CHAPTER THREE
AUTHORITY IN RELIGION
SHĪ'ISM VERSUS SUNNISM3.1 Shī`ism
Shī`ism, as well as Sunnism, contrary to the impression given by later Muslim historians of heresies and Shī`ite writers, had no definite shape in the Umayyad period, and not even during the first century of `Abbāsid rule, that is, until the latter part of the 9th century. The movement we are to describe, which does not correspond in every way to later Shī`ism, can better be called proto-Shī`ism. This movement was intellectually quiet during the time of the Khārijite debates, yet we can note four historical phases it underwent during the Umayyad period.
3.1.1 The early Arab phase
The early Arab phase encompassed the time of `Alī and his sons al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. Shī`ite (meaning "partisan") was likely the name by which the supporters of `Alī and his sons at that time called themselves. Even after the Khārijites left him, numbers of people still supported `Alī, but they were not strong and numerous enough to overcome the opposition of both the Khārijites and Mu`āwiya. After `Alī died in 661 and al-Ḥasan accepted the retirement Mu`āwiya offered him, the next heir to `Alī's claims was al-Ḥusayn. He accepted no compromise, yet bided his time until Mu`āwiya's death in 680. Al-Ḥusayn's bid for power led to the massacre at Karbalā', but the long-term result of his "martyrdom" was the devotion of Shī`ite Penitents over the centuries who have continued to lament al-Ḥusayn's death and give their total support to the Shī`ite cause.
3.1.2 The revolt of al-Mukhtār
The next phase began with the revolt of al-Mukhtār in 685. He not only aroused the Arab Penitents (who repented having abandoned al-Ḥusayn at Karbalā'), but also assured the future of Shī`ism by winning a basis of support among the non-Arab Mawālī.
Al-Mukhtār built his policy upon five principles: 1) the Book of God, 2) the Sunna of the Prophet, 3) vengeance for the family of `Alī, 4) defence of the weak, and 5) jihād against evildoers. The first principle was aimed against Shī`ite extremists who tended to prefer the voice of the imām to directions given in the Qur'ān. The second principle may have been directed against the Khārijites, who accepted the authority of the Qur'ān alone. The third principle was an appeal to the Arab Penitents, and was put into effect when al-Mukhtār executed those responsible for killing al-Ḥusayn. The fourth principle echoes Qur'ān 4:75, and is an appeal to the Mawālī, who were "the weak" (mustaḍ'afūn) or deprived members of the Muslim community. The fifth principle was an appeal to action, in opposition to those who would wait indefinitely for God to send a messianic imām.
The original feature of al-Mukhtār's revolt was his claim to be acting on behalf of Ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya. This device became a precedent for future Shī`ism, when the imām became a remote or hidden personality imbued with superhuman or divine qualities. The task of managing day to day politics and military operations, where human defects and mistakes are so evident, was left to someone else who acted as a "prime minister" and could be blamed for anything that went wrong. The latter did not have to be of the family of `Alī or Muḥammad in any sense.
The fact that al-Mukhtār acted on behalf of Ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya disproves the claim of later Shī`ite writers that their sect was in agreement from the beginning that the imām, by divine right and ḥ's designation, must be a descendant of Muḥammad through Fāṭima and her husband `Alī, and then through their sons al-Ḥasan or al-Ḥusayn. in proto-Shī`ism there was no such fixed teaching, but only a respect for the family of ḥ, particularly for `Alī. Thus it was possible to recognize Ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya as imām, and also to give special honour to `Alī's brother Ja`far and to ḥ's uncle al-'Abbās. Proto-Shī`ite sentiments were built upon the Arab idea that human excellence is inherited and can be characteristic of certain families. That is why it was possible for the proto-Shī`ites to collaborate with the `Abbāsids; both attributed a special excellence to ḥ's clan of Hāshim in general.
Traditional Arab ideas are responsible for attributing to the imām special qualities or charismata on a human level. The Aramaean or Persian Mawālī, however, are responsible for attributing to him superhuman or divine powers, in accordance with their tradition of divine kingship.
3.1.3 A period of quietude
After al-Mukhtār's death came a period of quiet incubation. Ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya himself died in 700, and soon the idea spread, especially through the poet Kuthayyir and the Kaysānite sect (named after Kaysān, a supporter of al-Mukhtār), that he was not really dead, but hiding on a mountain near Medina where he is miraculously taken care of and protected until the day he should return as Mahdī, or "divinely guided one", and restor justice on earth. Legends about a hidden imām, which became a legacy of much of later Shī`ism, served the purpose of excusing people from challenging the existing authorities; many proto-Shī`ites taught that the obligation of "commanding the right and prohibiting the wrong" applied only to jihād of the heart and of the tongue, but not to jihād of the sword until the appearance of the "speaking imām" (al-imām an-nāṭiq). Proto-Shī`ism in fact was quiet until around 740, when it became apparent that the Umayyads would not be able to restrain the growing opposition to their rule.
