Maisonneuve & Larose
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Maisonneuve & Larose Sidelights on Early Imāmite Doctrine Author(s): W. Montgomery Watt Source: Studia Islamica, No. 31 (1970), pp. 287-298 Published by: Maisonneuve & Larose Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1595081 Accessed: 21/05/2009 00:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mal. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Maisonneuve & Larose is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica. http://www.jstor.org SIDELIGHTSON EARLY IMAMITEDOCTRINE Tusy's List of Shy'ah Books has been known to Islamists since it was published by Alois Sprengerin the Bibliolheca Indica in 1854, and referencesto it are to be found in many of the older works; but little use seems to have been made of it recently. Interest has been directed towards the numerous works of Shaykh Tuisi-Abii-Ja'far Muhammadat-Tusi Shaykh at-Ta'ifa (995/385-1066/458)-by the preparations for the MillenaryCongress in his honourheld at Meshhedin March1970, and there have been some fresh editions and numerousarticles in Persian. The present writer, on looking into the List of Shy'ah Books, found that its informationwas much fuller than that of Ibn-an-Nadim,who is frequently quoted, and that this information threw light on the development of Imamite doc- trine during the ninth/third century. This article, offered as a tribute to the memory of Joseph Schacht, has the limited aim of showing the relevance of some of the informationwhich is to be gleaned from the List of Shy'ah Books (1). It does not (1) A paper on a similar topic was read by the writer at the MeshhedCongress. The following abbreviations are used below: List: Tusy's List of Shy'ah Books (cf. GAL2, i. 512); I-Nadim: Ibn-an-Nadim, Fihrisf, ed. G. Flugel, Leipzig, 1871. Nawb.: al-Hasan ibn-Musa an-Nawbakhti, Firaq ash-shi'a, ed. H. Ritter (Bibliotheca Islamica, 4), Leipzig, 1931. 288 W. MONTGOMERYWATT consider the relation of Shaykh Tfisi's work to that of the slightly later an-Najashi, nor does it enter into some related questions such as the respective merits of Firaq ash-shT'aby an-Nawbakhti and Kilab al-maqdldt wa-l-firaq by Sa'd ibn-'Abd-Allah al- Ash'ari al-Qummi. The general position adopted is that the doctrine of the Ima- mite branch of the Shi'a did not attain definitive form until after the death or disappearance of the twelfth imam in 874. It was probably only about that date that the adherents of the doctrine began to call themselves 'Imamites', but the name will here be applied (in accordance with Shaykh Tiisi's usage) to those earlier scholars whom they regarded as their predecessors. For more than a century before 874 there was some recognition for the 'Alid imams from different groups of men. Among these men there was no agreement on doctrine, but it can be asserted that the majority were not revolutionaries seeking to replace the 'Abbasids by the 'Alids. It is probable that during the ninth century Imamite views were the expression of a polit- ical attitude, namely, one based on the belief that the existing caliphate should be more autocratic (1). 1. The early Imamites and the Mu'tazilites One of the points which is made clear by Shaykh Tusi's List is that there were many contacts between Imamites and Mu'ta- zilites from the time of Hruin ar-Rashid onwards. Something of this was of course known from al-Mas'udi's account of the assembly on the model of Plato's Symposium arranged by Yahya al-Barmaki, where of thirteen scholars who spoke five are described as Mu'tazilites (Abu-l-Hudhayl, an-Nazz5m, Mu'tamir ibn-Sulayman, Bishr ibn-al-Mu'tamir, Thumama) (1) For a further discussion of these matters cf. Watt, 'The Rafidites', Oriens, XVI (1963), 110-21; Islamic Political Thought, the Basic Concepts, Edinburgh, 1968, 82-9. SIDELIGHTS ON EARLY IMAMITE DOCTRINE 289 and four as Imamites ('Ali ibn-Mltham,Hisham ibn-al-Hakam, 'All ibn-Mansur, as-Sakkak) (1). This backgroundof friendly contacts is relevant to the fact recorded by Shaykh Tusi that Hisham ibn-al-Hakamwrote a book on 'the imamate of the inferior' (imdmat al-maf4dl) against the Mu'tazilites(2). A work with a similar title is also attributed to a slightly earlier scholar Abfi-Ja'far al-Ahwal (known to the opponents as Shaytan at-Taq) (S). The ascript- ion of this doctrineto the Mu'tazilitesis curious,since it is usual- ly a distinctive mark of the Zaydites;it implies that, while the excellence or superiority of 'Ali was admitted, yet Abi-Bakr was truly caliph despite the fact that he was mafidl, 'excelled' or 'surpassed'by 'Ali, that is, 'inferior'. There are close but obscure connections between the Zaydites and the Mu'tazilites, and this is also relevant. It is also probable, however, that these two Imamites used Mu'tazilite in a wider sense than would have been tolerated a little later by al-Khayyat, a Mu'tazilitehimself, who insisted that the name must be restric- ted to those who acdeptedthe five principles. There is some evidence for a wide Imamiteuse of Mu'tazilitein an-Nawbakhti. Under the term he includes Dirar ibn-'Amr,who was excluded by al-Khayyat (4). At another point an-Nawbakhtl makes the Mu'tazilitesone of the basic sects of Islam, the other three being the Shi'a, the Murji'a and the Kharijites (5). This statement seems to rest on a classification of sects according to their attitude to 'Ali. The Shl'a are those who regarded 'Ali as imam on the death of Muhammad;the Kharijitesare those who said he was an unbelieverand fought against him; the Murji'ites accepted and associated with both 'All and his opponents;and the Mu'tazilitesrefused to decide between the two and disso- ciated themselves from both (6). An-Nawbakhtl does mention (1) Murij adh-dhahab, VI, 368-76; Mitham is corrected from Haytham, and as- Sakk5k from as-Sakkal (Shakkal in I-Nadim, 176 and ash-Shahrastani, Milal, ed. Cureton, 145), the latter in accordance with the clear note in List, 292, no. 634. (2) List, 355, no. 771; I-Nadim, 175f. (3) List, 323, no. 698; I-Nadim, 176. 9-13. (4) Nawb, 11.16; cf. Intisar, ed. Nyberg, 133. (5) Nawb., 15. (6) Nawb., 2.13; 6.3; 6.11f; 12.1-9. There are some variations in the Mu'tazilite attitude to 'All. 20 290 W. MONTGOMERYWATT the Zaydites at this point, and references elsewhere do not make clear to which of the four basic sects he would have allotted them. He probably did not regard them as Shl'a, since they did not regard 'All as rightful imam after the Prophet even though they regarded him as the 'most excellent' (afdal) after him; (1) but it is not clear that he would have merged them with the Mu'tazilites. The two earlier Imamite scholars, however, almost certainly included the Zaydites among those they called Mu'tazilites. Hisham ibn-al-Hakam and Shaytan at-Taq also wrote against the Mu'tazila on the question of Talha and the other participants in the Battle of the Camel; they were presumably refuting the view ascribed to some Mu'tazilites that, while they knew 'All and his opponents could not both be right, they were unable to say which side was right (2). In yet other works they wrote on the imamate generally and on the question of the 'testament' (wasiyya). On this last topic they may have been criticizing the theory put forward by the 'Abbasids at least until the time of al-Mahdi (775-785), that each imam designated his successor or appointed him by 'testament' (awsa ilay-hi) (3), and in particular that Abi-Hashim, the son of Ibn-al-Hanafiyya, designated one of the 'Abbasid family as his successor. It is less probable that the topic was discussed in connection with the succession to the imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, though this was a matter of dispute at various times. It was doubtless the contacts between Hisham and the Mu'tazilites which led him to write on questions they dis- cussed, such as predestination and human free will and the originated or temporal character of things (huddth al-ashyd'). Shaykh Tius says that Hisham went from Kufa to Baghdad in the year 199/814 and is thought to have died in the same year; but if he was familiar with Yahya al-Barmaki, he must also have been in Baghdad before the latter's death in 187/803, and his contacts with the Mu'tazilites also presuppose an earlier (1) Nawb., 12.18; 19.1; 49.3.