two unrecognized texts

In a recent monograph Josef van Ess has drawn attention to several works of apparent KarrBmT origin, two of which Massignon had already examined. The KarrZmi provenance of two additional texts, both in print, has gone unrecognized. One is the introduction to the Qur'Bn commentary K. al-Mabdni li-nazm al-macdni (begun in 4251 1033), a major source of orientalist research on the Qur'Bn since the nineteenth century. The author of al-Mabdniis unidentified but was associated with the same circles as the famous KarrBmT theologian Muhammad b. al-Haysam (d. 4191 1019). The other text of apparent KarrBmi origin is al-Nutaf fi'l-fatawd, a legal treatise attributed to the Hanafi QBdi al-qudBt Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. al-Husayn al-Sughdi (d. 4611 1068). The Abn 'AbdallBh whose legal opinions are reported throughout this work is none other than Muhammad b. KarrBm (d. 2551869). Al-Nutaf is thus a unique source for the fiqh of the KarrBmiyya.

WHEREAS CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARSHIP HAS COME TO RECOGNIZE the social and political significance of the Karramiyya, the study of the place of the Karramiyya in Islamic intellectual history until recently remained where Massignon left it.' However, in a recent monograph Josef van Ess, with characteristic industry, has assembled an impressive body of new information on this sect.* Following Massignon's lead, van Ess has re-examined two works of apparent Karrami origin and brought to light at least two others.? This paper is

I See particularly L. Massignon, Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la mystique musulmane, 2d ed. (Paris, 1954), 260-68. In recent years, the social and political role of the Karriimiyya has been examined by C. E. Bosworth, a summary of whose work can be found in E12, s.v. Kar- riimiyya, and R. W. Bulliet, The Patricians of Nishapur: A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), General Index, s.v. KarrBmi. ' Ungeniitzte Texte zur Karramiya: eine Materialsammlung,

Sirzungsberichte d. Heidelberger Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. KI., Jg. 1980, Abh. 6 ("Texte").

'Umar al-Samarqandi, K. Rawnaq al-qulzib, Bibliothtque Nationale Ar. 4929 and 6674 (Texte, 30-41); the acephalous Qur'Bn commentary, British Museum Or. 8049 (Texte, 41- 55); the collection of stories about the prophets of Abu'l- Hasan al-Haysam b. Muhammad, Princeton, Yahuda 439 (Texte, 68-73); and the Qur'Bn commentary of Abu Bakr 'AtTq b. Muhammad al-SurBbBdi (d. 4541 3 101), of which two facsimile editions have been published in Tehran (Texte, 73-74). The KarrBmi provenance of Abn Mutic Makhul al-

in the nature of an addendum to van Ess' study and confirms the correctness of his observation that "the Karramiya have left behind more traces than we have hitherto believed." Unfortunately, van Ess is equally correct in stating that "everything remains to be done before we can read these traces with ~ n d e r s t a n d i n ~ . " ~

Of the two works that I propose to ascribe to the Karramiyya, the first has been a mainstay of orientalist research on the Qur'Hn since the nineteenth century. This is Berlin MS 910 (Wetzstein 103), K. al-Mabani li-nazm al-maC~ni, a Qur'gn commentary of 273 folios, extending to Sura 15; the loss of the first folio has so far prevented identification of the author. The introduction to this work, covering eighty-five folios, was a major source for both editions of Noldeke's Geschichte des Qorans and has continued to be used in Qur'gnic research.' It was published by Arthur

Nasafi (d. 318/930), K. al-Radd 'ald al-bidac, Oxford, Bod- leiana Or. 421, which van Ess also examined (Texte, 55-60), appears highly doubtful. The text has since been published by Marie Bernand in Annales islamologiques 16 (1980): 39-126.

Texte, 81. ' T. Noldeke, Geschichte des Qordns (Gottingen, 1860),

xxx-xxxi and passim; T. Noldeke, Geschichte des Qorans, 2d ed., yols. 1 and 2, ed. F. Schwally, vol. 3, ed. G. Berg- s trkser and 0 . Pretzl (Leipzig, 1909-38), 2:184, 3: Index, s.v. Mabdni. AI-Mabdniis frequently cited in J . Burton, The Collection of the Qur'dn (Cambridge, 1977).

578 J o u r n a l of the American Oriental Societ j , 108.4 (1988)

Jeffery in Cairo in 1 9 ~ 4 . ~ My discussion of a l - M a b d n i The identity of the author of a l - h l a b d n i remains will be confined to the introduction, the unpublished elusive, although numerous clues exist. The work, the portion of the work having remained inaccessible author tells us, was begun in ShacbHn of 4251 1033.~ to me. By the time that he wrote a l -Mabdni , the author had

Despite the fact that Jeffery's edition contains a full already established his mastery of the Qur'iinic sci- index of proper names, the KarrHmi provenance of ences in a series of writings, of which he names no a l - M a b d n i appears to have gone undetected. The fewer than four,'' and must have been of middle age, strongest evidence for a KarrBmi attribution comes on page 209 of the printed text, where the author briefly quotes al-ImHm al-HBdi Abo 'Abdall3h Muhammad b. Karriim (d. 255/869), the founder of the Kar- r8miyya.' Of other recognizable Karriimis, the name that appears with greatest frequency is that of the famous theologian Muhammad b. al-Haysam, who is quoted a number of times.8

With the introduction to Ibn 'Atiyya's tafsir as Two Muqaddirnas to the Qur'anic Sciences. A second edition, with corrections, was published by cAbdallBh IsmBcil al- SZwi (Cairo, 1392; 1972). This edition preserves the pagina- tion of the first. The fullest discussion in print of al-Mabani is that of V. Cornell, "'Ilm al-Qur'an in al-Andalus: The Tafsir Muharrar in the Works of Three Authors," Jusiir 2 (1986): 65-72. Influenced perhaps by Jeffery's reference to the "local Andalusian style of Arabic" used in al-Mabdni (English preface to Two Muqaddirnas), Cornell (p. 66) writes that "an examination of the literary style used in the text re- veals a relative sophistication of vocabulary tempered by the influence of Andalusian or Maghribi dialectical elements." It is true that the unique Berlin manuscript is written in a Maghribi script, but Ahlwardt, Verzeichnis der arabischen Handschriften der koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin, 1887-99, reprinted Hildesheim, 1980 81), 1:361, estimated that this copy dated from about 700, 1300, or nearly two hundred years after the work was written. Apart from the script of the manuscript, everything else about the text points to an origin in the Eastern regions of Islam.

' In this quotation Ibn KarrBm enumerates the contents of the Qur'Zn by genre and warns against al-tafsir bi'l-ra'y. The author of al-Mabani admits that he is not entirely sure of Ibn KarrZm's intention, although he is familiar with the full context of the citation (Mabani, 209-10).

"abani, 47-48 (Ubayy's rnushaf), 170-71 (qird'dt), 188ff. (tafsir), 194 (tafsir), 207-8 (traditions on seven ahruf), 217- 18 (seven lughdt), 240-41 (traditions on asbaC al-Qur'an). In some cases it is not clear where the quotation from Ibn al- Haysam ends.

On Ibn al-Haysam, see Texte, 60-67. To the list of Ibn al-Haysam's writings compiled by van Ess (Texte. 67), add a work on faith (iman) as consisting of the utterance of the tongue (qawl al-lisdn) alone, seen by Ibn Taymiyya (d.

7281 1328) (01-Furqan bayn al-haqq ula'l-bd!il, in .Majrniicat al-rasail al-kubra [Cairo, 1385i 19661, 1:43) and a compila- tion on the praises (manaqib) of Ibn Karram, which Ibn al- SalBh (d. 643: 1243) saw in Nishapur and mentioned in his FawdSd al-rihla (Zayn al-din al-'IrLqi, al-Taqyid wa'l-i& sharh rnuqaddimat Ibn a l - ~ a l a h , ed. 'Abd al-RahmBn M. 'UthmZn [Medina, 1389: 19691, 139 [al-'IrBqi's comment]).

