رسالة دكتوراه الشيخ كهلان بن نبهان الخروصي (بالإنجليزية)

Unknown Author

صفحة 1

رسالة دكتوراه الشيخ كهلان بن نبهان الخروصي (بالإنجليزية)

[ترقيم الصفحات آلي غير موافق للمطبوع] CHAPTER ONE

ABOUT THE >TH>R AL-RAB ... ` B. ™AB ... B

The Book:

Its Identification and The Authorities Who Mention it

This is a work known by several titles. Perhaps the one we should take most seriously is that found in the three manuscripts. However, as the three manuscripts are in some way related, this can only be treated as one piece of evidence.

... When we look at sources that quote or refer to the work, we find other titles mentioned. It would appear that the first surviving references to the work under investigation are to be found in the Ajwibat ibn Khalfƒn by the sixth/ twelfth century Ib~‡‚ scholar Ibn Khalfƒn al-Maz~t‚. (1) He depends prominently on this work and specifies at his first quotation that he is referring to “Kit~b Ab‚ ^ufra `Abd al-Malik b. ^ufra on the authority of al-Rab‚` transmitted from ?um~m from J~bir b. Zayd that so and so", (2) where the matns (texts) are always identical to the texts of the work we have. (3) Ibn Khalfƒn’s explicit references to this work total at least twelve extracts; (4) all are exactly the same in both sanad and matn.

__________

(1) Ajwibat ibn Khalfƒn, Ennami, A (ed.) p.13, Beirut, 1974.

(2) Ibid. p.65.

(3) The Egyptian copy, see (below, p.4) f.74/1.

(4) See, for example, the following pages of Ajwibat Ibn Khalfƒn: 65,69 (6 extracts), 80 (5 extracts). (1/1)

صفحة 2

... Later came the well known Ib~‡‚ biographer Abƒ al-Q~sim al-Barr~d‚ (1) (the beginning of the ninth/ fifteenth century). He included in his list of Ib~‡‚ works “™ifŒ Ab‚ ^ufra”. (2) Although he does not claim to have seen the book or part of it, as he usually does when he has really seen a work, he states that the work “is well known among us as Kit~b ?um~m ...al-ma`rƒf `indan~ bi-kit~b ?um~m” (3) which means that he has no doubt about the book he is describing. Yet from those two sources one cannot draw a definitive clue about the exact name of the work. Thus we have, apart from the title extant in the manuscripts of the work, three different titles so far: Kit~b Ab‚ ^ufra, as Ibn Khalfƒn names it, ™ifŒ Ab‚ ^ufra according to al-Barr~d‚ at his first mention and Kit~b ?um~m as he calls it later.

__________

(1) For biography of al-Barr~d‚, see: Mu`jam a`l~m al-Ib~‡iyya min al-Qarn al-awwal al-Hijr‚ |il~ al-`A‰r al-™~‡ir- qism al-Maghrib al-`Arab‚. 1420/1999 vol.2, p.341 biography no. 735.

(2) Al-Jaw~hir al-muntaq~t f‚-m~ akhalla bihi ‰~ˆibu al-œabaq~t- lith. (1302/1885), p.218.

(3) Loc. cit. (1/2)

صفحة 3

... Al-Shamm~kh‚ (d. the ninth/fifteenth century) provides no more information apart from the very important fact that he calls the work >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b and ascribes its collection to Abƒ ^ufra when he talks about him and describes the work as 'a famous one mashhƒr '. (1) This popularity of the book mentioned by al-Shamm~kh‚ could mean that it was a widely available source. But this assumption evaporates with the ignorance of the work by al-Darj‚n‚ (d. 670/1271) who would certainly have mentioned the work if he had had access to it. So the most appropriate interpretation of al-Shamm~kh‚’s sentence is that the work had a high reputation but was not necessarily widely available. On these grounds one can understand the fact that the work is rarely cited in the Mashriq‚ Ib~‡‚ references. Despite the abundance among them of early works on fiqh, they hardly refer to this particular work. The only source I found referring to a work by Abƒ ^ufra is to the J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra in Bay~n al-shar` of Muˆammad b. Ibr~h‚m al-Kind‚ (d. most probably in 508/1114). There seem to be some quotations usually commencing with: “and from — wa-min J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra”; then al-Kind‚ gives the chain of transmitters followed by the tradition. But when these quotations (2) are compared to our book, the dissimilarity between them and the work under focus becomes obvious.

__________

(1) Al-Shamm~kh‚, Kit~b al-siyar, 1:109.

(2) There are about seven quotations distributed in the 72-volume Bay~n al-shar` as follows: 35:18, 42:195,201, 43: 217,224 and 45:7,65 (Ministry of National Heritage, Muscat 1984). (1/3)

صفحة 4

They do not even present the opinions of J~bir b. Zayd. This draws one’s attention to one possible assumption: that we have two different works of Abƒ ^ufra: one is named J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra and the other is Kit~b Ab‚ ^ufra. The latter seems to be the one described above by Ibn Khalfƒn, al-Barr~d‚ and al-Shamm~kh‚. This explanation is supported by the treatise “al-Lum`a al-mar‡iyya” of the much later Omani scholar `Abd All~h b. ™umayd al-S~lim‚ (d.1332/1914). In it he mentions two works: Kit~b ?um~m and J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra. He describes the first work as compiled by Abƒ ^ufra `Abd al-Malik b. ^ufra in which he transmitted the opinions and traditions of J~bir b. Zayd, (1) while he says nothing about the latter work except that it is one of the very early works which has been described to him but he “has not obtained any copy of it”. (2) This clearly indicates that the two different works share the same author (or the same transmitter): one is J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra, which is the one most likely to have been used by al-Kind‚, and the second work is Kit~b Ab‚ ^ufra, which is the one under consideration here.

... To sum up, there are apparently three titles given or used to refer to this work: Ibn Khalfƒn used Kit~b Ab‚ ^ufra, al-Barr~d‚ said that the book is known as Kit~b ?um~m, al-Shamm~kh‚ called it >th~r al-Rab‚`, and finally al-S~lim‚, who probably derived his information from al-Barr~d‚, as can be noticed in many places of his treatise, called it Kit~b ?um~m.

__________

(1) Al-Lum`a al-mar‡iyya, p.19 ( Ministry of National Heritage, Muscat, 1983).

(2) Ibid. p.24. (1/4)

صفحة 5

... Yet it is difficult to ignore the name used in the three copies of the manuscript which is >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b, reinforced as it is by al-Shamm~kh‚. It should be added that the differences found in external sources over its name do not discredit the authenticity of the work. On the contrary, it seems natural for a very early work, as we shall see later in Ch. IV, that is cited and described only by a few sources, to have all the attention on its content and on its significant transmitters rather than on its title, if it has been given a specific title at its first existence. (1) However, all the titles given to this work are, indeed, not far from reality: (1) the book has been named after ?um~m (2) (Kit~b or Riw~y~t ?um~m) because it is the only work that gathers traditions transmitted on his authority, (2) and named after Abƒ ^ufra (3) (J~mi` or Kit~b Ab‚ ^ufra) because he is the key transmitter of the work.

