Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:11:27.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ghaylan al-Dimashqi: The Isolation of a Heretic in Islamic Historiography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Steven C. Judd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The meaning and significance of accusations of heresy are difficult to ascertain, regardless of the religious setting or historical milieu in which they appear. Scholars studying medieval European religious history have described heresy as opposition to the Christian church's doctrinal authority, emphasizing that heretics were not only religious but also political dissenters. They questioned church doctrine per se, but also, perhaps more significantly, challenged the church's authority to determine doctrine. In early Islamic history, concepts of heresy and orthodoxy are somewhat more difficult to define. After the Rashidun, there was no dominant religious voice in the community. Instead, a variety of opposing parties struggled for the right to define doctrine. In such circumstances, there could be no orthodoxy, since none had sufficient moral authority or coercive power to impose their views to the exclusion of all others. Consequently, there could be no heresy either, because heretics are simply those whom the dominant religious authority deems to be outside the bounds of orthodoxy. Only after proponents of a particular set of views gained sufficient power to impose their views on others could heterodoxy become heresy.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , May 1999 , pp. 161 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

Author's note: Portions of this article were presented as a paper titled, “Heretics and Heroes: Ghaylān al-Dimashqī in Islamic History,” in a panel at the Annual Meeting of the Middle East Studies Association, Washington, D.C., 10 December 1995.

1 See, for example, Russell, Jeffrey B., Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1–6;Google ScholarMoore, Robert I., The Formation of a Persecuting Society (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), 68–70.Google Scholar

2 Wansbrough, John, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 120–25;Google ScholarLeff, Gordon, Heresy in the Later Middle Ages: The Relation of Heterodoxy to Dissent c. 1250–c. 1450 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 1:1;Google ScholarJudd, Steven, The Third Fitna: Orthodoxy, Heresy and Coercion in Late Umayyad History (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1997), 28–44.Google Scholar

3 Abū al-Hasan al-Ashʿarī, Maqālāt al-Islāmīyīn wa ikhtilāf al-musallīn (Istanbul, 1933), 132–41;Google ScholarIbn Qutayba, Maʿārif (Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1969), 625;Google ScholarMontgomery Watt, W., Free Will and Predestination in Early Islam (London: Luzac and Company, 1948), 40. Of al-Ashʿarī's twelve Murjiʿite eponyms, four can be positively identified as 8th-century figures: Jahm ibn Safwān (d. 746), Ghaylān al-Dimashqī (d. ca. 733–43), Abū Hanīfa (d. ca. 767), and Abū Shamir (d. mid-700s). Eighteen of the thirty Qadarites and eleven of the sixteen Murjiʿites listed by Ibn Qutayba were definitely 8th-century figures.Google Scholar

4 Regarding al-Hārith, see Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madinal Dimashq (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1995-), 11:427-31.Google Scholar For discussions of al-Hasan's exchange with ʿAbd al-Malik, see Helmut, Ritter, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1954),Google Scholar s.v., “Hasan al-Basri,” 3:247–48; idem, “Studien zur Geschichte der islamischen Frömmigkeit I. Hasan al-Basri,” Der Islam 21 (1933): 1–83; Obermann, Julian, “Political Theology in Early Islam: Hasan al-Basrī's Treatise on Qadar,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 35 (1935): 138–62;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchwarz, Michael, “The Letter of al-Hasan al-Basri,” Oriens 20 (1967): 15–30;CrossRefGoogle Scholarvan Ess, Josef, Anfänge muslimischer Theologie (Beirut: Beirut Texte und Studien, 1977), 18;Google Scholaridem, Theologie und Gesellschafi im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991), 2:41–51;Google ScholarCook, Michael, Early Muslim Dogma (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 117–23. Van Ess and earlier scholars have generally accepted the attribution of the risāla to al-Hasan, but Cook has cast serious doubt on its authenticity, suggesting that it was an 8th-century forgery (p. 120).Google Scholar