This work of Ibn al-SalBh's is likely to have been the source from which later authors quote Ibn al-SalBh on the proper vocalization of the name KarrLm (al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-ictidal, ed. 'Ali M. al-BijZwi [Cairo, 13821 19631, 4:22; TZj al-Din al-Subki, Tabaqdt al-shaficiyya al-kubrd, ed. 'Abd al- FattBh M. al-Hulw and Mahmiid M. al-TanBhi [Cairo, 13831 19631, 2:305 (from rnajdmi of Ibn al-SalBh). On this philological problem, see the exhaustive discussion in Texte, 8-1 1.

It may be noted that Ibn al-Haysam's interest in the Qur'Bnic sciences is revealed not only by the quotations from his writings that appear in al-Mabdni and in the work of his grandson al-Haysam b. Muhammad, identified by van Ess (Texte, 68-73), but also by his activity in the field of qird'dt. As reported by Ibn al-Jazari, Gha.vat al-nih5,va fi !abaqdt al-qurra', ed. G. Bergstrbser (Cairo, 1351-52, 1932- 33), 2:274, Ibn al-Haysam's learning in this area, as transmitted by Abii Muhammad HBmid b. Ahmad (Ibn al-Jazari, 1:202), was relied upon by AbG 'Abdallah Ahmad b. Abi 'Umar al-KhurZsZni (Ibn al-Jazari, 1:93) in his K. al-idah on the ten qird'dt. Since, according to Ibn al-Jazari, al- KhurBsPni died after 500 A.H. , he is probably not to be identified with the KarrBmi expert on qird'at Ahmad b. Abi 'Umar al-Misri known as al-ZZhid al-AndarBni (d. 4701 1077) (IbrZhim b. Muhammad al-Sarifini, al-Muntakhab min k. al-siyaq li-ta'rikh Nisdbiir, in The Histories of Nishapur, ed. R. N. Frye [Cambridge, Mass., 19651, f. 33a).

In addition to Ibn al-Haysam, al-Mabdni (173-74) quotes al-Shaykh AbU 'Amr 'UthmBn b. Baqiyya al-MBzini, who is probably the Karrgmi Abu 'Amr al-MZzili or al-MBzuli (Texte, 77-79).

Mabdni, 6. In I(. al-Ghurar fi asarni al-suwar (Mabani, 64); al-lbana

wa'l-icrdb (Mabani, 116); al-Zina fi su'dlat al-qur'an (Ma- bani, 1 16) (an unfinished work); ul-Durar f i tarfi- ul-suwar (Mabani, 172).

Z ~ s o w : Two Unrecognized Karrdnzi Texts 579

since he reports having heard traditions from Ibn al- Haysam, who died in 409/ 1019."

Whatever theological tendency al-Mabdni may represent is kept well in the background.'2 The style throughout is that of conservative Islamic learning, rooted in the prophetic traditions. The work contains numerous isndds, replete with names that are now unidentifiable. Notable is the author's interest in fur- nishing an isndd of his own for the traditions that he cites from one of his chief sources, the K. FThi rnd f ih of Abii Sahl Muhammad b. Muhammad b. 'Ali al- Tiilaqani an-Anm2ri.I3

Our present ignorance of the Karramiyya is such that we cannot assign our author with definiteness to any particular branch of the sect. We d o not know, for example, what significance, if any, is to be attached to the author's use of the epithet al-Imam al-HBdi for Ibn ~ a r r B m . ' ~ It is clear enough, however, that the author of al-Mabdni stood in close relation to the circles from which Ibn al-Haysam emerged, and one of the author's teachers, Abii Jacfar Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Jacfar is known to have transmitted traditions to Ibn a l - ~ a ~ s a m . ' ~

Mabdni, 207, 240. On Ibn al-Haysam's date of death, see Texte, 61 -62.

I' There is a brief disparaging reference to the claim made by a Shicite imam in the mountainous regions of Isfahan to be in possession of a fuller text of the Qur'Bn (Mabdni, 40). On the evolution of ImBmi doctrine on this issue, see E. Kohlberg, "Some Notes on the Imamite Attitude to the Qur'an," in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition: Essays Presented. . . to Richard Walzer, ed. S. M. Stern, A. Hourani and V. Brown (Oxford, 1972), 209-24. '' Mabdni, 16. '' See n. 20 below,

Al-'Iraqi, a/-Taqyid wa'l-iddh, 139. This scholar may be the Muhammad b. JaCfar who was Ibn al-Haysam's teacher (Texte, 28-29) and is perhaps to be identified with the Hanafi jurist and ascetic AbiI JaCfar Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Jacfar, who died in 4131 1022 (Fasih Ahmad b. JalZl al- Din Khwafi, Mujmal-efajihi, ed. Mahmud Farrokh [Mash- had, 1339 41 solar/ 1960-621, 2:126). Another of the author's teachers, Abu'l-QBsim 'Abdallah b. MahmashBdh, also appears to have been older than Ibn al-Haysam, for he reports traditions directly from AbiI Sahl al-AnmZri (Mabani, 8), the author of K. FThr ma fih, whereas Ibn al-Haysam reports from Abu Sahl through Abu'l-Nadr Muhammad b. 'Ali al-Tglaqani (Mabdni, 240), as does another of the author's teachers, AbG 'Abdallah Muhammad b. 'Ali (Mabdni, 8). On the Mahmashadh family, see C. E. Bosworth, "The Rise

The second of the works to which I wish to draw attention is al-ATutaf fi'l-fatawd, edited about a decade ago by SalBh al-Din al-NBhi, and attributed by him to the Hanafi Qadi Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. al-Husayn al- Sughdi (d. 4611 1068).16 This is a work on Islamic law and covers the standard topics in two volumes of over 800 printed pages. It is characterized by a highly articulated presentation of the rules of law, with little attention to legal argument. There is, however, constant reference to the points of disagreement among the leading jurists such as Abii Hanifa, Abii Yiisuf, Muhammad al-Shaybani, al-ShBfici and Miilik.

If every book has its secret, as the saying goes, then the secret of al-ATutaf is the identity of the jurist Abii 'Abdallah, whose opinions are as fully reported as those of the famous jurists named in the preceding paragraph, a fact which no attentive reader could fail to note. In fact, the manuscript tradition of al-ATutaf, as presented by Professor al-NBhi's edition, provides no less than three suggested solutions to this problem. But of these only one was recognized as such by the editor and discussed by him in the footnote that he devotes to the identity of Abii ' ~ b d a l l ~ h . "

According to the editor, a marginal note in the Izmir manuscript of al-Nutaf identifies Abii 'AbdallHh as Abii 'AbdallBh al-Bukhgri (d. 546/1151). This identification is rejected by the editor on the ground that al-Sughdi (d. 461/1068), whom he regards as the author of al-Nutaf, died well before this Abii 'AbdallBh. The editor himself suggests, only to reject, the identification of Abii 'AbdallHh with Imam al- Haramayn al-Juwayni, whose death date, 4781 1085, is also too late. He finally settles upon the identification of Abii 'Abdallah as one of al-Sughdi's teachers.

Although the editor fails to note it, the identification of Abii 'Abdallah as al-Juwayni already appears in the text of al-Nutaf, in the form of what is clearly a copyist's gloss that has worked its way into the body of the work, producing the otherwise unknown Abii 'AbdallBh a l - ~ u w a ~ n i . ' * Since Imam al-Haramayn's kunya was Abu'l-Mac2li, it is not clear how the editor came to consider the famous al-Juwayni as a possible

of the KarBmiyyah in Khurasan," Muslim World (50) 1960, reprinted in Bosworth, The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia (London, 1977). 7-12. Texte, 33-35, furnishes an annotated family tree.

I d Baghdad, 1975-76. " Nutaf, 1:8, n. 1.

Nutaf, 1:79. The interpolated words are on the second line from the bottom: a/-Juwaynimin ashab a/-Shdfici.

580 Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.4 (1988)

candidate for the solution of the Abii 'Abdallah mys- tery, unless this solution was suggested to him by this reference in the text of al-Nutaf itself. But if so, it is somewhat surprising that he was not disturbed by the anachronistic (on his own view) appearance of Imam al-Haramayn in the text he was editing.

