In my paper I study the circumstances of composition, circulation, and transmission of a corpus of writings produced in eighth-ninth century Iraq by a group of Shi’is called “extremists,” or Ghulat, for their “extreme” devotion to the Imams. This Corpus comprises a number of cosmological-mythological writings that describe the Ghulat ideas about God, man, and the universe. The paper is based on all of their surviving writings, which comprise three categories of texts: previously published works that have been known for decades (such as Kitāb al-haft wa l-aẓilla, Kitāb al-ṣirāṭ, and Umm al-kitāb); works that have been published since 2006 as part of the series Silsilat al-turāth al-ʿalawī ― in their entirety or as fragments in later Nuṣayrī texts (e.g., Kitāb al-ḥujub wa l-anwār, Kitāb al-Kursī, and Bāṭin al-taklīf); and unpublished works surviving in manuscript (Kitāb al-ashbāḥ wa l-aẓilla). I begin by arguing for the existence of a unified “Ghulat Corpus” ― by showing that the presently known Ghulat writings were produced, circulated, and read in the same religious and social milieu, and contained a limited and continuously recycled inventory of cosmological themes. Through a close textual analysis, I trace the roots of the teachings of the Corpus in the eighth century Iraqi sectarian milieu, then look at the later trajectory of the transmission of Ghulat texts from Iraq to Syria by the Nusayris. I conclude the paper by a discussion of the position of the authors of the Ghulat Corpus in the Iraqi society of their time. Based on internal clues provided by their writings, and on the scant external evidence found in heresiographies and historical works, I attempt to understand their ethnic background and economic occupations, their relations with the Shi’i leadership, and the nature of their groups.

Riwāyat al-aruzz wa-faḍluh is an unpublished anecdote attributed to Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765) and narrated by al-Mufaḍḍal b. ʿUmar al-Juʿfī (d. before 183/799). In addition to praising rice and listing its health benefits, the anecdote includes a ḥadīth on the creation of the light of Muḥammad and of the People of his House (nūrī wa-nūr ahl baytī) 5000 years before Adam. While being deposited in Adam’s loins, a drop from the light fell on the ground from which grew rice. The text belongs to the Mufaḍḍal-traditions of the Kufan ghulāt circles during the formative period of Imāmī Shīʿism. The anecdote survived in two divergent versions both dating to the 12th century; one in Ṭayyibī Ismā‘īlī literature from Yemen and the other in Twelver literature from Iraq. This study attempts on one hand to situate the ḥadīth on Muḥammad’s light within the cosmological doctrines of the early ghulāt circles, and on the other to examine the transmission, preservation, and development of traditions on rice and other foods in Shīʿī and Sunnī circles. We come out with a general trend of traditions interchangeably ascribed to different foods within each of the Sunnī and Shī‘ī traditions and more interestingly, that some food-related ḥadīths are floating across the boundaries of scholarly Shī‘ī and Sunnī traditions through the medium of popular culture.

The Nuṣayrīs (ʿAlawites), the syncretistic Shiite sect founded in the tenth century, observe a ritual in which they drink consecrated wine, called ʿabd al-nūr. Many scholars have assumed that this ritual is an Islamized reformulation of the Christian Eucharist. The ritual is often called a quddās (Mass), and the wine that is consumed is considered to be a manifestation of ʿAlī, a doctrine reminiscent of transubstantiation. Nevertheless, an examination of several early Nuṣayrī treatises describing ʿabd al-nūr that have recently become available reveals that doctrinally, the ʿabd al-nūr ritual has more to do with Iranian religious traditions than with Christianity. In these early sources it is associated with fire worship, cosmic dualism, the Nawrūz festival, and the deification of Sasanian kings. This paper will examine the significance of the ʿabd al-nūr ritual for the early Nuṣayrī community, and explore some of the Iranian elements that are at its core. In doing so, it hopes to uncover something about the heterodox milieu from which this sect emerged.

It is famously said that the Imāma is the question that caused most discord in Islamic history. Deep divisions going beyond the formation of schools of theology (kalām) into the maturation of sects are grounded in the Imāma controversy. Nevertheless, history is prior to theology in the respective sectarian positions on the question. Theologians try to view history from a perspective that suits their theoretical framework, constructing a historical narrative which cleanses history from ‘impurities’ that obstruct its assimilation into a legitimate sectarian narrative. Theology being a primarily apologetic endeavor intended to preserve the beliefs of a community, the historical narratives eventually drift toward different versions of ‘sacred history’. This paper discusses two of the earliest and most comprehensive attempts to construct a historical narrative by theologians, namely the Muʿtazilī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (1024) and the Imāmī al-Murtaḍā (1044). The former dedicated the last part of his summa, al-Mughnī, to promote a view of history that defends the integrity, both moral and political, of the early Muslim community. His aim, beyond the preservation of the sectarian narrative, is to assert the connection between the salvation of the individual and his membership in the community. He employs his knowledge of historical sources, theology, jurisprudence and even realpolitik considerations to attain his purpose. Murtaḍā’s response, al-Shāfī, was soon produced in four volumes. Murtaḍā appeals to historical accounts, quoting sources and questioning his opponent’s integrity. In theology, he utilizes his mastery of Muʿtazilism to highlight inconsistencies or misrepresentations. This approach confines Murtaḍā to ʿAbd al-Jabbar’s techniques, with more emphasis on theology to portray history as a record of a community that strayed due to its failure to accept the Imams’ authority. The paper examines the polemical discourse, analyzing the various arguments and their implicit hierarchy in relation to Islamic sciences. It also seeks to investigate the extent to which the corresponding sectarian narratives are still indebted to these contributions in terms of their standard versions of sacred history on the one hand, and of the primary ‘filters’ used in reading historical accounts on the other. It will also serve toward analyzing a much later and more nuanced episode of this debate taken up by the Muʿtazilī Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd (1258), for which a separate study is dedicated.