SHADOW PLAYS
Terminology
Many Western and Arab scholars have assumed
that the Arabic term for the shadow play (khayal
al-zill) is tautological, since both khayal
and zill mean ‘‘shadow’’ in Arabic.
The assumption is that it is a vulgar coinage, and that it should really be
termed zill al-khayal (shadow of the
vision or shadow fantasy). The term khayal,
appearing alone, has been routinely explained or translated as ‘‘shadow play.’’
The German Orientalist Theodore Menzel, however, objected that in Arabic,
Persian, and Turkish the term is puzzling; he argued that it cannot mean shadow
play unless it occurs in its complete form, that is, khayal al-zill in Arabic and zill-i-khayal
in Persian.
In Arabic literature and historiography, the
term Khayal or khiyal was used in the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic times) and in the
first centuries of Islam in the sense of ‘‘figure’’ and ‘‘statue,’’ and was
given to the figure of the hobby horse (kurraj)
as well (seeTheater, Arabic). During the eighth century it came to mean
‘‘imagination,’’ ‘‘phantom,’’ and ‘‘fantasy,’’ and finally it became synonymous
with the term hikaya (imitation or
pantomime, as in Hebrew hikkuy).
When, during the ninth century, the term hikaya came to mean strictly ‘‘story’’
or ‘‘storytelling,’’ the term khayal replaced it to denote ‘‘live play’’ or
‘‘live theatrical performance.’’ It seems that this is the main reason that led
to the conclusion that the Arabs performed only shadow plays and puppet
theater, and neglected live theatrical performance because of religious restrictions.
When Gypsies and Muslim merchants from southeast Asia to the Muslim world
imported the shadow play during the late tenth century, the Word zill (shadow) was added to the already
established term for acting and theater, and the new term khayal al-zill was coined.
Performance
Practice
The earliest discussion of the technique of
the shadow play occurs in a scientific work on optics, Kitab al-manazir (Latin, Thesaurus
Opticus), by the Arab mathematician and physicist Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazan)
(Basra, ca. 965 CE, Cairo, 1039,see Mathematics and Optics). His description of
khayal recalls modern cinematographic techniques: He speaks of translucent figures of characters and animals
‘‘which the performer (mukhayyil) manipulates
so that their shadows appear upon the wall which is behind the curtain and upon
the curtain itself ’’ (Kitab al-manazir 1983:408).
Other descriptions of shadow plays state that figures made of colored,
translucent camel leather were held against the screen with one stick, while the
limbs of the figures were moved with another. The performer, accompanied by
music and singing, recited the dialogue between thedramatis personae. The light
of candles or lamps cast the shadow of the figures upon the screen (sitara, izar), which was made of muslin (shash).
Significance
The extant prose and verses composed by Sufi
scholars such as al-Ghazali (d. 1111), Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1240) and Ibn al-Farid
(d. 1235), as well as introductions to shadow plays, describe the hidden
philosophical and religious significance of this art. They argue that ‘‘God has
presented it as a parable’’ to this world. The presenter represents God who is
the muharrik (prime mover); the
curtain represents the hidden and secret foreordained future. The first figure represents
Adam, who describes the images that will follow him as depicting the
generations of mankind, who behave according to God’s will and predestination.
The characters of the plot are arranged according to role, in a box on the
right-hand side, which stands for the womb, while the box on the left, in which
the figures are placed after ending their role, represents the tomb. It is this
moral parable that induced poets to use the shadow play as a symbol of this world
in Arabic literature and historiography. Even the three indecent shadow plays
composed by the oculist Ibn Daniyal (Mosul, 1248; Cairo, 1311) at the request
of a shadow puppeteer who complained that the art had became tedious and
trivial emphasize moral admonition.
According to the Egyptian historian Ibn Iyas (d.
1524), who recorded the Ottoman occupation of Egypt in 1517, shadow players
used to represent actual political and social events, such as the hanging of the
defeated Mamluk sultan by Sultan Selim. The latter was pleased with the plot of
the performer, rewarded him, and took him to Istanbul to entertain his son. On
the other hand, E. W. Lane indicates that a reversed direction of influence
occurred later on. In his Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians (1836), he
says that the shadow play ‘‘Kara Gyooz,’’ as he calls it, ‘‘has been introduced
into Egypt by the Turks, in whose language the puppets are made to speak They
are conducted in the manner of the ‘Chinese shadows’, and therefore exhibited
only at night.’’
Historians and scholars of the shadow play
have criticized the pornographic and frivolous aspects of this popular art. Some
plays, however, satirized the tyranny of rulers, administrators, and religious officials,
and it seems that this is the main reason why some Mamluk sultans and scholars
prohibited the shadow play and even burned the puppets and made the performers
sign an undertaking not to practice it.
Further Reading
And, Metin.A
History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey. Ankara: Forum,
1963–1964.
———.Karagoz,
Theatre d’ombres Turc. Ankara: Editions Dost, 1977.
Hamada,
I.Khayal al-zill wa-tamthiliyyat Ibn Daniyal (Shadowplay and the Plays of Ibn
Daniyal). Cairo, 1963.
Ibn Daniyal,
Muhammad. Three Shadow Plays. Edited by Paul Kahle, with a critical apparatus
by Derek Hopwood. Prepared for publication by Derek Hopwood and Mustafa Badawi.
Cambridge: E. J. W. Gibb Memorial, 1992.
Ibn
al-Haytham. Kitab al-manazir (The Book of Optics), al-Maqalat: 1-2-3, fi ’l-ibsar
‘ala al-istiqama. Ed. ‘Abd al-Hamid Sabra. Kuwait, 1983.
Jacob,
G.Geschichte des Schattentheaters im Morgen-und Abendland. Osnabruck, 1972.
Kahle, P.Zur
Geschichte des arabischen Schattentheaters inA¨ gypten. Leipzig, 1909.
Kahle, P. E.
Zur geschichte des arabischen Schattentheaters in Agypten. Leipzig, 1909.
———. ‘‘The
Arabic Shadow Play in Medieval Egypt (Old Texts and Figures).’’ The Journal of
the Pakistan Historical Society. (April 1954): 85–115.
Kayyal,
Mounir.Mu‘jam babat masrah al-zill, karakuz wa-‘Iwaz fi nusus muwaththaqa.
(Dictionary of the Plays of Shadow Theatre, Arabic, Arabic). Beirut: Librairie
du Liban Publishers, 1995.
Menzel,
Theodore.Meddah, Schattentheater und Orta Ojunu. Prague, 1941.
Moreh, S.
‘‘The Shadow Play(khayal al-zill)in the Light of Arabic Literature.’’Journal of
Arabic Literature 18 (1987): 46–61.
———.
‘‘Shadow-play.’’Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature. Ed. J. Scott Meisami and P.
Starkey. Vol. 2, 701–702.
ADD UNDER
Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature: ‘‘Ibn Daniyal’’ (E. K. Rowson), I, 319–320.
Sa‘d,
Faruq.Khayal al-zill ‘inda al-‘Arab (Arabic Shadow Play). Beirut, 1991.
SHAFI’I, AL-, ABU ABDALLAH MUHAMMAD
IBN IDRIS
Al-Shafi’i (767–820 CE) ranks among the most
influential jurists in the history of Islamic law by virtue of his
contributions to substantive legal doctrine, elaboration of hermeneutic
concepts and techniques, and his jurisprudential legacy as preserved in the
Shafi’i School of Jurisprudence. Al-Shafi’i was probably born in Palestine and
studied law first in Mecca and then in Medina, where he became a pupil of the celebrated
jurist Malik ibn Anas. He also studied with at least one prominent student of
the important Iraqi jurist Abu Hanifa.
Although al-Shafi’i taught and wrote for a
period of years in Baghdad, only scattered references to his doctrines from
this period survive. After relocating to Egypt (ca. 814), however, he authored
(or his students compiled) a number of works that became authoritative. His
massive Kitab al-Umm (The Exemplar)covers
the standard topics found in a work of Islamic law. Traditionally published
with theUmmare a number of shorter works, including some that preserve
doctrines of earlier jurists with critical evaluations of these by al-Shafi’i.