Another copyist's gloss interpolated into the text of al-Nutaf, which the editor has again failed to note, is the one that points in the right direction. This gloss identifies Abii 'Abdallah as al-~arrarni ." In fact, Abii 'Abdallah is none other than Muhammad b. Karram, the founder of the Karramiyya, and al-Nutaf is more than simply a work of Hanafi f iqh, as the editor thought, but a unique source for the f iqh of the ~ a r r i i m i ~ ~ a . ~ '

l 9 Nutaf, 1:372. 20 In K. al-Siydq li-taJrikh Nisdbiir of 'Abd al-GhZfir al-

FZrisi (d. 5291 1135) in The Histories of Nishapur, ed. R. N. Frye (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), the KarrZmiyya are routinely referred to as a jhfb AbTcAbdallfh, a usage already noted by W. Madelung, "The Spread of MZturidism and the Turks," Arras do IV congress0 de estudios arabes e islimicos, Coimbra-Lisboa 1968 (Leiden, 1971). 121, n. 32a, and by C. E. Bosworth in an addendum to the 1977 reprint of his "Rise of the KarBmiyyah in Khurasan," 13.

The evidence presently available suggests that this usage became prevalent in the course of the fifthleleventh century. Reports of Ibn KarrZm's teachings by his contemporaries consistently refer to him as Ibn KarrZm, to judge by the examples collected in al-Dhahabi, Ta'rikh al-islam 241-350, Leiden Or. 2363, f . 74a. In British Museum Or. 8049, which van Ess dates to about 400 A.H., the reference is consistently to Abu 'Abdallah (Texte, 55, n. 236). So also al-Haysam b. Muhammad (first half of fifthjeleventh century) quotes a legal work of Abu 'AbdallBh (Texre, 72, n. 325). In K. R a ~ , n a q al-quliib (ca. second half of fifth!eleventh century) the usage alternates between al-ImBm al-ZBhid AbO 'AbdallZh and al-ZZhid Muhammad b. KarrZm (Texte, 31).

The evolution in usage is evident in the writings of non- KarrBmis. In 'Abd al-QZhir al-BaghdZdi (d. 429! 1037), al- Farq h a w al-firaq, ed. Muhammad Muhyi al-Din 'Abd al-Hamid (Cairo, n.d.), 215-25, the reference is exclusively to Ibn KarrZm. The Zaydi al-HZkim a lJushami (d. 4941 1101) in his Sharh 'Uyiin al-masf'il (passages translated in Texre, 20 29) usually refers to Abu 'AbdallZh, sometimes to Ibn KarrZm. The ImZmi Sayyid MurtadZ b. DZci al-RBzi (first half of sixthltwelfth century), K. Tabsirat al-'awcimm ,fi ma'rifat n~aqa l f t al-andm, ed. 'AbbBs lqbB1 (Tehran, 13 13), 64-74, almost always uses the form Abn 'AbdallBh-e KarrBm. Al-ShahrastBni (d. 5481 1 153), al-Milal way-nihal, ed. 'Abd al-'Aziz M. al-Wakil (Cairo, 1387 1968), 1:108,1 12. refers to

Our knowledge of Karrami f iqh apart from al- Nutaf is sparse to say the least, but sufficient to corroborate that the legal doctrine attributed by al- Nutaf to Abii 'Abdallah is Karrami. The sources to which we have to turn are not the standard works on legal differences (ikhtildf), but writings of other genres.

In the first place stand the references to Karrami fiqh found in Ahsan al-taqiisim (completed about 3751985) of the geographer al-Maqdisi, whose account bears no signs of the hostility to the Karramiyya that we find el~ewhere.~ ' Al-Maqdisi informs us about several specific Karrami legal teachings. Like ashdb al-hadith, the Karramiyya admit the wiping of the headcovering ('imdma) as part of ritual ablution ( W U ~ Z ~ ) . ~ ~ On four points, al-Maqdisi tells us, the Karriimiyya differ from all others: in their leniency (musdmaha) with respect to the formulation of an intention (niyya) for acts of worship,23 in allowing mandatory prayers to be performed on horseback,'< in recognizing the validity of the fast of someone who eats unwittingly after daybreak,'5 and in recognizing the validity of morning prayer which is still in progress when the sun rises.26 A fifth point is found in one of the manuscripts: the Karramiyya allow the jumCa prayer to be conducted with fewer than forty persons and outside of a settled town ( m i y jdmic).27 For each of these points of law we can find a teaching attributed to Abii 'Abdalliih in al-Nutaf which is either directly on point or which at least furnishes the basis for a plausible explanation of al-Maqdisi's f o r m u l a t i ~ n . ~ ~

AbO :AbdallZh. In his K. Nihdyat al-aqdam, ed. A. Guil- laume (Oxford, 1934), 105 (Arabic), we find the ibn-less Persian form AbU CAbdallZh al-KarrZm (unless the proper reading is al-KarrZmi). " Al-Maqdisi says of the KarrZmiyya that they are ah1

zuhd wa-tacabbud wa-marji'uhum ilii Abi HanTa wa-kull man raja'a ild Abi Hanqa . . . fa-laysa bi-mubtadi' (Ahsan al-taqasimfi macrifat al-aqalim, ed. M. J . de Goeje, 2d ed. [Leiden, 1906, reprinted Baghdad, n.d.1, 365).

7 ,

*' Maqdisi, 40. Cf. Nutaf, I : 19. '3 Maqdisi, 40. Cf. Nuraf, 1:56-57, and see discussion in

text below. '' Maqdisi, 40. Cf. Nutaf, 1 :83 (~aliit al-musGyafa). 2 5 Maqdisi, 40. Cf. Nutaf, 1:157 (point 14). '' Maqdisi, 40. Cf. Nutaf, 1180. " Maqdisi, 40. Cf. Nutaf, 1:90-93. This point is the only

one that is troublesome. According to Abn 'Abdallah the jum'a prayer may only be conducted in a town (qarya) that contains at least forty men (Nutaf, 1:92), but the prayer itself may be performed by two men (Nutaf, 1:93).

.R See references in nn. 2 2 27 preceding.

Z ~ s o w : Two Unrecognized Karrdmi Texts 58 1

Other accounts of Karriimi fiqh give us further details, but at the same time raise problems of a new dimension, since all come from sources with an un- disguised hostility toward the Karramiyya. The brief account provided by the Ashcari Shiifici heresio- grapher 'Abd al-QBhir al-Baghdiidi (d. 4291 1037-8) of what he terms "the unprecedented imbecilities of Ibn Karram in law" is characteristic of these sources.29

Al-Baghdadi cites four points of law. Ibn Karriim, he tells us, held the view that the prayer of a traveler could be validly performed with two takbirs without the other elements that ordinarily constitute prayer. Ibn Karriim further held that prayer could be validly performed by someone in a state of personal uncleanness, since he required cleansing (~ahdra) only on account of ritual impurity (hadath). Ibn Karram also taught that washing and praying over the dead were only recommended, not obligatury like shrouding and burial. Finally, he taught that prayer and fasting, insofar as obligatory, required no intention (niyya), since he held that the intention of accepting Islam in the beginning (niyyat al-isldm fi'l-ihtidd') was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of an intention for all obligatory rituals of slam.^'

Abu'l-Muzaffar al-Isfarii'ini (d. 471 / 1078), who like al-Baghdiidi was an Ashcari Shiifici and whose account differs but little from that of his predecessor, expands upon the role of intention in Karrami law. The "intention in the beginning," he tells us, is the intention expressed by all the future descendants of Adam when they acknowledged God as their Lord, as reported in the Qur'an (7: 172). This primordial intention expressed by Adam's first progeny (al-niyya al- sdbiqa fi'l-dharr al-awwal) obviates the requirement of any further intention with respect to obligatory rituals, but not with respect to supererogatory rituals, since these the first progeny did not accept. "Would that they knew," al-Isfarii'ini adds, "on what basis they say this and on what basis they say that all obligations, in all their details, were set before them and accepted. If they base this on what is in the Qur'iin, there is nothing more in the Qur'an than the offering to them of the formula of belief (kalimat al- ~ m d n ) . " ~ ' This account of Ibn KarrHm's teaching on

29 Al-BaghdBdT, al-Farq, 223: abdaca fi'l-fiqh hamaqdt lam yusbaq ilayha. Abu'l-Muzaffar al-IsfarBJini, al-Tabsir fi'l- din, ed. M. Z. al-Kawthari (Cairo, 13591 1940), 69, speaks of khurafat, harnaqat and jahdldt. Ibn DBzi, Tab~irat al- 'awamm, 67, refers to thefadd'ih of the KarrBmiyya.

