Der eine und das andere: beobachtungen an hiiresiographischen texten.

Wilferd, Madelung

Der Eine und das Andere: Beobachtungen an haresiographischen Texten. By JOSEF VAN Ess. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients/Beihefte zur Zeitschrift Der Islam, n.s., vol. 23. Berlin: WALTER DE GRLIYTER, 2011. 2 vols. Pp. xliv + 1510. $280.

This massive two-volume work, modestly described by the author in the subtitle as "Observations on Islamic heresiographical texts,"will surely be appreciated by most readers as a comprehensive handbook of the history of Islamic doxographical and heresiographical literature. It is obviously a worthy companion to van Ess's monumental Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra, now widely relied upon by scholars and students as a prime reference work in the field. In the present work van Ess begins his presentation with an analysis of the early history of the famous ljadith of the seventy-two sects into which Islam will be split. He pursues its later history throughout the main part of the book, the discussion of Islamic heresiographical texts and their authors chronologically arranged from the beginnings to the modern age. Many of these works are not yet edited and have been consulted by van Ess in manuscript, while some are not known to be extant. In the final part he examines Islamic heresiography as a literary genre, probes some of the technical terminology employed in it, and discusses its Sitz im Leben.

The literature of primary sources as well as of directly or indirectly relevant secondary studies concerning the subject of Islamic heresiography is immense. Like van Ess's earlier works, the present book abounds with footnotes providing references on virtually every page. The tightly printed bibliography, which excludes titles quoted only once throughout the book, stretches over seventy pages. Fortunately for the reader, van Ess has the gift of sailing over oceans of source material with ease and presenting his interpretations and inferences attractively and persuasively, even where the results must remain questionable. The study of oceans proverbially can never be exhaustive, and the present ocean of relevant literature keeps growing steadily as new sources are discovered and investigated. The critical reviewer, who might be tempted to add den Einen und das Andere to the book, would find himself quickly exceeding the limits of space set for reviews.

It remains to note a major aspect where van Ess's judgments seem distinctly questionable. Readers familiar with his earlier works may be surprised by his identifying so many Muslim authors as Shiites, Zaydis, Imamis, and Ismacilis, some of whom he earlier definitely viewed as non-Shigte. A case in point is the Mdtazili Abu 1-gasim al-Balkh" al-Kabi, author of one of the most influential heresiographies, whom van Ess described in his detailed article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica (1: 359-62) as a "Hanafite jurist and foremost representative of the Mdtazila in Khurasan" and as having "strong Zaydi sympathies." In the present book, however, he repeatedly identifies al-K[a.sup.c]bi as a Zaydi Mdtazili, adding (p. 329), "He thus represents that kind of Shi'ism which for generations already had found a home among the Mdtazila." The latter statement can immediately be discarded as mistaken. Early Zaydi theology was vigorously anti-Mdtazili in its profession of divine determinism and no early Zaydi scholars are known to have found a home among the Mdtazila. The first major Zaydi scholar to adopt Muctazili theology, and more specifically the theology of al-Kdb", was Yaliya al-Hadi ila l-Haqq, the founder in 284/897 of the Zaydi imamate in Yemen.

Can a Hanati M[u.sup.c]tazili scholar really be a Zaydi rather than merely having Zaydi sympathies? Van Ess seems to think so--he describes the Mdtazili author al-Hakim al-Jishumi (known in Yemen as al-Jushami) as a Zaydi who in his youth chose Hanafi and Mdtazili teachers for himself (pp. 365,76172). In reality the biographical sources clarify that, although descended from Ali's non-Fatimid son Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya, al-Hakim al-Jishumi and his ancestors belonged to the Sunni Hanafi community in Bayhaq. Only in his old age did al-Hakim convert and join the Zaydi community. Most of his works, including his large Quran commentary, are representative of Handl and Mu(tazili, not Zaydi doctrine. These facts were well known among the Zaydis in Yemen, who received and greatly appreciated his numerous scholarly works. Van Ess's imaginative suggestion (p. 363) that the Yemenites "were surprised that the Hakim in accordance with his Mdtazili creed and against the consensus of the school of al-Hadi ha l-klaqq placed the first three caliphs, even (Uthman, on an equal level with (Ali" is hardly credible.

Van Ess confirms his loose definition of a Shiite as anyone with strong sympathies for (Ali or his descendants, rather than someone who embraces 'Ali as the first Imam after the Prophet, when he describes Muhammad b. Yazdad al-Isfahani, the somewhat obscure author of a Mdtazili biographical dictionary entitled Kitab al-Masabik as "probably a Shin or at least a friend of the Shia" on the grounds that he speaks twice of three (Alids who were "fit for the caliphate."By this definition the caliph cUmar was a Shiite since he included 'Ali in the shrtra for the election of his successor, and indeed the great majority of Muslims are Shicites since few consider %lids as in principle unfit for the caliphate. The Sunni Mahdi, who is to restore right and justice in the world, has generally been expected to be a descendant of the Prophet, viz., of (Ali and Fatima, not of Umar or any other stock.

