You are on page 1of 4

Review

Author(s): Wilferd Madelung


Review by: Wilferd Madelung
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 134, No. 3 (July-September 2014),
pp. 531-533
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7817/jameroriesoci.134.3.531
Accessed: 11-04-2016 07:33 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of the American Oriental Society

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Reviews of Books

531

17, and how its postexilic reworking added the law of circumcision as a condition for affiliation to this
covenant (Gen. 17:914). The fact that the postexilic redaction of this passage allowed Ishmael and the
slaves of Abrahams house to be included in the covenant mirrored a more inclusive stance towards the
cultic and social integration of members of foreign lands living in postexilic Yehud.
Naumann draws similar conclusions about the same passage, providing further elaboration on the
nature of the priestly theological program and its advocacy of the idea that the non-Israelite progeny
of Abraham and close relatives of Israel could share in the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, as
represented through the character of Ishmael.
Haarmann isolates narrative passages in 2 Kings 5 and Jonah 1 that depict non-resident aliens
(nokr) offering sacrifices to Yahweh in order to argue that postexilic writers allowed the nokr to worship the God of Israel without being incorporated into the people of Israel as proselytes. Nevertheless,
the view of gentile participation in the cult that eventually trumped the more inclusive view espoused
by Isaiah 56:18 was the one found in Ezekiel (44:69), i.e., that the nokr were to be excluded from
worship at the Jerusalem Temple, since they were seen as threatening to profane the holiness of the
Temple sphere. To this conclusion can be added the observation by Achenbach (cf. pp. 4445) that
these two opposing views presented themselves again in the fourth century b.c.e., with the books of
Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 10; Neh. 13:2627) refusing non-resident aliens access to the holy mount
and the Temple, and the late postexilic addition to the Deuteronomistic history promoting a more universalist view by allowing a non-resident alien to participate in prayer outside the service at the temple
(1 Kings 8:4143).
It is not clear why the contribution by B. Wells (pp. 13555) was included in this volume, as it
contains only a tangential reference to the status of foreigners in the law. Wells primary interest lies
in showing how the comparison of a needy Israelite to an alien and sojourner found in Leviticus
25:35 allowed for a situation in which the impoverished debtor could be exploited for his labor (since
resident aliens could be held as chattel-slaves; cf. Lev. 24:44). While Wells essay as well as that by
Paulus (noted earlier in this review) are well researched and informative, their inclusion in this volume
is somewhat mystifying.
The remaining seven essays, connected as they are by a common interest in the biblical materials,
effectively articulate the late preexilic and later postexilic attitudes towards the legal status of resident aliens and their inclusion in the cult and society of Persian-period Yehud. This reviewer found it
unfortunate that the impact of some of this able analysis was weakened in several cases by poor editing
and unintelligible prose, resulting from the omission of words and grammatical errors (cf. especially
instances in Albertzs essay, pp. 5657, 60, and in Haarmanns essay, pp. 163, 168).
Jessica Whisenant
Washington, D.C.

Der Eine und das Andere: Beobachtungen an hresiographischen Texten. By Josef van Ess. Studien
zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients/Beihefte zur Zeitschrift Der Islam, n.s., vol. 23.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. 2 vols. Pp. xliv + 1510. $280.
This massive two-volume work, modestly described by the author in the subtitle as Observations
on Islamic heresiographical texts, will surely be appreciated by most readers as a comprehensive
handbook of the history of Islamic doxographical and heresiographical literature. It is obviously a
worthy companion to van Esss monumental Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert
Hidschra, now widely relied upon by scholars and students as a prime reference work in the field. In the
present work van Ess begins his presentation with an analysis of the early history of the famous adth
of the seventy-two sects into which Islam will be split. He pursues its later history throughout the main
part of the book, the discussion of Islamic heresiographical texts and their authors chronologically
arranged from the beginnings to the modern age. Many of these works are not yet edited and have been

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

532

Journal of the American Oriental Society 134.3 (2014)

consulted by van Ess in manuscript, while some are not known to be extant. In the final part he examines Islamic heresiography as a literary genre, probes some of the technical terminology employed in
it, and discusses its Sitz im Leben.
The literature of primary sources as well as of directly or indirectly relevant secondary studies
concerning the subject of Islamic heresiography is immense. Like van Esss earlier works, the present
book abounds with footnotes providing references on virtually every page. The tightly printed bibliography, which excludes titles quoted only once throughout the book, stretches over seventy pages.
Fortunately for the reader, van Ess has the gift of sailing over oceans of source material with ease and
presenting his interpretations and inferences attractively and persuasively, even where the results must
remain questionable. The study of oceans proverbially can never be exhaustive, and the present ocean
of relevant literature keeps growing steadily as new sources are discovered and investigated. The critical reviewer, who might be tempted to add den Einen und das Andere to the book, would find himself
quickly exceeding the limits of space set for reviews.
It remains to note a major aspect where van Esss judgments seem distinctly questionable. Readers
familiar with his earlier works may be surprised by his identifying so many Muslim authors as Shiites,
Zayds, Imms, and Ismls, some of whom he earlier definitely viewed as non-Shiite. A case in
point is the Mutazil Ab l-Qsim al-Balkh al-Kab, author of one of the most influential heresiographies, whom van Ess described in his detailed article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica (1: 35962) as a
anafite jurist and foremost representative of the Mutazila in Khursn and as having strong Zayd
sympathies. In the present book, however, he repeatedly identifies al-Kab as a Zayd Mutazil, adding (p. 329), He thus represents that kind of Shism which for generations already had found a home
among the Mutazila. The latter statement can immediately be discarded as mistaken. Early Zayd
theology was vigorously anti-Mutazil in its profession of divine determinism and no early Zayd
scholars are known to have found a home among the Mutazila. The first major Zayd scholar to adopt
Mutazil theology, and more specifically the theology of al-Kab, was Yay al-Hd il l-aqq, the
founder in 284/897 of the Zayd imamate in Yemen.
Can a anaf Mutazil scholar really be a Zayd rather than merely having Zayd sympathies? Van
Ess seems to think sohe describes the Mutazil author al-kim al-Jishum (known in Yemen as
al-Jusham) as a Zayd who in his youth chose anaf and Mutazil teachers for himself (pp. 365, 761
72). In reality the biographical sources clarify that, although descended from Als non-Fimid son
Muammad b. al-anafiyya, al-kim al-Jishum and his ancestors belonged to the Sunni anaf community in Bayhaq. Only in his old age did al-kim convert and join the Zayd community. Most of
his works, including his large Quran commentary, are representative of anaf and Mutazil, not Zayd
doctrine. These facts were well known among the Zayds in Yemen, who received and greatly appreciated his numerous scholarly works. Van Esss imaginative suggestion (p. 363) that the Yemenites
were surprised that the kim in accordance with his Mutazil creed and against the consensus of the
school of al-Hd ila l-aqq placed the first three caliphs, even Uthmn, on an equal level with Al
is hardly credible.
Van Ess confirms his loose definition of a Shiite as anyone with strong sympathies for Al or his
descendants, rather than someone who embraces Al as the first Imam after the Prophet, when he
describes Muammad b. Yazdd al-Ifahn, the somewhat obscure author of a Mutazil biographical
dictionary entitled Kitb al-Mab, as probably a Sh or at least a friend of the Sha on the
grounds that he speaks twice of three Alids who were fit for the caliphate. By this definition the
caliph Umar was a Shiite since he included Al in the shr for the election of his successor, and
indeed the great majority of Muslims are Shiites since few consider Alids as in principle unfit for
the caliphate. The Sunni Mahd, who is to restore right and justice in the world, has generally been
expected to be a descendant of the Prophet, viz., of Al and Fima, not of Umar or any other stock.
The underlying problem here is van Esss insistence that the original schism dividing Shia from
Sunna resulted only from the first fitna, the inter-Muslim war in which the third caliph Uthmn was
overthrown and killed (p. 94). Van Ess censures those heresiographers, Shiite and Sunni alike, who
date the schism back to the time of the death of the Prophet and the famous events in the Saqfa of the
Ban Sida. Al, van Ess holds, accepted the caliphate of Ab Bakr and Umar but was behind the

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Reviews of Books

533

revolt against Uthmn, provoking the murder of the caliph and the schism splitting his party (sha)
from the larger Muslim community (jama). Only after Als death did the more radical of his sha
begin to reject the caliphate of Ab Bakr and Umar and to vilify them and all the Companions of the
Prophet who had backed them.
This historical perspective, which reflects the views of the early twentieth-century historians Henri
Lammens and Leone Caetani rather than Sunni belief, is no longer tenable today after a further century
of historical research. It is true that the appellation shat Al appears in history only after the rise of Al
to caliphal power during the first fitna. The opposite groups name of shat Uthmn and Uthmniyya
likewise appears only after the death of Uthmn and most often refers to the partisans of Muwiya as
the one who was seeking revenge for the murdered caliph. The Sunni creed, however, does not accuse
Al in the murder of Uthmn, but rather recognizes him as the fourth rightly guided caliph, thus
legitimating him in his conflict with Muwiya, who insiduously put the blame for the murder on Al
in order to gain the caliphate for himself. The Sunni historical sources describe Amr b. al-, isha,
and ala as the principal Companions who promoted the revolt against Uthmn and his overthrow.
By mediating between the parties Al sought to protect the caliph, his kinsman through Umm akm
al-Bay, hisand the Prophetspaternal aunt. Even when he no longer felt able to intervene since
Uthmn rejected his counsel and accused him, he sent his sons asan and usayn to defend the caliph
as he was being besieged by the rebels. asan was lightly wounded during the siege.
It is also true that Al pledged allegiance to all three caliphs preceding him. However, he and the
Ban Hshim in general pledged allegiance to Ab Bakr only after the death of Fima, six months
after the death of the Prophet. The reason evidently was that as the only surviving child of Muammad,
Fima was his prime heiress and successor; and according to the Quranic law of succession she should
have inherited seven-eighths of the property and rights of her father, while his surviving wives were
collectively entitled to one-eighth. However, Fima was not given her due. It may reasonably be
assumed that the fact that the legal heirs of the Prophet were only women was disturbing and unacceptable to Umar, a man of great ambition and deeply opposed to the idea of womens rights and the
rule of women over men. This opposition led to the election of Ab Bakr at the Saqfa meeting and
Umars threat to set the house of the Prophets daughter on fire with all her family inside. The election
was later described by Umar himself as a falta, a precipitous act (aptly translated by van Ess as etwas
berstrzt, p. 809). In historical perspective, the falta was a military coup dtat, in which the ruling
house was overthrown, the life of the legitimate successor threatened, and the early Constitution of the
Muslim community in Medina, under which Quraysh and other emigrants (muhjirn) and Medinan
Anr were equals, abolished and replaced by the caliphate of Quraysh, which turned the Anr and
other Muslims into subjects of Quraysh without voting rights.
It was the Saqfa meeting that caused the great schism in Islam, which has resulted in seemingly
endless Muslim bloodshed since the wars of the ridda until the present day. Most Muslims at the time
applauded Umars decisive action and prudent leadership in preventing the succession of a woman
to the rule of the Muslim community and were prepared to believe Ab Bakrs word that the Prophet
himself had disinherited his daughter and wives, the Mothers of the Faithful. Many Muslims evidently
still do so. Yet many also believed and still believe that male descendants of the Prophet have a more
legitimate hereditary right and are better qualified to rule the Muslim community justly than others,
be they Qurashs or not. This is why van Ess can discover so many moderate Shiites among Muslim
authors like al-Kab, al-Masd, Ibn al-Nadm, al-Muqaddas, and Ibn awqal, who by most standards
were equally good Sunnis and Mutazils. One may wonder whether in our modern age, when womens
rights and the rule of women have become almost universally acceptable and sometimes preferred to
male dominion, faithful Sunni Muslims may not begin to ask themselves whether the early community
would not ultimately have fared better if they had obeyed the judgment of God in the Quran rather than
backing the fateful coup of the new patriarchal leader of Islam.
Wilferd Madelung
University of Oxford

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:33:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

You might also like