30 Al-BaghdBdi, al-Farq, 2 2 3 24. 3 1 Al-IsfarB'ini, al-Tab~ir , 69.

intention attaches it to the well-known Karrami doctrine that all men are believers by virtue of the original allegiance to the lordship of God that they undertook in their pre-existence.32

Of the four points of Ibn Karram's fiqh touched upon by al-Baghdadi, two are in direct contradiction to the information supplied by al-Nutaf. The traveler's prayer for Abii 'Abdallah consisted of two complete r a k ' a ~ . ~ ~ As for Ibn Karriim's indifference to tangible impurity, al-Nutaf expressly states that according to Abii 'Abdalliih prayer cannot be validly performed when tangible impurity greater in extent than a dirham adheres to the clothing or the body.34 On the other hand, al-Baghdiidi's summary of Ibn Karram's teaching on the obligations due to the dead appears to be correct.35 There is also some basis for al-Baghdadi's report on Ibn Karriim's doctrine of intention. Thus al-Baghdadi's account exhibits no more than a fifty- percent correspondence to the information in al-Nutaf, and even less if we look closely at the doctrine of intention presented in a l - ~ u t a f . ~ ~

Al-Nutaf distinguishes between a "prior intention" (niyya qadima) and a "supervening, or subsequent, intention" (niyya hdditha, niyya jadida). The former

" Al-BaghdBdi, al-Farq, 223; al-Isfars'ini, al-Tabair, 69; Abu'l-Yusr al-Bazdawi, U~fi l al-din, ed. Hans Peter Linss (Cairo, 13831 1963), 21 1-12.

j' Nuraf, 1:75. 34 Nutaf, 1:34. 31 Nutaf, 1:32 (ghusl al-sunna). 36 - The account of KarrBmi law in Ibn DBCi, Tabsirat al-

'auvimm, covers some dozen or so points, of which only two or three are corroborated by, or can be so construed as to accord with, al-Nutaf. For example, it is correctly stated that Ibn KarrBm did not regard the qu'fid and two tashahhuds as essential elements (arkdn) of saldt (p. 67; cf. Nutaf, 1:47).

A number of the teachings attributed to Ibn Karram in Tabsirat al-'awdmm are highly shocking: homosexual relations with non-Muslims are an act of worship ('ib8dat) (68- 69, with reference to Qur'Bn 9:120 and a verse by a KarrBmi poet; cf. Nutaf 1:269 [homosexual acts subject to hadd of zing]); intercourse with emission but without penetration does not make ghusl obligatory (68; cf. Nutaf, 1:29); un- natural intercourse with a menstruating woman is permitted (69; cf. Nutaf, 1: 137). Needless to say, al-Nutaf provides no basis upon which to attribute such teachings to Ibn KarrBm. It may be noted that opinions favoring the permissibility of anal intercourse were attributed to both MBlik (Ibn Juzayy, Qawdnin al-ahkdm al-shari'iyya, ed. T. Sa'd and M. al- HawwBri [Cairo, 1395/ 19751, 22 [slander]) and al-ShBfici (al- Amir al-SanCBni (Subul al-salam sharh bulfigh al-maram [Cairo, 13791 19651, 3: 138).


is defined as the "intention (irdda) to perform future obligations as laid down by God at their appropriate times." The latter is the "intention to perform obligations that one intends to perform at the time Cfi'l- waqt)." A prior intention obviates the need for a subsequent intention, although a subsequent intention merits a reward of its own.37 The doctrine of a prior intention appears to have been designed to provide a solution to certain technical problems of ritual law, particularly prayer.38 There is no trace in al-Nutaf of any theological substructure for the legal doctrine.39 In fact, the language of al-Nutaf makes it clear that not everyone will have a prior intention, which could not be the case if the prior intention were common to all descendants of darn.^'

The correspondence between the legal teachings ascribed to Abii 'Abdallah in al-Nutaf and the reports on Karriimifiqh in al-Maqdisi and the heresiographers is sufficient to corroborate the identification of the Abii 'Abdalliih of al-Nutaf with Ibn KarrBm. Another question is the relative reliability of al-Nutaf and the heresiographers where they fail to agree.

It is, of course, possible to prefer the heresiographers. The doctrine of al-Nutaf, it might be argued, represents a reformulation of KarrHmi law designed to rid it of its more objectionable features, along the lines of the reformulation of KarrBmi theology which Ibn al-Haysam is supposed to have accomplished." According to this hypothesis, al-Nutaf would be in- accurately ascribing reformulated Karrgmi law to Ibn Karriim, while the heresiographers preserve his original teachings. There is, however, evidence that runs counter to such a theory. In the first place, al-Nutaf carefully distinguishes between the teaching of Ibn KarrBm and that derived from it.42 In the second

3 7 Nutaf, 1:56-57. A third intention is labelled "discrimina- tory" (rnumayyiza), since it "discriminates what is obligatory ( f a r i b ) from what is recommended (sunna) and what is recommended from what is supererogatory (fadd'il) (Nutof, 157).

18 Nutaf, 158-60 (saldt), 1: 155 (~awrn); 1:207 (talbiya). 39 Nor is there any such trace either in Maqdisi, 40, or in

Ibn DB'i, Tabsirat 01-'awdrnrn, 67. 40 . ldha kdnat lahii niyya qadirna (Nutaf, 1:58, 11. 12-13);

wa-in lam yakun lahii niyya (1:155, 1. 12). 4 I Al-ShahrastBni, 01-hfilal, I:I12 (wa-qad ijtahada Ibn al-

Haysam fS irrndrn rnaqdlat Abi CAbdalldh fS kuN rnas'ala); al-ShahrastZni, Nihdyat al-aqddrn, Arabic pp. 105, 122 (razwirat Ibn al- Hayjarn . . . wa-innarnd huwa ijldh madhhah Id yaqbal 01-is13 wa-ibrdm rnu'taqad Id yaqbal al-ibrdrn wa 'I-ihkdm). " See n. 59 below.

place, a theory of this sort fails to come to terms with the agreement between al-Maqdisi's account and al- Nutaf. It is surely simpler to posit carelessness or even maliciousness on the part of the heresiographers than inaccuracy on the part of the author of al-Nutaf.

Another possible course in upholding the accuracy of the heresiographers is to hypothesize a Karriimi esotericism which would not readily expose eccentric Karriimi legal teachings to the scrutiny of the un- initiated. The possibility of KarrBmi esotericism is in fact raised by a reference in the Persian heresiographical Tabsirat al-cawdrnrn of the Imgmi Ibn DBCi (first half of the 61'12th century) to a Kitdb al-Sirr among the writings of Ibn KarrBm. "They call it secret," we are told, "because they do not show it to any but the inner circle (khawdss) of his followers." Somewhat ironically, given the alleged laxity of the Karramiyya with respect to purity, Ibn Karrgm is supposed to have written in his own hand on the flyleaf of this book, "Let none but the purified touch it (Qur'dn 56:79)."43

Without dismissing the existence of Karriimi esotericism out of hand, here again it is simpler to trace the problem that confronts us to the heresiographers than to the KarrHmiyya. The discussion of KarrBmi law in the heresiographical sources is confined almost exclusively to ritual law. This is hardly fortuitous. By virtue of its relative imperviousness to rational analy- sis, this area of the law is a touchstone of fidelity to the Islamic revelation and the Muslim community. Remaining within the accepted parameters of ritual law was thus of considerable symbolic importance, and within ritual law, the laws of purity must have been especially sensitive barometers of social cohesion.

