“Ghulalt Tradition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Early Shiite Mysticism: Imamology and the “GhulalT Tradition Seth Lauchlin Carney SOAS, University of London Ph. D Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle East ProQuest Number: 11010487 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 11010487 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Report on the Thesis of Mr S. L. Carney, ‘Early Shi’ite Mysticism: Imamology and the “GhulAh” Tradition’, Submitted to the School of Oriental and African Studies for the award of a PhD in Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle East. This is the third time this thesis has been submitted for approval to the external examiners. On this occasion there has been some progress made. The analysis of early ImAmD IadDth literature is more nuanced than in previous versions, and there is (limited) recognition of the problematic method of adducing simple theological factions from IadDth reports found in later collections such as those of al-Saffar and al-KulaynB. The focus of the thesis has narrowed to a comparison of the material within the IadDth collections and the ghulAh accounts in early fira q literature. The analysis is rather haphazard, with occasional elements of careful textual description mixed in with conclusions unsupported by the textual tradition. There are regular misreadings and mistranslations of the Arabic texts, and a general sloppiness in transliteration and presentation generally. The choice of the “test case” doctrines (namely tqfwDA., ibAIa and talrDf) is now better justified, and is portrayed as coming out of an analysis of the principal doctrines of the ghulAh in the firaq literature. This choice though could have been made more explicit and more precisely reasoned. The choice of IadDth and tafsDr material with which to compare the firaq literature could also have been more fully justified. For example, there is a tendency to lift material from al-YAyyAshB, al- KulaynB and al-NaffAr with no (or little) attention to the context of the citation within the original work, nor the structure of the work from which the candidate it citing. The thesis can make a contribution to scholarship in the area providing the following corrections are carried out: Formal corrections: 1. The presentation of the thesis is very poor. The transliteration system used within the thesis is inconsistent, irregular and at times bizarre. For example, the abstract has the dot under the u rather than the h of Muhammad, the Yayn and Iamza reversed and a rather strange attitude towards capitalisation (why Ar-RAzD but as-NaffAr? This occurs throughout the thesis). There are also grammatical errors (“the Imams... who rules” rather than “who rule”). Whilst the stray dot in Muhammad is solved in the main contents of the thesis, other errors abound. The Yaynilamza confusion continues throughout the thesis and this must be corrected. YAbdallah (p.6 and throughout) has no macron; ShDYD is sometimes spelled with two macrons over the i-s and an Yayn sometimes with no macrons and a Iamza, sometimes with no macrons and an Yayn. When incorporated into the anglicised Shi’ite or Shi’ism, there is no consistent approach over which i should have a macron and which not, nor whether the Yayn should be shown or not. There are examples of ShDYah being made plural fi e. “Shi’ahs”, p.l ft p.82) which makes little sense. There appears to be a policy of recording genitive endings (AbU YAbdillah for example, p.7) but this is not carried through into ;he other case ending for some reason. There are sometimes numerous different spellings of the same word on a single page (e.g. Madinahn, Madinan, with macron or without macron, p 12). f etters are inappropriately points (p.l 3. taqsDr with no pointed s, though m u q a d d ir in the same line is correctly points). There is a rather strange attitude towards capitalisation “Incarnation”, “Divine” (p. 13) for example are capitalised, though it is unclear why. Proper names are sometimes with the alif-lAm and sometimes without. When the alif-lAm is followed by a sun-letter the policy appears to be to capitalise everything (e.g. An-NawbakhtD, p. 498 and following). When it is not, the lower case is maintained (al-AshYarB, regularly spelled incorrectly). This (very strange) policy only seems to apply to proper names, but this is inconsistently applied. IsmAYDID is sometimes transliterated correctly, but regularly it not - the final i is left with no macron on most occasions (but not, for some reason, all). Spelling throughout is according to American rather than UK English. Stray full stops seem to appear in the text for no reason (e.g. p.5, “ibn.”) as do inexplicable spaces (e.g. p.27 “al- MughBrah”). HishAm b. al-Iakam is referred to as HAshim (p.47). These corrections apply to the first 50 pages - but could be replicated throughout the thesis. 2. There are many incorrect or faulty reading of names, for example: pp. 39-40 SalDm b. Qays should be Sulaym b. Qays. p. 28 al-YAjalB should be al- YljlD. p. 47 Minkhal should be al-Munakhkhal. p.57 and throughout al- NawAfilD should be al-NawfalD. p. 93 BarDd should be Burayd. p. 135 al- GhafArri should be al-GhifArB 3. Expression is regularly unclear. For example, p.8 ImAmD is repeated twice in the quotation, p. 11 “extremely large IadDth literature” makes little sense - presumable “an extremely large body of IadDth literature” is meant; p. 16 “his work is a specific attempt” - presumably what is meant here is that Amir- M oezzi’s work is a “concentrated” or “directed” attempt; p. 16 again, paragraph two - “this work” it is entirely unclear which work this refers to; p. 19, para 1 - the first sentence does not make sense; p.22 “a very esoteric text” does not make sense (can a text be “very” esoteric? This relates to a general slipperiness with the use of this term - see below). 4. The referencing system is strange, though thankfully consistently so. However, there are references within the text which do not appear in the bibliography - and some of these are incorrect, p.25 Helm, should be Halm (I presume), though with no bibliographical detail at the end of the thesis it is difficult to tell. One presumes the reference is to Die Schia referenced in the “German” section (p.204), though this is not clear. To correct these errors - some of which have already been pointed out to the candidate on previous occasions - would be a major, but mechanical task, perfectly within the abilities of a careful scholar. .Substantial Corrections Whilst the hypothesis of the thesis (namely that ImAmD theology during the period of al-KulaynB or thereabouts shows similarity with the GhulAh) is one which could be subject to criticism - but most importantly, the candidate needs to marshal his evidence for the conclusions more effectively, and tighten his argument at numerous points. The following selection represent the most urgent changes: 1. p. 12, n.26 - reference could be made here to Crone’s argument that the ShDYD school was Kufan rather than Madinan, and the Madinan attribution is a back projection. {Roman, Provincial and Islamic I.aw, p.21 -23) 2. p. 12 “which many other ImAmD Shiites regarded as 'heterodoxy”” exactly who is referred to here is not clear. 3. p. 15 fhe logic of the move from Antinomianism and the Knowledge of the Imam is not clear - how ire these two linked? 4. p. 17 - there is a reference to SijistAnD - but no reference to any of his works - or even secondary literature on the subject. 5. the use of the term esoteric throughout the thesis (see e.g. p.50) - but in the first 50 pages in particular - is rather imprecise - at times esoteric seems synonymous with mystical (which it is not), and at other times is used more accurately to refer to secret doctrine. 6. p.25-50 - there are various references in these pages to AshYarB, OabarD and others “thinking” or “arguing” this or that position - but with no reference to their works or any other sources - the descriptions may well be accurate, but they do need to be sourced. 7. p.31 there is a tendency to rig the question - that is, to choose the “deification of the Imams” as the most fruitful point of comparison between ghulAh doctrine and Imam IadDth literature, and therefore ignoring the fact that there is much in each which does not bear any fruitful comparison. 8. p.38 - is it not a mischaracterisation of Amir-Moezzi’s thesis that he considers early ImAmD ShiYism as an “esoteric cult”? His view, which can be criticised from many angles, is rather more nuanced than this. 9. The quotation on p.44 from the Yllal al-SharAPiY is rather sloppy and inaccurate and needs rectifying along the lines indicated previously. 10. In the first 100 pages, the use of al-KhubD's rijAl work as one’s main source is certainly problematic - whether or not al-KhubD is citing the original sources accurately.