What is new in al-Shafi’i’s writings is the
selfconscious concern with adherence to hermeneuticalprinciples. Al-Shafi’i
insists that laws be derived exclusively from revealed sources, namely the
Qur’an and Hadith. In particular, al-Shafi’i emphasizes the special importance
of Hadith from the Prophet, both as a supplement to the Qur’an and as an
independent source of law. Thus, al-Shafi’i sought to ground law exclusively in
revelation, making Islamic jurisprudence (for him, anyway) into a field more
dependent on textual analysis than on the handing down of traditional authority.
This feature of al-Shafi’i’s thought entailed a further development in his
hermeneutics, namely the elaboration of a series of techniques for sorting
through and resolving apparent contradictions in the revealed sources of the
Shari‘a. Al-Shafi’i’s most detailed discussion of his hermeneutical principles
is contained in hisRisala (Epistle), but they also figure prominently in his Ikhtilaf al-Hadith (Contradictory
Hadith),in several shorter works, and in the context of discrete problems dealt
with in the Umm.
Recent scholarship, however, has cast doubt
on the attribution of all works traditionally ascribed to al-Shafi’i. Scrutiny
of the works bearing al-Shafi’i’s name has led some to conclude that the Umm
and the Risala were subject to a process of organic growth and redaction, and
it has also been argued that hermeneutical approaches found in both works fit
more easily into the intellectual world of the later ninth century.These studies
raise important questions that are, for a variety of reasons, difficult to
resolve definitively.
Al-Shafi’i’s two Egyptian students, al-Rabi‘
ibn Sulayman al-Muradi (d. 883) and al-Muzani (d. 877), preserved, developed,
and transmitted his doctrines. It is on the basis of their efforts to preserve
al-Shafi’i’s teachings that the Shafi’i School of Jurisprudence was founded and
began to flourish, especially in Baghdad (c. 900). In time, the Shafi’i School
spread to and remains important, in Arabia, Egypt, East Africa, and Malaysia.
Primary Sources
Al-Shafi’i.Kitab
al-Umm. 8 vols. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1990.
———.Al-Risala.
Ed. A.M. Shakir. Cairo: al-Halabi, 1940.
Further Reading
Al-Shafi’i.Islamic
Jurisprudence: al-Shafi’i’s Risala Translated with an Introduction, Notes, and
Appendices. Transl. Majid Khadduri. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1961.
Calder,
Norman.Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Chaumont,
Eric. ‘‘Al-Shafi’i.’’ InEncyclopaedia of Islam. New Ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1954–2002.
Coulson,
N.J.A History of Islamic Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1964.
Hallaq, Wael
B.A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An Introduction to Sunni usul al-fiqh.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997
Lowry,
Joseph E. ‘‘Does Shafi’i Have a Theory of Four Sources of Law?’’ InStudies in
Islamic Legal Theory, edited by B.G. Weiss. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Schacht,
Joseph.The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950.
SHAH ‘ABBAS I (1571–1629),
FIFTH SHAH OF IRAN’S SAFAVID DYNASTY (1501–1722)
‘Abbas was the great-grandson of the first
Safavid shah Isma’il I (r. 1501–1524), grandson of the second, Tahmasp (r. 1524–1576),
and son of the fourth, Khudabandah (r. 1578–1587), and was enthroned by an
alliance dominated by elements of the Ustajl, one of the preeminent tribes of
the Qizilbash tribal confederation that had provided the military backbone of the
dynasty to this period.
Tahmasp’s death had caused splits among
different tribal factions, Tajik (native Persian), Georgian, and Circassian, at
court around his sons Isma’il II (r. 1576–1577) and Khudabandah (1578–1587). These
left the polity vulnerable to Ottoman and Uzbeg invasions and, accentuated by
Isma’il II’s flirtation with Sunnism in an effort to bolster his own position,
engendered considerable domestic spiritual unrest. The alliance that deposed
Khudabandah and enthroned ‘Abbas in 1587 collapsed soon thereafter as key Turk
and Tajik elements coalesced around other Safavid princes, including ‘Abbas’
two younger brothers. Further foreign invasions resulted, and certain Sufi (and
especially Nuqtavi and other) elements openly challenged ‘Abbas’ spiritual legitimacy.
‘Abbas’ 1590 purchase of peace with the
Ottomans by ceding them key territories allowed him to move successfully
against internal rivals and, thereafter, commence a series of campaigns that by
the end of his reign regained territories lost to the Ottomans and Uzbegs since
Tahmasp’s death.
These military–political victories were
achieved by forces composed of both tribal elements but also ghulam or qullar forces non-Qizilbash Arab and Persian tribal volunteers and
captured Georgian, Circassian, and Armenian youth converted to Islam whose presence
in smaller numbers predated ‘Abbas who were now incorporated at the central and
provincial military and political levels, albeit in positions subordinate to
existing Qizilbash and Tajik elites and, more importantly, elements of Kurdish,
Lur, and Chagatay tribes whose presence attests to the widening of the Qizilbash
confederation.
Like his predecessors, ‘Abbas further
strengthened his personal position by using marriages to cement alliances with
Qizilbash tribal elements, local political notables, and especially and more so
than earlier shahs, prominent Tajik sayyids. The latter, including some of
‘Abbas’ relatives by marriage, were particularly prominent at the central and
provincial administrative levels.
‘Abbas’ reign also witnessed a reinvigorated effort
to identify the shah with the agendas and discourses of each of the realm’s key
component constituencies and project himself as transcendent ruler over all.
Isfahan, which ‘Abbas designated the capital soon after his accession, was home
to many manifestations, including more secular projects such as Naqsh-i Jahan Square, whose construction
created a new city center southwest of the traditional one. Isfahan’s more
spectacular religious projects included the 1599 ‘Abdallaah Shushtari school
and the Lutfallah Maysi (1602 to 1618–1619) and Shah mosques (1611 to 1630–1631),
the latter two both on ‘Abbas’ new square, but the provincial cities of Mashshad,
the former capital Qazvin, and Kashan received similar attention. ‘Abbas’
special identification with Twelver Shi‘ism was further attested to by his
close association with such prominent philosopher clerics as Mir Damad (d.
1630–1631), Mulla Sadra (d. 1640), and Shaykh Baha’i (d. 1621), the capital’s
shaykh al-Islam, his patronage of the Shi‘i shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala
after their 1624 capture, and his patronage of the Hijazi Shi‘a. ‘Abbas also
carefully cultivated his image as head of the Safavid Sufi order and associated
himself with such manifestations of ‘‘popular’’ religious feeling as the
Muharram ceremonies, commemorating the martyrdom in 680 of the third Shi‘i Imam
Husayn, and the commemoration of the 661 martyrdom of Imam ‘Ali. He also
sponsored public, displayed clashes between the Ni‘mati and Haydari factions,
which were Iran’s traditional urban factions. The commission of a
never-completed, illustrated Shahnama attests to the center’s atttentiveness to
traditional Tajik Persian cultural discourse.
The development of Isfahan and the realm,
aided by the center’s restoration of road security, facilitated marked economic
expansion, the more so in the aftermath of the forced importation to Isfahan of
Armenians from war-torn eastern Anatolia beginning circa 1604, including many
long-distance merchants who dominated the east west trade routes through Iran,
and the appearance in the Gulf of the Western commercial interests interested
in expanding trade with the East, particularly in Iranian silk. These, with
Western missionaries and political envoys, were welcomed by ‘Abbas in his
effort to construct an anti-Ottoman alliance.
Further Reading
Newman,
Andrew J.The Formative Period of Twelver Shi‘ism: Hadith as Discourse Between
Qum and Baghdad. Richmond: Surrey, 2000.
———.Between
Medieval and Modern: Iran in the Safavid Centuries. London, forthcoming.
SHAHNAMA
Sometimes referred to as the Iranian National
Epic, the Shahnama (Book of Kings) is
the life’s work of the Persian poet Abu ’l-Qasem Ferdowsi, from Tus in Khorasan,
northeastern Iran. It is a work of heroic scale and heroic character,
consisting of between fifty and sixty thousand lines(beyt), each containing two
rhyming couplets (mesra‘)in the same meter: u - -/u - -/ u - -/u -, known as
the bahr-e motaqareb.