__________

(1) One may see this in the example of the early, though not the earliest, transmission of Muˆammad b. al-™asan al-Shayb~n‚ of im~m M~lik's Muwa\\a|. As Dr. Dutton rightly describes, 'what the Muwa\\a| of al-Shayb~n‚ thus illustrates is the flexible nature of 'books' at that time, and how the primary use of the Muwa\\a| for him was as a vehicle for teaching rather than a fixed text.' Review of Calder's Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence, in Journal of Islamic Studies, 5 (1), 1994, p.104.

(2) See Ch. IV p. 150 of this thesis.

(3) For biography, see Ch. IV p. 146-7. (1/5)

صفحة 6

On the other hand it has not been referred to as >th~r al-Rab‚`, with (3) the only exception of al-Shamm~kh‚, simply to distinguish it from his other work Musnad al-Rab‚`. And because the confusion of intermixing the two works of al-Rab‚` has been removed after the representation of the Musnad by Abƒ Ya`qƒb al-Warjl~n‚ (d.570/1174), (1) after which it has been renamed al-J~mi` al-‰aˆ‚ˆ, I think it is reasonable to stick to the name of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b even if all the previous names are examined and used throughout my investigation of who referred to the book as all these names were of the same book, apparently except J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra.

The Copies of the Manuscripts:

A. The Egyptian Copy

I was first introduced to the work coincidentally when I was searching for another Ib~‡‚ work called Mudawwanat Ab‚ Gh~nim al-Khur~s~n‚ preserved under the number B/21582 in the D~r al-Kutub al-Mi‰riyya. I later discovered that it is a mixed-content manuscript, that includes in parts of it the work of >th~r al-Rab‚`b. ™ab‚b.

__________

(1) See the introduction of al-S~lim‚ on al-J~mi‘ al-‰aˆ‚ˆ, vol.1pp2-6. (Oman. 1993). (1/6)

صفحة 7

... This Egyptian copy (referred to hereafter as E) is in very bad condition and hardly legible in very many places. It is in a very small Maghrib‚ hand with 163 folios, (1) each consisting of an average of 41 lines with approximately 40 words in each line. The size of each page is about 20.00 x 28.00 cm. The name of the scribe appears a few times at various places in the whole manuscript: he is Abƒ Zayd b. `Abd al-Raˆm~n b. `Umar b. Muˆammad b. `Umar b. Ism~`‚l al-Zaww~r‚, a name which is totally unknown to me. He might be from Zaww~ra in Mz~b. (2)

__________

(1) The numbering of the folios appears to have been done by D~r al-Kutub al-Mi‰riyya, and I kept it as it is except that I divided each folio into two pages by adding the number i, ii after each folio’s number.

(2) It first appears at f.36 then ff.43,103,126 but the explicit expression of him as a copyist occurs at f. 144,149. (1/7)

صفحة 8

... Although E is titled according to D~r al-Kutub al-Mi‰riyya as Mudawwanat Ab‚ Gh~nim al-Khur~s~n‚ and ascribed to the transmission of Aflaˆ b. `Abd al-Wahh~b, (1) this information is sadly incomplete and even the information it gives cannot be taken for granted. The manuscript contains not only the traditions narrated by Abƒ Gh~nim al-Khur~s~n‚, with part of which it starts: the “Kit~b al-`umm~l wa-man yal‚ `alayhim” which runs from f. 2/i to 8/i. This is followed by the “Kit~b al-mumtani`‚n `ani al-im~m” up to f.13/ii. At this point it breaks off without any clarification from the copyist about the rest of this chapter. I later found it at f.93/i with a marginal note from the copyist that it is the completion of the previous incomplete chapter of al-ˆudƒd from part one. This completion goes on until f.97/i. Of Mudawwanat Ab‚ Gh~nim also is Kit~b al-kaf~l~t ff.13/i-16/ii and Kit~b abw~b al-salam wa-l-buyƒ` ff.16/ii-20/i. The manuscript then provides different section devoted to Kit~b al-nik~ˆ min qawl J~bir b. Zayd ff.20/i-24/i followed by many parts of Kit~b al-shigh~r li-ibn `Abd al-`Az‚z (part1 from f.24/i to f.30/ii, part3 ff.30/ii-36/, part4 ff.144/ii-149/i). The manuscript also contains parts 1 to 7 of Qawl Qat~da starting at f. 36/i until f.73/i. It might be that Kit~b al-shuf`a wa taqn‚n |u‰ƒlih~ (ff.80/ii-91/i), Kit~b al-aˆk~m(ff.

__________

(1) The third Rustumid Im~m in Tahert (171-208/787-823). He was a distinguished scholar and the most famous Im~m in the Rustumid family. He died in 258/871 (Mu`jam a`l~m al-Ib~‡iyya 1:60 biography no. 116). (1/8)

صفحة 9

97/i-103/ii), Kit~b al-far~|i‡ (ff.103/ii-107/i), Kit~b m~ yalzamu min ‡am~n al-ab li-ban~tih up to f.113/ with Kit~b al-wa‰~y~ and Ris~lat al-shaykh Ab‚ `Ubayda f‚-l-zak~h ff.114/ii –116/ii are all of Mudawwanat Ab‚ Gh~nim, but this is not certain. After all these parts and sections come different parts that are not consistent with the previous parts in their style; like Kit~b kaff~r~t al-aym~n f.116/i, Kit~b al-wad~|i` wa-l-`~riy~t, Kit~b al-qismah, and they end with Kit~b al-ˆay‡ f.161/I-163/ii. At the end of each part the manuscript says that what has been mentioned in each part is “of the opinion of the Kufans shown to Ib~‡‚ scholars min qawli ahli al-Kƒfa ma`rƒ‡ayni ‰aˆ‚ˆayni `al~ al-Ib~‡iyya”. (1) This might be the reason for which Ennami gives the whole manuscript the name of “al-D‚w~n al-Ma`rƒ‡ `al~ `ulam~| al-Ib~‡iyya”. (2)

__________

(2) 19 E, ff. 69/ii, 122/ii, 161/ii.

