Download PDF | Mushegh Asatryan - Controversies in Formative Shiʾi Islam_ The Ghulat Muslims and their Beliefs-I.B.Tauris (2017).
219 Pages
Introduction
Towards the middle of the 2nd/8th century a man named Abu’lKhat.t.āb al-Asadī declared the Imam Jaʿfar al-S. ādiq (d. 148/765) to be God’s incarnation on earth. He went on to claim that the Imam had appointed him as his representative or prophet. At first Jaʿfar tolerated him, but then, perhaps for political reasons, cursed and banished him.1 Sometime later, in 138/755, Abu’l-Khat.t.āb and a number of his followers raised a rebellion against the ʿAbbasid caliphate in the Iraqi town of Kufa but were defeated, and Abu’l-Khat.t.āb was put to death by the governor of the city.
The group associated with his name, the Khat.t.ābiyya, were accused of libertinism and reputedly professed other teachings unacceptable to Jaʿfar al-S. ādiq and the majority Muslims, such as the transmigration of souls.2 Abu’l-Khat.t.āb’s rebellion was not an isolated incident in the early history of Islam, and his, by later Muslim standards, un-Islamic ideas were shared by many other individuals living in Iraq and mostly centred in Kufa. In fact, the first half of the 2nd/8th century was punctuated by revolts led by charismatic individuals, who regarded their contemporary Shiʿi imams either as divine incarnations or as gods, while reserving for themselves the role of messengers on behalf of the manifest imam to the rest of humankind.3
Some of these extremists shared the Khat.t.ābiyya’s belief in the redundancy of formal acts of worship and in the metaphorical interpretation of prohibitions, and believed that the souls of human beings were reborn into other, human or sub-human, forms. Some of them also taught that God’s first creations were ‘shadows and apparitions’ (az.illa wa-ashbāh. ), and that God had created seven worlds and placed in each of them an Adam and his progeny.4 All these rebellions were eventually crushed, the participants scattered or killed.
The beliefs that had inspired them, however, lived on, were put into writing and further elaborated. For their ‘extreme’ adoration of some members of the Prophet Muhammad’s family, the people who held these beliefs were branded as ‘extremists’ (from the Arabic ghulāt, sg. ghālin, henceforth, Ghulat and Ghali) by later Shiʿi and Sunni authors.5 In response, the Ghulat derisively called their critics ‘shortcomers’ (Ar. muqas.s.ira, sg. muqas.s.ir), for ‘falling short’ of recognising the true, divine or semi-divine nature of the Prophet and his offspring (henceforth to be referred to as ‘moderates’). During the 2nd/8th century, these ‘extremists’ formed an integral part of the Muslim community of Iraq, and initially they coexisted peacefully with those who did not share their ideas.6 At this period of Islamic history when the broader and now familiar divisions had not yet emerged, by contrast the Ghulat already possessed a clear communal identity. They formulated a coherent religious worldview and produced a sizeable corpus of literature. During the 3rd/9th century the difficult relationship between the Ghulat and the ‘moderates’ was exacerbated, becoming even more strained in its final years.
The death of the eleventh Imam, H. asan alʿAskarī, in 260/874 and the disappearance of his infant son, the twelfth Imam Muh.ammad al-Mahdī, created a crisis of authority in the Imāmī community. Al-Mahdī was declared to be in hiding, awaiting a time to return, and with no apparent legitimate successor to al-ʿAskarī, a series of different people came forward claiming to be in contact with the hidden Imam al-Mahdī, among whom were several representatives of the Ghulat. The claims of these ‘extremists’ were (sometimes violently) repudiated, and the control of the Shiʿi community passed to four successive ‘delegates’ (sufarāʾ, sg. safīr), who managed the affairs of the community on behalf of al-Mahdī. 7 Becoming now yet more marginalised, and perhaps giving in to pressure, a branch of the Ghulat left Iraq for Syria, taking with them many of their writings. They became known as the Nus.ayrīs (nus.ayriyyūn) after Muh. ammad b. Nus.ayr (d. after 254/868), one of their leaders who claimed to be the ‘Gate’ (bāb) of the hidden Imam. In Syria the Nus.ayrīs found a safe haven, and were able to preserve and further develop the written heritage of their Iraqi Ghulat predecessors. It is thanks to them that most of the Ghulat writings currently available have come down to us.
