An Early Mursalah Treaties the Kitab Al Alim Wal Muta Allim

An Early MurciIFLʾite Treatise: The Kitāb al-ʿĀlim wal-Mutaʿallim Author(s): Joseph Schacht Reviewed work(s): Source: Oriens, Vol. 17 (Dec. 31, 1964), pp. 96-117 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1580020 . Accessed: 06/12/2011 05:05 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oriens.

http://www.jstor.org

AN EARLY MURCI'ITE TREATISE: THE KITAB AL-'ALIM WAL-MUTA'ALLIM by

Joseph Schacht New York Hellmut Ritter zum 70. Geburtstage

I The subject of this paper, the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim,has been known since I912 when F. Kern, in his contribution to the "Festschrift fur Ignaz Goldziher", drew attention to it as one of the three earliest but, as yet, unpublished sources on the Murci'a 1. It has since been published twice, in a lithographededition of the Maclis (later Cam'iyat) Ihyd' al-Ma'drif al-Nu'mdniya, Hyderabad (Deccan) 1349 (Silsile-i Matb'adti), and in a printed edition, together with Abil Hanifa's Risala ild 'Utmdn al-Batti and the Fiqh al-Absat, by Muhammad Zahid alKautari, Cairo I368. According to the learned editor (p. 3), all three treatises had already been published in a Macmi'a in Istanbul "more than a century ago". If this statement does not go back to hearsayI do not know anything of this Macmi'a, and it has remained unknown to as knowledgeablea scholar as Kern-, this edition would presumably have been based on the manuscriptof the three treatises which, according to the same Saix al-Kautari, exists in the Fatih Library in Istanbul but which I have not had occasion to identify 2. aix al-Kautari's edition is based on the manuscript Cairo Macdmi' 64 (CatalogueCairo1 vii, 553), which equally contains the three treatises, and the edition of Hyderabad on the manuscript Rampur i, 318, No. 270. The Kitdb

al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim exists also in the manuscripts 2021 and 2122 of the Garrett Collection, Princeton, the first of which had already been listed by Houtsma (Catalogued'une collection de manuscrits arabes et turcs appartenanta la maison E. J. Brill a Leide, 2nd ed., Leiden I889, I94, No. II44). Not mentioned by Brockelmann (GAL2 i, I77, ? I, XI; 1 Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie xxvi (19I2),

I69, n. i. The two other sources mentioned

by Kern are the Fiqh al-Ausat (read: al-Absat) and the Risala iladcUtmdn al-Battf. 2 It is presumably the manuscript 3138 of the Defter-i FatihKutubxanesi.

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

97

Suppl. i, 287, xi) is the manuscript Tauhid 56 of the Zahiriya Library, Damascus, which contains on fol. Iv-24v a copy of the same work which is incomplete at the end and has lacunae in the middle, with parts of the Fiqh al-Absat, by the same hand, occupying fol. 8r-gv; we have here obviously the remnants of a manuscript which contained at least two, if not all three, of those early Murci'ite treatises; fol. 25, belonging to the same manuscript, but in another handwriting, is dated A.H. 659. There are, further, extracts from the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim in the manuscript R. 13. I9 in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (see below, section II, pp. I02-I04).

The Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim consists of a dialogue between master and disciple, the disciple putting questions and the master giving detailed answers. It has always been taken for granted that Abu Hanifa was meant by the master (although this does not, of course, decide the question of authorship), but it is not immediately clear who is meant by the disciple. The Fihrist (202, line I2) mentions among the works of Abui Hanifa the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim rawdhu 'anhu Muqdtil, and Hacci Xalifa (v, II3 f., No. I029I) refers to the Kitdb al-'Alim walMuta'allim li-Abz Hanifa, quotes its first words, and continues: wa-hwa kitdbmustamil 'ald l-'aqd'idwan-nasd'ihbi-tariqas-su'dl 'an al-muta'allim wal-cawdb 'an al-'dlim yuqdl rawdhu Muqdtil 'an al-Imdm. The text which Hacci Xalifa saw is obviously identical with that of the Hyderabad

edition and thereforeof the Rampur manuscript, as well as of the Damascus manuscript, that is to say, the paragraphs and sections were introduced by the words qdl al-Muta'allim and qdl al-'Alim respectively, and it was not prefaced by an isndd (this is implied by IHacciXalifa's use of the word yuqdl). Both in the Fihrist and in Hacci Xalifa we must, however, read Abfi Muqatil instead of Muqatil, because the person in question is the Traditionist Abu Muqatil Hafs b. Salam as-Samarqandi (d. 208 at a very great age), whom Dahabi explicitly mentions as the sdhib Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim1. He is generally regarded as unreliable or worse; the best that the critics can say of him is that he was a pious man, or that he was known as truthful but is not taken into account when it is a question of establishing reliable traditions, or that he was gullible; in particular,he is reproachedwith relating as traditions sayings which he found beautiful although he had not heard them from his alleged authorities. His critics recognize that he was an authority on religious law, but his name does not occur in the standard works of 1 Ibn Abi Hatim

ar-Razi,

K. al-Carh wal-TaCdzl

i/2,

I74,

No. 748; Dahabi,

Mgzdn al-I'tidal i, No. 2081; Ibn Hacar al-'Asqalani, Lisan al-Mzzdn ii, No. 1322; the same, Tahdzb at-Tahdzb ii, No. 695, not in its alphabetical place. Oriens 17

7

Joseph Schacht

98

Hanafi tabaqdt by 'Abdalqadir, Ibn Qutluibuga,and 'Abdalhaiy alLaknawi. Saix al-Kautari, however, quotes from the Mandqib Abi .Hanifa of al-Muwaffaqal-Makki (d. 568) (Brockelmann, Suppl. i, 549, ? 2a) three highly respectable isndds of the work, two of which begin with the famous theologian Abui Hafs 'Umar b. Muhammad an-Nasafi (d. 537), and all of which end with Hasan b. Salih-Abi Muqatil-Abfi Hanifa. Because the eminent though controversial Traditionist, IHasan b. $Slih, died in I67 or I69 (Ibn Hacar al-'Asqalani, TahdTbal-Tahdib ii, No. 516), whereas Abti Muqatil lived until 208, and because the biographicalworks on Traditionists do not mention any riwdya of Hasan b. Salih from AbuiMuqatil, let alone one going against normal chronological sequence, to which as a rule they pay special attention, I conclude that these isndds are invented 1.

In a second group of manuscripts, the disciple is identified with Abfi Muti', and the paragraphs and sections are introduced by the words qdl AbI Muti' al-Balxi and qdl A bi Hanifa respectively. To this group

belong the two Princeton manuscripts and the Cambridgemanuscript. For the rest, the text is identical, except for minor variants between the several manuscripts, with that of the first group. The person in question is AbuiMuti' al-Hakam b. 'Abdallah al-Balxi, a disciple of AbuiHanifa, qddi of Balx for I6 years and a Traditionist (d. I97 or I99 at the age of eighty-four), equally known to the works of Hanafi tabaqdt2 and to the biographiesof Traditionists 3. Whereashe is, of course,highly appreciated by the first, these last, as is only to be expected, formulate objections to his reliability, although by no means as strongly as in the case of Abu Muqatil, and it is quite clear that the professional Traditionists were unwilling to accept the traditions transmitted by him only because he was a prominent Murci'ite (or, as it is sometimes formulated polemically, a Cahmite)4. It is the biographiesof Traditionistsin the first place which mention his courage in publicly criticizing a decree of the government which the local governor, though agreeing with him, was too cowardly to do. Of the two relevant traditions which are attributed to him, one, concerning iman "faith", expresses the Murci'ite doctrine with which 1 Also the religious-political attitude attributed to Hasan b. Salih is directly opposed to the Murci'ite doctrines of the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Mutacallim. 2 'Abdalqadir, al-Cawahir al-Mudl'a ii, 265 f., No. I72; Ibn Qutlubuga, Tac al-Taracim, ed. Fliigel, 64 f., No. 269; 'Abdalhaiy al-Laknawi, al-Fawd'id alBahiya, Cairo 1324, 68 f. 3

Ibn Abi iHtim

ar-Razi

i/2,

121 f., No. 560; Dahabi

i, No. 2143;

Ibn Hacar

al-cAsqalani, Lisan al-MIzdn ii, No. 1369. 4 In fact, the Murci'a were strongly opposed to the Cahmiya; cf. the Fiqh al-Akbar I, ? Io.

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

99

we may credit him, whereas the other, concerning the absence of (real) believers from those who might performthe ritual worshipin the mosques, contradicts the doctrine of the Murci'a which our treatise expounds in detail. From the text of the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim, moreover, it is most unlikely that its prime transmitter would have attached any great importance to formal traditions (see below, p. ii6). I therefore regard as a piece of later polemics the story that he had invented the tradition concerning faith and that it had been "stolen" from him by 'Utman b. 'Abdallah al-Umawi (Ibn Hacar al-'Asqalani, Lisdn al-Mizdn iv, No. 332). 'Abdalqadir, Ibn Qutliibuga, and 'Abdalhaiy al-Laknawi mention him as the (main) transmitter of Abi HIanifa'sFiqh al-Akbar1, but there is no mention I know of in the biographical sources of his having transmitted the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Muta'allimin the same way. We must conclude that Abui Muti' was chosen because he was better known as a Hanafi scholar than Abu Muqatil, and that the insertion of his name and that of AbuIHanifa into a certain group of manuscripts is a secondary feature. This is confirmed by the fact that the Cambridge manuscript, in one case, has preserved the original formula of qdl al'Alim (fol. I4v, corresponding to ? II of the text).

Thirdly, there is the isndd of the Cairo manuscript and of the edition of Saix al-Kautari. It begins with 'Ali b. Xalil, known as Ibn Qadi l-'Askar (d. 651) ('Abdalqadir i, 362, No. 998), and ascends through four

generations of Hanafi scholars, all of whom are found in the work of 'Abdalqadir and other books of Hanafi tabaqdt,to Maturidi (d. 333). This part of the isndd is not correct as it stands. To have five generations of transmitters cover the best part of 320 years would not, in itself, be impossible in a case of a particularly "high" isndd (cf. Studi orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida ii, Rome I956, 479), although it is

hard to see why this particular text, important as it is to the modern scholar, should in the Islamic middle ages have evoked the interest necessary to secure for it this particular form of transmission, but an interval of I03 years between the death of Ibn Qadi l-'Askar and the

death of his immediate predecessorin the isndd cannot be accepted, and it is almost equally difficult to admit that a span of I58 years should have been covered by the two preceding generations in the isndd as it stands. It is impossible to explain all this by postulating copyists' omissions, and we must conclude that at least this lower part of the isndd was put together rather carelessly. The higher part of the isndd, from Maturidi onwards, does not suffer from the same objection; each of its generations 1 Or rather, in modern terminology, of his Fiqh al-Absat; cf. F. Kern in: MSOS xiii/2

(I9IO),

142.

Joseph Schacht

IO0

is known to have been in immediate contact with those that precede and follow it. It ends as follows: Abfu Sulaiman Miisa al-Cuizacani (d. after 200) 1 and Muhlammad b. Muqatil ar-Razi (d. 248) 2-Abf Muti' al-Balxi (d. I97 or I99) and 'Isam b. Yfisuf al-Balxi (d. 215) 3-Abi Muqatil (d. 208)-Abu H.anifa (d. I50). I see no reason to doubt this part of the isndd; it also explains why the name of Abui Muti' was chosen for insertion into the text of the second group of manuscripts. The isndd is connected with the text by the words fi-md acdbahu 'ald as'ilatihf, which imply that the questions are in the words of Abii Muqatil and the answers in the words of Abu HIanifa. We are not deceived by this literary convention which found particular favour in Iraq (cf. my Origins, 238). The text of the questions is extensive enough for us to recognize their style as identical with that of the answers (see, e.g., ?? I, 20), both must therefore have been written by the same author, and their style is definitely different from that of Abu Hanifa's Risdla ild 'Utmdn al-Battz 4 and of the Fiqh al-A bsat 5. We must therefore regard Abu Muqatil as the real author of the treatise and not merely as its first transmitter, and an analysis of its contents will show that it fits exactly into the second half of the second century. In the other manuscripts and in the Hyderabad edition the text begins with a long, fulsome eulogy in rhymed prose, the one of which Hacci Xalifa quotes the first words, and which certainly cannot be ascribed to that early period. But the Cairo manuscript (and Saix al-Kautari's edition) have instead a simple hamdala and a short tasliya, followed by a concise preamble the style of which fits perfectly into the period: ammd ba'd, fa-iuska bi-taqwa lldhi wa-td'atihl, wa-kafd bi-lldhi hasTban wa-cdziyan, wa-razaqand lldhu haydtan taiyibatan wa-munqalaban karlman, wa-qad acabtuka fi-md sa'alta 'anhu, etc. Obviously the original preamble, perhaps written on the verso of the first leaf, together with the isndd, got lost in the archetype of the other manuscripts and was replaced by the eulogy. The text of the Cairo edition is generally better than that of the Hyderabad edition, except for the loss of short passages through homoeoteleuton in ? ? 28, 4I, 43, and 44, which are probably printer's mistakes. 1 cAbdalqadir ii, 186, No. 580 (where at-tamdann is an error for al-mi'atain); Ibn Qutlubuga 55, No. 227; Laknawi 216; Brockelmann, GAL2 i, i80, ? 4, and Suppl. i, 291 f. (date to be corrected). 2 Ibn Hacar al-cAsqalani, Lisan al-Mizdn v, No. 1261; the same, Tahdib atTahdib ix, No. 760; cAbdalqadir ii, 134, No. 4II.

3 DahabI ii, No. 1555; Ibn Hacar al-'Asqalani, Lisdn al-Mxzdn iv, No. 413; cAbdalqadir i, 347, No. 96I; Laknawi 16. 4 I regard this Risila as authentic, notwithstanding Kern's slight hesitation

in MSOS xiii/2,

I42,

n.i.

5 In this last treatise, the contributions of the transmitter Abui Muti' are restricted to short, formal questions.

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

IOI

The whole of the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim is imbued with the doctrines of the Murci'a (see, e.g., ?? 5, 6, IO, I8 ff., 27, 28, 31), although the problem of praying behind any just or unjust imam is missing, and it corrects some of the misconceptions concerning their attitude which have prevailed because our information was derived mainly from their opponents (see, e.g., Fiqh al-Akbar II, ? I4, and the comment of Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, 221). The Murci'a is not at all tolerant or irenical (?? 2-4), but it is careful and cautious in dogma (?? 29, 32 ff., and elsewhere), and it is in this last sense that we must interpret an isolated, seemingly latitudinarian, passage 1. To determine the attitude which the Muslim should take towards other Muslims, is one of the main concerns of the author. Notwithstanding the uniformity of its style in questions and answers, the Kittb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim reflects actual discussions and polemics, both between the several schools of thought among the Muslims (?? I, IO, 24, 25, 35), and between Muslims and non-Muslims, where the Muslims were confronted with questions which demanded an answer (?? 42, 43). The treatise is not addressed to specialists, as Abui Hanifa's Risdla ild 'Utmdn al-Battz was, but it concentrates on popular, sometimes even somewhat naive problems, with a great deal of elementary explanation and embroidery, in order to attract interest (?? 8, IO, II, I3, i6, 20, 2I, 37 f., etc.) 2. The popular appeal is also served by the admiring and laudatory remarks with which the disciple, at the beginning of each question, regularly comments on the preceding answer of the master (cf. p. IOI, n. I). It is further served by an abundance of homely, familiar parallels and examples, taken from everyday life; they occur, occasionally in groups of more than one, in 28 out of the 45 paragraphs of the treatise, mostly in the answers but in at least three cases also in the questions. These parallels are often of the character of elementary psychological observations (?? II, 19, 20, 21, 22, 38). The author expresses strong hostility to the Traditionists, such as would be expected of an adherent of one of the ancient schools of religious law, and in this particular case, that of Iraq (?? 2, 4) 3, and he uses a well-known argument of the Iraqians against traditions (? 30); his treatment of those traditions which he discusses allows us to date 1 In ? 17 the disciple, commenting on the preceding answer of the master, says: "How well you judge the doers of good and the doers of evil among the believers, how well you know the excellence of [the ones], and how compassionate you are to [the others]." 2 It is an early representative of the popular Hanafi current of theology of which I have spoken in Studia Islamica i (I953), 36 ff. 3 On their part, the early IHanbalis, i.e. Traditionists, were strongly hostile to the Murci?a; cf. H. Laoust, in: REI xxix (1961), 36.

I02

Joseph Schacht

his treatise in the second half of the second century (?? 4, 23, 30, 31). It is in keeping with this date that the author, whilst basing his definition of ircd' on the Koran (? 28), speaks of the Murci'a as of a movement to which he did not belong (? 4). In fact, already Abi HIanifa,in the Risala ild 'UUtmdn al-Battz, had protested against his school of thought being called by this name; he preferredthe name ahl al-'adl ("not in the sense which it acquired in the Mu'tazila") and ahl al-sunna (Kern,in Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie xxvi, I69, n. 2; see p. 37 f. of Saix al-Kautari's edition). The author currently uses 'adl for "truth" (?? 4, 8, 12, 14, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 41), only once in the sense of "(divine) justice" (? 31), and he

calls the group to which he belongs,that is to say the Murci'a, ahl al-'adl (? I7). The main interest of the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim lies, in my opinion, in the fact that it introduces us to the popular aspect of the Murci'a and, through its repeated insistance on the hope and fear (raca' and xauf) that they feel for themselves and for their fellow-Muslims (?? 15, 28, 36, etc.) 1, makes clear to us the religious, as opposed to the theological, mainspringof their attitude. II The manuscript R. 13. I9 in the library of Trinity College,Cambridge, contains on fol. iv-39r the autograph of the Nusra ad-Diniya, completed in Cumada II, 973 by an anonymous author 2. It consists of a preface and fifteen sections: I. On knowledge and faith. 2. On the proposition that faith is neither increased by good works nor diminished by the commission of sins. 3. Whether the commission of sins excludes a man from faith. 4. Whether good works are nullified by evil works. 5. Whether a believer who commits a grave sin becomes an enemy of Allah. 6. Whether our faith is the same as that of the angels and the prophets. 7. On faith and its motives. 8. On the main articles of faith. 9. On the use of the formula "If Allah will" as relating to faith. IO. On the origin of sects amongst the Muslims. 1 The same concepts recur significantly in the last paragraph of Tahawl's cAqida and in the two last paragraphs of the Sawdd al-A czam of Hakim as-Samarqandi. 2 E. H. Palmer, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, Cambridge I870, 44-46. Palmer, being misled by the introduction, erroneously identified it with Tahawi's CAqfda.

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

I03

On the six original sects which are in Hell. Against the isfis and their practices. I3. On the legitimate place of private prayer, and against unnecessary dejection. I4. On the qualities of the ahl as-sunna wal-cama'a. I5. In praise of knowledge and reason, and final exhortation. ii.

12.