3.1.4 A revival of militancy
The revival of proto-Shī`ite militancy started with preachers of the 'Alid cause, and these roused the suspicion of Umayyad officials. One of them was Bayān ibn-Sim'ān, who preached in Kūfa claiming that he was the representative of the imām; yet four different versions exist of who this imām was: either 1) Abū-Hāshim, son of Ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya, or 2) Muḥammad al-Bāqir, a grandson of al-Ḥusayn, or 3) Ja`far aṣ-Ṣādiq, son of Muḥammad al-Bāqir, or 4) Muḥammad an-Nafs az-Zakiyya, a great-grandson of al-Ḥasan. Bayān and a companion were executed by burning in 737.
Another man, Abū-Manṣūr, was executed in 742 after claiming to be both the agent and the successor of Muḥammad al-Bāqir. Muḥammad al-Bāqir's brother Zayd also claimed to have succeeded him as imām and led a revolt himself in 740, but he was killed by the Umayyads without delay. The Zaydite sect of Shī`ites, formed in the `Abbāsid period, was named after him. Another revolt started in 744 by `Abdallāh ibn-Mu`āwiya, a great-grandson of `Alī's brother Ja`far; he was killed in 747. The final revolt in which proto-Shī`ites took part brought the `Abbāsids to power.
These facts show that many different men claimed to be the imām in succession to `Alī, and no single one was unanimously accepted by the proto-Shī`ites, contrary to the assertion of later Shī`ites that a single line of imāms was always recognized. According to later Shī`ites the imāms were: 1st) `Alī, 2nd) his son al-Ḥasan, 3rd) the latter's brother al-Ḥusayn, 4th) al-Ḥusayn's son `Alī Zayn al-`Ābidīn (d.c. 712), 5th) the latter's son Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 731), 6th) the latter's son Ja`far aṣ-Ṣādiq (d. 765), and 7th) the latter's son Mūsā al-Kāẓim (d. 799), according to the Imāmites, or his brother Ismā`īl, according to the Ismā`īlīs.
To check the multiplication of claims to be the imām or his representative, the idea was spread during the late Umayyad period that there was only one rightful imām at any one time, and he got his authority by appointment (naṣṣ) from the previous rightful imām. Anyone who claimed to be the imām's military or political representative also had to be appointed (waṣī). Because this idea was so widespread, the `Abbāsids claimed for Muḥammad ibn-`Alī, their first propagandist, appointment by Abū-Hāshim, son of Ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya, as his successor.
3.1.5 The early `Abbāsid period
For the first century of `Abbāsid rule (750-850) we must still speak of "proto-Shī`ism", since the movement had not yet taken definite shape. Proto-Shī`ites, especially of the important Kaysāniyya sect, supported the `Abbāsids' seizure of power and may have accepted their claim of designation by Abū-Hāshim, son of Ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya. Yet when it became apparent that the `Abbāsids were creating a dynasty for their family alone, many proto-Shī`ites were disaffected; they certainly did not accept al-Mahdī's claim that Muḥammad had designated his uncle al-'Abbās as Imām. In spite of revolts by many Shī`ite leaders, for the most part proto-Shī`ites evolved a kind of practical accommodation with the `Abbāsids.
One such proto-Shī`ite group was the Rāfiḍites, who were claimed by the later Imāmites as the forefathers of their movement. The name Rāfiḍite comes from an Arabic word meaning "to reject", and was given to them by their opponents because they rejected Abū-Bakr and `Umar (and, of course, `Uthmān) as rightful caliphs. They also maintained that the imām, or caliph, was not meant to be chosen by election, but by his predecessor's designation. According to them, Muḥammad designated `Alī as his immediate successor. Yet for long the Rāfiḍites refused to decide what series of imāms followed `Alī. This was a safe policy, especially when al-Ma'mūn took the title of imām; al-Ma'mūn even permitted the Rāfiḍites to defend their ideas in his presence. Nevertheless, before al-Ma'mūn's time many Rāfiḍites recognized some of the first seven Imāmite imāms and argued about who was the successor of the seventh imām, Mūsā al-Kāẓim (d.c. 799). One group, called the Wāqifa ("stopper"), said that he was not really dead, but one day would return from hiding. Another group, called the Qaṭ`iyya ("the decisive"), said that he was definitely dead and that his son `Alī ar-Riḍā succeeded him. Al-Ma'mūn favoured the latter group when he designated `Alī ar-Riḍā his heir apparent in 817. After the latter's death in the following year the Rāfiḍites again argued about who was his successor. All these Rāfiḍite debates could not have been about who was the rightful caliph, for the `Abbāsids would tolerate no such pretender, but they must have meant who was the head of the 'Alid family. The caliph would be glad to give such a man some recognition in order to rally his supporters to the caliphal cause.
Rāfiḍite writers of the Qaṭ`iyya branch, such as Hishām ibn-al-Ḥakam (d.c. 805) and `Alī ibn-Mītham (who lived a little later), were fundamentally supporters of the absolute power of the `Abbāsid caliphs. Their political absolutism was based on three theological points: The first was that succession to the caliphate goes by designation, not election. The second point was that most of the Companions were unbelievers for having elected Abū-Bakr, `Umar and `Uthmān in place of `Alī; consequently all the Ḥadīth, which by this time had isnāds going back to these Companions, was worthless, and Ḥadīth masters should therefore have nothing to say in public affairs. The third point was the rejection of ijtihād, or the attempt to develop and apply Sharī'a; the voice of the imām, or caliph, was sufficient. This point was also aimed against the power of the `ulamā'.
Another proto-Shī`ite group was the Zaydites. This movement was named after Zayd ibn-`Alī, a grandson of al-Ḥusayn, who revolted against the Umayyads in 740 and was killed within a short time. The revolutionary members of this movement seem to have maintained that only a Fāṭimid (a descendant of al-Ḥasan or al-Ḥusayn) could be imām, and that if there is a qualified claimant of this line people are obliged to follow him from the moment he takes up the sword. Such Zaydite claimants were Muḥammad an-Nafs az-Zakiyya in 762, whom we have mentioned, Muḥammad ibn-al-Qāsim in Khurasān in 834 and Yaḥyā ibn-`Umar in Kūfa in 864.
There were many non-revolutionary Zaydites, however, who were ready to accept the `Abbāsids as imāms and enjoyed the support of al-Ma'mūn, who wanted to use them to promote an absolutist interpretation of the caliphate. Their position was basically a compromise between the Rāfiḍites and the proto-Sunnite `ulamā'. They elaborated a theory of the "imāmate of the inferior" (imāmat al-mafḍūl — see chapter 1 on Mu`tazilite support for this theory). This meant, to please the Rāfiḍites, that `Alī was superior and that the imām should preferably be a descendant of `Alī and Fāṭima, but it was legitimate to choose a less worthy ruler; so they recognized Abū-Bakr and `Umar, and some were prepared to recognize the first six years of `Uthmān's rule. Moreover they said the imām was to be chosen by election. This point put the non-revolutionary Zaydites on the side of the constitutionalists, and was meant to please the proto-Sunnite Ḥadīth masters and jurists. The compromise, however, did not work, because the Rāfiḍites' dearest teaching, that the imām is chosen by designation, was not accepted; and the `ulamā' would always have to fear that an imām would overrule their interpretations of the law.
The Zaydites did not become a definite sect with a system of laws all their own until they established two states, one to the north of the Islamic world, on the south shore of the Caspian Sea, and the other in Yemen. By 850 Zaydism disappeared from the heartlands of the caliphate, and survived only in these two states. These outlying Zaydites made no attempt to spread their teachings; so Zaydism remained outside the mainstream of Islamic thought.
3.1.6 The maturation of Shī`ism
At the beginning of the 2nd `Abbāsid century (850) Shī`ism was a greatly fragmented movement, but by the early 10th century the various Shī`ite groups had come together into two main movements, the Ismā`īlites and the Imāmites, and one fringe movement, the Zaydites.
Ismā`īlism takes its name from Ismā`īl the son of Ja`far aṣ-Ṣādiq (the latter d. 765), whom the Ismā`īlites hold to have been the seventh imām rather than his brother Mūsā al-Kāẓim. Although for this reason they are called the Seveners, they believed in a continuing sequence of imāms who remained hidden while the movement was propagated by missionary agents (dā'ī). These agents had their first success around 894 when they led the Ismā`īlite sub-group known as Carmathians (Qarāmiṭa) to establish a state in eastern Arabia with its centre in Baḥrayn. This state served as a base for some effective propaganda within `Abbāsid domains which the caliphs had difficulty in containing. The eastern Arabian Carmathian state lasted to the beginning of the 12th century.
Ismā`īlism had greater success in North Africa where the agent Abū-`Abdallāh became powerful enough with Berber support to allow the hidden imām to come out in the person of the claimant `Ubaydallāh, who took the title al-Mahdī and started the Fāṭimid dynasty. The Fāṭimids conquered Egypt and moved the capital from Mahdiyya on the Tunisian coast to the new city of Cairo. The Fāṭimids sent agents to preach in `Abbāsid lands and came close to winning these lands to their cause. but the movement had already peaked with the conquest of Egypt and dwindled as a world political force thereafter. Sunnite theologians, however, came to grips with Fāṭimid arguments only in the 11th century. Ismā`īlism still survives in Bombay and central India and in scattered communities in the Middle East; it is also followed by Indian Muslims in Kenya. The current leader is Agha Khan, who lives in Paris.
The name Imāmism came into use only around the year 900,[1] although Imāmites claimed earlier origins in the Rāfiḍites and others before them to lend legitimacy to their movement. Imāmites differ from Ismā`īlites mainly in their adherence to Mūsā al-Kāẓim (d. 799) as the 7th imām rather than his brother Ismā`īl. Furthermore, while the Ismā`īlites held that the successors if Ismā`īl were hidden and unknown except to their chosen agents, the Imāmites held that the series of imāms continued publicly until the 12th imām, Muḥammad son of Ḥasan al-`Askarī ibn-`Alī. The latter, the 11th imām, died in 874, and his son Muḥammad is alleged to have disappeared miraculously in 878. Thereafter the Imāmites have maintained allegiance to a series of hidden imāms. The legitimacy of this line they say derives from the designation which Muḥammad the Prophet made to `Alī, and he and each imām thereafter made to his successor. The Imāmites' allegiance to their own imām did not mean that they planned a coup against the `Abbāsids. First of all, by this time the `Abbāsid caliphs had lost most of their power anyway, and their position was not coveted; secondly the acceptance of a hidden imām excused them, like the Rāfiḍites before, from active political involvement. Today Imāmite Shī`ites dominate Iran, where they became politically prominent in the 16th century.
Like the Ismā`īlites, the Imāmites regard Abū-Bakr, `Umar and `Uthmān as usurpers and the Companions who supported them as partners in crime. They therefore repudiate the Sunnite collections of Ḥadīth which include these men in the isnāds and accept instead the collection of al-Kulīnī (d. 939). This contains over 15,000 Ḥadīths, with the name of the imām in the isnād of each Ḥadīth. The name of the imām, according to the Imāmites, is what guarantees the Ḥadīth's authenticity, since he is an infallible teacher. This difference regarding the fundamentals of religions set Shī`ites far apart from Sunnite Muslims and at the same time stimulated the Sunnites to a greater awareness of their own identity.
The basic principles of Shī`ism, as it matured, are: 1) that the imām must be a descendant of Muḥammad through `Alī and Fāṭima; 2) that the imām is immune from sin and error, so that his interpretation of the Qur'ān and his commands must be followed; 3) the imām gets his authority by appointment from his predecessor, not by election; 4) the imām has long ago gone into hiding, but sometimes acts through a representative who, in popular opinion, has the same authority; 5) jihād to establish the rule of the imām is necessary only when the imām or his representative appears and calls for action; 6) the martyrdom of `Alī and Ḥusayn show the way to salvation, and every Shī`ite should be happy to shed his blood in the same way.
3.2 Sunnism
As in the case of Shī`ism, Muslim writers since the 10th century have presented a picture of a fully formed Sunnism going right back to Muḥammad. The assumption in both cases is that Islamic teaching is completely unchangeable, and that it is passed on in the form of a faithfully preserved Qur'ān and Ḥadīth guaranteed by correct isnāds. In fact, in the Umayyad period we can only talk of "proto-Sunnism" or "the general religious movement", to use the term of W.M. Watt. The difference between Sunnism and Shī`ism is fundamentally a question of inspiration: whether it applies only to the composition of Scripture or also to its interpretation.
3.2.1 The Umayyad period
If there were scholarly and political differences within the general religious movement, was there consensus about anything? A general feature of proto-Sunnism, as opposed to Khārijism and proto-Shī`ism, was the acceptance of all the first four caliphs and Mu`āwiya as well. This neutrality regarding the past did not extend to each of Mu`āwiya's successors, however, as can be seen in the revolt of Ibn-az-Zubayr and various other revolts. Nevertheless, proto-Sunnites generally accepted Umayyad rule until its last years, when they nearly unanimously supported the `Abbāsid rise to power.
A typical figure of the proto-Sunnite movement was al-Ḥasan al-Basrī (642-728). Born in Medina, he went to Basra around 657, and served as a soldier in Afghanistan from 663 to 665. He then turned to secretarial and scholarly work and made his home in Basra. There he served the governor al-Hajjāj and helped with his project of pointing the Qur'ān text. For some reason he broke with al-Hajjāj and went into hiding until al-Hajjāj's death in 714; afterwards he served as qādī of Basra. Politically he supported the Umayyad rulers in that he faithfully carried out his responsibilities and actively discouraged the many revolts he was invited to endorse. Yet, as a forefather of the Sūfic movement, his concern was God's judgement, and he was not afraid to criticize the authorities, warning them of hell fair; he also preached moderation in the use of worldly goods and intolerance of "innovators" or heretics. Al-Ḥasan al-Basrī's teachings in many ways anticipate later Sunnism, but he never thought out many questions with the precision of later Sunnites.
3.2.2 The early `Abbāsid period
Like Shī`ism, Sunnism was still fluid in the early `Abbāsid period, and can better be called proto-Sunnism. Anti-Shī`ism manifested itself in the `Uthmānite movement. This was a group opposed to the Rāfiḍite exaltation of `Alī. The name goes back to Umayyad times, when `Uthmānites were those who sided with the cause of `Uthmān and repudiated `Alī; these also became supporters of the Umayyad rule. In `Abbāsid times the repudiation of `Alī was continued by a small group promoting a cult of Mu`āwiya, but the `Uthmānites of `Abbāsid times had a more moderate position. As expressed by al-Jāhiẓ (who was also a Mu`tazilite), `Uthmānism first of all meant the recognition of all the first four caliphs, with the qualification that the chronological order of these caliphs was also the order of merit. Thus `Uthmān is preferred to `Alī, who comes last in order of merit. The caliphs gain their authority, moreover, by election, not appointment.
Politically, `Uthmānism of `Abbāsid times was no longer a call for Umayyad rule, but was a repudiation of the absolutism implied in the Rāfiḍite cult of `Alī (and encouraged by al-Ma'mūn), which attributed to the imām immunity (`iṣma) from error (= infallibility) and from sin (= impeccability), and gave the imām's decision priority over any interpretation of the Qur'ān or appeal to Ḥadīth made by the `ulamā'. The `Uthmānites are, therefore, forerunners of Sunnism because of their insistence on the priority of the Qur'ān and Ḥadīth and because of the teaching which they originated concerning the order of merit of the first four caliphs.
3.2.3 Sunnism takes final shape
Up to the 2nd century of `Abbāsid rule (850) there was widespread difference about many basic matters which are now considered essential to Sunnism. Only in this century (850-950) did a consensus emerge, which most Muslims today think goes back to the time of Muḥammad.
The word "Sunnism" (originally meaning "beaten path") became the name for the new orthodoxy. Its earliest general use is in the works of al-Ash`arī, who uses the terms ahl as-sunna wa-asḥāb al-ḥadīth ("people of Sunna and followers of Ḥadīth"), ahl as-sunna wa-l-istiqāma ("people of Sunna and the right way"), and ahl as-sunna wa-l-jamā`a ("people of Sunna and the community" — "the majority").
The consensus which distinguished Sunnism from Shī`ism concerned chiefly the order of merit of the first four caliphs. In accepting the chronological order as the order of merit, as opposed to the Shī`ites who said that only `Alī was the rightful successor to ḥ, Sunnites affirmed the fundamental righteousness of the historical Muslim community, at least in its early years, and thereby validated the Islamic beliefs and practices for which this historical community stood. These beliefs and practices were formulated in the Ḥadīth literature, with each Ḥadīth resting on and isnād, or chain of authorities going back to Muḥammad. Because most of these isnāds contain names of Companions of Muḥammad whom the Shī`ites did not regard as genuine Muslims, because they were supporters of the first three caliphs or even opponents of `Alī, the Shī`ites rejected the whole corpus of Ḥadīth literature which the Sunnites accepted, and compiled separate Ḥadīth collections of their own.
3.2.4 Qur'ānic studies
We can now examine the status of the Qur'ān, tradition and law within the general religious movement of the Umayyad period, then see how they developed in the Sunnism of the `Abbāsid period, assessing as well the influence of the government and of Sūfism on theology.
Qur'ānic studies in the Umayyad period were not yet a separate specialized discipline, but the same men who devoted themselves to the study of law and of tradition also led the way in Qur'ānic studies. It may seem surprising that the Qur'ān, which is the first authority in Islam, should become the subject of a debate which could be settled only by an appeal to tradition, but the history of the text makes this clear. We cannot take time her to evaluate the historicity of the so-called `Uthmān edition of the Qur'ān.[2] But by the time of `Uthmān, if not earlier, the order and canonicity of the sūras as well as the consonantal text was established. This text did not contain vowel marks or even the dots which differentiate many consonants from one another; for example, only a dot makes the difference between "ḥ", "j" and "kh", or between "b", "y", "n", "t" and "th". These marks were first added to the text only at the time of the caliph 'Abdalmalik (685-705) — at same time that Hebrew and Aramaic (Syriac) were provided with similar diacritical marks. The general al-Hajjāj promoted the pointing of Arabic to make the `Uthmānian edition of the Qur'ān more legible as a means of combatting the non-`Uthmānian texts used by Ibn-az-Zubayr's followers and other opponents of the Umayyad regime. Nevertheless it took nearly two more centuries before a full system of wiring containing all the vowels and other diacritical marks was generally accepted. The history of the Qur'ān text, then, indicates that there were as many varieties of readings as there were Qur'ān scholars, even though some degree of uniformity emerged within particular schools or cities. Fundamentally Sunna, or living tradition, together with consensus (ijmā`), determined which reading was acceptable; and Sunna, as will be seen varied from school to school and place to place.
In the `Abbāsid period Qur'ānic studies gave Sunnism further definition. Interpretation (tafsīr) gained some stability in this period especially because of the voluminous commentary of aṭ-Ṭabarī (d. 923). The major development, however, came in the field of qirā'. This refers to the selection of vowels and other distinguishing marks to be inserted into the consonantal text. A system of writing vowels, doubling consonants etc. had been devised, as seen above, in the time of 'Abdalmalik (d. 705), but a great deal of variety continued to exist in the vowels used in Qur'ān recitation.
Trying to meet the general desire for uniformity, Ibn-Mujāhid (d. 935) collected many traditions of Qur'ān recitation and came to the conclusion that complete agreement would be impossible, since different cities were attached to different readings. He achieved a limited success, however, by reducing the various sets of readings to seven basic sets which were all to be considered equally valid. To justify accepting seven readings, he appealed to a Ḥadīth which states that Muḥammad was taught to recite the Qur'ān according to seven "letters" (ahruf). The seven readings were based, like Ḥadīth, on chains of transmitting authorities (isnāds). Of the seven authorities he selected, three were from Kūfa and one each was from Mecca, Medina, Damascus and Basra.
Yet even these seven readings were not enough to accommodate the diversity of accepted readings; so the readings of two disciples of each of the seven authorities were acknowledged as legitimate variants. In this way the number of legitimate readings became fourteen. Ibn-Mujāhid's work was challenged by some scholars, but it soon caught on and in various court cases scholars were condemned for using other traditional readings (as those of Ibn-Mas'ūd or Ubayy ibn-Ka`b) not included in the seven or fourteen, and for proposing that any reading which was grammatical and made reasonable sense could be accepted without regard for Tradition.
3.2.4 Ḥadīth
The Ḥadīth collections which we have today were written down only in the 9th century. These collections present problems of authenticity even to conservative Muslim scholars. During the Umayyad period certainly there were related traditions concerning things the Prophet said or did, but these were few and fragmentary, and not used to settle theological or legal disputes. The practice of giving and isnād, or chain of authority, did not exist until the time of az-Zuhrī (d. 742), according to one account, and such chains were only partial, citing one or another notable scholar who used a particular tradition in his teaching. Only later, under the influence of political and theological controversy, were the isnāds completed backwards to a Companion of the Prophet or the mouth of Muḥammad himself. If the position of Ḥadīth was not particularly important at this time, Islamic tradition in a wider sense, nevertheless, was very influential in all aspects of life, and there were numerous full time scholars devoted to explaining and developing this living tradition.
The Hadith movement in the first `Abbāsid century also saw the formulation of some basic positions which became part of later Sunnism. Sunna, as we saw above, meant the "beaten path", and thus "normative custom" or "standard practice". It included the Qur'ān (but was later distinguished from it) and the practice of ḥ, his Companions and their successors. In its early stages Sunna grew as a result of the ijtihād (individual reasoning, or original thinking) of these Companions and the following generations of Muslim scholars, as their thinking was accepted by consensus (ijmā`) of scholars. Ijtihād at first simply stood for considered personal opinion (ra'y, istiḥsān), but this gave rise to many disagreements and criticism; so that the secretary ibn-al-Muqaffa' vainly urged al-Manṣūr to impose a revised uniform Sunna on the whole empire. Jurists then tried to make their legal reasoning more systematic, and so gave more emphasis to the method of analogy (qiyās); new cases were solved in the light of previous cases which had a common ground. Even this method, however, came under criticism because it did not provide uniform permanent solutions to legal problems, and opponents to such reasoning appealed instead to the authority of early Muslim masters and eventually to Muḥammad himself. Before they would accept any practice they required a Ḥadīth, or verbal tradition, stating something that Muḥammad said or did to authorize such a practice.
Ash-Shāfi`ī (d. 820) was the man who assured the final victory of Ḥadīth over living tradition and any form of reasoning. By insisting on a Ḥadīth equipped with ad complete isnād going back to Muḥammad wherever the Qur'ān is silent about a particular matter, he established a totally new approach to the sources of faith and practice. sunna was no longer in the fourth place, the culminating result of the Qur'ān, ijtihād and consensus, but was transferred to the second place, just after the Qur'ān. It thereby lost its wider meaning of living tradition, and became interchangeable with Ḥadīth.
Consensus and qiyās became the third and fourth principles, but were very much subsidiary to the first two. Consensus, for ash-Shāfi`ī, as opposed to earlier theory and later Sunnite theory, was not that of scholars, but of the whole Muslim community, and was limited to their agreement about the conclusions of qiyās reasoning. The fourth and weakest principle, qiyās, was the only form of ijtihād ash-Shāfi`ī would allow; it was a form of argumentation consisting of applying Ḥadīth to new similar situations. If the whole community could agree about the conclusion of a qiyās argument, the conclusion would have the added force of consensus, but to find consensus of the whole community about something not in the Qur'ān or any Ḥadīth is so rare in ash-Shāfi`ī's system that it would practically be eliminated as a source of law.
The only change later Sunnites made in ash-Shāfi`ī's scheme was to redefine consensus as the agreement only of the scholars of a particular generation, and to apply it not simply to the results of qiyās argumentation, but primarily to the acceptance of the Qur'ān and Ḥadīth (in so far as the various collections of Ḥadīth are accepted). Ash-Shāfi`ī was not as careful in his own use of Ḥadīth and qiyās as his theory demanded; frequently he gives a Ḥadīth from hearsay or without a proper isnād and violates his own rules of qiyās.[3] The realization that not all accepted practice could be justified by a Ḥadīth with an isnād gave impetus to the invention of a new type of Ḥadīth, the mutawātir, or "widely-transmitted" Ḥadīth. This is one which does not have a proper isnād, but reflects widely accepted practice; the assumption was that Muḥammad must have sanctioned such a practice, since so many people could not be mistaken.
In the second `Abbāsid century the authoritative position of Ḥadīth gave impetus to the collection of Ḥadīth and the formulation and critique of isnāds. Shortly, after sifting the hundreds of thousands of Ḥadīths then in circulation, al-Bukhārī (d. 870) and Muslim (d. 875) each produced a collection with the same title, al-Jāmi' aṣ-Ṣahīh ("the sound collection"). Four other collections appeared soon afterwards, the Sunan ("sunnas") of Ibn-Māja (d. 886), of Abū-Dāwūd (d. 888) and of an-Nasā'ī (d. 915), and the Jāmi' of at-Tirmidhī (d. 892). These six collections came to be accepted as authoritative by practically all Sunnite Muslims, although they were subject to some criticism, especially Ibn-Māja, for some time.
Besides these six collections, respect was also given to the Musnad of ad-Dārimī (d. 869), the Musnad of Aḥmad ibn-Ḥanbal (d. 855), and the Muwaṭṭa' of Mālik ibn-Anas (d. 795). The Musnad of Ibn-Ḥanbal, in spite of his great repute, was not included with the six authoritative collections probably because of its inconvenient arrangement of Ḥadīths according to the men who related them rather than by topic. Mālik's Muwatta', although containing many Ḥadīths, was written before the time of ash-Shāfi`ī, and therefore does not have the same concern for isnāds and whether a practice goes all the way back to Muḥammad. As a legal work it is content to quote distinguished jurists or even Companions of ḥ, not worrying whether their opinions were innovations or not.
The accepted collections of Ḥadīth resulted in a unified Sunna throughout the Sunnite world. This was in contrast to the situation before ash-Shāfi`ī, when each major town had its own Sunna.
3.2.5 Legal studies
Legal practice was the area where these scholars particularly developed Islamic tradition. During the lifetime of Muḥammad a considerable amount of legislation took shape, particularly in the Qur'ān, but also in the precedents set by cases the Muḥammad settled on his own authority. Both forms of legislation, however, were for the most part circumstantial and did not constitute a complete legal system even for their own time. They nevertheless were a beginning of the "beaten path", or sunna, which future generations would follow and beat further.
After the death of Muḥammad the entirely new situation of a far-flung empire forced a vast development of legislation which was both new and somehow in continuity with the past. Sunna was in continuity with the past in that its ideal and intention was to follow the spirit of Muḥammad and what he would have done in such new circumstances. It was new because it originated from decisions of the caliphs, from public opinion, or from the considered personal opinion (ra'y) of scholars or from what they thought reasonable and good (istiḥsā). Accepted scholarly opinion differed from place to place, and it soon became evident that there was no one uniform Sunna, but that the schools of Medina, Kūfa, Basra, Damascus etc. each had its own Sunna, representing the ideal practice of the place, even though actual practice fell short of the ideal. From conflicts between these schools and also between majority and minority parties in a single city there gradually emerged opposition groups which did not accept the identification of Sunna or tradition with established custom, and appealed to the authority of Ḥadīth instead. Only then did Ḥadīth multiply and become and important branch of study, and that was in the `Abbāsid period.
The second `Abbāsid century saw the formation of the four legal schools or rites (madhhab) of Sunnite Islam which have lasted to the present day. During the first Islamic century different legal practices grew up in the different cities of the Islamic world, practices which became the Sunna of these cities and were eventually formulated in Ḥadīth. Just as the collections of Ḥadīth are the work of certain great scholars, so also legal practice was systematized and popularized by certain great jurists who dominated their own towns and gained followers in many other places as well.
The somewhat liberal Ḥanafite school, named after Abū-Hanīfa (d. 867), prevailed in Kūfa and is now followed in Lower Egypt, Western Asia, Pakistan and India. Kūfa also had the rival school of Sufyān ath-Thawrī (d. 778) which died out after a short time. The Mālikite school, named after Mālik ibn-Anas (d. 795), prevailed in Medina and is now followed in Upper Egypt, North and West Africa. The Shāfi`ite school was named after the Ḥadīth master ash-Shāfi`ī (d. 820), who originally belonged to the Medina school but developed his own legal system, which gained a following in Cairo and also prevails in Indonesia. The Ḥanbalite school, which follows its founder Aḥmad ibn-Ḥanbal (d. 855) in emphasizing Tradition and opposing the use of reasoning, is followed in northern and central Arabia by the Wahhābīs. Several other schools formed during this period but did not last long.
All these schools, even those with an earlier history, took definite shape as a result of ash-Shāfi`ī's fixing the role of the Qur'ān, Ḥadīth, Ijtihād and Ijmā'. These four roots of law (uṣūl al-fiqh) served as reference points for argument among the schools and a way of bridging their differences. At first each school considered the others heretical or at least erroneous, but as discussion among them proceeded they came to tolerate one another. By at least the year 1300 any of the schools was considered a legitimate option for Muslims to follow, although an eclectic choosing of some points from one school and some from another was frowned upon.
3.2.6 Government influence
Governmental pressure had minimal influence on the formation of Islamic theology. The government intervened if there was a clear abandonment of Islam, but tried to enforce doctrinal assent only in matters it considered affecting public security or vital interests. In the case of al-Ma'mūn's mina (inquisition) the point of insisting on the createdness of the Qur'ān (to be discussed in chapter 5) was its connection with the Zaydite (Shī`ite) theory of the absolute power of the caliph, which al-Ma'mūn wanted to maintain. At this time of theological controversies people easily used takfīr (declaration of being an unbeliever) against their opponents. In the trial of the Sūfī al-Hallāj this did not lead to the court's condemning him to death until the additional charge of zandaqa was made.[4] This originally meant the Manichaean dualism held by many Persians, but later came to mean any doctrinal error threatening the security of the state. Even when the courts condemned the use of Qur'ān readings not included in Ibn-Mujāhid's list, the reason seems to have been to preserve public order in worship, not to define a matter of religion.
In Islam there is nothing comparable to a doctrinal magisterium, or teaching authority, such as is found in traditional Christian Churches which have ecumenical councils, bishops' synod or the papacy. In Islam doctrinal definition can only come by consensus (ijmā`). Some say that this consensus must be of all Muslims, others that it need only be of the `ulamā', which is equally difficult if not impossible to achieve; some also say that any consensus thus achieved is valid only for its generation, and may be overturned by dissent in another generation.[5] Consequently, apart from the uncontroverted meaning of certain essentials expressed in the Qur'ān, there is no strict orthodoxy in Sunnite Islam, only more common or pervasive beliefs and practices for which many writers claim consensus, but their opponents often contest. In such cases we can only speak of the prevalent or majority viewpoint, or the sunnite view, remembering that there are variant views which are not strictly heretical.
3.2.7 Sūfism
Sūfism has sometimes been credited, by Louis Massignon for instance, with an important influence on the formation of Sunnite theology. Yet no significant points of Sunnite doctrine can be traced to Sūfic inspiration. Sūfism is a movement concentrating on personal experience in religion. It has its mystical aspects in personal prayer often associated with altered states of consciousness, such as trances and visions; it also has a social dimension in that it has been organized in various orders or brotherhoods (tarīqa) with an initiation rite and different stages of mystical initiation under the guidance of an elder (shaykh). Such orders at times were a refuge for people disgusted with the corruption prevailing in a society that claimed to be Islamic. Yet, true to their Islamic nature, they were not limited to purely spiritual purposes, but also served social and economic needs and at times became combat forces to rectify injustices or infringements against the Islamic order of society.
As could be expected, Sūfism lent itself to many different expressions, ideas and practices. Towards the year 900, at the same time that Qur'ānic, Ḥadīth and juridical sciences were taking shape, Sūfism was given a formal theoretical foundation in the writings of al-Junayd (d. 910) and al-Hallāj (d. 922). The status of Sūfism in Islam was not clear until the time of al-Ghazālī (d. 1111). In the meantime it suffered suspicion and at times persecution at the hands of the theologians and jurists. As a whole, however, the movement was tolerated, possibly because of its opposition to Shī`ism.
Like Shī`ism, Sūfism was based on experiential divine enlightenment. But, whereas Shī`ism restricted visionary experience and divine inspiration to the imāms or members of the family of `Alī, Sūfism extended the validity of this experience to ordinary Muslims. In so doing, Sūfism also challenges "fundamentalist" Sunnism as well, which closes all divine inspiration with ḥ, leaving scholarship — Qur'ānic, Ḥadīth and legal studies — as the only way to get at the message of revelation and the reality it represents. Sūfism offers direct access to the divine reality as well as inspired enlightenment about many aspects of his revealed word.
[1]See Watt, The formative period, p. 274.
[2]See John Burton, The collection of the Qur'ān (Cambridge U.P., 1977).
[3]Cf. J. Schacht, The origins of ḥan jurisprudence, pp. 38 & 126.
[4]Cf. L. Massignon, La passion d'al-Hallāj, pp. 182-9.
[5]This is the opinion of Muḥammad ibn-Yūsuf as-Sanūsī.