Panel 046, sponsored byInstitute of Ismaili Studies, 2009 Annual Meeting
On Sunday, November 22 at 11:00 am
Panel Description
The question of authority – in all its varied manifestations – eventually emerged as the central characteristic distinguishing all Shi‘i branches of Islam from their Sunni counterparts. Western scholarship on the subject has examined both religious and political dimensions of this concept, focusing mainly on the Imamiyya, rather than the other important branches of Shi‘ism, in particular the Zaydiyya and Isma‘iliyya. The publication of new critical editions and the discovery of a range of important manuscripts, however, have made a reconsideration of the development of these groups and their views on the central question of authority both possible and necessary. Moreover, the emergence of alternate methodologies and approaches informed by socio-historical context, literary analysis, and a re-examination of early hadith collections have opened the door for a fundamental re-orienting of reductionist scholarly assumptions regarding these critically important intellectual traditions within a diverse Shi‘ism.
This panel highlights formulations of authority in early Shi'i Islam from a variety of perspectives, in different contexts, and employing some new methodologies. Paper ONE examines the emergence of religious authority within streams of Kufan Shi'ism, emphasizing the importance of public expressions of
identity (e.g. mosque attendance and participation in street
processions) through a study of those authorities who operated at the
margins of multiple communities. Paper TWO compares the formulations of authority among ‘Alid dynasties of the ninth and tenth century from a socio-historical perspective, examining in particular their claims to Prophetic descent on the basis of newly available historical and genealogical sources and the numismatic material. Paper THREE examines the significance of a famous hadith equating the status and close relationship of Muhammad and Ali with that of Moses and Aaron in the formulation of the doctrine of the special status of Ali in Shi‘i Islam. It examines the reasons behind the allusion to Moses and Aaron in the Muslim context and the way in which it has been interpreted in the wider debate on authority in the literary and historical tradition. The FOURTH paper analyzes Shahrastani’s concept of the Prophet’s Household as protectors of the Qur’an’s higher meaning, elaborated in his commentary "Keys to the Arcana".
This paper examines the emergence of religious authority in K?fa from the 2nd/8th to the 4th/10th century through a close textual study of three individuals situated at the margins of multiple communal identities, namely Sulaym?n b. Mihr?n al-A‘mash (d. 148/765), Shar?k b. ‘Abd All?h (d. 177/793), and Ibn Barniyya Hibat All?h A?mad b. Mu?ammad b. al-K?tib (fl. 4th/10th century). Each of these men held theological views and issued legal opinions that resisted easy classification. An examination of the earliest and most important biographical works, however, reveals a general consensus as to the designation of each as a “traditionist” (proto-Sunn?) or a “Sh?‘a” (Im?m? or Zayd?). The sources suggest that public expressions of identity outweighed theology as the primary determinant of communal identity. In other words, attendance at particular mosques and participation in public processions to sacred locations were the most critical factors in determining whether a scholar was accepted as a religious (and legal) authority by a given community. This is at odds with modern scholarship which tends to privilege theology over ritual practice in the emergence of sectarian identity.
This paper centers on three types of source material: ?ad?th collections, pilgrimage manuals, and biographical dictionaries. The first (i.e. ?ad?th collections) attest to the existence of clearly demarcated K?fan religious communities beginning in the 2nd/8th century. The second (i.e. pilgrimage manuals) depict a fragmented religious geography in K?fa consisting of clearly demarcated “friendly” and “hostile” spaces for the nascent Sh?‘? community. The third (biographical dictionaries) render judgment on the legal authority and reliability of the three individual subjects (see above) through a series of anecdotes about the manner and form of their ritual practice.
As a whole, the sources affirm that– while theological views were important – ritual practice was paramount in the construction of religious (and legal) authority.
While never in a position of power in the central Islamic world, some ‘Alid families succeeded in the ninth and tenth centuries in establishing political rule in parts of North Africa, the Caspian and Yemen. Even though they formed very different kinds of political entities, the basis for the dynasties’ claim to legitimacy was similar: their Prophic lineage. Indeed, all four dynasties – the Fatimids (297/909 - 567/1171), the
Idrisids (172/789- 375/985), as well as the Caspian and Yemeni ‘Alids - were Shi‘is of various denominations, to whom religious and political authority was inextricably linked to descent from the Prophet.
This paper compares the way in which these dynasties formulated their claims to political and religious authority, and explores some of the similarities and differences between them, examining how far they were in dialogue or competition with each other. In addition to a number of recently available historical and genealogical works, the relatively numerous corpus of coins for all of the dynasties is consulted to draw out some parallels between these very different groupings.
From quite early on the Shi?a endeavoured to provide historical and rational arguments for their central claim that ?Al?, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mu?ammad, was not only his legitimate successor, but also the person best qualified to lead the umma. In particular, there are several statements attributed to the Prophet Mu?ammad which are used as evidence of the special position of ?Al? and his family. One of these is a report known as the ‘?ad?th manzilat H?r?n (?ad?th on the position of Aaron)’ in the Muslim tradition. According to this report, cited by such authorities of ?ad?th as Muslim, al-Tirmidh? and Ibn ?anbal, Mu?ammad said to ?Al?: “Are you not content to be with respect to me as Aaron was to Moses, except that after me there shall be no other Prophet.” It seems this report alludes to the parallels and similarities between the status of Mu?ammad and ?Al? and their close relationship, and that of Moses and Aaron in the Biblical tradition. This paper examines the significance of this report in the formulation of the doctrine of the special status of ?Al? in Sh??? Islam through its use and interpretation in the Muslim literary and historical tradition. The authenticity of the report is not relevant to the discussion here, since the main concern will be to examine the reasons behind this allusion to Moses and Aaron in the Muslim context and the way in which it has been interpreted in the wider debate on authority and theology. In sum, this paper is an attempt to examine how this report has been used to respond to the concerns in the Muslim tradition about such important issues as the concept of prophethood, the position of Mu?ammad as the last prophet, and the question of religious authority.
Shahrastani’s fame as a heresiographer and Sunni theologian rests respectively on the Milal and the Nihaya, and he was closely associated with the ascendancy of the Shafi’i and Ash’ari establishment of his period, even holding a position at the Nizamiyya in Baghdad. However from the later period of Shahrastani’s life come writings which demonstrate that he was influenced by, and even secretly adopted, Isma’ilism. In the incomplete text of his Qur’an commentary, The Keys to the Arcana (Mafatih al-Asrar), which survives in a unicum manuscript in Tehran, he outlines a complex and brilliant hermeneutical theory on whose basis he claims to gain access to the scripture’s higher meanings. In his belief, this system of hermeneutics derives from the authority of the Prophet’s family and lineage, and in fact many elements of his hermeneutics can be shown to derive from Isma’ili thought in his period, such as his concept of hierarchism (al-tarattub) and of opposition (al-tadadd).
Underlying this hermeneutics is a controversial theory of the binary transmission of the Qur’an. On the one hand there is the ‘Uthmanic version which is accessible to all but which Shahrastani frankly views as problematic. On the other hand there is the codex of ‘Ali, the historical existence of which our author full accepts. Though this text is hidden from public view to protect it, it is implicit in the authoritative hermeneutics of the Prophet’s lineage. To have access to God’s Word, both channels must be combined. Shahrastani intriguingly suggests that the situation is comparable with that of Judaism, in which the Torah also survives in two transmissions: the prevalent (i.e., Masoretic) text, and also, supposedly, a secretly preserved copy of the Tablets as received on Sinai and passed on in the high priesthood (‘inda ‘l-khassati min awlad Harun).