The contents of the work are in keeping with its date. The author refers both to the Fiqh AkbarII and the Fiqh AkbarIII as "AbuiHanifa's book called Fiqh al-Akbar", and (in a quotation, it is true) accepts the Wasiyat Abi Hanifa as another work of the master; this, and the allembracing reference to "the doctrine (madhab)of Abui Hanifa, Malik, Safi'i, and Ahmad b. Hanbal" (fol. 8r) shows how blurred the old, clear-cut distinctions between the several schools of theological thought had become. In marked contrast with the old Hanafi attitude, the author declares in section II (fol. 27v), that the six original sects, "the Qadariya, Cabariya, Rdfidzya, Xdriciya, Musabbiha, and Murci'a", each of them divided into I2 sub-sects, are in hell beyond doubt (bild tawaqquf). In section I5 (fol. 35v), on the other hand, he returns to an old custom of collecting traditions directed against the Traditionists, explicit traditions which were not yet known to AS'ari (?) in the Risdlat Istihsdn al-Xaud fi 'Ilm al-Kaldm or to Mgturidiin the introduction of his Kitdb at-Tau.hid.The Nusra ad-Diniya places itself firmly within the Hanafi tradition. The author quotes numerous later works, all of them, as far as I can see, by IHanafi(or Mgturidi)authors, the whole of his section 14 is derived from the Cdmi' al-Mudmardtwal-MuSkildtof Yfisuf b. Qasim al-Kduiizi, known as Nebire (about 800) 1, and he refers to the fatwds of his contemporaries Abui s-Su'fid and Kamalpagazade (fol. 2ov). One feature of interest in this treatise of theology is that it clearly expresses the particular concerns of the author, especially in section I2 which is directed against the sufis. Here, he refers (fol. 30v) to numerous "Mollahs (mawdli) of Rfim", including the two scholars just mentioned. The last section, too, expresses the same concern when he forbids the study of astrology which "is an illness", but permits the study of as much of astronomy as is necessary for determining the qibla, and also the study of medicine. Another feature of interest is that the Cambridgemanuscript is obviously the autograph of the author. From fol. 3or onwards, we find tentative drafts crossed out and replaced by a definite wording, and I 1 Brockelmann,GAL2 i, I83 f.; Suppl. i, 296, ? I2, No. 9. Hacci Xalifa (v, 455, No. 11625) informs us that this work, a commentary on Qudirl's Muxtasar, contained a section fi bayan as-sunna wal-cama'a.

Joseph Schacht

0o4

find particularly endearing the last page, fol. 39r, where the author first wrote fasl, to introduce a new section, but then thought better of it, crossed it out, and added the customary few lines of conclusion. A third feature of interest is that the author knew and used the Kitabal-'Alim wal-Muta'allim (not a commentary on it, as I said erroneouslyin Studia Islamica i [I953], 25), in the form of a dialogue between AbuiHanifa and AbuiMuti' al-Balxi, to a considerableextent in the first half of his text. Not only does he himself start with the words with which the disciple starts in that treatise (? I), and later on in the introduction uses words from another question of the disciple (? II), but he has also incorporated more or less extensive passages of the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim in the following sections: section i contains extracts from ?? 3-5 4 5 6 8

? 3I ?? I8-2I, 14 ?? IO-I3 ? 39.

That the author of the Nusra al-Diniya should have had recourseto the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim is in itself remarkable. III I will now give a short account of the contents of the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim. ? 1. Question: The disciple wishes to know the reasons for his belief, so that he may be able to answer his interlocutors, and also have a reasoned understanding himself. Answer: Yes, "amalis the corollary (taba') of 'ilm; 'ilm with a little 'amal is better than ignorance with much 'amal; see sura xxxix. 9 and xiii. 19.

? 2. Q.: The most despicable school of thought consists of those who hold that one ought not to venture where the Companionsof the Prophet did not venture. The disciple asks for an argument against them. A.: To do as the Companions did would be sufficient if we were in their position, but we are confronted by enemies who attack us and declare shedding our blood lawful; therefore we must know who is right and who is wrong 1. Also, though the tongue keep silent in the strife of opinions, the heart must make a decision in favour of what is right. 1 This argument occurs already in Hasan al-Basri's Risala (Islam xxi [I933], 68), and is taken a step further in AScari's (?) Risalat Istihsan al-Xaud ft CIlm al-Kalam.

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

I05

? 3. Q.: Is it harmful not to know who is right and who is wrong? A.: It is not harmful insofar as you are not responsible for the acts of those who are wrong, but it is harmful (a) because it makes you ignorant, (b) because there may occur to you a doubt (?ubha)which has occurredto others and you may be unable to solve it, and (c) because you do not know whom to love or to hate "in God" (fi lldh)1. ? 4. Q.: If someoneholds the right opinion but withholds his judgment on those who hold other opinions (in kdna racul yasif 'adlan wa-ld ya'rif caur man yuxdlif wa-ld 'adlahi), can it be said that he knows what is right? A.: He is ignorant of what is right ('adl) and wrong (caur).This group of people are in fact the most ignorant and despicable 2. They say, for example: "We know that the zdni is not an unbeliever, but those who say that when the zdni commits zind' he takes off faith (imdn)as he takes off the shirt (sirbdl),are perhaps right" (see below, ? 30 [p. III] for details of this tradition). They also regard the person who dies without having performed the hacc although he was able to do so, as a believer, but do not disavow those who say: "He died as a Jew or Christian"3. They disavow the opinion of the Si'a and [nevertheless]hold it, disavow the opinion of the Xdricis and [nevertheless] hold it, disavow the opinion of the Murci'a and [nevertheless]hold it (cf. above, p. I02), holding that [all] this is true and [at the same time] declaring the opinions of those three groups to be false. They relate, in support of this, narratives (riwdydt)which, they allege, go back to the Prophet. But we know that Allah has sent the Prophet in order to produce unity and not diversity of doctrine (li-yacma' bihs l-firqa . . wa-lam yab'athu li-yufarriq al-kalima) 4.

They pretend that disagreementarises from these traditions only because some of them are ndsix and others mansiix, "and we transmit (exactly) as we have heard it" (with the stylistic figure of iltifdt), but it is irresponsible of them to relate traditions some of which they know are 1 This expression occurs already in Malik's Muwa.tta' 58, 5. A similar expression, fi ddt Allah, occurs in ? I3, below. 2 ? ? 2 and 4 refer to the same group of people, the anti-rationalists who are also Traditionists. 3 This tradition occurs, in a slightly mitigated form, in Tirmidi, hacc, bab 3; Tirmidi declares it to be garib and criticises the isndd. The way in which the author speaks of this and the preceding statement, shows that they were in the stage of transition from anonymous sayings to formal traditions from the Prophet, which agrees with the second half of the second century as the date of the treatise. See further below, ? 31. 4 The Fiqh Akbar I, it is true, contains an article in favour of disagreement (art. 7), but this refers to disagreement on points of positive religious law and not on points of dogma (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, 112 f.). See also my Origins, 95 ff.

