heretics know that our prophet was on earth .
Does al-Nazzam then think that a particle has passed from
him into the spirit o f the unbeli evers ? This i s a necessary
conclusion . H e claimed , furthermor e, that when the peopleof paradise have intercourse with the people of hel l
,and the
people of hel l see them , and the two converse with eachother, particles o f each become exchanged . In thi s wayparticles of the bodies and spirits of the people of hel l enter
paradise , while particles of the bodies and spirits o f the
people of paradise enter hell . And there i s enough shame
on him for having dealt with thi s heresy .
Al-Nazzam’
s thirteenth heresy i s reported by al- Jahiz ,and i s to the effect that forms and bodies renew themselvesas they pass from one condition to another
, and moreover
that Allah creates this world and that which i s in i t wi thout
first annihi lating it and then resuscitating it . Abu—al-Husainal-Khaiyat says in hi s book against abfi- al-Ruwandi
'
that
al- Jahiz made a mistake in hi s report about thi s vi ew ofal-Vazzam. Now i t might be said to al-Khaiyat
,I f
al- Jahiz were right in hi s report, you should accept it as a
sign of al-Nazzam’
s foo l i shness and mental aberration ; buti f he lied about him
,then you should accept it as a sign of
the shamelessness of al- Jahi z and his. idiocy .
” And this was
the sheikh of the Mu‘tazilah and thei r phi losopher ! Since
the Mu‘tazilah l i ed about thei r Lord and their Prophet, we
cannot deny that they lied about their ancestors .
H is fourteenth heresy i s hi s view that Allah created man
and four- foo ted beasts and the rest o f the an imal s , and all
kinds of plants,and the forms of mineral s all at once ; and
that he did not create Adam before creating hi s chi ldren ,nor did he create the mothers be fore creating thei r chi ldren.
He claimed that Al lah created all these at one time , but that147
‘
MOSLEM S CHIS'MS AND SECTS
certain things are more numerous than others . So that the
question of priority and sequence i s merely one o f appear
ance and place . By this view he condemns as a l i e everything that has been agreed upon by the ancestors of the
Believers,as well as the people of the Book, whether Jews ,
Christians or Samaritan s . The view of all these being thatAllah created the tablet and the pen before the creation o f
the heavens and the earth . As to the Moslems,the only
thing over which they differ i s whether heaven or the earth
was created first . Al-Nazzam differs from the Moslems and
the people of the Book, as wel l as from most of the Mu
‘ta
zi lah,because the Basrah Mu
‘tazilah claimed that Allah
created his will before creating the thing willed ; while the
rest o f them assert that some bod i es in the world were
created before others . Abu- al-Hudhai l claimed that he
created his word to the thing but not in a place before he
created bodies and accidents . Al-Nazzam’
s view about what
i s mani fest in bodies and what i s. hidden,as well as their
pe rmeation,i s worse than the view of the Zahiriyah who
claimed that all accidents are hidden in bodies . The characteristics o f the bodies
,however
,are ascribed to them by
the mani festation of certain accidents,and the hiding of
others . In both doctrines,there i s a turning away from the
Duhriyah (Dahrite ? ) v i ew to the denial of the fin ite character of bodies and accidents ; for they assert that all these
exist in every condition,provided some are hidden and
others mani fest , although nothing may have appeared in the
condition o f mani festation . All this i s heresy and unbelie fand in fact everything that leads to error i s like i t .H is fifteenth heresy i s that the composition of the Koran ,
and the beauty of the literary arrangement of its words , donot show the miraculous character of its Prophet ; nor are
they a proof of the reliabi li ty of his claim to prophecy . The
basi s for the proof of his rel iabi lity l ies only in what the148
MOSLEM SCHIS-MS AND SECTS
edge i t gives is unmistakable, he is putting himsel f in a
position to rej ect the divine regulations of the law,by re
jecting its methods .
H is eighteenth heresy comes under the head of threats .
He claims that theman who takes by force, or steal s one hundred and ninety—nine dirhams only
,did not comm i t a crime .
In fact,he i s not to blame
,unti l what he has taken by force
or stolen, and about which he has acted treacherously,amounts to two hundred dirhams and over . I f he has basedthis view on the amount of a the ft for which the penalty i sthe amputation of the hand , he i s wrong, for there i s no onewho would limit that pun i shment to two hundred dirhams .
On the contrary, such a punishment i s considered by most
people to be necessary for the the ft o f even a
.
quarter of a
dinar, or i ts value . With this view al- Shafi
‘i and his follow
ers agree . Mal ik said it should be infli cted for a quarter o fa dinar or three dirhams . Abu—Hani fah said amputation
should be infli cted for ten dirhams and more,while others
said it should be infl icted for forty dirhams,or their value .
The Ibad iyah considered amputation necessary for smal l as
well as big thefts , no one l imiting the punishment to two
hundred dirhams . I f the fact of gui lt,deserving of ampu
tation,i s. authenticated by the thief himsel f
,even the rob
bery o f thousands of dinars will not be a transgression ,be
cause amputation is not infli cted on one who takes by force .
and then con fesses . It follows,moreover
,that he who
steals the thousands that are not guarded or that belong to
his own son ,i s not gui lty
,because no deci sion i s to be
found about these two cases [the case of one who confesses ,and one who steal s unguarded thousands ] . I f
,however,
al—Nazzam has based his l imitation of the punishment to
two hundred on the fact that the two hundred is the amount
given for alms , he must then condemn the man who steal s
forty sheep,the number necessary for the offering to be
150
T HE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZIDA-H AND THE K’A‘DARIY AH
considered alms,even i f i ts value was below two hundred
dirhams . I f analogy has no place in thi s definition of hi s
and there is no re ference to i t in the Koran , or the true
tradition,then his definition comes only as the whisper of
Satan who invites him to error.
H is nineteenth heresy i s hi s view that faith is the avoid
ing of major sins . The result of this view was that he re~
garded words and deeds as in no way fai th . Furthermor e ,prayer
,as regards i ts performance , i s neither faith nor
d rawn from fai th ; for fai th i s the forsaking of major s ins .
At the same time he held that both the acts and thei r for
saking are virtue. As to thi s , men before him were divided,
some saying that all prayer was faith, and others that nothing in prayer was faith . Al—Nazzam differed from both ofthese groups
,however
,claiming that whereas prayer i s not
fai th,the forsaking of major sins i s .
H is twentieth heresy comes under the head of the future
l i fe . I t was his view that scorpion s,snakes
,beetles
,bees ,
fl ies,scarabs
,dogs and swine, as well as the rest of the ani
mal s and insects,enter heaven . He claimed also that every
one and everything that Allah j udges wor thy o f heaven i s
not necessari ly of a different grade of precedence . According ly he claimed that Abraham the son Of the prophet o fAllah could not in heaven have precedence over the chi ldren
of the faith ful . Nor do the chi ldren o f the fai thful in
heaven differ in degree,pleasure or grade from the snakes ,
scorpions and beetles , because there i s no work for the latter
j ust as there i s no work for the former . Thus he l imits the
Lord of the worlds from making a difference for the chi l
dren of the prophets,by giving them more pleasure than he
bestows on the insects . Al-Nazzam did not even stop here ,but went on to say that the Lord of the worlds did not even
have the power to do this . Moreover,he claimed that Allah
bestowed on the prophets only that which he bestowed on
15 1
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
the animals , because, according to his view of precedence ,there i s no difference made between those who are wi se andthose who are not
,for these differ on ly as to reward and
punishment, according to the worth of their works . Hold
ing such a view as thi s,al-Nazzam cannot get angry at any
one who says. to him : May Allah resuscitate you with dogs
and swine and snakes and scorpion s in thei r quarters .”
And our wish for him i s that he may remain in the condi
tion to which this prayer consigns him .
H is twenty-first heresy appeared when he brought for
ward hi s. view about mental sciences . He introduced these
same errors,which had never been heard o f before , into the
dominion o f religious law . H is view was that divorce en
for ced by any of the fol lowing formulae was not legal ; e. g .
the word o f the husband to his wi fe : “ Thou art free,or
l iberated,or thou art free to go thy way,
or fo llow thy
people,or depart
,
”or any other divor ce formulae accepted
by the Canonists , whether he intends divorce or not . The
Canonists agree that such formulae constitute a divorce , provided there is intention o f di vorce . The lawyers of al- ‘Irakhold that even i f used only in anger
,the formula for divorce
i s equi valent to the declaration of divorce even i f no imtention i s present .
Another o f al-Nazzam’
s errors i s about separation, for
he says that to have a husband say,Y ou are to me like
the back o f my mother, means divorce ; whereas i f he uses
the word belly or generati ve organs , instead of back , i t i s nota divorce . This differs entirely from the customary view
of the community . He al so condemned abfi-Musa al-Ash‘ari
for his deci sion .
Furthermore,al-Nazzam brought forward his view that
s leep does not destroy the purity of ablutions , unless there
i s excrement . This is contrary to the view of the maj orityo f the leaders
,who bel ieved that sleep lying flat destroys
1 52
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SECTS
saying that he blamed the traditional i sts because they handed
down traditions of abil-Hurairah .
1 He claimed that abu
Hurairah was the worst of liars , and he attacked‘Umar al
Farakfi In fact, he claimed that Farfikwas in doubt about
his own faith at the battle of al-Hudaibiyah as well as on the
day of the death of the Prophet . He was also with those
who were angry with the Pro-phet on the n ight of the ‘Aka
bah,
3
and he struck Fatimah and (not clear in text ) .
Furthermore,he criticized ‘Umar for sending Nasr ibn- al
Haj jaj from al-Madinah to al-Basrah . And he claimed that‘Umar introduced g enuflections in prayer, and forbade tem
porary marriage [mut‘ah] during pilgrimage, and the mar
riag e o f a freedman to an Arab woman . He blamed‘Uthman for sending al-Hakam ibn-al-
‘Asi to al-Madinah
and for making al-Walid ibn-
‘Ukbah
6 his governor over
al-Kufah . Al—VValid was the man who led the prayer when
he was drunk .
He al so blamed ‘Uthman for helping Sa‘id ibn- al-‘Asi
with forty thousand dirhams for his marriage contract .
Moreover,he accused him of claiming for himsel f the pos
session of the land belonging to the Moslem community
(hima ) .
He then mentioned ‘Ali
,claiming that when asked about
a cow that had kil led a donkey,he said : I j udge thi s
according to my Opinion . In thi s he expressed his ignor
1 Tabari ed . Zotenberg ,vol . iii
,pp . 466, 703 et seq.
2 By-name g iven to ‘
Umar the caliph .
2 ‘Akabah. Ibn-H isham ,Biog raphy,
p . 288 . The night on which alle
g iance was sworn to the Prophet. Marg oliouth, M ohammed,pp . 202
,204.
4 M istake in Bag hdadi . Instead o f Hakam ibn- al-‘Asi
,it should be
al—Hakam ibn- abi- al-‘Asi . Cf. Ibn -Haj ar
,vo l. i , p . 709 where this very
incident is mentioned .
5 Ibn-Haj ar , vol. iii, p . 13 12 . Tabari , ibid . , vol. iii, p . 566 .
‘Ibid , p . 566 et seq .
IS4
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE KADARIY AH
ance, for who is he that he should judge according to hisopinion ?
He also attacked abfi -Mas‘fid 1 for hi s view about the
tradition which relates to the marriage of the daughter o fW(ishtif.
2
[For he claimed ] I j udge according to my
own opinion,and i f i t is a correct j udgment
,then it i s from
Allah ,but i f i t i s a mistaken one
,then it is from me . In
addition he contended that abu-Mas‘ad was lying when he
stated that the Prophet had said : He is happy who re
jo ices in the womb of his mother, and he i s unhappy who i s
unhappy in the womb of his mother .” Al-Nazzam also
con sidered him a l iar in hi s report of the spl itting of the
moon ,”and in his report about the Jinns of the night of
the Jinn .
” Such was the view of al-Nazzam with regard
to the report of the Companions and of the people of the
abode of paradise,of whom Allah said : “Well pleased
now hath God been with the beli evers when they plighted
fealty to thee under the tree ( Surah 48,v . He who
gets angry with those whom Allah blesses,he incurs anger
rather than they . He then said in hi s book that those of
the Companions who bel ieved in analogy ei ther are of opin
ion that this i s legal for them and ignor e that i t i s forbiddento j udge by analog y according to deci sion s directed against
them,or else wish to be remembered as disagreeing, and thus
be leaders of sects . Because o f thi s [ latter difficulty] they
chose to accept analogy [as legal ] . Al-Nazzam thus attrib
uted to them the preference of desire to rel igion . [For they
deliberately chose the view that cast the least reflection on
them . ] The only crime of the fol lowers , then, according tothi s hideous infidel , is that they were unitarians , who did not
hold the heresy of the Kadariyah who reckoned numerous
1 Naw i w i , p . 757, under‘Ukbah ibn-
‘Amr. Tabari , ibid ., vol. 11, p . 439 ;
vol. iii,p . 36.
2 None of the more important historians mention this man .
155
MOlS'LEM S'CHISMS AND SECTS
o ther creators with Allah . He rej ects the tradition of abu
Mas‘ud, that he i s happy who is happy in hi s mother’s womb
,
and he is unhappy who i s unhappy in his mother’s womb .
on ly because this differs from the view of the Kadariyah
who assert that neither happiness nor misery come from thedecree of Allah or through his predestination . Al—Nazzam
’
s
denial of the splitting of the moon i s due to his unwillingness to ascribe any miracle to our Prophet, j ust as he de
nies any miracle in connection with the composition of the
Koran . I f he considers the Splitting of the moon ” impossible
,although it is mentioned by Allah in the Koran ,
then,according to what he says of the processes of the mind ,
he i s forced to conclude that he who combined the parts ofthe moo-n i s unable to separate them . I f
,however
,he ac
cepted the“spli tting of the moon ” as lying within the range
of abi li ty and possibi l ity, then what i s i t that made him
accuse abu—Mas‘ud of being a l iar, in his report of the
“split
ting o i the moon, although Allah mentioned it in the
Koran : The hour hath approached and the Moon hath
been cle ft ; But whenever they see a miracle they turn aside
and say,This i s well—devised magic ( Surah 54, v . 1 and
Al-Nazzam’
s assertion that the splitting o f the moon
never took place, i s worse than the view of the polytheists
who hold that even when they saw i t spli tting,i t took place
by magi c . He who denies the existence of prOphetic mir
acles is worse than he who attempts to explain them in someother way. As to his denial of vi sion to the Jinn
,he must
verily conclude that the Jinn cannot see each other . I f , however
,he accepts their abi li ty to see
,why does he say that
aba-Mas‘ad i s lying when he claims that they can see . Ac
cording to all this,al-Nazzam in addition to what we have
reported of his error was the most corrupt of the creationsof Allah, the boldest in committing maj or sins, and the mostaddicted to drinking spirits . ‘Abdal lah ibn-Muslim- ibn
156
MOSLEM iS-CH ISMS AND SECTS
gives l i fe or causes death,for how can he who created
neither l i fe nor death gi ve l i fe or death ?
H is second heresy i s his idea that Allah created no phe
nomena whatever . H e at the same time denied the eternal
attributes of Allah,j ust as the rest of the Mu
‘tazilah de
nied them . This heresy forced him to the conclusion that
Allah has no word,since he could not state that Allah’s
word was an eternal attribute , as the Sunn i tes and the com
munity did,for he did not ascribe to Allah any eternal
attribute . Nor could he say that hi s word was his act, as
the rest of the Mu‘tazilah held , because Allah , according to
him,had not created any phenomena . The Koran
,accord
ing to him, was the act o f a body upon which the words
descended,but is not an act of Allah , nor an attribute .