Ferdowsi was born around 935 CE and died around
1020 CE. He was thus writing approximately four centuries after the fall of the
ancient Persian empire and the coming of Islam. The final version was completed
in 1010, dedicated to the most powerful ruler of the time, Sultan Mahmud of
Ghazna (modern Afghanistan, r. 999–1020). Ferdowsi conceived his work as a
memorial to Iran’s glorious past at a time when its memory was in danger of disappearing
for good under the twin assaults of Arabic and Islamic culture and the
political dominion of the Turks. His literary masterpiece has since been used
by many subsequent regimes, both imperial and provincial, to assert their
rightful place in the political traditions of the country, and to legitimize their
dynasty. As a result, the text survives in countless manuscript copies, often lavishly
illustrated in princely court ateliers. The earliest, however, was copied two hundred
years after the poet’s death, making it impossible to establish with certainty
exactly what he wrote.
The Shahnaman arrates the history of Iran
(Persia) from the creation of the world and the first king, Kayumars, who
established his rule at the dawn of time, to the conquest of Persia by the
Muslim Arabs in the early seventh century CE. The poem follows the structure of
a king-list, with altogether fifty reigns described in sequence, though at
greatly differing length. Therefore it has the appearance, at least, of a chronicle
and is often cited as such by later medieval Persian historians as a source of
information about the pre-Islamic past. This formal structure also emphasizes
the centrality and importance of the role of the king (Shah) in Persian
political culture, a characteristic also noted by Herodotus. Many of its early figures
are mentioned in theAvesta, especially the Zamyad
Yasht (on the khwarnah, or Divine
splendor), dealing with those who held and those who sought it.
Nevertheless, the Shahnama is more than a straight
forward celebration of the monarchical and imperial tradition in Persian
history. In the first place, much of its material is ahistorical. The reigns are
grouped according to four major dynasties, the Pishdadians, Kayanians, Ashkanians,
and Sasanians, an ancient division that became entrenched in Persian historiography.
In parallel with these divisions, the poem is generally divided into mythical,
legendary, and historical sections. The first includes the formation of human
society, the discovery of fire, the domestication of animals, the struggle with
the forces of evil (represented bydivs, or devils), and the definition of
Iranian territory. The distinction between the mythical passages and the
following legendary sections is rather fluid; the collapse of time, the
pervasive presence of the supernatural, of the fantastic, magic, dragons, and
heroic endeavors give a strong continuity across these prehistorical chapters.
Secondly, a significant proportion of the
narrative is taken up with a discrete cycle of stories concerning the local
rulers of Sistan (southeast Iran), which
is grafted onto the main structure of the poem. Olga Davidson has challenged
the opinion that the ‘‘Sistan cycle’’ represents a separate textual tradition,
suggesting that both these stories and those of the royal Kayanian line entered
the National Epic together, as a conflation of a ‘‘book of kings’’ with an
‘‘epic of heroes,’’ both drawn from oral sources. The chief subject of these
stories is the heroic exploits of Rostam, son of Zal, who was the champion of successive
Iranian monarchs. Indeed, Rostam is the Iranian epic heropar excellence,and his
adventures encapsulate more than anything else the spirit and the popular appeal
of the Shahnama. As discussed by Davidson and by Dick Davis, the role of the
hero is intrinsic to the epic, and the bravery, reliability, and loyalty of the
hero form a counterpoint to the behavior of the Shahs. Davis even regards the
poem as a denunciation of kingship, as increasingly unjust rulers provoke even
their loyal commanders to revolt against them. Throughout the poem, however,
despite his frank depiction of the shortcomings of various Shahs, Ferdowsi’s
didactic intentions are clear from his comments on the consequences of poor
judgment, tyranny, or rashness. The misfortunes of rulers are shown to be the
result of their failings, and in contrast, success and prosperity come from
wisdom and justice. Many later Persian historians claimed the same exemplary
purpose in their works, but few showed Ferdowsi’s integrity and rigor in
denouncing the bad. Rather, as noted by Shahrokh Meskoob, flattery and praise
of rulers became standard.
Rostam and the Shahs he served take part
primarily in the endless cycles of wars with Turan (approximately Turkestan or
modern Central Asia), Iran’s traditional foe throughout the first sections of
the poem. The episodes that have attracted most attention are the stories of
Rostam and Sohrab and of Seyavosh, both ending in the tragic death of sons due
to their domineering and intransigent fathers. Both of these, and the equally
powerful confrontation between Rostam and Esfandiyar, son of the tyrannical
Shah Goshtasp, are available in modern verse translations. These episodes
reveal the strength of Ferdowsi’s poetry and his stark exposure of the human
condition. Caught up in their own preoccupations and trapped by their sense of
honor, obedience, pride, and ambition, the protagonists are unable to extricate
themselves from the net that circumstances have made for them. Despite the
importance and, indeed, his convincing portrayal of human motivations, Ferdowsi
always implicates blind, remorseless Fate for the actual outcome. When one’s
time is up, no human action can alter events. Shortly after killing Esfandiyar,
Rostam too is killed, the price to be paid for accepting the help of the
mythical Simorgh to overcome his foe. Rostam’s death marks the end of an era,
and with it the impetus goes out of the epic narrative of the Kayanians.
The historical section, that is, when known
historical events can be identified, starts only with the story of Alexander
the Great, also treated as legend. It is remarkable, for example, that there is
no reference to the reigns of Cyrus the Great, Darius, or the Achaemenid
dynasty that preceded the appearance of Philip of Macedon on the scene. The
reasons for this silence lie in the sources available to the poet. Ferdowsi
followed an eastern Iranian narrative tradition, which evidently knew nothing
of the separate traditions of southwest Iran and the Tigris Euphrates valley.
It is only with the coming of the Parthians (Ashkanians, Arsacids), whose long
history (247 BCE to 224 CE) is treated in barely twenty verses, and during which
time memory of earlier events in the southwest must have been lost, followed by
the Sasanian dynasty (224–651), that Fars becomes the focus of events.
Ferdowsi provides a long account of the
Sasanians, based on written sources that were also used by early Islamic
historians in Arabic translations from Pahlavi (Middle Persian). The main
conflicts are now with Iran’s western neighbor, the Byzantine empire. Some passages,
particularly in the reign of Anushirvan (‘‘the Just’’) and the exchanges with
his vizier, Bozorjmehr (‘‘Great light’’), are the vehicle for much moral and political
wisdom. The stories of Bahram Gur and Bahram Chubina (Bahram V and VI) to some
extent maintain the epic aspect of the Shahnama, with their heroic hunts,
romantic adventures, dragon-slayings, and martial prowess. The final episode is
the murder of the last Sasanian ruler, Yazdagird III (r. 632–652). Its ending
echoes with the gloomy predictions of the Persian general, Rostam killed at the
battle of Qadisiyya by the Arab commander Sa ‘d b. Waqqas of the disasters
about to befall Iran.
The Shahnama is ultimately a story of defeat,
yet Ferdowsi has contrived to turn this disaster into a triumph for Persian
civilization. It encapsulates and expresses, as no other work of Persian
literature has been able to, the Iranians’ view of themselves and their
rightful place in the world.
Further Reading
Clinton,
Jerome W.The Tragedy of Sohrab and Rostam from the Persian National Epic, The
Shahname of Abol-Qasem Ferdowsi. Washington, D.C.: Mage, 1987.
———.In the
Dragon’s Claws. The Story of Rostam & Esfandiyar from the Persian Book of
Kings by Abolqasem Ferdowsi. Washington, DC: Mage, 1999.
Davidson,
Olga M.Poet and Hero in the Persian Book of Kings. Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press, 1994.
Davis,
Dick.The Legend of Seyavash. London: Penguin,1992.
———.Epic and
Sedition. The Case of Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh. Fayetteville: The University of
Arkansas Press, 1992.
———.Stories
from the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi. 3 vols. Vol. 1,The Lion and the Throne(by Ehsan
Yarshater, transl. Dick Davis); vol. 2, Fathers and Sons; vol. 3, Sunset of Empire.
Washington, DC: Mage, 1998, 2000,and 2004.
Hillmann,
Michael C.Iranian Culture: A Persianist View. Lanham, NY and London: University
Press of America, 1990, 13–41.
Khaleghi-Motlagh,
Djalal. ‘‘Ferdowsi, Abu’l-Qasem i. Life.’’ InEncyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 9. New
York, 1999, 514–523.