Io6

Joseph Schacht

mansix, because it is wrong nowadays to follow what is mansux 1. The Prophet certainly did not explain the same verse of the Koran in two different ways, but he made it clear what was ndsix and what mansix. Ndsix and mansiux occur only in the field of duties (amr and nahy), and not in that of established dogmatic truth (al-axbdr was-sifdt allati qad kdnat). This does not necessarilyimply that the opponents held the opposite opinion. The author obviously tried to make them appear as inconsistent as possible, and perhaps forced upon them the whole issue of nasix and mansix, whereas they merely "relatedwhat they had heard". ? 5. Q.: The disciple asks for an argument to refute the second kind of opponents who hold that Allah's religion consists of various parts (din Allah katir), i.e. doing all that is obligatory and avoiding all that is forbidden. A.: The religion of all Prophets was one, but their sari'as were different, as appears from Koranic verses which are quoted. The sari'as are the fard'id, but their observance is not [the same as] din; thefard'id come into play after the din has been acknowledged. Koranic verses are quoted to this effect. These fard'id are not part of faith (imdn). Imdn and 'amal are different. Again Koranic verses are quoted. It is on account of their imdn that the believers perform the ritual prayer, etc., and not vice versa. This is an outspokenMurci'iteposition, directedagainst the Xdricis and against the Mu'tazila.

? 6. Q.: What is imdn? A.: Imdn is tasdiq and ma'rifa and yaqin and iqrdr and isldm. With regard to tasdiq, three groups of men can be distinguished: those who give it with their heart and their tongue, those who give it with their tongue but not with their heart, and those who give it with their heart but not with their tongue (cf. below, ?? 36 [an important qualification] and 39, and Sawdd al-A'zam, ? 42). ? 7. Q.: Are all these three groups believers in the eyes of Allah ? A.: The first group are believers in the eyes of Allah and in the eyes of men; the second are unbelievers in the eyes of Allah but believers in the eyes of men because they cannot know what is in their hearts; they must be called believers on the strength of their outward profession; 1

This passage adds to our knowledgeof the polemics surrounding the rise of

traditions (cf. my Origins, 40 ff.). The traditions in the field of dogma proved to

be not less of a disturbing element than were those in the field of religious law (Origins, 96).

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

I07

the third are believers in the eyes of Allah but unbelievers in the eyes of men. The practice of taqiya falls under this heading. See further below, ? 27. This seems to be the earliest attested use of the term taqiya in its technical meaning.

? 8. Q.: But does not that definition, that imdn is tasdiq, ma'rifa, iqrdr, isldm, and yaqin, imply that it consists of various parts? A.: The master warns the disciple not to jump to conclusions prematurely. ? 9. Q.: The disciple now asks for an explanation of these other terms. A.: The master explains that they are different terms with the same meaning, i.e. Imdn. ? 10. Q.: The disciplethanks the master for this explanation, acknowledging that an ignorant person such as he may be upset by a statement when he hears it [first] but becomes quiet in mind when it is explained to him, and then asks: Why can we say that our Imdn is the same as (mitl) that of the Angels and of the Prophets, although these are more obedient to Allah than we are ? A.: Imdn is the same, and it is different from 'amal. Cf. Sawad al-A czam, ? 48. The question of the disciple reflects an objection that was presumably raised against the Murci'a by other schools of thought.

? 11. Q.: Why are they more godfearing and obedient than we are, and why do people say, when they see a failing in someone, "Hadd min da'f al-yaqfn"? A.: The popular expression is a mistake, because people do not know what yaqin means. We observe in ourselves when we commit a failing, that we do not throw doubt on Allah and on His revelation. The Prophets are more godfearing and obedient than we are because they were distinguished not only by their office as Prophets and Messengersbut by excellence in all eminent virtues (makdrimal-axldq),etc. The term makdrim al-axldq occurs from Ibn al-Muqaffac (d. about I40) onwards; cf. Bisr Faris, Mabahit CArabiya, Cairo I939, 34, n. I2.

? 12. Q.: The disciple asks for a parallel (qiyds). A.: The master praises qiyds which for the searcher after truth (haqq) has the same value as 'adl witnesses have for the owner of a right (haqq); if ignorant people did not deny the truth, the scholars would not have to go to the trouble of using qiyds and muqdyasa1. The master gives the 1 The ancient Iraqians, during the whole of the second century, hardly used qiyas as a technical term for reasoning by analogy in religious law (cf. my Origins,

Io8

Joseph Schacht

parallel of two swimmers of equal competence entering a fast-flowing stream, one of whom is less courageousthan the other, or of two patients sufferingfrom the same disease, who are given the same bitter medicine but one of whom is more courageousand eager to drink it than the other. ? 13. Q.: If that is so, are the respective rewards the same? If they are, what becomes of the eminence of the Prophets, and if they are not, do we not suffer injustice? A.: There is no injustice because we are not denied anything that is our right 1, and the Prophets are privileged in their rewards for their imdn and for all their acts of worship, etc., just as they were already privileged in this world, because no one can approach them with regard to worship, etc. Others may achieve eminence, with Allah's permission, through them, and they receive the equivalent of the rewards of those who enter Paradise thanks to their prayers 2. ? 14. Q.: Apart from polytheism, are there sins which are punished with certainty (al-batta),or are all or some of them forgiven? A.: No sin but polytheism is punished with certainty; we know that some are [or may be] forgiven, but we do not know which, and we do not know to whom Allah will want to forgive them. Reference is made to sura iv. 31 and 48 (= II6).

? 15. Q.: What is the expectation of forgiveness of the killer as compared with that of the person who gives an evil look? A.: If the killer is forgiven, the other is more likely to be forgiven, etc.; I have greater hope of forgiveness for him who commits small sins (ad-danbal-sagir) than for him who commits great sins (ad-danb al-kabir).... I have fear and hope for them both, but in differentdegrees. ? 16. Q.: Which is more meritorious: to ask forgiveness for a person who has committed a grave sin, or to curse him, or do we have the choice ? A.: It is more meritorious to ask forgiveness for him, unless his sin is polytheism, but it is not a sin to curse him. This is followed by a long, popular, elementary elaboration. ? 17. Q.: Do some of the ahl al-'adl (cf. above, p. I02) excel others in the doctrine they hold concerning the people of the qibla? A.: Their doctrine on sin (qauluhumfi ta'zim hurumdtAlldh) is one, only some excel others in knowledge, etc., and in their concern for the bad state of the community (siddat al-ihtimdmbi-fasdd al-umma), just io6 if.). It is possible that this praise of qiyas in a different meaning is an oblique polemic against the school of thought represented by Safi'i. Qiyas, in the meaning of parallel, example, occurs also in ? ? 15, i8, 37, and in the form maqayzs in ? 28. 1 The parable of the labourers in the vineyard, which expresses the same reasoning, occurs already as the last tradition in Saibani's version of the Muwa.tta'. 2 I have not come across this development of the doctrine of safd'a elsewhere.

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

Iog

as in an army confronting the enemy all have a common cause but some are better soldiers than others. This essentially political concern goes back to the earliest phase of Islamic dogmatics; at the same time, it is isolated in this treatise, making itself felt again in ? 28 only, and both considerations combine in dating the treatise in the second half of the second century.

? 18. Q.: If the believer commits grave sins (kabd'ir), does he become an enemy of Allah? A.: No, as long as he does not abandon tauhzd. ? 19. Q.: If he loves Allah, why does he disobey Him? A.: The master gives everyday examples of inconsistency in action. ? 20. Q.: How many godfearing men (adbid) have been overcome by desire, including Adam and Dawud! But tell me: does the believer commit the disobedience knowing that he will be punished for it? A.: No, he hopes he will be forgiven, and he expects he will have the opportunity of repenting before he falls ill and dies. ? 21. Q.: Does a man commit an act for which he fears he will be punished ? A.: Yes, he eats and drinks things which he fears will disagree with him, he engages in fighting, and he travels by sea; if he did not hope to escape the danger he would not do it. ? 22. Q.: Yes, says the disciple, I have myself eaten things which disagreed with me, resolved firmly not to do it again, and still could not resist them when I saw them. But now explain to me the term kufr. A.: Kufr in Arabic means inkdr, cuhid, takdTb.Just as one says mdtalani of the debtor who does not pay, but kdfaran{ of him who denies his debt, one must distinguish the believer who omits a duty without denying it, and who is called musz', from the kdfir. ? 23. Q.: What of a person who professes tauhid but says: I do not believe in Muhammad? (ana kdfir bi-M.) A.: That is not possible (hddd ld yakin), and if it happens we call him kdfir with regard to Allah and contradicting his own statement that he recognizes Allah; he disbelieves in Muhammad because he disbelieves in Allah, just as the Christians hold that Allah is one of three because they disbelieve in the One, and the Jews hold that Allah is poor, and that Allah's hand is fettered, and that Ezra is the son of Allah (sura iii. I8I; v. 64; ix. 30), and that Allah is in human form ('ald mitdl surat Ibn Adam), because they disbelieve in the Self-sufficient one (gani). Caldmitdl surat Ibn Adam: It is remarkable that this alleged belief of the Jews, which is referred to also by Mascidi, Muruc ii, 389, should have become an anthropomorphic tradition. It appears as a tradition from the Prophet for the first time in Ibn Hanbal (d. 24I), Musnad ii, 244, etc., and is often referred to later (see,

IIO

Joseph Schacht

e.g., my Islam-Lesebuch, II5, II6, 126). Had the author known it as a tradition from the Prophet, he could hardly have referred to it in the way he does; the emergence of the tradition can therefore be dated between the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Mutacallim and Ibn Hanbal.

? 24. Q.: What if someone recognizes Muhammad as the Prophet but desires to kill him ? A.: This is absurd (muhdl) 1, just as if someone said: I love you more than anyone else but desire to kill you with my own hand and to eat your flesh. ? 25. Q.: What if someone says: I recognize Allah but wish I could say that Allah has a son? A.: That is the same; all these are questions with a catch in them. You might as well say that a dead person can have a lustful dream. ? 26. Q.: Is not nifdq today the same as the original nifdq, and kufr today the same as the original kufr? And what was the original nifdq like ? A.: Yes, they are the same. The original nifdq was denial in the heart and outward approval with the tongue, as is shown by suras lxiii. I and ii. 14.

In other words, the question of works was not part of the concept in the time of the Prophet. This paragraph is directed against the Xdricis; cf. Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, 45.

? 27. Q.: By what criterion does Allah call certain persons believers and unbelievers, and by what criterion do we call them so ? A.: Allah calls them believers and unbelievers on the basis of what is in their hearts, and we call them so on the basis of their outward profession (at-tasdiq wat-takd?b), appearance (zIy), and worship. The Muslims in the time of the Prophet called the Mundfiqs believers, although they were unbelievers in the eyes of Allah. Also the recording angels write down only what appears outwardly. Who pretends to know what is in the heart, arrogates to himself knowledge which only Allah has, and that is kufr punishable by Hell. ? 28. Q.: What is the origin of ircd', what is its explanation, and with regard to whom is ircd' exercised ? A.: The origin of ircd' goes back to the angels; when Allah asked them, saying, "Inform Me of the names of these", they replied, "Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us" (sura ii. 31 f.). Allah did not even allow the Prophet to talk or to act against 1 The master also calls it "a question with a catch in it" (min masd'il al-muta'annitin); this and the following question are obviously arguments produced by the opponents of the Murci'a.

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

III

anyone without certain knowledge, as appears from sura xvii. 36, so how can ordinary people do this ? Ircd' means suspending one's judgment (wuquf) and saying Alldhu a'lam with regard to things which one does not know or tales which one cannot verify by experience or parallels (at-tacdrib wal-maqdyis). The author gives a fictitious example of irca' which represents exactly the conditions of the Islamic community after the first civil war 1. It is also ircd' to suspend judgment on sinners. We hold that people fall into three classes: (a) the Prophets who belong to the people of Paradise, and those of whom the Prophets have said that they belong to the people of Paradise, (b) the Polytheists of whom we declare that they belong to the people of Hell, and (c) the Monotheists on whom we suspend judgment and for whom we hope and fear. Suras ix. 102 and iv. 48 (= II6) are quoted. ? 29. Q.: Do you predicate Paradise of anyone whom you see assiduous in fasting and prayer, other than members of class (a) ? A.: No, only of those of whom a nass predicates it, and the same is true of Hell. ? 30. Q.: What of people who relate the tradition: "If the believer commits zind' he takes off faith (fmdn) over his head as he takes off his shirt (qamis), then when he repents faith is returned to him?" 2 If you accept their assertion as true, you have adopted the opinion of the Xdricfs; if you are in doubt concerning it, you are in doubt concerning [the opinion of] the Xdricis and have abandoned the true opinion ('adl) which you held 3; and if you say their assertion is wrong, they reply that you contradict the words of the Prophet, because they relate it on the authority of certain persons, going back to the Prophet. A.: I say they are wrong, but that does not mean that I contradict the words of the Prophet; the master explains that in detail and points out that the Prophet said nothing that contradicted the Koran. What they relate contradicts the Koran; the Koran mentions az-zdniya waz-zdni (sura xxiv. 2) but does not say that they are not believers 4; it also concern for the state of the community, expressed in 1 The political-religious ? I7, above, makes itself felt in the wording of this fictitious example (ida kunta fi qaum cala amr hasan camZl, etc.). 2 Cf. above, ? 4. A tradition to the same effect but with a somewhat different wording is quoted in the comments of Tirmidi, iman I , and in Hakim an-Naisaburri, Mustadrak, i, 22, on which see the comments of Saix al-Kautari, 24, n. i. A less crudely formulated version occurs in Buxari, hudid I, Ibn Maca, fitan 3, Abu Dawuid, sunna I5, Ibn Qutaiba, Ta'wzl Muxtalif al-Hadzt, 212, Tirmidi, imdn II. 3 Cf. above, ? 4. It is taken for granted that the XaricTs are wrong. 4 This argument gains its force if it is realized that this is followed in verse 3 by the expressions zdniya au mugrika and zdnin au mu.rik, where au is the operative word.

Joseph Schacht

112

says wa-lladdn ya'tiydniha minkum (sura iv. I6), where the word minkum shows that Muslims are meant. To reject anything that is related from the Prophet because it contradicts the Koran, does not mean contradicting the Prophet, etc. Everything that the Prophet did say, whether we heard it or not, we accept unquestioningly and believe, but we also declare that the commands of the Prophet always corresponded exactly with the commands of Allah [i.e. in the Koran]. The author elaborates this in detail. This is why the Koran says: "Who obeys the Prophet obeys Allah" (sura iv. 80). This reasoning is typical of the Iraqians in the second century. Cf. my Origins, 45 f.

? 31. Q.: What of people who say that from him who drinks wine, no ritual prayer is accepted for forty days? And what makes good deeds invalid ? A.: I do not know the [correct] interpretation of that saying of theirs (tafsir alladi yaqilin) 1, but I do not contradict them as long as they do not give it an interpretation which we know [delete the redundant la here] cannot be right (muxdlif lil-'adl) because we know that Allah in his 'adl either holds man responsible for his sin or forgives him, credits him with the duties he has performed and debits him with his sins. Numerous verses from the Koran, beginning with sura ii. 286, are quoted in support. To say differently would mean attributing injustice (caur) to Allah, but Allah does not commit wrong (zulm). The author goes on quoting the Koran. Three things only can wipe out good deeds: (a) polytheism; (b) if a man does a good deed for the sake of Allah (yuryd ... wach Allah) and then reminds the recipient of it (for this, sura ii. 264 is quoted); (c) if he does a good deed out of hypocrisy, because then Allah does not accept it from him (cf. Fiqh Akbar II, ? 15 [Wensinck, I93, and comment, 222 ff.]). No other evil deeds wipe out good deeds. ? 32. Q.: If someone declares that you are an unbeliever, what do you say of him? A.: I say that he lies but I do not call him an unbeliever. Lyingly to insult Allah and the Prophet is one thing, lyingly to insult me is another, and it does not entitle me to lie about the person who lies about me. This is laid down in sura v. 8. 1 The saying appears as a tradition from the Prophet in Tayalisi (d. 204), No. I9oI;

Ahmad b. Hanbal

(d. 241) ii, 35, I97; vi, 71; Darimi, asriba 3; Ibn Maca,

asriba 4; Nasa'i, asriba 43; Hakim al-Naisaburi, Mustadrak i, 30. The date of the treatise can be fixed at a time when the author could still refuse to accept it as an authentic saying of the Prophet, but already had to take it seriously, i.e. in the second half of the second century.

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

II3

"I say that he lies but I do not call him an unbeliever": This attitude rejects the doctrine of the Xdricis but at the same time avoids the systematic difficulty inherent in the tradition in which the disapproval of the XdricZ opinion was commonly expressed; cf. Wensinck, 40 f. The date of the treatise would therefore be later than that of this, presumably very early, tradition. For further Murci'ite reactions to problems posed by the Xdricis see below, ? ? 44 and 45.

? 33. Q.: What of someone who declares that he himself is an unbeliever ? A.: It is not proper for me to say that he is right, any more than if he said that he was a donkey. Only if he says "I will have nothing to do with (bars'min) Allah", or "I do not believe in Allah and his Prophet" do I call him an unbeliever, even though he calls himself a believer. Conversely, if he declares that Allah is one and believes in Allah's revelation I call him a believer, even if he calls himself an unbeliever. ? 34. Q.: What if he says "I will have nothing to do with your religion", or "with what you worship"? A.: I ask him what he means, and only if he says that he means Allah, or the religion of Allah, do I call him an unbeliever. ? 35. Q.: Is not he who obeys Satan and desires his approval (marddt) a kdfir and a worshipper of Satan? A.: Do you [really] know what you mean by this question 1? If a believer sins, he does not by his sin intentionally become obedient to Satan and desirous of his approval, although his act is consistent with obeying Satan. ? 36. Q.: What does worship ('ibdda) mean? A.: In 'ibdda are combined obedience, desire (ragba)and acknowledgement of lordship; if a man obeys Allah in zmdn, there enters into him hope and fear of Allah; if these [last] three qualities enter into him, he worships Him. He is not a believer if he is without hope and fear, although the [hope and] fear of one believer may be stronger than that of another. If a man obeys any other than Allah out of hope of recompense or fear of punishment from him, he worships him 2; if acting obediently by itself alone amounted to worship, every one who obeyed another person would worship him. ? 37. Q.: Does he who fears something or hopes for an advantage from something become a kdfir? A.: Fear and hope are of two kinds, one kind is the fear and hope of punishments and rewards which, a man believes, someone other than 1 The question reflects an objection that was raised against the Murci'a by their opponents. 2 This must be narrowly interpreted in its technical meaning, as explained in the following paragraph. Oriens 17

8

II4

Joseph Schacht

Allah has the power to bestow, and this is kufr; the other is the expectation of good things or misfortune which Allah may bestow through someone or by means of something ("aldyad dxar au min sabab sai'). For instance, a man expects help from his child or neighbour, carryingpower from his pack-animal, protection from the government (sultdn)1, and he drinks medicine in the expectation that Allah will make him profit from it. This does not make him a kdfir. He also flies from a thing through which, he fears, Allah may let a misfortune befall him, such as a beast of prey, a snake, a scorpion, or a house collapsing, but that does not imply kufr or doubt (sakk), it is only timidity. Moses said: "I fear that they will kill me" (sura xxvi. 14 - xxviii. 33), and Muhammad fled into the cave. ? 38. Q.: How is it possible for a believer to fear a created thing but not to fear Allah ? A.: [That is not really so.] The believer fears nothing more than Allah, as can be seen from the way he acts. For instance, if an illness or a misfortune from Allah befalls him, it does not enter his mind to blame Allah, on the contrary, he thinks of him all the more, whereas he would not hesitate to blame a prince, if he could safely do so, should one tenth of a tenth of that misfortune have befallen him through this prince. He fears Allah at all times, but the prince only when he can be observed. ? 39. Q.: What of him who does not know what Imdn and kufr are? A.: Men become believers by recognizing (ma'rifa) the Lord and regarding Him as truthful, and they become unbelievers by denying Him (inkdr). If they acknowledge (iqrdr)the Lord by worshipping Him and affirm His unity and regard as true what comes from Him, but do not know the terms imdn and kufr, they are not for that reason unbelievers once they know that [what] zmdn[stands for] is good and [what] kufr [stands for] is bad. ? 40. Does Imdnprofit the believer when he is punished [for his sins], and is he punishedafter having acquiredzmdnand while [still]possessingit? A.: The master points out that the disciple is asking him questions of a kind which he has not asked him before 2. The answer is yes; zmdn helps him not to be liable to the severest punishmentwhich is the punishment of kufr. ? 41. Q.: Why is it that the kufr of the unbelieversis one, though their modes of worship are many and different? 1 The term occurs with the same abstract meaning in ? I9 (camilan li-sultdn, "in government service"), but of a prince the term malik is used in ? 38. 2 The reason for this remark is not clear, and after this opening the answer of the master comes as something of an anticlimax.

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

II5

A.: For the same reason that the imdn of the inhabitants of heaven and of the believers among the inhabitants of earth, both the former and the present ones, is one, although their religious duties are many and different. If you ask a Jew he will say that he worships Allah and that Allah is He whose son is Ezra and who is in human form (see above, ? 23); if you ask a Christianhe will say that he worships Allah and that Allah is He who is in the body of Jesus and in the womb of Mary; and if you ask a Zoroastrian he will say that he worships Allah and that Allah is He who has a [male] companion (sarik) and a child (walad) and a female companion (sdhiba)1. Their ignorance and denial of the Lord is one and the same, although the ways in which they describe their objects of worship and their modes of worship are many and different. They describetheir objects of worship as being three or two, whereas you describe yours as being the One, so your object of worship is different from theirs. This is what is meant by sura cix. 1-3. ? 42. Q.: Why is it that they are ignorant of the Lord whilst they say that He is our Lord? 2 A.: The master quotes suras xxxi. 25 and xvi. 22, and gives the parallel of a child blind from birth that nevertheless speaks of day and night, yellow and red. ? 43. Q.: Do we know the Prophet through Allah, or do we know Allah through the Prophet? A.: The master explains that we know the Prophet through Allah, and quotes sura xxviii. 56. ? 44. Q.: Can waldya and bard'a exist simultaneously with respect to one person? 3 A.: The master defines waldya and bard'a and states that they can exist together; the believer often does some good and some evil works, and you stand solidly by him in his good but not in his evil works. But he who possesses kufr, has no good works whatsoever. Conversely, the person by whom you stand solidly in everything, is the believer who only does good works and avoids all evil works. ? 45. Q.: What is kufr an-ni'am? 1 This statement falls quite outside the compass of what Islamic theologians knew about Zoroastrians, and its exceptional character agrees with the early date of the treatise. My colleague, Professor E. Yar-Shater, has pointed out to me some features of Zoroastrian doctrine which may be the basis of it. It appears from what follows that the author was aware of the dualist character of Zoroastrian doctrine. 2 This and the following paragraph reflect problems which had presumably arisen in discussions with non-Muslims. 3 This and the following paragraph are concerned with problems raised by the Xaricis. See also above, ? 32.

II6

Joseph Schacht

A.: Kufr al-ni'am is denying that everything beneficent comes from Allah. He who does this is a kdfir. The master quotes sura xvi. 83. The term is based on suras xiv. 28; xvi. 72, II2 and xxix.

67; the Xdricis had

interpreted it according to their premises; the Kitab al-cAlim wal-Muta'allim gives the orthodox counter-interpretation. All this agrees with the early date of the treatise.

IV I have already formulated the conclusions which can be drawn from the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allimfor a better evaluation of the Murci'a. It remains for me to point out its importance in checking the validity of the modern critical approach to traditions. The treatise was composed in the second half of the second century, a period in which, in the field of religious law, the rising tide of traditions was on the point of overwhelming the defences of the ancient schools. The Kitdb al-'Alim walMuta'allim shows that the same was the case in the field of Islamic theology; what were later to become well-known traditions on points of dogma, were only just emerging from the status of sayings expressing partisan views (?? 4, 23, 30, 31), and only one particularlyearly tradition can be taken to be prior to the treatise (? 32). What is particularly important is that this is not the conclusion of modern critics but the typical reaction of an Iraqian scholar of the second century. It has also become clear how irrelevant and even nonsensical the criticisms are which the biographers of Traditionists directed against Abui Muqatil because, they said, he related as traditions sayings which he found beautiful although he had not heard them from his alleged authorities. In fact, what AbuiMuqatil does, is exactly the opposite; he is unwilling to accept the authority of statements which had just been transformed or were being transformedunder his eyes into alleged traditions from the Prophet. The statement of Wensinck that "the large mass of materials contained in the canonical collections, though it received its final form in the middle of the third century A.H., covers a period reaching no farther than the beginning of the second century" (The Muslim Creed, 59), may be literally correct as far as it goes, but it fails to take into account not only the selective suppression of "undesirable" traditions in the same canonical collections 1, but the emergenceof traditions, which were to find their way into some of the canonical collections, as late as the second half of the second century, a process which the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim enables us to observe at first hand 2. I could not wish 1 Cf. A. Guillaume, in JRAS, Centenary Supplement, 1924, 234; F. Nau, in 211 (I927), 313 and n. 2. 2 Cf. my Origins, 143 ff. Wensinck himself (Creed, 22I) found it "curious" that

JA,

An Early Murci'ite Treatise

117

for a stronger confirmation of the soundness of the method which I have advocated. In writing this paper, my thoughts have often gone back to the numerous occasions, more than thirty years ago, when I shared with Hellmut Ritter the pleasure of discovering in the libraries of Istanbul and Bursa new sources for the history of Islamic theology and religious law. I hope he will accept this modest contribution to the volumes of "Oriens" which are presented to him on his 70th anniversary, as a token of my

longstanding friendship and admiration. the Murci'ite opinion, expressed by Abu Hanifa in the Fiqh al-Absat (p. 52 of al-Kautari's edition), on the validity of the prayer behind every faithful man, be he of good or of bad behaviour, should have obtained a place in the Sunan of Abu Dawud as a saying of Muhammad.