Thus it is not possible for him to actual ly have a word ,either in the sense o f an attribute
,or in the sense of an act.
I f he then has no word,he has no power to command
,to
forbid,nor to impose obligation . Thi s involves a denial
o f divine obligation , and of the provi sions of the Canon
Law and of what others have affirmed, because he held
opinions leading thereto.
H is third heresy was his assert ion that every kind of
phenomena existing in the body is endless in number. So
he said i f a thing moves through a motion arising in itsel f ,this motion belongs to its bearer for the sake of ( through )an idea outside of itsel f . This idea
, again , belongs to itsbearer for the sake of ( through ) an idea outside of itself .
Thus he speaks of every idea belonging to its bearer for
the sake of ( through ) an idea outside of i t ad infinitum.
Thus co lor, taste and smell — as well as any other phenom
ena— belongs to its bearer through an idea outside of itself .
This idea again belongs to its bearer through an idea out
side of i tsel f ad infinitum. Al-Ka‘bi , in hi s treatises , relates
how al -Mu‘ammar claimed that motion is Opposed to rest158
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZ—I-LlAH AND THE KADARiY AH
only through an idea outside of it . In the same way rest i sopposed to motion through an idea outside of it
, and these
two ideas are Opposed to ideas other than they . This series ,according to him
,may be followed ad infinitum.
Now such a view i s heretica l for two reasons . One i s
that he po sits accidents. that are unlimited,which meces
sitates the positing of accidents which Allah cannot count
which is directly opposed to Allah ’s saying,And count
eth all things by number (Surah 72 ,v . The second
reason i s that his saying that an unl imited number o f
phenomena have been created leads him to ho ld that the
body i s more powerful than Allah . For, according to him ,
Allah has created nothing but bodies , which are finite,as
both we and he hold . Now,when the body creates a phe
nomenon,i t has in that connection created phenomena that
are unlimited . And natural ly that which creates what i s
unlimited must be more powerful than that which can onlycreate what i s l imited in number. In his treati ses al-Ka‘bi
tries to excuse al-Mu‘ammar, asserting that he was accus
tomed to say that man has no power of action outside of hi s
wi ll,the rest of the phenomena being the work of the body
acting according to its nature . I f thi s. report of his views
i s correct,i t necessari ly follows that the nature
,to which is
ascribed the creation of the phenomena,i s more powerful
than Allah , for Allah produces only bod i es that are l imited,while the nature of man produces various kinds of phenom
ena,every one of which kind is endless in number.
It ought further to be said that the view of al-Mu‘ammarin regard to endless phenomena opens the way for those
who held the doctrines of g uhm’ (appearan ce ) and human
(masking) against that of the [orthodox] Moslems in te
gard to the creation of phenomena . For the [orthodox]Moslems in ferred the creation of the phenomena in bod ies
from the fact that oppo sing phenomena may succeed one
159
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SECTS
another in bodies . But the followers of g ahar and kwm’
m
deni ed the creation of phenomena and bel i eved that they
were inherent in bod ies , and that whenever one phenomenon
appeared in a body,i ts opposite was masked there , and that
when a phenomenon was masked there , i ts opposite appeared .
The Mukassidun said to them : I f a phenomenon is maskedonce and appears once
,its appearance after its masking and
i ts masking after i ts appearance would be due to an idea
outside of i t ; and i f not , this idea in its appearing and i ts
masking would need an endless idea outside of i t . But since
the combination of endless phenomena in one body i s impos
sible,their succession in a body through being created i s
proved,and not through successive masking and appearing .
I f,now
,Mu‘ammar says that the combination o f unlimited
phenomena in a body i s possible , he cannot refute the claimo f the followers o f appearance and p romising ,
that i t is pos
sible for endless phenomena o f the kind cal led appearanceand marking to be in one and the same place .
” This view
carri ed to i ts legitimate conclusion leads to the assertion
that phenomena are eternal— which i s a heresy . And that
which leads to such a theory must also be heresy .
H is fourth heresy i s his theory that man is something
beside this sensible body,that he i s l iving, knowing, able to
act and possesses free will . But he claims that it i s not
man himsel f who moves,or keeps quiet
, or is colored , or
sees,or touches , or changes from place to place , nor does
one place contain him to the exclusion o f another . I f he
were asked,Do you say that man i s in thi s body , or in the
sky,or in the earth , or in paradise , or in hell he would
answer,I do not deny any of this , but I assert that he i s
in the body as something led , in paradise as something g ivendel ight
,or in hell as something given punishment ; he i s,
however,neither present nor contained in any one of these
places , because he has neither length , breadth, depth , nor
160
MOSLEM S-CHISMS AND SECTS
6 . Concerning the Bishr‘
z’
yah among them. These are the
fo l lowers o f Bishr ibn- al -Mu‘tamir .
1 Some of hi s brother
Kadari’
yah condemned his views on certain: po ints in which
he i s con sidered right by other Kadariyah . For instance ,
they con-demned hi s view that Allah was capable of so muchkindness that i f he showed it to an infidel , i t would make
that infidel invo luntari ly a bel iever. They also condemned
hi s v iew that i f Allah had first created the wise in paradise ,thus favoring them ,
i t would have been better for them .
They also condemned hi s view that i f Allah should knowthat by lengthening the l i fe of a man
,that slave would be
come a believer,then to lengthen: his li fe would be better
for him than to have him die a heretic . Moreover,they
condemned his v iew that Allah does not cease desiring ; andalso his view that i f Allah knows that a certain act i s to be
committed by a man and does not forbid it,then he has de
sired its occurrence . In these five views which the Basrah
Mu‘tazilah condemned , Bishr was. right whi le in real ity
those who condemned him were themselves worthy of con
demnation . All the other matters,however
, are hate ful
heresies,and we condemn Bishr as an unbel iever . F i rst of
all,we condemn: his view that Allah is not a friend to the
believer in the state o f his bel i e f,nor an enemy to an un
bel i ever in the state o f his unbel ief . It was necessary to
condemn him for this,since it i s con trary to the v i ew of all
Moslems as wel l as our immediate fo llowers ; for we say thatAllah does not cease being a friend to him whom he knowsto have been his friend , while he was al ive ; and an enemy tohim who-m he knows to ha ve been an unbeliever during hi s
li fe and to have died in his unbelie f . He i s there fore his
enemy befor e hi s unbelie f,in the state of his unbelie f , and
after hi s death . As to these main points , the Mu‘tazilah
,all
except Bis-hr,held that Allah is not a friend to a man be fore
1 See note on pag e 134 .
162
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILIAH AND THE K-ADARIY AH
the existence o f obedience in him was possible ; i t i s only inthe state o f obedience that he becomes hi s friend . In the
same way he i s an enemy to the unbel iever only in the stateof his unbelief moreover
,i f the bel iever returned to his um
belie f,Allah becomes hi s enemy after having been his friend
,
according to them . Bishr,however
,claimed that Allah is
not the friend of the obedient in the state of the existenceo f his obedience, nor an enemy to the unbeliever in the state
o f the existence of his unbelief . He i s on ly fr i endly to theobedient in the second state where obedience exists
,
1and he
i s the enemy of the unbe l i ever on ly in the second state where
his unbel ief exists . He gave as proof of thi s,that i f i t i s
right that Allah should be a friend to the obedient [only]in the state of hi s obedience, and an enemy to him [only] in
the state o f his unbel ie f,then it i s right to reward the obe
dient in the state of his obedience,and to punish the unbe
l i ever in the state of his unbelief . But our followers say“ I f Allah does so
,i t is right .” Bishr
,however
,said that
i f thi s [conclusion ] i s right , then it must follow that theunbel i ever can be trans formed in hi s state of unbel ie f . We
say that i f Allah does so, i t is right .The second of Bishr
’
s heresies is the fact that he exaggerated hi s view about reproduction to such an extent that
he claimed it possible for a man to create co lor and taste
and smell and sight and hearing and the rest of the sensa
tions according to the method o f reproduction,provided he
i s the author of that which causes them . The same is true
of his view of heat and co ld , wetness and dryness . Our
own fol lowers and the rest of the Mu‘tazilah declared him
a heretic,because of hi s assertion that man can create color,
taste,smell and the sensations .
H is thi rd heresy i s his theory that Allah may forgive a
1 i. e. he is not his friend before he becomes obedient, nor his enemybefore he becomes disobedient.
163
MOS-LEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
man his s ins and then change hi s mind about such forgive
ness and punish him when the man i s again disobedient .
Bishr was questioned about this : I f an unbeliever had
turned from his unbelief,and drank wine a fter having re
pented from his unbelie f , without considering it legal todrink wine
, and death should seize him be fore he had re
pented from his drinking of wine,would Allah punish him
on the last day for his unbel ie f for which he repented ?”He
said yes . It was then said to him :“According to this ,
then,the puni shment for such a sin on the part of those who
are of the Moslem community i s like the punishment of the
unbel iever . An d Bishr had to accept thi s deduction .
H is fourth heresy i s hi s theory that i f Allah punished a
baby,he would be acting unj ustly towards it in meting out
such punishment,for i f Allah does thi s
,the baby would
have to be grown up , sensible , and deserv ing of punishment. This i s the same as i f he said that Allah haspower to act unjustly
,and i f he acts unj ustly, then, indeed
through this inj ustice he becomes j ust ! Thus the beginning
of thi s theory contradicts the conclusion . Our followerssay that Allah has the power to punish babies ; i f he does
so,hi s act must be a j ust one. Thei r views in thi s matter
are not contradictory,but Bishr
’
s view is .
H is fifth heresy i s his view that [when a body moves fromone place to another] motion exists
,but not in the body,
either as i t i s in the first or the second place ; but that the
body moves through it from the first to the second place .
This view is unreasonable in itsel f . Theo logians before him
di sagreed as to whether motion i s an unsubstantial real
i ty (anar‘nd ) or not . Those who do not believe in phe
nomena said no ; while those who believed in phenomena
differ over the time of the occurrence of motion,some of
them claiming that i t starts in the body when the body i s in
the first place, and the body then passes through it from the
164
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
down concerning the ninety- nine names of Allah . I f thi s
name cannot be applied to Allah , in spite o f the fact that i t
i s wri tten in the Koran, and handed down in the authentic
Sunnah , then what other names should be applied to him ?
Our followers used to wonder at the Basrah Mu‘tazilah who
applied names to Allah that were not mentioned in the Koran
and the Sunnah , even i f there i s analogy for them . Their
wonder increased sti l l more when al-Ffiti forbade them toapply to Allah those attributes which were mentioned of
him in the Koran and the Sunnah .
Al—Khaiyat defended al—Futi by saying that H isham usedto say :
“ Our sufficiency i s in Allah,he i s the best to depend
upon [nentawakhal in place of guardian . He
claimed that the word guardian implied someone above
him ( to make him guardian ) . This,however
,i s a sign of
the ignorance of H i sham and of him who defended him by
resorting to the meanings of nouns in the language . The
word guardian real ly means “ the one who is sufficient ,”
because he suffices the one under his guardianship in what
i s given him to guard . This i s the meaning of hi s say
ing ,
“ Our sufficiency is in Allah,and he is the best guar
dian . And al so the meaning o f our sufficiency i s our
adequacy . It i s there fore necessary that what fol lows theword “ best should agree with the word that precedes it .as when we say
“Allah i s our supplier, and he i s the best
supplier,
”we do not say
“Allah i s our supplier, and he i s
the best forgiver.” Besides . Allah said , He who depends
on Allah Allah is his sufficiency,23. e. his satisfier .
” Guardian [waktl] may al so mean in the Koran one in chargeof us ” Say I am not in charge o f you ( Surah 6, v .
z. e. your protector :
and the opposite of protector
would be a stupid man . I f guardian means protector, and
i f Allah i s a satisfier and a protector, then we should not
forbid the use of the word guardian among hi s actual names .166
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE K-ADARIY AH
The remarkable thing i s that H i sham permitted thi s namefor Allah to be written and read in the Koran . But he didnot permit i ts use outs ide of the Koran .
The second o f al- Fati ’s heresies i s hi s prohibition of the
use o f many things uttered in the Koran . He al so prohibited men from saying that Allah unites the hearts. of believers and causes the evi l to err . This i s in opposition to
the words of Allah,
“Hadst thou spent all the riches of
\
the
earth,thou couldst not have united thei r hearts ; but Allah
hath united them”
( Surah 8 , v . and to his words,But
the wicked shal l he cause to err ( Surah 14 ,v . and to
his words,But none wi ll he mislead thereby except the
w icked ( Surah 2,v . Mor eover
,he rej ected the say
ing in the Koran that Allah blinds the unbel i evers .
‘Ubad
ibn- Sulaiman al—‘Amri agreed with thi s error,
and forbade men to say that Allah created the unbelievers ,because ‘ the word unbeliever i s a name for two things , mana nd hi s unbelie f
,but according to him Allah is not the
creator o f hi s unbel ie f . On thi s analogy, i t follows thatone should not say that Allah created the bel i ever, becausethe word bel iever i s a name for two things , man and bel i e f ,but Allah , according to him ,
i s not the creator of man’s be
l ie f . S imilarly one should never say,one has killed an
unbeliever or has struck him ,
” because the word unbeliever
refers to both man and hi s unbelie f , and unbelie f cannot be
killed or struck .
‘Ubad al so rej ected the saying that Allah
i s the third to every two,and the fourth to every three ,
which contradicts the saying of Allah in the Koran : Three
persons speak not privately together but he is thei r fourth .
nor five but he i s their sixth ( Surah 58, v . He al so re
j ected the saying that Allah increases the days of the unbe
liever, and this in spite of his word in the Koran : We only
give them length of days that they may increase thei r sins
( Surah 3 , v . I f ‘Ub'
ad took this error from his pre167
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
ceptor H i sham , i t is l ike the case of‘Asa coming from
‘Asiyab ,
1 “ the snake gives birth to naught but a snake .
”
But i f thi s assertion of hi s i s original , then the student
would have drawn thi s from his teacher by analogy,for
the teacher rej ected the word guardian and guarantor from
among the names of Allah .
The third o f al-Futi’
s heresies is hi s view concern ingphenomena . He held that nothing in them predicates any
thing about Allah . H is companion ‘Ubad said the same,both claiming that the separation of the sea, and the
changing of a stick into a snake ,”and the splitting o f
the moon,
”and the secret of the twilight
,
”and the
walking on the waters ” ( see above,page 1 56 ) do not
veri fy the Prophet’s claim to prophecy . Al-Ffiti claims that
the evidences supposed to come from Allah must be per
ceptible, j ust as bodies are perceptible, and are there fore
evidences for Allah . They are phenomena which can be
known through deductive proofs . But i f Allah i s to be
made evident by this,these evidences must each have an
other evidence to prove them,and so on ad infinitnm. It
was obj ected that i f he held to such an evidence , he would
have to say that phenomena do not prove anything, nor do
they even prove a basi s for a legal decision ; because i f theyproved a thing or a deci sion , in prov ing i t they would needto prove the truth o f the evidence used in bringing such
proo f and each evidence must have another evidence to
prove it,and so on ad infinitum. And i f phenomena prove
nothing, and give no deci sion , then the proof of the word
of Allah and the word of the prophet of Allah about that
which i s legal and that which i s i l legal,and that which
is promi sed and that which i s threatened , is abrogated .
Among phenomena,however
, are some whose exi stence
1 Muhammad Badr in a footnote says that ‘Aga is the name of a horse:
and‘Asiyah is the mother of that horse.
168
MOSLEM S-CHISMS AND SECTS
Badr and ‘Ubud , in spite of the successive traditions which
have been handed down about them . He i s also like the
man who rej ects the miracles about which traditions have
been handed down .
H is sixth heresy i s the v i ew which he expresses in the
chapter on the “ Community ”
; that when the communitv
comes to a consensus of Opinion ,forsaking tyranny and cor
ruption,then it needs an Imam to manage it ; and that when
i t rebel s and sins and kills i ts Imam ,the Imamship should not
be fixed upon anyone under these conditions. By that he
meant to attack the Imamship of ‘Ali
,because the Imamship
was given to him during a rebe l lion,and after the ki lling
o f the Imam preceding him . This agreed with the view of
their al-Asamm ,
1 that the Imamship should remain only with
him upon whom the consensus of the community rested .
By this view he on ly wished to attack the Imamship of ‘Ali
,
because the community did not agree about him ,for the
Syrians were championing someone else unti l‘Ali died .
While rej ecting the Imam ship of ‘Ali he accepted that of
M u‘awiyah , because after the kill ing of‘Ali the people were
unanimous about him . The Rafidah,who inclined to the
Mu‘tazilah views , were thoroughly sati sfied with the attack
o f the sheikhs of the Mu‘tazilah on the Imamship of ‘
Ali,
a fter the doubt of thei r leader,VVas
'
il,about the testimony
o f‘Ali and hi s fol lowers .
H is seventh heresy is his view that whoever says that
paradi se and hell are created,should be condemned as a
heretic . I—Iis successors among the Mu‘tazilah doubt the
existence of paradise and hell to day,but they do not con
demn the man who says that they are created . Those convinced of the creation of paradise and hel l condemn thosewho deny their existence
,and they swear by Allah that he
1 Horten,ibid . ,
p . 298.
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZ ILAH AND THE KADARIY AH
who denies them will not enter paradise and will not be
freed from hell .H is eighth heresy i s hi s denial o f the marriage of the
virgins in paradise . He who denies thi s i s not worthy to
enter paradise,how much less to marry a virgin there !
Besides the errors which we hav e recounted of him, al
-Ffiti
believes in ki ll ing those who differed from him with secretcunning
,even i f they belong to the Moslem community. The
Sunnites sai d of al-Ffiti and his followers that their bloodand thei r possessions belonged to the Moslems
,and that
they had the usual right to a fi fth of the spoi ls . Nor should
retal iation be demanded of one who ki l ls one of them nor
blood -wit nor atonement . Indeed,a certain rank and sta
t ion i s to be awarded to the one kill ing him , for which
prai se be to Allah .
8 . Concerning the M nrdafi yah among them. These are
the followers of‘Isa ibn- Sabih
,known as abu-Mfisa al
Murdar . 1 He was cal led the monk o f the Mu‘tazilah ; the
surname suited him,though the term was taken from the
Chri stian monks . H is surname al-Murdar was al so wel l
suited . In general,the verse may be applied to him :
Thine eyes seldom see a man whose appearance does not
remind you of his surname .
”
This Murdar claimed that men had the power to produce
something simi lar to the Koran , and even something more
eloquent,as al-Nazzam had said . But in thi s way they
show stubborn Opposition to the word of Allah : Say,
veri ly were men and Jinn assembled to produce the l ike of
thi s Koran ; they could not produce its l ike, though the oneshould help the other ( Surah 1 7 , v . In addition to
hi s various errors , al-Murdar condemned the person in
close communication with a Sultan , claiming that he can
1 Shahrastani , ibid . , vol. i, p . 7 1 , muzdar . Horten, ibid ., index, p . 642 .
171
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
neither inherit nor can he bequeath . H is predecessors
among the Mu‘tazilah,
who agreed with him as regards fate
and secession ,said of the person holding communication
with a Sultan,that he was a shameful person , but could not
be cal led either a believer or an unbeliever. Murdar, however
,held that such a person was an; unbeliever . It is a
wonder that the Sultan of hi s time re frained from ki llinghim
,considering his condemnation of the Sultan himsel f
and of those who associated with him . He also claimed
that Allah cou ld act tyrannically and l ie ; for i f he real ly
carried out what he was able to do in the way o f tyranny
and lying, Allah would become a tyrannous and lying God .
Aba-Zufar reports of al-Murdar that he admitted that a
deed could exist which was the result of two created doers ,the deed being created in the way of generation . He held
thi s. view in Spite of the fact that he rej ected the opinion ofthe Sunnites that a deed could result from two doers , one
of them being creator and the other acquirer . Al-Murdar
al so claimed that he who admitted that Allah could be seen
by the eye though without form,i s an unbeliever, whi le he
who doubts that such a man i s an unbeliever,i s an unbe
liever himsel f ; and so is the man who has doubts o f the
man who doubts , and so on ad infinitum. The rest of the
Mu‘tazilah agreed to condemn only him who admitted that
Allah could be seen when man con fronted him,or when
the rays of the sight of the seer reached the seen . Those
who assert that there is sight , are united in condemning
al-Murdar, as well as those who doubt his condemnation .
The Mu‘tazilah report that when death came to al-Murdar
he gave the dying command that his goods should be givenas alms. and that none of his possessions were to be g iven
to his heirs . Aba-al-Husain al—Khaiyat tried to excuse him
for thi s , saying :“The right to some of his goods was ques
tionable, and the poor had a claim on them .
” By thi s excuse172
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SECTS
the consensus of the companions to the effect that he who
drinks spirituou s wme should be beaten, i s wrong, because
thei r agreement i s reached through speculation (not givenin the Koran or tradition ) . Ja
‘far shares thi s heresy of hi s
with the Najadat among the Khawarij , who condemn punishment for the use of l iquor . The theologians of the com
munity unite in condemning him who rej ects. the punish
ment for drinking raw wine, they differ only about nabia’
h,
1
provided one does not get drunk from it . I f one does ,however
,get drunk from i t
,then
, according to the view o f
the followers of speculation and tradition , one deserv espunishment in spite of those who disagree with this view .
Ibn-Mubashshir also claimed that he who steal s a s ingle
grain,or even something less
,i s corrupt
,and is condemned
to hell . In thi s he differs from his predecessors who maintained that minor sins may be forgiven , i f their author
avo ids the maj or ones . He al so claimed that the condem
nation of the guilty to hell—fire can be inferred by mental
processes,thereby differing from his predecessors
,that such
a thing was known through the law and not through reason .
Moreover,he claims that i f a man send to a woman , asking
her to marry him , and she come to him ,and he take and
possess her without a contract, she i s not to be puni shed ,because she came to him with the idea of being marri ed .
But the punishment must fall upon the man ,because he in
tended forn i cation . This ignorant man did not know that
she who gives in to fornication is a forn icator unless she i s
forced . The legi sts differ only about a man who forces a
woman to commit fornication,some holding that the woman
shou ld have a dowry and the man be punished . Al- Shafi‘i
and the legi sts of al—H i jaz agree about this . Some with
hold the punishment of the man because they consider
that the dowry i s sufficient punishment for him . But not
1 Date-wine.
174
TIHE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE KADARIY AH
one of the early Mos lems thought it right to withho ld pun
ishment from a woman who gives in to forn ication,which
was. ibn-Mubashshir’
s view. The opposition o f the con
sensus i s sufficient shame for him . As for Ja‘far ibn-Harb ,he shared in the error s o f his. preceptor
, al-Murdar
, and al so
added hi s view to the effect that a part o f the who le i s di fferent from the who le . This amounts to saying that the
whole i s different from itsel f,since all parts of i t are di f
ferent from it . He al so claimed that what i s forbidden bythe mind has power over ( that ) mind , but has no power
over another thing . Thi s i s what al- Sha‘bi 1 said of him
in hi s treati ses . On this basi s i t was necessary that heshould hold that he who knows a thing does not know i t !‘Abd- al-Kah i r says : Ibn-H arb wrote a book explaining
hi s errors ; but we have re futed his book , by a book cal led
H arb (war) ag ainst ibn-H arb
,and i n it
,by the help of
Allah and his gi fts,we refute its bases and i ts principles .
I O . Concerning the [ shafiyah among them . These are the
followers of Muhammad ibn-
‘Abdal lah al- Iskafi . 2 He took
his errors about predestination from Ja‘far ibn-Harb , but
came to differ over certain of hi s deductions . He claimed
that to Allah can be attributed the power to Oppress chi l
dren and madmen,but not those who have thei r ful l senses .
He disagreed with the v i ew o f al—Nazg am,according to
which Allah had not the power to act unjustly or to lie .
He l ikewise disagreed with the v i ew o f those of his prede
cessors who ho ld that Allah could practice inj ustice and l ie ,but does not do so because he knows that they are both
abomination s,and that he can do without them . Between
these two views he took a middle course, according to which
1 M isprint in Bag hdadi for al- Shafi‘i .
2 Horten,ibid .
,p . 299 et seq . Mas
‘t‘
i di,ibid . , vol. vi
, p . 58 ; vol. vn,
p . 23 1 .
175
MOES'LEM SCHISMS AND SEC TS
he claimed that Allah has the power to act unj ustly only to
those who have no mind,but not to those who have their
senses . H is predecessors condemned him for thi s,and he
condemned them for differing from him . He became so
abstruse in his heresy as to say that i t could be said that
Allah spoke to his subj ects,but that i t could not be said that
he spoke with them . Moreover he cal ls Allah the addressor
but not the conversor . He claimed that in using the word
conversor it would mean that the word ari ses in him , which
i s not the case with the addressor . Just as the use of the
word who sets something in motion implies that the
motion commences in him,so does the expression “
who
converses imply that the speaking commences with him .
We bel ieve thi s to be true ; the word of Allah we believe
originates with him . As to his predecessors among the
Kadariyah ,veri ly they would say to him : This excuse o f
yours forces you to conclude that that part o f the body of
man that speaks i s the tongue . This i s enough because ,according to you,
the word dwells in the tongue . Y ou must ,indeed
,accept thi s absurdity that applies the name of the
speaker to a thing ,because the word
,according to you and
the rest o f the Mu‘tazilah
,i s composed of letters , and i t i s
not possible for one letter to be a word . The place of each
letter among the letters o f the word i s different from the
place of the rest o f the letters . Your reasoning would ,there fore
,mean that man could not be a speaker, nor could
any part of him be a speaker. And according to your asser
tion,Allah is not the speaker because the word does not
arise within him
Some of the Mu‘tazilah glorified al- Iskafi , by claiming
that when Muhammad ibn- al-Hasan saw him walking, he
dismounted from his horse . Evidently thi s is a l i e , because
al- Iskafi did not l ive at the time of Muhammad ibn-al
Hasan,for ibn- al-Hasan died in al-Rai during the cal iphate
176
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SECTS
that the community of al-Dahriyah and the Christians , and
the Zindiks,become dust in the end . He al so claimed that
the next world i s on ly the abode of reward or punishment ,so for the one who died as a child, or who knows Allah by
necessity,there i s no virtue for which they deserve a re
ward , nor sin for which they deserve punishment . Thus
they become dust,since they have no share in reward or
puni shment .
Thamamah’
s second heresy i s hi s v iew that generatedacts are acts without an author . This error leads to the de
n ial o f the creator o f the world , because i f i t i s true thatone deed can exist without a doer, i t is possible for everydeed to exist without a doer, and then one cou ld not prove
the existence o f the doer from the deeds,nor would the
creation of the world be a proof of i ts creator . This. would
be simi lar to the assertion that there could be writing with
out a writer, or erasing without one who erases, or a bui ld
ing without a builder . It might be sai d to him :“According
to you then , the word of man is a deed without a doer .
Why do you then blame man for his l ies and his words of
unbelie f,since
,according to you,
he i s not the author of hi s
act of lying, or hi s words o f unbelie fAmong hi s shame ful heresies Thamamah used al so to
say that the abode of Islam was the abode of polythei sm .
Moreover,he forbade captivi ty because the captive, accord
ing to him,could not have disobeyed his Lord , not having
known him . According to him, also, rebell ion i s possible
only for him who knows hi s Lord by necessity and then
denies him,or rebels against him . From this assert ion, i t
follows that he con fesses himsel f a son of adultery becausehe belonged to the freedmen
,while hi s mother was a cap
ti ve, and to enter in to one who could not be a captive , ac
cording to the law governing capture, i s adultery . H is
children are there fore chi ldren o f adultery . Thamamah’
s
heresy about this matter suited hi s pedigree.
178
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE KADARIY AH
The historians report wonderful things regarding theimbeci li ty of Thamamah and hi s shamelessness . Among
these i s what ‘Abdal lah ibn-Muslim ibn -Kutaibah said in hisbook M nkhtalaf d l-H ad ith. He said in thi s that Thamamahibn-Ashras saw men on a Friday hastening to the mosque
for fear the hour o f prayer wou ld pas s . Whereupon hesaid to a companion o f his , Look at these donkeys and
cows . ” Then he said , What has that Arab made out o f
men meaning the Prophet of Allah .
Al- Jahiz said in hi s book of j ests that al-Ma’
mt’
in was
riding one day when he saw Thamamah drunk,and rolling
in the mud,and he said Thamamah ? Thamamah re
plied,Y es, by Allah .
” Aren ’t you ashamed ?” No,by
Allah . Upon thee be the curse of Allah . Let i t
come . Al—Jahi ; al so said that a servant of Thamamah
said to him one day,“Arise and pray,
” but he paid no atten
tion . And the servant said to him ,The time i s short,
ari se and pray and rest ,”and Thamamah replied ,
“ I wil l
rest i f you will leave me .
The author of Ta’rikh al-M ardwieah says that Thama
mah ibn-Ashras accused Ahmad ibn—Nasr al-Marwazi to al
Wathikfll saying that the former condemned everyone whodenies that Allah can be seen
,and everyone who claims
that the Koran was created , and i s free fro-m the heresy of
al-Kadariyah. Wathik thereupon: put him to death , butpromptly repented of hi s death
,and blamed Thamamah,
ibn- abi-D'
a’
ad 2and ibn-al-Zaiyat 3 who advised his death .
Ibn-al—Zaiyat sai d to him : I f hi s death does not have
good results , may Allah slay me between fire and water.”
Ibn-abi—Da’ud sai d : May Allah impri son me in my skin i f
hi s death was not the right thing.
”Thamamah said May
1 Tabari ed . Zotenberg , vol. iv, p . 546.
z Ibn-Khallikan , ibid .
,vol. -i
,p . 61 .
3 Fihrist, p . 122 .
I79
MOSLEM S CH ISMS AND SECTS
Ai llah cause swords to rule over me , i f you were not rightin ki lling him .
” Allah answered the prayers of each one
in his own way. As to ibn- al-Zaiyat , veri ly he was ki lled
in the bath,and fel l into the fire with his clothes. on
,and
thus died between fire and water . As to ibn-abi-Ba’
tid , al
Mutawakkil imprisoned him,and he had a stroke of paral
ysis while in pri son , thus remain ing imprisoned in his skin
by paralysi s unti l he died . And as for Thamamah,he went
to Mecca where the Khuza‘ah saw him between al—Safa
and al-Marwah,and one of the men called out and said
O ye men of Khuza‘ah,this: i s the man who con spired
against your master, Ahmad ibn~Fihr,and i t was he who
caused his death .
” Whereupon the banu-Khuza‘ah gath
ered against him with thei r swords and killed him . Then.
they brought his body out from the sacred enclosure,and
the wi ld animal s outside devoured it . Thus Allah’
s words
were fulfil led : “And they tasted the harmfulness o f their
own conduct : and the end o f their conduct was ruin”
( Surah 65 , v .
1 2 . Concerning the Ja'
his’iyah among them . These are the
fo l lowers of ‘Amr ibn—Bahr al- Jahig .
1 They are the people
who were led away by the beauty o f the language used by
al- Jahiz in hi s books , abou t which we might say :“They are
compo sitions which are clear , though they have no meaning,and contain words which terri fy
,though they have no sub
stance .