Meisami,
Julie Scott.Persian Historiography to the end of the Twelfth Century. Edinburgh:
University Press, 1999, 37–45.
Meskoob,
Shahrokh.Iranian Nationality and the Persian Language, transl. Michael C.
Hillmann, 78–79. Washington, DC: Mage, 1992.
Robinson,
B.W.The Persian Book of Kings: An Epitome of the Shahnama of Firdawsi. London
and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2002.
Shahbazi, A.
Shapur.Ferdowsi: A Critical Biography. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 1991.
Yarshater,
Ehsan. ‘‘Iranian National History.’’ InThe Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.
Cambridge: University Press, 1983, 359–477.
SHAJAR AL-DURR
Shajar al-Durr, a Turkish slave and concubine
of the Ayyubid sultan of Egypt, al-Salih Ayyub (d. 1249), became his wife after
bearing him a son. The son, Khalil, soon died, but Shajar al-Durr retained the sobriquet
Umm Khalil (Mother of Khalil) for the remainder of her life. Her name can be
rendered in English as ‘‘Spray of Pearls.’’
Shortly before al-Salih Ayyub’s death in
1249, during the Fifth Crusade’s invasion of Egypt, he appointed his wife and
two others to safeguard the transition to the sultanate of al-Mu’azzam
Turanshah, his son by another woman. Shortly after his arrival in Egypt and
assumption of rule, Turanshah was murdered by his father’s Bahri mamluks
(military slaves), whom he had alienated. This murder took place on May 2,
1250, and two days later, Shajar al-Durr was proclaimed sultana (the feminine
form of sultan) of the Ayyubid dominions, although this was not recognized by
the Syrian Ayyubid princes. Shajar al-Durr subsequently ruled Ayyubid Egypt in
her own name for a period of three months. The legends on coins minted in her
name bore the legend malikat al-muslimin (‘‘Queen of the Muslims’’). Her claim to
royal authority was buttressed by her status as widow of al-Salih and as mother
of his son. Shajar al-Durr’s assumption of rule was a rare occurrence within
the medieval Dar al-Islam. Although women had exercised positions of power,
usually as wives of rulers or as regents (such as the Ayyubid Dayfa Khatun,
regent for her grandson al-Nasir Yusuf see later in this entry during his
minority in Aleppo), only Radiyya, the sultana of Dehli (r. 1236–1240),
preceded Shajar al-Durr as an autonomous head of a state.
Her short reign came to an official close by
the end of July 1250, when she abdicated in favor of a leader of her husband’s
Mamluks, the amir Aybak alTurkumani. This move was likely taken in the face of
increasing Syrian Ayyubid pressure, most notably from al-Nasir Yusuf, ruler of
Damascus and Aleppo. Aybak himself abdicated shortly thereafter in favor of a
young Ayyubid prince named al-Ashraf Musa. Both Shajar al-Durr and Aybak, who
had married at some point after al-Ashraf Musa came to the throne, were the
true powers behind the child. By 1254, Aybak deposed al-Ashraf Musa and assumed
the sultanate in his own name. When Aybak took steps to strengthen his position
by marrying a daughter of Badr al-Din Lu’lu, the ruler of Mosul, this
exacerbated his already estranged marriage with Shajar al-Durr. She arranged Aybak’s
murder on April 10, 1257. In the power struggle that ensued, the forces loyal
to al-Mansur ’Ali, Aybak’s son by another wife, emerged victorious. Shajar
al-Durr was arrested, and her corpse was subsequently found lying outside the
Cairo citadel on April 28, 1257. Tales of her life and death were later
embellished with myriad details not found in the earliest accounts.
Primary Source
Al-Maqrizi.A
History of the Ayyubid Sultans of Egypt. Transl. R.J.C. Broadhurst. Boston:
Twayne Publishers, 1980.
Further Reading
Holt,
P.M.The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from Eleventh Century to 1517.
London: Longman, 1986.
SHAWKANI, AL-, MUHAMMAD IBN
‘ALI
A Yemeni scholar, judge, and reformer,
Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali al-Shawkani was born in the village of Hijrat Shawkan in 1760
and died in Sanaa in 1834 CE. Shawkani saw himself as the heir of the Sunni-
and hadith-oriented school that arose in Yemen with Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Wazir
(d. 1436 CE) and came to full prominence with Shawkani himself in the late
eighteenth century. Drawing heavily on the teachings of the Sunni Traditionists
(ahl al-hadith), Shawkani was a
prolific author (more than two hundred words are attributed to him) in
virtually every field of the Islamic sciences. The thrust of his reformist
message was to inveigh against the evils of strict adherence to the teachings
of the established schools of law (sing.madhhab) a practice he labeled taqlid. Instead,
Shawkani argued that Muslims had to reform themselves by reverting to an
unmediated interpretation of the sources of revelation, namely the Qur’an and
the Sunna (the latter being encapsulated in the canonical Sunni hadith
collections). His interpretive approach stresses the practice of independent judgment
(ijtihad) and focuses on the explicit
meaning of the texts (strict constructionism). He rejected most forms of analogical
reasoning, as well as the principle of juristic consensus (ijma‘). This amounted to a radical revamping of the traditional
system of law with the claim of obtaining greater certainty of God’s will.
Shawkani’s most influential book is his multivolume Nayl al-awtar fi sharh
muntaqa al-akhbar (Attaining the Aims in Commenting on the Choicest Traditions).
This consists of a legal manual based on the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w traditions (hadith)
and is the principal source for Sayyid Sabiq’sFiqh al-sunna, perhaps the most
widely used legal text among modern Sunnis. Other works by al-Shawkani that have
attained prominence include his commentary on the Qur’an, entitled al-Fath al-qadir (Victory of the Almighty);
his work on the principles of jurisprudence, entitledIrshad al-fuhul (Guidance
to the Luminaries); a legal work entitled al-Sayl
al-jarrar (The Raging Torrent); and a biographical dictionary entitled al-Badr al-tali‘ (The Rising Moon). His
works, especially on the Qur’an and on hadith-based law, are taught widely throughout
the Islamic world today. For modern Muslim reformers, al-Shawkani is a towering
figure, not only because of his clear and synthesized writing style but also
because he was successful with his reformist project in Yemen. The dominant
sect and school of law in eighteenth-century highland Yemen was Zaydism, one of
the branches of Shi‘ism. Al-Shawkani attacked the Zaydis in his writings,
arguing that many of their theological and legal teachings had no basis in
revelation and therefore had to be rejected. The aforementioned work, The
Raging Torrent, is a point-by-point critique of the Zaydis’ principal legal
text, the Kitab al-azhar (The Book of
Flowers)by the fifteenth-century imam al-Mahdi Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Murtada (d.
1436 CE). The Qasimi imams, who ruled Yemen from 1635 until the 1850s CE, had
by the mid-eighteenth century established a dynastic state and began
patronizing scholars like Shawkani. The Qasimis saw in Shawkani a jurist who
would both legitimize their rule and lead a centralized judicial system. This
is because Shawkani advocated a quietist political view that rejected the Zaydi
teachings that rulers had to be exemplary men who satisfied rigorous
qualifications for the position of imam and that unjust rulers had to be
removed, by force if necessary. Shawkani was appointed to the position of chief
judge of the state, a post he held from 1795 until his death in 1834 CE. As chief
judge, he was able to push through his reformist agenda and teach several
generations of like-minded scholars and jurists, many of whom were given posts in
the state’s bureaucracy. Shawkani’s success was such that the Zaydis were never
able to recover, intellectually or politically, from the onslaught waged against
them by these Sunni-oriented reformers. The Zaydis claimed that Shawkani’s
efforts amounted to nothing more than the founding of a new school of law, with
him as the ultimate authority, and that they preferred to follow their own
imams, who as members of the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt) were more worthy of emulation. The most forceful
exponent of this position was Muhammad ibn Salih al-Samawi (d. 1825), who was executed
by the Qasimi state for his criticism of the conjuncture of knowledge and power
that was represented in the alliance between Shawkani and Qasimi imams.
Shawkani’s life and work are perhaps best appreciated if they are understood as
forming a key link between premodern and modern Islamic reformist thought and
action.
Further Reading
Al-‘Amri,
Husayn ‘Abdullah.The Yemen in the 18th and 19th Centuries: A Political and
Intellectual history. London: Ithaca Press, 1985.
Haykel,
Bernard.Revival and Reform in Islam: The Legacy of Muhammad al-Shawkani.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
SHI‘I LAW
The juristic traditions of the three Shi‘i
groups (the Zaydis, the Imamis, and the Ismailis) are best treated separately;
although their traditions did influence one another, the jurists of each
tradition perceived themselves as quite different from their fellow Shi‘is. In
general terms, however, the Zaydis and the Imamis concentrated more of their
intellectual effort on the elaboration of the Shari‘a, and consequently, their
legal structures were more sophisticated than those of the Ismailis. All Shi‘is
trace the beginnings of their juristic heritage to the sayings of ‘Ali, the cousin
and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad. For Shi‘is, ‘Ali was not merely the
rightful leader of the Muslims, he was also the supreme interpreter of Islam.
His decrees hold the same authority as those of the Prophet. Indeed, except for
a section of the Zaydis, Ali’s decrees have a quasi-revelatory status, not
being a book (like the Qur’an) but equal to thesunnaof the Prophet.
Imami and Ismaili jurists have also reserved
a pioneering role for Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq (d. AH 148/785 CE), a
fifth-generation descendant of ‘Ali and a widely respected scholar. Ja‘far
supposedly ‘‘founded’’ the Shi‘i legal school, and his legal statements are
taken by Imamis, Ismailis, and even some Zaydis as indicators of the Shari‘a.
For example, most of the legal positions in Qadi al-Nu‘man’s (d. 363/974) Da‘a’im
al-Islam concur with the reported positions of Imam Ja‘far. This work, together
with the same author’s Ikhtilaf usul
al-madhahib (a work of legal theory) represent the major Ismaili legal
sources. For two reasons, there is little Ismaili legal scholarship after this
date. First, the Ismaili Fatimid dynasty collapsed in 567/1171 and the Ismailis
had already become less interested in the implementation of the law, and more
interested in philosophical and mystical enquiry. Second, the Fatimid descendants
led the Ismailis as present Imams, who could answer all legal questions due to
their perfect legal knowledge. There was no need for jurisprudence because
theoretically all legal issues could be answered by the Imam.
Imamis, on the other hand, believed their
Imam to be in occultation since 329/941, and hence there was plenty of scope
for scholars to study and develop legal arguments in defense of their own
opinions. In the tenth century, Muhammad al-Kulayni (d. 328 or 329/940 or 941)
collected al-Kafi, the first
significant compendium of Imami Shi‘i hadith. This was supplemented soon after
by Ibn Babuya’s (d. 381/992) Man la
yahduruhu al-faqih and then by al-Shaykh al-Tusi’s (d. 460/1067) two works,
al-Istibsarand al-Tahdhib. Together
these became known as ‘‘the four books’’ and were used as the sources for the
legal manuals (fiqh) written by
subsequent Imami jurists. Ibn Babuyah himself wrote a legal manual (entitled al-Muqni‘), and was followed in this by
a succession of Imami scholars in the eleventh century. Around this time, there
emerged Imami works of legal theory (usul
al-fiqh), the earliest extant being al-Sharif al-Murtada’s (d.
436/1044)al-Dhari‘a.
The centers of Imami learning were Baghdad
and Qum. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the town of Hilla in southern
Iraq also became an important center of Imami scholarship. Two jurists in
particular further developed a distinctive Shi‘i usul al-fiqh.In Shi‘i usul, as
in Sunni legal theory, there were four sources. The first was al-Kitab (The Book,that is, the Qur’an),
though it was best understood when interpreted by the Imams. The second was Sunna (the example of the Prophet),
though this included the example of the Imams, since they were the embodiment
of the Prophet’s will. The third was ijma‘ (consensus), though this was only
valid if the Imam’s opinion was included. The final source was al-‘aql (reason), the natural human
faculty that recognizes good and evil. The Imamis rejected the Sunni principle
of qiyas (analogy), labeling it a
‘‘tool of Satan.’’ Early Imamis also rejected ijtihad, the exegetical effort of the individual jurist to find an
answer to a legal problem. There was no need to performijtihad, because there
were sufficient statements of the Imams (akhbar)
to guide the community. As time passed, Imami jurists realized that
theakhbarwere not really sufficient for developing the law, and so they
introduced al-‘aql as the fourth source of law and legitimized ijtihad. The jurists
could not do without these tools in their search for the law. Imami law manuals
(mukhtasars and more expansive works
of fiqh) outlined the law in a manner
very similar to that found in Sunni works. There are some significant
differences though. The fact that Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter, was the line
through which the Prophet’s descent was traced meant that the agnate and
cognate relatives were considered equal in Imami inheritance law. The Imamis
permitted a form of temporary marriage (mut‘a,
the ‘‘marriage of pleasure’’) disallowed by the Sunnis. There was to be no jihad
during the occultation, as there was no Imam to lead it. The validity of Friday
prayers, the collection of taxes, and the implementation of legal punishments
were matters of dispute among Imamis well into the modern period. In the
fourteenth century, al-Shahid al-Awwal (‘‘the
First Martyr,’’ d. 786/1384) wrote his al-Lum‘a,an
extremely brief summary of Imami law. His advocacy of juristic authority and
the right of scholars to interpret the revelatory texts was challenged by
Imamis in the seventeenth century, but his approach continues to dominate Imami
legal curricula today.
The Zaydis also developed a sophisticated
tradition of legal literature. In particular, the Yemeni Zaydi state, formed by
al-Hadi ila al-Haqq in the late ninth century, served as a center for Zaydi
legal development. Al-Hadi was the grandson of the great Zaydi scholar al-Qasim
b. Ibrahim (d. 246/860), and he developed his grandfather’s teachings into a
school of law, himself writing works offiqh. The ‘‘Hadawi’’ school, as it
became known, remains authoritative for Yemeni Zaydis today, and central to its
teaching is the work of fiqh Kitab al-Azharby Ibn al-Murtada (d. 840/1437).
This latter work and its commentary serve as reference points for Yemeni law,
even after the end of the Imamate in 1962. For Zaydis, any member of the ahl
al-bayt who is a scholar can rise up and become Imam. The Imam is a legal
authority because he has had political success. This is in contrast to the
Ismaili and Imami views, for whom the Imam is a legal authority whether or not
he holds political power.
Further Reading
Hossein
Moddarressi Tabataba’i.An Introduction to Shi‘i Law. London: Ithaca, 1984.
Kohlberg,
Etan.Belief and Law in Imami Shi‘ism. London: Variorum, 1991.
Stewart,
Devin.Islamic Legal Orthodoxy. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press 1998
SHI‘ISM
Shi‘ism is the oldest religious trend of
Islam, given that what can be considered its early core goes back to the time
when the problem of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w succession arose. The main minority
of Islam, it is considered by the Sunni majority also called ‘‘orthodox’’ as
the main ‘‘heterodoxy,’’ if not ‘‘heresy,’’ of the religion. Shi‘is, on the
other hand, regard their doctrine as the ‘‘orthodoxy’’ par excellence.
The Arabic term shı‘a (party, members,
faithfuls) got increasingly applied by antonomasia to what would have been the
first of the religious-political parties of Islam, a party that was made up of
those who claimed for ‘Alı b. Abı Talib ra, cousin and son-in law of nabi Muhammad s.a.w , and for ‘Alı ra descendants, the exclusive right to guide
the community, on the spiritual level, as well as on the secular level. Indeed,
after the death of the Prophet in AH 11/632 CE, two conflicting views of the crucial question of
his succession clashed. A majority of Muslims, claiming that nabi Muhammad
s.a.w never clearly named anyone to
succeed him, resorted to the ancestral tribal tradition of electing a chief by
which a counsel, made up of a few Companions of nabi Muhammad s.a.w plus the influential members of the most powerful
Meccan tribes, chooses a wise man of respectable age. The choice fell on Abu Bakr
ra, old Companion and one of the Prophet’s fathers-in-law, who thus became the
first caliph of the new community. His followers became the ancestors of those
who would later be called Sunnis.
Opposite the Sunnis were the Alids, followers
of ‘Alı ra (Shıˆ‘at ‘Alı ra), who claimed that nabi Muhammad s.a.w had clearly and often named him as his
successor, both by alluding to it and explicitly. They believed it could not be
otherwise: How could the Prophet have left the question of his succession
unsolved? Is it conceivable that he would have been so indifferent to the
direction of his community to the point
of leaving it in a state of hazy confusion? It would be contrary even to the spirit
of the Qur’an, in which the great prophets of the past had their successors
elected among the closest of their kins, those with the most privileged blood
ties and who were initiated to the mysteries of their religion. It is true that
the Qur’an calls for consultation in some cases, but never when it comes to the
succession of the prophets, which remains an election of divine order. For
those who would later be called Shi‘is, ‘Alı ra was the chosen heir, named by
nabi Muhammad s.a.w and supported by the
Qur’an. In this case, his youth, which was a dissuasive handicap for the
beholders of the ancestral tribal customs, was of no importance. ‘Alı ra is
thus seen by the Shi‘is as their first imam (leader, commander, chief). Referring
to the true leader of the community, even if he does not hold the power, the person
of the imam would become the key concept of the Shi‘i religion, which never
used the word ‘‘caliph’’ to refer to their Guide.
Shi‘ism is thus as old as the dispute about
the succession of the Prophet. Still, it cannot be reduced to it. Alid
legitimism can only be seen as the beginning of vast doctrinal developments
during which the key concept of the imamate as ‘‘prophetic legacy’’ would find
multiple, complex meanings and would lead to the creation of varied branches
within Shi‘ism. These branches are characterized mostly by the line of historical
imams, descendants of ‘Alı ra, whom they regard as legitimate. New schisms and
divisions would appear almost every time an imam died, and more than one
hundred Shi‘i sects and trends appeared during the first centuries of Islam.
Three of them, still active today, can be thought of as the main spiritual
families of Shi‘ism: Zaydiyya, Isma’iliyah, and Twelver Shi‘ism, which is by
far the main branch.
Twelver Shi‘ism (with twelve imams) is first
of all based on the doctrine of the holiness of the Fourteen Impeccables (ma‘suˆm,
as in ‘‘pure of sin,’’ ‘‘infallible’’): nabi Muhammad s.a.w , his daughter Fatima
Ra, and the twelve imams. This group is where the Cosmic Imam manifests, as he
himself manifests the Names and Attributes of God. The line of imams of the Twelver
Shi‘is is as follows. (The presumed sites of their grave are mentioned only to
present the main holy places of Shi‘ism.)
1.
‘Alı b. Abı Talib ra (d. 40/661; mausoleum in Najaf, Iraq)
2.
Al-Hasan b. ‘Alı ra (d. 49/669; mausoleum in Medina, destroyed by the
Wahhabites)
3.
Al-Husayn b. ‘Alı ra (d. 61/680; emblematic martyr of Shi‘ism; killed and
buried in Karbalaˆ, Iraq)
4.
‘Alıˆ Zayn al-‘Aˆ bidın b. al-Husayn (c. 95/174; mausoleum in Medina, destroyed
by the Wahhabites. Zayd, eponym of the Zaydiyya, was the son of the fourth
imam)
5.
Muhammad al-Baqir (c. 115/732; mausoleum in Medina, destroyed by the
Wahhabites)
6.
Ja’far al-Saˆdiq (d. 146/765; mausoleum in Medina, also destroyed. The fifth
and sixth imams played a key role in the creation and development of Shi‘ism.
Ja‘far is the father of Isma’il, eponym of the Isma’iliyya)
7.
Musa al-Kazim (d. 183/799; mausoleum in Baghdad)
8.
‘Alıˆ al-Ridaˆ (d. 203/818; mausoleum in Mashhad, Iran)
9.
Muhammad al-Jawad (d. 220/835; mausoleum in Baghdad)
10.
‘Alıˆ al-Hadı (d. 254/868; mausoleum in Saˆmarraˆ, Iraq)
11.
Al-Hasan al-‘Askarıˆ (d. 260/874; mausoleum in Samarra )
12.
Muhammad al-Mahdı, the hidden imam and expected Savior of the End of Times. (According
to the tradition, he occulted a first time after his father’s death in 260/874.
During this ‘‘Minor Occultation,’’ which lasted until 329/941, he communicated
with his faithfuls via four ‘‘representatives.’’ At this latter date, he declared
in a letter that he would never again have a representative and that the time
of the ‘‘Major Occultation’’ had begun. For the Twelvers, this Occultation is
still going on and will last until the eschatological coming of the hidden
imam, the living imam of our time.)
There
are four great eras in the history of Shi‘ism, as follows:
1.
The first era, from the first to fourth/seventh to tenth centuries, is that of
the historical imams, who succeeded each other from father to son, and of their
disciples some of whom were the first Shi‘i thinkers. It ends with the beginning
of the major Occultation. The end of this era is marked by the beginning of the
systematic compilations of the hadıth in the main ‘‘hadıth schools’’(dar al-hadıth) of Qumm, Rayy (Iran),
Kufa, and Baghdad (Iraq), and especially by the compilers from the two Iranian
cities.
2.
A second era extends from 329/941 (end of the historical imams’ era) to the
Mongol invasion in the mid-seventh/thirteenth century. The beginning of this
era sees the continuation of the production of the great compilations and the
development of the School of Baghdad, that of the rationalist jurist theologians
of the Buyid era: al Shaykh al-Muf ıd and his disciples (Sharıf al-Radı and
al-Murtadaˆ, al-Shaykh al-Tusı). It is also the era of the great scholars of
the sixth and seventh/twelfth and thirteenth centuries, such as Ibn Shahra shu
b, Fadl al-Tabrisı, and Ibn Tawus. It ends by the time of the great Iranian
philosopher Nasır al-Dıˆn al-Tusı (672/1273)
and his disciple, al-‘Alla ma al-Hillı (726/1326), key figure of the theologico-judicial
school of Hilla in Iraq.
3.
The third era begins with Nasıˆr al-Dın al-Tusı, during the Safavid era, and
the proclamation of Shi‘ism as state religion in Iran, and ends at the very beginning
of the tenth/sixteenth century. The development of many schools of thought
during this era heralded what would be called the Safavid Renaissance: the
continuators of the school of Hilla, the philosophers from the School of
Bahrayn,and also the great mystic thinkers, nourished by a Shi‘ism enriched
with classic Sufism and the mysticism of Ibn ‘Arabı (Sa‘d al-Dıˆn Hamunyı,
Haydar Amulı, Rajab al-Bursı, and Ibn Abı
Jumhur al-Ahsa ‘ı ).
4.
The fourth and last era extends from the accession of the Safavids to today. This
era saw the creation of a Shi‘i theocracy, gradually organized into a true
‘‘clergy,’’ initially set up by the Doctors of the Law invited from Syria or
Bahrayn to legally justify Safavid power. Members of this clergy came from the
ancient rationalist school of jurists (mujtahid usulı ). They slowly gained great
social, political, and economic powers through the gradual exercise of
privileges traditionally reserved exclusively for the imams and their delegates
namely designated (religious justice and enforcement of legal sanctions,
leading of collective prayers, declaration of holy war, and collection of some
religious taxes such as kharaj and khums). The 1978 victory of Khomeynism in
Iran and the effective rise to power of the jurist–theologian is the direct
consequence of this evolution.
In parallel, the Safavid Renaissance led to
the emergence of powerful philosophy schools in the main Iranian cities (Isfahan,
Shiraz, Sabzewar, Tehran) represented by eminent thinkers, such as Mır Damad
(1041/1631) or Mulla Sadra, and
continuing until the thirteenth/nineteenth century. The traditional philosophy
still has a few notable representatives today: Ha’irı Yazdı, Mutahharı ˆ, Abdol
Karım Sorush, and Mujtahid Shabistarıˆ.
This is also the time of the compilation of
the famous and enormous encyclopedia of Shi‘i hadıth, Bihar al-anwar, by Majlisı
the Second (d. 1111/1699) and of the emergence of the traditionalist judicial school
of the Akhba riyya in the twelth/eighteenth century. Lastly, mystic Shi‘i
societies began to develop in the eleventh/seventeenth century. First came the
Ni’matulla ˆhiyya and the Dhahabiyya, followed by the Khaksar and the
Shaykhiyya in the thirteenth/nineteenth century. Out of the schisms of the latter
school came Babism, which in turn, after some division, led to the Baha’i
faith. Despite the repression they endured during the first years of the
Islamic revolution of 1978 in Iran, these societies still remain popular and
active.
Today, Twelver Shi‘is amount to about 120 or
150 million people, an uncertain number due to the unreliability of statistics
in Sunni countries. Still, an estimate is not too difficult to assess: There
are more than sixty million in Iran and almost as many, if not more, on the
Indian subcontinent across India and Pakistan, who at times hide their
doctrinal allegiance and are almost absent from official statistics. They also
form a majority in Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Bahrayn. Communities of varied sizes
can be found in almost all Sunni countries, especially in the Near and Middle
East, Central Asia, and Afghanistan. Thus one can see that the number of 100
million touted by the media as being the total number of Shi‘is, all faiths included,
does not rest on solid ground. To obtain the total number of Shi‘is, one would
have to add to the Twelvers not only the Isma’iliyah and the Zaydiyya but also
all other Shi‘i groups that do not always reveal their names: Nusayris–Alaouites
from Syria, Bektashis and Alevis from Turkey, and Kurdish Ahl-i Haqq. The
correct number would seem to approximate 200 million.
Further Reading
Amir
Arjomand, S.The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam. Chicago, 1984.
Amir-Moezzi,
M.A., et C. Jambet.Qu’est-ce que le Shi‘isme? Paris, 2003.
Corbin,
H.Histoire de la philosophie islamique. Paris, 1964.
Gobillot,
G.Les Chiites. Turnhout (Belgique), 1988.
Halm, H.Die
Schia. Darmstadt, 1988.
Jafri,
S.H.M.The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam. London, 1979.
Laoust,
H.Les schismes dans l’Islam: introduction a` une e´tude de la religion
musulmane. Paris, 1965.
Momen, M.An
Introduction to Shi’i Islam. New Haven, 1985.
Richard,
Y.Le Shi’isme en Iran. Imam et re´volution. Paris, 1980.
———.L’Islam
Shi’ite. Paris, 1991.
Shi’ism. Ed.
E. Kohlberg. Ashgate (the Formation of the Classical Islamic World), 2002.
SIBAWAYHI
Abu Bishr ‘Amr ibn ‘Uthman ibn Qanbar, known
as Sibawayhi, is the founder of Arabic grammatical science. Of Persian origin,
he attached himself in the middle of the second/eighth century to a number of early
authorities on the Arabic language in Basra, notably al-Khalil ibn Ahmad and
Yunus ibn Habib. The dates of his birth and death are not known: He died
perhaps in his early forties in around AH 180/796 CE, before Yunus (d. 182/798)
but after al-Khalil, who died between 160 and 175/776 and 791.
His untitled treatise on Arabic grammar,
known only as Kitab Sibawayhi
(Sibawayhi’s Book),or simply ‘‘the Book’’, is the first systematic description
of the language, and retains its unsurpassed authority to this day. It probably
owes its survival to one of Sibawayhi’s few students, al-Akhfash al-Awsat (d. between 210 and 221/825 and 835), who had
his own copy of the work, which would become the basis of all subsequent
versions, with one possible exception. The Kitab falls into four sections, a
group of seven introductory chapters setting out the main theoretical
assumptions, then a long treatment of syntax (Chapters 8–284, completing the
first volume as it is conventionally divided), with morphology occupying the
bulk of volume two (Chapters 285–564), and concluding with seven chapters on
phonetics (Chapter 565–571). The borderline between the last two is not as
precise as it might be in modern linguistics and, in fact, many earlier chapters
deal with what would now be called morphophonology.
The arrangement of the material, proceeding
from syntax to phonology, is itself a statement of position, namely that
language must first be described in its surface realization, as connected
speech, kalam, before it can be further decomposed into its constituents in
successively smaller units. Speech is therefore analyzed pragmatically as a
social activity (the word nahw, ‘‘way
[of speaking]’’, used frequently in the Kitab, later became the name of the
science of grammar, but is ultimately only a synonym of Sunna,or ‘‘the
[Islamic] way of behaving’’). Hence the criteria for correctness are ethical in
origin: an utterance is acceptable when it is both well-formed (hasan, lit. ‘‘morally
good’’) and successfully conveys the intended meaning (mustaqim, lit. ‘‘morally
right’’). Only three parts of speech are formally identified: nounism, verb
fi‘l,and meaningful particle harf ja’a
li-ma‘na, and their syntactical relationship is referred to as
‘‘operation’’ (‘amal), in binary
units consisting (mostly) of an active element (‘amil, ‘‘operator’’) that assigns case to a passive element (ma‘mul fihi, ‘‘operated on’’). Sibawayhi
names more than seventy such speech operations, and the concept is entirely unconnected
with the Western notion of ‘‘governing.’’ His morphological chapters cover the
range of word patterns so thoroughly that scarcely anything has had to be added
since, and his treatment of the articulation of Arabic sounds remains an
invaluable source for the pronunciation of early Arabic.
Although Sibawayhi’s debt to his masters is
clear on almost every page, his originality is beyond question; as the first of
its kind the Kitab is literally unprecedented, and we depend on it for our
knowledge of grammar before Sibawayhi. After his death it took a couple of
generations for the importance of the work to be recognized, but then its
descriptive contents were quickly adapted for the prescriptive grammars needed to
sustain Arab culture in its Islamic manifestation.
Primary Sources
Le livre de
Sibawaihi. 2 vols. Ed. Hartwig Derenbourg. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,
1881–1889. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1970.
Kitab
Sibawayhi. 2 vols. Cairo: Bulaq Press, 1898–1900.
Reprint,
Baghdad: Muthanna, 1965.
Kitab
Sibawayhi. 5 vols. Ed. ‘Abd al-Salam Muhammad Harun. Cairo: Dar al-Qalam et
al., 1968–1977; 2d ed, 1977; 3rd ed, 1983.
Further Reading
al-Bakka,
M.K. Manhaj Kitab Sibawayhi fi l-taqwim al-nahwi. Baghdad: Dar al-Shu’un
al-Thaqafiyya al-‘Amma, 1989.
Bernards,
M.Changing Traditions. Al-Mubarrad’s Refutation of Sibawayhi and the Subsequent
Reception of the Kitab. Leiden, New York, and Ko ¨ln: Brill, 1997.
Bohas, G.,
J.-P., Guillaume, and D.E. Kouloughli.The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. London
and New York: Routledge, 1990.
Carter, M.G.
‘‘Sibawayhi.’’ InEncyclopaedia of Islam. New ed, edited by H.A.R. Gibb et al.,
vol. 9, 524a–531a. Leiden: Brill, 1960.
———.
‘‘Patterns of Reasoning: Sibawayhi’s Treatment of thehal.’’ InProceedings of
the 20th Congress of the Union of European Arabists and Islamicists, Part One,
Linguistics, Literature, History, edited by K. Devenyi. Budapest, 2002, [The
Arabist, vols. 24–25], 3–15.
Humbert,
G.Les voies de transmission du Kitab de Sibawayhi. Leiden, New York, and Ko
¨ln: Brill, 1995.
Mosel, U.Die
syntaktische Terminologie bei Sibawaih. Diss. Munich, 1975.
al-Nassir,
A.A.Sibawayh the Phonologist, London and New York: Kegan Paul International,
1993.
Reuschel,
W.Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad, der Lehrer Sibawaihs, als Grammatiker. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1959.
Semaan,
K.I.Linguistics in the Middle Ages, Phonetic Studies in Early Islam Leiden:
Brill, 1968.
Sezgin,
F.M.Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums. Leiden, 1984, vol. 9, 51–63,
241–242.
Talmon,
R.Eighth-Century Iraqi Grammar. A Critical Exploration of Pre-Khalilian Arabic
Linguistics. Winona Lake, 2003.
Troupeau,
G.Lexique-Index du Kitab de Sibawayhi. Paris: Klincksieck, 1976.
‘Udayma, M.
‘A. Faharis Kitab Sibawayhi wa-dirasa lahu. Cairo: Matba‘at al-Sa‘ada, 1975.
Versteegh,
Kees C. H. M.The Arabic Linguistic Tradition, Landmarks in Linguistic Thought
III. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.