These considerations emerge with particular clarity in the account of KarrHmi legal practice furnished by the Shafici QBdi Abii Jacfar al-Zawzani and preserved by Ibn Al-Zawzani portrays the Karriimiyya

4 3 Ibn DgCi, Tabjirat al-'awdrnrn, 65. Ibn DaCi's informant here, as for much of his account, is Q a d i Abii Jacfar al- Zawzani, for the identification of whom see the following note. The problem of KarrXmi esotericism is raised not only by Ibn Karram's K. a/-Sirr but also by al-HBkim al-Jushami's reference to the secret teachings of the Karramiyya, which they termed ahkdrn (Texte, 25). The teachings al-Jushami mentions are, however, unlike those quoted from R a/-Sirr, exclusively theological.

44 Al-Zawzani is surely to be identified with Qadi Abn Jacfar Muhammad b. IshBq al-Zawzani al-BahhFithT (d. 4631 1071) a famous lampoonist, not the otherwise obscure Muhammad b. IshIq b. 'Uzayr, whom van Ess tentatively suggests (Texte, 77), but whose kunya, Abii Bakr, is wrong.

Z ~ s o w : Two Unrecognized Karrdmi Texts 583

as at one and the same time both lax and over- scrupulous with respect to the laws of purity.45 Their perception of purity is thus seriously out of focus by Islamic standards. Ibn KarrHm, as already observed, applied to his Kitdb al-Sirr the standard of purity appropriate to the QurcHn. Even more telling is Ibn KarrHm's alleged teaching on the impurity of wine:

Should one drop of wine fall into the Caspian Sea and a sparrow drink a drop of water from that sea and fly off and then reach the ocean seven years later, and a bit of excrement from that bird fall into the ocean, the water of the ocean and the flesh of every creature in the ocean would be prohibited. So that if someone should eat a bit of the flesh of a fish from the ocean, he would be liable to the hadd penalty [for consuming wine]. And should he die, it would not be lawful to pray over him. But he should be cast onto a Magian fire-temple so that birds may devour him.46

For biographical references, see 'Umar Rid3 Kahhsla, Mu'jarn al-rnuJall$in (Damascus, 13791 1960), 9:41. Y3qiit wrote of al-Zawzani, wa-mb taraka ahad min al-kubard' wa'l-aJimma wa'l-fuqahb' wa-sd'ir al-asnaf min al-nas illb hajahu wa-waqaca fih (Mu'jam al-udabaJ, ed. A. F. RifZCi [Cairo, 1936-381, 18:18). For one of his victims, Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Rahm3n al-Kanjariidhi (d. 453/1061), see al- Sarifini, al-Muntakhab, f. 10a, where the text (1. 9) refers to al-Qgdi al-Zawzani. It may be noted that Ibn Abi'l-Waf%' al-Qurashi, al-Jawbhir al-mudiyya jT tabaqbt al-hanafiyya (Hyderabad, 1332), 2:31, lists al-Zawzani as a Hanafi.

45 Ibn DBCi, Tabsirat al-'awdmm, 67 (prayer in unclean garment), 68 (impurity has no effect on small amount of water unless color, smell or taste is changed) (confirmed by Nutaf, 1:9), 69 (personal uncleanness in prayer). Cf. the description of the Karriimi Ishaq b. Ahmad al-Muhammad- Zb3di (d. 47811085) as muhta! fi'l-!ahdra wa-nazafat al- thiyab in al-Sarifini, al-Muntakhab, f. 47a.

46 Ibn Daci, Tabsirat al-'awdmm, 68. The ultimate source for this quotation is Ibn Karr3m's son, who related it to al- Bazzgzi, a Karrgmi leader contemporary with Abii 'Amr al- M3zini (lbn DgCi, Tabsirat al-'awamm, 65-66). The striking name of Ibn Karram's son, 'Abd al-Jasim, appears to have gone unnoticed. Ibn Karr3m's forceful personality is still discernible from the meager sources presently available, and it is perhaps not surprising that he should have found this provocative way of asserting his belief that God is a jism (al-Baghdadi, al-Farq, 216). Ibn KarrBm's fondness for theological neologisms was already a topic of medieval comment (El2, S.V. Karramiyya, 4:668b).

On the question of the original context of the quotations from Ibn Karram in Ibn Daci , see Texte, 16-19. Al-Nutaf may in fact prove of assistance in corroborating the authen-

We therefore need not go so far as to suppose a sustained KarrHmi esotericism to explain the absence from al-Nutaf of the more provocative details of KarrHmi law supplied by the heresiographical accounts. These accounts are clearly the last place where we would look for a balanced discussion of KarrHmi teachings, and we can fully agree with Bosworth when he says that "theological prejudice in these writers made them exaggerate the differences between the KarHmiyyah and the other legal and theological schools."47

The identification and reliability of al-Nutaf as a repository of KarrHmi law having been dealt with, the tasks remain of eliciting what al-Nutaf can tell us about KarrHmi law and of situating the work itself in the KarrHmi legal tradition.

Al-Nutaf leaves no doubt that Ibn KarrHm's legal doctrine was closely affiliated with Hanafism, but this is hardly a surprise. In defending the KarrHmiyya against the charge of being innovators, al-Maqdisi already pointed to, among other things, their affiliation to Abii ~ a n i f a . ~ ~ The problem lies in identifying more precisely the relation between KarrHmism and Hanafism, and with respect to this problem, al-Nutaf, far from providing an obvious answer, only suggests more questions.

Al-Maqdisi tells us that the KarrHmiyya possessed both a legal system and a theology (f iqh wa-kaldm) of their own.49 But other sources point to a more complex situation. According to Ibn DHci most of

ticity of some of these quotations. For example, in his K. al-Sirr Ibn Karram is alleged to have posed the question of why washing underwear is not prescribed for farting "since the wind is no more free of dust (bbd-i az ghobar khali na- bovad) than a fart of moisture" (Ibn DgCi, Tabsirat al- 'awamm, 67, translated in full in Texte, 16). This notion is conceptually akin to Ibn Karriim's remarkable teaching that as a last resort tayammum may be performed by waving one's hands in the air "since the air is not free of dirt" (li- anna al-hawa' la yakhlii min al-turdb) (Nutaf, 1:39, which identifies this teaching as the view of Wahb b. Sayyar). The closest teaching to that of Ibn Karr3m that 1 have been able to find is that of the Sh3fici Abii Hgmid al-IsfarB'ini (d. 4061 1016), who would permit tayammum in a blowing wind (al- rih al-hiibba) (Ibn Hajar al-'Asqaliini, Fath al-bari bi-sharh al-Bukhiiri[Cairo, 13781 19591, 1:450).

4 7 Bosworth, "Rise of the Karamiyyah," 7, n. 5. 48 See n. 21 above. Ibn Karr3m is reported to have trans-

mitted a tradition foretelling Abii Hanifa's role as a renewer of the Prophet's sunna (al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-ictidal, 1:106- 7. See Texte, 49).

49 Maqdisi, 37.

584 J o u r n a l of the American Oriental Society 108.4 (1988)

t h e KarrHmiyya h a d their o w n legal system, while s o m e of t h e KarrHmiyya in Ghiir a n d S ind fol lowed Abii ~ a n i f a . ~ ' T h e combina t ion of H a n a f i law a n d Karri imi theology also appears in t h e line of the poe t Abu' l-Fath al-Busti (d. 4001 1010): "the only t rue legal system (fiqh) is Abii Hanifa's, just a s the only t rue religious sys tem (d in) is t h a t o f M u h a m m a d b. ~ a r ~ m . " " T h e Shic i te 'Abd al-Jal i l al-Riizi (ca. 5401 1145) distinguishes a m o n g H a n a f i s according t o their theological affiliation: Kar rami , Muctazi l i , NajjHri o r o r t h o d o x ~ a n a f i . ~ '

A n interest ing postscript t o these sources comes f r o m Masciid b. S h a y b a al-Sindi, a s taunch H a n a f i of the 7th! 13th century. According t o Ibn Shayba , I b n KarrHm combined the theology of the an thropo- morphis t s (usiil a l -mushabbiha) with mos t of t h e law (akrhar furc ' ) o f Abii Hanifa. I n his o w n d a y , I b n S h a y b a tells us, "the KarrHmiyya a r e a small g r o u p (shirdhima) living in the mounta ins of Ghiir a n d t h e suburbs ( sawad) of Ghazna . w h o m t h e H a n a f i s s h u n a n d w h o m o n occasion some' of them a n a t h e m a t i ~ e . " ~ ' Presumably I b n Shayba's familiarity with KarrHmi law was gained in those regions where, a s we learn f r o m I b n DHCi, t h e KarrHmiyya adhered t o a m o r e o r less s tandard variety of H a n a f i law, which I b n S h a y b a simply at tr ibuted t o Ibn KarrHm.

T h e positive in format ion t h a t al-Nutaf furnishes with respect t o t h e background of I b n Karram's legal doc t r ine a n d t o t h e evolution of K a r r a m i law c a n be

5 0 Ibn Dg-i, Tabjirat al-'awdmm, 76, 90. In his account of the troubles of 595 1199 involving Fakhr al-Din al-Rszi and the Karrami Ibn al-Qudwa (on which see C. E. Bosworth, "The Early Islamic History of Ghiir," Central Asiatic Journal VI. no. 2 [1961]: 131--32), Ibn al-Wardi(d. 749; 1349) speaks of the presence of al-karrami).ya min al-hanafi-a wa'l- shefici.r!.a (Tatimmat al-mukhtasar fi akhhar al-hashar [Cairo. 12851, 2:114). But this is most likely due to carelessness. Ibn al-Athir (d. 630. 1233) in recounting these events mentions al-fuyaha' min al-karramiyva way-hanafiyya wa'l- shafiLi?:va (a/-k'amil.fi'1-ta'rikh, ed. Tornberg [Leiden, 1853. reprinted Beirut, 1386 19661, 12: 151). '' The translation is that of Bosworth, "Rise of the Kar-

Bmiyya." 8. which gives the sources. Al-Subki, Tahaqat al- .rhL'fii-i!ya. 2:305, which Bosworth does not list, has ra'j, in place of fiqh. 5L -Abd al-Jalil al-Razi, K. al-Naqd, ed. Jalal al-Din

Husayni Urmawi, n.p., n.d.. 74. 'I ,va naf- minhun~ al-i~anafiyya wa-rubbanxi j.aI'anahun1

ha &hum (Mascud b. Shayba b. al-Husayn al-Sindi. Muqad- dinlar k. al-ta-lim, ed. Muhammad "Abd al-Rashid al- Nu man7 [Hyderabad, 1384 19651. 205).

quickly summar ized . References in al-Nutaf t o the legal op in ions of A h m a d b. H a r b (d. 234!848-9), already k n o w n a s I b n KarrHm's mas te r in asceticism, suggest t h a t I b n H a r b m a y have played a role in I b n Karriim's format ion a s a jurist a s A p a r t f r o m I b n Karriim, w h o is mentioned throughout al-Nuraf, there a r e frequent references t o t h e legal views of a

54 On Ibn Harb's relation to Ibn Karram, see Massignon, Essai, 259-60, 318. References to Ibn Harb's legal opinions appear in Nutaf, 1.6 (purity of water), 47 (prayer), and 501-2 (pre-emption). In the first reference Ibn Harb is reported to have refined a classic Hanafi problematic. In the last reference, Ibn Harb and Ibn Karram are reported as in agreement with a reported teaching (reading wa-riwayatin at 502, 1. 1) of al-Shaybani (cf. 'Abdallah b. MahmUd b. Mawdnd al- Mawsili, al-Ikhtiyar li-taCliI al-mukhtdr, ed. Mahmiid Abn Daqiqa [Cairo, 1951 ' 1370. reprinted Beirut, n.d.1, 2:44~-45, where this teaching is attributed to Abii Yiisuf).

According to al-Khatib al-Baghdsdi, Ta'rikh Baghdad (Cairo, 1349, 193 I), 4:118, the Karramiyya "claimed" (tanta- hil) Ahmad b. Harb. Jacqueline Chabbi has suggested that this association with the Karramiyya may have led to Ibn Harb's being ignored in Sufi historiography until the 5th. 11th Century ("Remarques sur le developpement his- torique des mouvements ascktiques et mystiques au Khora- san: iiie# ixe siecle-ive, xe siecle," Studia Islamica 46 [1977]: 30, 48, n. 3). It should be noted, however, that Ahmad b. Harb appears at the head of the list of fuqahd2 and pilihiin in the Persian translation of al-Hakim al-Samarqandi's (d. 342;953) al-Sawad al-a'gam (Tarjome-ye al-sawdd al- a'zam, ed. 'Abd al-Hayy Habibi [Tehran, 13481, 146) but is missing entirely in the Arabic original (al-Sawad al-a'zam, n.p., n.d., 31). Since this translation is dated by its editor to about 370 A.H.. this pushes back the chronology for Ahmad b. Harb's re-emergence put forward by Chabbi. The Persian text is not otherwise favorably disposed to the Karramiyya (Tarjome-),e al-sawad al-aCgam, 115 [Karrami teaching on the Qur'an is kufr]).

It is possible that Ibn Harb had a role to play in Ibn al- Haysam's attempt to trace Karrsmi doctrine back to 'AIi by way of Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161 3778) (Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, Sharh Xahj al-halfRha, ed. Muhammad Abu'l-Fad1 Ibrahim [Cairo, 1379, 19601, 6:371). See the report, transmitted by way of Ahmad b. Harb and Sufy2n al-Thawri. of 'Ali's being taught a supplication at the Ka'ba by al-Khadir. in al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ta'rikh Baghdad, 4:l 18-19,

It is interesting to note that J u m c a b. 'Abdallah al-Balkhi, who is supposed to have exposed Ibn Harb's Murii'isrn (Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani. Lisdn al-mizan [Hyderabad, 13291, 1: 149; Massignon. Essai, 259) appears in an isnad in Mabani, 17 (Jum'a b. 'Abdallzh Abu Bakr al-Sulami al-Balkhi).

Z ~ s o w : Two Unrecognized Karrdmi Texts 585

certain Muhammad b. Sahib, sometimes referred to simply as al-~haykh." In the form Muhammad b. al- Sahib this name also appears in one of the isndds of the Qur'Hn commentary British Museum Or. 8049, studied by van ESS. '~ On the basis of van Ess' dating of this work to about 400, the place of Ibn Sahib in the isndd in which he appears allows us to assign him to about the first half of the 4th/ 10th century.57 Ibn SBhib appears to have been quite independent in developing his own legal opinions and may have stood to Ibn KarrBm in the same relation that Abii Yiisuf and al-ShaybBni bore to Abii ~ a n i f a . ' ~ There is, moreover, language throughout al-Nutaf that indi- cates that Ibn KarrBm's legal teachings underwent a typical elaboration at the hands of his follower^.'^

Unfortunately, al-Nutaf does not ordinarily furnish the arguments for the rules of law that it states.60 Any

reconstruction of the missing argumentation must depend upon general progress in the study of Islamic law. But the study of Islamic law, to which al-Nutaf has a notable contribution to make, has not advanced to the point of making such a reconstruction feasible. Still less are we in a position to attempt an overall assessment of Karrami law as contrasted with some other Islamic legal system.

As far as legal theory ( u ~ i i l al-fiqh) is concerned, al-Mabdni has more to tell us than al-Nutaf, which has only a few suggestive remarks here and there.6' From al-Mabani it is clear that the Karrami tradition represented by Ibn al-Haysam, which we can provi- sionally regard as mainstream Karramism, embraced a standard variety of legal theory, one that recognized the validity of rules of law that were only probable ( z ~ n n i ) . ~ ~ But there is evidence that other types of

5 5 Sometimes we find al-Shaykh Muhammad b. Sahib (e.g., Nutaf, 1:322). Muhammad b. Salih (Nutaf, 1~602, 612) is clearly a typographical error. That Muhammad b. Sahib is the same person as al-Shaykh is corroborated by the appearance of the latter as a variant for the former (Nutaf, 2~622; and see editor's note at Nutaf, 1:164). The only difficulty presented by the text against such an identification is the attribution to Muhammad b. SBhib and al-Shaykh of in- compatible opinions on a single point of law at Nutaf, 2:699, 1. 13. Possibly al-Shaykh here is a misinterpretation by a copyist of the abbreviation shin for al-Shafi'i that is used in some of the manuscripts of al-Nutaf. But there is some question whether the teaching at issue (consuming the property of another rather than eating maj ta ) is to be attributed to al-ShafiCi. The opposing opinion appears in al- ShBfiCi, al-Umm (Beirut, 1400/1980), 2:277, but see Abii lshaq al-Shirazi, a/-Muhadhdhab (Cairo, n.d.), 1:250 and the commentary of al-Nawawi, al-Majmuc(Cairo, n.d.), 9:46.

The otherwise unknown Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hi121 al-HaddZdi may also have been a Karrami jurist (Nutaf, 1:90, where the full name appears, 171 [al-Haddad], 385 [paired with Ibn Sahib against a/-fuqaha' and Abii 'Abdal- Iah], 2:702). See further n. 78 below.

56 Trxte, 44. " Texte, 54. 5 8 He often appears holding an opinion opposed to that of

Ibn Karram (e.g., Nutaf, 1:164, 216, 224, 385), but his opinions are reported even when in agreement with those of Ibn Karriim (e.g., Nutaf, 1:403, 447).

59 Qiyas qawl Ahi 'Ahdalla'h (Nutaf, l:l54, 361, 2:699 [= qawl Muhammad b. Sahib]); ashbah hi-qawl Abi 'Abdal- la'h (Nutaf, 1:156, 202); riw@ata'n (Nutaf, 1:197, 310); qawliin (Nutaf, 1:418).

60 For examples of arguments cited in support of the opinions of Abii 'Abdallah, see Nutaf, 1: 14 (israf in wudu'),

36 (sperm is pure because God would not create a prophet from what is impure), 39 (tayammum in air), 75 (permission to break fast of Ramadan [if&-] is ikram from God of which one travelling for a sinful purpose is unworthy), 93 (khutba), 128 (ten reasons ('ilal) why funeral service is "prayer" (jala't) in the strict sense).

Certain of Ibn Karrgm's legal opinions appear to bear some relation to the circumstances of his life. For example, Ibn Karram's leniency with respect to the prayers of someone kept in confinement (Nutaf, 134 [tayammum in air]) is reminiscent of Ibn KarrBm's own long imprisonment and his repeated practice of preparing to leave for the jum'a prayer. When stopped by the guard, he would say, "0 Lord, I have tried my best. The obstacle is not of my making (wa'l-man' min g h a ~ r i ) . " (al-Subki, Tabaqat al-shc7fici~~,a, 2:302, quot- ing al-Hakim al-Nisabiiri). Similarly, Ibn Karram's considerable powers as a preacher are suggested by his opinion, in agreement with that of Abii Hanifa, that both delivering and listening to the Friday khutba were obligatory (farida) but could be discharged by a single word "since the point of the khutba is in the moral lesson ('iza) and there can be a powerful lesson ('iza baligha) in a single word" (Nutaf, 1:93). " For example, Nutaf, 1140 (qiya) , 83 (taklifmd la yutaq),

436 (istihsan), 490 ('awn 'ala a/-macsiya), 501 (Muhammad b. Sahib: ahwat). Ibn Karram's use of discordant traditions (which are generally not cited in al-Nutaf) may reveal pat- terns discernible in other Islamic legal systems (e.g., Nutaf, 1:8-9 [purity of water]), but this point cannot be entered into here.

62 Maha'ni, p. 47, 1. 13 (hi-khahar al-wahid dCn al-jam' alladhi yulzim al-j,aqin), 195, 1. 19 (hi-akhbar tunqal ilayhim 'ah alsinat al-ruwat mimma' la yanqatic (read yuqta? 'alc7 mugha~yabih i bi'l-yaqin). The important passages on ujul al-fiqh in Mabdni, 200-206, are replete with the terminology characteristic of al-tahsin al-'aqli (hakim, hikma, tajwiz fi'l-


legal theory won support among the ~ a r r a m i y ~ a . ~ ~ Al-Maqdisi tells us that some of the Karramiyya accepted general infallibilism (taswib) and held that every mujtahid was correct with respect to both theology and law. This teaching, as al-Maqdisi notes, was associated with the ~ u r j i ' a . ~ ~ And Abu'l-Muzaffar al-IsfarBcini writes of a leading Karrami, who, wishing to elevate theology (kaldm) above law, used to say that the learning of al-ShBfici and Abii Hanifa could all be fitted under a woman's hems.65 This attitude is characteristic of legal infallibilism, which regards every mujtahid as correct on points of law, since law is not a discipline in which certainty is generally attainable. Certainty pertains to theology, which is the learning worth acquiring. Legal infallibilism was widespread in Muctazili circles and came to dominate 'IrBqi Hanafism, so that it is not surprising to find that it made headway among Karrami jurists as

The recognition of al-Nutaf as a unique source for the fiqh of Ibn Karram calls for a re-examination of the identity and legal affiliation of its author. The editor of al-Nutaf, Professor al-NBhi, accepts the attribution of the work to the Hanafi QBdi al-qudBt Abu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. al-Husayn al-Sughdi (d. 4611 1068), a teacher of al-Sarakhsi (d. 4901 1096).~' But this attribution is hardly free from doubt. HBjji Khalifa, in fact, lists the names of no fewer than four authors to whom al-Nutaf was attributed, with al- Sughdi standing in the first place, followed by a

'uqzil) and thus confirm the Karrami espousal of this ethical doctrine reported elsewhere (e.g., al-Shahrastlni, al-Milal, 1:113). On this point see Texte, 17. 03 It is not clear whether the denial that there is a category

of indifferent (muhmal, mubah) human conduct attributed to the Karramiyya in K. a[-Iktisab fi'l-rizq al-musta!ab, ed. 'Izzat Amin a l - ~ ~ t t i r (Cairo 13571 1938), 68, is meant as a serious statement of legal theory. On K. a/-lktisab, which purports to be an abridgment by Muhammad b. SamaCa (d. 2331847-48) of a work of al-ShaybZni (d. 189/.805), see Texte, 75-76.

64 Maqdisi, 38-39. 6 5 Al-Isfara'ini, al- Tabsir, 69. 6 6 See Chapter 5 of my "Economy of Certainty: An Intro-

duction to the Typology of Islamic Legal Theory," Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1984.

6 7 See the editor's discussion, Nutaf, 2:872-73, 877-78. A biographical notice on al-Sughdi's teacher Abti Muhammad CAbdallah b. Ahmad al-Kufini. which the editor was unable to locate, may be found in al-Samcani, K. al-AnSab, ed. D. Margoliouth (London, 1912), f. 485b, who gives Muham- mad in place of Ahmad.

certain al-Ghaznawi, al-Timurtashi, and Sharaf al- Din QBsim b. Husayn al-Damrsji (al-DamrBghi) (d. 854i 1459).~' The manuscripts examined by the editor, not all of which bear the name of an author, do actually exhibit the different attributions noted by Hajji Khalifa, except for that to a l - ~ i m u r t a s h i . ~ ~ To complicate matters, al-Nutaf appears to have also circulated under the title Nutaf al-hisan 'ala madhhab Abi Hangs al-Nucman, a work for which HBjji Khalifa has a separate entry and which was attributed to Abii Bakr al-Wasifi, a teacher of al-Sarakhsi, and to Abii 'Abdallah al-Barqi, as well as to others not named.70 The foregoing makes it amply clear that the identity of the author of al-Nutaf was no longer familiar to the Hanafi circles in which the work circulated.

Internal evidence that could assist in the identification of the author of al-Nutaf is very sparse. There is no introduction or epilogue to speak of. Of the iden- tifiable jurists named in the work, most are early." The latest jurist mentioned appears to be the Hanafi Abii Jacfar al-Hinduwani (d. 362!973).72 Unfortu- nately our knowledge of the organization and technical terminology of Islamic legal texts hardly permits

68 H3jji Khalifa, Kashf al-zunzin, ed. 3. Yaltkaya and R. Bilge (Istanbul, 13621 1943), 2: 1925. 69 See editor's discussion, Nutaf, 2:867-72, where the form

al-Damirji, instead of al-Damr3ji, appears, erroneously it seems, throughout. The printed edition is based on the following manuscripts: 1. Dkta'i, Fihrisi-e kitabkhdne-ye astane-ye qods-e radawi (Mashhad, 1329), vol. 5, 884 fiqh (attributed to al-Sughdi); 2. Da'ud al-Chelebi, K. Makhtfitdt a/-Mawsil (Baghdad, 13461 1927), MS 186 (Madrasat 'Abd al- Rahman al-SZ'igh, without attribution); 3. Yeni Cami 500 (attributed to al-Qasim b. al-Husayn al-Damrgji); 4. Izmir 361 312 (attributed to Abu 'Abdallah al-Qasim b. al-Husayn al-Ghaznawi).

7 0 Kashf al-zunfin, 2:1925. A. J. Arberry, The Chester Beatty Library: A Handlist of the Arabic Manuscripts (Dublin, 1955-64), lists al-Nutaf a/-hisan, attributed to al- QIsim b. al-Husayn al-Damraghi (2:96, MS 3473) and al- Nutaf madhhab Abi Hanqa, attributed to AbU Bakr al-Wasiti (3:88, MS 3697).

7 ' The Hanafi Abti JaCfar al-TahBwi(d. 321i933) is in one place referred to as baCd al-muta'akhkhirin (Nutaf, 1:54). See 'AlZ' al-Din al-Samarqandi, Tuhfat al-fuqahd', ed. Mu- hammad Zaki 'Abd al-Barr (Damascus, 13771 1958), 1:182, and al-Mawsili, al-Ikhtiyar, 1:39-40, for the identification. Al-Tahawi is elsewhere referred to by name (Nutaf, 2:700, 782).

7 2 Nutaf, 1:191.

Z ~ s o w : Two Unrecognized Karrarni Texts 587

the confident invocation of such criteria for the pur- poses of dating.73

The legal affiliation of the author is also uncertain. Al-Nutaf does not, any more than al-Mabdni, bear an obviously KarrPmi character on its face, and it is not surprising that the editor, along with earlier Hanafi scholars and copyists, should have regarded al-Nutaf as a work of Hanafi fiqh, insofar as the text, given its comparativist character, represents any particular school at all. Nonetheless, there are several reasons for believing that the author was a KarrPmi jurist. In the first place, the author, who, as observed, rarely provides the reasoning behind the rules of law that he sets forth, seems to do so most often in the case of Ibn KarrBm's teachings.74 And on occasion he even offers arguments of his own to bolster Ibn KarrBm's views.7r Secondly, KarrPmi doctrine is sometimes presented without attribution as the accepted teaching.76 But the strongest argument for identifying the author of al-Nutaf as a KarrPmi is his interest in Ibn KarrPm's fiqh. There is no Hanafi work with which I am familiar that even remotely suggests a comparable concern with KarrPmi law, and there is evidence, that from Ibn Shayba, that orthodox Hanafis shied away from the Karramiyya. The attribution of al-Nutaf to al-Sughdi, a Hanafi of im- peccable credentials, is therefore highly doubtful. The dating of the work to al-Sughdi's time, ca. 1050, is, however, not unreasonable in the absence of other evidence.

If one has to hazard a guess, it may be suggested that al-Nutaf'was written for KarrPmi students of law, some of whom were Hanafis and some of whom followed Ibn KarrPm or his successors such as Mu- hammad b. Sghib. The author's constant concern to

73 One example of an apparently unusual usage is khiydr al-'aqd for what is commonly referred to as khiydr al-qabiil (Nutaf, 1:433, editor's note).

7 4 For examples, see n. 60 above. 75 Nutaf, 1x41 (wa-yuqawwi qawl Abi 'Abdalldh), 128 (wa-

awkad rnin dhrilika kullihi). 7 6 The most striking example of this is the teaching on in-

tention (Nutaf 1:56-57) discussed above. See also Nutaf. 1.32 (washing of the dead is sunna; it is wdjib for the Hanafis [al-Samarqandi, Tuhfat a/-fuqahd: 1:378]) and Nutaf, 1:497 (shufca available to k h a l i ~ only according to al-Shaykh; the standard Hanafi teaching, which recognizes several classes of claimants (tarlib), is not presented until p. 502). The passage on qibla (Nutaf, 1x70) is also noteworthy.

present the views of Ibn KarrHm, even when Ibn KarrPm is in agreement with the leading Hanafis, makes it clear that no attempt is being made to absorb KarrPmi law into mainstream ~ a n a f i s m . ~ ~ The Hanafis represent a distinct group, of which Ibn KarrPm is not a part.78 It was the author's well- organized and lucid presentation of Hanafi fiqh that led to the popularity of al-Nutaf among generations of Hanafi jurists who no longer knew the identity of Abii 'AbdallPh or had any other reason to suspect the work's Karrami origin.

77 It is possible that Ibn KarrBm's transmitted legal opinions did not cover all areas of law. This would account for the absence of AbCi 'AbdallZh's name from various parts of the text of al-Nutaf and would explain such a remark as that made in connection with the discussion of ild': hhahd kulluhu qawl AbT Hanva wa-ashdbihi (Nutaf, 1~370).

7R The Hanafis as a group are sometimes referred to as Abfi Hanva wa-ashdbuhii (e.g., Nutaf, 1:54, 229, 385 [four times]), but more frequently simply as al-fuqaha' (e.g., Nutaf, 1:16, 28 [as distinct from Malik, al-Shafi'i and Abii 'Abdal- lah]). At Nutaf, 1:75, the opposition is between the two fariqs, that is, the fuqahd' and the Shaficis, with Abn 'AbdallLh in the middle. The opposition of a/-fuqahd' and Abii 'AbdallBh is frequent (e.g., Nutaf. 1:9 [wa-hddhd qawl al-fuqahd' jarnican wa-fi qawl Abi cAbdall~h], 58 [twice]). Similarly, thefuqahri' are opposed to Mutiammad b. Sahib (Nutaf, 1x404, 427 [twice]) and to al-HaddIdi (Nutaf, 1:385). At Nutaf, 21702, al-Haddadi is opposed to Abu Hanqa wa-ashdbihi.

At several points the author of al-Nutaf refers to "our jurists" (fuqahd'und), a term which may include both Hanafis and Karramis (Nutaf, 1:106, 361, 436 [Cularnri'unri], 2:702 [al-arnr bi'l-rnacriif]). Nutaf, 1:503, is the strongest argument for this interpretation. There the author contrasts the opinion of some fuqahd' that a minor has no right of pre-emption (shuf'a) with that of "our fuqaha'," who give a minor equal rights with an adult in this matter, and then goes on to specify the teachings of Abii Hanifa, AbB Yiisuf, al-ShaybBni and AbB 'Abdallah. On the other hand, the antecedent of "our fuqahd"' at Nutaf, 1:374, 1. 7, is Abzi Hanva wa-ashdbuhii (as opposed to al-ShBfi'T), although there is no indication that AbCi 'AbdallZh held a different opinion from that of the Hanafis on the question at issue, that yaciidiina in Qur'gn 58:3 refers to the resumption of conjugal relations, not the repetition of the zihar formula (cf. al-Samarqandi, Tuhfat al-fuqahd: 2:320-21 [for al- ShBficT, 'awd is failure to pronounce [alriq; for the ZBhiris, it is the repetition of the zihcr formula]).

two unrecognized texts

Documents