”Had they known the ignorance shown in hi s here
sies,far
'
from ascribing beauties to him ,they would have
begged Allah ’s pardon for cal ling him a man . Among the
errors ascribed to him ,which al-Ka‘bi , in spite of his pride
ih him,relates about him in his treati ses
,are the words :
All knowledge comes by nature,nevertheless it is an
1 Shahrastani , ibid ., vol. i, p . 77 . fMas
‘fidi
,ibid . , vol. iii, pp. 22-25 ;
vol. v, p . 80 ; vol. viii , pp . 33—36 . Ibn -Khallikan,ibid .
, vol. ii, p . 405 .
180
MOSLEM S CH ISMS AND SECTS
thi s . We mean only that paradise and hell are everlastingin a genera l way.
Among the heresies o f al- Jah i z there i s al so his view that
Allah does not cause anyone to enter hell , but that hel l
attracts its people of itsel f by its very nature , and then holds
on to them of itsel f forever . This would also compe l the
view that paradise attracts people to itsel f by its nature , and
that Allah does not cause anyone to enter paradise . I f onewere to hold this view
,the desire for Allah ’s rewards would
cease, and the use of prayer would be gone . On the other
hand , i f he said that Allah caused those who should g o to
paradise to enter paradise,he would al so hav e to say that he
caused the people of hel l to enter hel l . Al-Ka‘bi boasts
about al- Jahiz,claiming that he was one of the sheikhs of
the Mu‘tazilah . He al so boasts of hi s many literary works ,
and claims that he was a Kinani of the banu—Kinanah , ibn
Khuzaimah ibn-Mudrakah ibn—I lyas ibn-Mudbar . It might
be said to al-Ka‘bi : I f he [al—Jabia] was a Kinan i as you
claim ,why did he write the book , The boas ting of the Kah
taniyah over the Kinantyah and the rest of the‘Adnantyah ?
Moreo ver,i f he was an Arab
,then why did he write the
book,The Superiority of the Freedmen over the Arabs?
Moreover,he mentioned in his book ca l led , Concerning the
Boasting of Kahtan over‘Adna
‘
n, a number o f poems in
which Kahtan satirizes‘Adnan . And in truth the man who
delights in the satires against his fathers i s like the man
who himsel f satirizes his father. In sati rizing ibn-Bassam 1
who sati rized hi s own father, Jahzahz has rightly sai d :
Whoever satirizes his father the mere fact of his satir
izing is sufficient ( to show that he is not hi s son ) , for hadhe been his son he would not have sati rized his father.
” 1
He composed many fantastic books . One o f them tells of
1 Ibid .
,vol. 11
,p . 301 . The text seems uncertain .
2 Ibid .,vol. i
,p . 1 18.
182
TH E SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZ ILAH AND THE KADARIY A-H
the tricks of robbers ; in thi s manner he taught ev i l peoplethe methods o f steal ing . And among his books are those
on the tithes of industry in which he depreciated the commodities of merchants . Among them also in his book on
laws,which shows how dishonest men get hold of the
treasures and money o f the people . There i s also his book
about the Fatwa ( religious deci sion ) , which is full o f
attacks by his preceptor,al—Nazzam
,on the teachings of
the Companion s ; also his boo-ks about prosti tutes and
rabies , and sodomy, and about the tricks of the avaricious .
The contents of these boo-ks suit him,his trade and his
family . He also has a book about the habits of animal s ,the con tents of which he drew from Aristotle ’s book on
animals, and to i t he added what is mentioned by al
Mada’
ini1 regarding the know ledge of the Arabs
,and their
poems about the uses to which animals could be put . He
filled the book with dialogues between dogs and roosters .
To be engaged in such dialogues. wastes time on that which
is loathsome . And to whomever boasts about al- Jahiz , we
commend the saying of the orthodox about him in the
words o f the poet concerning him :
If the ug liness of the swine is doubledH is ug liness would still be in ferior to that o f al- Jahig ,A man who is himself a substitute for hell,And a mote in the eye o f everyone who looks at him.
1 3 . Concerning the Shahhamiyah among them. These
are the followers of aba-Ya‘kub al- Shahham,
2 who was the
precepto-r of al- Jubba’
i . H is heresies resemble the heresies
of al -Jubba’
i,except that he considers i t possible that there
i s one thing determined by two determiners . Al- Jubba’
i
and hi s son denied thi s . Some of the weak—minded imagined that the teaching o f al- Shahham was simi lar to that o f
1 Ibid . , vo l. i , p . 578.
2 Horten, ibid .,p . 338.
183
MOSLEM SCH IS-MS AND SECTS
the S ifat'
iyah on this point . But there i s a wide difference
between the two views . Al- Shahham al lowed the possibi l ity
o f there being one thing determined by two determinerseach one of which two could produce the thing determinedinterchangeably . Al-Ka‘bi repor ts thi s in his book entitled‘
i’
in al—M asa’
il‘
ala abi-al-Hu'
dhail. But the Sifat'
iyah do
not grant the possibi l i ty of two creators . When they dogran t that there are two determiners for one thing deter
mined,they do so in the sense that one of the two i s its
creator and the other the acquirer, and the creator is not the
acquirer,nor the acquirer the creator . Thi s gives the ex
planation of the difference between the two parties in the
difference o f thei r two methods of exposition .
14 . Concerning the Khaiyatiyah among them . These are
the followers of abu—al-Husain al-Khaiyat,who was the
preceptor of al—Ka‘bi in hi s heresy . Al-Khaiyat agreed
with the rest of the Kadariyah in most of thei r heresies ,except that he differed from them in saying on the non
existent what non e had sai d befor e . For the Mu‘tazilah
disagreed about call ing the non - ex i stent an obj ect . Some
of them say i t is. not true that the non- exi stent can be known ,or described
,nor that i t i s an obj ect
,nor a substance ,
nor an essence,nor a phenomenon . This was the opinion
o f al- Salihi among them .
1 He agreed with the orthodox in
not cal ling the non- existent an object . But others of the
Mu‘tazilah claimed that the non—exi stent is an. object which
can be known and described,but i s not essence or phenom
enon . Thi s was al-Ka‘bi’s opinion . Al- Jubba
’
i and his son
abir-Hashim claimed that every attribute was rendered real ,either for itsel f or for its genus
,by the one that o riginated
it , and that such attribute remained,existing even when
( the object ) i s non—existent . He claimed further that an
1 Ibid . ,p . 305 .
184
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SEC TS
existence . I f they now say that they are sti ll obj ects ,essences
,and phenomena
,whose appearance i s. dependent
upon thei r being obj ects , they are sti l l forced to regard themas eternal , and in real i ty hold the same view as do those who
believe that essences and phenomena are pre- existent . Be
sides his heresy about Kadar and non- existence,al-Khaiyat
denied the value of tradition s coming from a single author
ity . In doing this he practically denied most of the Shari‘ahlaws
,because most of the legal ordinances are based upon
tradition s go ing back to a single authority . Al-Ka‘bi wrote
a book against him on the evidence coming from traditiongoing back to a single person . In this book he con
demns (1 those who deny such evidence . We say to al
Ka‘bi : It i s enough shame and disgrace for you to have
been connected with a preceptor whose heresy you ac
know ledge .
”
1 5 . Concerning the Ka‘
biya'h among them . These are
the followers of abu-Kasim ‘Abdal lah ibn—Ahmad ibn-Mah
mud al-Banabi,known as al-Ka‘bi . (The text of the
fol low ing sentence is not clear . ) He was a gatherer of wood
before he was introduced to various studies,both special and
general,and he did not acquire a deep knowledge of their
secrets in any one department . In fact,he fai led to grasp
the superficial,— how much more,then
,the kernel . He di f
fered from the Basriyfin among the Mu‘tazilah over many
points, for the Basriyun held that Allah sees hi s people in the
body , and with colors ; but they denied that he sees himsel f ,j ust as they deny that others see him . Al-Ka‘bi
,on the other
hand,claimed that Allah does not see himsel f
,nor anyone
else, except in the sense that he knows himsel f and others .
He fo l lowed al-Nazzam in his view that Allah does not l i ter
1 The text at this point is clear, but the mean ing is obviously con
tradictory.
186
THE SECTS OF THE MU’TAZ'IIIJAH AND THE K'ADARIY AH
al ly see anything . Another thing o ver which he differedfrom the Basriyfin and our followers i s that they held thatAllah l iteral ly hears word and sound , and not simply in thesense that he knows them . Al -Ka‘b
'
i and the Baghdadiyfin
among the Mu‘tazilah claimed that Allah hears nothing in
the sense o f perception known as sound . Moreover,they de
fined Allah ’s attribute as the hearer and the seer,in the sense
that he had knowledg e of the hearable which others heard
and the seeable which others saw . Furthermore,some o f
them claim that the Basriyfin among them,together with
our followers,hold that Al lah exerci ses will in the true sense
of the word . But our fol lowers say that he does not cease
willing through an eternal will , while the Basriyun ,among
the Mu‘tazilah
,claim that he wills through his temp-
oral
will,unlimited by space . Al—Ka‘bi and al-Nazzam
,however
,
and thei r followers do not agree with these two views,for
they claim that Allah has no actual will,and that when one
says that Allah wi lls a thing which he performs,one means
that he did thi s thing,and when one says that he of himself
w i l led a deed , onemeans that he commanded it . Accordingto both of these explanations, ascribing wil l to him i s merely
figurative,j ust as in the words o f Allah : The wal l wi ll s
to fal l ” ( Surah 18,v . the ascribing of will to a wal l i s
merely figurative . For this denial of the will o f Allah they
tog ether with our followers were condemned as heretics by
the Basriyfin . Another thing over which they disagreed was
that al-Ka‘bi claimed that he who i s ki l led i s not dead . But
this does not agree with the word of Allah : Every spirit
must taste of death ( Surah 3 , v . The rest of the
people agreed that all ki lled are dead , although they admit
that a dead person i s not necessarily ki l led . Another point
of disagreement i s that al—Ka‘bi held the same views as
those who make i t compulsory on Allah to do the best thing
as a matter o f necessity. Sti ll other points of disagree187
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
ment were that both the Basriyfin and our followers heldthat abil i ty does not necessari ly mean soundness. o f body
and safety from disease . Al—Ka‘bi claims that i t does .
As for the Basriyun among the Mu‘tazilah,
they condemn
the Baghdadiyun among them,while the latter i n their
turn condemn the former. As a matter of fact,each party
i s j ustified in condemning the other, as. we explained in the
book entitled,H eresies of the Kadariyah.
16 . Concerning the J nibba’
iyah among them . These are
the followers of abfi-
‘Ali al-Jubba
’
i'
1who led astray the
people of Khfizistan . The Mu‘tazilah of Basrah at that
time belonged to his schoo l , but afterwards j oined the schoo lo f his son abii—Has-him . Among the heresies of al-Jubba
’
i
was the one in which he said that Allah i s obedient to his
servant i f he does what hi s servant wi lls . The reason for
thi s was that one day he sa i d to our sheikh abfi- l-Hasan al
Ash‘ari ,“According to you,
what does obedience mean ?”
The sheikh answered,
“Agreement to a command ,”and then
asked for hi s Opinion in thi s matter . Al- Jubba’
i said : “The
essence o f obedience,according to me
,i s agreement to the
will . And whoever fulfils the will of another obeys him
[i . e. the other] . Our sheikh aba- l-Hasan answered : “Ac
cording to thi s,one must conclude that Allah i s obedient to
his. servant i f he [Allah ] fulfil s hi s will [i . e. the servant’
s
wil l ] . He granted thi s . Then our sheikh said : “ Youdiffer from the community of Moslems and you blaspheme
the Lord o f the Wor lds . For i f Allah i s obedient to his
servant,then he must be subj ect to him . Allah i s far and
away above being this . Al- Jubba’
i furthermor e claimed
that the names of Allah are subj ect to the regular rules of
grammar ; he there fore considered it possible to derive a
name for him [Allah ] from every deed which he perform s .
1 Horten,ibid.
,p . 352 .
188
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SECTS
1 7 . Concerning the Bahshamtyah . These are the follow
ers o f aba-Hashim and of al- Jubba’
i, and most o f the Mu
‘
tazilah of our ag e ho ld the same view regarding the claims
he made on ibn the vizier of the Buwaihids. They
were cal led al-Dhimmiyah because of thei r v i ew concern ingthe deserving of blame
,even though the deed i s not per
formed . They shared in most of the heresies of the Mu‘
tazilah,though they also disting uished themselves from them
in special heresies.which they were the first to hold . Among
others,was thei r view about the deserving of blame and
punishment when a deed had not been perform ed . Thus
veri ly they claimed that the one who is able to do a thing
[desiring to do i t] , may not do it , and yet commit infidel
i ty,in spite of the fact that there i s no hindrance to the
deed . Thi s assertion of thei rs i s due to the fact that ourfollowers said to the Mu
‘
taz ilah,i f you declare it possible
that abi lity precede the deed,i t necessari ly fo l lows that
two times and the many times are equal , because the one
precedes the other. They came to differ over the answer to
the conclusion,some saying that the occurrence of the deed
or its non- occurrence i s possible,while
,
abi l ity i s passing
from the state of possibility to that of actual ity . He had to
conclude that the occurrence o f the deed or i ts non- occur
rence i s possible when no hindrance exists . In addition to
thi s,it was claimed that abi lity does not mean abi lity to
perform the deed at the moment o f occurrence ; one of themgranted that abi lity might be non - existent just as the occur
rence of the deed was non- existent at the very time when
inabil ity occurred , whi ch is the very oppo site o f abi lity
which has vani shed after having existed . Abfi-Hashim
ibn-al- Jubba’
i saw the necessity of accepting the conclusion
forced on him by our companions , to wit : equal ity betweenthe two times and the many, in that he held i t possible thatabi l ity should precede the deed . It was impossible for the
190
THE SECTS OF TH E MU‘TAZIL'AH AND THE KADARIY AH
M u‘tazilites to come to a real conclusion and he had to find
some way out. He con s idered it possible for the man with
abi li ty to last forever together with the continuance of hi spower— « the Kora n verse fitting his case and all hindrances
being removed with regard to it , in so far as concerns thedoing o f the deed and i ts abandonment . C oncerning this i t
was said to him :“Can you see what i s the condition o f the
man who possesses abi li ty and has moral respon sibi li ty,but
dies be for e he has performed an act of obedience or disobedience by hi s abi li ty ?” He answered : He deserves blame
and the punishment of eternity,not because of his deeds ,
but because he has not done that which he was commanded
to do,although he had the abi lity and had no hindrances .
It was said to him : How does. he deserve punishment for
not doing what he was commanded,and not doing what he
was forbidden to do, and not deser ving a reward because he
did not do what he was forbidden to do,even i f he does not
do what he was commanded ?
There were some of his predecessors among the Mu‘tazi lah who used to condemn him who says. that Allah pun
i shes the disobedient because of the commission of a sin,
which the sinner did not himsel f or iginate . They,however
,
now said : It i s preferable to condemn abfi-Hashim for
his views on the punishment of one who was not disobe
dient,either for his own deed or for that of some one else .
”
Furthermore,he should be condemned for call ing the per
son who did not do what he was commanded disobedient .
even though that person did not commit a disobedience ,thus applying the name of obedient only to him whoactual ly obeys the command . I f i t i s possible to have a
disobedient person without having actual disobedience , then
it i s possible to have an obedient person without actual
obedience,or an unbeliever without actual unbelie f . More
over,besides these hate ful heresies , he claimed that i f
19 1
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SECTS
thi s moral ly responsible man did a wrong thing,he would ,
in thi s case,deserve a double port ion o f the punishment .