Ennami, Studies in Ib~‡ism (1971) pp.154, 159-64. (1/9)

صفحة 10

... Our concern, the text in question, starts at f. 73/i of E at the place where the scribe (or less probably the author) says “ Part one of >th~r al-Rab‚` ” (Kit~b al-juz| al-awwal min >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b) and it ends at f. 80/i where he says “The book "Kit~b" of al-Rab‚` ended here”. The statement on f. 73/i implies that there is a second part to this book. The claim is echoed at f.140/i of E where all the following folios up to f.153/i have been given a title of “part two of Futy~ al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b”. This part commences: “I asked him about ...(wa sa|altuhu `an)...” and goes on in the same pattern of “I asked him — he replied to me” or similar statements of question-answer sentences. This part is divided by sub-titles according to its contents. (1/10)

صفحة 11

... A careful comparison between the two parts shows that they are not of the same work; i.e., the part which the copyist called part two of Futy~ al-Rab‚` has no relation to the previous part of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b. The reasons for this can be summarized as follows. First, the title given for each part is different from the other. Part one is named >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b while part two is Futy~ al-Rab‚`; and it is well known – within the Ib~‡‚ school at least – that there are various works ascribed to al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b, some of which were committed to writing by his students at early stages, especially his fat~w~ (legal opinions). Secondly and most importantly, the style and pattern of each part clearly indicate that they are not of the same work. The sanad (chain of transmitters) of each part is different from that of the other. Part one or >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b consists of traditions transmitted on the authority of ?um~m from J~bir b. Zayd or a similar chain, whereas part two or Futy~ al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b has no mention of transmitters: it is a ‘question-answer’ compilation, with only occasional statements about who was asking and who was responsible for the answers. Besides, the contents of the two parts seem inconsistent. >th~r al-Rab‚` is devoted to the opinions of J~bir b. Zayd without any headings whereas Futy~ al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b is devoted mostly to the legal opinions of al-Rab‚` in reply to questions put to him. The argument becomes more complicated when we look at f. (1/11)

صفحة 12

156 of E where the copyist says at the end of a section that “part two of Futy~ al-Rab‚` will follow”. But after the formal introduction he starts to transcribe Kit~b al-qisma wa taqn‚n |u‰ƒlih~, setting out traditions and opinions of Abƒ `Ubayda b. al-Q~sim (1) and Ibn `Abd al-`Az‚z (2) until the end of the transcription of the book where he finishes by writing that “this is the end of Kit~b al-qisma of the opinions of the Kufans”. All this leaves two possibilities: either the copyist mistakenly copied another work (Kit~b al-qisma) instead of copying Futy~ al-Rab‚` or he has made no mistake and he really meant that this part is (or supposed to be) part two of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b. There are no good grounds for accepting this latter possibility.

... However, both possibilities lead to the same conclusion, that this part from f.154/ii to f. 161/ii is not of the >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b and has no connection with it at all.

__________

(1) Abƒ `Ubayda Abdullah b. al-Q~sim: an Ib~‡‚ scholar who lived in Mecca in the first half of the second/eighth century. (al-Darj‚n‚, œabaq~t al-mash~ykh, 2:253, al-Shamm~kh‚, A. Kit~b al-siyar 1:87-8).

(2) `Abd All~h b. `Abd al-`Az‚z: An Egyptian Ib~‡‚ scholar and a contemporary of al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b (see Ajwibat ibn Khalfƒn – Ennami, A (ed.) Beirut, 1974 p.107). (1/12)

صفحة 13

... Yet the question of whether the work of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b has another part or not remains unanswered. Although one cannot be certain about that, it seems fair to say that E has nothing that can be considered as part two of >th~r al-Rab‚`. This is a conclusion which seems reasonable in other respects, as no scholar, biographer or historian, to the best of my knowledge, has mentioned that the work of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b is divided into various parts. (1)

__________

(1) See pp. 1-3 of this study. (1/13)

صفحة 14

... To complicate matters still further, I feel forced to conclude that within the only part of >th~r al-Rab‚` extant in E there are interpolations that do not belong to the work. The >th~r al-Rab‚` concludes at f.78/i where it says “wa-balagh ˆadd al-zak~h”. All sections from b~b ghusl al-jan~ba till the explicit tamma Kit~b al-Rab‚` at f.80/ii are not of the same book. The style and method change dramatically at that point (f.78/i); there is no mention of transmitters at all in these subsequent passages and the content is different from that of the earlier part. This new style is a question-answer method whereas the previous method was in a narrative way, with a precise transmission of all the authorities to whom each tradition is ascribed. Also the answers of these last few pages are not of J~bir b. Zayd or of any of his contemporaries. There are some answers ascribed to Abƒ Bakr al-Maw‰il‚, (1) W~|il b. Ayyƒb, (2) `Abd All~h b. Abd al-`Az‚z (3) and surprisingly to al-Rab‚` himself, an ascription not found in the work proper. No information about this text (ff. 78/i - 80/ii) is available in any external source. Thus one is forced to analyse the text through its own content only. This of course makes such analytical views and conclusions derive from the internal evidence; i.e. the style of the work, the method of the author, the content and the kind of problems dealt with, the only source of information we could have.

__________

(1) F. 80/i of E

(2) Loc. cit.

(3) F.80/ii of E (1/14)

صفحة 15

... Finally the date of E is too disputable. E concludes with a colophon that records the date to be Thursday of Ramadan the year 41/661. This appears to indicate that the actual date is one thousand and forty one (1041/1631), on the assumption that the scribe has omitted the thousand either because it is quite usual to do so at the first century of every new millennium. This is perhaps more likely than that it was a slip of the pen.

B. The First Tunisian Copy (T1)

This is one of the copies that Ennami was able to use when he edited and studied Ajwibat ibn Khalfƒn. From the numbering of this copy, which is most probably done by him, it is easy to tell that this was the copy that he gave the siglum ) أ ( in his edition of Ajwibat ibn Khalfƒn. This Tunisian copy will be referred to as T1 in this thesis. I have used a photocopy of it from the archive of Dr. John Wilkinson, now at Exeter University, as my attempts to have access to the original manuscript from Tunis were unsuccessful. (1/15)

صفحة 16

... Like E, this copy is part of a mixed content manuscript. Although the photocopy of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b is the only part I have of this manuscript, the first and last pages of the photocopy contain information that shows that the content of the whole manuscript is similar to that of E as the passages immediately preceding and following our text indicate. Yet from the preceding passage, the scribe of T1 seems to be following a different order from that of E; he stops at the end of part seven of Qawl Qat~da and says that some scribes attach the book of ™ab‚b b. Ab‚ ™ab‚b to it and do not end the work of Qawl Qat~da until they have completed transcribing Kit~b ™ab‚b b. Ab‚ ™ab‚b, (1) which is exactly what the copyist of E did. Does this mean that E was the exemplar of T1? From the recorded date of T1, it is obvious that it is later than E: the scribe, whose name is ^~liˆ b. S~lim b. Sulaym~n b. Yadar al-Sadr~t‚, reported that he finished transcribing the book on Monday the twenty-third of Shaww~l of 1191 H/the twenty-fourth of November 1777. (2) It is also important to point out that T1 has six additional traditions that are not extant in E, and two other traditions are missing from T1 but are in E. There are four places at least where there is haplography in E, (3) but the full version is preserved in T1.

__________

(1) T1 p.1

(2) The scribe’s name and the date appear at the end of each book included in this Ms.

(3) See traditions [165], [170], [223] and [257]. (1/16)

صفحة 17

This means (a) that E is not the exemplar of T1 or vice verse (though that can be established on the manuscript dates); (b) it is highly unlikely that E and T1 share a common exemplar, so that the descent of the manuscript is likely to be:

... However the scribe of T1 was aware of arrangement differences either in E or, perhaps more likely in B. [Another possibility is that the scribe of C was aware of what was in B].