5 Abū Nuʿaym, Hilyat al-awliyāʾ (Beirut, 1967), 5:246–353;Google Scholarvan Ess, Josef, “Umar II and His Epistle against the Qadarīya,” Abr Nahrain 12 (1972): 19–26;Google Scholaridem, Anfänge, 113–36; idem, Theologie, 1:134–35;Google ScholarCook, , Early Muslim Dogma, 124–36;Google ScholarZimmerman, F. W., “Review of Anfänge by van Ess, J.,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 16 (1984): 436–41.Google Scholar Van Ess argues for the authenticity of this letter in Anfänge, but in Theologie he concedes that its authenticity is uncertain. Cook argues that ʿUmar's risāla, like al-Hasan's, is an 8th-century forgery. Zimmerman suggests that the letter may be an even later ascription.

6 Several scholars have recognized al-Awzäʿī's importance as a legal scholar; see, for example, Schacht, Joseph, Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), 40–43;Google Scholaridem, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950), 70–73.Google Scholar Medieval Arabic sources describe him as imām ahl al-shām, or even imām ahl zamānihi. They also acknowledge his influence in Muslim Spain: Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb (Hyderabad, 1907), 6:238–42;Google Scholar Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 35:147–229;Google Scholaral-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamā fi asmāʾ al-rijāl (Beirut, 1992), 17:308, 313–15.Google Scholar The material examined in this study indicates that al-Awzāʿī was also active in theological debates and served as a close adviser to Hishām: see Judd, , Third Fitna, 153–56.Google Scholar

7 Josef, van Ess, “Les Qadarites et laGoogle Scholar Ġailānīya de Yazīd III,” Studia Islamica 31 (1970): 269–86; idem, Theologie, 1:83–90.Google Scholar

8 Montgomery Watt, W., “God's Caliph: Qurʾānic Interpretations and Umayyad Claims,” Iran and Islam, ed. Bosworth, C. E. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1971), 565–72;Google ScholarPatricia Crone and Martin Hinds, God's Caliph (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986);Google ScholarJudd, , Third Fitna, 132–41.Google Scholar

9 Russell, Dissent and Order, 20; Moore, Formation, 71; Cahen, Claude, “Points de vue sur la Révolution ʿabbāsīde,” Revue Historique 230 (1963): 299;Google ScholarDonner, Fred M., Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginning of Islamic Historical Writing (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, 1998), 285–90.Google Scholar

10 Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 48:191.

11 Ibid., 48:202. Regarding al-Walīd's character, see Wellhausen, Julius, The Arab Kingdom and its Fall, trans. Weir, M. (Beirut: Khayats, 1963), 350–58,Google Scholar and Gabrieli, Francesco, “Al-Walīd Ibn Yazīd, il califfo e il poeta,” Rivista degli studi orientali 15 (1934): 1–64.Google Scholar

12 The Murjiʾtes believed that judgment of grave sinners was deferred to God, implying that humans could not determine which sins excluded one from the Muslim community.

13 Ibn ʿAsākir's Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq provides the most extensive discussion of Ghaylān al-Dimashqī, but, like other sources, lacks firm birth and death dates. Ibn ʿAsākir named him Abū Marwān Ghaylān ibn Abī Ghaylān ibn Yūnus ibn Muslim al-Qadarī, mawlā of ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffän (Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 48:186) to which Ibn Qutayba added the nisba al-Qubtī (Ibn Qutayba, Maʿārif, 484). Regarding confusion about Ghaylān's name, see Susanne Diwald, “Der Bericht des Ibn ʿAsākir über Ġailān adDimašqī,” Festgabe für Hans Wehr (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1969), 42. Neither Ibn Saʿd's Tabaqāt nor Ibn Hajar's Tahdhib al-Tahdhib includes an entry on Ghaylan, though Ibn Hajar did include him in his Lisān al-mizān and Ibn Abl Hātim included a short entry in his Kitāb al-jarh wa'l-taʿdil (Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalāni, Lisān al-mīzān [Beirut, 1912], 4:424; Ibn Abī Hātim, Kitāb al-jarh wa'l-taʿdil [Beirut, 1973], 7:54).

14 Regarding travel to Jerusalem and Medina, see Ibn, ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 48:191, 199.Google Scholar Regarding his Armenian activities, see van Ess, Josef, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v., “Kadariyya,” 4:370;Google Scholar al-Qādī ʿAbd, al-Jabbār, Faḍl al-iʿtizāl wa-tabaqāt al-muʿtazila, ed. Sayyid, F. (Tunis, 1974), 231;Google Scholar Ahmad ibn al-Balādhuri, Yahyā, Ansāb al-ashrāf, MS, Reisülkuttap 597 and 598, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, II, 258–59.Google Scholar

15 Abü Zurʿa, Taʾrikh Abī Zurʿa al-Dimashqi (Damascus, 1981), 371;Google ScholarāAsākir, Ibn, Taʾrīkh madīnat Dimashq, 48:191.Google Scholar

16 Ibn Hajar, , Lisān, 4:424;Google Scholar Diwald, “Der Bericht,” 46.

17 Ibn ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 208–9. For a thorough discussion of Ghaylan's administrative roles during ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAziz's caliphate, see van Ess, Anfänge, 184–93.

18 A1-Tabarī, , Taʾrikh al-rusul wa'l-mulūk (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1901), 2:1733.Google Scholar

19 Ibn ʿAsākir, , Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 48:197–99.Google Scholar

20 Ritter, , “Hasan al-Basri,” 3:247–48;Google Scholaridem, “Studien zur Geschichte,” 1–83;Google ScholarObermann, , “Political Theology,” 138–62;Google ScholarSchwarz, , “The Letter of al-Hasan al-Basrī,” 15–30.Google Scholar

21 Van Ess, Anfänge, 18; Cook, Early Muslim Dogma, 117–23;Google ScholarEss, van, Theologie, 2:41–51;Google ScholarJudd, , Third Fitna, 237–44.Google Scholar

22 Josef, van Ess, “Maʿbad al-Guhanī,” lslamwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen Fritz Meier zum sechzigsten Ceburtstag, ed. Gramlich, Richard (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1974), 51–54.Google Scholar

23 Van Ess has argued that Maʿbad was executed for his involvement in Ibn al-Ashʾath's revolt (699–702). However, evidence of his participation in the revolt is meager, and it is quite possible that he was executed for his religious views instead: van Ess, “Maʿbad,” 67, 75–77; idem, Theologie, 1:72–73; Judd, , Third Fitna, 232–36.Google Scholar

24 Ibn Qutayba, Maʿarif 484; Ibn ʿAsākir, , Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 48:192;Google Scholaral-Dhahabī, , Taʾrikh al-Islām (Cairo, 1948), 3:305.Google Scholar

25 Van Ess, “Maʿbad,” 61–66; idem, Theologie, 1:72; Ibn Saʿd, , Kitāb al-tabaqāt al-kubra (Beirut, 1957), 7:264. There is some evidence that Ghaylan had followers in Basra: van Ess, Theologie, 2:164–83. Of course, the presence of Ghaylan's followers in Basra does not necessarily suggest that his doctrine originated there.Google Scholar

26 Ibn Hajar, , Tahdhib, 10:291;Google Scholaral-Dhahabī, , Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʾ (Beirut, 1981), 5:159.Google Scholar

27 al-Sijistānī, Abū Daūd, al-Sunan (Cairo, 1950), 4:285.Google Scholar

28 Ibn ʿAsākir, , Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 48:205.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., 48:190–91.

30 Ibid., 48:201–4; Ibn Hajar, , Lisān, 4:424;Google Scholar Ibn Nubāta, , Sarh al-ʿuyūn (Cairo, 1964), 290;Google ScholarEss, van, Anfänge, 217; Diwald, “Der Bericht,” 49.Google Scholar

31 Ibn ʿAsākir, , Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, xerographic edition of Zāhiriyya MS, Damascus (Amman: Dār al-Bashīr li'l-nashr wa'l-tawzī', n.d.), 17:161, 175;Google Scholar Ibn Hajar, , Tahdhīb, 10:291–93;Google Scholar Ibn Saʿd, , Tabaqāt, 7:454;Google Scholaral-Dhahabī, , Siyar, 5:158–59;Google Scholaral-Mizzī, , Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 28:472; ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Fadl al-iʿtizal, 230.Google Scholar

32 Van Ess, van, Anfänge, 217–20;Google Scholaridem, Theologie, 1:83–102.

33 Ibn ʿAsākir, , MS, 17:164–65, 176.Google Scholar

34 Ibid., 17:161, 175; Ibn Hajar, , Tahdhīb, 10:291–93;Google Scholar Ibn Saʿd, , Tabaqät, 7:454;Google Scholaral-Dhahabī, , Siyar, 5:158–59;Google Scholaral-Mizzī, , Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 28:472;Google ScholarDiwald, , “Der Bericht,” 49;Google ScholarEss, van, Anfänge, 217–21;Google Scholaridem, Theologie, 1:11–19. Many sources describe Makhul as “Imām ahl al-shām,” or as one of the four great scholars of his age.Google Scholar

35 For instance, of the eighteen members of Makhul's hadith circle listed in Ibn Hajar's Tahdhib (p. 10:290) only six were accused of being Qadarites. Some of these accusations are rather tenuous.

36 Ibn ʿAsākir, MS, 17:175; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb, 4:59–61, 10:191; al-Dhahabī, , Siyar, 5:159;Google Scholaral-Mizzī, , Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 28:472.Google Scholar

37 ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Fadl al-iʿtizāl, 339.M

38 Saʿd, Ibn, Tabaqāt, 7:248;Google ScholarAbū, Nuʿaym, Hilyat al-awliyāʾ, 4:88;Google Scholar Ibn Hajar, , Tahdhīb, 10:391;Google ScholarIbn, ʿAsākir, MS, 17:476;Google ScholarDiwald, , “Der Bericht,” 67;Google Scholarvan Ess, van, Anfänge, 204–5.Google Scholar

39 Ibn Hajar, , Tabaqāt, 10:391;Google ScholarNabia, Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 25, 161 ff.Google Scholar

40 Nuʿaym, Abū, Hilyat al-awliyāʾ, 4:82–83, 90–91;Google Scholar Ibn ʿAsākir, MS, 17:173, 477; al-Mizzi, , Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 29:225.Google Scholar

41 Al-Balādhurī, , Ansāb al-ashrāf, 258–59;Google ScholarEss, van, “Kadariyya,” 370;Google Scholaridem, Theologie, 1:74–75.Google Scholar

42 Ibn, Saʿd, Tabaqāt, 7:478;Google Scholar Diwald, “Der Bericht,” 67; Ess, Van, Anfänge, 205.Google Scholar

43 Ess, Van, Anfänge, 179–80, 202–3, 213–14;Google ScholarDiwald, , “Der Bericht,” 60–61.Google Scholar

44 Al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 29:223–24. Most sources praise Maymūn for his piety and asceticism and include accounts of his death during a supererogatory prayer session (al-Dhahabī, Siyar, 5:77; Ibn ʿAsākir, MS, 17:484; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib, 10:392; al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 29:226). Abū Nuʿaym also includes accounts of Maymūn wearing sufi garments under his cloak and of his words of praise for those who follow the sufi path (rajul ya ʿmalu fiʾ-darajāf) (Abū Nuʿaym, Hilyat al-awliyāʾ, 4:83, 91–92).

45 Nuʿaym, Abū, Hilyat al-awliyāʾ, 4:86.Google Scholar This version has Maymūn stating that he would rather lose one eye and keep the other to enjoy during his life.