One par t for the hate ful thing which he did,and the
other because he did not perform the beauti ful thing whichwas commanded him . I f he does. the right thing and per
forms the deeds o f the prorphet, and Allah commands
him to do a thing which he does not do,nor does he
do the opposite,then indeed he becomes immor tal . The
rest of the Mu‘tazilah condemned him for the three follow
ing propositions . F i rst,his statement that puni shment i s
deserved,even when not due to the actual deed . Secondly,
hi s claim that a double portion o f the punishment is de
erved , when a wrong thing i s committed ( for doing what
i s wrong, and for not doing what is right ) . And thirdly,
hi s view that i f he does the right thing,and i s obedient just
as were the prophets,and yet fai l s to do one thing which
Allah commanded him ,but at the same time does not do its
opposite,in that case he does not deserve eternal fire in hell .
About hi s view of the double portion of punishment , our
companions said that there must,according to thi s , be two
puni shments ; for example,in the case of adultery, one
punishment i s for adultery which i s committed,and the
second because he fai led to do that which was incumbent
on him,i . e.
,avoiding adultery . The same v i ew holds re
garding blasphemy, punishment , and drinking of wine .
They said that i t al so necessari ly follows that two atone
ments are incumbent upon him who breaks the fast in the
month of Ramadan,one for a breaking of the fast , which
necessitates atonement,and the other because he did not do
that which was incumbent on him,i . e.
,fasting and with
ho lding from food . When ibn-al-Jubba’
i saw the trend
that hi s conclusion was taking against him,because of these
heresies of his,he committed something stil l more hateful
than these heresies,in order to escape the necessi ty of two
192
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
mah (The Demanding of Protection ) . In this he said that
every thing that could have a special neglect is in the same
category as the cause of a spoken word . But those things
which cannot have special neglect are in the same category
as the neglecting of giving an obligatory gi ft, such as alms ,and atonement
, as the payment of a debt and the return o f
unlawful possessions. What he meant was that alms and
atonement and the l ike are not performed by a special o rgan
and that there i s not a special organ of neglect in connectionwith each one. For i f a man prays or goes on the pi lgrimage,or does other things o f the kind
,it will occasion a neglect
o f alms . As to speaking a word , the cause for i ts neglect
must be special,and there fore to neglect it i s hate ful . There
fore,if he neglect the cause of speaking a word , he deserves
one portion o f punishment . But in the matter of giving
there i s no hateful neglect . Therefore,one who does not
give does not deserve another portion of punishment in ad
dition to the blame he deserves . And so they said to him :
I f the neglect of prayer and alms i s not hate ful,then it
must be beauti ful . ” Such a v iew is a departure from religionand all that i s connected iwth i t . Among the inconsi stencies
he committed in thi s chapter is the fact that he cal led him
who did not do what he ought a wrongdoer,even though he
were not actual ly doing wrong . He thus cal led him unbe
l iever and heretic,but hesitated to cal l him disobedient . He
thus considered it possible for Allah to consign a man to fire
for ever, even though he did not deserve the appellation ofdisobedient . But i f he called him unbeliever and heretic , hemust cal l him disobedient ; whereas , i f he refrains from
cal ling him disobedient he should not cal l him heretic and
unbeliever. Another inconsistency is his disagreement with
the consensus of Opinion by mak ing distinction between
recompense and reward,according to which he said : It
follows that there may be much reward in heaven which i s194
THE S-ECTS OF THE MU‘TAZI'LAH AND THE KADARIY AH
not recompense,and that in hel l there may be much retri
bution that i s not recompense . He refused to cal l i t recom
pense,because recompense i s only for an act
, and accord
ing to him there may be punishment without there hav ingbeen any act. It might well be said of him : Since there
can be no recompense save for an act, then why do you
deny that there is no reward and retribution except for
an act ?”
Aba-Hashim’s second heresy was his view that one could
deserve blame and prai se for the act of another . For ex
ample,i f Zaid commands ‘Amr to gi ve something to some
one else,and he does so ,
he deserves thanks from the re
cipient of the gi ft for the act which was really due to the
act of someone else . In the same way i f he commanded
him a sin, and he committed it , he does not himsel f deserve
the blame for the sin which i s due to the act o f another .
This view o f his is not like the view of the rest of the com
muni ty,in that he claims that one deserves thanks or blame
according to the command given , not according to the act
commanded him , and which was done for another . Thisview forced him to say that there was double prai se and
double blame , one of them for the command which is per
formed , and the other for the thing commanded , which isin real ity the act of another. How can thi s view of his be
true,when he denies the truth of what those say who live
for gain,i . e. to the effect that Allah created the gains of his
servants , and then either rewards. or punishes them for it .
It might be said to him : What you deny on thi s basi s ,which i s the act of another, separates you from the vi ew of
the Azarikah that Allah to-rments the chi ld of the polythei stfor the deed of his fathers .” Furthermore , i t might be said“ I f you conclude thi s , then you must conclude that man
deserves prai se and reward for a deed done by Allah in
con j unction with the deed of man ,e. g . a man who is on
195
his deathbed, is given food and drink , and as a resul t l ives
and breathes again , according to this. conclusion he deserves
praise and reward for his own l i fe and for the sati s factionof his hunger and thirst
,which
,after all, is real ly an act of
Allah .
H is thi rd heresy i s his view that repentance i s not ac
cepted as long as the sinner adheres to some other evi l thing
which he knows is evi l or which he believes to be evil , even
i f i t i s good in itsel f . He also claims that repentance ofheresy cannot be accepted i f the sinner sti l l persists in withho lding the smal lest item due by him . In support of his
assertion he gave the follow ing i llustration,that he who
kills another man’s son and commits adultery with the
latter’s wi fe , his repentance for one of the sins may be
accepted even i f he persists in the other . But such an ex
ample can not be admitted as i l lustration . The acceptance
o f his repentance ( for the one sin ) i s all right,i f he i s
punished for the other,j ust as in the case of the son who
i s ungrateful to his father the Imam ,steal s from various
persons,and commits adultery with hi s mai ds , then asks
forgiveness of the father for the ungratefulness,and the
repentance of his ungrate fulness i s accepted for the moneyhe stole fro-m him (his father ) , but his hand i s cut Off for
the rest of the property ( sto len ) , and he i s flogged for theadultery . For hi s proof in this case he asserted that theonly necessity for hi s forsaking what was evi l was the facto f i ts being evi l ; but i f he persi sted in some other evi l
,i t
wou ld show that the reason for his forsaking the first was
not simply because i t was evil . We say to him : That
which you deny i s the abandon ing o f evi l in order to escape
retribution . Is i t possible for a man to escape retributionfor the sin of which he repents , and at the same time be
punished for the sin of which he does not repent ? H ere i s
what we said further to him : The essence Of what i s in196
MOSLEM SrCHISMS A-ND SECTS
H is. fourth heresy i s hi s view that repentance from sin
after inabi li ty to sin i s not acceptable . Nor, according to
him,is repentance for lying acceptable when the tongue
becomes unable to Speak,nor repentance for adultery when
the man i s a eunuch . This i s contradictory to the view of
all of the community before him . It might be sai d to him :
Do you believe that a man who has a tongue and tells a
l i e,who can and does commit adultery, is a sinner ?
” And
i f he says yes , then it can be sa id :“ In like manner, he
must bel ieve that i f one can l i e and commit adultery and yet
does not disobey Allah , then obedience and repentance are
necessari ly present . With his excesses in threats , aba
Hashim was the most dissolute of the men o f his time . He
was also gi ven to drinking wine . And it was sai d that he
died when drunk,so that some Murj i
’
ite said :
He says shameful thing s about the MurJ i’
ah until
He sees some hope in the sins,
And the g reatest sinner among the people are the Murj i’
ah
And my servant persisted in the maj or sins
H is fi fth heresy was hi s v iew on the conditioned will .
The chief point in this i s hi s v iew that i t i s not poss ible forone thing to be desired from one standpoint and abominated
from another . What forced him to this i s that he spoke
against him who believes in different standpoints regarding
acquisition and creation ; he said that the standpoint of ac
quisition i s necessari ly either real or unreal . I f the stand
po int i s unreal,we should have proof of the existence of a
thing that i s both real and unreal . I f i t i s real , i t i s necessari ly either created or non—created . I f i t i s created
,i t proves
that i t i s created from all standpoints,while i f i t i s not cre
ated , the mind becomes eternal ( non- created ) from one
standpoint and created from another, which is an impossibil
ity . He was led to thi s view by his thought that a thing mustbe desired from one standpoint and abominated from an
198
T HE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZILAH AND THE KADARIY AH
o ther . It may be said to him : Then will, according to you ,
i s not related to a thing, except from the standpoint of itsoccurrence , which i s al so an abomination . And i f a thingi s willed from one standpo int , and abominated from another
,
i t fo l lows that the one who Wi l ls has willed what he willsand abominated what he wi lls, which i s a contradiction .
”
But he said : “The one willing, wills nothing except from all
standpoints,so that i t i s not poss ible for him to abominate i t
from another standpoint .” This view is necessari ly followedby the question o f the known and the unknown
,since he
does not deny that a thing can be known from one stand
point and unknown from the other,by committing himsel f to
the view that the same thing cannot be willed from one
standpoint and abom inated from another,he laid himsel f
open to problems which destroy the basi s of the Mu‘tazilah
creed . In fact,he had committed himsel f to most of these ,
and thus had to conclude that among the greatest heresies
there were some that Allah did not abominate , and,on the
other hand, among the beauti ful truths
,there were some
that Allah did not will . The explanation of this i s that i ft o kneel before Allah i s worship ( P ) , o f idols .a lthough to kneel be fore an idol i s a great evi l . And thusif he should wish that hi s description o f Muhammad as the
prophet of Allah should re fer to ibn-
‘Abdal lah ,it would be
necessary for him not to disl ike i t to be a description of an
other Muhammad , although this i s heresy . It also follows
that i f Allah hates to have kneel ing used as a worship of
idols,then he does not wish it to be a worship of Allah , even
though ( in such a case ) i t be the worship of Allah and
beauti ful Obedience . To all thi s , he committed himsel f ,
and moreover he mentioned in hi s great Collection thatkneel ing to ido ls i s not abominated by Allah ; at the same
time he rej ected the fact that the same thing could be
willed and abominated from two different standpoints .199
MOSLEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
This view he said aba-
‘Ali
,his father, considered to be
right . According to me,thi s vi ew i s not based upon proper
principles,for will has nothing to do with the thing, ex
cept in the matter of occurrence, according to us and to
him . I f he wills the occurrence of a thing, and at the
same time abominates it , i t follows that what he abom
inates is what he wi lls, unless there were two occurrences ofthe thing . According to us, he who relies on him is. wrong
because we hold that wi ll has to do with the willed from the
standpoint of occurrence , as well as from other standpoints .
This conclusion which i s for ced on him is not forced on hisfather, and for for cing thi s conclusion there is an answer
and a reversal. As to the answer, his father in his view
does not mean that wil l has to do with the thing from the
standpo int of occurrence , as aba-Hashim held ; in real i ty
the father meant that the wil l is related to the thing whi lei t was occurring
,or to an attribute which it has while oc
curring ; such as will ing an act and willing that i t should be
an act of obedience to Allah,this (obedience ) being an attri
bute that develops at the time of the occurrence . Thi s re
sembles the view that command and report are not commandand report except through the will
,ei ther the will of the one
commanding, according to abir-Hashim and others,or i ts in
herent will to be a command and a report, as ibn- al- Ikhshid
among them said , because Allah had said ,“And let him then
who will , believe ( Surah 1 8 . v . He has, there fore ,willed the occurrence of his word
, as wel l as the belie f from
them , but the words ,“Let him beli ev e .
” i s not,i n this case
, a
command ; rather is it a threat , because he did not wi ll thi s
word to be a command . The report, according to them,
i snot a report unti l he wills i t to be a report about thi s manand not that man . Although this i s the reason for the wi ll
ing O f the occurrence o f a thing, and although it has been
proved that Allah ’s dislike of having kneeling made a wor200
MOS-LEM SCHISMS AND SECTS
receives the attribute and deserves the attribute because of
the state in which it is.
The second situation is that the subj ect to which an attri
bute is gi ven becomes attached to that attribute as its state
The third situation i s that the subj ect deserves an attri
bute neither for itsel f nor for an attribute , and becomes
attached to that qual ity rather than anything else attached
to the subj ect as i ts state .
What forced him into thi s was a question put by Mu‘am
mar regarding the significances’“ D id the learn ing of
Zaid belong to him rather than ‘Amr,for himsel f or for
some significance, or neither for himsel f nor some signifi
cance I f i t i s for himsel f,then it follows that all branches
o f learning belong to him,for they are all learning. I f it i s
for some significance,then Mu‘ammar i s right in holding
that each significance i s attached to another significance
endlessly . I f it i s neither for himsel f nor for some signifi
cance, then the fact that i t belongs to him or to some one
else is immaterial . According to abir-Hashim,Zaid ’s learn
ing belongs to him for some state (hal) . But our followers say that hi s learn ing belongs to him by its essence , and
neither because i t was knowledge nor because i t was Zai d ;which is l ike saying that black i s black because of its essenceand not because i t has a sel f or a being. They then said toaba-Hashim ,
Do you know the status or not ?” And he
said no, because i f he had said that they were known , he
would have had to prove that they were Obj ects,because ,
according to him , nothing is known unless i t is an obj ect .
Nor could he say that they were changing status , because
changes occur only in the case of objects and substances .Moreover, he does not say that status exi st , nor does he saythat they are non- existent
,nor that they are eternal , nor
that they are created,nor that they are known ,
nor that202
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZI'LAH AND THE KADARIY AH
they are unknown,nor does he say that they are mentioned ,
although he mentioned them,holding that they are unmen
tioned,which is a contradiction .
He claimed,moreover
,that the learned has in each known
thing a condition which cannot be said to be hi s condition
i n another known thing. To this end,he claimed that the
conditions o f the creator as to what he knows are endless ;the same thing being true about hi s conditions in hi s owncapabi l iti es
,that they are endless j ust as his capabi liti es are
endless . Our compan ion s say to him : Y ou did not deny
that for one known thing there are endless conditions , for
the known can be dependent on any existent knower ad in
finitum . Furthermore, are the conditions of the creator
brought about by others,or are they he himsel f ?” To this
he answered,They are neither he nor another . They
then said to him,Why do you deny the view of the S i fat
iyah that the attributes of Al lah are endless , since they are
nei ther he nor another ?” 1
1 In the sixth o f his heresies Abra-Hashim addresses himself to the
problem o f absolute being ,human and divine and rai ses the question
as to how the essence O f this being differentiates itself from another being
o f the same g enus or o f another class and kind . Does a philosopherdiffer from a fool, the learned from the ignorant, by what the philosopher or the learned know
,o r in essence throug h some other causes.
These early Arab enquirers, the O ld Mu‘tazilah, held that it was not
in essence or in some quality of the essence ; for both belong to the same
g enus. ( For what is the wise man more than the foo l ? )These twain differ not in essence nor in the phenomena, the acci
dents nor the acquirements O f life— a aSemitic view as O ld as the
Preacher o f Ecclesiastes— and the difference, what ever source it is
from does not make the one superior to another . But Allah,al-
‘Alim,
the knowing , in what fash ion does he differ from the ignorant, in
what sense and in what attribute does he differ ? Abfi-Hashim asserts
that God differed solely in essence and not otherwise, and this essence
di ffers in ways, or phases or particulars .