After this period, and along with the crystallisation of a dominant, Twelver version of Shiʿism,8 the remnants of the Ghulat in Iraq became even less significant. Some of their beliefs did make it into the Twelver canon,9 but their original writings disappeared from the Shiʿi mainland. The study of the history of the Ghulat has therefore been hampered by the paucity of their original writings. Testimonies in ‘external’ sources such as heresiographies, chronicles and biographical dictionaries (rijāl works) are not only limited and formulaic but polemical, and as a result some scholars have viewed these with due caution.10 The first two published works written by the Ghulat themselves, on the other hand, were compilations consisting of many layers of additions, and thus what little ‘internal’ material has reached modern scholars is extremely hard to date and contextualise. The first of these texts was Umm al-kitāb, a multi-layered work the central part of which was probably composed late in the 3rd/9th or early in the 4th/ 10th century, and which survives in an archaic Persian translation.11
The next one, published in 1960, is another compilation of at least eleven layers entitled Kitāb al-haft wa’l-az.illa, its various parts composed between the 2nd/3rd and the 5th/11th centuries in Iraq and Syria.12 The publication of these texts was followed by several studies dedicated particularly to them.13 More general studies about the Ghulat, however, were inevitably based on external sources, such as heresiographies, biographical dictionaries and Shiʿi h. adīth, focusing both on individual ‘extremists’, Ghulat groups or movements14 and broader histories of the Ghulat.15 Two more Ghulat texts, Kitāb al-s.irāt. and Kitāb al-usūs, 16 were published in the latter half of the 20th century (in 1995 and 2000 respectively). But a breakthrough in our knowledge of Ghulat literature and thought became possible after the publication of a series of twelve volumes entitled Silsilat al-turāth al-ʿAlawī. Published between 2006 and 2013, this work purported to be, as the title indicates, a collection of primary texts of the ʿAlawīs (a modern appellation for the Nus.ayrīs, this term should not be used in connection with the Alevis of Turkey).17
Apart from a large number of both previously known and new writings by Nus.ayrī authors, the collection contains several complete treatises by individuals from the Kufan Ghulat community, as well as countless fragments from other works cited either in these Ghulat texts or in the works of Nus.ayrī authors. These complete treatises and fragments include texts that have already been published (such as Kitāb al-haft and Kitāb al-s.irāt.), ones that were known only by their titles (such as Kitāb al-marātib wa’ldaraj and Ish.āq al-Ah.mar’s Kitāb al-s.irāt.),18 and ones that were entirely unknown (such as Ādāb ʿAbd al-Mut.t.alib).19 The last published original Ghulat text was Kitāb al-ashbāh. wa’l-az.illa, found in two manuscripts in the collection of the Institute of Ismaili Studies.20 The newly revealed Ghulat texts enable scholars to study Ghulat cosmology first hand, without relying solely on heresiographic descriptions. Still, utilising them requires a great deal of caution. As with the previously available texts, neither the dating nor the authorship of these writings is readily apparent as their claims of attribution are often apocryphal. For example, more than one Ghulat text has been attributed to the famous 2nd/8th century ‘extremist’ Mufad.d.al b. ʿUmar al-Juʿfī, but upon close scrutiny it becomes apparent that despite their overall similarity, these texts could not possibly have been written by the same person.21
Furthermore, the statement of authorship in many cases consists of a chain of authorities, who are said to have reported the text on the authority of a single well-known personality, such as Mufad.d.al, the text itself consisting of the words of one of the Imams, usually Jaʿfar al-S. adiq. So, it often remains unclear which, if any, of the listed authorities is the actual author. It also remains unclear what the ‘transmission’ of a text through a chain of authorities might have been like.22 In the case of a brief h. adīth report an oral transmission is plausible, but even then the text is eventually recorded and continues its life in written form.23 In the case of a long treatise an oral transmission is far less likely, suggesting it was either composed and circulated in written form from the outset, or circulated in shorter fragments, then collected together to form one text. In both cases it remains unclear which, if any, of the listed individuals is the actual author or who is the author of which part, and what the role of the remaining names might be. Finally, at times a text is preceded by a chain of transmitters some of whom then appear in the text and are referred to in the third person. Such, for example, is Kitāb al-akwār al-nūrāniyya, which, among others, lists as transmitters of the text Ish. āq al-Ah.mar and Muh. ammad b. Nus.ayr who are then portrayed in the text itself as fierce rivals.24
The texts surviving in fragments, such as Kitāb al-az.illa and Kitāb al-kursī, are even more problematic. Not only do both of them survive is numerous fragments scattered around in different texts, but many of the fragments of the former survive as unacknowledged quotations in the latter, thus forming quotations within quotations.25 Before embarking on a study of the content and context of the Ghulat literature and of their history, one therefore needs to undertake a great deal of spade-work: in order to determine as far and as much as is possible the authorship of surviving works; to propose a rough dating for others; or simply to separate one text from another. One of the four goals of this book, therefore, is precisely this: to disentangle these texts from one another and to present a rough timeframe of their composition and circulation. The second goal, which will be pursued in parallel to the first, is to place the development of the Ghulat literature in the larger context of early Islamic history. The third goal is to outline the Ghulat cosmology as reconstructed from these sources.
The fourth, and perhaps the most intriguing goal of this book, is to understand the nature of the Ghulat community: their social world, their relationship with the larger society of Muslims, and their view of themselves within it; to see whether the Ghulat constituted a small, esoteric group with strongly guarded boundaries, or just a loose group of individuals connected by shared ideas about the world. And although it is now possible to present approximate answers to these questions, the chapter that deals with them is the shortest: because the writings of the Ghulat offer few (and mostly indirect) answers to them, and because references to the Ghulat in external sources are formulaic and scant.
Thus, the thirty-six original Ghulat texts now available are a confusing motley of anonymous treatises, many-layered compilations and fragments, both large and small, cited in larger works which, in their own turn, have uncertain origins. To find some way of tackling this mass, and to lay the groundwork for further discussion, this study will begin with one of the most complicated texts, Kitāb al-haft wa’laz.illa. An analysis of Kitāb al-haft reveals that it can be divided into eleven separate textual layers, at least three of which are anonymous quotations from other Ghulat texts, while later Ghulat and Nus.ayrī texts quote parts of it in great abundance. The first chapter of this study is the most philological as it is primarily concerned with a close textual study of Kitāb al-haft: by using internal textual markers and external evidence, it divides Kitāb al-haft into its various layers. Other than a study of a major Ghulat treatise, this part will serve as an entry into the larger world of the literature of Shiʿi ‘extremists’, firstly by serving as a case-study of how Ghulat texts were compiled and how they related to one another. Secondly, this book will be traced in later Ghulat and Nus.ayrī literature as a means for delving deeper into the historical context in which these other texts were written and circulated.
Thus, in some of the subsequent chapters, fragments of Kitāb al-haft will be traced in later writings, on each occasion stepping back to study the larger historical context of these fragments and their ‘host’ texts. Most of the remaining chapters combine philological groundwork with historical contextualisation. Chapter 2 discusses the wider Ghulat milieu, where the earliest parts of Kitāb al-haft and related writings were written and read. Making use of heresiographies, biographical dictionaries and h. adīth, it examines the earliest known Ghulat authors and their writings. It also studies the larger group of Ghulat writings which share some key similarities with some of the layers of Kitāb alhaft. Because one of their shared features is a focus on the notion of the primordial az.illa (‘shadows’) and ashbāh. (‘apparitions’), they will be called collectively the ‘az.illa Group’. Through the use of clues in external sources, a rough timeframe and geographical location for the composition of this group of texts is constructed.
Chapters 3 and 4 study traces of Kitāb al-haft in later Ghulat and Nus.ayrī writings. The third chapter examines two texts, purportedly composed by Muh. ammad b. Nus.ayr and written in the latter part of the 3rd/9th century, which contain direct and indirect traces of Kitāb al-haft. Having closely studied these traces, the focus is then turned on the larger Ghulat environment where they were composed. The broader literature circulating in Ghulat circles of the time and the themes it discusses are investigated. In particular, the reflection in the texts of two historical processes taking place in the Ghulat community of the time is studied.
One is the worsening of the relationship between the Ghulat and the muqas.s.ira and the ensuing polemics between the two groups; the second is the crisis of authority within the Imāmī Shiʿi community after the death of the eleventh Imam, and the attempts by some of the Ghulat to fill the vacuum. Chapter 4 traces the manifestations of Kitāb al-haft in Nus.ayrī literature in the 4th/10th century and beyond. Through this, it investigates the broader context of the transmission of Ghulat texts from Iraq to Syria in this period, and, broader still, the process of the migration of its authors and readers. Although this process is hardly touched upon in the primary sources, tracing the migration of Ghulat texts provides interesting insights into the peregrinations of the people who wrote and read them. In Syria, the Nus.ayrīs preserved the Ghulat written lore and built on it further. Through studying the circulation of Ghulat texts as part of Nus.ayrī literature, some of the problems faced by the Nus.ayrīs in Syria are considered.
The chapter concludes with a look at the later trajectory of Ghulat literature, by tracing the history of some of its manuscripts. Individual texts having been disentangled from one another, insofar as is possible, and a broad framework for their composition and circulation having been proposed, the fifth chapter presents a survey of Ghulat doctrines as revealed in their own writings. Despite the peculiarities of individual texts, the Ghulat corpus exhibits a surprising degree of uniformity in its teachings and vocabulary, and the focus here is on the several broad themes recurring in most of these texts.
The concluding chapter begins with a summary of the material presented in the preceding five regarding the history of the writings and the teachings of the Ghulat. Leaving aside the history of ideas and texts, it focuses on their authors and readers, going beyond the veil of cosmologies and textual history, and using these to shed light on the social world of the Ghulat. Direct references to this are few, but a close reading of a number of passages, combined with a study of the contours of the Ghulat cosmos as a whole, are informative regarding the Ghulat’s attempts to define themselves as a distinct community, and to see themselves as a separate group amid a larger society of Muslims. The findings from these are buttressed through an examination of the internal logic and history of the Ghulat’s written corpus, and situated in the broader context of early Islamic history. A few words on the use of terminology are in order.
The plural ‘Ghulat’ and the singular ‘Ghali’ (used interchangeably with ‘extremist/s’) will refer to those Shiʿis who lived in Iraq between the 2nd and 3rd/8th and 9th centuries, and who for some of their views were branded as ‘extremists’ (ghulāt) by Shiʿi as well as Sunni authors. These beliefs (which are elaborated in detail in Chapter 5) included the view that the Imams and/or the Prophet Muhammad were divine or semi-divine beings; the idea that human beings could be reborn into other human or sub-human bodies; the notion that Muslim rituals and prohibitions were redundant for the elect amongst them; and a particular mythology of the creation.
The term ‘moderates’ will refer to those Shiʿis who actively opposed and criticised the Ghulat, and whom the Ghulat in their turn berated for their failure to follow the ‘true’ path. The majority of the Shiʿis who acknowledged a line of the Imams up to H. asan al-ʿAskarī (d. 260/874), and who did not subscribe to the ideas of the Ghulat, will be referred to as ‘Imāmīs’. 26 Those Shiʿis who, following the death of the eleventh Imam and the disappearance of the twelfth, formulated a doctrine of Twelve Imams, thereafter developing into the dominant branch of Shiʿi Islam, will be referred to by the term ‘Twelvers’. And the term ‘Imāmīs’ will be used in referring to the broader tradition that comprised both the Imāmīs and the Twelvers.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق