Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
'
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
''
579
580
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 ,
''
"
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
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.
583
584
50
''
54
585
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'),
"
586
587
77