The point O f these aspects is that it is true o f the divine essence
that it is as it is and can be no other, and as it is in and by itself
described and defined, and its conditioning nature is its inevitable and
natural condition so that no other is or can be like it.203
MOSLEM S'CH ISMS AND SECTS
H is seventh heresy i s the denial o f certain phenomena
[accidentals ] , the existence o f which has. been established
by almost everyone,such as con tinuance , perception , grief ,
pain,and doubt . He claims that pain which has been in
flicted on man by an accident,and pain which comes from
drinking distaste ful medicines,does not mean more than
the perception of something which temperament shuns ;therefore perception
, according to him ,i s not a real i ty. The
same is true of the perception of the substances of peoplecondemned to fire whi le they are in fire . In the same way,according to him
,pleasures are not real ities , they are not
more than perceptions of a desired thing, and perception i snot a reali ty . Of the pain which comes from the plague
,he
said it i s a reality l ike that which comes from a blow . For
proof of thi s he gave the view that i t was included under
sensation , which i s a strange view ,because the pain due to
a blow with a stick , and the pain from mustard medicine ,and the sting that comes from fire and from the drinking ofbitter herbs are the same as regards sensation . Moreover,i f he rej ects the existence Of pleasures as a real ity, he cannot
then consider the pleasures of the people of heaven morethan the pleasures of in fants which are given to them for
well- do ing, for nothing cannot be more than nothing. But
he claimed that pleasure in i tsel f i s. a benefit and a sensation ,and yet he asserted that benefit and sensation are nothing .
Moreover, he claims that all pain i s harm ,from which it
follows that according to him harm al so i s nothing.
H is eighth heresy is his view in his chapter on annihi la
tion, to the effect that Allah has no power to annihi late anatom from the world and sti l l preserve the integrity of
heaven and earth . This claim he founded on the basi s ofhis assertion that bodies cannot be annihi lated except by an
annihilation created by Allah in no parti cular place and one
that i s opposed to all existing things because it is not pecu204
MOSLEM SCHISMnS AIND SECTS
the chasti sement, and when the ties. between them shal l be
cut asunder ( Surah 2,v . And further : The fol
lowers shal l say, Could we but return to li fe . we wouldkeep ourselves clear from them ,
as they have declared
themselves clear of us ("
Surah 5 , v .
Among the obstinacies O f thei r leaders i s that of al
Nazzam regarding the leap '
and his view that the body
passes from the first place to the third or the tenth , without
need of a medium . We find here also the obstinacies ofthat class o f perj urers who assert that the dead real ly ki l l
those who are al ive . We also find the obstinacies of many
of them in which they assert that he who i s able to ari se
above the earth one span. has al so the power to ri se above
the seven heavens,and that those who have chained and
bound hands are able to scale the steeps o f the heavens,and
that a small bug is able to drink the whole bottle
Another of them,known as Kasim al-Dimashki claims
that letters. of truth may form an untruth , and that the letters
which are in the creed,
“ there is no God but Allah ,”
are
the same as those used in saying that Chri st i s a God ;also that the letters which are in the Koran are the same
as those in the book of Zoroaster of the Magians , beingactual ly the same and not simply al ike in one sense . He
who does not con sider such views as these mental arro
gance, cannot consider the denial o f the tangible by the
Sophists an arrogance .
The Ashab al-Makalat ( the wri ters of sayings ) report
that sev en O f the leaders of the Kadari’
yah gathered to
gether in a meeting and talked of Allah ’s power to op
press and l ie . When they separated,each one was con
demning the other . One of them sai d to al-Nazzam in
this meeting : Has Allah [ sufficient] power over what
comes forth fro-m him to turn it into Oppression and lying ?”
He replied : I f he has such power,we cannot tel l whether
906
THE SECTS OF THE MU‘TAZ ILAH AND THE KADARIY AH
he has oppressed or has l ied in what has. already come topass , or whether he may Oppress or l ie in the future, or may
even have oppressed in some parts. o f the earth [and not
others] . The only security we have against hi s Oppressionand his lying is by our having a good opin ion o f him .
”The
questioner went on : What evidence then makes us securefro-m such behaviour on hi s [Allah
’s ] part ; but to find thi s
out there i s no way. To! thi s ‘Ali al-Aswari answered :
“According to thi s reason ing of yours it necessarily followsthat Allah has no power over what he know s he does not do
,
or over what he sa id he would not do,because i f he had
power over it,he might have brought i t about [after all] in
the past or he may cause i t in the future . Al-Nazzam said“This does neces sari ly follow ,
— what,then
,i s your view of
i t ?” He replied : I comprom i se between the two views .and say that Allah has no power over what he knows he wil l
not do,or over what he said he would not do
,j ust as you and
I say that he has no power to oppress and l i e .
”Al-Nazzam
then said to al—Aswari : Your v i ew i s apostate and heret
ical .” Abu- al-Hudhai l said to al-Aswari : “What do you sayo f Pharaoh
, and of those whom Allah knew would not be
l ieve , —were they able to believe or not ? I f you claim thatthey were not able to beli eve , then Allah wou ld have laid
upon them what they were unable to bear, and thi s , according
to you,i s heretical . On the other hand
,i f you say that they
were able to believe , then how do you escape the fact that
things occurred through them ,which Allah knew would not
occur,or that he said wou ld not occur. According to your
reasoning and that of al-Nazzam thi s i s a denial similar to
denying Allah ’s power to oppress and l i e . He replied to
abu-al-Hudhai l :“S ince thi s necessari ly follows , how
wou ld you answer it And he replied : My view i s that
Allah has power to Oppress and to lie , and to do what he
knows he would not do .
” And both o f them said to him :
207
MOSLEM S CHISMS AND SECTS
I f he oppresses and l i es , do you see what is to be made o fthe principles o f the essence of the evidence which triesto prove that Allah does not Oppres s or li e ?” He replied
This i s impossible . Whereupon they both said to him
How can the impossible be within the power of Allah ,and why did you con sider it impossible for such a thing to
occur from him,i f you consider it within his power ?
”H is
reply was : Because it does not occur unti l mi s fortune
comes to one,and i t i s impossible for mis for tune to come
upon Allah .
” They said to him : It i s al so impossible for
him to have power o ver what takes place through him,ex
cept when mis fortune comes upon him .
” And the three
were amazed . Bishr said to them that everything which they
held was nonsense . Abfi - al-Hudhai l repl ied : And what
do you say? Do you claim that Allah i s able to torment a
chi ld,or do you merely say, This man ( i . e. al-Nazzam )
holds that view He replied : I hold that Allah has
power to do this . And he said : I f he does that which he
i s able to do,namely torment a chi ld , and oppress it , then the
chi ld must be an adult,intell igent
,s in ful
,and deserving of
the punishment which Allah imposes upon it . The evidences
in themselves would be evidences Of his j ustice .
”Abfi- al
Hudhai l said to him : May your eyes weep . How can i t
be an act O f virtue not to do what you can do along the l ine
of oppression ?” And al-M irdar sai d : Verily you have
denied an Opinion of my preceptor, and my preceptor was
wrong.
” Bishr said to him : How do you say?” And he
replied : I say that Allah has the power to Oppress and to
l ie, and i f he does this , he becomes an oppress ive and a
lying God . Bishr then said to him : Does he deserveworship or not ? I f he deserves it
,then worship i s an act
o f prai se toward the worshipped,and i f he practi ses op
pression,then he deserves blame and not prai se . I f
,on the
other hand , he does not deserve worship , how can he be alord without i t ?
208
MOSLEM SCH ISMS AND SE CTS
be described in thi s manner because we know that oppression
proves the ignorance o f i ts author or his need .
’
And i f he
then says,Indeed
, you do not answer the question asked
o f you regarding the evidence of the occurrence of Oppres
s ion and l i es through him who is ign orant and needy, either
by yes or no,’ we say,
So you say These leaders of the
Kadariyah of our ag e acknowledge thei r inabi lity, and the
inabili ty of thei r predecessors,to answer thi s= question . I f
they should succeed in finding out the truth abo ut i t,they
would accept the view of our followers that Allah has
power over everything subj ect to power, and that every
thing which i s subj ect to his power,i f i t comes from him
,is
not tyrannical on hi s part . And i f they consider i t impossible for him to lie
,as our companions did
,they would
escape from the conclusions which were advanced against
them in thi s matter . O ne o f the excuses given by al-Jubba’
i
for not being able to answer thi s question by yes or no was
something like this : I f someone were to say : Tel l me
about the Prophet , i f he lied , would that be or would i t notbe a proof that he was not a prophet ? He claimed that the
answer to thi s was impossible . This i s private guess on his
part . As for the Sunnites,they hold to the principle that
the prophet was free from lying and Oppression , and had
no power to perform them . An d the Mu‘tazilah, as ide from
al-Nazzam and al-Aswari,ascribed to Allah the power to
Oppress and l i e . And they had to find an answer for the
question of him who asked them about the occurrence of
those things subj ect to hi s power that came from them
( lying and Oppression ) i f they were a proof of ig noranceand need or not
,by yes or no . Whoever of them tries to
answer thi s,belies thei r principles in his answer. And
’
prai se be to Allah who saved us from thi s heresy o f theirs .
which leads to such contradictions .210
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Many of the numerous Arabic works on the relig ion o f Islam havecome down to us on ly as titles. Among the most important on the
g reat question o f sects are the fo llowingAl- Subki , in his Tabaled t al- Shan
‘iyah ( ed . Cairo 1324 A . H .
,vo l. i
,
pp . 252 , 288 vol. ii,p . mentions these Shafi ’i writers on this subj ect
Husain ibn-‘Ali ibn-Yazid abu-
‘Ali al-Karabi si one of
those best versed in the teaching s o f the heretics.
Muhammad ibn-Ahmad ibn- Nasr abfi—Ja‘far al-Tirmidhi , versed in
theology and tradition, wrote a work on the Fundamental Differences of the People of Prayer .
Abfi’
l-Fadl al-Balami wrote essays on this subj ect.In verse
‘Abdallah ibn -Muhammad al-Nashi wrote four thousand
verses on philosophy and relig ious systems, sects and beliefsLes Prairies d
’
Or , vol. vii, p .
Among the earliest polemical writers are
Abu-‘Ali Ahmad ibn-
‘Umar ib-n-Rustah ( d . 360 A . H . ) who wrote a
chapter on Arts and Relig ions of Arabs before Islam and the
Schools in Islam. Bibliotheca Geog raphicorum Arabicorum, vol.
vii, pp . 2 14-229 ( sects on p .
Abu-Mansfir‘Abd al-Kahir ibn-Tahir ibn-Muhammad al-Bag hdad-i
( d . (A list o f his important works is g iven elsewhere. )Shuhfur ibn-Tahir ibn-Muhammad al-Isfara
’
ini ( d . His manu
script in Berlin is practically a copy of Bag hdadi ’s work .
Abu-Muhammad‘Ali ibn-Ahmad ibn-Hazm Kitab al
M ilal wa’
l-N ihal ( a book on differences and sects) . Published inCairo, with Shahrastani ’s work printed on the marg in .
Abfi’
l-Fath Muhammad al—Shahrastan i . Relig ious Sects and Philoso
phical Schools, translated by Haarbriicker (Halle
This literature having reached its heig ht w ith Shahrastani , we willnot mention here the numerous treatises which have appeared since.
O f the above-mentioned works, one only is available in translation : thatof Shahrastani , Relig ions-Partheien and Philosophen-Schulen, trans
lated by Haarbrucker . Parts of ibn-Hazm may be found translated byPro f . Friedlander , in the J . A . O . S.
,vols. xxviii and xxix .
2 1 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The most important works on this subj ect by European scholars are
the following :
E . Blochet
Le Messianisme dans l’
hétérodoxie Musulmane, Paris, 1903 .
A . Christensen
Remarques critiques snr le Kitcib bayani- l-adyah d’As - l-Ma
‘d li ; in
Le M onde O riental, vol. v , 19 1 1 , pp . 205 et seq .
Israel FriedlanderThe H eterodoxies of the Shi i tes, J . A . O . :S .
,vols. xxviii and xxix .
Th is article includes his translation of portions of ibn-Hazm.
(New Haven, Conn ,
Ignaz Goldziher
Beitra'
g e ear Literatarg eschichte der Shi’
a und der Sunnitischen
Polemik ( in Akad. der Wiss.Phil. H ist. klasse. S itznng sb.
,vol.
lxxviii,pp . 439 (Vienna )
Die Zahiriten (Leipzig ,
Le De’
nombrement des Sectes Mahometanes , in Revue de l’
H istoire
d es Relig ions, vol. xxvi (Paris,Review o f Bag hdadi
’
s work,Z eitschrift der Dentschen M org en
lc’
indischen Gesellschaft, vol. lxv,p . 349 .
Vor lesang en tiber den Islam (H eidelberg , (Translated intoEng lish,
M ohammed and Islam,New Haven, Conn ,
Hammer-Purg stall
Tableau Généalog iqne des 73 sectes a’
e l’
Islam, in. J ourna l Asiatique,I st ser.
, vo l. vi, pp . 32 1 - 335 ; vol. vii, pp . 32-46.
M . HortenDie Philosophischen Systeme der Spekulatizren Theolog en im Islam
(Bonn,
‘S . HorovitzUber den Einfluss der Griechischen Philosophie anf die Entwicklung
der Kalam ( Breslau,
Uber den Einfiuss des S toicismus anf die Entwicklung der Philosophiebei den Arabern,
2 . D. M . G . ,vol. lvii
,pp . 177- 19 1 .
J . B. L. J . Rousseau :
M émoires snr les trois plus fameuses sectes an Mnsnlmanisme ( Paris,A . Nepven , 1818, ed . 75 , p .
212
INDEX
Abi diyah, 36‘Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn- al-Hu
sain,63
‘Abdallah ibn-al-Wadin, 84‘Abdallah ibn-ab
'
i -Aufi , 33‘Abdallah ibn-Harath al-Khuza‘i ,85
‘Abdallah ibn- al-Zubair, 52, 59 , 85,1 15
‘Abdallah ibn-‘Amr
,21
‘Abdallah ibn-‘Amr ibn-al-
‘As,22
‘Abdallah ibn-‘Amr ibn-Harb, 49
‘Abdallah ibn-Dajah , 58‘Abdallah ibn-Hammad al-Jubari
,
80‘Abdallah ibn-Hubab ibn -al-‘Aratt
,
77. 78‘Abdallah- ibn- Ibad
,104, 107
‘Abdallah ibns-Ja‘far, 7 1‘Abdallah ibn—J ausha al-Ta
’
i, 82
‘Abdallah ibur-Kauwa, 77Abdallah ibn Maimun al-Kadah,35
‘Abdallah ibn Muslim ibn Kutaibah
,1 56, 179
‘Abdallah ibn-Muti‘al-
‘Adawi , 52‘Abdallah ibn-Naj iyah , 2 1‘Abdallah ibn ‘
Umar, 33‘Abdallah ibn-Wahab al-Rasibi , 77,80 ii , 92
‘Abdallah ibn-Yazid, 2 1‘Abdallah ibn-Yazid al-Ansari , 52‘Abd—al-Ghaffar al-Faris, 8Abd al-Kahir, 5 , 7, 8, 9 , 12
, 22,
45 -7 ) 50,61
, 73 , 94, 108) 1 1 5 ) 132!I7S
‘Abd al-Kais, 125‘Abd- al-Karim ibn-
‘Aj rad, 94, 96,
102
‘Abd- al-Malik ibn-Marwan
, 54, 59 ,
86,88
, 9 1 , 1 12 , 1 13‘Abd- al-Rahman ( bro . o f
‘A’
ishah )1 1 5
‘Abd- al-Rahman al-Ni sabt
‘
i ri,101
‘Abd- al-Rahman ibn Muhammad
ibn- al-Ash‘ath
,1 13
‘Abd- al-Rahman ibn Mulj im,
64,93 , 106
‘Abd al Rahman ibn Ziyad ibn
An‘am,2 1
‘Abd al-W ‘
ahid ibn-Ziyad, 35
‘Abd-Rabbihi al-Kabi r, 84, 87‘Abd Rabbihi al-S aghi r, 84, 87Abraham
, 3 1 , 1 5 1‘Abs, 54Abstainers ( from war ) , 84, 88, 98ff.
,101
al-Abtar, 45
abfi-‘Abdallah, see al-Hasan ibn
Salih ibn-Hai al-Kfifi
abfi-al-‘Abbas al-Kalénisi , 165
aba- al-Hudhail Muhammad ibn- al
Hudhail al- ‘Allaf,68, 107, 125 ff. ,
148, 165 , 173 , 207 ff.abfi- al-Husain al-Khaiyat, see al
Khaiyatabfi- al-Ruwandi , 147abu-Baihas, 9 1
abfi-Baihas Haisam ibn-’Amir
,1 10
abfi-Bakr, 3 1 -3, 45 , 46, 50,106 ,
109
abfi-Bakr al-Sidd ik, see abfi-Bakraba-Bakr Muhammad ibn -al-Tai
yib al 138
abfi-Bilal M irdas al-Khari j i , 92abfi-Fudaik
, 90 fl’.
abu-Hani fah,28
, 39 , 153
abu-Hashim ibn- al 37, 1 16,1 18
,133 , 165 , 184, 190 if ,
209
abfi-Hurairah, 2 1 , 22 , 33 , 1 54
2 15
2 16
abfi- Imamah,22
abfi Hashim ‘Abdallah ibn Mu
hammad ibn - al - Hanifiyah, see
Muhammad ibn- al-Hanafiyahabfi-
‘Isa al-Warrak,
68, 7 1
abu- Ishak, see al-Murtar
abfi- Ishak al- Isafara’
ini , 8
abfi- Ishak Ibrahim ibn- Saiyar,see
al-Nag g am
abn- Ja‘far al-Mansfir,62
abfi-Kamil, 36, 60
abfi-Karib al-Dar‘
ir, 48
abfi - Kasim ‘Abdallah ibn - Ahmadibn-Mahmfid al-Banahi al
see al-Ka‘biaba-Kubais, 68abfi-Kudail ( p robably abu-Padaik )87 Ff.
abn’
l-Darda, 22
abfi’
l- Jarad, 43abfi l Hasan al Ash‘ari , see al
Ash‘ariabfi- l- Juland i , 99abfi- l—S-ahara, 1 1 1abfi- l- Shamrakh
, 9 1
abu-Malik al-Hadrami , 7 1abfi-Maryam al- Sa
‘di
,82
abfi-Mas‘ur
,155 ff.
abfi Muhammad‘Abdallah ibn
‘Ali ibn- Ziyad al- Sumaidhi
, see
ibn-Ziyadaba Muhammad
‘Umar
,22
abfi -Muhammad ibn-‘Ali ibn-
‘Ahdallah ibn-
‘Abbas ibn-al-Muttalib
, 49
abfi-Mukarram,104
abfi-Masa al 33 , 146, 1 52abfi-Mfisa al-Murdar
,see al-Mur
dar
aha-Muslim,103 , 104
aha-Rashid, 83aba- Sahl Bishr ibn Ahmad ibnBashhar al Isfara
’
ini , see alIsfara
’
ini
abfi- Salman, 2 1
abfi- Sa‘id al-Khidri
, 22
abfi- Shimr al-Murj i’, 37, 165
abfi Yahya Y fisuf ibn Bashshar,
see ibn-Bashshar
ibn‘Abdallah
INDEX
aba Ya‘kub al S'hahham, see al
Shahhamabfi-Yasuf, 177abfi- Zufar
,172
Adam, 56
al-‘Adawi , 122
‘Adi ibn-Hatim al-Ta
‘i, 78
Adimawat,the people o f, 22
Adnaniyah,182
Ah] al- Zahir, 39Ahmad ibn-al-Hasan ibn-
‘Abd al
Jabbar, 2 1Ahmad ibn-Fihr , 180
Ahmad ibn-Nasr al-Marwazi,179
Ahmad ibn- Shumait, 57, 58
al-Ahnaf ibn-Kais, 57al-Ahwaz
,85 ff.
,12 1
‘Ailan, 54
‘A’
ishah,1 15 , 122, 124
Aj éridah, 36, 7s, 94, 96, 98‘Akabah
,n ight of, 1 54
al-‘Akhmas, 103
‘Akhnasiyah,
102,103
‘Ali
’ 5 ) 6 : 22, 30> 33
'ff'r 36, 43 5 ,
48 1i ,60 1i
,64, 66, 75 H.
,80
, 93,
95 , 106 , 122 ff. , 1 54, 170‘Ali al-Aswari
, see al-Aswéri‘Ali ibn abi -Talib, see
‘Ali
‘Ali ibn - Ahmad ibn - Sa
‘id ibn
Hazm ibn-Ghalib ibn q salih aba
Muhammad , see ibn-Hazm‘Ali ibn- al-Husain Zain al-
‘Abidin,
49 , 64‘Ali ibn-
‘Isa ibn-Hadiyan,
100‘Ali ibn-Maitham, 71‘Ali ibn-M 13 5 5 al-Rida, 66‘Ali Zararah ibn -A‘yan, 7 1‘Amariyah, 60‘Amir ibn-Wathilah al-Kine’ mi , 59‘Amariyah , 36‘Amr ibn-al-
‘Asi , 33 , 80,
146‘Amr ibn Bahr al - Jahiz, see al
Jahiz‘Amr ibn-Harmfiz, 124‘Amr ibn-zSa
‘id, 99
‘Amr ibn-
‘Ubaid ibn-Bab
, 34, 12 1,
122,123 ff.
‘Ammar ibn-Yasir, 123‘Amr ibn-Yazid al-Azdi
, 99 ff.
‘Amriyah, 37, 1 16, 123
2 18
Dhubyan, 54Dhfi
’
l-Nfinain , 50
Dhfi'l-Thudyah, 77, 81
Dualists, 136, 141 Pf.
al-Duj ail (Little Tig ris) , 1 14D‘
nlab al-Ahwaz, 77, 85 , 86Duwaibiyah ibn-Wabrah al-Bajadi ,80
Fadak , 32
Fad] al-Hadathi , 137211-m 5 4 ibn Khali al-Azdi , 80
Fakhr al-D'in al-Razi,8
Faljard, 99Farah, 50Farwah ibn-Naufal al-Ashj a‘i , 82Fatimah,
1 54Followers of the C amel, 331
, 75 , 78,81 , 122 ff.
Followers o f Obedience, see AshabTa‘ahFriedlander, 7, 1 1al-F iiti , see H isham ibn-
‘Amr
Gabriel, 27Ghailan al-Dimashki , 33 , 1 19Ghalafah al-Taimi
,82
Ghassan iyah, 37
Ghazalah ,1 12- 15
al-Ghazzal, see Wasil ibn
-‘Ata
’
C hulat, 5 , 34- 36, 49 , 55 , 65 . 7s, 97,
105 , 1 16
Greeks, 12, 32
H
Habib ibn-‘Asim al-
’Audi, 8 1
Hafs ibn abi l Mikdam 105Hafs1yah, 36, 105Haisam al Shari
,100
al Haitham ibn Khamah, 2 1
alHakam ibn-al-‘Asi
,154
Halala, Fort of, 1 12
INDEX
Hamadhén, 45 , 54, 58, 77
Hammad‘Aj rad, 61
Hamran Kaumat, 35Hamzah ibn-Akrak al-Kharij i , 97,98 1i .
Hamziyah, 36, 96, 98
Han'balite, 6
Ha-nfifite, 6
Harbiyah , 49Harithah ibn-Badr al-Padani , 85Harith ibn-Mazid aJ - Ibadi , 106 if .
al-Harith ibn-’
Umair, 1 12
Harithiyah, 36, 105 ff
Harj arayah , 82
al-Harrah, 46
Harfin al-Rashid, 99 ,
177
Harfira, 77
Harfiriyah , 77, 1 12
al-Hasan al—Basri , 34, 1 19 , 12 1
al-Hasan ibn-‘Ali
, 43 , 44, 47, 48,
5 7, 64, 123
al-Hasan ibn - rsnalih ibnKfifi
, 45Hashim al-Anhas, 124
Haushah,124
Hautharah ibn Wada‘al
‘Asadi82
Hayitiyah, 1 16, 37 ?
Hazzan, 54
al-Hijaz, 28, 52 .
Himariyah, 37, 1 16
Himrun,63
H indu,12
H ir i t, 99 3 .
H isham ibn-‘Abd al-Malik, 35 , 46
H isham ibn -‘Amr al-Ffiti
,165 E.
H isham ibn al Hakam al-Rafid1
36 , 67 " 7I ) 73 , 136 ; 144H isham ibn- Salim al-J awali lgi , 36,67. 70, 7 1 , 73H isham ibn -
‘Ubaidallah al-Razi ,
I77H ishémiyah, 36, 60,
67, 1 16, 165Holy Land
, 3 1
al—Hudaibiyah, day o f, 79 , 1 54Hudhai liyah, 37, 1 16, 125
Hurairiyah, 35al-Husain ibn
‘Ali ,
52- 4 58, 59 , 64, 123
Haj al
43 , 44, 46-8,
INDEX
al-Husain ibn-Numair al-Sukuti ,
9 , 52 , 54
Hurkus ibn Zuhair al BaJ ali al‘Urani
, 77, 80,81
, 92
I
‘Ibad ibn-Akhdar al-Tamimi , 93Ibadiyah ,
29 , 81 , 104 ft ,106 ff., 109 ,
120, 129
al-Iskafi , 209Ibnx-
‘Abbas, 33 , 59 , 123Ibn-
‘Abbad, 190
ibn- abi - al- Salt, 98
ibn- abi-Da’ud, 179 ff.
ibn-al-Hanafiyah, see Muhammadibn-al-Hanafiyah
ibn-al- Ikhshid, 200
ibn al Jubba’
i , see abi'
1 Hashimibn- al- Jubba
’i
ibn- al-Rawand i, 68
ibn-al-Salah, 7ibn- al- Zaiyat, 179 ff.ibn-Arw ii , 50
ibn-Bab,see
‘Amr ibn-Ubaid
ibn-Bashshar ( abu-Yahya Y fisuf) ,47, 99
ibn -Bassam,182
ibn-Hayi t, 137ibn-Hazm, 5 , 1 1
,12
ibn-Khallikan, 7 , 8
ibn-Khuzaimah ibn-Mudrakah ibn
Ilyas ibn-Mudbar , 182
ibn - Mubashshir , see Ja‘far ibn
Mubashshir
ibn- Saba, 34ibn- Shihab, 55ibn-Yazid ibn Unais
, 36
ibn- Ziyada 2 1 , 52 ) 54 )83, 92
Ibrahim, 109 ff.
Ibrahim ibn-‘Abdallah
,62
,63
Ibrahim ibn-Malik al-Ashtar, 53 ,
S4, S7Ibrahimiyah , 36, 1 10‘Idhaj , 86Idris ibn-
‘Abdallah, 62, 63Imém
‘
iyah, 5 , 30, 34 11 . 43 , 44, 60,
‘Imran ibn -Hitta
‘
m al-SadWi si , 92 11 .
2 1 9
al-‘Iralc
, 46, 52, 54, 55 , 86, 1 12, 1 52‘I5 5. ibn-Maryam , 3 1‘Isa ibn-M 13 5 5 , 62, 63‘Isa ibn-Sabih, see Murdar‘Isawiah, 27al- Isfara
‘ini , 8, 2 1
Ishak ibn- Suwaid al-‘Adawi
,122
Ishakiyah, 38
Ishmael, 3 1
al- Iskafi (Muhammad ibn-‘Abdal
14h ) , 137. 17sff. , 209Iskaf
‘
iyah,1 16
,175
Isma‘i l ibn-Ja‘far, 65
Isma‘i l ibn-
‘Abbas, 2 1Isma
‘i liyah, 5 , 36, 60,
65Ispahan ,
28
Ithna‘Ashariyah
, see Twelvers
JJabi r , 22Jabir ibn-
‘Abdallah al-Ansari , 33 ,65
J a‘d ibn-Dirham, 33
Ja‘far al-S édik, 66Ja‘far ibn-Harb, 125 , 137, 173 , 175 ,
Ja‘far ibn-Mubashshir, 173 fi .
Ja‘far ibn-‘Umar , 54, 65
Ja‘fariyah, 1 16,173
al- J éhiz, 68. 124, 137, 147, 1 53. 179 ,180 3 .
al- Jahiziyah , 37, 1 16, 180
J ahm ibn- Safwan, 35 , 37, 126 ff.
J ahmiyah,23 , 30, 35 , 37, 38, 41
J ahg ah,182
Jahziyah ,1 13 , 1 14
Jami‘ ibn- Jusham al-Kindi , 80Janabiyah, 36J ari riyah, 44
J érfidiyahy 35 , 435
al- Jazi rah, 54, 81
Jerusalem, 3 1
Jesus, 189 ( see also‘Isa ibn-Mar
yam )Jews
,12 ,
2 1,
130,147 173
J i raft Kirmin, 87
J iwaih ibn-Ma‘bad, 99
al-Jubba’
i,1 18
,125 , 133 , 137, 165,
183 if ,189 ff. , 209
INDEX
Jubba’iyah , 37( Jubabiyah, 1 16)
J fizaj i n , 47
K
al-Ka‘bi , abu-Kasim ‘Abdallah ibnAhmad ibn-Mahmud al Banabi ,27, 28, 7s, 76, 1 17, 1 18-H.
,159,
161,180 112, 184, 186 ff.
Ka‘biyah, 37, 1 16, 186 ff.
Kabul, 123
Kadarites, see HadariyahKadariyah, 5 , 22 , 23 , 33, 37
-9 , 41 ,
72 , 95 . 96, 98 4 ,1 16
.1 17, m ,
124, 127, 133 , 135 , 137, 1 55 11 ,
162,176 111, 179 , 183
al-Kadisiyah, 32 , 37, 63 , 9546, 1 56al-Kahdiyah, 7 1
Kabistan, 98, 101
Kahtaniyah, 182
Kais, 54Kaisan , 48
Kaisfiniyah , 5 , 34-6
, 43 , 47, 48, SI ,
58 60, 73'
Kaisum ibn- Salama'h al Juhani ,
al-Kalanisi , 138Kamiliyah, 36, 60, 61al-Karabiyah, 48
Karbelé’
, 47-9 , 53 , 64Karrémiyah,
27, 35 , 38, 41 , 72
Karukh, 100
Kasim al-Dimashki , 206
Kaskar, 1 13
Katadah,22
Katari ibn- al 86 ff.
Kathi r al-Mun'auwa , 45al-Kati f , 89Kati
‘iyah,
60, 66, 72
al - Khaiyat ( abn- al-Husairn l) , 126,
128,147, 166, 172 ,
184 11,
Khaiyatiyah, 37, 1 16,IS4 E
Khalaf, 97Khalafiyas, 97, 100
al-Khalidi, 37, 1 19
Khalid ibn-‘Abdalla-h, 2 1
Kharij ites, see Khawar
‘
i jKhaulan
, 54KhaWérii , 5 , 22 ,
23 , 29 , 30. 32, 34,
179
36, 38, 41 , 46, 50, 74 ff. , 77, 80 ff.
,
85 ff ,88, 96, 97, 100, 104, 1 13 H.
,
122, 128H.,129 , 137, 174, 197
Khazimiyah, 36, 94 ff , 98 if .