The underlying problem here is van Ess's insistence that the original schism dividing Shica from Sunna resulted only from the first fitna, the inter-Muslim war in which the third caliph 'Ullman was overthrown and killed (p. 94). Van Ess censures those heresiographers, Shiite and Sunni alike, who date the schism back to the time of the death of the Prophet and the famous events in the Saqifa of the Bania Sacida. cAli, van Ess holds, accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr and (Umar but was behind the revolt against (Uthman, provoking the murder of the caliph and the schism splitting his party (shia) from the larger Muslim community (jamaa). Only after 'All's death did the more radical of his shea begin to reject the caliphate of Abil Bakr and 'Lima and to vilify them and all the Companions of the Prophet who had backed them.

This historical perspective, which reflects the views of the early twentieth-century historians Henri Lammens and Leone Caetani rather than Sunni belief, is no longer tenable today after a further century of historical research. It is true that the appellation silica( 'Ali appears in history only after the rise of <Ali to caliphal power during the first fitna. The opposite group's name of shicat 'Ullman and 'Uthmaniyya likewise appears only after the death of <Uthman and most often refers to the partisans of Mucawiya as the one who was seeking revenge for the murdered caliph. The Sunni creed, however, does not accuse 'Ali in the murder of cUthman, but rather recognizes him as the fourth rightly guided caliph, thus legitimating him in his conflict with Mu<awiya, who insiduously put the blame for the murder on <Ali in order to gain the caliphate for himself. The Sunni historical sources describe 'Amr b. al<-A,5, cA'isha, and Talba as the principal Companions who promoted the revolt against 'Uthman and his overthrow. By mediating between the parties 'Ali sought to protect the caliph, his kinsman through Umm Hakim al-Baycla, his--and the Prophet's--paternal aunt. Even when he no longer felt able to intervene since (Utlunan rejected his counsel and accused him, he sent his sons Hasan and Husayn to defend the caliph as he was being besieged by the rebels. Hasan was lightly wounded during the siege.

It is also true that <All pledged allegiance to all three caliphs preceding him. However, he and the Banti Hashim in general pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr only after the death of Fatima, six months after the death of the Prophet. The reason evidently was that as the only surviving child of Muhammad, Fatima was his prime heiress and successor; and according to the Quranic law of succession she should have inherited seven-eighths of the property and rights of her father, while his surviving wives were collectively entitled to one-eighth. However. Fatima was not given her due. It may reasonably be assumed that the fact that the legal heirs of the Prophet were only women was disturbing and unacceptable to <Umar, a man of great ambition and deeply opposed to the idea of women's rights and the rule of women over men. This opposition led to the election of Aba Bala at the Saqifa meeting and <U mar's threat to set the house of the Prophet's daughter on fire with all her family inside. The election was later described by <Umar himself as a falta, a precipitous act (aptly translated by van Ess as "etwas iiberstlirzt," p. 809). In historical perspective, the falta was a military coup d'etat, in which the ruling house was overthrown, the life of the legitimate successor threatened, and the early Constitution of the Muslim community in Medina, under which Quraysh and other emigrants (muhajirun) and Medinan Ansar were equals, abolished and replaced by the caliphate of Quraysh, which turned the Ansr and other Muslims into subjects of Quraysh without voting rights.

It was the Saqifa meeting that caused the great schism in Islam, which has resulted in seemingly endless Muslim bloodshed since the wars of the ridda until the present day. Most Muslims at the time applauded (Umar's decisive action and prudent leadership in preventing the succession of a woman to the rule of the Muslim community and were prepared to believe Abfi Bakes word that the Prophet himself had disinherited his daughter and wives, the Mothers of the Faithful. Many Muslims evidently still do so. Yet many also believed and still believe that male descendants of the Prophet have a more legitimate hereditary right and are better qualified to rule the Muslim community justly than others, be they Qurashis or not. This is why van Ess can discover so many moderate Shicites among Muslim authors like al-Kacbi, Ibn al-Nadim, al-Muqaddasi, and Ibn Hawqal, who by most standards were equally good Sunnis and Mdtazilis. One may wonder whether in our modem age, when women's rights and the rule of women have become almost universally acceptable and sometimes preferred to male dominion, faithful Sunni Muslims may not begin to ask themselves whether the early community would not ultimately have fared better if they had obeyed the judgment of God in the Quran rather than backing the fateful coup of the new patriarchal leader of Islam.

WILFERD MADELUNG UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD