We mentioned in that review the following concerning Dr. Brown’s book:
The section “Western debates over historical reliability” is an absolutely essential read for those highly critical of Hadith literature.
Especially the section on ‘Western Evaluation‘.
Where he quotes from the works of Nabia Abbott, David Powers, Fred Donner, and Harold Motzki, all who do not dismiss Hadith literature outright.
These are the names of scholars that those people who reject the hadith in totality would prefer you do not know about.
In fact, one of the claims by people who reject the hadith in total is that that textual hadith came along some 250–300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Here is a German orientalist, Dr. Harald Motzki, who takes the followers of the ‘Qur’an only Religion‘ to task for this assertion.
The following entry is a must-read for anyone who holds the assertion of textual hadith coming some 250–300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
We have yet to see anyone from the ‘Qur’an Only’ movement interact with any of Dr. Motzki’s material in any meaningful way at all.
This is worth a read if we are looking at being fair and honest.
Again, we feel that the Prima-Qur’an approach, as embodied by the Ibadi school, is a middle ground between rejecting the traditions in their entirety, and accepting the traditions in their entirety.
“The Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani as a Source of Authentic Ahadith of the First Century A.H.” – by Harald Motzki
“O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allāh against yourselves a clear case?” (Qur’an 4:144)
﷽
Who is Wilferd Madelung?
For those not familiar with Wilferd Madelung. He has had a deep engagement with Islamic scholarship, in particular the Shia tradition. He was a highly respected scholar of Islamic and Iranian studies. He dedicated his career to studying Islamic history and theology, including the nuances of different Islamic sects like Twelver, Ismaili, and Zaydi Islam. He was honoured as an Iranian dignitary and received praise for his works supporting the Shia view on the succession to the Prophet Muhammed (saw).
Curriculum Vitae-
Wilferd was educated in Stuttgart (Eberhard Ludwig Gymnasium), Washington DC (Woodrow Wilson High school, Georgetown University), Cairo (Fuad I University), Göttingen, and Hamburg, where he obtained his PhD in 1957. Between 1958 and 1960, he served as cultural attaché at the West-German Embassy in Baghdad, followed by a visiting professorship at the University of Austin, Texas (1963). Following his Habilitation in Hamburg, he taught as Privatdozent in Hamburg during the academic year 1963-64. Since 1964, Madelung has taught at Chicago University as Assistant professor (Associate Prof., 1966; Professor of Islamic History, 1969). Between 1978 and 1998, Madelung taught as Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford University. Between 1999 and 2021, Wilferd Madelung was affiliated with The Institute of Ismaili Studies as a Senior Research Fellow. Wilferd Madelung passed away on 9 May 2023 in Oxford.
Rumors of conversion to Imami Ismaili Nizari Shi’ism.
What fuled the rumors and speculation?
His relationship with the Aga Khan, Madelung’s rigorous and sympathetic work, earned him immense respect within the Ismaili community. He was appointed as the Head of the Department of Academic Research and Publications at The Institute of Ismaili Studies (IIS) in London, an institution established by His Highness the Aga Khan IV (the current Imam of the Nizari Ismailis). This close association with the spiritual leader of the Ismailis fueled speculation.
To outsiders, the combination of deep, sympathetic understanding and a high-ranking position within an Ismaili institution seemed to suggest something more than academic interest. The conclusion some jumped to was that he must have converted.
The counter to the rumor.
No public declaration or evidence: There has never been a public statement from Madelung, his family, the IIS, or the Ismaili community claiming he converted. In the absence of any evidence, the claim remains a baseless rumor.
Paragraph 1
“Among the prominent Companions of the Prophet Muhammed, ‘Abd Alla b. Al-Abbas (d. 68/687), paternal cousin of Muhammed and of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, became the primary religious teacher of the muhakkima who after the slaying of the caliph Uthman had been vigorous supporters of Ali, but then deserted him in protest against his arbitration agreement with Mu’awiya. Ibn al-‘Abbas evidently had been well known to them, and highly regarded by them, long before their revolt against ‘Ali. Born three years before the hijra and still a minor at the time of the death of the Prophet, he had first been drawn into a political role by the caliph ‘Umar, who took him into his intimate confidence as a representative of the Banu Hashim, the kin of Muhammed. The caliph Uthman, while besieged by rebels from Egypt in his place in Medina, appointed him a leader of the pilgrimage to Mecca and entrusted him with reading a lengthy message to the assembled pilgrims in which ‘Uthman defended his conduct in office and appealed for their help. Ibn al-Abbas read the message to the Mecca pilgrims on 7 Dhu-l-Hijja 35/6 June 656, just eleven day before the caliph was killed. He then became a close adviser of ‘Ali and was appointed by him governor of Basra after the Battle of the Camel. Like ‘Ali, he did not view the rebels against ‘Uthman as culpable in his death.”-Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 2
“When after ‘Ali’s arbitration agreement with Mu’awiya some 12,000 muhakkima seceded in protest from his army and camped at Harura outside Kufa in Rabi’ I 37/Aug-Sept, 657. ‘Ali first sent Ibn al-‘Abbas to them as a mediator. The majority of the seceders, however, rejected his unsound argument that arbitration was generally allowed by the Qur’an and only a few of them returned to Kufa. ‘Ali then was able to persuade all of them to return by promising them to resume the war against Mu’awiya in six months. He evidently expected the arbitration attempts to have failed by then. Quarrelling between the muhakkima and the supporters of arbitration in Kufa delayed ‘Ali’s expedition of his arbitrator, Abu Musa l-Ash’ari, beyond the six months, and when Abu Musa left for the site of arbitration in Dumat al-Jandal accompanied by Ibn al-‘Abbas and an escort of 400 Kufan warriors, the muhakkima decided to leave Kufa secretly and to assemble in al-Nahrawan near al-Mada’in. This time they chose ‘Abd Allah b’ Wahb al-Rasibi as their chief and asked their muhakkima brethren in Basra to join them. Some 2,000 men thus gathered in al-Nahrawan while the meeting of the two arbitrators took place in Dumat al-Jundal in Shawwal-Dhu l-Qa’da 37/March-April 658.“--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 3
“After the breakup of the arbitration meetings in failure to resolve the conflict, ‘Ali immediately denounced the arbitrators and ordered his army to mobilize for a new campaign against Mu’awiya. He wrote to the muhakkima in al-Nahrawan inviting them to join. Their position, however, had now hardened and they demanded that ‘Ali publicly repents of his earlier agreement to arbitration. As ‘Ali led the Kufan army northward toward al-Anbar, some of the muhakkima vented their frustration in wanton murder of Muslims, including ‘Abd Allah, the son of the Companion Khabib b al-Aratt, his pregnant wife and an envoy sent by ‘Ali to them. ‘Ali saw himself forced to abandon his campaign against Mu’awiya and to deal with the muhakkima rebels. In the battle of al-Nahrawan in Dhu l-Hijja 37/ May 658u more than 1,000 of them were killed.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 4
“‘Abd Allah b al-‘Abbas, it should be noted, was not present at the Battle of al-Nahrawan, as ‘Ali had deputed him to lead the pilgrimage to Mecca for the year. Ibn al-‘Abbas evidently regretted the assault on the rebels collectively and the resulting massacre. Had he been present, he would no doubt have counseled to restrict any punishment to the actual perpetrators of criminal violence and to leave the others alone, whatever their incendiary rhetoric. As it were, he soon advised ‘Ali, when the latter bitterly complained about the lack of support he had from his men for his campaign against Mu’awiya, to treat them kindly in patience, since they might change their mind in the future. His different attitude toward the seceders soon turned Basra into a safe haven for the muhakkima. While they were unable to establish themselves as a dissident community in the extremely hostile environment of Kufa under the rule of ‘Ali, they found refuge as a tolerated opposition party in Basra under the governorship of Ibn al-‘Abbas, who would not interfere with their activity as long as they abstained from acts of violence and breach of the peace in the city. The muhakkima in Basra fully appreciated the policy of Ibn al-Abbas and looked to him as their trustworthy religious teacher, even though he had defended the legitimacy of ‘Ali’s agreement to arbitration. The bulk of them were tribesmen of Tamim, and they kept the peace with the majority of Tamim and the other tribes in the arbitration.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 5
“When Mu’awiya, after the surrender of al-Hasan b ‘Ali in the year 41/661, claimed the rule of Basra, the muhakkima, who had declared him an infidel (kafir), refused to pledge allegiance to him. Mu’awiya then appointed Ziyad b Abih, his bastard paternal brother, who had been Ibn al-‘Abbas trusted assistant in the government of Basra, governor of the town. Although personally less sympathetic to the muhakkma, Ziyad prudently treated them as Ibn al-Abbas had done. They were now led by the Tamimi Abu Bilal Mirdas b Udayya, the brother of ‘Urwa b Udayya who was reputed to have been the first in the army of Ali to proclaim the takhaim: “la hukma illa li-illlah-No rule but God’s”. Abu Bilal continued to keep the peace in the town for two decades during the Caliphate of Mu’awiya. In his later years of leadership he befriended Abu l-Sha’tha Jabir b. Zayd, a pupil of Ibn al-‘Abbas ,and accepted him as his adviser in matters of religion.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 6
“Mu’awiya’s professed policy of seeking revenge for the slaying of the caliph ‘Uthman on all of his opponents and even on neutrals who had failed to rally to his defense, as well as his affirmation of the exclusive right of the Qurash to the caliphate in Islam drove many Muslims in Iraq and the eastern provinces, who had not objected to the arbitration or had even supported it, to join the ranks of the seceders. During Mu’awiya’s divisive caliphate, the muhakkima became a widespread, nonviolent opposition movement in the eastern Islamic world. Especially the eastern Arabian tribes of Rabi’a were now attracted to the ideology of the muhakkima. The seceders basic dogma that Islam implied the sovereign rule of God rather than any human being, be he of Quraysh or not, and the recognition that the rule of God meant to obey the Qur’an to the letter, appealed to them. Rabi’a, especially Bakr b Wa’il, had made up the backbone of ‘Ali’s army at Siffin and he thwarted Mu’awiya’s hope for outright victory in the battle. After the surrender of al-Hasan b ‘Ali, Mu’awiya sought to humiliate them by seizing from them the sword of the caliph ‘Umar, called Dhu-l-Wishah, which they had acquired as war booty after killing Umar’s son, Ubayd Allah at Siffin. The bulk of Rabi’a would not pledge allegiance to Mu’awiya and remained in opposition to his caliphate.”-Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 7
“Special was the case of the Banu Hanifa, a sub-tribe of Bakr b. Wa’il mostly sedentary in al-Yamama. Their grievance against the pretention of the Quraysh was long standing. Their king Hawdha had offered Muhammed to accept the religion of Islam if the Prophet allowed him to share in the political rule of his people. His negotiations with Muhammed, however, failed and when he died, his successor Musaylima claimed to be a prophet to his people, presumably as a rival to Muhammed, not a denier of his prophethood. Only a small group of Hanifa at the time opposed Musaylima and accepted Muhammed as their prophet.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 8
“After the death of Muhammed and the establishment of the caliphate of Quraysh, the Muslims viewed Hanifa as apostates and followers of a false prophet. In the Battle of al-‘Aqraba, they subdued them breaking fierce resistance. While many companions of the Prophet fell, the Banu Hanifa were decimated and some of their women and children enslaved. They were excluded form the wars of conquest under ‘Umar, stayed neutral in the revolt against ‘Uthman, and unlike the bulk of Rabi’a, did not join the army of ‘Ali. There were no tribesmen of Hanifa among the original muhakkima. Busr b Abi Artah, Mu’awiya’s general sent to subdue Arabian towns and countryside, and to punish former supporters of ‘Ali and neutrals alike, carried off the son of the former chief of Hanifa, Mujja’a b Murara, as a captive to Mu’awiya and recommended that the caliph kill him as a punishment. Mu’awiya, however, accepted the pledge of allegiance of the captive and confirmed him as chief of his people. He then claimed the agricultural land of Hanifa in al-Yamama as crown property and had it cultivated by his slaves. The majority of the Banu Hanifa joined the muhakkima movement evidently early during the caliphate of Mu’awiya.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 9
“Two of the leaders of the Hanifa muhakkima, Nafi b al-Azraq and Najda b ‘Amir, are known to have had ‘Abd Allah b al-‘Abbas as their authoritative teacher in religion. They are described as rivals for the leadership in their community and as seeking to bolster their own authority by relying on religious verdicts of the cousin of the Prophet. Nafi’ b. Al-Azraq al-Hanifa-Hanzali, who later became the chief of the most radical sect of the Kharijis, was the son of a freedman of Greek origin. He put questions to Ibn al-‘Abbas, presumably in Mecca during the pilgrimage season, about the meaning of Qur’anic terms and then asked him for confirmation of that meaning by their use by Arab pre-Islamic poets. Numerous such masa’il were later transmitted and collected by Sunni scholars. While western scholars following J. Wansbrough have viewed all reports of Masa’il Nafi’ b. Al-Azraq as entirely fictitious, the authenticity of at least a core of them has been defended by A. Neuwirth with strong arguments. Given the paramount importance of the correct understanding of the meaning of the Qur’an for the muhakkima, it is evidently quite reasonable that a non-Arab mawla should have put such questions to Ibn al-‘Abbas and have asked for proof-text form Islamic poetry. Neuwirth suggested that the meeting of Nafi’ and Najda with Ibn al-‘Abbas most likely took place in the year 60/680. It seems more likely, however, that the two interrogated Ibn al-‘Abbas earlier during the caliphate of Mu’awiya, when Ibn al-‘Abbas is known to have regularly taught and responded to questions during the pilgrimage season.”-–Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 10
“Najda b ‘Amir, a native Arab tribesman of Hanifa who evidently had a much larger following among them than Nafi’ b. Al-Azraq, put question on theology to Ibn al-‘Abbas. ‘Abd Allah b. Yazid al-Fazari, the 2nd/8th century Kufan Ibadi kalam theologian, quotes a report according to which Najda asked Ibn al-‘Abbas about how he recognized his Lord remarking that there was disagreement among the people in that regard. Ibn al-‘Abbas answered with a lengthy statement that he recognized his Lord as He described Himself in His Book. Ibn al-‘Abbas then denied that God could be seen or perceived by the senses and rejected any anthropomorphic concept of God (tashbih). He affirmed God’s justice in all His decisions and judgement, but emphasized His determination of all acts of His creatures by His decisive will and foreknowledge.”-–Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 11
“The great expansion of muhakkima ideology in the eastern Muslim world came into the open during the second inter-Muslim War (fitna) that raged for over a decade from 61/681 to 73/692. The war was provoked by Mu’awiya’s appointment of his son Yazid as his successor and his demand for an immediate pledge of allegiance to him. The refusal of several prominent Companions, especially ‘Abd Allah b. Al-Zubayr, al-Husayn b ‘Ali and ‘Abd Allah b. Al’Abbas, to pledge allegiance encouraged tribal chiefs to withhold their pledge. Mu’awiya’s poisoned murders of potential rivals and opponents of his son then inflamed the latent enmity against him. Mu’awiya first poisoned al-Hasan b. Ali whom he had contractually promised an election of his successor by consultation (shura), thus inciting Shi’i revolt. When the tribal leaders in Syria expressed their preference for ‘Abd al-Rahman, the son of the ‘Sword of Islam’ Khalid b. Al-Walid, for the succession, he had him poisoned. This drove the Banu Makhzum, Khalid’s kinsmen in Mecca to solid support of the counter-caliphate of ‘Abd Allah b. Al-Zubayr. In Basra the Rabi’a resisted Mu’awiya’s demand that they pledge allegiance to Yazid, and many of them left the town. Mu’awia then put pressure on Khaild b al-Mu’ammar, the chief of Bakr b. Wa’il, who promised him to secure the loyal support of Rabi’a to him. Mu’awiya now appointed him governor of Armenia, but still distrusting him as a former supporter of ‘Ali, he had him poisoned when he reached Nasibin.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 12
“After the death of Mu’awiya in 60/680, the muhakkima came in large number to Mecca, where ‘Abd Allah b. Al-Zubayr was then seeking asylum, preparing to defend the Holy City against any Syrian assault and to recognize Ibn al-Zubayr as their imam. When they questioned about his views concerning the caliphate of ‘Uthman and he insisted that ‘Uthman had been wrongfully killed, they turned away from him. They continued, however, to protect Mecca against any Syrian encroachment. In 64/683-4 they aided Ibn al-Zubayr’s supporters in holding off the Syrian attack on Mecca before the death of caliph Yazid. Ibn al-Zubayr now claimed the caliphate and gained wide recognition throughout the central and eastern regions of Islam. The muhakkima and the Shi’a, however, would not recognize him, and in Syria the Umayyad Marwan b. Al-Hakam soon found recognition as caliph. By 67/687 Najda b. ‘Amir, the leader of the Hanifa muhakkima, gained control over all of Arabia except Mecca and Medina. Ibn al-Zubayr now expelled Muhammed b. Al-Hanafiyya, whom the Shi’a in Kufa recognized against his will as the imam and mahdi from Mecca. When Ibn al-‘Abbas publicly protested the expulsion, Ibn al-Zubayr furiously expelled him, too, from his home town. The two and their families sought refuge in al-Ta’if which was under Najda’s rule. Najda again consulted Ibn al ‘Abbas on questions of religion. When he considered blocking the food supply to the two holy cities, ‘Abd Allah b. Al-‘Abbas remonstrated with him, and he desisted. Internal conflict among the Hanifa about the leadership weakened his position gradually and eventually he was killed by his rival Abu Fudayks in 72/691. Abu Fudayk in turn was killed in al-Bahrayn a year later by the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik’s commander ‘Umar b ‘Ubayd Allah b. Ma’mar, and Ummayad rule was finally restored over all of Arabia.”-–Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 13
“After the death of Ibn al-‘Abbas in 68’687 in exile in al-Ta’if, his Berber freedman ‘Ikrima d. ca. 105/723) became an active propagandist for the muhakkima, ‘Ikrma had been given a slave boy to Ibn al-‘Abbas when he came to Basra as governor. Ibn al-‘Abbas educated him in Qur’an exegesis and the sunna and then employed him to teach and give legal counsel in his master’s place. ‘Ikrima took part in the burial of Ibn al-‘Abbas in al-Ta’if. Shortly afterward he is mentioned during the pilgrimage to Mecca serving Najda b ‘amir as his doorman. Since he is called in the report the slave (ghulam) of Ibn al-‘Abbas, it seems not unlikely that the latter had before his death attached ‘Ikrima to Najda to counsel him in religious law He was then manumitted by Ibn al-‘Abbas son and heir ‘Ali b. ‘Abd Allah. In any case, ‘Ikrima became widely recognized as the foremost and best informed transmitter of the Qur’an exegesis of Ibn Al-‘Abbas, but was also accused of falsifying his master’s teaching in promoting muhakkima doctrine. He is described as traveling throughout the Muslim world spreading Khariji ideology. His teaching now became radically anti-Shi’i. Thus he proclaimed that the ahl al-bayt whom according to the Qur’an 33:33 God wanted to purify meant specially the wives of the Prophet, excluding his kin, daughter and grandsons. This was entirely contrary to the view of Ibn al-‘Abbas, who ever upheld the divinely privileged religious rank of the Prophet’s kin and progeny, and ‘Ikrima could not have asserted it during his life-time. ‘Ikrima is further described as coming jointly with an Ibadi missionary sent by Abu ‘Ubayda to the Maghrib in the early 2nd/8th century where he summoned to the Sufriyya. It was at this time that the muhakkima expanded widely in the Maghrib as they had expanded a generation earlier throughout the eastern Muslim world and Arabia. The Sufriyya are known to have constituted a substantial community in the far western Maghrib for some time, but later the Ibadiyya prevailed.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 14
“The long term impact of Ibn al-‘Abbas’s teaching on the muhakimma and the Ibadiyya in particular has been significant. In theology they have consistently repudiated the tendencies to anthropomorphism apparent in the Sunni traditionalist doctrine including the dogma of the visio beatifica of God in the hereafter. Against Murj’i tendencies they have vigorously upheld the eternal punishment of Muslim wrongdoers by God. Against Mu’tazili rationalist doctrine divine justice entailing free will, they have mostly affirmed the determining effectiveness of God’s eternal will and foreknowledge. There were, however, significant groups in the 1st/7th and 2nd/8th centuries who inclined the Mu’tazili position on divine justice.”-–Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 15
“In religious law and ritual, the muhakkima were in general less influenced by the teaching of Ibn al-‘Abbas than the Shi’a. Fully supporting the caliphate of ‘Umar, they, unlike the Shi’a, did not question the legitimacy of ‘Umar’s religious reforms, such as the change of the wording of the call to prayer and the prohibition of the mut’ah temporary marriage. However, in the question of the permissibility of al-mash ‘ala l-khuffayn, the rubbing of the footwear instead of washing the feet for ritual purification, they sided with the Shi’a denying it against the Sunni consensus. While there was apparently no ruling of the caliph ‘Umar concerning al-mash ‘ala l-khuffayn, it was definitely declared impermissible by Ibn al-‘Abbas.”=–Wilferd Madelung
Source: (‘Abd Allah b. al-‘Abbas and the Muhakkima by Wildred Madelung pgs 69-73)
Our thoughts on what Professor Wilferd Madelung has stated.
You will notice there are basically two source materials thath Madelung draws upon.
Al Baladhuri – 9th century Sunni historian
Al-Tabari 9th – 10 century Sunni historian
Reading this we did not feel that there were any new discoveries or any particular breakthroughs. There did not seem to be any original thoughts, ideas or contributions. Perhaps the readers could glean something from the material that we could not.
For example, you could read the above information and make the horrible mistake that Madelung is sharing his own personal thoughts. In reality, in today’s world we call this copypasta.
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 2
Madelung states: “The majority of the seceders, however, rejected his unsound argument that arbitration was generally allowed by the Qur’an and only a few of them returned to Kufa.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Where does Madelung get this information from? Is this truly their position? Who is reporting that this is their position? Where do they get this information from or base this information on?
Madelung states: “Ali then was able to persuade all of them to return by promising them to resume the war against Mu’awiya in six months.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Source for this?
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 3
Madelung also curiously states: “As ‘Ali led the Kufan army northward toward al-Anbar, some of the muhakkima vented their frustration in wanton murder of Muslims, including ‘Abd Allah, the son of the Companion Khabib b al-Aratt, his pregnant wife and an envoy sent by ‘Ali to them.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Wanton killing of Muslims (plural) who?
Which of the muhakkima vented these frustrations?
We thought the point of academics and historians was not to embellish accounts.
Madelung: “Hey guys, I am feeling very frustrated about what happened.”
Bob: “Me too, Wilferd.”
Madelung: “Not only am I very frustrated, I am also quite bored.”
Bob: “Yeah, what can we do with all this pent-up frustration?”
Madelung: “Well, we could always go ambush someone, and if we happen upon a pregnant woman we could just gut her and take her child out.”
Bob: “Wil my man sounds like a plan!”
Nevermind this very interesting piece of information from At Tabari.
Ali heard that the men were saying among themselves, “If only he would go with us against these Haruriyyah (Ahl Nahrawan) , and we dealt with them first and then, having finished with them, we turned our attention to the profaners of Allah’s law (al-mu1 illin-Syrians)!” So Ali addressed them, and after praising Allah and extolling Him, said, “I have heard what you have been saying : ‘If only the Commander of the Faithful would go with us against this group of Kharijites that has rebelled against him, and we dealt with them first and then, having finished with them, we turned to the profaners of Allah law.’ But others are more important for us than these Kharijites. Stop talking about them and march instead against a people who are fighting you so that they may be tyrants and kings and take the servants of Allah as chattel .” And the men shouted from every side, “Commander of the Faithful, lead us wherever you wish!”
So these sources which are not Kharijite sources admit to the fact that there were people (agitators) who wanted to go and fight the Haruriyyah (Ahl Nahrawn) first!
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 4
Madelung states: “‘Abd Allah b al-‘Abbas, it should be noted, was not present at the Battle of al-Nahrawan, as ‘Ali had deputed him to lead the pilgrimage to Mecca for the year. Ibn al-‘Abbas evidently regretted the assault on the rebels collectively and the resulting massacre. Had he been present, he would no doubt have counseled to restrict any punishment to the actual perpetrators of criminal violence and to leave the others alone, whatever their incendiary rhetoric.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: The implication here by Madelung is that Ibn ‘Abbas would have participated in the battle of al-Nahrawan.
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 6
Madelung states: “as well as his affirmation of the exclusive right of the Qurash to the caliphate in Islam drove many Muslims in Iraq and the eastern provinces, who had not objected to the arbitration or had even supported it, to join the ranks of the seceders.“
Prima Qur’an comments: Seems like the idea that the Qurash or a particular family of the Qurash was certainly not embedded among the Muslim masses.
Note that Madelung states: “During Mu’awiya’s divisive caliphate, the muhakkima became a widespread, nonviolent opposition movement in the eastern Islamic world.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: That certainly really does not sound like the crazed, sword-wielding Kharijites declaring all who differ with them infidels that we hear all too often from the Sunni and Shi’i.
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 12
Madelung states: “When they questioned about his views concerning the caliphate of ‘Uthman and he insisted that ‘Uthman had been wrongfully killed, they turned away from him.”
He also states: “When he considered blocking the food supply to the two holy cities, ‘Abd Allah b. Al-‘Abbas remonstrated with him, and he desisted.”
Prima Qur’an comments: So, Ibn al-Zubayr would not denouce Uthman they kill him? They cut him into tiny pieces? They stuffed him in a donkey and burned him? No! “They turned away from him.” When they considered blocking the food supply to the two holy cities they considered ‘Abd Allah b. A’-‘Abbas advise and headed it. Seems these people are capable of reason.
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 13
Madelung states: “but was also accused of falsifying his master’s teaching in promoting muhakkima doctrine. He is described as traveling throughout the Muslim world spreading Khariji ideology.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: In what way did Ikrima (ra) falsify his master’s teaching in promoting the muhakkima doctrine? Do tell us.
Madelung states: “His teaching now became radically anti-Shi’i. Thus he proclaimed that the ahl al-bayt whom according to the Qur’an 33:33 God wanted to purify meant specially the wives of the Prophet, excluding his kin, daughter and grandsons. This was entirely contrary to the view of Ibn al-‘Abbas, who ever upheld the divinely privileged religious rank of the Prophet’s kin and progeny, and ‘Ikrima could not have asserted it during his life-time.“
Prima-Qur’an comments: This is due to the poor reading or gross misunderstanding that Madelung has. Madelung, nor any other historian or orientalist will bring any evidence of ‘Ikrima stating it “excludes his kin, daughter and grandsons.” This is lazy. What Ikrima (ra) is saying is that concerning the Asbab an-Nuzool (the occasion for the revelation) it was due soley to the wives of the Prophet (saw).
Ikrima (ra) simply taught what the Qur’an teaches. Alas, it is what Ibn Abbas (ra) taught as well.
Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said concerning the Ayah: ( Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, ) “It was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet .”
You also have to wonder why Ikrima (ra) transmits instances where Ibn Abbas (ra) admonishes him (Ikrima).
Narrated `Ikrima:
I prayed behind a Sheikh at Mecca and he said twenty two Takbirs (during the prayer). I told Ibn `Abbas that he (i.e. that Sheikh) was foolish. Ibn `Abbas admonished me and said, “This is the tradition of Abul-Qasim.”
Madelung states: “Against Mu’tazili rationalist doctrine divine justice entailing free will, they have mostly affirmed the determining effectiveness of God’s eternal will and foreknowledge.”
Prima-Qur’an comments:
We believe the reason why Madelung makes such claims is that in his mind he sees the Muhakkima as people who leave all matters up to Allah (swt) in the sense that no human element is involved in anything related to the laws of Allah (swt).
We can see this where he states above:
“The majority of the seceders, however, rejected his unsound argument that arbitration was generally allowed by the Qur’an and only a few of them returned to Kufa.”
At the very least Magdelung states in the very next sentence:
“There were, however, significant groups in the 1st/7th and 2nd/8th centuries who inclined the Mu’tazili position on divine justice.”
Again, just to reiterate a small irritation we have with people who use Orientalist is this. An example. So someone writing a paper wanting to discredit Ikrima as a narrator may have a section that states: “He is described as traveling throughout the Muslim world spreading Khariji ideology. His teaching became radically anti-Shi’i. ” They will quote Magdelung.
O.K. so now what are we supposed to do with that information? It must be true because Magdelung said so! No, based upon what? Give us some examples. Let us explore this further.
We say this not only about Orientalists, but the same standard applies to Muslim historians. It is obvious that we question historical narratives, or we would be following the majoritarian narrative concerning Siffin.
Many on our team are people who are converts who had to go through a process of inquiry to arrive at the conclusions they did.
We leave it to you the respected reader to do the research and come to your conclusions.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20: 114)
﷽
Muslms, Scholars, Soldiers.
Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions.
About Professor Adam R Gaiser:
This is his CV – curriculum vitae.
BA, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Major: Comparative Religion. MA, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Major: History of Religions. Islamic Studies. PhD, University Of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Major: History of Religions. Islamic Studies.
Current Position: Professor of Religion (or Associate Professor of Religion), Florida State University (FSU), Tallahassee, FL. Affiliated Faculty, Program in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, FSU.
His publications and books:
Book: The origin and development of the Ibadi Imamate ideal Book: Shurāt Legends, Ibādī Identities: Martyrdom, Asceticism, and the Making of an Early Islamic Community. Book: Sectarian in Islam: The Umma Divided. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023
First, one thing that you will notice when reading current works by Orientalist or Western Academics concerning the Ibadi school, is they are overly thankful to the Ibadi communities for the access to their libraries and manuscripts. This becomes a re-current theme.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many other scholars helped me during my year of research in Jordan; of special mention are ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Dūrī and Muhammed Khraysāt of the University of Jordan History Department, and Farūq ‘Umar Fawzī of the Omani Studies Department at Āl al-Bayt University. My appreciation goes to Ahmad Obeidat, Islam Dayeh, and Nihad Khedair, my research assistants at the time (and now accomplished scholars of their own), for our many hours spent together in translation and discussion. I also thank the Omani Student Union in Amman, Āl al-Bayt University, and the University of Jordan, all of whom granted me unlimited use of their library and access to their manuscript collections. Further research took me to Muscat, Oman; thanks to Michael Bos, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Sālimī, Shaykh Kahlān b. Nahbān al-Kharūsī, Shaykh Mahmūd b. Zāhir al-Hinā`ī, Dr. Khalfān al-Madūrī, Ahmad al-Siyābī, Shaykh Ziyād b. Tālib al-Ma‘āwalī of the Ma‘had al-‘Ulūm al Shar‘iyya, and to the students who shared their research and excitement. “
Source: (Acknowledgements: Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
“Fortunately, recent publications by the Omani Ministry of Heritage and Culture (Wizarat al-Turāth al-Qawmī wa al-Thaqāfa) of much of the Ibādī historical and legal corpus have made hundreds of works accessible to the researcher. In addition, the Libyan scholar ‘Amr Ennami collected and published several rare North African legal and theological works before his death.”
Source: (pg. 5 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
It is a common theme at least when engaging with Ibadism. That we are open and we give access to what people are looking for.
We had a brother mention an indiviudal who did an interview and claimed there was ‘gate keeping’ going on with us; this information came as a dissapointment. The individual knows better. We are doing our level best to get information about the Ibadi school out there. The western academics themselves acknowledgethe tremendous help they have received in getting such access.
So first the unfortunate. Professor Gaiser continues to assert that the Ibadis were from the Kharijis, even though he knows better. He knows it is from heresiographical works. This is certainly dissapointing.
“As the sole remaining Khārijite subsect, the Ibādiyya are the last representatives of the opposition movement that was Khārijism, and the inheritors of its narrative and legal traditions.”
Source: (pg. 3 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
“One problem plaguing the study of the Ibādiyya and Khārijites is the uncritical reliance on either Sunni or Ibādī sources for historical narratives. Such an approach ignores the fact that these accounts were, to varying degrees, tailored to serve the polemical and self-serving interests of the sect.”
Source: (pg. 5 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Then why do Orientalist and western academics continue to use this terminology? The nomenclature of Ibadis being a sub sect of the Khawarij? So do take note to the orientalist and western academics reading this. Going forward why not point this out in the beginning of your works? That you are simply using Sunni polemical nomenclature that you find convenient.
“Caution should therefore be exercised when dealing with heresiographical texts, as the predilections of their authors, the structure of their texts, and reliability of their information are not always clear.”
Source: (pg. 15 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Professor Gaiser makes a very interesting point here:
“Yet another flawed method of viewing the Khārijites is to interpret their activities through the lens of their most extreme or militant subsects. It is not uncommon to find, for example, a focus on the Azāriqa (or Najdāt), whose core activities lasted a mere fourteen years, as representatives of “the original Khārijite position.”This statement grossly overestimates the importance of the Azraqite subsect to the general history of Khārijism, and relegates the Ibādiyya, who have survived for thirteen centuries (and, incidentally, opposed the Azāriqa from the outset) to an undeserved historical footnote that does not reflect their longevity. Such distortions prevent an accurate appreciation of the role of Khārijite thought in shaping the Ibādiyy…”
Source: (pg. 6 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Professor Gaiser makes an interesting point here:
“In reality, it seems that the imām al-kitmān was a theoretical construct established in order to retroactively create Imāms out of the ‘ulamā’ who led the early quietist Khārijite movement in Basra (and who eventually established the Ibādiyya as a distinct Khārijite subsect).”
Source: (pg. 13 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
However, he doesn’t seem to connect his ideas very well when later he states:
With the establishment of the Rustumid dynasty in Tahert and the first Ibādī dynasty in Oman, the practice of shirā’ was recognized to have potentially dangerous implications for the Ibādī state; the inherent danger of shirā’ lay in its latent ability to inspire rebellion in the name of Islamic justice.In an effort to diffuse the potentially destabilizing effect of shirā’, the Ibādī ‘ulamā’ developed the office of al-imām al-shārī as the leader of the shurāt. Likewise, the term shurāt, which had once referred to the early Khārijite heroes, became divorced from its original heroic connotations and came to specify the volunteer Ibādī soldiers who defended the Ibādī state against its enemies. In such a way, the practice of shirā’ was kept under the control of the Ibādī state. As a result, the practice of shirā’ changed from being a spontaneous practice to being a formal institution governed by social and legal regulations.”
Professor Gaiser makes a blank statement without really giving us much more. For exampe: Can practical examples be given in how the Ibadi ulama’ s development of the office of al imam al shari create stabliity? Especially considering his above statement:
“It seems that the imām al-kitmān was a theoretical construct established in order to retroactively create Imāms out of the ‘ulamā’”
What prevents the imam al-kitman from becoming the imam al-shari?
Ultimately there is nothing destablisizing about it. Rule with justice.
Do we consider any institute to be inheriently unstable because there are mechanism in place that prevent abuse of power?
One can attack a particuar lineage (alids) or tribe (quraysh) that could be a relatively easy feat. However, attacking and keeping an entire scholarly class under control is no easy feat.
Professor Gaiser often makes blank statements without telling us how he arrived at such conclusions.
“Likewise, distinctions between the imām al-zuhūr, imām al-shirā’, imām al-difā‘, and imām al-kitmān are not nearly as clear as post-medieval Ibādī imāmate theorists (and the non-Ibādī scholars who rely on them) would have us believe.”
What were the points of clarity that he felt were lacking? What did he think needed more elaboration? Especially given the knowledge that imām al-shirā’, imām al-difā‘ are more interm and temporary positons during a transition period.
So the reader has a few choices when it comes to this information.
1) Accept it blindly. Accept it as factual. Don’t think critically about the information.
2) Think about the information critically. Actually read the source and information that the school has written about it self and come to your own conclusion.
When we go through the foototes it is challenging to determine what sources Professor Gaiser relied upon for his information.
For those of you do not want to depend upon orientalist or western academis for information and would like direct access to Ibadi sources that speak on the subject we can provide the following:
“Masalik al-Dīn wa Atharuhā fī Ḥifẓ al-Wujūd al-Ibāḍī”
Author: ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bin Suʿūd bin Sīf Ambusaidi Supervisor: Ismāʿīl bin Ṣāliḥ bin Ḥamdān al-Aghbari Examiner: Ibrāhīm bin Yūsuf bin Sīf al-Aghbari
We found another strange assertion of Professor Gasier here:
“The specific example of the Muhakkima’s attribution of sin to ‘Alī as the result of his agreement to arbitrate the Battle of Siffīn became the basis for the general Khārijite belief that sin makes a person an unbeliever (kāfir)—the Khārijite doctrine of sin. Although it is not explicitly stated in the sources, it is safe to assume that the attribution of sin/infidelity to an individual immediately disqualified that person from a position of authority over the Muslims, and thus, the connection between sin and ineligibility in leadership can be generalized to all Khārijite subsects.”
Source: (Pg. 39 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Two major assumptions indeed.
‘Alī as the result of his agreement to arbitrate the Battle of Siffīn became the basis for the general Khārijite belief that sin makes a person an unbeliever (kāfir)—
Although it is not explicitly stated in the sources, it is safe to assume that the attribution of sin/infidelity to an individual immediately disqualified that person from a position of authority over the Muslims
What is this based on?
Why would one think that Professor Gaiser be given a free pass to make such statements and yet, “we have to be careful what heriseiographers and even Ibadi sources say?
” Although this view is not explicitly stated in either early Ibādī literature or heresiographical materials, it is strongly implied by the doctrine of sin.”
Source: (Pg. 40 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Even in the example Profesor Gasier has given:
“Certain evidence in heresiographical materials corroborates the application of the doctrine of sin to the Khārijite Imāms. It is reported, for example, that a faction of the Najdāt forced their leader, Najda b. ‘Āmir al-Hanafī, to recant and repent for his opinion that a person is excused from sin if he is ignorant of the fact that the action is a sin.”
Source: (Pg. 40 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
But did they remove him as the Imam or simply ask him to repent for his sin and retain him?
We are simlpy not told.
This information clashes with what Professor Gasier gives us here:
“A smaller section of the Najdāt then decided that it was not their place to question the ijtihād of their Imām, and forced Najda to repent his original repentance—which Najda did. As a result of this second repentance, the majority of the Najdāt deposed (khala‘ūhu) Najda and forced him to choose the next Imām.”
Source: (Pg. 40 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
If they forced him to repent of his original repentance and then deposed him it means that he was still their Imam when he initially repented. Thus the information Professor Gasier presents us clashes with his own conclusions!
Professor Gasier aslo states:
“However, an Imām who sinned or behaved in a way that was improper did not immediately become an illegitimate Imām. The Ibādī community gave him the opportunity to repent and make amends, such as the opportunity given to ‘Uthmān before his killing. If the Imām repented, he regained his proper place as leader of the Muslims. If he persisted in his sinful behavior, dissociation from him and active opposition to him then became a duty.”
Source: (Pg. 46 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
The above information makes it very clear that if an Imam commits a sin this in and of itself does not necessitate his removal from office. This again clashes with previous information presented by Professor Gaiser.
Alas, the informaton in the above paragraph presented by Professor Gaiser is incomplete and does not allow nuance. A very important point is the type and manner of sin the Imam commits. For example if the Imam committed adultery, and the proof is established against him there is no resuming the office of Imam. This should be clear from the perspective of jurisprudence.
Now let us turn our attention to something eslse Professor Gaiser says:
Alī as the result of his agreement to arbitrate the Battle of Siffīn became the basis for the general Khārijite belief that sin makes a person an unbeliever (kāfir)—
Source: (Pg. 39 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
He repeats this assertion here:
“Just as the Muhakkima’s rejection of ‘Alī on the basis of the sin of accommodating the arbitration of Siffīn formed the basis for later Khārijite doctrines of sin, so the acceptance of ‘Abdullāh b. Wahb al-Rāsibī further entrenched the precedent whereby piety became the main criterion for legitimate leadership.”
“Source: (Pg. 41 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
” Additionally, the qurrā’ at the Battle of Siffīn reportedly forced ‘Alī to accept arbitration against his better judgment, which is itself an indicator of a certain amount of authority.
Source: (Pg. 57 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
This raises all kinds of questions.
How could the qurrā on the one hand be the people who forced someone to accept something that they would see as the basis that makes a a person an unbeliever (kāfir).
“Similarly, the Muhakkima at Harūrā’ demanded of ‘Alī: “So repent as we have repented and we will pledge allegiance to you, but if not we will continue to oppose you.”
Source: (Pg. 37 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Note 89 Foot note Source: Abū Mikhnaf in al-Tabarī, Tārīkh, 1:3353; see variants in al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, 3:123; Abū al-‘Abbās Muhammed b. Yazīd al-Mubarrad, al-Kāmil: Bāb al-Khawārij (Damascus: Dār al-Hikma, n.d.), 24.
” Additionally, the qurrā’ at the Battle of Siffīn reportedly forced ‘Alī to accept arbitration against his better judgment, which is itself an indicator of a certain amount of authority.
It is appreciated tht Professor Gasier gave the source for the sentiments above:
Abū Mikhnaf was a flamming hot chetto of a Shi’i. We are thankful that Professor Gasier mentions the following about him:
“The pro-‘Alid author Abū Mikhnaf portrays ‘Ammār as an early Companion of the Prophet Muhammed, and uses his story to highlight the illegitimacy of the Umayyad regime.”
Source: (Pg. 97 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
A Modern Historical Perspective: From a modern, academic historical viewpoint, Abū Mikhnaf’s value is immense. His bias is not dismissed but is itself a source of information. He represents the historical memory and narrative of the early Kufan Shi’a. Historians use his works to understand:
How these early communities viewed themselves and their struggle.
The political and social climate of 8th-century Iraq.
The development of early Shi’ite identity. The key is to use his material critically, comparing it with reports from other sources with different biases (e.g., pro-Umayyad historians).
Understanding the sectarian lens that are used when detailling events.
It is also not clear if Professor Gaiser sees the muhakkima and the qurrā as interchangeable names for the same group, or interchangeable groups. Or a singlular group that had divisons among themselves in regard to the arbitration.
The following chart can help Professor Gaiser advance his claims. It can also make sense of what seems to be contradictory information. This is a possible model.
Unless Professor Gaiser contest that the Muslims had the Qur’an with them then on what consistent basis can he condidently say that rather than the event at Siffin that they simply did not draw from the Qur’an?
“And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the ungrateful (l-kāfirūna).” (Qur’an 5:44)
No consideration is given to the idea that, as Qurra these people would be memorizers of the Qur’an and with the Qura’n not being a considerably large corpus, the warnings not to follow the people of the book the admonishment that those who judge by other than what Allah revealed are the disbelievers most likely echoed among them over and over.
This allows for Professor Gasier to present his thesis in a very clear way. That there were those who saw Ali’s decision as going against the clear guidance of the Qur’an. That he judged by other than what Allah had revealed. We know there were people who urged Ali to continue his fight against Mu’awiya.
There are those who were initially pro arbitration and a group from among them regretted that decision. That group joined up with those who were against it from the start. It is that group that says: “So repent as we have repented and we will pledge allegiance to you, but if not we will continue to oppose you.”
The only thing the Professor Gasier needs to do is follow the history and the logical conclusion. Committing a sin or an act of kuffar does not permanently preclude you from the office of Imam.
Additional thoughts. Not related to Professor Gaiser’s book, but one does have to wonder how Ali himself was viewed from the perspective of his followers. Rather, his followers and supporters were against his decision for arbitration or forced his hand. Either way, it seems like they had vastly different understandings of the authority of Ali than what the Shi’i masses are being told.
Professor Gasier states:
” Two points must be borne in mind when investigating how the medieval Ibādī institution of the imām al-shārī assimilated the early Khārijite phenomenon of shirā’, appropriated the Khārijite figures associated with the phenomenon of shirā’, and adapted the concept of shirā’ to a political institution of authority. “
Source: (Pg. 81 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
We were puzzled by this. Rather than appropriation from a stream that it is claimed they belonged to, why not just simply say they drew upon the Qur’an and examples of earlier martyrs?
You have to wonder how you appropriate from a tradition that you are already a part of?
“Unfortunately, North African jurists did not develop the notion of the shārī Imām, and therefore it remains a somewhat vague institution..”
Source: (Pg. 108 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
What is there to be detailed about it? The very title, Shira’ indicates that this office is a temporary office. Victory or Death. In victory you can be appointed as The Manifest Imam or you step down.
This particular office does not require a great deal of elaboration.
Over all the book is a very good read. It is not taxing. There is allot of information that one may find useful.
If you would like to read more about the four stages of the Muslim community you may read our article here:
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20: 114)
﷽
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
The above verse is a direct plea to our Creator. That we ask Allah (swt) to advance us in knowledge.
“Then ask those who have knowledge.” (Qur’an 21:17)
The above verse has its context; however it is apt. If you do not know ask those who do know. It is quite sensible.
It is in this spirit that the Ibadi have been on the forefront of opening thier libraries to the curious researchers from Western Academia.
Western academia has a penchat for pursing degrees and doctorate thesis on novel subjects or that which seems to be obscure.
This creates wonderful opportunities to learn.
Some brief comments about the author.
Valerie J. Hoffman, research professor emerita in the Department of Religion, has served at the University of Illinois for more than 39 years.
Valerie Hoffman was one of the first women in the field of Islamic Studies at a time when few universities even offered such a program.
It is said that she recently retired from her position at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
She has otherwise presented excellent lectures and introductions on the Ibadi school.
She plans a forthcoming book: “Islamic Sectarianism Reconsidered: Ibadi Islam in the Modern Age.”
That book may well have been prompted by this site: primaquran.com
It is hoped that she will take on board the feedback and introduce the very important and crucial nuances that she missed.
It is also hoped that she introduces the eye opening statment from Shaykh Shamsu-Deen Abū Ya‘qūb Yūsuf ibn Ibrāhīm al-Warijilānī (r) that is quoted in Kitab al Wada’ Al Mukhtasar Fi Usul Al -Fiqh by Shaykh Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Abī al-Khayr al-Jannāwunī.
These were Shaykhs in the 12th century. To have the positions that they had at the time would be considered quite ‘progressive’. We don’t take into account the blame of the blamers. We take into account the Qur’an and the Sunnah. That forms the basis of our judgements.
Some breif comments about the book.
The Essentials of Ibadi Islam:-Valerie J. Hoffman. An Orientalist translation of Arabic Ibadi creedal text into English. This basically is a translation work of: Al-Aqidah ‘l-Wahbiyya -the most relied upon by the Ibadi in the West. As well as a treatise from Shaykh ‘Abd al-Aziz al-Thamini al-Mus’abi on God’s Power and Human Acts, from Kitab Ma’alim al-Din
The author overall does a faithful job of sticking to the original sources. She often engages the text by asking questions left unresolved*(which could have been resolved had she consulted the scholars in her midst). She often correctly detects errors in the Arabic and other times superimposes what she thinks it should mean. Notwithstanding these minor irritations, it is overall a faithful translation.
*To give you just one example of this in Ms. Hoffman’s work.
Source: (pg. 172)
So, this can leave in the mind of the reader that we some how are going against a clear edict in the Qur’an. Unfortunately, this shows Ms. Hoffman’s lack of engagement with our scholars in regards to some questions she raises in the book.
Another point. She recklessly misrepresents as the default view of the Ibadi school that:
“Although one must treat non-Ibadi Muslims with the courtesy that all monotheist deserve, according to classic Ibadi doctrine, neither they nor sinning Ibadis will be allowed into paradise they are doomed to hellfire.” Source: (pg. 30)
This is extremely reckless and can be the cause of real life physical attack upon those in our community. For example: It has NEVER been the position of the Ibadi school that sinning Ibadi or sinning non-Ibadi Muslims are doomed to hellfire. The position has ALWAYS been that Ibadi’s who repent are subject to the mercy of Allah. Second as regard non-Ibadi at the very least a person needs to be: mukallāf-someone pubescent and sane. Next the clear evidence has to be presented to the individual and we take as evidence the following:
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
That judgement can only be passed on non-Ibadi on the basis of masail al din and not masail al-ra’y. If she bothered to look into the position of the school in regard to the theological position as regard those who Islam may not have reached (isolated islands etc.) she would have appreciated as much.
Again, personally I find it a bit of a disrespect. Here you are being welcomed in a country by its people, they open up their libraries and manuscripts to you. The claim is that you are exposing the Western world to Ibadhism. Yet, you leave comments like the above which could have been clarified. It is certainly not helpful. In regard to one passing comment it is actually dangerous in today’s hyper-sectarian world not to clarify the position of the school or at the very least pass over the matter.
Though, as stated: minor irritations, it is overall a faithful translation. Surely she will receive her reward with her Lord in this life. My hope is that she will embrace the haqq before she meets her Lord.
In fairness to her one man did an interview with her. Our understanding from him is that prior to the interview she wanted to make sure it was not a ‘hit piece’ on the Ibadi school. Now rather or not that was to ensure she would be invited back to Oman (self-interest) or out of genuine concern that it would stir up sectarian passions (selfless-interest) and (altruism) Allah knows best.
Also, keep in mind that we encourage people to study text with our teachers and with our scholars. We had an individual some years back who made the boisterous claim that he was teaching Ibadi Aqidah using Ms. Hoffman’s work! Notwithstanding the fact that this person scarcely knowns Arabic, nor receieved knowledge from teachers, but the book leaves out many fundamentals that would be taught in a structured class on the subject. It is a translation of particular text.
The book itself it is put in the format of Student/Teacher. Surely this would have opened some eyes.
May Allah (swt) forgive our obstinance and soften our hard hearts.
Books are helpful. I said before and I said again. If you want to learn about the Ibadi school, the Hanafi school, the Maliki school, the Zaydi school, or any school you absolutely must connect with practices teachers and masters of those schools. Otherwise all you will ever half are baked surface level knowledge -which often could be mistaken.
Prima Quran 