Khuraim ibn-Fatik al-Asadi , 1 13
K'hurasan,27, as, 38, 47, 98, 100
,
101
(Khorasan ) , 86Kinaniyah, 182
Kirman ,85 , 87
(Kurman ) , 97, 98, 101
Kita‘iyah, 36
al'KUfah) 441 46, 47 ) 52-8763 ) 77,
80,
154Kumis
,87
Kuraib ibn-Murrah,83 , 93
Kuraish, 32Kuthaiyir, 49 , 50
M
Ma‘bad al- Juhan-i
, 33 , 101 , 1 19 , 12 1
Ma‘badiyah, 36, 102 , 103
al-Mada’
inr, 52 , 58 , 82, 1 13
al-Mada’
ini,183
al-Madhar, 58
Madhhij , 54al-Madinah
, 3 1 , 32 , 46, 63 , 64, 65 ,1 54, I77
al-Ma‘dumiyah ,
185Mag hrib, 62, 63Mag ians, 12 , 22
, 35 , 37, 130, 147,1 73 , 206
Mahdi. 44, 49, 5 5 , 59 , 60.
62.63 , 65 ,
66
al-Mahin, 54
Maimun , 96
(not leader o f Maimuniyah,
109
Maimfiniya'h,29 , 36, 3
-7, 75 , 95 , H o
Majhfiliyah, 36, 97Makrumiyah,
104Mélik, 39 , 177Malikite, 6
Ma‘lfimiyah, 36, g7 ii ,
Mamturah,66
, 72
al-Ma’
mfin ( caliph) , 35 , 101,177,
Manicheans,139, 145
INDEX
Nafi ibn-al-Azralg al-Hanafi , 83H.,
86 H.
Nahawand, 32
Nahd, 54al-Nahrawan,
battle o f, 77, 82
Naiadi t, 36, 75 , 76, 87, 9 1 , 120, 174Naj d, 63Naj dah ibni-‘Amir al-Hanafi , 87-90Naj j ariyah
,23 , 30, 34, 37, 41 , 137,
169Nair in , 79Ni sapfir , 7
(Ni sabfir ) , 101
Nasr ibn- al-Haj jaj , 1 54Nasr ibn-Bashshar, see ibn-Bashs-har
Nasr ibn-Harimah al-‘Ansi , 46
Nawisiyah, 35 , 60
al-Nagg am abfi- Ishak Ibrahim ibn
Saiyar, 70,124, 135 ff. , 165 , 171 ,
173 , 175 , 183, 186 ff. ,206 11
,2 10
Nazzamiyah, 135 ff.
Nig amiyah, 37
(Naagamiyah ) , 1 16
al-Nu‘at, 54al-Nulchailah, 82
P
Persia, 36, 52, 85 E,
Persians, 32
Prophet, The, see Muhammad
R
Radwa, Mt , 48 , 50, 5 1
Radwa, Pass of, 59Rafi ibn-Laith ibn-Nasr ibn Sai
yar, 101
al'Rai’ 34a 37, 871 176
al-Rashid, 65 , 101 , 104Rashidiyah
, 36, 104Rashid al-Taw'
i l, 88, 90 ff.Rawafid’ 23 , 38; 439 47
(Réfidiyah) , 29 , 39, 46, 71(Rafidah) , 41 , 55 . 60. 61 , 73.
106,170
Rawandiyah, 49Rfih Zinba‘, 1 12Rukanah ibn-Wa
’
il al-Arj i , 80
al-Ruwandi , 165
S
Sabat al-Mada’
in, 34, 47
Sabbabiyah, 34, 5 5, 64
Sabfir , 86
Sa‘d ibn- abi -Wakkas, 32
Sa‘d ibn-Kufr
,82
Sa‘d ibn-Mu
‘adh, 80
Sa‘d ibn-Mujalid al- Saiba
‘i , 80
Sa‘d ibn-
‘Ubadah al-Khazraj i , 32
Safwan-An-sari , 61
Sahamiyah, 37
Sa‘id ibn- al-
‘Asi, 1 54Saiyid al-Himyari , 50, 5 1Sai 32
al- Salihi , 1 18 ff. , 184
S-alih ibn -Mishrah al-Kharni , 1 1 1Salih ibn-M ishrah al-Tamimi , 1 1 1Slalihiyah,
1 1 1
( Same as Khawaru on p . 1 13 )
SalihKubbah , followers of, 37, 1 16Salt ibn-
‘Uthman
, 98
Saltiyah, 98
Samaritans, 148
Samarkand ,101
Sammak ibn-Harb, 45
Sanan al-Ju‘fi , 47
Satan ,61
,64
Sawad al-Kufah,82
Sha‘bah
,100
Shabib ibn-Yazid al- Shaibani , 1 1 1
ff.
al- Shabibiyah, 1 1 1,1 15
al- Shé‘1, 39 ,
1 53, 174 Pi ,177
Shafi‘ite, 6
al- Shahham,183 ff.
al- Shahhanfi yah,1 16, 183
Shahrastan‘
i , 5 , 1 1 , 35Shaibafnu ibn Salamah al-Kharni ,1031
Shaibaniyah, 103 , 104
Shaitan al-Tak, 36, 7 1 , 72Shaitaniyah, 36, 60, 72
Shami tiyah ,60
Sharikan,28
Sharikan iyah, 28
Shibt ibn-Rab‘i , 77
INDEX
Shiite,1, 5 , 137
Shuaib, 96
Shu‘aibiyah, 36, 95
Shuhfur ibn-Tahir , 10
Shumaitiyah , 36
Shurah, 76
Sifatiyah, 5 , 184,203
Siffin, 331, 60, 76, 77, 122
Sifriyah, 36, 1 1 1 , 120
( See Sufriyah)Sij istan,
81, 88, 94, 98, 100, 101
Sophists,136
Subki , 7, 8
Sufain ibn - al—Abrad al—Kalbi,1 14
Sufriyah, 9 1 ff.,1 12
( See Sifriyah)Sufyan ibnx-al-Abrad al-Kalbi , 87Suhail ibn-
‘Amr, 79
Sulaiman ibn-Jari r al-Zaidi , 44, 45(Sulaimaniyah , 35 , 44 , 45Sunnites
, 9 , 23 , 94, 97,135 , 138, 171
Surakah ibn-Mirdas al-Bariki , 56
Syria, 32 , 1 12,170
Tabaristan , 87Tahir ibn- al-Husain ,
101
al-Ta’
if, 59Taim ‘
Adi , 82
Talakan, 44
Talhah , 95Talhah ibnk-Fahd, 99, 122 ,
124Tall-Mauzan
,81
Tamamiyah, 1 16
Taraikiyah, 38Tarif
, 58
Taumaniyah, 37
Tauwaj , 93Tha’alibah , 102
,104
Tha’alibah Khawarij , 101Tha’labah ibn-Mashkan,
102
Thamamah ibn-Ashras al-Numairi
177 if ,181
Thamamiyah, 177Thanawiyah,
12
Thaubaniyah, 37
al-Thauri , 39
Thu‘al, 54
Thumamiyah, 37Tig ris, 62Tulaihah, 32Twelvers, 36, 60,
66
‘Ubad ibn- al-Husain al-Haiti , 83‘Ubad ibn - Sulaiman al -
‘Amri
167 ff .‘Ubaidallah ibn- al-Hir r al- Ju
‘afi
,
‘Ubaidah ibn -H ilal al- Y ashkuri , 87‘Ubaidallah ibn-Ma
‘mar al-Taim‘
i,
57‘Ubaidallah ibn Ziyad , see ibn
Ziyad‘Ubaid ibn- abi - l-Mukharik al-Mu
tannabi , 1 13
Ubai ibn-Ka‘b, 22
Uhud, 170‘Ukbah ibn-
‘Amir al- Juhani 33‘Uman, 54, 81‘Umar
, 44 45 , 50, 106, 154‘Umar al- Faruk ,
154‘Umar ibn- Sa
‘d, 53
‘Umariyah, 37Ummat al- Islam
,12
,27- 32
Urwah ibn-Hudair , 76‘Utbah ibn-
‘Ubaid al-Khaulani , 80
‘U'thmfm, 33, 45 , 75 , 81 , 95 , 154, 169‘Uthman ibn 88,
106‘U-thman ibn-Ma
‘mun
,86
‘Uthman ibn-
‘Ubaidallah ibn-Ma
‘
mar al-Tamimi , 85 H.
W
Wadi aI-Siba‘,124
Wahb ibn~ Bakiyah,2 1
Wakifah , 36, 1 10
(Wakifiyah) , 1 19
Walid ibn-Maslamah, 22
al-Walid ibn-‘Ukhab ,
154
Wasil ibn-‘Ata al-Ghazzal, 34, 35 ,
1 19 , 12 1 H. ,17
Wasiliyah, 37, 1 16,1 19
al-Wasy, 50
224INDEX
al-Wathik, 177, 179Wathilah ibn-al-Aska‘, 22
Y
Yahya ibn-Aktham,177
Yahya ibn-Zaid, 47Y a
‘
kfib, 46Y a
‘lgfibiyah, 45
a l-Yamamah, 88, 90al-Yaman, 52, 81 , 90
Ya‘mur ibn~‘Ubaidallah ibn Ma
‘
mar al-Maimi , 9 1
Yazid ibn-‘Ali ibn- al-Husain ibn
‘Ali ibn-abi-Talib, 47, 48Yazid ibn-al-Muhallab, 87Yazid ibn-Asim al-Muhadhi, 76Yazid ibn-Mu
‘awiyah , 47 , 48, 52,
59 , 92
Yazidiyah,29 , 36, 37 , 74, 105
Yunus ibn‘abd al Rahman al
Kumm‘
i , 36, 66, 72
Y nnusiyah, 36, 37, 60, 72
Y fisuf ibn-‘Um-Thakafi , 46, 47
al-Za‘farani , 34Za
‘faranriyah, 37
Zahaf ibn-Rahar al-Ta’
i, 83 , 93
Zahiriyah,148
Zaid ibn-‘Ali ibn - al - Hasan ibn
‘A11 ibn-abi-Talib, 46
Zaid ibn-‘Ali ibn- al-Husain ibn
‘Ali ibn-abi-Talib, 35
Zaidiyah, 5 , 30. 34-6, 43 , 45 , 46, 53,
Zaranj , 100
Zararah ibn-A‘yun, 36
Zarariyah, 36, 60, 7 1Zindiks, 173 , 177, 178
Ziyad- ibn-’
Abd- al-Rahman ,104
Ziyad ibn-Abihi, 82
Ziyad ibn-al-Asfar, 9 1Ziyad ibn-Kharrash al-
‘Ij li , 82
Ziyadiyah , 104
al- Zubair , 95 , 122,124
Zur‘ah ibn-Muslim al-‘Amiri
, 92
Zurkan, 70
Columbia University O riental Studies
Edited by RICHARD J . H . GOTTHEIL
Vol. I. The Improvement of the Moral ! ualities. An Ethical Treatiseof the Eleventh Century by Solomon Ibn Gabirol . By STEPHEN S .
WISE,Ph .D . 8v0, cloth , pp . ix 1 1 7 . net.
Vol. III. Old Babylonian Temple Records. By ROBERT JULIUS LAU ,
Ph .D . 8vo , cloth ,pp . xi 89 41 . Plates . net.
Vol. IV. S idon. A Study in O riental H istory . By FREDERICK CARLBISELEN , Ph .D . 8vo , cloth , pp . vii 1 72 . net.
Vol. V. History of the City of Gaza from the Earliest Times to the Pres
ent Day . By MARTIN A . MEY ER , Ph .D . 8v0, cloth , pp . xiii 182 .
$1 . 50 net.
Vol. VI. The Bustan Al-Ukul by NATHANIEL IBN AL-FAY Y UMI . By
DAVID LEVINE , Ph . D . 8v0 , cloth , pp . xvi 142 88 . net.
Vol. VIII. Sumer ian Records from Drehem. By WILLIAM M . NE SB IT ,
Ph .D . 8v0, cloth ,pp . xiv 9 1 . Plates and sig n list . net.
Vol. IX. The Evolution of Modern Hebrew Literature, 1850-1912. ByABRAHAM SOLOMON WALDSTEIN , Ph .D . 8v0,
cloth , pp . vii 127.
$1 . 50 net.
Vol. X. The History of Tyre. By WALLACE B . FLEM ING , Ph .D . 8v0,
cloth , pp . xiv 165 . Map . net.
Vol . XI. The Problem of Space in J ewish Medieval Philosophy. By
ISRAEL ISAAC EFRO S , Ph .D . 8v0, cloth , pp . ix 125 . net.
Vol. XII. The Y emenite Manuscript of Pesahim in the Library of Col
umb ia University. By JULIUS J . PRICE , Ph .D . 8v0, paper .
net. In press .
Vol. XIII. Aram and Israel, or theAramaeans in Syr ia and Mesopotamia.
By EM IL G . H . KRAELING , Ph .D . 8vo , cloth ,pp . xvi 1 54.
net.
Vol . XIV. A Sumero-Babylonian Sig n List. To which is added an
Assyrian Sig n List and a Catalog ue of Numerals , Weig hts and M eas
ures used at various periods . By SAMUEL A . B . MERCER , Ph .D . 4to ,
cloth , pp . xi 244 . net.
Vol. XV. Moslem Schisms and Sects (Al-Fark Bain al-Pirak) . Beinga H istory of the Various Philosophic Systems Developed in Islam .
By Abfi Mansfir abd al-Kahir ibn Tahir al-Bag hdadi . (d .
Part I . Translated from the Arabic . By KATE CHAMBERS SEELY E ,
Ph .D . 8v0 , cloth , pp . viii 224 . net.
COLUMBIA UN IVERSITY PRESSLEM CKE 8: BUECHNER , Agents
30-
3 2 East 20th Street N ew Y ork
C o lumbia University C on tribu tions to
O rien tal H istory and PhilologyEDITED BY
RICHARD J . H . GOTTHEIL and JOHN DY NELEY PRINCE
No.
1 . Sumer ian Hymns. From Cuneiform Texts in the
BritishMuseum . Transl iteration , translation and commentary . By FREDERICK A . VANDERBURGH ,
Ph .D .,Lecturer in
Sem itic Lang uag es , Co lumbia Uni versity . 8v0, pp . xii
83 . Paper, cloth , net.
2. The History of the Governors of Eg ypt by Ana
MUHAMMAD IBN YUSUF AL-KINDI . By NICHOLAS AUGUSTKOEN IG
,Ph .D . 8v0 , paper, pp . 33 33 . net.
3 . Assyr ian Pr imer . Bn Inducti ve Method of Learning the Cuneiform Sig ns . By J . DY NELEY PRINCE
,Ph .D . ,
Professor of Semitic Lang uag es , Co lumbia Uni versity .
8y o , paper, pp . 58 . net.
4 . TheWitness of the Vulg ate, Peshitta and Septu
ag int to the Text of Zephaniah. By SIDNEY ZANDSTRA,
Ph .D . 8v0, paper, pp . 52 . net.
5 . Tig lath Pileser I I I . By ABRAHAM S . ANSPACHER,
Ph .D . 8y o ,cloth , pp . xv i 72 . net.
6. Root-Determinatives in Semitic Speech. A Con
tribution to Semitic Phi lo log y . By SOLOMON T . H . HUR
WITZ , Ph .D . 8vo , pp . xxi i —l 1 13 . Cloth , net
paper, net.
No. 7 . Muhammedan Law of Marr iag e and Divorce.
By AHMED SHUKRI , Ph .D . 8v0, paper, pp . 126 . net.
Ont otprz'
nt.
COLUMBIA UN IVERS ITY PRESS
LEMCKE BUECHNER , Agents
30-
3 2 East 20th Street New Y ork