... There are lesser differences also, and these are some times crucial and undeniable; (1) for example, additional traditions, completeness of missing sentences due to a slip of the pen at similar words, change in the order of some traditions and different order of words and phrases that are joined by conjunctive words, are some of these differences. This ultimately tends to suggest variant origins. Thus the argument remains with no certain clue unless further evidence turns up.

__________

(1) All differences will be shown in the edited text below. (1/17)

صفحة 18

... However, T1 offers better readings than E as far as linguistic and orthographic patterns are concerned. It seems that it has been preserved in, relatively, good condition. >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b covers 32 pages of medium size in a Maghrib‚ handwriting. Like E this copy has also another part under the title of Part Two of Futy~ al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b, which starts immediately after >th~r al-Rab‚`, covering eighteen pages. For the same reasons illustrated above when describing E, this is not actually of the same work (1) nor do the interpolated extracts within the work itself (pp.13-5) belong to >th~r al-Rab‚`. (2)

C. The Second Tunisian Copy (T2)

__________

(1) See p. 6-7 above.

(2) For the same reasons discussed above on p. 7-8. (1/18)

صفحة 19

This is the second Tunisian copy that Ennami used in his edition of Ibn Khalfƒn. He refers to it by the siglum (ب). It came down to me from the private library of shaykh Aˆmad b. ™amad al-Khal‚l‚, the current grand mufti of Oman. As we have seen in E and T1, this is part of a codex of what was thought to be Mudawwanat Ab‚ Gh~nim or al-D‚w~n al-ma`rƒ‡ `ala `ulam~| al-Iba‡iyya. Unfortunately, >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b is the only part available to me. It does not carry the name of the scribe or the date. The only information recorded by a previous possessor of the codex is that it belongs to al-ˆ~jj Mus~ Bash‚r b. Mus~ and he gave it the title “ J~mi` Ab‚ ^ufra `Abd al-Malik b. ^ufra”. But the scribe has not mentioned his name anywhere in this part I obtained nor has he recorded a date of his transcription, let alone his ancestral copy. A careful reading of T2 leads to the conclusion that it is almost identical to T1 except for some minor orthographical differences. And because of the lack of essential information about T2 it is difficult to determine which one was the exemplar of the other. The most likely possibility is that both derive from the last exemplar I have named C. This, of course, does not mean that T2 is not important or that it has not been referred to when it incorporates a reading of the text that appears to have a better basis. It helped to solve some illegible words and phrases from both E and T1 as well as corroborating the reliability of T1. (1/19)

صفحة 20

... T2 is also in a Maghrib‚ handwriting of 33 pages of the actual work of >th~r al-Rab‚`. It contains the interpolations found in E and T1. T2 seems to have two different numberings: one is the numbering of the whole codex, in which >th~r al-Rab‚` covers pages from 441 to 492 and the other is for the work of >th~r al-Rab‚` starting at page one. This was probably done by Ennami, as his footnote references in Ajwibat Ibn Khalfƒn indicate.

The Significance of the Book: (1/20)

صفحة 21

The >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b presents an early contribution of the Ib~‡‚ school in the field of Islamic scholarship, since it dates from as early as the beginning of the second /eighth century. (1) As such, the work throws light on the formation, not only of the Ib~‡‚ school of thought, but of on that other Islamic schools as well. It might even change some of the ‘facts’ (2) that have long been taken for granted by many scholars about the history of Islamic thought and jurisprudence (T~r‚kh al-tashr‚` al-isl~m‚). Let us take, for the sake of this particular aspect, the question of the chronological location of the origins of Islamic fiqh. This work helps to solve the arguments among Western scholars about the chronology of the development of Islamic fiqh. It is difficult to take into account works that are lost or unavailable, except in a general and theoretical way. However, this is what Schacht did as far as the Ib~‡‚s/Kh~rij‚s were concerned, and it was part of the reasoning that decided him to fix the origins of fiqh in the early years of the second century. Schacht's views were considered to be 'problematic' by Calder, who wished to place the development in the first part of the third century. (3)

__________

(1) See Ch. IV, The date of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b below.

(2) For details and examples, see Ch. IV, Evaluation of the fiqh material in >th~r al-Rab‚` below.

(3) Calder, N. Studies in early Muslim jurisprudence, (Oxford, 1993), p.199.. (1/21)

صفحة 22

Calder's stance appears to be due to incorrect dating on the one hand, (1) but also because of a narrow focus on the Sunn‚ world. (2) Now that a work like >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b is becoming available, he would surely have changed his stance.

... Apposite to this regard is the influence of this work on the study of the formation and the characteristics of Muslim schools of law other than the Sunn‚ mainstream. The image of the fiqh material and the jurisprudence of most non-Sunn‚ schools is mostly distorted in Sunn‚ sources, the ones most readily accessible. Anyone has any doubt about this may look at what people like al-Shahristan‚ and Ibn ™azm (3) say about the Ib~‡‚ principles of law. The accessibility of the >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b will help greatly towards the rectification of that distorted image.

__________

(1) Dutton proves that Calder have 'inexcusable errors in dating', in his review of Calder's book in Journal of Islamic Studies, 5, (1), 1994, p.103.

(2) Calder, op. cit., passion.

(3) Al-Shahrist~n‚, al-Fi‰al f‚ al-milal wa al-niˆal, 1, article al-Ib~‡iyya, and Ibn ™azm, al-Milal wa al-niˆal, article Ib~‡iyya. (1/22)

صفحة 23

... The discovery of such works (1) verifies the view of the Ib~‡iyya that their thinking and indeed the whole construction of their madhhab reached a high state of maturity at a time when many leaders (Im~ms) of other schools and sects had not yet been born. Ennami rightly describes this perception by stating that:

'They [Ib~‡‚s] did not derive their law from the orthodox Sunn‚ schools because law was established before the Sunn‚ schools came into existence. When J~bir b. Zayd, the founder of the Ib~‡‚ school, died, M~lik b. Anas, the master of the M~lik‚ school, was about three years of age, and Abƒ ™an‚fa, the master of the ™anaf‚ schools was about 12 years of age.' (2)

__________

(1) A valuable amount of early Ib~‡‚ works have been recently discovered like: Kit~b al-nik~ˆ, K. al-‰al~h and al-Ras~|il (correspondences) of J~bir b. Zayd, the treatise of Abƒ `Ubayda on al-zak~h, Mudawwanat Ab‚ Gh~nim al-Khur~s~n‚ and this work of >th~r al-Rab‚`.

(2) Ennami, A. Studies, p.103. (1/23)

صفحة 24

That maturity, of course, does not merely mean the adoption of doctrinal and political stances that influence the general peculiarities of the madhhab but expands to include the juristic basis as well as the socio-political trends followed by Ib~‡‚ leaders towards very sensitive and vital issues at that time. The most crucial of such issues are the preservation of their own tenets, dealing carefully and very cautiously with governors and their subordinates, creating active and secure means of communications between followers and leaders and, not least of all, gaining and selecting more disciples. The book has examples, not many but still significant, of all these issues. (1/24)

صفحة 25

... The first thing that one notices in this work is the attention given to the authenticity of every transmission. Although most of the material of the book consists of juristic opinions narrated on the authority of J~bir b. Zayd, it has been transmitted in a very consistent narrative methodology, a method usually used for recording ˆad‚th but not fiqh. A good example of how these early authorities applied rules of transmitting ™ad‚ths on legal opinions (fat~w~) is tradition [4] in the text where J~bir gave his opinion and when told about Ibn Mas`ƒd’ s opinion, J~bir replied: 'if we had found this reported through a credible trustworthy transmitter we would have taken it'. We should bear in mind that most of the events and questions in our text arose in Iraq, where the system for transmitting and reporting non-Prophetic traditions were not strictly adhered to (1) in the way found in the ™ij~z nor was the reliance on Prophetic ˆad‚ths in deriving legal opinions at the same level of that of ahl al-™ij~z.

__________

(1) This does not mean that there is a distinct line can be drawn between the two schools (Iraqi and ™ij~z‚ ) but as a general feature the Iraqis use ra|y and qiy~s in their discussions and arguments rather than being traditionalists like the ™ij~z‚s, see for good analysis `Abd al-Maj‚d, Maˆmƒd, al-Madrasa al-fiqhiyya li-l-muˆaddith‚n (1972), pp.19-79 and C. Melchert, The formation of The Sunn‚ schools of law, Ch. I, II & III. (1/25)

صفحة 26

(1) Thus being in Basra has influenced early Ib~‡‚ authorities through the prevalence of the use of the Iraqi methodology of analogical deduction (qiy~s) and individual judgment (ra|y), yet has not prevented them from making full use of the ™ij~z‚ mechanism of transmitting traditions and focusing on mostly practical, or rarely theoretical, issues. (2) The Ib~‡‚ school uses both ways of handling material (3) but in a logical natural mechanism rather than in an adopted technical methodology, for we are talking about the beginnings of the second/eighth century where division between ahl al-ra|y and ahl al-ˆad‚th has not yet flourished.

__________

(1) This differentiation between Iraqi and Hijazi schools is apparent in many early works of different schools of Islamic law, for instance: al-™ujja `al~ ahl al-mad‚na of Muˆammad b. al-™asan al-Shayb~n‚, Ta|w‚l mukhtalif al-ˆad‚th of Ibn Qutayba who was straightforward against ahl al-ra|y, as he names them. And when refutes their opinions he explicitly calls them ahl al-`Ir~q and states, in his examples, with disapproval of opinions ascribed to Abƒ ™an‚fa. Other relevant sources are the two books of al-Dihlaw‚, Sh~h W. All~h, al-™ujjat al-b~ligha and al-In‰~f f‚ bay~n asb~b al-ikhtil~f, ed. Abƒ Ghudda, Beirut, 1993,passion.

(2) Ibn Qutayba, Ta|w‚l mukhtalif al-ˆad‚th, ed. Abd al-Q~dir A. `A\~, Cairo, 1982. pp.70-4 and note that Ibn al-Qayyim also classifies scholars and their methodologies accordingly A`l~m al-muwaqqi`‚n, 1:1-50.

(3) Within Ib~‡‚ school the term `Ir~q‚s meaning ™anaf‚s has been used as early as Ibn Baraka in his J~mi`, 1:392. (1/26)

صفحة 27

... Another interesting feature in this short but valuable work is that it does not confine itself simply to the opinions of J~bir b. Zayd or other Ib~‡‚ scholars. It also presents other opinions, especially of 'the Kufans', who later became represented by the ™anaf‚ school, although "there are" as Melchert points out, "severe limits to how precisely we can know when the school of Kufa became completely, by self definition, ™anafi". (1) On many occasions, a statement of J~bir is followed by another, showing a different opinion, whether it is of another Ib~‡‚ scholar, possibly a student of J~bir, or quite often of a non-Ib~‡‚. This may be seen as the forerunner of what later was known as comparative legal studies (`ilm al-khil~f) and could indicate how flexible and eager Ib~‡‚ scholars were to take into account opinions of people who did not hold Ib~‡‚ views.

__________

(1) Melchert, Formation, p.35 and details on pp.36-8. (1/27)

صفحة 28

... In addition, this work of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b presents a special focus of the Ib~‡‚ school, that of following the evidence and not the mere opinions of their authorities. (1) This principle has always been stressed and emphasised within the Ib~‡‚ school. For instance, Abƒ Sa`‚d al-Kudam‚ (a distinguished Omani scholar of the first half of the fourth/tenth century) held an opinion on a certain juristic matter that contradicted the opinion of most previous Ib~‡‚ scholars. When he was opposed about his disapproval of the opinion of the majority, he said: 'The Prophet has ordered man to do so, and his [the Prophet's] statement is worthy of following', Abƒ Ya`qƒb al-Warjl~n‚ (d. 570/1175) also articulated this principle when he was standing at the grave of the Prophet, by stating that 'there is no taql‚d, except for the person buried here' pointing at the grave. (2) Ib~‡‚ scholars down to the present day have followed this line of giving more weight to the evidence of their authorities than to the authorities themselves, for example a key twentieth century Libyan figure expresses the view that:

__________

(1) This could be one of the most important reasons of not naming the Ib~‡‚ school after J~bir unlike other Sunn‚ schools which have been ascribed to their first founder or teacher (im~m).

(2) For this and similar quotations, see al-Qannƒb‚, S. Qurrat al-`aynayn, (Oman, 1997) pp.12-7. (1/28)

صفحة 29

"Many Muslim sects decided that with the passing of a certain age the gates of ijtih~d should be closed ... Ib~‡‚s from an early time sensed that such a stagnant approach did not go hand in hand with the spirit of Islam,... Since, Ib~‡‚s believed that what God had made open for the first members of this community cannot be denied to the last of it, and that the gate of ijtih~d ... can only be closed by a jurisprudent of no understanding, they began to discuss the question of ijtih~d ... with much tolerance, clarity and open-mindedness, they used to discuss problems with reference to the actions of Companions and Successors, and the way of life of the righteous predecessors. They do not deny access to that which knowledge has opened up, nor do they deem illicit that which religion has made licit, nor do they let the problems of successive generations accumulate at the gates of ijtih~d,.." (1)

__________

(1) Mu`ammar, A. Y., al-Ib~‡iyya f‚ mawkib al-t~r‚kh: Nash|at al-madhhab al-Ib~‡‚, pp.71-3. (1/29)

صفحة 30

However, the Sunn‚ madh~hib effectively closed the gates of ijtih~d, and this can be seen clearly in many standard texts, as, for example, we see in al-Maqr‚z‚' Khi\a\. (1) My statement does not ignore the fact that various Sunn‚s, and sometimes Western scholar such as Watt whose view was adopted strongly by Hallaq, (2) at different periods have claimed that the gates of ijtih~d were not shut, (3) and it is the case that many modern Sunn‚ writers argue that there was no closure. (4) Such claims basically reinforce the view that closure did take place, because they are the claims of a minority trying to change entrenched attitudes.

__________

(1) Al-maw~`iŒ wa al-i`tib~r bi dhikr al-khi\a\ wa al-~th~r, also known as al-khi\a\ al-maqr‚ziyya, 2nd edn, (a photocopy of the Bul~q edition), 2:343-4. I quoted him with comments and analysis in a previous paper '`Ulam~| al-Isl~m wa `il~qatuhum bi al-na‰ wa al-ijtih~d' in al-Ijtih~d f‚ al-Islam proceeding from the 6th conference of Mu|asasat >l al-Bayt, held in Muscat, December, 1998, pp.15-17.

(2) A brief but valuable illustration of this argument can be found in Michel Hoebink, 'Two halves of the same truth: Schacht, Hallaq and the gate of ijtih~d: An inquiry into definitions', in Middle East Research Associates (MERA), 1994. Pp.1-19

(3) Best examples are presented by the claims of Ibn Taymiyya and al-Suyƒ\‚, see the latter's al-Radd `al~ man akhlada il~ al-ar‡ wa jahila ann al-ijtih~d f‚ kulli `a‰rin far‡, ed. Khl‚l al-Mays, Beirut, 1983.

(4) Michel Hoebink, op. cit. p.2-3. (1/30)

صفحة 31

It is also true that selective (intiq~|‚) ijtih~d is possible, but it is of a strictly limited kind compared to creative (insh~|‚ or mu\laq) ijtih~d.

... This is one of the issues on which the Sunn‚s and the Ib~‡‚s show greatest contrast. And it is not unfair to say that the use of ijtih~d observable in the >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b would have been enormously influential in drawing the Ib~‡iyya towards their stance of keeping the door of ijtih~d open.

... The principle of practicing ijtih~d freely and considering the evidence rather than the opinions of authorities is observable in the work >th~r al-Rab‚`. It presents throughout its content the approval of Ib~‡‚s for the opinions of other authorities in the community. Actually we find in the book on some occasions more than a mere presentation of the opinions of different authorities; i.e. these 'other' opinions are apparently assumed, by J~bir's students, to be strong enough to override the opinions of J~bir. It clearly offers an early practical example of the implementation of this postulate within the Ib~‡‚ school as will be detailed later on in this study. (1) This obviously intensifies the importance of the work and confirms the early maturity mentioned earlier.

__________

(1) See Ch. IV pp.161-70 esp. 167 and 169 below. (1/31)

صفحة 32

... It is also appropriate to point out that, for the Ib~‡‚s at least, this work is a very valuable compilation of the opinions of their real founder J~bir b. Zayd that are transmitted by his great student ?um~m b. al-S~|ib, a chain that has been long described and mentioned, but on only the slightest evidence outside this text (1) . It refutes many denials, that were regarded reasonable before this text became available, about the existence of such a chain and about the role of ?um~m in transmitting the knowledge of J~bir and the basis of his madhhab. (2) Although ?um~m’s role in this book is no more than a transmitter, this is particularly what needs to be proved. It testifies that Abƒ `Ubayda is not the only transmitter of J~bir b. Zayd, as is the situation in the already published Musnad al-Rab‚`, where there are no more than three traditions reported on ?um~m’s authority. Furthermore, this work, by showing the role of ?um~m, fills the gap in the chain of the authorities of the Ib~‡‚ religious roots (silsilat nasab al-d‚n) (3)

__________

(1) Al-Shamm~kh‚ for example says when talking about ?um~m: “ and what he (?um~m) recorded and transmitted from J~bir was greater than that of Abƒ `Ubayda...” al-siyar, vol.1, p.81. He also describes his answers when he replaced im~m J~bir in one ™ajj season that his answers were: I heard J~bir saying, or he was asked or I heard him,... and he was the transmitter of J~bir ( R~wiyat J~bir)” ibid, 1/82

(2) Wilkinson, J. C. Ib~‡‚ ™ad‚th: an Essay on Normalization. Der Islam, 62 (1985), p.235.

(3) Ibn Sall~m al-Ib~‡‚ (d..273/887): Bad| al-Isl~m wa shar~|i` al-d‚n, ed. Shwarts, V. and Ya`qƒb, S. p.114 (D~r al-Fatˆ, Beirut; 1974) (1/32)

صفحة 33

which links descendants and disciples, who are authorities on knowledge, to their ancestors until the chain reaches the Prophet.

... Moving to a more general examination and analysis of the subject of the book, one can readily perceive that the basic stance of the work is juristic (fiqh), rather than that of ˆad‚th. (1) Most of the points and issues discussed have been dealt with and argued about over the ages by scholars of all Muslim schools; yet when we take the early date of the work into account, as well as the diversity of subjects and opinions in it, and compare it with similar compilations of the same time – if there are any (2) –, the significance of the work becomes clearer. For Ib~‡‚s, it is unquestionable that this work preserves a rich mine of the knowledge of their first leaders and scholars on different issues; (3) for non-Ib~‡‚s, on the other hand, it includes opinions and views of many Followers and later generation scholars, and it shows at least the kind of questions that were discussed in the community at that early period of time. (4)

__________

(1) There are only 3 traditions ascribed explicitly to the Prophet.

(2) See footnote 39 above.

(3) The book contains opinions that were not thought to be adopted by Ib~‡‚yya: e.g. traditions [41], [43], [46], [56], [93].

(4) See Ch. III Notes on the edited text, below. (1/33)

صفحة 34

... Someone wanting to trace back some of the Ib~‡‚ fiqh features to their origins will have to conclude from the evidence of the book that the Ib~‡‚ juristic features had been formed as early as the formative time of Ib~‡ism. Some of these features are: the recitation of sƒrat al-F~tiˆa only in al-Œuhr and al-`a‰r prayers as in tradition [9], the safar prayer: when a traveller should start shortening his prayer and for how long (traditions [175], [211], [260], [296], [298], [299], [303], [304] and [306]); disapproval of wiping one’s footwear when performing wu‡ƒ|; and the disapproval of reciting du`~| al-qunƒt (invocation of God against certain enemies, inserted in the prayer). There are many such juristic points in the book but the ones just mentioned are the ones which characterise the Ib~‡‚ school down to the present time as far as fiqh is concerned. This, however, does not mean that other opinions and traditions are of no significance. On the contrary, they give us a brilliant picture of many aspects of the society of Basra at the time of the compilation of the material of this work. A large number of the matters discussed were about slaves and their rights, relationships with their masters and different legal ways of liberating them (`itq, muk~taba, tadb‚r, etc). There are many items regarding non-Muslims living in Basra Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians: their food, marriage affairs, social conduct, criminal affairs, embracing Islam, etc. (1)

__________

(1) See Table of Topics of >th~r al-Rab‚`, p.73. (1/34)

صفحة 35

... The juristic treatment of the topics discussed in the book offers an opportunity to increase our understanding of Ib~‡‚ fiqh, not only because of the insufficiency of earlier studies about this particular aspect even more than the doctrinal and political ones but also because the work we have appears to be a good example of an early Ib~‡‚ reference text on fiqh. Certain features stand out. The first of them is that it is based on evidence (the Qur|~n and the sound Sunnah) whenever available. There are many examples of this principle in the book. One of these is tradition [273], where J~bir is asked by a woman called Hind about a man who made a proposal to marry one of her slaves. J~bir told her not to accept. The man made his proposal a second time and was refused. The third time Hind told J~bir that the man said he would commit adultery with the slave if she refused him again. At this point J~bir said: Yes, you should accept now; and he quoted the Qur|~n }This is for those of you who are afraid of committing fornication{ (al-Nis~|: 25). On another occasion he was asked about drinking nab‚dh al-jarr (alcoholic drink stored in clay jars usually sealed with pitch). J~bir forbade it, but the questioner asked him again and insisted, so J~bir responded: “The Prophet forbade it and whatever he forbade is ˆar~m” (tradition [238]). (1/35)

صفحة 36

... However, what is said here does not mean that Ib~‡‚s accept every single ˆad‚th regardless of its authenticity even if it is regarded as sound ˆad‚th by non-Ib~‡‚s. (1) It seems that J~bir doubts some traditions when they contradict the Qur|~n, as in the example of wiping one’s footwear when doing wu‡ƒ`, or if they have not been transmitted in an authentic sanad, as in the case when he was asked about a man who gets married to a woman and dies before determining her dowry. J~bir’s opinion was that she has no right to have a dowry but only her portion from his inheritance. Then somebody said to him that Ibn Mas`ƒd says that she has to have a dowry like similar women of her case. Nonetheless, J~bir denies this tradition and says: “ if we find this [transmission] from Ibn Mas`ƒd through a credible (thiqa) person we would accept it”(tradition [4]) (2) .

__________

(1) Musnad al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b, ˆad‚th no. 40, p.17, and see examples in al-Qannƒb‚, al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b: mak~natuh wa musnaduh, p.112.

(2) See Ch. II, Notes on the edited text: [4] and for the use of the term thiqah, see p. 138-9 below. (1/36)

صفحة 37

... The second feature is the practice what was later to become known as ijtih~d when there is no textual evidence. (1) There are many examples of this ‘controversial’ feature in the work of >th~r al-Rab‚`, some of which may well involve the use of qiy~s (analogy). Somebody told J~bir that his father prevented him from performing ˆajj. J~bir asked him: how many prayers do you have to perform every day? The man said: five. J~bir said: So if your father asked you not to perform one of these five will you omit it? The man said: No. J~bir said to him: then you have to do ˆajj (Tradition [292]). (2)

... Thirdly the recognition of necessities and unusual circumstances like performing the prayer sitting instead of standing when performing it in a ship, for example, or not to prostrate if the earth is wet due to bad weather conditions.

... Finally there is flexibility of opinion when good intentions are recognized. A good example of this is tradition [268] regarding someone who had made a mistake in his talbiya of ˆajj and recited the talbiya of `umra instead; J~bir said that this is all right, since the man was intending ˆajj and not `umra, whereas Kufans say that it is according to his statement not to his intention. In other occasions we find this flexibility very apparent with J~bir’s fat~w~ (legal opinions) when there is a necessity as in traditions [298], [310] and [313].

__________

(1) More light is thrown on this point on Ch. IV, Evaluation, see pp. 168-70 below.

(2) There are other examples in the book of the same line: traditions [38], [47], [317]. (1/37)

صفحة 38

... All these features can be found in other Muslim schools but their presence in the >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b antedates any evidence in other works of other madh~hib. This means that the legal notions of Ib~‡iyya were present at a very early stage. Thus any overview of the Ib~‡iyya that ignores this and simply concentrates on political and doctrinal principles is at the very least incomplete. (1/38)

صفحة 39

... Careful reading of the text allows us to extract important information about the political and doctrinal principles of the early Ib~‡‚s, especially in Basra where many significant confrontations took place and many secret and non-secret opposition movements flourished. One of these topics is regarding the assassination of the third caliph `Uthm~n b. `Aff~n in (35/656). This particular tradition [18] is not ascribed to J~bir b. Zayd or any of his Ib~‡‚ contemporaries. Instead, it is reported of `Al‚ b. Ab‚ œ~lib that he once mentioned `Uthm~n in a speech and he said about him: “Truly, Allah has killed him while I was with Him”. This statement does not only summarize the Ib~‡‚ view on that distinctive issue but by ascribing it to `Al‚ it also indicates their attitude towards later vital political events, such as the revolt of œalˆa and al-Zubayr (36/656) which led to the battle of al-Jamal and the rebellion of Mu`~wiya which led to the encounter at ^iff‚n in 37/657. Both revolts were activated by the ostensible notion of bringing the murderers of `Uthm~n to justice. (1) The above mentioned quotation encapsulates the view that both revolts were illegitimate and more importantly makes clear the Ib~‡‚ perception that `Al‚ approved of the assassination of `Uthm~n. Another parallel example is tradition [248] which presents the opinion of `Abd All~h b.

__________

(1) For more details of these events and the Ib~‡‚ stance see al-Barr~d‚, I., al-Jaw~hir al-muntaq~t f‚-m~ akhalla bihi ‰~ˆibu al-œabaq~t, - lith.(1302/1885) pp. 54-145. (1/39)

صفحة 40

`Umar on the situation in Mecca during the confrontation between `Abd All~h b. al-Zubayr and `Abd al-Malik b. Marw~n (1) (73/692), and his advice to Muj~hid not to enter Mecca as the people there have turned “kuff~r smiting each other’s necks”. This statement of Ibn `Umar not only summarizes the Ib~‡‚ view (2) on that incident but apparently provides phraseology that legitimises the use of kuff~r (3) when describing what had happened or who had been involved. Of similar substance also is tradition [290] which also reports that `Abd All~h b. `Umar asked a group of people – probably some of his students – who were used to visiting leaders and Umayyad caliphs of that time, what they said to them when visiting them. They said: 'We say what pleases the caliph', Ibn `Umar then replied to them that 'by God this is nif~q (hypocrisy)'.

__________

(1) See Ibn Kath‚r: al-Bid~yah wa l-nnih~yah, vol.8/329-33 (Egypt, Ma\ba`at al-Sa`~dah).

(2) For general view of the participation of so called Khaw~rij on this particular confrontation between Ibn al-Zubayr and `Abd al-Malik b. Marw~n see al-Bakk~y, L. ™arakat al-Khaw~rij, (Beirut, 2001) p.100-4.