Web Editions
Matveev, A.,
M. G. Carter, and L. Edzard (Eds). Chapters 1–7 and 565–571, Oslo, 1999–2002,
available online at
Translation
Carter,
M.G.Sibawayhi. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Jahn,
Gustav. Sibawaihi’s Buch u¨ber die Grammatik, u¨bersetzt und erkla¨rt. Berlin:
Reuther und Reichard, 1895–1900.
Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969.
SIBT IBN AL-JAWZI, SHAMS
AL-DIN ABU’L-MUZAFFAR YUSUF B. QIZUGHLI
Sibt was a celebrated preacher and voluminous
historian. He was born in Baghdad in AH 581 or 582/1185 or 1186 CE. His Turkish
father was a freedman of ‘Awn al-Din Ibn Hubayra, the long-serving vizier of the
‘Abbasid caliphs al-Muqtafi and al-Mustanjid. His mother was a daughter of the
famous Iraqi preacher and writer Ibn al-Jawzi, for whom Sibt (grandson) was named
Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi (grandson of Ibn al-Jawzi).
Sibt is predominantly associated with Ayyubid
Damascus, where he moved from Baghdad in AH 600/1203 CE, although circumstances
sometimes forced him to leave Damascus for lengthy periods. In AH 603/1206 CE,
he moved to Aleppo, apparently drawn by the patronage that the Ayyubid ruler al-Malik
al-Zahir extended to religious and literary scholars. Sibt remained in Aleppo
for two years, breaking his stay in AH 604/1208 CE to make his first pilgrimage
to Mecca via Mosul and Baghdad.
Two years after his return to Damascus, Sibt
began his lengthy and significant association with al-Malik al-Mu‘azzam ‘Isa,
then nominal ruler of the city for his father, al-Malik al-‘Adil. Sibt’s first
meeting with al-Mu‘azzam took place in the wake of his celebrated da‘wa li’l-jihad (call to holy war), which
he delivered in the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus on AH Rabi‘ II 5, 607/September
26, 1210 CE. Producing a quantity of horses’ hobbles made from human hair, he roused
a number of the men present to cut their own hair, in a conventional gesture of
ardent religious commitment. A military force was raised, with Sibt in the
vanguard. After being met by al-Mu‘azzam outside Nabulus in Palestine, the
Muslims went on to the coast, where they pillaged some Frankish villages. Sibt
remained in al-Mu‘azzam’s retinue for the next four years, accompanying him to
Egypt in AH 609/1212 CE.
Sibt was not uncritical of his patron. In AH
615/ 1218 CE, after al-Mu‘azzam had become ruler of Damascus, Central Syria,
Transjordan, and Palestine on the death of al-‘Adil, Sibt had occasion to
rebuke al-Mu‘azzam for his treatment of another scholar and friend of Sibt’s.
Nevertheless, Sibt left the Hanbali
madhhab (Islamic legal school) for the Hanafi
madhhab, which was the madhhab that al-Mu‘azzam himself promoted. In AH
623/1226 CE, a year before his death, al-Mu‘azzam appointed Sibt mudarris (professor) in the (Hanafi)
Madrasa Shibliyya al-Barraniyya in Damascus.
Al-Mu‘azzam was not the only Ayyubid ruler whose
confidence Sibt gained. In AH 612/1215 CE, he went to Akhlat in Armenia, at the
request of al-Mu‘azzam’s brother al-Malik al-Ashraf, who deputized for their
father east of the Euphrates River. Al-Ashraf wanted Sibt to look at a work
written by the ‘Abbasid caliph, al-Nasir. He then sent Sibt on a mission to al-Zahir
in Aleppo. In AH 614–615/ 1217–1218 CE, he traveled extensively on behalf of al-Ashraf,
who had tasked him with the supervision of the khanqahs (Sufi hospices) in his territory.
Sibt did not escape becoming embroiled in the
disputes and rivalries that beset the Ayyubids after the death of Saladin. In
AH 626/1229 CE, the new ruler of Damascus, al-Mu‘azzam’s son al-Malik al-Nasir
Da’ud, asked Sibt to preach in the Umayyad Mosque against al-Malik al-Kamil,
the ruler of Egypt, for treatising with the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II,
and against al-Ashraf for acquiescing in al-Kamil’s policy. Sibt delivered a
stirring oration and issued a fatwa (religious
ordinance) commanding the Damascenes to take up arms against the two Ayyubids.
As a result, when al-Ashraf laid siege to Damascus and ousted al-Nasir from the
city, Sibt followed al-Nasir to al-Karak, which the defeated prince had been
given under the terms of surrender. He remained there until AH 633/1235 CE,
when relations with al-Ashraf improved, and he was able to return to Damascus.
More trouble befell Sibt after the death of al-Ashraf
in AH 635/1237 CE, and the accession to rule in Damascus of his immediate
successor, al-Malik al-Salih Isma‘il. The latter saw Sibt as belonging to the
Egyptian camp, which was opposed to Damascus. For al-Salih Isma‘il believed
(erroneously) that, while in al-Karak, Sibt had persuaded al-Nasir to release
from custody al-Kamil’s son al-Malik al-Salih Ayyub. Al-Salih Isma‘il was
encouraged in this belief by his vizier, al-Samiri. Sibt left Damascus, apparently
returning to al-Karak, where he remained for the next four years, with periods
in Jerusalem and Nabulus.
In AH 639/1241 CE, he moved to Egypt, where
he enjoyed good relations with the ruler al-Salih Ayyub, whom he had met in Jerusalem
after al-Salih Ayyub’s release from prison in al-Karak. Sibt returned to Damascus
two years later, and resided in his adopted city until his death in AH 654/1256
CE.
While Sibt was soundly schooled in hadith (Prophetic Tradition), Qur’anic
reading, and Arabic grammar, he was particularly esteemed as a wa‘iz (preacher), and it is here that
his career sheds revealing light on the intellectual procedures of the age, as
well as on the man himself. A preacher would hold a majlis al-wa‘z (preaching session) in the towns through which he passed,
attracting and keeping audiences by means of a variety of skills: familiarity
with the stories of ascetics and
pietists; declamatory skill; ability to speak in saj‘ (rhymed prose); knowledge
of hadith; knowledge of metonymy; repartee; and above all, a stirring voice. By
all accounts, Sibt was well versed in each of these. The Damascenes would spend
Friday night in the mosque, so that they might be assured of a place at the
discourse, which Sibt used to deliver a session early on Saturday morning. His
audiences would frequently be moved to tears by his words.
Sibt’s most important written work is the Mir’at al-zaman fi ta’rikh al-a‘yan (The
Mirror of Time in the Matter of the History of Notables). It is a lengthy, universal
chronicle in eight parts. Where possible, the account of the events of each
year concludes with the obituaries of people who died in that year. In this,
Sibt followed the format of a chronicle written
by
his famous grandfather. The Mir’at is
most valuable for its coverage of the events of the tenth and eleventh
centuries, for which the sources include works that have been lost; and for the
period of Sibt’s own lifetime, where it offers an eyewitness view, especially
of events in Ayyubid Syria, in which the author was often personally involved.
The Mir’at was much drawn on as a source for subsequent histories.
The text of the Mir’at has survived in two
ways: in manuscripts containing or based on parts of Sibt’s own working draft;
and in the manuscript of an abridgement of the work made by a Syrian historian of
the next generation, al-Yunini. Printed editions have been published of that
part of theMir’atcovering the years AH 448–480/1056–1087 CE, and of the period
between AH 495/1101 CE and Sibt’s death. Part of the latter has been translated
into French.
Primary Sources
Sibt Ibn
al-Jawzi.Mir’at al-zaman fi ta’rikh al-a’yan.
1. Edited
and and translated inRecueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens orientaux.
Vol. 3. Paris: 1884. Extracts from years AH 492–532/1099–1137 CE.
2.
Hyderabad, 1952. 2 vols. Covers years AH 495–654/ 1101–1256 CE.
3. Ali Sevim
(Ed). Ankara, 1968. Covers years AH 448– 480/1056–1087 CE.
Further Reading
Ihsan
‘Abbas. Introduction to vol. 1 ofMir’at al-zaman fi ta’rikh al-a‘yan, by Sibt
Ibn al-Jawzi. Beirut, 1985.
Humphreys,
R. Stephen.From Saladin to the Mongols: the Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193–1260.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1977.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar