An Early MurciIFLʾite Treatise: The Kitāb al-ʿĀlim wal-Mutaʿallim

Author(s): Joseph Schacht

Source: Oriens, Vol. 17 (Dec. 31, 1964), pp. 96-117
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1580020
Accessed: 23/01/2009 05:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oriens.

http://www.jstor.org
AN EARLY MURCI'ITE TREATISE: THE KITAB AL-'ALIM
WAL-MUTA'ALLIM

by

Joseph Schacht
New York
Hellmut Ritter zum 70. Geburtstage

I
The subject of this paper, the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim,has been
known since I912 when F. Kern, in his contribution to the "Festschrift
fur Ignaz Goldziher", drew attention to it as one of the three earliest
but, as yet, unpublished sources on the Murci'a 1. It has since been
published twice, in a lithographededition of the Maclis (later Cam'iyat)
Ihyd' al-Ma'drif al-Nu'mdniya, Hyderabad (Deccan) 1349 (Silsile-i
Matb'adti), and in a printed edition, together with Abil Hanifa's Risala
ild 'Utmdn al-Batti and the Fiqh al-Absat, by Muhammad Zahid al-
Kautari, Cairo I368. According to the learned editor (p. 3), all three
treatises had already been published in a Macmi'a in Istanbul "more
than a century ago". If this statement does not go back to hearsay-
I do not know anything of this Macmi'a, and it has remained unknown
to as knowledgeablea scholar as Kern-, this edition would presumably
have been based on the manuscriptof the three treatises which, according
to the same Saix al-Kautari, exists in the Fatih Library in Istanbul
but which I have not had occasion to identify 2. aix al-Kautari's
edition is based on the manuscript Cairo Macdmi' 64 (CatalogueCairo1
vii, 553), which equally contains the three treatises, and the edition of
Hyderabad on the manuscript Rampur i, 318, No. 270. The Kitdb
al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim exists also in the manuscripts 2021 and 2122
of the Garrett Collection, Princeton, the first of which had already been
listed by Houtsma (Catalogued'une collection de manuscrits arabes et
turcs appartenanta la maison E. J. Brill a Leide, 2nd ed., Leiden I889,
I94, No. II44). Not mentioned by Brockelmann (GAL2 i, I77, ? I, XI;

1 Zeitschr. f. I69, n. i. The two other sources mentioned

Assyriologie xxvi (19I2),
by Kern are the Fiqh al-Ausat (read: al-Absat) and the Risala iladcUtmdn al-Battf.
2 It is
presumably the manuscript 3138 of the Defter-i FatihKutubxanesi.
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise 97

Suppl. i, 287, xi) is the manuscript Tauhid 56 of the Zahiriya Library,

Damascus, which contains on fol. Iv-24v a copy of the same work which
is incomplete at the end and has lacunae in the middle, with parts of
the Fiqh al-Absat, by the same hand, occupying fol. 8r-gv; we have here
obviously the remnants of a manuscript which contained at least two,
if not all three, of those early Murci'ite treatises; fol. 25, belonging to the
same manuscript, but in another handwriting, is dated A.H. 659. There
are, further, extracts from the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim in the
manuscript R. 13. I9 in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (see
below, section II, pp. I02-I04).
The Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim consists of a dialogue between
master and disciple, the disciple putting questions and the master giving
detailed answers. It has always been taken for granted that Abu Hanifa
was meant by the master (although this does not, of course, decide the
question of authorship), but it is not immediately clear who is meant
by the disciple. The Fihrist (202, line I2) mentions among the works of
Abui Hanifa the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim rawdhu 'anhu Muqdtil,
and Hacci Xalifa (v, II3 f., No. I029I) refers to the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-
Muta'allim li-Abz Hanifa, quotes its first words, and continues: wa-hwa
kitdbmustamil 'ald l-'aqd'idwan-nasd'ihbi-tariqas-su'dl 'an al-muta'allim
wal-cawdb 'an al-'dlim yuqdl rawdhu Muqdtil 'an al-Imdm. The text
which Hacci Xalifa saw is obviously identical with that of the Hyderabad
edition and thereforeof the Rampur manuscript, as well as of the Damas-
cus manuscript, that is to say, the paragraphs and sections were intro-
duced by the words qdl al-Muta'allim and qdl al-'Alim respectively, and
it was not prefaced by an isndd (this is implied by IHacciXalifa's use
of the word yuqdl). Both in the Fihrist and in Hacci Xalifa we must,
however, read Abfi Muqatil instead of Muqatil, because the person in
question is the Traditionist Abu Muqatil Hafs b. Salam as-Samarqandi
(d. 208 at a very great age), whom Dahabi explicitly mentions as the
sdhib Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim1. He is generally regarded as
unreliable or worse; the best that the critics can say of him is that he
was a pious man, or that he was known as truthful but is not taken into
account when it is a question of establishing reliable traditions, or that
he was gullible; in particular,he is reproachedwith relating as traditions
sayings which he found beautiful although he had not heard them from
his alleged authorities. His critics recognize that he was an authority on
religious law, but his name does not occur in the standard works of
1 Ibn Abi Hatim ar-Razi, K. al-Carh wal-TaCdzl i/2, I74, No. 748; Dahabi,
Mgzdn al-I'tidal i, No. 2081; Ibn Hacar al-'Asqalani, Lisan al-Mzzdn ii, No. 1322;
the same, Tahdzb at-Tahdzb ii, No. 695, not in its alphabetical place.
Oriens 17 7
98 Joseph Schacht

Hanafi tabaqdt by 'Abdalqadir, Ibn Qutluibuga,and 'Abdalhaiy al-

Laknawi. Saix al-Kautari, however, quotes from the Mandqib Abi
.Hanifa of al-Muwaffaqal-Makki (d. 568) (Brockelmann, Suppl. i, 549,
? 2a) three highly respectable isndds of the work, two of which begin
with the famous theologian Abui Hafs 'Umar b. Muhammad an-Nasafi
(d. 537), and all of which end with Hasan b. Salih-Abi Muqatil-Abfi
Hanifa. Because the eminent though controversial Traditionist, IHasan
b. $Slih, died in I67 or I69 (Ibn Hacar al-'Asqalani, TahdTbal-Tahdib
ii, No. 516), whereas Abti Muqatil lived until 208, and because the
biographicalworks on Traditionists do not mention any riwdya of Hasan
b. Salih from AbuiMuqatil, let alone one going against normal chrono-
logical sequence, to which as a rule they pay special attention, I con-
clude that these isndds are invented 1.
In a second group of manuscripts, the disciple is identified with Abfi
Muti', and the paragraphs and sections are introduced by the words
qdl AbI Muti' al-Balxi and qdl A bi Hanifa respectively. To this group
belong the two Princeton manuscripts and the Cambridgemanuscript.
For the rest, the text is identical, except for minor variants between the
several manuscripts, with that of the first group. The person in question
is AbuiMuti' al-Hakam b. 'Abdallah al-Balxi, a disciple of AbuiHanifa,
qddi of Balx for I6 years and a Traditionist (d. I97 or I99 at the age of
eighty-four), equally known to the works of Hanafi tabaqdt2 and to the
biographiesof Traditionists 3. Whereashe is, of course,highly appreciated
by the first, these last, as is only to be expected, formulate objections to
his reliability, although by no means as strongly as in the case of Abu
Muqatil, and it is quite clear that the professional Traditionists were
unwilling to accept the traditions transmitted by him only because he
was a prominent Murci'ite (or, as it is sometimes formulated polemically,
a Cahmite)4. It is the biographiesof Traditionistsin the first place which
mention his courage in publicly criticizing a decree of the government
which the local governor, though agreeing with him, was too cowardly
to do. Of the two relevant traditions which are attributed to him, one,
concerning iman "faith", expresses the Murci'ite doctrine with which

1 Also the religious-political attitude attributed to Hasan b. Salih is directly

opposed to the Murci'ite doctrines of the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Mutacallim.
2
'Abdalqadir, al-Cawahir al-Mudl'a ii, 265 f., No. I72; Ibn Qutlubuga, Tac
al-Taracim, ed. Fliigel, 64 f., No. 269; 'Abdalhaiy al-Laknawi, al-Fawd'id al-
Bahiya, Cairo 1324, 68 f.
3 Ibn Abi iHtim ar-Razi i/2, 121 f., No. 560; Dahabi i, No. 2143; Ibn Hacar
al-cAsqalani, Lisan al-MIzdn ii, No. 1369.
4 In fact, the Murci'a were
strongly opposed to the Cahmiya; cf. the Fiqh
al-Akbar I, ? Io.
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise 99

we may credit him, whereas the other, concerning the absence of (real)
believers from those who might performthe ritual worshipin the mosques,
contradicts the doctrine of the Murci'a which our treatise expounds in
detail. From the text of the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim, moreover,
it is most unlikely that its prime transmitter would have attached any
great importance to formal traditions (see below, p. ii6). I therefore
regard as a piece of later polemics the story that he had invented the
tradition concerning faith and that it had been "stolen" from him by
'Utman b. 'Abdallah al-Umawi (Ibn Hacar al-'Asqalani, Lisdn al-Mizdn
iv, No. 332). 'Abdalqadir, Ibn Qutliibuga, and 'Abdalhaiy al-Laknawi
mention him as the (main) transmitter of Abi HIanifa'sFiqh al-Akbar1,
but there is no mention I know of in the biographical sources of his
having transmitted the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Muta'allimin the same way.
We must conclude that Abui Muti' was chosen because he was better
known as a Hanafi scholar than Abu Muqatil, and that the insertion of
his name and that of AbuIHanifa into a certain group of manuscripts
is a secondary feature. This is confirmed by the fact that the Cambridge
manuscript, in one case, has preserved the original formula of qdl al-
'Alim (fol. I4v, corresponding to ? II of the text).
Thirdly, there is the isndd of the Cairo manuscript and of the edition
of Saix al-Kautari. It begins with 'Ali b. Xalil, known as Ibn Qadi
l-'Askar (d. 651) ('Abdalqadir i, 362, No. 998), and ascends through four
generations of Hanafi scholars, all of whom are found in the work of
'Abdalqadir and other books of Hanafi tabaqdt,to Maturidi (d. 333).
This part of the isndd is not correct as it stands. To have five generations
of transmitters cover the best part of 320 years would not, in itself, be
impossible in a case of a particularly "high" isndd (cf. Studi orientalistici
in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida ii, Rome I956, 479), although it is
hard to see why this particular text, important as it is to the modern
scholar, should in the Islamic middle ages have evoked the interest
necessary to secure for it this particular form of transmission, but an
interval of I03 years between the death of Ibn Qadi l-'Askar and the
death of his immediate predecessorin the isndd cannot be accepted, and
it is almost equally difficult to admit that a span of I58 years should have
been covered by the two preceding generations in the isndd as it stands.
It is impossible to explain all this by postulating copyists' omissions, and
we must conclude that at least this lower part of the isndd was put
together rather carelessly. The higher part of the isndd, from Maturidi
onwards, does not suffer from the same objection; each of its generations
1 Or rather, in modern terminology, of his Fiqh al-Absat; cf. F. Kern in: MSOS
xiii/2 (I9IO), 142.
IO0 Joseph Schacht

is known to have been in immediate contact with those that precede

and follow it. It ends as follows: Abfu Sulaiman Miisa al-Cuizacani (d.
after 200) 1 and Muhlammad b. Muqatil ar-Razi (d. 248) 2-Abf Muti'
al-Balxi (d. I97 or I99) and 'Isam b. Yfisuf al-Balxi (d. 215) 3-Abi
Muqatil (d. 208)-Abu H.anifa (d. I50). I see no reason to doubt this part
of the isndd; it also explains why the name of Abui Muti' was chosen for
insertion into the text of the second group of manuscripts.
The isndd is connected with the text by the words fi-md acdbahu 'ald
as'ilatihf, which imply that the questions are in the words of Abii Muqatil
and the answers in the words of Abu HIanifa. We are not deceived by
this literary convention which found particular favour in Iraq (cf. my
Origins, 238). The text of the questions is extensive enough for us to
recognize their style as identical with that of the answers (see, e.g.,
?? I, 20), both must therefore have been written by the same author,
and their style is definitely different from that of Abu Hanifa's Risdla
ild 'Utmdn al-Battz 4 and of the Fiqh al-A bsat 5. We must therefore regard
Abu Muqatil as the real author of the treatise and not merely as its
first transmitter, and an analysis of its contents will show that it fits
exactly into the second half of the second century. In the other manu-
scripts and in the Hyderabad edition the text begins with a long, fulsome
eulogy in rhymed prose, the one of which Hacci Xalifa quotes the first
words, and which certainly cannot be ascribed to that early period.
But the Cairo manuscript (and Saix al-Kautari's edition) have instead a
simple hamdala and a short tasliya, followed by a concise preamble the
style of which fits perfectly into the period: ammd ba'd, fa-iuska bi-taqwa
lldhi wa-td'atihl, wa-kafd bi-lldhi hasTban wa-cdziyan, wa-razaqand lldhu
haydtan taiyibatan wa-munqalaban karlman, wa-qad acabtuka fi-md sa'alta
'anhu, etc. Obviously the original preamble, perhaps written on the verso
of the first leaf, together with the isndd, got lost in the archetype of the
other manuscripts and was replaced by the eulogy.
The text of the Cairo edition is generally better than that of the Hyderabad
edition, except for the loss of short passages through homoeoteleuton in ? ? 28,
4I, 43, and 44, which are probably printer's mistakes.
1 cAbdalqadir ii, 186, No. 580 (where at-tamdann is an error for al-mi'atain);
Ibn Qutlubuga 55, No. 227; Laknawi 216; Brockelmann, GAL2 i, i80, ? 4, and
Suppl. i, 291 f. (date to be corrected).
2 Ibn Hacar al-cAsqalani, Lisan al-Mizdn v, No. 1261; the same, Tahdib at-
Tahdib ix, No. 760; cAbdalqadir ii, 134, No. 4II.
3 DahabI ii, No. 1555; Ibn Hacar al-'Asqalani, Lisdn al-Mxzdn iv, No. 413;
cAbdalqadir i, 347, No. 96I; Laknawi 16.
4 I
regard this Risila as authentic, notwithstanding Kern's slight hesitation
in MSOS xiii/2, I42, n.i.
5 In this last treatise, the contributions of the transmitter Abui Muti' are restrict-
ed to short, formal questions.
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise IOI

The whole of the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim is imbued with the

doctrines of the Murci'a (see, e.g., ?? 5, 6, IO, I8 ff., 27, 28, 31), although
the problem of praying behind any just or unjust imam is missing, and
it corrects some of the misconceptions concerning their attitude which
have prevailed because our information was derived mainly from their
opponents (see, e.g., Fiqh al-Akbar II, ? I4, and the comment of Wen-
sinck, The Muslim Creed, 221). The Murci'a is not at all tolerant or
irenical (?? 2-4), but it is careful and cautious in dogma (?? 29, 32 ff.,
and elsewhere), and it is in this last sense that we must interpret an
isolated, seemingly latitudinarian, passage 1. To determine the attitude
which the Muslim should take towards other Muslims, is one of the main
concerns of the author. Notwithstanding the uniformity of its style in
questions and answers, the Kittb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim reflects actual
discussions and polemics, both between the several schools of thought
among the Muslims (?? I, IO, 24, 25, 35), and between Muslims and
non-Muslims, where the Muslims were confronted with questions which
demanded an answer (?? 42, 43). The treatise is not addressed to special-
ists, as Abui Hanifa's Risdla ild 'Utmdn al-Battz was, but it concentrates
on popular, sometimes even somewhat naive problems, with a great
deal of elementary explanation and embroidery, in order to attract
interest (?? 8, IO, II, I3, i6, 20, 2I, 37 f., etc.) 2. The popular appeal is
also served by the admiring and laudatory remarks with which the
disciple, at the beginning of each question, regularly comments on the
preceding answer of the master (cf. p. IOI, n. I). It is further served by an
abundance of homely, familiar parallels and examples, taken from
everyday life; they occur, occasionally in groups of more than one, in
28 out of the 45 paragraphs of the treatise, mostly in the answers but in
at least three cases also in the questions. These parallels are often of
the character of elementary psychological observations (?? II, 19, 20,
21, 22, 38). The author expresses strong hostility to the Traditionists,
such as would be expected of an adherent of one of the ancient schools
of religious law, and in this particular case, that of Iraq (?? 2, 4) 3, and
he uses a well-known argument of the Iraqians against traditions (? 30);
his treatment of those traditions which he discusses allows us to date

1 In ?
17 the disciple, commenting on the preceding answer of the master, says:
"How well you judge the doers of good and the doers of evil among the believers,
how well you know the excellence of [the ones], and how compassionate you are
to [the others]."
2 It is an
early representative of the popular Hanafi current of theology of
which I have spoken in Studia Islamica i (I953), 36 ff.
3 On their part, the early IHanbalis, i.e. Traditionists, were
strongly hostile to
the Murci?a; cf. H. Laoust, in: REI xxix (1961), 36.
I02 Joseph Schacht

his treatise in the second half of the second century (?? 4, 23, 30, 31).
It is in keeping with this date that the author, whilst basing his definition
of ircd' on the Koran (? 28), speaks of the Murci'a as of a movement to
which he did not belong (? 4). In fact, already Abi HIanifa,in the Risala
ild 'UUtmdn al-Battz, had protested against his school of thought being
called by this name; he preferredthe name ahl al-'adl ("not in the sense
which it acquired in the Mu'tazila") and ahl al-sunna (Kern,in Zeitschr.
f. Assyriologie xxvi, I69, n. 2; see p. 37 f. of Saix al-Kautari's edition).
The author currently uses 'adl for "truth" (?? 4, 8, 12, 14, 23, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 41), only once in the sense of "(divine) justice" (? 31), and he
calls the group to which he belongs,that is to say the Murci'a, ahl al-'adl
(? I7). The main interest of the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim lies, in
my opinion, in the fact that it introduces us to the popular aspect of the
Murci'a and, through its repeated insistance on the hope and fear (raca'
and xauf) that they feel for themselves and for their fellow-Muslims
(?? 15, 28, 36, etc.) 1, makes clear to us the religious, as opposed to the
theological, mainspringof their attitude.
II
The manuscript R. 13. I9 in the library of Trinity College,Cambridge,
contains on fol. iv-39r the autograph of the Nusra ad-Diniya, com-
pleted in Cumada II, 973 by an anonymous author 2. It consists of a
preface and fifteen sections:
I. On knowledge and faith.
2. On the proposition that faith is neither increased by good works nor
diminished by the commission of sins.
3. Whether the commission of sins excludes a man from faith.
4. Whether good works are nullified by evil works.
5. Whether a believer who commits a grave sin becomes an enemy of
Allah.
6. Whether our faith is the same as that of the angels and the prophets.
7. On faith and its motives.
8. On the main articles of faith.
9. On the use of the formula "If Allah will" as relating to faith.
IO. On the origin of sects amongst the Muslims.
1 The same concepts recur significantly in the last paragraph of Tahawl's
cAqida and in the two last paragraphs of the Sawdd al-A czam of Hakim as-Samar-
qandi.
2 E. H.
Palmer, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish
Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, Cambridge I870, 44-46.
Palmer, being misled by the introduction, erroneously identified it with Tahawi's
CAqfda.
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise I03

ii. On the six original sects which are in Hell.

12. Against the isfis and their practices.
I3. On the legitimate place of private prayer, and against unnecessary
dejection.
I4. On the qualities of the ahl as-sunna wal-cama'a.
I5. In praise of knowledge and reason, and final exhortation.

The contents of the work are in keeping with its date. The author
refers both to the Fiqh AkbarII and the Fiqh AkbarIII as "AbuiHanifa's
book called Fiqh al-Akbar", and (in a quotation, it is true) accepts the
Wasiyat Abi Hanifa as another work of the master; this, and the all-
embracing reference to "the doctrine (madhab)of Abui Hanifa, Malik,
Safi'i, and Ahmad b. Hanbal" (fol. 8r) shows how blurred the old,
clear-cut distinctions between the several schools of theological thought
had become. In marked contrast with the old Hanafi attitude, the author
declares in section II (fol. 27v), that the six original sects, "the Qadariya,
Cabariya, Rdfidzya, Xdriciya, Musabbiha, and Murci'a", each of them
divided into I2 sub-sects, are in hell beyond doubt (bild tawaqquf).
In section I5 (fol. 35v), on the other hand, he returns to an old custom
of collecting traditions directed against the Traditionists, explicit
traditions which were not yet known to AS'ari (?) in the Risdlat Istihsdn
al-Xaud fi 'Ilm al-Kaldm or to Mgturidiin the introduction of his Kitdb
at-Tau.hid.The Nusra ad-Diniya places itself firmly within the Hanafi
tradition. The author quotes numerous later works, all of them, as far
as I can see, by IHanafi(or Mgturidi)authors, the whole of his section 14
is derived from the Cdmi' al-Mudmardtwal-MuSkildtof Yfisuf b. Qasim
al-Kduiizi, known as Nebire (about 800) 1, and he refers to the fatwds of
his contemporaries Abui s-Su'fid and Kamalpagazade (fol. 2ov). One
feature of interest in this treatise of theology is that it clearly expresses
the particular concerns of the author, especially in section I2 which is
directed against the sufis. Here, he refers (fol. 30v) to numerous "Mollahs
(mawdli) of Rfim", including the two scholars just mentioned. The last
section, too, expresses the same concern when he forbids the study of
astrology which "is an illness", but permits the study of as much of
astronomy as is necessary for determining the qibla, and also the study
of medicine. Another feature of interest is that the Cambridgemanuscript
is obviously the autograph of the author. From fol. 3or onwards, we find
tentative drafts crossed out and replaced by a definite wording, and I
1 Brockelmann,GAL2 i, I83 f.; Suppl. i, 296, ? I2, No. 9. Hacci Xalifa
(v, 455,
No. 11625) informs us that this work, a commentary on Qudirl's Muxtasar,
contained a section fi bayan as-sunna wal-cama'a.
 0o4 Joseph Schacht

find particularly endearing the last page, fol. 39r, where the author first
wrote fasl, to introduce a new section, but then thought better of it,
crossed it out, and added the customary few lines of conclusion. A third
feature of interest is that the author knew and used the Kitabal-'Alim
wal-Muta'allim (not a commentary on it, as I said erroneouslyin Studia
Islamica i [I953], 25), in the form of a dialogue between AbuiHanifa and
AbuiMuti' al-Balxi, to a considerableextent in the first half of his text.
Not only does he himself start with the words with which the disciple
starts in that treatise (? I), and later on in the introduction uses words
from another question of the disciple (? II), but he has also incorporated
more or less extensive passages of the Kitab al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim
in the following sections:
section i contains extracts from ?? 3-5
4 ? 3I
5 ?? I8-2I, 14
6 ?? IO-I3
8 ? 39.
That the author of the Nusra al-Diniya should have had recourseto the
Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allim is in itself remarkable.

III
I will now give a short account of the contents of the Kitdb al-'Alim
wal-Muta'allim.
? 1. Question: The disciple wishes to know the reasons for his belief,
so that he may be able to answer his interlocutors, and also have a
reasoned understanding himself.
Answer: Yes, "amalis the corollary (taba') of 'ilm; 'ilm with a little
'amal is better than ignorance with much 'amal; see sura xxxix. 9 and
xiii. 19.
? 2. Q.: The most despicable school of thought consists of those who
hold that one ought not to venture where the Companionsof the Prophet
did not venture. The disciple asks for an argument against them.
A.: To do as the Companions did would be sufficient if we were in
their position, but we are confronted by enemies who attack us and
declare shedding our blood lawful; therefore we must know who is right
and who is wrong 1. Also, though the tongue keep silent in the strife of
opinions, the heart must make a decision in favour of what is right.
1 This argument occurs already in Hasan al-Basri's Risala (Islam xxi [I933],
68), and is taken a step further in AScari's (?) Risalat Istihsan al-Xaud ft CIlm
al-Kalam.
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise I05

? 3. Q.: Is it harmful not to know who is right and who is wrong?

A.: It is not harmful insofar as you are not responsible for the acts
of those who are wrong, but it is harmful (a) because it makes you
ignorant, (b) because there may occur to you a doubt (?ubha)which has
occurredto others and you may be unable to solve it, and (c) because you
do not know whom to love or to hate "in God" (fi lldh)1.
? 4. Q.: If someoneholds the right opinion but withholds his judgment
on those who hold other opinions (in kdna racul yasif 'adlan wa-ld ya'rif
caur man yuxdlif wa-ld 'adlahi), can it be said that he knows what is
right?
A.: He is ignorant of what is right ('adl) and wrong (caur).This group
of people are in fact the most ignorant and despicable 2. They say, for
example: "We know that the zdni is not an unbeliever, but those who
say that when the zdni commits zind' he takes off faith (imdn)as he takes
off the shirt (sirbdl),are perhaps right" (see below, ? 30 [p. III] for details
of this tradition). They also regard the person who dies without having
performed the hacc although he was able to do so, as a believer, but do
not disavow those who say: "He died as a Jew or Christian"3. They
disavow the opinion of the Si'a and [nevertheless]hold it, disavow the
opinion of the Xdricis and [nevertheless] hold it, disavow the opinion
of the Murci'a and [nevertheless]hold it (cf. above, p. I02), holding that
[all] this is true and [at the same time] declaring the opinions of those
three groups to be false. They relate, in support of this, narratives
(riwdydt)which, they allege, go back to the Prophet. But we know that
Allah has sent the Prophet in order to produce unity and not diversity of
doctrine (li-yacma' bihs l-firqa . . wa-lam yab'athu li-yufarriq al-kalima) 4.
They pretend that disagreementarises from these traditions only because
some of them are ndsix and others mansiix, "and we transmit (exactly)
as we have heard it" (with the stylistic figure of iltifdt), but it is irres-
ponsible of them to relate traditions some of which they know are
1 This expression occurs already in Malik's Muwa.tta' 58, 5. A similar expression,
fi ddt Allah, occurs in ? I3, below.
2
? ? 2 and 4 refer to the same group of people, the anti-rationalists who are also
Traditionists.
3 This tradition occurs, in a slightly mitigated form, in Tirmidi, hacc, bab 3;
Tirmidi declares it to be garib and criticises the isndd. The way in which the author
speaks of this and the preceding statement, shows that they were in the stage of
transition from anonymous sayings to formal traditions from the Prophet, which
agrees with the second half of the second century as the date of the treatise. See
further below, ? 31.
4 The
Fiqh Akbar I, it is true, contains an article in favour of disagreement
(art. 7), but this refers to disagreement on points of positive religious law and not
on points of dogma (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, 112 f.). See also my Origins,
95 ff.
Io6 Joseph Schacht

mansix, because it is wrong nowadays to follow what is mansux 1.

The Prophet certainly did not explain the same verse of the Koran in two
different ways, but he made it clear what was ndsix and what mansix.
Ndsix and mansiux occur only in the field of duties (amr and nahy), and
not in that of established dogmatic truth (al-axbdr was-sifdt allati qad
kdnat).
This does not necessarilyimply that the opponents held the opposite opinion.
The author obviously tried to make them appear as inconsistent as possible, and
perhaps forced upon them the whole issue of nasix and mansix, whereas they
merely "relatedwhat they had heard".

? 5. Q.: The disciple asks for an argument to refute the second kind
of opponents who hold that Allah's religion consists of various parts
(din Allah katir), i.e. doing all that is obligatory and avoiding all that is
forbidden.
A.: The religion of all Prophets was one, but their sari'as were differ-
ent, as appears from Koranic verses which are quoted. The sari'as are
the fard'id, but their observance is not [the same as] din; thefard'id come
into play after the din has been acknowledged. Koranic verses are
quoted to this effect. These fard'id are not part of faith (imdn). Imdn
and 'amal are different. Again Koranic verses are quoted. It is on account
of their imdn that the believers perform the ritual prayer, etc., and not
vice versa.
This is an outspokenMurci'iteposition, directedagainst the Xdricis and against
the Mu'tazila.

? 6. Q.: What is imdn?

A.: Imdn is tasdiq and ma'rifa and yaqin and iqrdr and isldm. With
regard to tasdiq, three groups of men can be distinguished: those who
give it with their heart and their tongue, those who give it with their
tongue but not with their heart, and those who give it with their heart
but not with their tongue (cf. below, ?? 36 [an important qualification]
and 39, and Sawdd al-A'zam, ? 42).
? 7. Q.: Are all these three groups believers in the eyes of Allah ?
A.: The first group are believers in the eyes of Allah and in the eyes
of men; the second are unbelievers in the eyes of Allah but believers
in the eyes of men because they cannot know what is in their hearts;
they must be called believers on the strength of their outward profession;
1 This passage adds to our knowledgeof the polemics surrounding the rise of
traditions (cf. my Origins, 40 ff.). The traditions in the field of dogma proved to
be not less of a disturbing element than were those in the field of religious law
(Origins, 96).
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise I07

the third are believers in the eyes of Allah but unbelievers in the eyes
of men. The practice of taqiya falls under this heading.
See further below, ? 27. This seems to be the earliest attested use of the term
taqiya in its technical meaning.

? 8. Q.: But does not that definition, that imdn is tasdiq, ma'rifa,
iqrdr, isldm, and yaqin, imply that it consists of various parts?
A.: The master warns the disciple not to jump to conclusions pre-
maturely.
? 9. Q.: The disciple now asks for an explanation of these other
terms.
A.: The master explains that they are different terms with the same
meaning, i.e. Imdn.
? 10. Q.: The disciplethanks the master for this explanation, acknow-
ledging that an ignorant person such as he may be upset by a statement
when he hears it [first] but becomes quiet in mind when it is explained
to him, and then asks: Why can we say that our Imdn is the same as
(mitl) that of the Angels and of the Prophets, although these are more
obedient to Allah than we are ?
A.: Imdn is the same, and it is different from 'amal.
Cf. Sawad al-A czam, ? 48. The question of the disciple reflects an objection that
was presumably raised against the Murci'a by other schools of thought.

? 11. Q.: Why are they more godfearing and obedient than we are,
and why do people say, when they see a failing in someone, "Hadd min
da'f al-yaqfn"?
A.: The popular expression is a mistake, because people do not know
what yaqin means. We observe in ourselves when we commit a failing,
that we do not throw doubt on Allah and on His revelation. The Prophets
are more godfearing and obedient than we are because they were dis-
tinguished not only by their office as Prophets and Messengersbut by
excellence in all eminent virtues (makdrimal-axldq),etc.
The term makdrim al-axldq occurs from Ibn al-Muqaffac (d. about I40) onwards;
cf. Bisr Faris, Mabahit CArabiya, Cairo I939, 34, n. I2.

? 12. Q.: The disciple asks for a parallel (qiyds).

A.: The master praises qiyds which for the searcher after truth (haqq)
has the same value as 'adl witnesses have for the owner of a right (haqq);
if ignorant people did not deny the truth, the scholars would not have
to go to the trouble of using qiyds and muqdyasa1. The master gives the
1 The ancient
Iraqians, during the whole of the second century, hardly used
qiyas as a technical term for reasoning by analogy in religious law (cf. my Origins,
Io8 Joseph Schacht

parallel of two swimmers of equal competence entering a fast-flowing

stream, one of whom is less courageousthan the other, or of two patients
sufferingfrom the same disease, who are given the same bitter medicine
but one of whom is more courageousand eager to drink it than the other.
? 13. Q.: If that is so, are the respective rewards the same? If they
are, what becomes of the eminence of the Prophets, and if they are not,
do we not suffer injustice?
A.: There is no injustice because we are not denied anything that is
our right 1, and the Prophets are privileged in their rewards for their
imdn and for all their acts of worship, etc., just as they were already
privileged in this world, because no one can approach them with regard
to worship, etc. Others may achieve eminence, with Allah's permission,
through them, and they receive the equivalent of the rewards of those
who enter Paradise thanks to their prayers 2.
? 14. Q.: Apart from polytheism, are there sins which are punished
with certainty (al-batta),or are all or some of them forgiven?
A.: No sin but polytheism is punished with certainty; we know that
some are [or may be] forgiven, but we do not know which, and we do
not know to whom Allah will want to forgive them. Reference is made
to sura iv. 31 and 48 (= II6).
? 15. Q.: What is the expectation of forgiveness of the killer as
compared with that of the person who gives an evil look?
A.: If the killer is forgiven, the other is more likely to be forgiven,
etc.; I have greater hope of forgiveness for him who commits small
sins (ad-danbal-sagir) than for him who commits great sins (ad-danb
al-kabir).... I have fear and hope for them both, but in differentdegrees.
? 16. Q.: Which is more meritorious: to ask forgiveness for a person
who has committed a grave sin, or to curse him, or do we have the choice ?
A.: It is more meritorious to ask forgiveness for him, unless his sin
is polytheism, but it is not a sin to curse him. This is followed by a long,
popular, elementary elaboration.
? 17. Q.: Do some of the ahl al-'adl (cf. above, p. I02) excel others in
the doctrine they hold concerning the people of the qibla?
A.: Their doctrine on sin (qauluhumfi ta'zim hurumdtAlldh) is one,
only some excel others in knowledge, etc., and in their concern for the
bad state of the community (siddat al-ihtimdmbi-fasdd al-umma), just
io6 if.). It is possible that this praise of qiyas in a different meaning is an oblique
polemic against the school of thought represented by Safi'i. Qiyas, in the meaning
of parallel, example, occurs also in ? ? 15, i8, 37, and in the form maqayzs in ? 28.
1 The parable of the labourers in the vineyard, which expresses the same reason-
ing, occurs already as the last tradition in Saibani's version of the Muwa.tta'.
2 I have not come across this
development of the doctrine of safd'a elsewhere.
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise Iog

as in an army confronting the enemy all have a common cause but some
are better soldiers than others.
This essentially political concern goes back to the earliest phase of Islamic
dogmatics; at the same time, it is isolated in this treatise, making itself felt again
in ? 28 only, and both considerations combine in dating the treatise in the second
half of the second century.

? 18. Q.: If the believer commits grave sins (kabd'ir), does he become
an enemy of Allah?
A.: No, as long as he does not abandon tauhzd.
? 19. Q.: If he loves Allah, why does he disobey Him?
A.: The master gives everyday examples of inconsistency in action.
? 20. Q.: How many godfearing men (adbid) have been overcome by
desire, including Adam and Dawud! But tell me: does the believer
commit the disobedience knowing that he will be punished for it?
A.: No, he hopes he will be forgiven, and he expects he will have the
opportunity of repenting before he falls ill and dies.
? 21. Q.: Does a man commit an act for which he fears he will be
punished ?
A.: Yes, he eats and drinks things which he fears will disagree with
him, he engages in fighting, and he travels by sea; if he did not hope to
escape the danger he would not do it.
? 22. Q.: Yes, says the disciple, I have myself eaten things which
disagreed with me, resolved firmly not to do it again, and still could
not resist them when I saw them. But now explain to me the term kufr.
A.: Kufr in Arabic means inkdr, cuhid, takdTb.Just as one says mdtalani
of the debtor who does not pay, but kdfaran{ of him who denies his debt,
one must distinguish the believer who omits a duty without denying
it, and who is called musz', from the kdfir.
? 23. Q.: What of a person who professes tauhid but says: I do not
believe in Muhammad? (ana kdfir bi-M.)
A.: That is not possible (hddd ld yakin), and if it happens we call
him kdfir with regard to Allah and contradicting his own statement
that he recognizes Allah; he disbelieves in Muhammad because he dis-
believes in Allah, just as the Christians hold that Allah is one of three
because they disbelieve in the One, and the Jews hold that Allah is poor,
and that Allah's hand is fettered, and that Ezra is the son of Allah
(sura iii. I8I; v. 64; ix. 30), and that Allah is in human form ('ald mitdl
surat Ibn Adam), because they disbelieve in the Self-sufficient one (gani).
Caldmitdl surat Ibn Adam: It is remarkable that this alleged belief of the Jews,
which is referred to also by Mascidi, Muruc ii, 389, should have become an anthro-
pomorphic tradition. It appears as a tradition from the Prophet for the first time
in Ibn Hanbal (d. 24I), Musnad ii, 244, etc., and is often referred to later (see,
IIO Joseph Schacht

e.g., my Islam-Lesebuch, II5, II6, 126). Had the author known it as a tradition
from the Prophet, he could hardly have referred to it in the way he does; the
emergence of the tradition can therefore be dated between the Kitab al-'Alim
wal-Mutacallim and Ibn Hanbal.

? 24. Q.: What if someone recognizes Muhammad as the Prophet

but desires to kill him ?
A.: This is absurd (muhdl) 1, just as if someone said: I love you more
than anyone else but desire to kill you with my own hand and to eat
your flesh.
? 25. Q.: What if someone says: I recognize Allah but wish I could
say that Allah has a son?
A.: That is the same; all these are questions with a catch in them.
You might as well say that a dead person can have a lustful dream.
? 26. Q.: Is not nifdq today the same as the original nifdq, and kufr
today the same as the original kufr? And what was the original nifdq
like ?
A.: Yes, they are the same. The original nifdq was denial in the heart
and outward approval with the tongue, as is shown by suras lxiii. I and
ii. 14.
In other words, the question of works was not part of the concept in the time
of the Prophet. This paragraph is directed against the Xdricis; cf. Wensinck,
The Muslim Creed, 45.

? 27. Q.: By what criterion does Allah call certain persons believers
and unbelievers, and by what criterion do we call them so ?
A.: Allah calls them believers and unbelievers on the basis of what is
in their hearts, and we call them so on the basis of their outward profes-
sion (at-tasdiq wat-takd?b), appearance (zIy), and worship. The Muslims
in the time of the Prophet called the Mundfiqs believers, although they
were unbelievers in the eyes of Allah. Also the recording angels write
down only what appears outwardly. Who pretends to know what is in
the heart, arrogates to himself knowledge which only Allah has, and
that is kufr punishable by Hell.
? 28. Q.: What is the origin of ircd', what is its explanation, and
with regard to whom is ircd' exercised ?
A.: The origin of ircd' goes back to the angels; when Allah asked them,
saying, "Inform Me of the names of these", they replied, "Be glorified!
We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us" (sura
ii. 31 f.). Allah did not even allow the Prophet to talk or to act against
1 The master also calls it "a question with a catch in it" (min masd'il al-muta-
'annitin); this and the following question are obviously arguments produced by
the opponents of the Murci'a.
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise III

anyone without certain knowledge, as appears from sura xvii. 36, so

how can ordinary people do this ? Ircd' means suspending one's judgment
(wuquf) and saying Alldhu a'lam with regard to things which one does
not know or tales which one cannot verify by experience or parallels
(at-tacdrib wal-maqdyis). The author gives a fictitious example of irca'
which represents exactly the conditions of the Islamic community after
the first civil war 1. It is also ircd' to suspend judgment on sinners. We
hold that people fall into three classes: (a) the Prophets who belong to
the people of Paradise, and those of whom the Prophets have said that
they belong to the people of Paradise, (b) the Polytheists of whom we
declare that they belong to the people of Hell, and (c) the Monotheists
on whom we suspend judgment and for whom we hope and fear. Suras
ix. 102 and iv. 48 (= II6) are quoted.
? 29. Q.: Do you predicate Paradise of anyone whom you see assiduous
in fasting and prayer, other than members of class (a) ?
A.: No, only of those of whom a nass predicates it, and the same is
true of Hell.
? 30. Q.: What of people who relate the tradition: "If the believer
commits zind' he takes off faith (fmdn) over his head as he takes off his
shirt (qamis), then when he repents faith is returned to him?" 2 If you
accept their assertion as true, you have adopted the opinion of the
Xdricfs; if you are in doubt concerning it, you are in doubt concerning
[the opinion of] the Xdricis and have abandoned the true opinion ('adl)
which you held 3; and if you say their assertion is wrong, they reply that
you contradict the words of the Prophet, because they relate it on the
authority of certain persons, going back to the Prophet.
A.: I say they are wrong, but that does not mean that I contradict
the words of the Prophet; the master explains that in detail and points
out that the Prophet said nothing that contradicted the Koran. What
they relate contradicts the Koran; the Koran mentions az-zdniya waz-zdni
(sura xxiv. 2) but does not say that they are not believers 4; it also

1 The political-religious concern for the state of the community, expressed in

? I7, above, makes itself felt in the wording of this fictitious example (ida kunta
fi qaum cala amr hasan camZl, etc.).
2 Cf. above, ? 4. A tradition to the same effect but with a somewhat different
wording is quoted in the comments of Tirmidi, iman I , and in Hakim an-Naisaburri,
Mustadrak, i, 22, on which see the comments of Saix al-Kautari, 24, n. i. A less
crudely formulated version occurs in Buxari, hudid I, Ibn Maca, fitan 3, Abu
Dawuid, sunna I5, Ibn Qutaiba, Ta'wzl Muxtalif al-Hadzt, 212, Tirmidi, imdn II.
3 Cf. above, ? 4. It is taken for granted that the XaricTs are wrong.
4 This
argument gains its force if it is realized that this is followed in verse 3
by the expressions zdniya au mugrika and zdnin au mu.rik, where au is the operative
word.
112 Joseph Schacht

says wa-lladdn ya'tiydniha minkum (sura iv. I6), where the word minkum
shows that Muslims are meant. To reject anything that is related from
the Prophet because it contradicts the Koran, does not mean contra-
dicting the Prophet, etc. Everything that the Prophet did say, whether
we heard it or not, we accept unquestioningly and believe, but we also
declare that the commands of the Prophet always corresponded exactly
with the commands of Allah [i.e. in the Koran]. The author elaborates
this in detail. This is why the Koran says: "Who obeys the Prophet
obeys Allah" (sura iv. 80).
This reasoning is typical of the Iraqians in the second century. Cf. my Origins,
45 f.

? 31. Q.: What of people who say that from him who drinks wine, no
ritual prayer is accepted for forty days? And what makes good deeds
invalid ?
A.: I do not know the [correct] interpretation of that saying of theirs
(tafsir alladi yaqilin) 1, but I do not contradict them as long as they do
not give it an interpretation which we know [delete the redundant la
here] cannot be right (muxdlif lil-'adl) because we know that Allah in
his 'adl either holds man responsible for his sin or forgives him, credits
him with the duties he has performed and debits him with his sins.
Numerous verses from the Koran, beginning with sura ii. 286, are quoted
in support. To say differently would mean attributing injustice (caur) to
Allah, but Allah does not commit wrong (zulm). The author goes on
quoting the Koran. Three things only can wipe out good deeds: (a)
polytheism; (b) if a man does a good deed for the sake of Allah (yuryd ...
wach Allah) and then reminds the recipient of it (for this, sura ii. 264 is
quoted); (c) if he does a good deed out of hypocrisy, because then Allah
does not accept it from him (cf. Fiqh Akbar II, ? 15 [Wensinck, I93, and
comment, 222 ff.]). No other evil deeds wipe out good deeds.
? 32. Q.: If someone declares that you are an unbeliever, what do
you say of him?
A.: I say that he lies but I do not call him an unbeliever. Lyingly
to insult Allah and the Prophet is one thing, lyingly to insult me is
another, and it does not entitle me to lie about the person who lies about
me. This is laid down in sura v. 8.

1 The saying appears as a tradition from the Prophet in Tayalisi (d. 204), No.
I9oI; Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241) ii, 35, I97; vi, 71; Darimi, asriba 3; Ibn Maca,
asriba 4; Nasa'i, asriba 43; Hakim al-Naisaburi, Mustadrak i, 30. The date of the
treatise can be fixed at a time when the author could still refuse to accept it as
an authentic saying of the Prophet, but already had to take it seriously, i.e. in
the second half of the second century.
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise II3

"I say that he lies but I do not call him an unbeliever": This attitude rejects
the doctrine of the Xdricis but at the same time avoids the systematic difficulty
inherent in the tradition in which the disapproval of the XdricZ opinion was
commonly expressed; cf. Wensinck, 40 f. The date of the treatise would therefore
be later than that of this, presumably very early, tradition. For further Murci'ite
reactions to problems posed by the Xdricis see below, ? ? 44 and 45.

? 33. Q.: What of someone who declares that he himself is an un-

believer ?
A.: It is not proper for me to say that he is right, any more than if he
said that he was a donkey. Only if he says "I will have nothing to do
with (bars'min) Allah", or "I do not believe in Allah and his Prophet"
do I call him an unbeliever, even though he calls himself a believer.
Conversely, if he declares that Allah is one and believes in Allah's reve-
lation I call him a believer, even if he calls himself an unbeliever.
? 34. Q.: What if he says "I will have nothing to do with your religion",
or "with what you worship"?
A.: I ask him what he means, and only if he says that he means Allah,
or the religion of Allah, do I call him an unbeliever.
? 35. Q.: Is not he who obeys Satan and desires his approval (marddt)
a kdfir and a worshipper of Satan?
A.: Do you [really] know what you mean by this question 1? If a
believer sins, he does not by his sin intentionally become obedient to
Satan and desirous of his approval, although his act is consistent with
obeying Satan.
? 36. Q.: What does worship ('ibdda) mean?
A.: In 'ibdda are combined obedience, desire (ragba)and acknowl-
edgement of lordship; if a man obeys Allah in zmdn, there enters into
him hope and fear of Allah; if these [last] three qualities enter into him,
he worships Him. He is not a believer if he is without hope and fear,
although the [hope and] fear of one believer may be stronger than that
of another. If a man obeys any other than Allah out of hope of recom-
pense or fear of punishment from him, he worships him 2; if acting
obediently by itself alone amounted to worship, every one who obeyed
another person would worship him.
? 37. Q.: Does he who fears something or hopes for an advantage from
something become a kdfir?
A.: Fear and hope are of two kinds, one kind is the fear and hope
of punishments and rewards which, a man believes, someone other than
1 The question reflects an
objection that was raised against the Murci'a by
their opponents.
2 This must be
narrowly interpreted in its technical meaning, as explained in
the following paragraph.
Oriens 17 8
II4 Joseph Schacht

Allah has the power to bestow, and this is kufr; the other is the expecta-
tion of good things or misfortune which Allah may bestow through
someone or by means of something ("aldyad dxar au min sabab sai').
For instance, a man expects help from his child or neighbour, carrying-
power from his pack-animal, protection from the government (sultdn)1,
and he drinks medicine in the expectation that Allah will make him
profit from it. This does not make him a kdfir. He also flies from a thing
through which, he fears, Allah may let a misfortune befall him, such as
a beast of prey, a snake, a scorpion, or a house collapsing, but that does
not imply kufr or doubt (sakk), it is only timidity. Moses said: "I fear
that they will kill me" (sura xxvi. 14 - xxviii. 33), and Muhammad
fled into the cave.
? 38. Q.: How is it possible for a believer to fear a created thing but
not to fear Allah ?
A.: [That is not really so.] The believer fears nothing more than Allah,
as can be seen from the way he acts. For instance, if an illness or a
misfortune from Allah befalls him, it does not enter his mind to blame
Allah, on the contrary, he thinks of him all the more, whereas he would
not hesitate to blame a prince, if he could safely do so, should one tenth
of a tenth of that misfortune have befallen him through this prince.
He fears Allah at all times, but the prince only when he can be observed.
? 39. Q.: What of him who does not know what Imdn and kufr are?
A.: Men become believers by recognizing (ma'rifa) the Lord and
regarding Him as truthful, and they become unbelievers by denying
Him (inkdr). If they acknowledge (iqrdr)the Lord by worshipping Him
and affirm His unity and regard as true what comes from Him, but do
not know the terms imdn and kufr, they are not for that reason unbe-
lievers once they know that [what] zmdn[stands for] is good and [what]
kufr [stands for] is bad.
? 40. Does Imdnprofit the believer when he is punished [for his sins],
and is he punishedafter having acquiredzmdnand while [still]possessingit?
A.: The master points out that the disciple is asking him questions
of a kind which he has not asked him before 2. The answer is yes; zmdn
helps him not to be liable to the severest punishmentwhich is the punish-
ment of kufr.
? 41. Q.: Why is it that the kufr of the unbelieversis one, though their
modes of worship are many and different?

1 The term occurs with the same abstract meaning in ? I9 (camilan li-sultdn,
"in government service"), but of a prince the term malik is used in ? 38.
2 The reason for this remark is not
clear, and after this opening the answer of
the master comes as something of an anticlimax.
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise II5

A.: For the same reason that the imdn of the inhabitants of heaven
and of the believers among the inhabitants of earth, both the former
and the present ones, is one, although their religious duties are many
and different. If you ask a Jew he will say that he worships Allah and
that Allah is He whose son is Ezra and who is in human form (see above,
? 23); if you ask a Christianhe will say that he worships Allah and that
Allah is He who is in the body of Jesus and in the womb of Mary; and
if you ask a Zoroastrian he will say that he worships Allah and that
Allah is He who has a [male] companion (sarik) and a child (walad) and
a female companion (sdhiba)1. Their ignorance and denial of the Lord
is one and the same, although the ways in which they describe their
objects of worship and their modes of worship are many and different.
They describetheir objects of worship as being three or two, whereas you
describe yours as being the One, so your object of worship is different
from theirs. This is what is meant by sura cix. 1-3.
? 42. Q.: Why is it that they are ignorant of the Lord whilst they
say that He is our Lord? 2
A.: The master quotes suras xxxi. 25 and xvi. 22, and gives the
parallel of a child blind from birth that nevertheless speaks of day and
night, yellow and red.
? 43. Q.: Do we know the Prophet through Allah, or do we know
Allah through the Prophet?
A.: The master explains that we know the Prophet through Allah,
and quotes sura xxviii. 56.
? 44. Q.: Can waldya and bard'a exist simultaneously with respect
to one person? 3
A.: The master defines waldya and bard'a and states that they can
exist together; the believer often does some good and some evil works,
and you stand solidly by him in his good but not in his evil works. But
he who possesses kufr, has no good works whatsoever. Conversely, the
person by whom you stand solidly in everything, is the believer who
only does good works and avoids all evil works.
? 45. Q.: What is kufr an-ni'am?
1 This statement falls quite outside the compass of what Islamic theologians
knew about Zoroastrians, and its exceptional character agrees with the early date
of the treatise. My colleague, Professor E. Yar-Shater, has pointed out to me some
features of Zoroastrian doctrine which may be the basis of it. It appears from
what follows that the author was aware of the dualist character of Zoroastrian
doctrine.
2 This and the following paragraph reflect problems which had presumably
arisen in discussions with non-Muslims.
3 This and the following
paragraph are concerned with problems raised by the
Xaricis. See also above, ? 32.
II6 Joseph Schacht

A.: Kufr al-ni'am is denying that everything beneficent comes from

Allah. He who does this is a kdfir. The master quotes sura xvi. 83.
The term is based on suras xiv. 28; xvi. 72, II2 and xxix. 67; the Xdricis had
interpreted it according to their premises; the Kitab al-cAlim wal-Muta'allim gives
the orthodox counter-interpretation. All this agrees with the early date of the trea-
tise.

IV
I have already formulated the conclusions which can be drawn from
the Kitdb al-'Alim wal-Muta'allimfor a better evaluation of the Murci'a.
It remains for me to point out its importance in checking the validity
of the modern critical approach to traditions. The treatise was composed
in the second half of the second century, a period in which, in the field
of religious law, the rising tide of traditions was on the point of over-
whelming the defences of the ancient schools. The Kitdb al-'Alim wal-
Muta'allim shows that the same was the case in the field of Islamic
theology; what were later to become well-known traditions on points
of dogma, were only just emerging from the status of sayings expressing
partisan views (?? 4, 23, 30, 31), and only one particularlyearly tradition
can be taken to be prior to the treatise (? 32). What is particularly
important is that this is not the conclusion of modern critics but the
typical reaction of an Iraqian scholar of the second century. It has also
become clear how irrelevant and even nonsensical the criticisms are
which the biographers of Traditionists directed against Abui Muqatil
because, they said, he related as traditions sayings which he found
beautiful although he had not heard them from his alleged authorities.
In fact, what AbuiMuqatil does, is exactly the opposite; he is unwilling
to accept the authority of statements which had just been transformed
or were being transformedunder his eyes into alleged traditions from the
Prophet. The statement of Wensinck that "the large mass of materials
contained in the canonical collections, though it received its final form
in the middle of the third century A.H., covers a period reaching no
farther than the beginning of the second century" (The Muslim Creed,
59), may be literally correct as far as it goes, but it fails to take into
account not only the selective suppression of "undesirable" traditions
in the same canonical collections 1, but the emergenceof traditions, which
were to find their way into some of the canonical collections, as late as
the second half of the second century, a process which the Kitdb al-'Alim
wal-Muta'allim enables us to observe at first hand 2. I could not wish
1 Cf. A. Guillaume, in
JRAS, Centenary Supplement, 1924, 234; F. Nau, in
JA, 211 (I927), 313 and n. 2.
2 Cf.
my Origins, 143 ff. Wensinck himself (Creed, 22I) found it "curious" that
 An Early Murci'ite Treatise 117

for a stronger confirmation of the soundness of the method which I have

advocated.
In writing this paper, my thoughts have often gone back to the numer-
ous occasions, more than thirty years ago, when I shared with Hellmut
Ritter the pleasure of discovering in the libraries of Istanbul and Bursa
new sources for the history of Islamic theology and religious law. I hope
he will accept this modest contribution to the volumes of "Oriens"
which are presented to him on his 70th anniversary, as a token of my
longstanding friendship and admiration.
the Murci'ite opinion, expressed by Abu Hanifa in the Fiqh al-Absat (p. 52 of
al-Kautari's edition), on the validity of the prayer behind every faithful man,
be he of good or of bad behaviour, should have obtained a place in the Sunan
of Abu Dawud as a saying of Muhammad.