(3) This phrase has influenced many writers to include Ib~d‚s among the Khaw~rij regardless of the crucial difference in the meaning and therefore the implications of this term between Ib~‡‚s and Khaw~rij. For Ib~‡‚s it can either be used for unbelieving and for being ungrateful. Cf. Crone, P. and Zimmermann, F. The Epistle of S~lim b. Dhakw~n; Oxford University Press: 2001, pp. 195, 198-203 and Cook, M. Early Muslim dogma, p.64-5. (1/40)

صفحة 41

This view of Ibn `Umar, which has also been quoted in non-Ib~‡‚ sources, (1) meant much for Ib~‡‚ organisers at that time, in categorizing the supporters of the dominating regime as munafiqƒn though not mushrikƒn. This particular example provides grounds of fair refutation to the accusation thrown at Ib~‡‚s on their attitude towards their opponents. The peaceful and tolerant approach Ib~‡‚s followed, not just made them distinct from the violent, activist Kh~rijite groups but enabled them to live in harmony with other Muslims. Early Ib~‡‚ authorities rejected labelling their fellow Muslims as polytheists. Instead, they used the terms ahl al-qibla, muwaˆˆidƒn (monotheists), munafiqƒn (hypocrites) and kuff~r ni`ma (infidels-ingrate), all of which is far from considering their opponents as infidels or polytheists. The last two terms are demonstrated in the Ath~r al-Rab‚` as described above. As an attempt to briefly clarify the Ib~‡‚ standpoint regarding this matter, two interesting facts need to be elaborated here:

__________

(1) See Ch. III Note on the edited text, [290]. (1/41)

صفحة 42

1. Ib~‡‚s among all early Muslim theological schools were the most concerned of condemning and refuting in writings the violent approach and extremist views of the Khaw~rij. They have rich literature of epistles, letters, treatises and debates with Az~riqa, Najdiyya, and also other groups such as Qadariyya, Murji|a,..etc. (1) The question of the attitude towards opponents always tops the list of their arguments. In short, 'Ib~‡‚s' as Ennami describes,' never broke this principle; they never killed women or children of their opponents or killed the injured or followed a routed enemy of them, nor did they take their property for spoils'. (2)

2. Ib~‡‚s do not limit the labelling of mun~fiqƒn, kuff~r ni`ma to non-Ib~‡‚s. They also use them for committers of great sins and for unjust rulers of their own (3) in the same way other schools call them fuss~q (pl. of f~siq, corrupt) and ahl al-kab~|ir (committers of great sins). This means that the disagreement between Ib~‡‚s and Sunn‚s on this matter is a mere linguistic debate. (4)

__________

(1) See, K~shif, al-Syar wa al-jaw~b~t al-`um~niyya, passion., and al-Salim‚, al-Lum`a, pp.16-30.

(2) Ennami, Studies, p.133.

(3) A good summary of the evidence of Ib~‡iyya with a detailed discussion about this issue is to be found in Mu`ammar, A. Y., al-Ib~‡iyya f‚ mawkib al-t~r‚kh, pp.89-92.

(4) A good account on this dilemma is in al-Warjl~n‚, al-Dal‚l wa-'l-burh~n, 2:338-46. (1/42)

صفحة 43

... All the examples mentioned in this section (assassination of `Uthm~n, revolts of œalˆa and al-Zubayr, the battle of al-jamal, the conflict of ^iff‚n and the use of kuff~r and mun~fiqƒn) present what are considered by non-Ib~‡‚s as Kh~rij‚ links. Ib~‡‚s on the contrary rejected this connecting of them to the Khaw~rij by showing that they were not the only ones to criticize the general political atmosphere and that they did not invent the terms they used since these terms where used by the Prophet and his Companions. And they hold the position that sharing some stances with the Khaw~rij should not be interpreted as an approval of all their views, and thus should not lead to include Ib~‡‚s in the negative image of the violent Kh~rijism of the Az~riqa and Najdiyya. (1/43)

صفحة 44

... Moreover, this work contains good evidence of how Ib~‡‚ leaders were watching events very closely. We see this in the emphasis of J~bir b. Zayd on attending al-Jum`a (Friday) prayer with al-™ajj~j, (1) his fatw~ regarding the acceptance of the gifts of governors (2) and asking his fellows not to abandon or even weaken their relationships with him and with one another. (3) The book contains a few but valuable traditions that show the success achieved by following this strategy to the extent that distinguished Ib~‡‚ personalities referred to J~bir in most of their religious matters, as in traditions [253], [254], [257] and [260]. This enabled them to consider every step they should take to maintain their relation with the mainstream and avoid any disruption to their movement. (4) It seems that this purpose was the essential Ib~‡‚ priority at that time, along with the proper scholarly and religious preparation (tarbiya). Thus we find in the book (in tradition [296]) that they preferred not to become involved in the rebellion of `Abd al-Raˆm~n b. Muˆammad b. al-Ash`ath in 81/700 (5) .

__________

(1) See traditions: [65], [254], [316].

(2) See tradition: [275].

(3) Tradition: [87].

(4) EI2, III, p.649, s.v. al-Ib~‡iyya.

(5) Most-though not all- Sunn‚ historians claim that all scholars and dignities in Basra have supported Ibn al-Ash`ath in his revolt, see for example: Ibn Kath‚r: al-Bid~yah wa l-nnih~yah, vol.9/37 (Egypt, Matba`at al-Sa`~dah, n.d.). (1/44)

صفحة 45

... >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b also provides us with a general picture of the difficulties and hardships that Ib~‡‚s had to suffer. One of them was bai`at ibn Ziy~d (forcing the public by sword to give allegiance to `Ubayd All~h b. Ziy~d). Ib~‡‚s found it Islamically unacceptable. Yet expressing this view would ultimately obliterate their movement; and therefore the only solution, though not an easy solution, was to hide for a time until their concern was sorted (tradition [303]). Another example is tradition [286] where it is ascribed to Ka`b b. Siw~r that he enjoined Muslims to fear God as there was going to be war and bloodshed and that he asked them to isolate themselves (amarahum bi-l-|i`tiz~l) from these problems.

... In addition, there are some traces in >th~r al-Rab‚` of the caution required in dealing with the regime that led to compromises about which people were uneasy. A good paradigm of this is tradition [293]. It shows J~bir b. Zayd very close to one of al-™ajj~j's secretaries, Yaz‚d b. Ab‚ Muslim who was, more or less, sympathetic to the Ib~‡‚ movement and its leaders. Yet J~bir having his own preservations about Yaz‚d, as could be seen in his statement, was compelled not to damage this relationship, at the presence of Yaz‚d at least. (1/45)

صفحة 46

... To conclude this section about the significance of the work of >th~r al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b, it is plausible to state that this work provides strong grounds for what Zimmermann and Crone describe when they say that 'the Ib~‡‚s constitute less then 1 per cent of the total number of Muslims today, but, unlike many other tiny sectarian groups dotted about the landscape of the Middle East, they have a rich literary heritage stretching back to the formative centuries of Islam'. (1)

... This work of al-Rab‚` b. ™ab‚b is, in sum, a typological reflection of Ib~‡‚sm at its earliest existence. It is true that most of the material in the work is fiqh, which as shown above provides good grounds for further studies, yet with all its traces of important historical events, its samples of Ib~‡‚ founding political organisation, authorities involved, dogmatic perceptions and many other aspects in it, are witnesses of the general significance of this work.

__________

(1) The epistle of S~lim ibn Dhakw~n, p.1. (1/46)