You are on page 1of 11

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
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
RECOGNIZE

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. Karriimiyya, 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, 4155); the collection of stories about the prophets of Abu'lHasan 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, Bodleiana 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. Bergstrkser 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 t h e American Oriental Societj, 108.4 (1988)

Jeffery in Cairo in 1 9 ~ 4My


. ~ discussion of a l - M a b d n i
will be confined to the introduction, the unpublished
portion of the work having remained inaccessible
to me.
Despite the fact that Jeffery's edition contains a full
index of proper names, the KarrHmi provenance of
a l - M a b d n i appears to have gone undetected. The
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 Karr8miyya.' 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 alSZwi (Cairo, 1392; 1972). This edition preserves the pagination 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 reveals 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), 21718 (seven lughdt), 240-41 (traditions on asbaCal-Qur'an). In
some cases it is not clear where the quotation from Ibn alHaysam 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.

The identity of the author of a l - h l a b d n i remains


elusive, although numerous clues exist. The work, the
author tells us, was begun in ShacbHn of 4251 1033.~
By the time that he wrote a l - M a b d n i , the author had
already established his mastery of the Qur'iinic sciences in a series of writings, of which he names no
fewer than four,'' and must have been of middle age,
7281 1328) (01-Furqan bayn al-haqq ula'l-bd!il, in .Majrniicat
al-rasail al-kubra [Cairo, 1385i 19661, 1:43) and a compilation on the praises (manaqib) of Ibn Karram, which Ibn alSalBh (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, 1382119631, 4:22; TZj
al-Din al-Subki, Tabaqdt al-shaficiyya al-kubrd, ed. 'Abd alFattBh M. al-Hulw and Mahmiid M. al-TanBhi [Cairo,
1383119631, 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, 193233), 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, alKhurBsPni 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 (Mabani, 1 16) (an unfinished work); ul-Durar f i tarfi- ul-suwar
(Mabani, 172).

Z ~ s o w :Two Unrecognized Karrdnzi Texts


since he reports having heard traditions from Ibn alHaysam, 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 furnishing an isndd of his own for the traditions that he
cites from one of his chief sources, the K. FThi r n d f i h
of Abii Sahl Muhammad b. Muhammad b. 'Ali alTiilaqani 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. JaCfarwho 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 alDin Khwafi, Mujmal-efajihi, ed. Mahmud Farrokh [Mashhad, 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

''

579

The second of the works to which I wish to draw


attention is al-ATutaffi'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 alSughdi (d. 4611 1068).16This 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 alHaramayn 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 mystery, 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 fiqh, as the editor
thought, but a unique source for the fiqh of the
~arriimi~~a.~'

Nutaf, 1:372.
In K. al-Siydq li-taJrikh Nisdbiir of 'Abd al-GhZfir alFZrisi (d. 5291 1135) in The Histories of Nishapur, ed. R. N.
Frye (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), the KarrZmiyya are routinely
referred to as a j h f b 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 al-quliib
q
(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 nonKarrBmis. In 'Abd al-QZhir al-BaghdZdi (d. 429! 1037), alFarq 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 l J u s h a m i (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 ~ a q a l f al-andm,
t
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
l9

20

Our knowledge of Karrami fiqh apart from alNutaf is sparse to say the least, but sufficient to
corroborate that the legal doctrine attributed by alNutaf 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. Guillaume (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 A b i HanTa wa-kull
man raja'a ild A b i 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).
*'
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 (~aliital-musGyafa).
25
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.

"

7 ,

''
"

Z ~ s o w :Two Unrecognized Karrdmi Texts


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 undisguised hostility toward the Karramiyya. The brief
account provided by the Ashcari Shiifici heresiographer '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 ( ~ a h d r a )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 alsdbiqa 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'ldin, ed. M. Z. al-Kawthari (Cairo, 135911940), 69, speaks
of khurafat, harnaqat and jahdldt. Ibn DBzi, Tab~iratal'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.

58 1

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.34On the
other hand, al-Baghdiidi's summary of Ibn Karram's
teaching on the obligations due to the dead appears to
be correct.35There 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 fiftypercent 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~filal-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) (6869, 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); unnatural 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. alHawwBri [Cairo, 1395/ 19751, 22 [slander]) and al-ShBfici (alAmir al-SanCBni (Subul al-salam sharh bulfigh al-maram
[Cairo, 13791 19651, 3: 138).

582

Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.4 (1988)

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'lwaqt)." A prior intention obviates the need for a
subsequent intention, although a subsequent intention
merits a reward of its own.37The doctrine of a prior
intention appears to have been designed to provide a
solution to certain technical problems of ritual law,
particularly prayer.38There 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 inaccurately 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
37

Nutaf, 1:56-57. A third intention is labelled "discriminatory" (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 ( ~ a w r n )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).
4I
Al-ShahrastBni, 01-hfilal, I:I12 (wa-qad ijtahada Ibn alHaysam fS irrndrn rnaqdlat Abi CAbdalldhfS 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 alNutaf. 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 uninitiated. 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 analysis, 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
43
Ibn DgCi, Tabjirat al-'awdrnrn, 65. Ibn DaCi's informant
here, as for much of his account, is Q a d i Abii Jacfar alZawzani, 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


as at one and the same time both lax and overscrupulous with respect to the laws of purity.45Their
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. S o 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, 137911960), 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 alSarifini, 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-MuhammadZb3di (d. 47811085) as muhta! fi'l-!ahdra wa-nazafat althiyab 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 alBazzgzi, a Karrgmi leader contemporary with Abii 'Amr alM3zini (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-

583

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 affilia. ~ ~problem lies in identifying
tion to Abii ~ a n i f a The
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 (fiqh 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 nabovad) 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" (lianna 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 (alrih al-hiibba) (Ibn Hajar al-'Asqaliini, Fath al-bari bi-sharh
al-Bukhiiri[Cairo, 1378119591, 1:450).
47
Bosworth, "Rise of the Karamiyyah," 7, n. 5.
48
See n. 21 above. Ibn Karr3m is reported to have transmitted a tradition foretelling Abii Hanifa's role as a renewer
of the Prophet's sunna (al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-ictidal, 1:1067. See Texte, 49).
49
Maqdisi, 37.

584

J o u r n a l of t h e 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 i n Ghiir a n d S i n d followed
Abii ~ a n i f a . ~T' h e c o m b i n a t i o n of H a n a f i law a n d
Karriimi theology also a p p e a r s in t h e line of t h e p o e t
Abu'l-Fath al-Busti (d. 4001 1010): "the only t r u e legal
system (fiqh) is Abii Hanifa's, just a s t h e only t r u e
religious s y s t e m ( d i n ) is t h a t o f M u h a m m a d b.
~ a r ~ m . " T" h e S h i c i t e 'Abd al-Jalil al-Riizi (ca. 5401
1145) distinguishes a m o n g H a n a f i s according t o their
theological affiliation: K a r r a m i , Muctazili, NajjHri o r
orthodox ~ a n a f i . ~ '
A n interesting postscript t o these sources c o m e s
f r o m Masciid b. S h a y b a al-Sindi, a s t a u n c h H a n a f i of
t h e 7th! 13th century. According t o I b n S h a y b a , I b n
KarrHm c o m b i n e d t h e theology of t h e a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s t s (usiil a l - m u s h a b b i h a ) with m o s t of t h e law
( a k r h a r 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 t h e m o u n t a i n s of Ghiir a n d t h e
s u b u r b s ( s a w a d ) of G h a z n a . 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 t h e m a n a t h e m a t i ~ e . " ~ '
P r e s u m a b l y I b n Shayba's familiarity with KarrHmi
law w a s gained in those regions where, a s w e learn
f r o m I b n DHCi,t h e KarrHmiyya a d h e r e d t o a m o r e o r
less s t a n d a r d variety of H a n a f i law, which I b n S h a y b a
simply attributed t o Ibn KarrHm.
T h e positive i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t al-Nutaf furnishes
with respect t o t h e b a c k g r o u n d of I b n Karram's legal
d o c t r i n e a n d t o t h e evolution of K a r r a m i law c a n b e

50

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'lshefici.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'lshafiLi?: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 KarBmiyya." 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.
5 L -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. Muqaddinlar k. al-ta-lim, ed. Muhammad "Abd al-Rashid alNu man7 [Hyderabad, 1384 19651. 205).

''

quickly s u m m a r i z e d . References in al-Nutaf t o t h e


legal o p i n i o n s 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 m a s t e r i n 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 f o r m a t i o n a s a jurist a s
Apart from
I b n Karriim, w h o is mentioned t h r o u g h o u t 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 alMawsili, al-Ikhtiyar li-taCliIal-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, 193I), 4:118, the Karramiyya "claimed" (tantahil) 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 historique des mouvements ascktiques et mystiques au Khorasan: 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 ala'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 alHaysam's attempt to trace Karrsmi doctrine back to 'AIi by
way of Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 1613778) (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. alSahib 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.57Ibn
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 indicates 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.60Any

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 lal-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 provisionally 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

55
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 incompatible 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 m a j t a ) is to be
attributed to al-ShafiCi.The opposing opinion appears in alShBfiCi, 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 'AbdalIah], 2:702). See further n. 78 below.
5 6 Trxte, 44.
" Texte, 54.
58
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 'Abdalla'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, 1 3 4 [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'
2:302, quotmin g h a ~ r i ) . "(al-Subki, Tabaqat al-shc7fici~~,a,
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 patterns 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
m u g h a ~ y a b i h bi'l-yaqin).
i
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-

"

586

Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.4 (1988)

legal theory won support among the ~ a r r a m i y ~ a . ~certain


~
al-Ghaznawi, al-Timurtashi, and Sharaf alAl-Maqdisi tells us that some of the Karramiyya
Din QBsim b. Husayn al-Damrsji (al-DamrBghi)
accepted general infallibilism (taswib) and held that
(d. 854i 1459).~' The manuscripts examined by the
every mujtahid was correct with respect to both theeditor, not all of which bear the name of an author,
ology and law. This teaching, as al-Maqdisi notes, was
do actually exhibit the different attributions noted by
~ ~ Abu'l-Muzaffar
associated with the ~ u r j i ' a . And
.~~
Hajji Khalifa, except for that to a l - ~ i m u r t a s h i To
al-IsfarBcini writes of a leading Karrami, who, wishing
complicate matters, al-Nutaf appears to have also
to elevate theology (kaldm) above law, used to say
circulated under the title Nutaf al-hisan 'ala madhhab
that the learning of al-ShBfici and Abii Hanifa could
A b i Hangs al-Nucman, a work for which HBjji
all be fitted under a woman's hems.65This attitude is
Khalifa has a separate entry and which was attributed
characteristic of legal infallibilism, which regards every
to Abii Bakr al-Wasifi, a teacher of al-Sarakhsi, and
mujtahid as correct on points of law, since law is not
to Abii 'Abdallah al-Barqi, as well as to others not
a discipline in which certainty is generally attainable.
named.70 The foregoing makes it amply clear that the
Certainty pertains to theology, which is the learning
identity of the author of al-Nutaf was no longer
worth acquiring. Legal infallibilism was widespread
familiar to the Hanafi circles in which the work
in Muctazili circles and came to dominate 'IrBqi
circulated.
Hanafism, so that it is not surprising to find that it
Internal evidence that could assist in the identificamade headway among Karrami jurists as
tion of the author of al-Nutaf is very sparse. There is
The recognition of al-Nutaf as a unique source for
no introduction or epilogue to speak of. Of the identhe fiqh of Ibn Karram calls for a re-examination of
tifiable jurists named in the work, most are early."
the identity and legal affiliation of its author. The
The latest jurist mentioned appears to be the Hanafi
editor of al-Nutaf, Professor al-NBhi, accepts the
Abii Jacfar al-Hinduwani (d. 362!973).72 Unfortuattribution of the work to the Hanafi QBdi al-qudBt
nately our knowledge of the organization and techniAbu'l-Hasan 'Ali b. al-Husayn al-Sughdi (d. 4611
cal terminology of Islamic legal texts hardly permits
1068), a teacher of al-Sarakhsi (d. 4901 1096).~' But
this attribution is hardly free from doubt. HBjji
68
H3jji Khalifa, Kashf al-zunzin, ed. 3. Yaltkaya and R.
Khalifa, in fact, lists the names of no fewer than four
Bilge (Istanbul, 136211943), 2: 1925.
authors to whom al-Nutaf was attributed, with al69
See editor's discussion, Nutaf, 2:867-72, where the form
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(Cairo
ir
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.
65
Al-Isfara'ini, al- Tabsir, 69.
66
See Chapter 5 of my "Economy of Certainty: An Introduction to the Typology of Islamic Legal Theory," Ph.D.
diss., Harvard University, 1984.
67
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 Muhammad in place of Ahmad.

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, 134611927), MS 186 (Madrasat 'Abd alRahman 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).
70
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 alQIsim b. al-Husayn al-Damraghi (2:96, M S 3473) and alNutaf
madhhab Abi Hanqa, attributed to AbU Bakr
al-Wasiti (3:88, MS 3697).
7 ' The Hanafi Abti JaCfaral-TahBwi(d. 321i933) is in one
place referred to as baCdal-muta'akhkhirin (Nutaf, 1:54). See
'AlZ' al-Din al-Samarqandi, Tuhfat al-fuqahd', ed. Muhammad 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


the confident invocation of such criteria for the purposes 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 impeccable 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 Muhammad 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).
74
For examples, see n. 60 above.
75
Nutaf, 1x41 (wa-yuqawwi qawl Abi 'Abdalldh), 128 (waawkad rnin dhrilika kullihi).
76
The most striking example of this is the teaching on intention (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 t o 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.

587

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 mThe
Hanafis represent a distinct group, of which Ibn
KarrPm is not a part.78 It was the author's wellorganized 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 'Abdallah]). 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 A b i 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 t o 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 alShBficT, 'awd is failure to pronounce [alriq; for the ZBhiris, it
is the repetition of the zihcr formula]).

You might also like