46 Ibn ʿAsākir, MS, 17:477.

47 Ibn Hajar, , Tahdhīb, 10:391;Google Scholaral-Mizzī, , Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 29:218;Google Scholaral-Dhahabī, , Siyar, 5:72–73.Google Scholar

48 Ibn ʿAsākir's, Ibn Saʿd report is derived from Ibn Abī al-Dunya's recension rather than the more common recension of Abū ʿUmar ibn Hayyawayh.Google Scholar It is possible that Ibn Abī Dunya's version omitted material included in the more common version, though other biographies where Ibn ʿAsākir quotes both versions suggest that differences between the two recensions were minor: see Judd, Steven C., “Ibn ʿAsākir's Sources for the late Umayyad Period,” Ibn ʿAs¯kir and Early Islamic History, ed. Lindsay, James E. (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, forthcoming). Regardless, this possibility does not explain alterations to the Habīb variation.Google Scholar

49 Al-Tabarī, Taʾrikh, 2:1733; al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, 2:245–46. Although there are minor variations in these reports, they are essentially similar.

50 Ibn, Saʿd, Tabaqāt, 7:478;Google Scholaral-Bukhāri, , Kitāb al-taʿrikh al-kabīr (Hyderabad, 1941), 4.1:338–39;Google ScholarIbn, ʿAsākir, MS, 17:484;Google Scholaral-Mizzī, , Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 29:226–27;Google Scholar al-Dhahabī, Siyar, 5:78; Hajar, Ibn, Tahdhīb, 10:392.Google Scholar

51 Al-Tabarī, , Taʾrikh, 2:1732–35.Google Scholar

52 Ibn, ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 48:200;Google ScholarAbū, Nuʿaym, Hilyat al-awliyāʾ, 3:260;Google ScholarNubāta, Ibn, Sarh al-ʿuyun, 290; Muhammad ibn ⊇Abd Rabbihi, Kitāb al-āiqd al-farīd (Cairo, 1940), 2:377;Google Scholar Diwald, “Der Bericht,” 67; van Ess, Anfänge, 204–5.

53 Ess, van, Anfänge, 204–7.Google Scholar

54 A1-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf 2:258–59.

55 Van Ess, Anfänge, 238–42; idem, “Les Qadarites,” 269 ff.; idem, “The Qadariyya in Syria: A Survey,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Bilad al-Sham(Yarmouk,1984), 58;Google Scholaridem, Theologie, 1:75;Google ScholarIbn, ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 48:211–12;Google ScholarZurʿa, Abū, Taʾrikh Abi Zurʿa, 370–73;Google Scholaral-Tabarī, , Taʾrikh, 2:1566–72 (regarding al-Hãrith's revolt). Van Ess uses the congratulatory notes to support his argument for an early date, despite the fact that he doubts their authenticity [van Ess, Anfänge, 215–16].Google Scholar

56 ʿAsākir, Ibn, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 48:194–95Google Scholar; ʿAbd, al-Jabbār, Fadl al-iʾtizal, 232–33;Google ScholarZurʿa, Abū, Taʾrikh Abi Zurʾa, 371–72;Google ScholarDiwald, , “Der Bericht,” 53–59;Google ScholarEss, Van, Anfänge, 185–201.Google Scholar

57 Hajar, Ibn, Lisān, 4:424.Google Scholar Ibn Hajar's report on Ghaylan is brief but muddled and self-contradictory throughout.

58 Ess, van, Anfänge, 190.Google Scholar

59 Ibid., 213–14.

60 Ibid., 193–94; Diwald, “Der Bericht,” 60–61.

61 Ibn ʿAsākirGoogle Scholar, Taʾrikh madinat Dimashq, 48:204–8;Google ScholarRabbihi, Ibn ʿAbd, Kitāb al-ʿiqd, 2:379–80;Google ScholarNubāta, Ibn, Sarh al-ʿuyūn, 291–92;Google ScholarDiwald, , “Der Bericht,” 68–69;Google ScholarEss, van, Anfänge, 207–9.Google Scholar

62 Schacht, , Origins, 70–73, 288–89;Google ScholarEss, van, Anfänge, 207;Google Scholaridem, Zwischen Hadit und Theologie: Studien zum Entstehen prädestinatianisher Überlieferung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975), 118;Google ScholarJudd, , Third Fitna, 153–56;Google ScholarʿAsākir, Ibn, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 35:210–11;Google ScholarHātim, Ibn Abī, Taqdimat al-maʿrifa li-kitāb al-jarh wa'l-taʿdil (Hyderabad, 1952), 206, 216–17.Google Scholar

63 Watt, , “God's Caliph,” 565–72;Google Scholar Crone and Hinds, God's Caliph, esp. 24–42; Judd, , Third Fitna, 132–40.Google Scholar

64 Van Ess, Anfänge, 207–13.

65 ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Fadl al-iʿliz$amacr;l, 230.

66 Ess, Van, Anfänge, 179;Google ScholarIbn, ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 35:151;Google Scholar al-Bukhāri, Kitāb al-Taʾrikh al-kabīr, 3.1:326; al-Mizzi, Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 17:308.

67 Ess, Van, “The Beginnings of Islamic Theology,” The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1975), 98–101;Google ScholarCook, Michael, “The Origins of Kalām,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 63 (1980): 37 ff.Google Scholar Van Ess suggests that Muslims drew upon a common stock of ideas and methods of argumentation, which were not inherently Christian, while Cook argues that techniques were borrowed directly from Christian sources. In his review of Cook, Norman Calder joins the debate, emphasizing that the same theological questions and possible solutions were evident in Hellenistic Judaism as well: Norman Calder, “Review of Cook's, M.Early Muslim Dogma,” Journal of Semitic Studies 28 (1983): 180–87.Google Scholar This argument need not concern us here, since all three acknowledge that these meth- ods of argumentation were not uncommon in early Islamic Syria, regardless of their origins.

68 ʿAsākir, Ibn, Taʾrikh madīnt Dimashq, 35:147–229;Google ScholarIbn, Saʿd, Tabaqāt, 7:488;Google ScholarNuʾaym, Ab¯, Hilyat al-awliyāʾ, 6:135–47;Google Scholaral-Bukhāri, Kitāb al-taʾrikh al-kabīr, 3.1:326;Google Scholaral-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 17:307–12;Google ScholarIbn Hajar, , Tahdhīb, 6:238–42.Google Scholar

69 Ess, Van, Anfänge, 212–13.Google Scholar

70 ʿAsākir, Ibn, Taʾrikh madīnat Dimashq, 35:158–60.Google Scholar

71 Van Ess, Anfänge, 213.

72 See, for example, Cook, , Early Muslim Dogma, 94–95,Google Scholar and Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, 116.

73 Al-Ḥasan ibn al-Nawbakhtī, Mūsā, Kitāb firaq al-shiʾa (Baghdad, 1936), 6–7;Google Scholaral-Ashʿari, , Maqālāt al-lslāmiyin, 136–37;Google ScholarʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī, al-Farq bayn al-firaq wa bayān al-firqa al-nājiya (Beirut, 1990), 206–7;Google ScholarMuhammad, ibnʿAbd al-Karīm al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-milal waʾl-nihal (Cairo, 1977), 145.Google Scholar

74 Ignaz Goldziher described the Murjiʿtes as Umayyad loyalists, using the doctrine of irjāʾ to justify their stance: Muslim Studies II, trans. Barber, C. R. and Stern, S. M. (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971), 90–92.Google Scholar Wellhausen described them as “collectivists”: Arab Kingdom, 464. Hodgson considered them to be quietists who remained loyal despite the regime's impiety: Venture of Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), 1:264–66.Google Scholar For descriptions of radical Murjiʾites, see Madelung, Wilferd, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), 18,Google Scholar and Michael, Cook, “Activism and Quietism in Islam: The Case of the Early Murjiʾa,” Islam and Power, ed. Cudsi, A. S. and Dessouki, A. E. H. (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins, 1981), 18–19,Google Scholar and idem, Early Muslim Dogma, 33–43.

75 Some sources name him ʿUmar ibn Qays. See Hajar, Ibn, Tahdhīb, 7:489–90,Google Scholar and al-Mizzī, , Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 21:485–86,Google Scholar for a brief entry that includes al-Awzāʿi's assertion that Qays al-Māsir was the first to speak of irjāʾ. Cook discusses his possible role in the origins of the Murjiʾites, which van Ess dismisses as legendary: Cook, , Early Muslim Dogma, 80;Google ScholarEss, Van, Theologie, 1:158.Google Scholar

76 A1-Nawbakhtī, Kitab firaq al-shiʾa, 6–7.

77 Ibid., 9–10. In his discussion of the doctrine of the imāma (which was his primary concern), he did distinguish between Ghaylan and Jahm's assertion that any Muslim could lead the community and Abu Hanifa's view that the imāma was restricted to members of Quraysh.

78 Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Kitāb al-zīna fiʾl-kalimāt al-islāmiyya al-ʿarabiyya, in ʿAbd, Allāh Sallūmal- Samarraʾi, al-Ghulūw wa'l-firaq al-ghāliyah fī'l-hadārah al-islāmiyah (Baghdad, 1972), 267–69.Google Scholar Al-Rāzī labels the Mādiriyya as followers of Qays ibn ʿAmr al-Mādirī (sic), while al-Nawbakhtī named the same sect for ʿAmr ibn Qays al-Māsir. Confusion over his name is also evident in the biographical entries in Ibn Hajar and al-Mizzī, which name him ʿUmar rather than ʿAmr and quote al-Awzāʿī's description of Qays al-Māsir rather than ʿAmr ibn Qays: al-Mizzī, Tahdhib al-kamāl, 21:484–87; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb, 7:489–90. It is reasonable to assume that all of these references are to the same person.

79 Al-Rāzi, Kitāb al-zina, 262–66.

80 Al-Ashʿari, Maqālāt al-lslāmiyīn, 132–41.

81 Ibid., 138: “waʾl-firqa al-tāsiʿa min al-murjiʾa Abū Hanīfa wa ashābuhu.”

82 Regarding the relationship between al-Ashʿarī and the legal madhhābs, see Makdisi, George, “Ashʿari and Ashʾarites in Islamic Religious History,” Studia Islamica 17 (1962) and 18 (1963);Google ScholarBrunschvig, Robert, “Muʿtazilisme et Ašʿarisme à Baġdād,” Arabica 9 (1962). Henri Laoust argues that al-Ashʿari converted in 912 and that, since the Maqālāt alludes to events of 903, it must have been written in the decade prior to his conversion:Google ScholarLaoust, Henri, “L'hérésiographie musulmane souls les Abbassides,” Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale X-XII siècles 10 (1967): 162–63.Google Scholar Laoust does not, however, consider the possibility that the text was written over a longer period and may contain material from both periods. Nor does he rule out the possibility that the text was later edited or altered. Conversely, Makdisi argues that the content of the Maqālāt reflects a strong traditionalist bias, implying that it was written much later. Joseph Givony also suggests that al-Ashcari's discussion of the Murjiʾites originated after his conversion to Hanbalism: Joseph Givony, “Awsāf al-imām Abī Hanīfa fī adab al-firaq wa masāʾil mutashaʿʿiba,” Al-Karmil 8(1987)47.

83 Ess, Van, Frühe muʿtazilitiche Hāresiographie. Zwei Werke des Nāšiʾ al-Akbar (Beirut, 1971), 62 (Arabic text); Wilferd Madelung has questioned the attribution of the Kitāb al-Usūl to al-Nāshʾ, suggesting that it may be a work of another Muʿtazilite, Jaʾfar ibn Harb (d. 850). Wilferd Madelung, “Frühe muʿtazilitiche Häresiographie: das Kitāb al-Usūl des Gaʿfar b. Harb,” Der Islam 57 (1980): 220–36.Google Scholar

84 Van Ess, Frühe, 26–31, 53 (German text).

85 Ibid., 62 (Arabic text); al-Nawbakhtī, Kitab firaq al-shiʿa, 10.

86 Al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-milal, 144.

87 Al-Baghdādī, al-Farq bayn al-firaq, 202.

88 Ibid., 206; al-Ashʿari, Maqālāt al-lslāmīyīn, 136.

89 Al-Baghdādi, al-Farq bayn al-firaq, 203; al-Ashʿari, Maqālāt al-lslāmīyīn, 138; Givony, “Awsāf al-imām,” 49–50. While al-Ashʾarī and al-Baghdādī use similar vocabulary, their wording and order of presentation vary more here than in their material on Ghaylan.

90 A1-Ashʿari, Maqālāt al-lslāmīyīn, 154.

91 Ibid., 139.

92 Al-Baghdādī, al-Farq bayn al-firaq, 203.

93 Al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-milal, 147; al-Baghdādī, al-Farq bayn al-firaq, 205–7. For a detailed discussion of Abū Shamir and his “neo-Ghaylani” views, see van Ess, Theologie, 2:174–80.

94 Al-Shahrastāni, Kitāb al-milal, 148; al-Baghdādi, al-Farq bayn al-firaq, 206; van Ess, Frühe, 63 (Arabic text). Al-Shahrastānā's description of Ghaylan's definition of faith (al-īmān) appears to be a direct quotation from al-Baghdādī, though his discussion is shorter and excludes material al-Baghdādī attributed to Zurqān. Al-Ashʿari's treatment, which also excludes the Zurqān material, is similar, but not identical: al-Ashʿarī, Maqālāt al-lslāmīyīn, 136.

95 Al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-milal, 145; al-Nawbakhtī, Kitab firaq al-shiʾa, 9; al-Baghdādī, al-Farq bayn al-firaq, 204; al-Ashʿari, Maqālāt al-lslāmīyīn, 135.

96 Al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-milal, 144; al-Baghdādi, al-Farq bayn al-firaq, 203.

97 Al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-milal, 144, al-Ashʿari, Maqālāt al-lslāmīyīn, 138–39.

98 Al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-milal, 144 (wa min al-ʿajib anna Ghassān kāna yahki ʿan Abi Hanifa … mithla madhhabihi wa yaʿudduhu min al-Murjiʾa wa laʿallahu kadhaba kadhilika ʿalayhi).

99 Ibid., al-Baghdādī, al-Farq bayn al-firaq, 203; Givony, “Awsāf al-imām,” 52–54.

100 Givony, “Awsāf al-imām,” 55.

101 Al-Shahrastānī, Kitāb al-milal, 147. Al-Shahrastānī prefaced his description of the Sālihiyya by stating that he had intended to limit his discussion to the Pure Murjiʾtes, but that he thought it appropriate to mention the Sālihiyya and how they differed from the other Murjiʾtes.

102 Marie Bernand, “Le Kitāb al-radd ʿalā l-bidaʿ d'Abū Mutiʿ Makhūl al-Nasafī,” Annates Islamologiques 16(1980): 121.

103 Lewinstein, Keith, “Notes on Eastern Hanafite Heresiography,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 114 (1994): 590–91;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bernand, “Le Kitāb,” 95, 114–24. The anti-Qadarite hadith is also reported on the same isnād in lbn ʿAsākir, Taʾrikh madinat Dimashq, 48:190–91, and other sources.

104 See, for example, ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Fadl al-iʿtizāl, 229–33.